← Back to sermon library

We can turn to Matthew's gospel, 
Matthew chapter 27, moving our way through Matthew's passion 
narrative in our Lord's Supper services. So I want to read beginning 
in verse 11, we'll end at verse 26, and then our focus will be 
on verses 24 to 26. So beginning in Matthew 27 at 
verse 11. Now Jesus stood before the governor, 
and the governor asked him, saying, Are you the king of the Jews? 
Jesus said to him, It is as you say. And while he was being accused 
by the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then Pilate 
said to him, Do you not hear how many things they testify 
against you? But he answered him not one word. 
So that the governor marveled greatly. Now, at the feast, the 
governor was accustomed to releasing to the multitude one prisoner 
whom they wished. And at that time, they had a 
notorious prisoner called Barabbas. Therefore, when they had gathered 
together, Pilate said to them, whom do you want me to release 
to you, Barabbas or Jesus, who is called Christ? for he knew 
that they had handed him over because of envy. While he was 
sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, 
Have nothing to do with that just man, for I have suffered 
many things today in a dream because of him. But the chief 
priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should 
ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. The governor answered 
and said to them, Which of the two do you want me to release 
to you? They said, Barabbas. Pilate said to them, What then 
shall I do with Jesus, who is called Christ? They all said 
to him, Let him be crucified. And the governor said, Why, what 
evil has he done? But they cried out all the more, 
saying, Let him be crucified. When Pilate saw that he could 
not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he 
took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, 
I am innocent of the blood of this just person. You see to 
it. And all the people answered and 
said, His blood be on us and on our children. Then he released 
Barabbas to them. And when he had scourged Jesus, 
he delivered him to be crucified. Amen. Well, let us pray. Our 
Father in heaven, we come before you now and we ask for the ministry 
of the Holy Spirit to guide and lead and direct us as we consider 
the Savior before Pontius Pilate. We thank you for the great lengths 
that the Son of God went to on our behalf in order to save us 
from our sin. It truly does cause us to stand 
and marvel. to worship and to praise and 
to adore, that the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, 
took on our humanity so that He could do what He did for us. 
We ask that You would just cause us to worship aright, cause us 
to stand amazed, cause us to focus our attention upon Him 
now. And do forgive us again for all sin and depravity and 
unrighteousness. And we ask through Jesus Christ 
our Lord. Amen. Well, this is certainly a dark 
hour in the history of the world. Namely, they ask for Barabbas, 
who was a notorious criminal, and they demand the crucifixion 
of the Son of God, who, as the Apostle describes in Hebrews 
7, was holy, harmless, and undefiled. So it's not only a dark chapter 
in terms of history with reference to, all the people because we 
see them in this section, but in terms of Pontius Pilate, we 
definitely see his gutlessness, we see his cowardice, we see 
his hypocrisy, we see all manner of evil exhibited by this man 
who was represented or rather appointed to represent justice 
in the Roman Empire. It was a tragedy what occurred 
under his watch. So as we come to the third section 
with reference to Jesus before Pilate, we've already seen the 
interrogation of Jesus by Pilate in verses 11 to 14. We saw the 
attempt to grant amnesty to Jesus by Pilate in verses 15 to 23. 
Even Pilate has confessed on several occasions that, in fact, 
Jesus is guiltless. Jesus is innocent. And so now 
we come to the sentencing of Jesus by Pilate. Remember, the 
Jews did not have the authority at this point. They were subjugated 
to the Roman government. And so they did not have the 
authority to execute criminal offenders. So they needed Pilate. And as we see, the mob prevailed 
with Pilate and Pilate does precisely what the mob wants him to do. 
So I want to look at three things under the sentencing of Jesus 
by Pilate. In the first place, the self-absolution 
of Pilate in verse 24. He wants to distance himself 
from this affair. He wants to distance himself 
from this travesty of judgment. He himself knows it's a mockery. 
He himself knows that it's hypocrisy. And so he tries, albeit miserably, 
to try to distance himself in it by absolving his own guilt. 
