Luke 22:66
And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying,

And as soon as it was day- Matthew writes, “When the morning was come”, as if they had been impatiently waiting for the day to dawn, for they could not hold their official meeting before then, or else Pilate might declare it invalid and their cause would fail. Mark says “straitway”, a characteristic word of his, but often in connection with the Lord Jesus and His readiness to do His Father’s will. It is now used of the readiness of the Jewish authorities to do Satan’s will. Luke says “as soon as it was day”, so once the day had begun they set about the task of convicting Him. As the apostle says of sinners, they are “swift to shed blood”, Romans 3:15. They had already passed sentence in their illegal council, for we read, “And they all condemned him to be guilty of death”, Mark 14:64, so they had made up their minds already. This further council was simply to confirm officially what they already decided unofficially.

The elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together- Mark tells us it was with the whole council, Mark 15:1. But we are also told that Joseph of Arimathea was a secret disciple, John 19:38, and also that he “had not consented to the counsel and deed of them”, Luke 23:51, so the decision of the council was not unanimous.

And led him into their council, saying- so brief were the proceedings of this council that Matthew and Mark do not even relate what was said.

Luke 22:67
Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe:

Art thou the Christ? tell us- something of their impatience is seen in the terse question and command they gave Him. They find, however, that the Lord Jesus will not be rushed, and shows He knows their hearts. It was illegal to try to get a prisoner to bear witness alone, and He has not been put on oath, so He is not obliged to answer them at all. In any case they had had three and a half years in which to ascertain whether He bore the credentials of the Messiah.

One of the features of the Messiah was that He would give sight to the blind and cause the lame to walk, Isaiah 35:5,6, and these were the two classes of people that came to Him in the temple, for we read of Him being in the temple just a few days previous to this, “And the blind and lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them”, Matthew 21:14. They obviously thought that He was the Messiah, for they came to Him; it was not as if they were brought by others. They were not put off by the fact that David hated the blind and the lame, and had banned them from coming into the temple courts, 2 Samuel 5:8. The Lord Jesus had been welcomed into Jerusalem as the Son of David, Matthew 21:9, but they obviously did not think He hated them. So right in the precincts of the temple, the place where the chief priests operated, there had been clear proof just a few days before, that He was the Messiah.

Even though He was not obliged to answer, He did so, and in such a way as to show them that He was indeed the Messiah, for Isaiah had told them that “the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord; and shall make Him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord: And He shall not judge after the sight of His eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of His ears: But with righteousness shall He judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth”, Isaiah 11:2-4. All these features are in stark contrast to those before whom Christ stood. They lacked wisdom and understanding, they had no fear of the Lord, they judged after the hearing of their ears, listening and believing false witnesses. They had the supremely Poor Man before them, but did not judge Him with righteousness or reprove with equity.

Because He was not on oath, He was not obliged to answer directly, but He did answer indirectly, and in such a manner that they could not gainsay. The best way to achieve conviction in the heart of man is for that heart to be convinced internally. It is the case with the Scriptures. Once men have approached the Word of God with an unbiased mind and a seeking heart, and are prepared to put aside pre-conceived ideas, then the Spirit of God will use that word to convict them, as they are exposed to its living power. When this happens, the proof lies within the man, and is not imposed on him from without.

So it is with the truth of the Christ-hood of the Lord Jesus. As He speaks to the men who accuse Him, He is skilfully showing that He is indeed the Messiah because He fulfils the criteria Isaiah set out as to His wisdom and understanding. He does this by means of four statements.

And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe- this is the first statement, which is a prophecy, and shows that He knows their future, that their unbelief is permanent. They knew in their heart of hearts that this was the case, for they were determined not to believe in Him.

Luke 22:68
And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.

And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me- He knew that they knew He was the Messiah, but their hearts were so hard that they would not even respond if He asked them, but would stubbornly refuse to admit it.

Nor let me go- He knows they are not interested in justice, so even though they knew He was the Messiah, their stubborn refusal to believe would prevent them letting Him go, as one against whom there was no charge. The apostle Paul wrote about God’s wisdom, “which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory”. It is not that if they had known they would have spared Him crucifixion. Rather, if they had known, they would not have crucified Him because they did not wish God’s purpose to be fulfilled, and would seek to frustrate it.

Luke 22:69
Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.

Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God- this is the fourth statement and the fourth prophecy, this time not about them, but about Himself. He had told them early on in His ministry that judgement is committed to Him because He is the Son of Man, John 5:27. He is relevant to all men, not just to the nation of Israel. As Son of Man He has been here and given them the opportunity to react to Him at close quarters. He foretells that He will rise to heaven to sit on the right hand of God, the place of the Firstborn, the place of administration of justice and judgement.

When standing before Caiaphas previously, the Lord had said, “Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power”, but then added, “and coming in the clouds of heaven”, Matthew 26:64. The point of the latter phrase being that it is a reference to Daniel 7:13, where Daniel writes, “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days”. But when he writes of the coming of the Son of Man he says, “until the Ancient of Days came”, verse 22. This is why on that occasion Caiaphas said, “He hath spoken blasphemy”, for He was claiming a Divine title, and the high priest rejected that claim as blasphemy.

Luke 22:70
Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.

Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? Notice the “then”, for it shows they have drawn a logical conclusion from His statement about sitting on the right hand of the power of God. They have rightly seen in this a claim to Deity.

And he said unto them, Ye say that I am- we should not think of this statement as being a vague one, as if to say, “You can say that is the case if you choose to”. Rather, it is the way a polite Jew would answer in the affirmative, so His reply is a definite “Yes”, but framed in a courteous way.

Luke 22:71
And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth- this shows that they did not believe He was avoiding their question, but had made a definite statement. The claim to be Son of God on the part of anyone else would indeed be blasphemy, and would merit death by stoning. But this would almost certainly involve the breaking of bones, and Scripture said that “He keepeth all his bones, not one of them is broken”, Psalm 34:20, and to be “Christ our passover”, the Lamb of God must not have any bones broken, Exodus 12:46. God had foreseen this, and had allowed the Roman authorities to take away from Israel the right to stone to death.

They have achieved their object, and have grounds, in their view, of demanding His death. They can now go to Pilate and affirm that in a solemn, formal assembly of the Sanhedrin, after the break of day, they have judged Him to be worthy of death.

John 18:28
Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgement: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgement hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgement- this is Pilate’s residence. This is the third place the Lord has been taken. First to Annas, verse 13, then to Caiaphas, 24, and now to Pilate. Isaiah prophesied He would be “taken from prison and from judgement”, 53:8.

And it was early- this indicates their state of heart, wishing to get the matter over quickly before the multitudes thronging the streets of Jerusalem at the the passover feast had time to protest. The previous examinations had been at night, which was illegal, especially when the accused is on a charge which carried the death penalty. The formal session of the Sanhedrin had been at break of day, but even after that session it was still early, showing how quickly the matter was rushed through.

There is also the fact that for trials for life, as this one was, the judges must give their verdict before they had eaten or drunk. They must not be sluggish through over-indulgence, or muddled through strong drink. Sadly, they abide by this rule only so that they get the verdict they are looking for, and not through any sense of justice.

