Jesus went through six trials before His execution. There were six parts to Jesus’ trial, three stages in a religious court and three stages before a Roman court. On the night of His arrest, Jesus was brought before Annas, Caiaphas, and the Sanhedrin, a group of religious leaders.
In these trials He was charged with blasphemy, claiming to be the Son of God. He was imprisoned at Caiaphas’ palace. The Jewish High Priest and the Jewish High Court, the Sanhedrin, effectively asked Jesus two questions.
‘Are you the Messiah? and Are you the Son of God?’ To both of these, Jesus answered, ‘I AM’. This was enough to condemn Jesus for blaspheming God by claiming to be God. The Jews understood perfectly well what was alluded to by the term ‘I AM’ used by Jesus, Leviticus 24:16 / John 5:18.
Matthew, Mark and Luke don’t mention the preliminary hearing, only John. Jesus was first taken before the powerful Annas, the ex-high priest and the power behind the current one, these verses remind us of the important prophecy made by the current high priest, John 11:49-51, which he had said without realising the truth behind his statement. Perhaps he’s also underlining the fact that with two such scoundrels involved, Jesus had no hope of a fair trial.
Jesus was on trial by the Jews. So, Jesus was first taken before the powerful Annas, the ex-high priest and the power behind the current one, John 18:12-13. John 18:14, reminds us of the important prophecy made by the current high priest, John 11:49-51, which he had said without realising the truth behind his statement. Perhaps he is also underlining the fact that with two such scoundrels involved, Jesus had no hope of a fair trial.
While Jesus is on trial, we find Peter is about to deny Jesus three times just as Jesus said he would, Matthew 26:33-35 / Mark 14:29-31 / John 13:37-38.
In John 18:15-18 we read that Peter, and it appears John follow the group including the Lord to the house of the high priest, it’s most likely that Annas and Caiaphas lived at the same address. John is known at the gate and allowed into the courtyard and seeks permission for Peter to come in also.
When we compare this with Matthew 26:57-58, and with John 18:13 / John 18:15 / John 18:24, it suggests that the same court or courtyard is in view in each case.
It’s probable that Annas lived in a part of the official palace of his son in law. The sending of Jesus to Caiaphas would be merely sending him across the courtyard.
As Peter is denying the Lord, the Lord is making his first defence, He’s being questioned by the high priest, either Annas or Caiaphas, about His teaching and His apostles, John 18:19.
It may have been that the authorities wanted the apostles as well to make sure that this sect was completely crushed, this would further explain Peter’s denials.
His wasn’t a judicial trial, but rather a preliminary investigation, it would be in character for Annas to try to pin something on Jesus. Jesus is questioned ‘about His disciples and His teaching’, surely the questioner was well informed about both!
Jesus’ answer shows that the high priest’s questions were evilly motivated, John 18:20. What Jesus means is that He didn’t have two kinds of teaching, a harmless one for the general public and a very different one for the secret revolutionaries. The essence of His teaching was public property, John 18:21.
Jesus defends Himself by explaining the openness of all His actions, never did He hide behind someone or conspire in a closed room, His entire statement had been in the open, for all to hear, John 18:21. Because of this answer, one of the officials struck Jesus, who then seeks the reason why He was struck, John 18:22.
Annas was acting illegally because Jewish law required that evidence be heard from witnesses and that their testimony is shown to be in agreement, then a prisoner might be cross-examined.
The official who slapped Jesus was a member of the temple guard. Jesus is saying, ‘if I have said anything wrong, let it be revealed by proper legal procedures. If not, why hit me?’ John 18:23.
Notice that Jesus was bound, John 18:24, Jewish custom was for a prisoner’s hands to be tied behind His back, after being bound Jesus is sent by Annas to Caiaphas as, the official high priest, John 18:24. Evidently, the preliminary hearing before Annas has allowed the Sanhedrin time to assemble.
This was for the official ‘trial’ narrated by the Gospels, Matthew 26:57-67 / Mark 14:53-65. If Annas and Caiaphas lived in the same palace, and the Sanhedrin met there for this ‘trial’, then John 18:24, would merely involve Jesus being led across a courtyard. Jesus is sent to Caiaphas’s quarters where the entire council of the Sanhedrin had gathered to seek cause to have Jesus put to death.
Matthew, Mark and Luke record the account of Jesus before the Sanhedrin, but John doesn’t.
Though it was very late at night, Jesus was brought before the Jewish supreme court and tried, Mark 14:53 / Matthew 26:57. Peter was following Jesus from a safe distance, he went into the courtyard and sat down beside some guards next to a fire, to see what was going to happen, Matthew 26:58 / Mark 14:54.
The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for any excuse to put Jesus to death, Matthew 26:59 / Mark 14:55. They bribed false witnesses who told contradictory stories about Him, Matthew 26:60 / Mark 14:56.