Secondly, we'll notice the responsibility of all the people in verse 25, 
and then ultimately the sentencing of Jesus in verse 26. But in 
the first place, notice, before we look at his attempt to absolve 
himself, his inability to absolve Jesus. Verse 24, when Pilate 
saw that he could not prevail at all, this man should have 
done his job. This man should have judged Christ. That was the task appointed to 
him. That was the position of authority 
that he had in the empire at that particular time. The governor 
knew that Jesus was innocent, and he knew that he could not 
convince the multitude. As I said, he should have judged 
Jesus instead of trying to convince the mob. Now, it comes out even 
more blatantly in John and in Luke that Pilate knew of Jesus' 
innocence. It does come out here in Matthew, 
but turn to Luke 23. Luke chapter 23, and this is 
important not only to underscore the cowardice or the gutlessness 
or the sinfulness of Pontius Pilate, but to underscore the 
righteousness of Jesus. Because in the gospel of our 
Lord and Savior, we as sinners not only need to be forgiven 
of our sin, but we actually need a righteousness by which we can 
stand before God. There's a wonderful transaction. 
We call it justification. There's not only the forgiveness 
of sins had in the gospel of our salvation, but there is the 
imputation of Christ's righteousness received by faith so that we 
can enter into God's holy kingdom. And so we see that emphasis again, 
the cowardice, the sinfulness, the hypocrisy of Pilate, but 
the righteousness of Jesus comes out in shining glory in these 
gospel narratives. Notice in Luke chapter 23 at 
verse four. So Pilate said to the chief priests 
and the crowd, I find no fault in this man. And then over at 
chapter 23 in verse 14, he said to them, you have brought this 
man to me as one who misleads the people. And indeed, having 
examined him in your presence, I have found no fault in this 
man concerning those things of which you accuse him. and then 
dropping down to verse 22. Then he said to them the third 
time, why, what evil has he done? I have found no reason for death 
in him. I will therefore chastise him 
and let him go. That in and of itself was a gutless 
response. He noted three times that Jesus 
was in fact guiltless. And most Bible scholars or commentators 
or people sort of in the know suggest that Jesus was scourged 
twice. With reference to this attempt 
by Pilate to appease the mob, he would have had Jesus scourged. 
He would have been chastened such that they would have been 
happy or appeased, and then he would have been let go. But there 
was always a scourging in connection with crucifixion. So in our passage, 
both in Matthew and in Mark, Jesus is scourged and then he's 
delivered up to be crucified. And one of the points behind 
that scourging was to make the victim weaker so it would hasten 
the act of crucifixion itself. And it was particularly barbaric, 
and we'll see that as we move through the message today. But 
in this instance, observe, Pilate says three times that Christ 
is innocent. Turn over to John's gospel, again, 
where this comes out in sharp relief in John 18 at verse 38. Pilate said to him, what is truth? And when he had said this, he 
went out again to the Jews and said to them, I find no fault 
in him at all. Verse four, Pilate then went 
out again and said to them, behold, I am bringing him out to you 
that you may know that I find no fault in him. And then dropping 
down again in verse six. Therefore, when the chief priests 
and officers saw him, they cried out saying, crucify him, crucify 
him. Pilate said to them, you take 
him and crucify him. for I find no fault in him." 
Again, cowardice on the part of Pilate, but righteousness 
on the part of Jesus. Brothers and sisters, as we eat 
this bread and drink this cup, we do so in remembrance of our 
blessed Savior. Not only the death that he died 
on our behalf, in our stead, taking in himself the penalty 
and the punishment due for our sins, but we also benefit from 
his life, his life of obedience. Paul the Apostle underscores 
this in 2 Corinthians 5. He says that God made Christ 
who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the 
righteousness of God in him. We need a righteousness to avail 
with the Father. And in the gospel of our salvation, 
we have it. And we have it because Pontius 
Pilate said, I find no fault in him. Galatians 2, the apostle 
says, I do not set apart or I do not nullify the grace of God. 
For if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in 
vain. You see, everywhere we are told 
in scripture that we not only need the forgiveness of sins, 
but we need a righteousness that avails with God. Now, I hit this 
point hard because that is a point that is denied by some within 
Protestantism. You've perhaps heard of the New 
Perspective on Paul. Well, one of its chief proponents, 
N.T. Wright, says that this idea of an imputed righteousness is 
fiction. It's just a theory. He mocks 
the concept. Is there some sort of a gas that 
bounces around in the courtroom and is received by the adherent? 