And they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled- they refused to enter into the Gentile’s palace because there was the very real danger that there was unleavened bread there. They are particular about the niceties of their religion, but indifferent to the fact that Christ is the “True bread”. They are scrupulous about a speck of leaven, which was figurative of evil, but have no scruples about the evil of sending the Son of God to the cross.

But that they might eat the passover- this does not mean that the passover feast had not been eaten. The gospel writers describe the feast of the Passover as follows:

“Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus and said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?” Matthew 26:17.

So “the passover” can mean the whole of the passover supper.

“And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover”, Mark 14:1.

So “the passover” can mean the Passover lamb.

Luke 22:1 “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the passover”.

So “the passover” can mean the feast of passover together with the connected feast of unleavened bread. This is confirmed by the words of Pilate, when he said, “But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover”, John 18:39, so it was ongoing at that point.

There is another use of the word passover, and that is the festive offerings during the seven days of unleavened bread, for this festival followed straight after the passover day, and is actually called the passover in Luke 22:1, as we have noticed. So the priests are concerned that by going to a Gentile’s house they will be defiled, and unable to keep the feast of unleavened bread.

Certainly the Lord had eaten the passover meal the evening before, for He would have obeyed the instruction, “they shall eat the flesh in that night”, and “ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning”, Exodus 12:8,10. The Hebrew day had two evenings, the first was when the sun began to decline at about the ninth hour, and the second was when it was possible to see three stars in the sky, about the twelfth hour. It was between those two points that the passover lamb was to be killed. The command was “the whole congregation of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening”, by which is meant a three-hour period, Exodus 12:6.

The passover was to be eaten that night, and nothing left till the morning. Hence in Deuteronomy 16:6 the instruction is to eat the Passover “at the going down of the sun”, and “at the season thou camest forth out of Egypt”. Then they were told to “turn in in the morning, and go unto thy tents”, verse 7. Far from doing this, the chief priests had turned out in the morning, in order to condemn the True Passover Lamb.

It was part of the duty of the priests to eat the goat of the sin offering that was offered on the first day of unleavened bread, Numbers 28:22. The purpose of this was to bear the iniquity of the congregation of Israel, and make atonement for them, as we read in Leviticus 10:17 in connection with the goat of the sin offering on the final day of the consecration of the priests.

So it was that they sat in the temple courts and ate the sin offering, whilst the true sin offering was being made sin, and bearing sins in His own body on the tree. Were they doing this when the darkness came? If so, God was signalling to them that what they were doing was out of date.

John 18:29
Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?

Pilate then went out unto them, and said- he has no choice but to go out of his palace and meet them outside. He cannot allow an uproar, especially at a feast, for his position, or even his life, might be in danger when Caesar discovers the situation.
What accusation bring ye against this man? There were three parts to a Roman trial, and the first one was called the accusio, (the accusation). So this is the normal question at the start of a Roman trial, and it was required that it be formally asked.
The Jews had condemned Christ for claiming to be the Son of God, Matthew 26:63-66, but they know this will carry no weight with Pilate, for he will not be interested in theological questions. He held the Jews and their religion in contempt, as we see from Luke 13:1, where we are told that he had mingled the blood of Galileans with their sacrifices. The Lord would be classed by him as a Galilean, so it is all the more remarkable that Pilate would do his utmost to get Him freed. There must be something that will over-ride his hatred of Galileans, and we shall see later on that there is.
They have it in mind to bring a charge that will interest Pilate, but they hesitate, seeing if they can get him to condemn Christ without them being involved. Consider who it is upon whom mere men are sitting in judgement. It is the one to whom all judgement has been committed by the Father, John 5:22; who shall “judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and kingdom”, 2 Timothy 4:1; who shall “sit on the throne of his glory, and before him shall be gathered all nations”, Matthew 25:31, who shall “judge this world in righteousness”, Acts 17:31. It is the one who is equal with the Father, and is therefore the “Judge of all the earth”, Genesis 19:25. He it is who is being judged by sinners! They sit down on their judgement thrones and He stands before them, but one day the rôles will be reversed, and “kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the Lord who is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee”, Isaiah 49:7.

John 18:30
They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.

They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee- it is very likely that the Sanhedrin would have alerted Pilate that they wished to bring to him a prisoner in the early morning, so that a trial and execution could take place before 6pm and the start of the Sabbath. He seems to have agreed to this, hence his readiness to deal with the matter early, as John has told us. But something has made him reluctant to deal with the matter. As we shall see, he made numerous and varied attempts to avoid sentencing Christ. Why should this be? He had no personal interest in the case one way or another. The incident recorded in Luke 13:1 shows him to be almost indifferent to human life, and yet he seems to want to spare Christ. Could it be that he is influenced by Satan in this? The latter had tried every ploy down the centuries to prevent Christ being born, and when he failed in this he make several attempts to see Him killed. So why does he move Pilate to not execute Him?

Is it not because he knows that Scripture foretold death by crucifixion, and if this prophecy comes true then the gospel will be furthered, and men will see that God is the true God. He is willing, therefore, to see Christ killed, but in any other way than by dying on a cross with pierced hands and feet.

Now if he had agreed during the night to let the Sanhedrin sentence Christ, and simply agree to their verdict when they brought Him to him in the morning, imagine the surprise and anger of the chief priests when it seemed as if he was not going to do this, but rather asked the question which normally began a Roman trial. Their response is the equivalent to saying, “You agreed to deal with a convicted malefactor, and now that we have condemned him you are reluctant to handle the case. If we had not condemned Him as a guilty malefactor we would not have brought Him, for they were the terms of our arrangement”.

John 18:31
Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:

Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law- this is the first of the several attempts that Pilate made to rid himself of the responsibility of judging Christ. He is prepared to let them judge Him in their religious court. Pilate is shrewd enough to know that whilst the Jewish authorities at Jerusalem wanted Him dead, as they saw Him as a threat to their authority, nevertheless the tens of thousands of Jews from around the world who had descended upon Jerusalem for the passover were not opposed to Him. The reaction of the crowds as He rode into Jerusalem had shown that. If he, as the representative of Rome, the occupying power, is seen to crucify a popular figure, the crowds might become restive, and cause trouble. Pilate is very aware that Caesar is sensitive to revolt amongst the empire, and he will be displeased. If the Jews take the law into their own hands and stone Him to death, (as they did to Stephen just a few years later), then all will be over in a matter of minutes, and the crowds will hardly know.
But despite all this, God saw to it that Pilate did have dealings with Him, for it was God’s will that both Jew and Gentile should have responsibility for the death of Christ. As Peter said, “ye (Jews) by wicked hands (the hands of lawless Gentiles) have taken, and crucified (the Gentile mode of execution) and slain (the wish of the Jews fulfilled)”, Acts 2:23. On very rare occasions crucified people survived, but they crucified Him until He was dead. And yet no man took His life from Him, but He laid it down of Himself, John 10:18.

The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death- if the Jews judged according to their law, and stoned Him, then His bones would have been broken, and so Scripture would not have been fulfilled, John 19:36. Are they hoping that Pilate will reverse the withdrawal of the death penalty temporarily in order to rid himself of the trouble the matter is causing him?
The right to put to death was taken away from Israel by the Romans a few years before. This no doubt was the overruling of God, so that the prophetic Scriptures as to the manner of His death were fulfilled accurately. He must be able to say, “They pierced my hands and my feet”, Psalm 22:16.