For a time, it appeared that the court would be unable to find consistent testimony by which to convict Jesus. Another group stood and gave false testimony, Mark 14:57, they accused Jesus of plotting to destroy the temple and in three days He would build another one, Matthew 26:61 / Mark 14:58.
Their testimony was untruthful because Jesus actually said, ‘You’ destroy this temple, referring to His body, and in three days I will raise it up, that is, rise from the dead, John 2:19.
In context, Jesus’ words were a prediction that the religious leaders would take His life and that He would rise from the dead three days later. There was no suggestion whatever of such a thing as the false witnesses alleged.
Even such a misrepresentative and malicious garbling of Jesus’ words, however, was useless to the chief priests, because there was no coherent account of such an alleged statement. One said one thing, and another declared something else, Mark 14:59.
All night long, the preliminary investigation had gone forward, and nothing had come of it. In desperation, Caiaphas, who was beginning to find the judge’s bench a very uncomfortable place, forsook the judicial status, usurped the role of a prosecutor, placed Jesus under oath, and demanded an answer, Mark 14:60, but he would ask a question first. Jesus remained silent, Matthew 26:63 / Mark 14:61.
Finally, the high priest asked Him if He were the Christ, Matthew 26:63 / Mark 14:61. When Jesus said, ‘I AM,’ they used this statement as evidence of blasphemy and convicted Him, Mark 14:61. Christ’s, ‘I AM’ claim here speaks of His Deity, John 6:35 / John 8:12 / John 8:58 / John 10:9 / John 10:11 / John 11:25 / John 14:6 / John 15:1.
Each of His ‘I AM’ claims are claims that He is God, EGO EIMI, is the Greek equivalent of YHWH, Exodus 3:13-14 / John 5:18. He is Eternal, Psalm 135:13, and self-existent, Psalm 88:6-7. The Jews certainly understood that Jesus was claiming to be God, John 8:57-59.
I used to think that sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven refers to the final judgment when all men shall stand before the throne of God for sentencing, Matthew 26:64 / Mark 14:62. However, notice it says, ‘He’s sitting at the right hand.’ It doesn’t say He’s standing or He’s riding a horse, it says, He’s sitting.
I think what Jesus is saying there is, ‘Caiaphas, this day you are my judge, you and your people are judging me, but the day is coming and you’re going to see it when I’m sitting at the right hand of God and I’m sending my judgement to you.’ And Caiaphas’ generation saw that prophecy come true.
In this text, Jesus is bringing the news of the passing of one era and the establishment of another in which the glory of God isn’t going to be in the temple made by hands anymore.
The high priest had heard enough, he tore his clothes in anger and didn’t need any more witnesses and accused Him of blasphemy, Matthew 26:65-66 / Mark 14:63-64.
They spat on Jesus, they blindfold him, punch Him, and mock Him and beat Him up, Matthew 26:67-68 / Mark 14:65 / Luke 22:63-65. There were six mockeries of Jesus in all, all of which were designed to totally humiliate Christ.
We would expect this kind of behaviour from the Romans but since this took place in the court of the high priests of Israel, this tells us just how far from God they had come. The religious leaders allowed this to happen right in front of their very eyes.
This was the second of Jesus’ six trials, the first having been the arraignment before Annas, perhaps in the same palace where apartments for both Annas and Caiaphas were located around the courtyard.
The meeting of the Sanhedrin was probably not at full strength, its more noble members, such as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, having already withdrawn. It may well be doubted that even a quorum was present, but, on the other hand, it may be assumed that every effort was made to attain one.
Jesus went through six trials before His execution. There were six parts to Jesus’ trial, three stages in a religious court and three stages before a Roman court. On the night of His arrest, Jesus was brought before Annas, Caiaphas, and the Sanhedrin, a group of religious leaders.
In these trials He was charged with blasphemy, claiming to be the Son of God. He was imprisoned at Caiaphas’ palace. The Jewish High Priest and the Jewish High Court, the Sanhedrin, effectively asked Jesus two questions, ‘Are you the Messiah? and Are you the Son of God?’ To both of these, Jesus answered, ‘I AM.’ This was enough to condemn Jesus for blaspheming God by claiming to be God, John 8:57-59.
1. No formal change had been made against Him.
2. The arrest was made by the men who would be His judges. The High Priests and the Sanhedrin were also the ones who accused Him which violating the Law which said that the Council was not permitted to lay charges.
3. The trial was held, at night. Forbidden by the Law, because it was believed that the darkness might bind the mind of the accused a cause him to testify against himself.
4. His questioning by the High Priest was alone forbidden by the Law. The Judges were not allowed to question the accused, because he might be led into providing evidence against himself.
5. The law required the High Priest to ‘search, enquire and ask diligently’, if the charge against the accused was true, Deuteronomy 13:14.
6. A trial could not be held before sunrise. So that potential witnesses for the defence could be present.
7. A guilty verdict could not be pronounced on the same day as the trial. A night must intervene between trial and sentence so that the Judges could meditate on the verdict.