He mocks this at that point, and that leads him to mess up 
the gospel in its entirety. In Christ Jesus, brothers and 
sisters, we not only receive the forgiveness of sin, not just 
partially, not just a little bit, not just 90%, but all our 
sins are cleansed in the precious blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. And we also receive a righteousness, 
not 80% worth that we need to make up the 20, not even 99.9, 
wherein we need to make up the rest, but the righteousness of 
Jesus is imputed to us and received by faith alone. So in other words, 
we're cleansed from all sin and filth and wickedness, but we're 
clothed in the garments that the Lord Christ gives to his 
precious bride. And so in Pilate's confession, 
he steps in league with the angels who confess the threefold holiness 
of God in the angelic antiphony in Isaiah the prophet. Holy, 
holy, holy is the Lord of hosts. The whole earth is filled with 
his glory. It is a most important point 
in terms of the gospel of our salvation. But back to this gutless 
one. Calvin says Pilate, finding himself 
unable to restrain the commotion of the people, lays aside his 
authority as a judge and yields to their furious outcry. So Pilate 
is not doing his job. Pilate is reneged. Pilate is 
trying to distance himself because he knows that this is a mockery 
in terms of civil justice. And Pilate fails miserably. Notice 
his attempt with reference to absolve himself in verse 24. 
It says, when Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, 
Again, he's letting the mob dictate what he does as a minister of 
God's wrath to execute justice in a civil polity. It can't never 
be the case that that's somehow okay, that elected officials 
or appointed officials are easily bought off by the cries of the 
mob. When that obtains, brethren, 
we have bigger problems than we ever, ever imagine. And that 
sort of thing is rampant in our own generation, and it's something 
that ought to affect us. Yes, abortion. Yes, euthanasia. But yes, corrupt judges on benches 
that are bought off easily by the prevailing winds of whatever 
the society claims. That is a horrific situation 
that persons throughout history have found themselves in. Notice 
his attempt to absolve himself in verse 24. He says, when Pilate 
saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult 
was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude. 
This has its tap roots in biblical history, Deuteronomy chapter 
21 especially, and you'll see it in the Psalms also. I'm not 
suggesting that Pilate was an Israelite, I'm not suggesting 
that Pilate was a Jew, but Pilate governed Jews, and no doubt he 
was understanding of their particular customs. And so he engages in 
this particular custom, again, not to declare Jesus' innocence. That was the point, wasn't it? 
If he can say thrice, I find no guilt in him, his task then 
becomes to tell this mob that because I find no guilt in him, 
I'm certainly not going to scourge him, and I'm certainly not going 
to deliver him up to crucifixion. But that's not Pilate's desire. 
He wants to portray his innocence. He wants to demonstrate his lack 
of culpability. He wants to demonstrate his lack 
of responsibility. His having governed over the 
Jews for some time, he uses their custom. D.A. Carson suspects 
that it may have reflected his contempt for the Jews or have 
even been a taunt. I don't know about that, but 
he does employ their particular process to show that in fact, 
at least as far as he concerns, fact, he says, I have not done 
anything wrong in this particular matter. He is completely abdicating 
any authority that had been entrusted to him by the civil government. It is a horrific depiction of 
injustice. And then notice in terms of his 
declaration. He says, or he takes the water, 
he washes his hands before the multitude, and he says, I am 
innocent of the blood of this just man. You see to it. This demonstrates his design. 
What's his design? He wants to make sure that he 
is distanced from the condemnation of Jesus. I mean, this was a 
political act of suicide, right? Think about it, brethren. Go 
back, as it were, to that first century setting. I mean, Pilate 
is no dummy. He was able to at least govern 
Judea successfully for a time. And now he has before him a man 
that he himself sees is righteous. He knows what the crowd wants. 
He knows that the mob will stop at nothing less than the actual 
crucifixion of Jesus. Now, when it comes to the Roman 
Empire, they didn't just dole out crucifixion willy-nilly. 