By acknowledging the situation, the priests were confessing the sad state of the nation, for the law of Rome had overturned the law of God. It was lawful as far as the law of Moses was concerned for them to put certain guilty persons to death. The fact that they cannot do this indicates their low state as a nation. They should have been asking themselves why it had come to this. Moses had told them that one of the results of not hearkening to the voice of the Lord would be that those who hated them would reign over them, Leviticus 26:17. It had come to pass before, when the Babylonians took them into captivity, and now it had come to pass again.

John 18:32
That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.

That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled- it is not the saying of Caiaphas in John 11:50 that it was expedient for them that “one man should die for the nation” that is to be fulfilled. Rather, it is “the saying of Jesus”, which John puts on the same level of authority as the Old Testament Scripture. He prophesied of the manner of His death, and so did they, and there was perfect agreement.

Which he spake, signifying what death he should die- this refers to the saying of Christ when He said that He would be lifted up. In fact, John is quoting the words he had used to explain the meaning of the Lord’s statement, 12:33. And even before this, the Lord had said to Nicodemus “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up”, 3:14. The word for pole that the brazen serpent was put on, comes from the word “to lift up”. So the mode of Christ’s death was even indicated when Israel were in the wilderness.

Luke 23:2
And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a king.

And they began to accuse him, saying- realising that things are not going well for them, the priests have to back-track, and come up with fresh accusations which they feel may carry more weight with Pilate. He is clearly not interested in religious questions, so they change to political questions. Pilate had already asked them what accusation they brought, and they had sought to evade the issue. Now they have no choice but to respond.

We found this fellow perverting the nation- but far from leading the nation astray, He had sought to bring them back to the right ways of the Lord.

And forbidding to give tribute to Caesar- this is a bare-faced lie, and shows how desperate they are to find something that will interest Pilate. The Lord had in fact said, when tempted by the Pharisees, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s, Matthew 22:21. How can this be construed as forbidding to give tribute, when it is an exhortation to pay their dues? In fact the Lord worked a miracle to provide the silver for the tribute money, Matthew 17:24-27, such was His attitude.

Saying that he himself is Christ a king- in fact, the Lord Jesus never made this claim for Himself, but left others to see that it was in fact true. When the people had tried to take Him by force to make Him king, He withdrew from them, John 6:15. He is content to wait His Father’s time to manifest Himself as King. As the apostle Paul wrote, “Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords”, 1 Timothy 6:15. They are suggesting to Pilate that He is a dangerous political agitator, in order to make him interested in the case.

John 18:33
Then Pilate entered into the judgement hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?

Then Pilate entered into the judgement hall again- Pilate had entered the judgement hall in verse 28, but then went out to the Jews outside to ascertain the charge they brought against Christ, and now he is re-entering the judgement hall.

And called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? To call Jesus would mean to summon Him for formal examination in a law-situation. Pilate is obliged to investigate the charge that Christ claims to be a king; the stability of the empire depends on having control over agitators.

John 18:34
Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?

Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Before answering, the Lord establishes what the question, on the lips of Pilate, means. Does it mean “King of the Jews” in Pilate’s way of thinking? In which case the answer is “No”, for he was not a petty agitator, inciting the Jews against the Romans in some futile uprising. Or does it mean, “King of the Jews” as they would understand it, otherwise known as the Messiah?

Pilate is finding that he is the one being questioned now. In His responses, the Lord reveals the characteristics of His kingdom. Christ’s kingdom is a righteous kingdom, and justice prevails there, and this question is designed to point out that the Jews had switched charges, and hence are acting illegally. They had convicted Him because He claimed to be the Son of God; so where is the charge of being king of the Jews coming from? Is it a further charge from the Jews, or a new charge from Pilate? Not a word was spoken at the two sessions of the Sanhedrin about Him being king of the Jews. The only time they mentioned it was when they changed accusations outside the Praetorium, with Christ inside. He has a right to know what the charge is, especially as it is a “trial for life”, when the death penalty was possible. In any case, where are the witnesses for and against the charge? Is the trial to proceed on the say-so of Pilate alone?

This question is not an evasive tactic on the part of the Lord. He will state directly in verse 37 that He is a king, but He is making sure that all concerned know the facts of the case, and do not make decisions based on rumour and innuendo.

18:35
Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? This is the first of three questions, and is a semi-sarcastic jibe at the oddities, (in his Roman view of things), of the Jewish culture. It tells us he is not looking at things dispassionately, but in a prejudiced way. Christ’s kingdom will not be limited to Israel, so whether Pilate, a Roman, could understand was irrelevant.

Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me- this was only half-true, as the nation had welcomed Him as He rode into Jerusalem as King, John 12:12-15. It was the chief priests who had delivered Him for envy. It is true that “He came unto his own, and his own received him not”, John 1:11, but John immediately tells us that there were those that received Him, so rejection was not unanimous, as seems to be implied in Pilate’s statement. His kingdom will be welcomed when it is at last manifested in this world, for the nation shall say, “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord”, Psalm 118:26.

What hast thou done? This suggests that Pilate thought He may have been the ring-leader in some trouble-making. That this is not the case is seen in the Lord’s reference to what had happened in the Garden of Gethsemane the night before.

18:36
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world- these words must have been strange and troubling to Pilate. The Lord readily admits that He is a king, but not of the sort Pilate was used to. He was soon to be made friends with Herod, and he was the sort of king Pilate knew. Pilate was not familiar with the idea of a kingdom originating from any other place than earth. Pilate is being assured that His kingdom is not to be set up in rivalry to Caesar’s, although one day this kingdom will displace all Gentile kingdoms, Daniel 2:44.

If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews- earthly kingdoms are established and increased by means of the armies they deploy. The fact that Christ’s kingdom is not of this sort is seen in that the servants of this king are not organised into an army. In fact, one of Christ’s disciples, Simon, was a Cananite, Matthew 10:4, which does not mean he was an Old Testament Canaanite, but rather, a zealot, (such is the meaning of the Greek equivalent of the word), working to overthrow the Roman occupation. Christ called him to a higher task. Another of the apostles, Matthew, was a tax-gatherer, working for the Roman authorities. He was called away from working for the government, just as Simon the Cananite was called away from working against it. Christianity is not a political movement, and just authority has nothing to fear from it. Governments that oppress Christians show they do not understand Christianity, for the apostles taught believers to not resist the God-given authority of political rulers. Wrote the apostle Paul, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour”, Romans 13:1-7.

We may now return to the rest of Matthew 27:11 and see the second answer to the question as to whether the Lord Jesus was a king.

John 18:37

Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Pilate’s response was to ask again and pointedly whether He was a king. The Lord is now prepared to answer the question directly, because He has established that, (a) He is not a troublemaker, (b) that His is not a rival kingdom to Caesar’s, and (c), that the kingship they are talking about is of the Messiah, and not of a rival to Caesar.

Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king- this is not an evasive reply. Nor does it indicate that Christ is a king only in the minds of those who believe it, with His kingship not relevant to the rest of men. Rather, this is the formal way a polite Jew will answer a direct question of serious import. It is the same as saying “Yes”, but the Lord is using the Rabbinical formula for answers to direct questions. Courtesy forbids a direct yes or no, but it is a direct answer.

We see this same response when Judas asked, “Master, is it I”, and the reply came, “Thou hast said”, Matthew 26:25. So also in Luke 22:70,71, where the question of the high priest as to whether Christ is the Son of God is answered by the words “”Ye say that I am”. If this was prevarication, the question would have been asked again. As it is, the response of the chief priest was to declare that no more witnesses were needed, “for we ourselves have heard of His own mouth”. He knew full well what the answer had meant. Mark, with characteristic brevity, gives the Lord’s answer as simply “I am”, the last words of the reply in Luke. It is still the case, however, that the courteous formula is used, and not a direct “Yes”.

To this end was I born- this is the only time the Lord referred to His birth in those terms. He had been born as one with an unassailable and unique claim to the throne of David, and He had shown that He had the credentials of the King, as Matthew’s gospel shows clearly.

And for this cause came I into the world- the Lord makes a connection here between His birth, and His entrance onto the public stage. He is not suggesting that that was when His kingdom began, but that by birth He had come into manhood by descent from David, and by entrance into His ministry, (which also could be described as coming into the world), He bore witness to the truth. If men are prepared to accept the truth He brought, they would be born again and thus enter the kingdom of God in its present form.

That I should bear witness unto the truth- the kingdom of Christ will be founded on truth, not deceit. As the Scripture says, “for the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost”, Romans 14:17. As He went about teaching, the Lord presented the truth that men needed to believe in order to enter the kingdom of God. It was not a question of birth, or religion, or tradition, but genuine faith in Him that would secure a place in the kingdom. When He was explaining the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, it was not with a parable about a soldier going forth to war, but with one about a sower going forth to sow, Matthew 13:1-9. It was not the use of arms that would bring in the kingdom of Christ, but the use of the word of God. Such is the radically different nature of His kingdom, and Pilate needs to understand this if he is to execute justice.

Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice- this is a direct appeal to Pilate, encouraging him to show himself to be interested in truth, and not mere expediency. This would be the first stage on a path to faith in Christ, and would mean he would avoid the shame of condemning Him falsely, contrary to the truth. The kingdom of Christ is based on truth, not deceit and lies like the kingdoms of men, and His kingdom consists of loyal subjects, who love the truth.

Pilate is baffled, for the statements he is hearing are so different to his thoughts about kings and kingdoms. The subjects of this kingdom are those who respond to truth as they hear the voice of the king.

God’s ideal king is a shepherd-king, leading in the paths of righteousness, so when He presented Himself as the Good Shepherd, the Lord said, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me”, John 10:27. These are words spoken in Solomon’s Porch, the place Solomon had built to sit and judge as king.

John 18:38
Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? How could he decide these opposing assertions? On the one hand the Jewish authorities made the prisoner out to be a claimant to a throne, and yet He Himself spoke only of truth, and his servants not fighting, and a kingdom not of this world. When he spoke to Nicodemus, the Lord said, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God”, John 3:3. Only those who have the life of the king can have any true perception of the principles underlying His kingdom. So the answer to Pilate’s dilemma is to “hear his voice”. The genuine seeker after the truth will come to the genuine imparter of truth. So it is that in His conversation with Pilate, the wearer of the Imperial Purple on behalf of Rome, Christ displays the superior purple of the eternal and heavenly kingdom, which He will one day set up on earth, but which His born-again people have already entered, John 3:3,5; Colossians 1:13. These features of His kingdom tell us of the character of His kingship. The Lord makes no response to this question, for the answer has already been given.

And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all- when he went out before, it was to ask what the accusation was, “What accusation?”, verse 29, but now he has concluded that the prisoner is not guilty. “I find in Him no fault all” is a legal pronouncement, indicating that he considers, as the representative of Caesar, that there is no legal ground for punishing Him. Thus it stands recorded that Christ was crucified illegally.

Luke 23:5
And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place.

And they were the more fierce, saying- the chief priests and rulers are standing impatiently outside the Governor’s residence, waiting to learn the result of his dealings with Christ. They are hoping that their charge about His claim to kingship will convince Pilate that he ought to convict the prisoner. Imagine their anger and frustration when Pilate comes out to them again and declares he can find no fault in the man they have sent to him.

He stirreth up the people- in their desperation they go further than simply saying He perverted the nation. Now they claim, without any evidence, that He was a troublemaker. Surely this will interest Pilate?

Teaching throughout all Jewry- they misrepresent His teaching ministry as a scheme to incite the people to rise up and revolt, whereas to follow His teaching was to be a good citizen.

Beginning from Galilee to this place- do they conceive a wicked plan at this point? They have had to admit to Pilate that they cannot apply the death penalty. Pilate himself is showing reluctance to be involved in the matter. Their only hope is Herod. He had lately beheaded John the Baptist; perhaps if they mention Galilee, Pilate will send Him to Herod and they will achieve their aim of having Him killed.

Luke 23:6
When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean.

When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean- all the while, Pilate has been seeking an excuse to not condemn this man. Here is the escape-route for him, as the Jews mention Galilee. There is a battle of wills going on here, for the apostle Peter declared that the Jews delivered Christ up, and “denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go”, Acts 3:13. The chief priests are just as determined to see Him crucified, and if not crucified, executed some other way. But unknown to them there was another will, over-riding both that of Pilate and of the Jews. It was the will of God, and His will was “determinate”, Acts 2:23. In other words, it could not be overturned.

Luke 23:7
And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time.

And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod’s jurisdiction- Pilate seizes his opportunity, and hands over the case to Herod. This raises the question as to why the Jews did not apply to Herod in the first place. Perhaps he would have had to refer to Pilate in the end, and this would mean delay; they are in a hurry to rid themselves of Him.

He sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time- all seems to be fitting in with their plans; Pilate is willing to hand Him over, and Herod is near at hand to deal with the matter. But even if Herod condemned Him, his way of executing, as we know from what happened to John the Baptist, was beheading, and this would not fulfil Scripture. He must be sent to Herod, therefore, so that God’s will may be seen to be done. As we read in Acts 4:27, “For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done”.

Herod was the youngest son of King Herod the Great, the one who slaughtered the children around Bethlehem to try to kill the infant Christ. He was known as Herod Antipas, or Herod the tetrarch, Luke 3:9. He was married to the daughter of King Aretas of Nabatea, but divorced her and took the wife of his half-brother Philip. John the Baptist had lost his life because he denounced this as unlawful.

Not long before, the Pharisees had come to the Lord saying, “Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee. And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected. Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem”.

Luke 13:31-33. So the threats of Herod held no fear for the Lord Jesus. Nor did He for a moment think that He would be killed by him, for He would perish at Jerusalem, not in Herod’s court as John the Baptist had done.

Luke 23:8
And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him.

And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad- as is seen from His description of Herod as “that fox”, the Lord Jesus knew the heart of this man, and would not be swayed by the fact that he appeared to be pleased to see Him.