8. After the verdict, a period of nine hours must be allowed for potential objections to be made to the verdict.
9. The verdict must be pronounced in the Chamber of Stones, the room in the Temple, where the Sanhedrin held its Meetings, before being made public.
10. The death sentence was invalid because it was not the unanimous verdict of the full Council. Joseph of Arimathea was not present, Luke 23:50-51.
11. The testimony of the witnesses, procured by the Priests, on which the ‘Guilty’ verdict was based, was false. They claimed that Jesus said, ‘I will destroy this Temple’.
12. The Law forbade the holding of a trial on a Friday. The trial was illegal because it was held on a day that was followed by an Annual Sabbath, the Passover, John 18:28.
Jesus is now on trial before Pilate, John doesn’t mention Jesus being sent to Herod Antipas, Luke 23:6-12, or the message received by Pilate from his wife, Matthew 27:19. Pilate is abruptly introduced into the narrative, without any personal details, which suggests that he was well-known to John’s readers.
Note the governor’s movement in and out of the Praetorium.
1. Outside, John 18:28-32.
2. Inside, John 18:33-37.
3. Outside, John 18:38-40.
4. Inside, John 19:1-3.
5. Outside, John 19:4-7.
6. Inside, John 19:8-11.
7. Outside, John 19:12-16.
‘The Praetorium’ was the Roman governor’s official residence when in Jerusalem which could be one of two locations.
1. The palace of Herod on the western side of the city or
2. The castle of Antonia, which housed the Roman garrison and overlooked the temple.
If the ‘luthostratos’ pavement, John 19:13, in the church of the Flagellation is authentic, it would be the latter.
Notice ‘it was early morning’, John 18:28, technically the fourth watch, 3 a.m. to 6 a.m., Mark 13:35. John’s account makes it clear that the Jewish authorities were in a great hurry which tells us that Jesus was never legally tried before the Jewish authorities.
The whole proceedings being carried through with indecent haste in order that the execution might be over, and the body removed, John 19:31, before the beginning of the Passover day at 6 pm.
Notice the reason the religious rulers didn’t enter Praetorium, ‘to avoid ceremonial uncleanness’ etc., John 18:28. A religious Jew wouldn’t enter the house of a Gentile, Acts 10:38 / Acts 11:3.
The whole assembly, Mark 15:1 / Luke 23:1, that is, all of the accusers who came to the garden, were men with evil on their hearts, men with false accusations with one thing on their mind, to get rid of Jesus once and for all, Luke 23:2 / Matthew 17:27 / Mark 12:17.
Notice also the hypocrisy which shows they were determined to have an innocent man killed, John 18:29-30, they were prepared to lie to achieve their purpose, Luke 23:2. They charged Him with sedition, rebellion and treason, Luke 23:2.
The Jews didn’t have the authority to carry out sentences of capital punishment that were determined by their own courts, capital crimes had to be tried by Roman officials.
They wanted to put Jesus to death in accordance with Leviticus 24:16, which demands death for the blasphemer, but as they were under Roman Law, they couldn’t do it without Pilate’s permission.
Pilate was made procurator in 26 A.D. He established himself in Caesarea, a Roman city on the Mediterranean coast. He was extremely harsh in his day-to-day dealings, on one occasion he set up Roman standards in the temple causing a riot, within 6 days they were removed, perhaps this is why he seems now to be more tolerant of Jewish ways.
He had the power of life and death over his subjects, he had about 120 cavalries and over 5000 infantries, yet he himself was still subject to Caesar.
Since Jesus was sinless, the only option they had was to make up a bunch of lies about Him to get Him charged, Luke 23:2. The Jews accused Him of many things, Mark 15:3, Jesus’ teaching did stir up the people, Luke 23:5, but the people who were stirred up weren’t the common people, it was the religious leaders, Mark 7:1-9.
Despite Pilate asking Jesus about the allegations, Jesus remained silent, which amazed Pilate, Matthew 27:11-14 / Mark 15:4-5.
It was no longer the Israel of God, but their nation. Pilate asked Jesus if He was the king of the Jews, and Jesus replied, you have said so, Mark 15:2 / Luke 23:3.
Pilate questions Jesus about His claims but under Roman Law, there were no grounds to have Him executed, John 18:31. Pilate was honest enough to declare that he found no basis to charge Jesus, Luke 23:4, this was in accordance with Roman law, Matthew 27:11 / 1 Timothy 8:13.
Pilate wasn’t a Jew and had little understanding or sympathy for Jewish Law. He had the power of life and death over the people, but he would be reluctant to do anything that would disturb the peace, he didn’t want a riot on his hands.
We see in John 18:31-32 that he says, ‘take him yourselves and judge him’ etc., the word, ‘yourselves’ is emphatic, if the prisoner couldn’t be charged with crimes against Roman law, then it wasn’t for Pilate to decide.