I mean, this wasn't something like, you know, sending somebody 
to jail for a few days to cool off in the drunk tank. Crucifixion 
was a big deal. The emperor himself decreed that 
not even a Roman citizen could not be crucified unless for very 
extenuating circumstances. They used crucifixion for the 
worst criminals in society. Remember, last time I told you 
it was likely going to be Barabbas alongside the two others that 
were crucified because Barabbas was the ringleader of these insurrectionists. These were seditious men. These 
were revolutionary men. These were terrorist men. Barabbas 
and his compadres weren't simple robbers. They weren't simple 
burglars. They didn't go booze candy bars from Walmart. These 
men wanted to overthrow the city. Well, crucifixion was reserved 
for those types of criminals. And now Pilate is in the unhappy 
position of having to condemn a just man to the horrors of 
crucifixion? Of course he wants to distance 
himself. He is a typical politician. Passing the buck is part and 
parcel of what makes up the typical politician. I realize there are 
exceptions to every rule, and God be thanked for them. But 
Pilate is right there with the rest of the gutless, cowardice, 
those that are feckless, and those that have no interest whatsoever 
in actually doing what they're supposed to do. He wants to pass 
the buck. He wants to pass the responsibility 
to others. And then with reference to this, 
notice, I am innocent of the blood of this just man. You see 
to it. The action and declaration, again, 
were an assertion of his innocence. That would be like you going 
to a court and the judge taking pains to make sure that everybody 
in the courtroom knew that he was innocent. When you want to 
say, hey, what about me? I'm actually the reason why we're 
here. This is a tragedy. This is a travesty. This is injustice 
under the guise of justice. And for the most part, Roman 
jurisprudence, at least on paper, was a good thing. They actually 
valued the rule of law. They actually valued due process 
and witness evidence and cross-examination and those sorts of things. He's 
thrown that all out the window. All that matters to Pontius Pilate 
now is Pontius Pilate. All that matters in the case 
of the crucifixion of an innocent man is that Pilate not be seen 
in any way responsible with this, in any way culpable with reference 
to this. Davies and Allison say Pilate 
is more concerned to deny his own responsibility than he is 
to do the just thing with an innocent man. So instead of freeing 
the King of the Jews, he washes his own hands. His act, which 
acknowledges that Jesus is about to be murdered, is hypocritical. Now, perhaps a reason why we 
should spend time sort of amplifying this is because, again, it shows 
the great lengths to which the Savior went for us men and for 
our salvation. We don't like it when anybody 
ever possibly may suggest that there's anything a little bit 
wrong with us, do we? We understand all too well what 
it is to be a Pontius Pilate. We understand all too well what 
it is to fight for our justice. We understand all too well what 
it is to want to be observed in the sight of others. And Jesus 
willingly subjects himself to this man. Jesus isn't saying, 
objection, objection, objection. Jesus isn't saying, did you hear 
him? Three times he said that I'm innocent. Jesus doesn't do 
that. Like a lamb before its shearers 
is silent, so is the son of man. We already saw that in chapter 
27, specifically at verse 13. Then Pilate said to him, do you 
not hear how many things they testify against you? But he answered 
him, not one word. That's because he's the suffering 
servant of Isaiah 53, and it was prophesied concerning that 
servant that when he got before the men that would ultimately 
do him great harm, he wouldn't object. He wouldn't say, oh, 
this is wrong. Oh, I've been framed. Oh, they're 
making it up. Oh, they're just causing a ruckus 
for no reason. Christ doesn't do that. Why? Because Christ had a purpose. 
Christ had a mission, not simply to be an example of how we conduct 
ourselves in court. but to be a redemption, in terms 
of redemption, to be a sin offering, to be that one who brings righteousness 
to his people. All that Christ does is purposed, 
it's determined by the decree of God Most High, and Jesus willingly 
complies. The entirety of the trial, including 
the sentencing, shows that Pilate's claim here is absolutely false. when he says, I am innocent of 
the blood of this just man. None of us believe that, do we? 
None of us would say, oh yeah, Pilate got an unfair shake. He was in the wrong place, wrong 
time sort of guy. No, he's the judge. He's the 
governor. He's the one in charge. It is 
his courtroom. It is him that is conspicuous 
in terms of these particular dealings. And him trying to distance 
himself from this is absolute garbage. And then when he says, 
you see to it, it's the same thing the Jewish leader said 
to Judas in verse four and further demonstrates his culpability. 
Really? You see to it? What man who is 
a civil governor, what man who has the function of judgeship, 
basically lets go of the reins and tells an angry mob, go ahead 
and see to it yourself. Brethren, if this happened in 
our time, I'd like to think we would be outraged. I'd like to 
think that we would go nuts at such a tragedy in terms of the 
application or misapplication of justice. He says, you see 
to it, you take care of it. Of course, again, they don't 
have the authority. They don't have the right under 
Roman law. Davies and Allison again make this comment. See to it yourselves is disingenuous 
for Pilate, through his inefficacious actions, has himself seen to 
Jesus' execution. So when he says that, he's simply 
betraying the reality that he's already made his decision. He's 
bought and paid for, essentially. He doesn't want a tumult in his 
city. And so therefore, if Jesus' blood will appease the mob, then 
Jesus' blood it will be. And again, Thank God Almighty 
for that, because it was according to the predetermined plan of 
God that even this travesty of justice would occur so that Christ 
would go to the cross for his people. Listen to Spurgeon when 
he hears Pilate. He says, oh Pilate, you need 
something stronger than water to wash the blood of that just 
person off your hands. You cannot rid yourself of responsibility 
by that farce. He who has power, listen to this, 
this is most important. I find that this is a problem 
that happens in our own generation. It is perennial, it's not just 
our generation. We could go back to Naboth and 
the vineyard, we could go back to You know, the earlier parts 
of redemptive history, we can come up to contemporary history. 