For he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him- clearly Herod was not interested enough in what the Lord taught to enquire further about Him. It is not enough to hear many things of or concerning Him; there must be the hearing of faith. Herod had great opportunities, but discarded them all. He had John the Baptist in his court, of whom the Lord Jesus said, “Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist”, Luke 7:28. Instead of listening to him he silenced him by cutting off his head. And then he had a steward by the name of Chuza, whose wife was a prominent supporter of Christ’s interests, who with others “ministered unto him with their substance”, Luke 8:3.

And he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him- not only is Herod superficial in his interest in Christ, he is sensual as well, affected by that which is sensational. The Lord Jesus did not perform miracles to put on an exhibition, but to manifest Divine truth, and this does not interest Herod. John the Baptist famously did no miracles, John 10:41, and here is one who does, so he is intrigued. But he is only interested in being entertained. Christianity and the entertainment industry have nothing whatsoever in common.

Luke 23:9
Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.

Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing- the Lord is standing before the one who has unjustly killed His forerunner; and His refusal to answer is a stern rebuke to him. How can He carry on a normal conversation with such a monster?

Herod no doubt knew the Lord had called him a fox. To remain silent when such a person is interrogating is a very dangerous thing to do, and one that takes great courage.

Luke 23:10
And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him.

And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him- we here learn that the authorities have followed the prisoner to Herod. As Pilate will say later, “I sent you to him”, meaning Herod, so Pilate had commissioned them to go and see the case tried by Herod. They had been outwitted by Pilate as they stood outside his gate while he questioned the Lord. They will not allow that sort of thing to happen again. There is too much risk in allowing Herod to conduct the proceedings on his own. Notice the anger in their voices as they accuse Him with all the spite and hate in their being.

Luke 23:11
And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.

And Herod with his men of war set him at nought- all the elements of a classic murder are here present. There are three things that mark every serious crime, namely means, opportunity, and motive. Herod has the means, for we are told here of his men of war. No doubt one of their number had beheaded John the Baptist. He has the opportunity, for Pilate, no less, has sent the prisoner to him, seeing he came from his jurisdiction. He has the motive, for the prisoner has called him “that fox”, ignored him, and his forerunner has condemned him.

How ironic that the one who made Himself of no reputation is “set at naught”! Frustrated by His refusal to answer, their only response is to vent their anger upon Him, clearly with Herod’s approval. We cannot help noticing the different outcome to that of the other Herod’s. Herod the Great slaughtered the innocents, the Herod of Acts 12:1 killed James with the sword, but here the prisoner’s life is spared by the one who had beheaded His forerunner. A Divine hand is restraining the designs of men, and is frustrating the plans of the Devil.

And arrayed him in a gorgeous robe- Herod was obviously a party-lover, for he had executed John during his birthday celebrations, Matthew 14:6-12. Here he has Christ dressed up as the master of ceremonies, mocking His claim to be a worker of miracles, which Herod would dismiss as mere party tricks.

And sent him again to Pilate- imagine the disappointment of Herod at seeing no miracles, of the chief priests at seeing no conviction; and now the embarrassment of sending Him back, having been exposed as being powerless against Him.

Luke 23:12
And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.

And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves- it is indeed sad when hatred of Christ is stronger than hatred of one’s enemies, and the thing that unites them is hostility toward Christ. Hatred of Christ is of the Devil, whereas love to fellow-believers is of God, 1 John 3:10.

Herod having returned Christ to Pilate, the proceedings continue in the judgement hall. The narrative continues in Luke’s gospel:

Luke 23:13
And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people,

And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people- being the first day of Unleavened Bread, some no doubt had been performing their religious duties whilst Christ was with Herod. They hoped they had seen the end of the matter, but now they receive a call from Pilate, much to their surprise. By “people” is no doubt meant the elders of the people mentioned in Luke 22:66, although we should note that the decision to ask for Barabbas was made by the people, according to Matthew 26:20.

Luke 23:14
Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:

Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people- Pilate repeats the charge they had levelled against Christ before.

And, behold, I, having examined him before you- we know that they would not enter his judgement hall, and he had to go out to them, but artists represent him dealing with Christ in open view on the upper floor, so if this is based on fact, it can be said to be “before you”, even though they were not in the building. The “behold” sounds very much as if Pilate is about to make an important announcement that will be of great interest to them.

Have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him- how disappointed they must have been, as the supreme governor declares there is no charge to answer. Their only hope now is Herod; what will Pilate say about him?

Luke 23:15
No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him.

No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him- notice it is not “I sent him to him”. They had been sent to do the accusing, (which they did with much vehemence, Luke 23:10), and Herod had found no just reason to condemn Him, even though he was said a few weeks before to be ready to kill Him, Luke 13:31. Pilate is placing the blame for the failure to convict on them. Again we notice a restraining hand upon these men, as God’s determinate will is done despite their plans.

Pilate is anxious to escape from his dilemma, and sees in the current custom of releasing a prisoner the way out for him.

John 19:4
Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.

Pilate therefore went forth again- another “therefore”, being a repeat of the first in verse 1, meaning he was trying to get Him released. He has to go forth because the Jews will not enter a Gentile’s house, being afraid of coming into contact with leaven at the Feast of Unleavened Bread. They had no scruples about this later on, in Matthew 27:62.

And saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you- Pilate is trying to excite pity, but he should have been administering justice. The Jews were normally scrupulously fair in their judgements, especially in capital cases, and ensured that the advantage was always with the accused. But this Man is different, for His righteousness condemns their unrighteousness, and they hate Him for it, John 3:20.

That ye may know that I find no fault in him- this is the second time Pilate has said this. Yet he had already virtually condemned Jesus, and also had Him scourged, which was the first part of the crucifixion process.

John 19:5
Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!

Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe- it is either that the soldiers would later remove this robe and put His own clothes on Him, Matthew 27:31, or that they put His own clothes on Him but Pilate instructed them to put the imperial purple robe over the top of them, to complement the “imperial” crown, and to make the scene more realistic.

And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man! He knows it would not impress them if he called Him their king again, so he appeals to them on the level of common humanity and decency, but they have another, religious agenda. Even Judas would later say, “I have sinned, in that I have betrayed innocent blood”, Matthew 27:4. They even treated that remark with contempt.

John 19:6
When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.

When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him- they are unmoved by the pitiful sight, so enraged are they. Religious rage is the worst rage of all, especially when it supposes it is defending the interests of the True God. It was a Jewish rabbi who said that religious persecution says more about the ones persecuting than the ones persecuted.

Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him- is he bluffing, knowing they have not this right, as they themselves said in 18:31? God had seen to it that the death penalty was taken out of their hands just a few years previously, because that would mean stoning, and this might break His legs, contrary to prophecy, John 19:36.

Or is he granting them the right temporarily so that he could escape the guilt of crucifying Him? But it was by wicked hands, (that is, the lawless hands of the Gentiles), He was to be crucified. The Jewish authorities and the Gentiles must be responsible for His death, Acts 4:27. It is the princes of this world that crucified Him, 1 Corinthians 2:8.