Their reply reveals their desire, not that Jesus shall be fairly tried, merely that he be killed, ‘it’s not lawful for us to put any man to death’, John 18:31-32. Jesus had predicted that He would die by crucifixion, John 3:14 / John 12:32 / Matthew 20:19.
If the Jews had executed Him, it would have been by stoning, the Law’s penalty for blasphemy, but He was to be executed by being crucified, a method never used by the Jews.
Most likely the chief priests wanted Jesus to be put to death by the Romans because of the implications for Jesus’ claims to be the Son of God, Galatians 3:13, ‘Curse. Curse. Cursed.’ Deuteronomy 21:23.
Again, we see their hypocrisy, that was the kind of Messiah they wanted, one who would throw off the Roman yoke. They lied about Jesus because they were determined to kill Him, John 11:53. Matthew 27:18 states that Pilate knew they were motivated by ‘envy’.
Notice the words, ‘You, ‘emphasis’, you are the King of the Jews?’, John 18:33. All four Gospels record that this was the charge on which the Sanhedrin asked for Jesus to be condemned, Mark 15:1-2 / Matthew 27:19 / Luke 23:2-3.
Pilate’s question couldn’t be answered by a simple yes or no. In the political sense, as Pilate would use the term, he wasn’t king and in the spiritual sense, as Jesus used the term, He was king.
Pilate must have expected a political revolutionary, a self-styled ‘king’ who posed a threat to the rule of Rome. Jesus was the King of Israel, John 1:49 / John 12:13, but His kingdom was spiritual.
In John 18:35, Pilate is basically saying, ‘I am not a Jew, am I?’ As if to say, ‘I am not interested in your theocratic subtleties.’ The governor is impatient and says, ‘your own nation and the chief priests, the Sanhedrin have handed you over to me, what have you done?’
What had caused the Jews, who might have been expected to support their ‘king’ to demand his death? He must be guilty of some serious crime, what is it? John 18:35.
Jesus admits that He is a king, ‘My Kingdom’, ‘basileia’, means sovereignty, royal power, dominion. Jesus asserts the spiritual nature of His reign, ‘My ‘basileia’ is not of this world, not from the world.’ John 18:36.
It’s not worldly in worldly means, ‘My kingdom doesn’t belong to this world. If it did, my followers would be fighting to save me from arrest by the Jews’.
In the garden, He had forbidden His followers to fight, even to save Him, John 18:10-11 / Matthew 26:51-52 / Matthew 5:43-48 / Romans 12:17-21 / Ephesians 6:10-17.
In John 18:37-38, we find an ironic question, ‘You are a king then. You!’ Obviously, Jesus wasn’t a leader of the sedition, just as obviously, He claimed to be King of the Jews, what did he mean?
Jesus’ answer is ‘you say it’ ‘you speak correctly’ for I am a King, certainly I am the King!’ ‘This is why I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the Truth, ‘who is a friend of the truth, who belongs to the truth, hears and listens to my voice.’
The word, ‘truth’, ‘alethea,’ means reality, that which is genuine as opposed to that which is false, John 14:6. We don’t know what Pilate’s attitude was, John merely records the fact.
We do know that the governor was convinced that Jesus was no threat to the state, he said, ‘I find no crime in him,’ John 18:38. He was to say this, three times, John 19:4 / John 19:6.
If the governor’s sole consideration had been justice that would have been the end of the matter, but he was influenced by considerations of political expediency and personal safety. One who is ‘of the truth,’ John 18:37, will put it before every other consideration, Proverbs 23:23.
Pilate wasn’t ‘of the truth’, Luke 8:15. He reappears before what was now a mob and offers Jesus as the one to be set free as was the tradition at that time of the year.
The mob rejected Jesus in favour of Barabbas a criminal. Matthew 27:19-21 tells us of the message from Pilate’s wife, ‘have nothing to do with that righteous man.’
Because Jesus was Galilean and Galilee wasn’t Pilate’s jurisdiction, he sends Jesus off to Herod, Luke 23:6-7.
Luke is the only writer who records Jesus before Herod, Luke 23:6-12. Herod Antipas was the ruler of Galilee and Perea, which was where most of Jesus’ ministry took place. This is where we know that earlier the Pharisees did lie about Herod wanting to kill Jesus, Luke 13:31, because we see that Herod had an opportunity to do so, but didn’t, because he will send Jesus back to Pilate, Luke 23:11.
Herod only wanted to see Jesus because he’s heard of the many miracles that Jesus had performed, Luke 23:8. I’s clear he thought of Jesus as some kind of showman or magician who was here to entertain the masses, Acts 4:26-27. Jesus didn’t answer Herod because He didn’t accept his authority, Herod had no place of authority, Luke 23:9.
Probably because the chief priests were vehemently accusing him, Luke 23:11, Herod and his soldiers ridiculed and mocked Jesus, then even dressed Him in an elegant robe’, Luke 23:11.
We also see the tremendous self-control of Jesus, He knew exactly what was happening and what would eventually happen, John 10:17-18. Notice that Pilate and Herod became friends, Luke 23:12.