Listen to what he says. He says, he who has the power 
to prevent a wrong is guilty of the act if he permits others 
to do it, even though he does not actually commit it himself. 
Listen, brethren, this is a real problem. This is why the church 
needs a backbone. This is why the church embracing 
jellyfish nests is never an option. The church is to be salt and 
light. The church is to be faithful. 
He who has power to prevent a wrong is guilty of the act if he permits 
others to do it, even though he does not actually commit it 
himself. So Pilate says, well, it wasn't 
my decision. I understood that he was a just 
man. It wasn't my decision. I understood that he was a guiltless 
man. But it was your decision because you ordered him to be 
scourged and then delivered him up to be crucified. But even 
before that, you let a really bad hombre off by the name of 
Barabbas. So everything about this smacks 
of the responsibility of Pilate, but he, like every other sinner, 
wants to try to hide himself. He wants to try to cover himself. 
This is Pilate's fig leaves. This is Pilate's attempt to hide 
things under the tent, like a I can't think of the name. Achan did 
in Joshua chapter 7. This is the attempt of every 
guilty man to try to distance himself so that he maintains 
some degree of respectability. So we see the self-absolution 
or attempt of it by Pilate in verse 24. Now notice the responsibility 
of all the people in verse 25. They're all too welcoming with 
reference to this responsibility. They're happy to take it. I mean, 
talk about how bad Pilate is. Yeah, we can definitely have 
that convo, and we just did. But look at these people. I mean, 
they've already said, verse 21, the governor asked and said to 
them, which of the two do you want me to release to you? They 
said, Barabbas. Again, they don't, they're not 
fools. They're not ignorant. They didn't 
just fall off the turnip truck that morning and go, who's Barabbas? 
Who's Jesus? They knew the scorecard. They 
knew what they were dealing with in terms of Jesus, the convicted 
criminal. But they also knew that what 
they were dealing with in terms of Barabbas, the convicted criminal. 
And when a body politic cries out for the release of an Osama 
bin Laden, while the only just man in their society is condemned 
to crucifixion, I'd say, you've got big problems in your civil 
politic. You've got big problems in your government. You've got 
big problems in your heart if you want a notorious criminal 
release versus the Son of God, the Messiah of Israel. Notice, 
the fact that the governor will not bear responsibility must 
mean that someone has to. In other words, you can't just 
willy-nilly execute people without somebody bearing the brunt in 
terms of responsibility. R.T. Frantz says, Pilate passes 
it on to the crowd whose shouts for Jesus' death have forced 
his hand. So this is Pilate's move. This 
is the crowd's move. They're working harmoniously 
now because all that matters Remember, is the crucifixion 
of our Lord Jesus Christ. All that matters to this blood-crazed 
mob is the death of Jesus. It is horrific. It is most wicked 
in terms of their response. Now notice the multitudes in 
verse 20 is here identified as all the people. Notice in verse 
20, the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that 
they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. We get to 
verse 25, and all the people answered. Yes, sir. There weren't 
any holdouts. There weren't anybody who said, 
well, I don't know, brethren, this fellow doesn't look guilty. Pilate himself has said it. Are 
we okay with this? Well, obviously they were not 
only okay with it, but they continue to sanction it and they themselves 
accept the responsibility for it. And when they do so, this 
is similar to what has to be in place in Leviticus 24. It 
was all the congregation that would execute the blasphemer. 