For I find no fault in him- they must do it, if anyone does, because Pilate again pronounces Him guiltless according to Roman law. This is the third time he has said this, in 18:38; 19:4, and now here.

John 19:7
The Jews answered him, ‘We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God’.

The Jews answered him, ‘We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God’- the law of Moses required that those who blaspheme the name of the Lord should die, Leviticus 24:16. Also, those who tried to turn Israel away from the worship of the God of Israel were to die, too, Deuteronomy 13:1-5. This is what Antichrist will do with his image in the temple, yet the majority of Israel will receive him. See John 5:43.

Since the Jews did not believe it when He said, “I and My Father are one”, and therefore to worship Him was to worship God, they thought He was attracting worship to Himself away from the God of Israel.

John 19:8
When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid;

When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid- he had been made afraid by the report from his wife about her dream, Matthew 27:19. To a superstitious pagan, dreams were full of meaning, especially if it was more like a nightmare, causing his wife to “suffer many things”, as she put it. He had heard from his wife just before he had released Barabbas and condemned Christ. Now something even more worrying is told him. Nothing has been said to Pilate before about Him claiming to be the Son of God. They have called Him a malefactor, John 18:30. Then they tried the charge of forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, Luke 23:2. Again, they said He stirred up the people, from Galilee to Jerusalem, Luke 23:5. Pilate understood them to mean He perverted the people, Luke 23:14, but neither Herod nor Pilate believed this. Now, as a last resort, they bring forward the charge that they were silent about before, because they did not think Pilate would think it worthy of consideration. Their cause is desperate.

John 19:9
And went again into the judgement hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.

And went again into the judgement hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? He is not asking where He was born, or who His parents are. Pilate is fearful that the gods have sent one of the ‘sons of the gods’ to judge him. The Lord has already distinguished between being born, and coming into the world, 18:37, but this distinction seems to have been lost on Pilate.

But Jesus gave him no answer- it is important to notice that sometimes Christ answered, and sometimes He did not, when asked questions during His trials. The prophet had said that He would be dumb before His shearers, so He only answered when He was not being shorn of His own glory. When it was a question of the honour of His Father, or the defence of His disciples, or to rebuke the injustice of His accusers, He spoke.

John 19:10
Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?

Then saith Pilate unto Him, Speakest thou not unto me? He is amazed that this Galilean peasant should dare to remain silent when questioned by the representative of Rome. But He does not speak because Pilate has already condemned and scourged Him, contrary to justice, (for he pronounced Him innocent and then condemned Him to death), and to co-operate in that would be untrue to Himself as the Just One.

Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? God has put a sword in the hand of the rulers He ordains to be in government. That sword is for the punishment of evildoers, and those who resist that power. We read of this in Romans 13:1-7. So Pilate was right to a certain extent, for he represented a God-ordained ruler, namely Caesar.

John 19:11
Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above- Pilate was clearly ignorant of the true source of his power. He thought it came from Rome, but he learns now that it comes from heaven. However, Pilate’s power only extended to the punishment of evildoers, and Christ was not one of these. So the only way Pilate can have real power against Christ is by special licence from God, in order that His purpose might be worked out in the death of His Son.

Therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin- Pilate’s sin was great, in that he had condemned a man he himself declared to be innocent. But Caiaphas’ sin was greater, since he should have had an enhanced sense of justice, as instructed by the law of God.

John 19:12
And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.

And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him- he had been doing this repeatedly, but now there is fresh urgency.

But the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar- they have now completely abandoned the pursuit of justice, and are simply playing on Pilate’s fears. For his part, Pilate is more fearful of Caesar than he is of God. Scripture says, “The fear of man bringeth a snare”, Proverbs 29:25.

John 19:13
When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgement seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.

When Pilate therefore heard that saying- the thought that Jesus was the Son of God had preyed on his superstitious fears, but now the priests have preyed on his political fear of the wrath of Caesar, verse 12. The Caesar at that time, Tiberias, reacted harshly against failure in his governors. If Pilate lets a rival to Caesar’s throne go free, (especially when Jerusalem is crowded with tens of thousands of excitable Jews), his life would be in jeopardy. Will Pilate fear God rather than men? The answer is clear.

He brought Jesus forth- formerly he had gone out to the Jews, but now brings the prisoner out, so that they can see Him, and Pilate can sit on his judgement seat in full view of the crowd. He is still trying to play on the self-esteem of the Jews, to enable him to release Jesus. Peter says that Pilate “was determined to let him go”, Acts 3:13.

And sat down in the judgement seat in a place that is called the Pavement- Roman judgement seats were often portable, and now Pilate sets his down on a paved area, to formally pronounce sentence. We should remember that he has already had Jesus scourged, which should only have taken place if He had been found guilty. Justice is not being done. The Jews have broken their laws, and Pilate has broken the law of Rome. Isaiah tells us that in a day to come, “kings shall see, and arise”, 49:7. The kings of the earth will stand in that day, and Christ will be seated on “the throne of His glory”, Matthew 25:31.

But in the Hebrew, Gabbatha- why does John tell us the Hebrew name? This is striking, because Gabbatha does not mean Pavement, but refers to the elevated spot with the pavement in front of it. John will tell us about Golgotha in verse 17. Is he linking the two? Gabbatha means “an elevated spot”. Is he contrasting this with Calvary’s hill? One has on it the representative of worldly justice, the unjust Pilate, and the other the Just One Himself. The one is passing earthly sentence on a sinless man; the other is bearing the sentence for sinful man.

John 19:14
And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, “Behold your King!:

And it was the preparation of the passover- the word passover was used for the fourteenth day of the first month, but it was also used for the whole of the eight days of the feast of passover and of unleavened bread. Luke writes, “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the passover”, Luke 22:1.

This is not preparation for the Passover, for the passover lamb had been slain the previous day, and the passover meal eaten in that night. The disciples had asked, “where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?” Matthew 27:17. By this they meant the passover meal at night, after the lamb had been slain in between 3pm and sunset, (which is what is meant by “between the two evenings”, Exodus 12:6, margin; the word evening is dual in number there).

Edersheim says, “the evening of the fourteenth to the fifteenth is never called in Jewish writings “the preparation for”, but rather, “the eve of” the passover”. Mark defines “the preparation” for us, for he writes, “And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath”, 15:42.

And about the sixth hour- this has caused difficulty, because Mark 15:25 says, “and it was the third hour, and they crucified Him”. He has already described the crucifixion in the previous verse, and then he deliberately puts a time to it. So it is very clear that Christ was crucified at the third hour, which to a Jew meant 9 o’clock in the morning, since their daytime began at 6am. Various suggestions have been made to solve this problem, such as John using Roman time which some believe made the day begin at midnight.

However, consider the following. Roman governors and other judges had a small tablet with a hinged lid. On the inside was a layer of wax on which they would record the main details of the case they were trying. There would be the record of the promise to appear; attestation that the defendant had appeared; the planned day of the hearing; important individuals who were taking part in the trial; the successive stages of the trial; the judgement pronounced. So John may be recording here what Pilate himself wrote in his tablet, which explains why he put the time of the trial at “about the sixth hour”, or about 6 am. The time mentioned may therefore be when the trial started, according to Pilate, a Roman, therefore it is in Roman time.