The hatred may have started between Pilate and Herod when Pilate had previously put down a probable insurrection in Galilee that was under Herod’s jurisdiction, Luke 13:1-2. Whatever the reason was for their hatred of each other seems to be laid to rest at this point.
Pilate knew that releasing Jesus would not please the crowd. So, he tried to please the mob with a series of four cowardly compromises. Giving them what they wanted, without this whole fiasco turning into a gross miscarriage of justice.
It was a custom of the Roman governor to release someone during the Passover feast, Matthew 27:15 / Mark 15:6. This was done in order to appease the most radical Jews of the Roman Empire who were in Jerusalem at this time.
The nationalistic emotions of the multitudes, therefore, were running high. As governor of the region, Pilate had to make compromises with the intense Jewish multitudes in order to prevent riots in the city.
He decided to compare Jesus with a gangster, Matthew 27:17. The mob rejected Jesus in favour of Barabbas a criminal. He decides he’ll have Jesus flogged within an inch of his death and that’ll come close to the real thing and satisfy the mob, Mark 15:15.
No doubt he shows them the wounds that have been inflicted in the hope that they would now be satisfied, but alas the appearance of Jesus only makes the mob rowdier and bloodthirsty. You never get rid of a pack of wolves by showing them blood!
When Jesus comes out, Pilate shows Him to the crowd, ‘here is your man!’, John 19:5, this was an attempt to gain sympathy for Jesus as if to say, ‘look at this poor fellow!’
How could they accuse such a pitiable object of treason? It’s a weak attempt to free Jesus. The governor is almost begging the Jews to show pity for the prisoner.
It ought to be noted that the call ‘crucify, crucify’ came not from the mob, but specifically from the religious authorities. The response of the chief priests and officers is simply, ‘crucify! Crucify!’
The word ‘him’ isn’t in the text. This has been called ‘an ominous chant, a monotonous refrain, ‘Crucify! Crucify! Crucify! Crucify!’ manipulated by their rulers, the mob shouted the same demand, Matthew 27:20-23 / John 19:6.
Believing that the mob wouldn’t want a violent thug released to them. It didn’t work. The mob chose Barabbas, Matthew 27:20 / Mark 15:11 / Luke 23:19 / John 18:40.
From this Mark’s account, we learn that Barabbas was a terrorist against the Roman government, Mark 15:7. He was possibly a member of the Zealot group of Jews whose ambition was to free Palestine from Roman occupation. On this occasion and others, it seems that Pilate was trying to find some reason to release Jesus.
With great pomp and ceremony, Pilate had a bowl of water brought to him and washed his hands, Matthew 27:24 / Deuteronomy 21:6-9, he tells the mob ‘I am innocent of the blood of this good man, Matthew 27:24. The responsibility is yours!’ And they said, that fine with us, ‘His blood is on us and on our children!’ Matthew 27:24-25 / Acts 5:24.
Pilate made several attempts to release Him, Mark 15:8-11. He was eager to appease the Jews, just like many politicians do today, however, he was unable to persuade them that Jesus should be released.
The crowd were eager to have Jesus crucified, John 18:40. Though he didn’t believe Jesus was guilty, he ended up sentencing Him to death because he feared the start of a riot.
Pilate knows that the Jews aren’t allowed to crucify someone and the offer to them here isn’t genuine, but an attempt to get the crowd to move away. He is afraid of them and wants this problem to go away as soon as possible.
The Jews again refer to the Law, specifically Leviticus 24:16, and declare the need for the disposal of the ‘guilty one’. Pilate knows that it’s the policy of Rome to allow the natives religious freedom, as long as they worship the Caesar claiming deity as well. The Jews are aware of this policy and hope to use it to persuade the reluctant Pilate.
They have tried to have Jesus condemned for sedition, Luke 23:2, now, in John 19:7, they are forced to reveal the real charge against him, ‘He ought to die because he made himself the Son of God’.
The charge was blasphemy, and their ‘Law’ of Moses called for the death penalty, Leviticus 24:16. It was on this charge that the Sanhedrin had condemned Jesus to death, Mark 14:61-64 / Matthew 27:23-66, but they don’t reveal this until they are forced to do so. If Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God was false, then the Sanhedrin was right in condemning Him to death for blasphemy.
The governor was already a frightened man, John 19:8, two things would have made him afraid,
1. His wife’s message, Matthew 27:19.
2. The words and demeanour of Jesus.
And so, Pilate takes Jesus into the Praetorium, and asked, ‘where are you from?’, ‘to what world do you belong?’ John 19:9. He seems to get into a rage, and he can’t fathom what Jesus is all about. He arrogantly brags about his power, trying to get a response out of Jesus, even offering his freedom for the correct answers.
Notice that Jesus didn’t answer, John 19:9, perhaps because worldly Pilate had already been told, and could not grasp the answer, John 18:37-38. Perhaps also because a man who would scourge a prisoner, he had declared innocent did not deserve a reply.
To the governor, a kingdom based entirely on ‘truth’ was incomprehensible, for Jesus to have said that He was the Son of God who had come from heaven would have been more so.
Refusing to answer could be regarded as ‘contempt of court’, Pilate, as Tiberius’ representative, had the power of life and death over a prisoner, John 19:10. He says, ‘do you not know that I have power ‘exousia’ to release you, and power ‘exousia’ to crucify you?’ The governor’s ‘exousia’ was delegated authority, derived from Caesar.
Calmly Jesus tells Pilate of the origin of His power, His authority is ‘given from above’, from God, John 19:11 / Romans 13:1. God had trusted Him with the power He has, and He is answerable to God for the way He uses that power. Jesus reassures Pilate that he is not totally to blame for putting the Son of God to death as he does so out of ignorance of the truth.
Caiaphas, acting officially for the Sanhedrin, had delivered Jesus to Pilate, he had ‘the greater sin,’ John 19:11. The deeper guilt lies with the man who ‘handed me over to you’.
This is Jesus’ final statement to Pilate and in it, He affirms God’s supremacy, He is in control of human affairs and also man’s accountability, the Jewish rulers and the Roman governors are answerable to God.
John tells us that Pilate knew that Jesus was no leader of the sedition against Rome, he was also frightened, so he ‘sought’, notice again the tense, ‘kept on seeking’, to free Him, John 19:12. John doesn’t say how he did so, but he records that the governor finally gave up the efforts because of fear, John 19:12.
The chief priests however had the Law, they ought to have recognised the Messiah, but instead, they are about to force His execution.
This short speech of Jesus impresses Pilate, who recognises some characteristics that he doesn’t quite understand so, he tries again to persuade the Jews to allow him to allow Jesus to go free. The Jews shouted, ‘If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friends’, John 19:12, this was political blackmail, and it ended the efforts to release Jesus.
The Jews were saying, ‘free this man and we will accuse you to the Emperor. The charge against you will be high treason, that you released a man who claimed to be King of the Jews’.
Tiberius was a very suspicious ruler, even a hint of disloyalty would be disastrous for a Roman official. Pilate knew that a charge of high treason could cost him position, liberty and life and so, this frightened him and then he decided to put personal safety before justice, to condemn an innocent man to death.
The Jew’s new weapon against Jesus is all-powerful against Pilate, Jesus claims to be the king thus, He opposes Caesar who is the king of all the vast Roman domains.
This was the ultimate hypocrisy as all present knew that the Jews didn’t consider Caesar their king and held no allegiance to him. This very good argument must have again caused a troubled Pilate to slip into a rage, but they now had him in a corner.
Pilate makes one last attempt to change the mob’s mind, they will not hear of it, they want Jesus dead. John 19:13, could imply that Pilate had Jesus sit on the judgement seat, the Greek could have either meaning.
The Jew’s threat has decided Pilate and at once he prepares to pass sentence, he ‘brought Jesus out’, that is out of the Praetorium and ‘sat down on the judgment seat’, Acts 18:12 / Acts 18:16-17, this was a raised platform on which roman judge sat to pronounce sentence.
Notice that Procula, that is, Pilate’s wife, urged him to release Jesus because she had a dream about Jesus being a just man. Matthew 27:19-21, tells us of the message from Pilate’s wife, ‘have nothing to do with that righteous man.’
‘The pavement’, ‘luthostratos’, was stone-paved, Josephus states that Temple Mount was covered with a mosaic pavement. Hebrew ‘Gabbatha’, means raised place, elevation. John 19:14 seems to make this quite possible, Pilate showing the Jews a weak, blood-covered man not able even to stand and needing the seat more than Pilate.
The Day of Preparation was the day before Passover, John 19:14, which began at the next sunset. John mentions it was ‘about the sixth hour’, scholars and commentators are divided about whether John uses Jewish or Roman time. Jewish time is 12 noon, but Roman time is 6 a.m.
John is in Asia Minor, writing toward the end of the first century when Jerusalem has been destroyed and the Jewish state ceased to exist. It would be natural for him to give the time according to Roman reckoning. In Mark 15:25, Mark would use Jewish reckoning, at 6 a.m. the trial was in progress, at 9 a.m. Jesus was crucified.
When Pilate says, ‘Behold your King!’, John 19:14, this was a joke in bad taste at the expense of the Jews. ‘They yelled, ‘off with him! Off with him! Crucify Him!’ John 19:15. Pilate replied, ‘the King of you shall I crucify?’ John 19:15.
The chief priests who were the religious leaders and teachers of the nation replied, ‘we have no king but Caesar,’ John 19:15. In fact, they claimed that as Israel was God’s special nation, God was their only King, and they hated Caesar and bitterly resented the Roman occupation.
With the use of the argument by the mob, in favour of Caesar, Pilate knows that he has lost to satisfy them, and so, he hands Jesus over to be crucified, John 19:16.