We know the Jews held their formal Sanhedrin at the dawn of the day, and reached a quick verdict, for when they took Jesus to Pilate it was still early, John 18:28. So if Pilate noted the time when he began to try Christ, it was indeed about the sixth hour, or just after daybreak, for the use of the word “about” indicates it was just after the sixth hour.

And he saith unto the Jews, “Behold your King!’ This is Pilate’s last attempt to avoid crucifying the Lord. He is appealing to their pity again, although that has failed once already, verses 4,5. There, the word was, “Behold the man!” This appealed to their pity as men. Now it is “Behold your King!” He is appealing to their self-esteem as a nation. He is pouring scorn on their suggestion that such a pitiable sight could conceivably be mistaken for the King of the Jews.

If he can get them to drop the charge of being a king, (which affects Pilate’s position, for he must defend Caesar from rivals, however petty they may seem to be), then he can also drop the charge of being the Son of God, as having no relevance to Roman law, and which does not threaten the Roman peace.

John 19:15
But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him- their response is the same as before, except that they say “Away with him” twice over, and not just “crucify him”. They want to be completely rid of Him, not just put on a cross. They want to rid their thoughts of Him, for He touches their conscience.

Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar- this is the public rejection of Christ as King by the leaders of the nation. But they go further, because ideally the nation was a theocracy, and God was their king. By saying they have no king but Caesar they reject the Kingship of God that Christ came to manifest.

When Israel wanted a king in Samuel’s day, he felt rejected. But God said that it was He who had been rejected, for He was Israel’s true King, see 1 Samuel 8:5-7. The Rabbis said at the fall of Jerusalem, “The sceptre has departed from Judah, and Messiah has not come”. As Hosea said, “The children of Israel shall abide many days without a king…afterward shall the children of Israel return”, Hosea 4:4.

John 19:16
Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.

Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified- there seems to be a deliberate vagueness here as to whom He was delivered. It reads as if He was delivered to the Jews, but we know in fact that He was handed over to the Roman soldiery. John is emphasising the guilt of the rulers of the nation, just as Peter, Stephen and Paul did in their addresses in the Acts of the Apostles.

Christ rode into Jerusalem and presented Himself as king, John 12:15, for the prophet had foretold this with the words, “Rejoice greatly O daughter of Zion; shout O daughter of Jerusalem: Behold thy king cometh unto thee”, Zechariah 9:9, and now He is taken as king out of the city, His claim rejected.

And they took Jesus, and led him away- if the previous statement sounded as if He was handed over to the Jews, now it is made clear that the Romans were involved too, as Peter said, “Ye (Jews), by wicked hands (the lawless hands of Gentiles), have crucified and slain”.

Both Matthew and Mark tell us the purpose for which they “led Him away”, (Matthew), and “led Him out, (Mark), namely, “to crucify Him”. In other words they were looking for no other outcome. But Jewish law made elaborate provision for the receiving of last-minute evidence. A man on horseback with a white flag would be stationed at the gate in full view of the procession out to the execution. Another man would accompany the accused. If fresh evidence was brought forward, or if the condemned man wished to produce fresh evidence, then the white flag would be waved, the procession halted, the condemned man brought back into the city, and the trial reopened. None of this happened in the case of Christ, for they led Him out with no other intention but that of crucifying Him.

Luke 23:26
And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus.

And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country- this is all we know about this man, except that, as Mark tells us, he was the father of Alexander and Rufus, Mark 15:21 Why do we need to know who this man’s sons were, unless he, and they, were afterwards converted as a result of this experience, and the first readers of the gospels would know who they were? Mark also tells us that he was compelled to bear the cross. We remember how Mark is emphasising the servant character of the Lord Jesus, so it is interesting to notice the contrast between the willing acceptance by the Lord Jesus of the burden of dealing with the question of sins, and the seeming unwillingness of Simon to simply carry the cross on which the work would be done. We could understand the reluctance of Simon, for those who were seen carrying a cross to the place of execution were despised of men, and a reproach. Yet did what happened on that cross so affect Simon that he was converted to God, and denied himself, and gladly took up his cross and followed Him? See Matthew 16:24.

Whilst the word “country” does literally means a cultivated field, it is often set in contrast to the city. So, for instance, we read in Luke 8:34, “they told it in the city and in the country“. Or Luke 9:12, “go into the towns and country round about”. The idea behind the word in this context is a rural place rather than an urban place. The point is that to bear the cross he must turn right round, and go in the opposite direction, for he is coming towards the city and Christ is going out of it. If he was, in fact, constrained to believe by this event, then he had a moral turn-round also, which is what conversion is.

And on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus- this incident is taken up by the writer to the Hebrews when he writes, “Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach”, Hebrews 3:12,13. Note the difference between without, or outside, the camp and without the gate. To be without the gate is the physical position the Lord Jesus took up when He endured the cross, corresponding to the place where the sin offering was burnt in Old Testament times. But it had a spiritual meaning, and those who grasp this meaning will take up a moral position in harmony with His moral position as one still rejected by organised religion. If we were exhorted to go outside the gate, we would have to go on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. As it is, outside the camp is a position we take up in our hearts, and translate into practice as we meet with those of like mind in the assembly.

Simon was compelled to bear His cross; we are called to bear His reproach. On the day of atonement one of the last ceremonies was the carrying of the carcases of the sin offerings, (the bullock and the goat), by a man qualified to do this, outside the camp to be burnt. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews encourages us to fulfil that role in its spiritual meaning, and associate with the one who suffered the Divine fire for us in the outside place. The sin offering had imputed to it the sin of the people, being made sin. It was a detestable thing, therefore. To carry it was to associate closely with it. Now Christ is not a detestable person as far as God is concerned, but He is detested by the religious world, despite what they seem to say about Him. When the full force of Christianity confronts them, they come out in their true character, and deny Him. And so does Judaism. To cleave to Christ, and take the outside place with Him is a place of reproach, yet we should not flinch to do it.

The Lord challenged His disciples to take up their cross. In other words, to make His cross their own, in the sense of association with Him. This is Matthew’s account:

Matthew 16:24
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me- when He has shown that the cross and suffering are definitely ahead, (verse 21), then the call to discipleship can be issued. A true disciple will count the cost before he sets out, Luke 14:25-35. “Will” speaks of “desire”, not simply a future event. Those who follow Christ must be aware that it means heading for a cross in the first instance, not a crown.

Let him deny himself- nothing must stand in the way of this commitment. Self is a major obstacle to full devotion.

And take up his cross and follow me- the cross of Christ is unique, but the true follower will not shrink from fellowship with Christ in the rejection the cross represents. In this way His cross becomes ours. The teaching regarding the cross is brought out in Paul’s epistles. In Galatians 1, “I am crucified with Christ”; in Romans 6, “Our old man was crucified with Christ”; in Galatians 5, “They that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh”; in Galatians 6, “The cross…by which the world is crucified to me, and I unto the world”.

Matthew 16:25
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it- the word for life is soul, the person. To save one’s person is to live for self, and is the opposite of denying self. The cross puts an end to self. As Paul wrote, “I am crucified with Christ”.

And whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it- to lose life is to give up one’s own interests in favour of Christ’s. Note it must be “for my sake”, not with the thought of gaining merit, and certainly not as a form of penance, that neglecting of the body which is condemned in Colossians 2:23, and which in fact is satisfying to the flesh, as that passage tells us.

At the Judgement Seat of Christ a life lived for Christ will be “found” in the form of reward, and at Christ’s appearing it will be “found” in the form of glory for the One who made it possible, and for the enjoyment of life in the kingdom. Compare 1 Peter 1:7, “found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ”. Then, “Whom having not seen (in contrast to His visible presence when He comes to earth), ye love”. Love to Christ will displace love for self.

Matthew 16:26
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Such an one will ‘find’ nothing at the end of a life seeking gain for himself. See Philippians 3:7, where Paul writes, “What things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ”. He lost his life by casting off what was gratifying to self, and devoted himself to that which was “for Christ”.

Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?- as a man looks back over a wasted life, (even if he has gained the whole world), he realises that all he has accumulated is not enough to buy back lost opportunities. Remember the words of Ephesians 5:16, “redeeming the time, for the days are evil”. We should take the hours of the day to the marketplace and sell to the highest bidder, (who will always be God), thus putting a high value on them, for days spent as the world spends them are evil and worthless.

Matthew 16:27
For the Son of Man shall come- here the Lord looks on to the day when He does come to reign, and when His followers shall be with Him, and when He shall be glorified in His saints, 2 Thessalonians 1:10. The degree He is glorified then will be the degree we have denied ourselves in favour of His interests now.

In the glory of his Father with his angels- only those things which glorify Christ can be associated with the glory of His Father, and be on display in that day. Other things will have been burnt up. His angels excel in strength and fly swiftly to do heaven’s bidding, and this zeal should mark the believer.

And then shall he reward every man according to his works- reward means recompense. The self-denial has meant hardship, and in the day of glory this will be compensated. Note that denying self is not a negative thing, for it produces works, and reward.

Matthew 16:28
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom- a reference to the vision seen on the holy mount, which confirmed the Old Testament prophecies, 2 Peter 1:16. Note that the preview of the kingdom is given after the revelation about the church, to assure us that the church does not replace the kingdom. The “some” were Peter, James and John.

Luke 23:27
And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him.

And there followed him a great company of people- no doubt these were pilgrims from all over the world who had come to Jerusalem for the Passover, and had perhaps heard of Him from those who had met Christ during His ministry. The priests must have looked on fearfully, for they had told Judas that they did not want to arrest and condemn Him on a feast day, “lest there be an uproar among the people”, Matthew 26:5.

And of women, which also bewailed and lamented him- these are not His female followers, in view of what the Lord said to them in the next verses. Perhaps these are the same as those who provided the stupifying drink which Christ will soon refuse. There is only human sympathy and sentiment, and they are not weeping for the right reason. They would probably have wept like this for any man led out to be crucified.

Luke 23:28
But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.

But Jesus turning unto them said- by turning round to face them as they followed, the Lord was making Golgotha the backdrop for His remarks. When the city of Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70, the hills around were covered in crosses, as many thousands of Jews were crucified by the Romans. He will speak of this in His next remarks, as He prophesies what will happen to the nation, not only in AD 70, but also during the Great Tribulation period.

Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children- the expression “daughters of Jerusalem” seems to mark them out as a well-known body of women, who sought to relieve the sufferings of those crucified.

The crowds had said, “His blood be on us, and on our children”, and in view of this they might well weep for themselves and their children. He was refusing mere sentimental weeping, but He appreciates the weeping of the repentant, as the woman of Luke 7:37,38,47 found.

Luke 23:29
For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.

For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say- here is a further prophecy to the one recorded in Matthew 24. Despite facing the utmost trial, the Lord takes time to warn these women of the consequences of the cry the crowds had made. He thought not on His own things, but on the things of others, Philippians 2:4,5.

Blessed are the barren- to rejoice that a woman was barren was totally contrary to Old Testament feeling. In those times it was a cause of rejoicing if a woman was expecting a child, for it was the sign of God’s blessing. But such is the suffering that the Lord foresees for His nation, that He predicts they will regret having children. Moses had warned of these times too, for if the people disobeyed God’s statutes, (and they were doing this by rejecting the Prophet He had sent to them, Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Acts 3:22-26), then “Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body”, and, “Thou shalt beget sons and daughters, but thou shalt not enjoy them; for they shall go into captivity”, Deuteronomy 28:18,41.

And the wombs that never bare- not only would barren women be blessed, those who were not barren but who had not borne children would be too.

And the paps which never gave suck- even those who had lost their child at birth, and who had never had the satisfaction of feeding it, would count themselves happy. So the soreness of the tribulation they would experience would completely over-ride the maternal instincts of these women. Those who mourned because of barrenness, or that they had not conceived, or had lost their babies, would be counted as those who should rejoice. For those who did have children would regret it. We can see why the Lord told them to weep for themselves, in anticipation of the real sorrows that would be theirs for rejecting Him. And we can see why He exhorted them to not weep for Him, because their weeping was unreal and uninformed; they thought He was just another criminal being led out to die, and they wanted to relieve His sufferings for that reason alone. He is not forbidding genuine sorrow for His sufferings, but rejects mere sentimentality. Many today are affected by the sufferings of Christ, and much music has been composed to try to express that sorrow, but all sorrow that is purely superficial is of no avail.

Luke 23:30
Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.

Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us- notice the word “begin”, for what is spoken of here would come to pass at the siege and destruction of Jerusalem, but would be repeated in greater intensity during the Great Tribulation, in which unparalleled sufferings would be endured, for we read, “And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every freeman, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; and said to the mountains and rocks, ‘Fall on us, and hide us from the face of Him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: for the great day of His wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?'” Revelation 6:15-17. To have a mountain fall upon you would be a terrifying thing, so the sufferings here foretold must be even more severe than that.

When speaking of these days, the Lord said, “But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days”, Matthew 24:17. So there is a blessing on childlessness, and a woe on those with child.

Luke 23:31
For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?

For if they do these things in a green tree- the psalmist foretold that the Lord Jesus would be “like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season: His leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper”, Psalm 1:3. And so it was. Whether the season was unfavourable or favourable, the Lord Jesus bore the appropriate fruit to God’s glory. No matter how dry the ground was, (and He was “a root out of a dry ground”, Isaiah 53:2), He flourished, for as the psalmist said elsewhere, “all my springs are in thee”, Psalm 87:7, and this was true of Christ too. But men did not appreciate the fruit He bore, and reckoned that it was evil and harmful, so they crucified Him.

What shall be done in the dry? Notice the “for” at the beginning of the verse, telling us that this is an extension of the warning in verse 30 about coming judgement for the nation, as represented by “the daughters of Jerusalem”. So the dry tree is the nation of Israel, whose springs were not in God, but in dry ritual and lifeless tradition. They were like the fig tree that the Lord had cursed, which was “dried up from the roots”, Mark 11:20. If the Romans crucified Christ, would they not do the same to Jews in AD 70? And so it came to pass, for there is a close connection between what they did to Christ by handing Him over the Romans, and what the Romans did, when God handed them over to them.