This declaration was ‘the crowning apostasy of Judaism’ and ‘the utterance of a nation turned traitor to its noblest traditions’. Notice that John doesn’t record Pilate’s ‘hand washing’, Matthew 27:24-26.
As Barnabas is released, Roman soldiers flogged Jesus, mocked Him, and led Him out to be crucified, Mark 15:12-15. Flogging was the governor’s attempt to convince the Jews that Jesus had suffered enough and should be released. Luke 23:16.
The soldiers then led Jesus out to be crucified outside of the city, Numbers 15:35 / 1 Kings 21:13 / Acts 7:58 / Hebrews 13:11-12, while a mournful multitude of faithful disciples followed, Luke 23:27-31.
Pilate had Jesus flogged, John 19:1. Jesus suffered intensely in His last few hours. After being up all night, subjected to the stress of six different trials, if we compare the accounts in Matthew, Luke and John, also, He was scourged, Mark 15:15.
Flogging was usually administered to one who was about to be crucified, Antiochus Epiphanies used it to force Jews to eat swine’s flesh, 2 Maccabees 6:30 / 2 Maccabees 7:1. The flagellum was similar to the ‘cat o’ nine tails’, a handle with leather thongs, tipped with bone or metal.
The prisoner was stripped to the waist and then bound in a stooping position to post. The blows were applied to the back and loins, sometimes even, to the face and the bowels. So, hideous was the punishment that the victim usually fainted and not rarely died under it.
Eusebius describes the death of Christian martyrs at Smyrna about 155 A.D., ‘so torn with scourges that their veins were laid bare, and the inner muscles and sinews, and even the bowels, were exposed’. Josephus tells of a man who was ‘flogged to the bone’ before a Roman governor.
Flogging was accomplished by tying bits of bone, metal and glass to a whip and then striking the victim’s back. This procedure produced excruciating pain, much loss of blood and sometimes even death. The victim’s back became a bloody mass.
Remember the Jews practised flogging, which consisted of 39 lashes, but here The Romans had no restrictions on how many lashes they delivered on the victim, they would carry on until the one doing the lashing would tire.
Once again, all four Gospels mention the flogging but say absolutely nothing about it, there is no attempt to play upon the reader’s emotions. Also, at that age, people were perfectly familiar with it and needed no explanations.
After flogging Him, they took thorns, wove them into a crown, put it on Jesus’ head, and began to beat on it, causing intense pain. They put a scarlet robe on Him, Matthew 27:28, Mark’s account calls it purple, only to later rip it off, undoubtedly tearing open the blood-dried wounds on His back in the process. Then came the crucifixion.
Imagine striking the very One who created the universe! Imagine striking the very One who created them! Colossians 1:16.
It was often a prelude to crucifixion, but in this case, it wasn’t as Pilate later tries to have Jesus released and this flogging was an attempt to satisfy the Jews without killing Jesus.
The soldiers went further than just flogging and placed a crown of thorns upon His head, Matthew 27:20 / John 19:2. This was a mock Coronation for the one claiming to be the king of the Jews and it was followed by mock worshipping of Him.
There are two thoughts concerning, ‘a crown of thorns.’
1. That it was an instrument of torture, long sharp spikes turned inward, or
2. That it was a radiant crown, with the spikes turned outward, similar in appearance to a crown worn by an emperor.
There is a shrub in Palestine called ‘spina Christi’ or ‘palimus shrub’ which has long, sharp spikes, and leaves similar to the ivy used for emperors or general’s crowns, this is the traditional source of the crown of thorns.
John records ‘a purple robe’, John 19:2, whilst Mathew records a ‘scarlet’ robe, Matthew 27:28 / Mark 15:20. Purple, with the ancients, was a vague term for bright, rich colour, and would be used of crimson as well as violet.
It was probably the cloak of a Roman soldier, i.e., an officer. The ‘robe’, ‘himatismos’, is used generally of costly or stately raiment, the apparel of kings, of officials etc., Luke 7:25 / Matthew 27:28 / Matthew 27:31.
Matthew says that they ‘put a reed in his hand’, Matthew 27:29, and note the tense, ‘they kept coming up to Him, kept striking Him,’ John 19:3, it was repeated action, Matthew 27:27-30 tells us ‘the whole battalion’ was involved. The picture is of a soldier after soldier coming up to Jesus, kneeling before Him, slapping Him, spitting on Him and shouting,
‘Hail king of the Jews!’ Matthew 27:20. In John 19:4 we see Pilate for the second time telling the people that he can find no charge with which to charge Jesus.
He ought to have released Jesus at this point, if the prisoner’s guilt or innocence had been the sole consideration, Jesus would have been set free before this, but he is afraid of possible political repercussions.
The trials before the Roman authorities started with Pilate, John 18:23, after Jesus was beaten. The charges brought against Him were very different from the charges in His religious trials. He was charged with inciting people to riot, forbidding the people to pay their taxes, and claiming to be King.
Pilate found no reason to kill Jesus, so he sent Him to Herod, Luke 23:7. Herod had Jesus ridiculed, but wanting to avoid the political liability, so he sent Jesus back to Pilate, Luke 23:11-12.
This was the last trial as Pilate tried to appease the animosity of the Jews by having Jesus scourged. The Roman scourge is a terrible whipping of 39 lashes.
In a final effort to have Jesus released, Pilate offered the prisoner Barabbas to be crucified and Jesus released, but to no avail. The crowds called for Barabbas to be released and Jesus to be crucified. Pilate granted their demand and surrendered Jesus to their will, Luke 23:25.
The trials of Jesus represent the ultimate mockery of justice. Jesus, the most innocent man in the history of the world, was found guilty of crimes and sentenced to death by crucifixion.
Crucifixion is an ancient method of execution, in which the victim was tied or nailed to a large wooden cross and left to hang there until death.
It was never performed for ritual or symbolic reasons, usually, its purpose was only to provide a particularly painful, gruesome, and public death, using whatever means were most expedient for that goal.
The history of crucifixion can be traced back to the ancient Persians and there’s evidence to support the Greeks practising this form of torture. As always, the Romans adopted the custom from Carthage and used it for slaves, rebels, and anyone who were their enemies, along with criminals.
While most Roman citizens were exempt from crucifixion, if you were a Roman and found guilty of treason, then you could face crucifixion. Crucifixion was considered a humiliating way to die.
The prisoner usually had to carry the horizontal beam, patibulum, to the place of execution, not necessarily the whole cross.
Crucifixion was an art form for the Romans who had specially trained men to carry out the sentence, there would usually be a commanding centurion and four soldiers.
When it was done in an established place of execution, the vertical beam, stipes. was sometimes permanently embedded in the ground.
The horizontal beam of the cross, transom, could be fixed at the very top of the vertical piece, the upright, to form a ‘T’ called a tau cross. The horizontal beam could also be affixed at some distance below the top, often in a mortise, to form a ‘t-shape’ called a Latin cross.
Alternatively, the cross could consist of two diagonal beams to form an ‘X’. A single, vertical wooden stake with no transom at all has also been cited by some.
The ‘nails’ were tapered iron spikes approximately 5 to 7-inch-long with a square shaft 3/8 inch across. The victim was probably affixed to the cross by ropes, nails, or some combination of the two.
In popular depictions of the crucifixion, possibly derived from a literal reading of the description in the Gospel of John, of Jesus’ wounds being ‘in the hands’, the victim is shown supported only by nails driven straight through the feet and the palms of the hands.
However, the flesh of the hands can’t support a person’s body weight, so some other means must have been used to support most of the weight, such as tying the wrists to the cross beam.
Another possibility, that doesn’t require tying, is that the nails were inserted just above the wrist, between the two bones of the forearm. the radius and the ulna.
The nails could also be driven through the wrist, in a space between four carpal bones which is the location shown in the Shroud of Turin.
As some historians have suggested, the Gospel words that are translated as ‘hands,’ may have in fact included everything below the mid-forearm.
Another possibility is that the nails may have been driven in on an angle, entering in the palm in the crease that delineates the bulky region at the base of the thumb, and exiting in the wrist, passing through the carpal tunnel.
The Romans would often display the victims, still on the cross, in rows, there would be row after row of condemned criminals lining the streets of the main entrance to the city, so that everyone entering a new city would know what would happen to them if they didn’t adhere to Roman laws and regulations. It also sent a powerful message to any oncoming enemies of the fate which awaits them.
Crucifixion was a very public affair, criminals, rebels etc needed to be reminded of the terrible consequences of breaking Roman law, fear ruled the day. Unlike what we see in many artists’ impressions of the crucifixion, the victim was usually stripped naked and hung naked.
Historian art has most people who were crucified covered in a loincloth, but this simply isn’t true. Nakedness was often a symbol of spiritual shame and ignominy.
Death could come in hours or days, depending on exact methods, the health of those crucified, and environmental circumstances. It’s widely accepted that the typical cause of death was asphyxiation.
When the whole-body weight was supported by the stretched arms, the victim would have severe difficulty exhaling, due to hyper-expansion of the lungs. The victim would therefore have to draw himself up by his arms or have his feet supported by tying or by a woodblock.
Indeed, Roman executioners were said to break the victim’s legs, after he had hung for some time, in order to hasten his death. Once deprived of support and unable to lift himself, the victim would die within a few minutes.
The Romans often broke the prisoner’s legs to rush the death process, please note the Roman soldiers responsible for carrying out the sentence, were responsible for the victim until they died, in other words,
The Romans weren’t being kind by breaking the victim’s legs, they broke the victim’s legs so that they could get on with their other duties.
Burial afterwards wasn’t usually permitted. According to history, Emperor Constantine abolished crucifixion in the Roman Empire, when Christianity became the state religion.