It was all the congregation that would take up the stone to carry 
out that particular task of dispatching the guilty from among them. The 
all the people reflects that demand and as well, it was utilized 
in the prosecution of Jeremiah the prophet. Jeremiah the prophet 
not only prophesied, but he typified. Jeremiah the prophet also went 
through a similar situation. Remember Jeremiah the prophet's 
crime? Oh, he has spoken ill. against the temple. See, Jesus 
was in the same boat. And with reference to Jeremiah, 
the same thing now takes place with reference to our Lord Jesus 
Christ. They had both spoken against 
the temple, not because they were, you know, contrary to God 
and his word and his will, but they had spoken against the temple, 
consistent with God's word and will, that the temple would in 
fact be destroyed because they had turned it into a house of 
thieves. into a den of iniquity. And then notice, in terms of 
the responsibility, they not only extend it or not only accept 
it for themselves, but they extend it to their children. Notice 
in verse 25, and the people answered and said, his blood be on us 
and on our children. Don't do that, brethren. Don't 
saddle your children with a malediction. Don't saddle your children with 
an imprecatory prayer. Again, I don't know that they 
in their minds are praying imprecatorily or engaged in a maledictory oath. We know the word benediction, 
it's when the pastor, the preacher, at the end of the service, pronounces 
the good word. Well, a malediction is the pronouncement 
of a bad word. And I don't mean the four-letter 
type, I mean a curse. And that is what they do unwittingly. It's an omen for what ultimately 
will transpire about a generation later. But they're simply saying, 
we're so on board with this decision. This Jesus is such a threat. 
This Jesus is so bad that we'll not only accept the responsibility 
for this Jesus, but we'll even pass this on to our children. 
Now, it might be good for us to stop for a moment and reflect. 
Man hates God, don't they? We saw a bit yesterday. You stand 
out there with a sign that has a pretty little baby on it, and 
it says, take my hand and not my life. And you get the moral 
do-gooders shaking their heads, castigating you, that you would 
ever stand out on the corner and try to defend innocent life. Like, how dare you do that? You 
get the thumbs up, to be sure, but you also get the one-finger 
salute. You get those people screaming 
that they're pro-choice. You get those people screaming 
that babies should die. You get people in their moral 
indignation, in their virtue signaling do-goodery, condemning 
the likes of us who would simply say, don't murder babies. Man 
hates God, brethren. If you ever doubt that, turn 
to Matthew 27. He is so bad, Jesus. He is so 
notorious, Jesus. He is such an imposter, Jesus. He is such a fake that the responsibility 
for crucifixion will accept it and will let our children rest 
on it as well. That is proof positive that man 
despises God Almighty. The words, as I said, are not 
primarily an imprecation or self-maledictory oath, but an ownership of responsibility. And you see that in many places 
with reference to blood guiltiness, when they say, His blood be on 
us. That is a phrase that comes up 
throughout the scripture, again, to show responsibility relative 
to the particular act, and they have exhibited an all-too-willingness 
to do that very thing. Now, in terms of implication, 
His blood be on us and on our children. If you're new to our 
church, you probably haven't heard Matthew 24. We spent a 
lot of time going through that section of scripture because 
it's our Lord's prophecy concerning the destruction of the temple 
in AD 70. That whole scene begins in chapter 
21 when Jesus engages in the triumphal entry. when he comes 
into Jerusalem. That then provides the context, 
chapters 21 to 23. At the end of chapter 23, our 
blessed Lord laments over Jerusalem. He sees that Jerusalem is going 
to be judged. He says, how many times I would 
have gathered you, like a hen gathers her chicks, but you were 
not willing. So he announces prophetically 
their demise. And then in chapter 24, the disciples 
ask him about the temple. So he answers, and there is an 
extended prophecy, we call it the Olivet Discourse, and the 
primary referent is the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. If you're 
interested in that, perhaps you could go back to that, read it, 
think through it, perhaps listen to those messages. But think 
about what they're saying. These persons unwittingly and 
in the form of an omen, which is a warning sign or a foreshadowing 
or a foreboding of something bad to come, they will get what 
they asked for. His blood be on us and our children 
will come to pass in 80-70. The city of Jerusalem would be 
surrounded by armies. Titus or Vespasian, one of the 
generals leading that onslaught. There was a Jewish-Roman war. 
It culminated in the destruction of the city in AD 70. So these 
people are invoking that. These people say, his blood be 
on us and on our children. Gil understands it that way. 
He says, wrath came upon them to the uttermost in the entire 
destruction of their nation, city, and temple. C. H. Spurgeon 
made the observation, this fearful imprecation must have been remembered 
by many when the soldiers of Titus spared neither age nor 
sex and the Jewish capital became the veritable field of blood. 
Luke 23, our Lord says, daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for 
me, but weep for yourselves and your children. Now, brethren, 
I think that this is the text that helps us understand Peter's 
preaching on the day of Pentecost, when he says the promises for 
you and your children and all who are afar off, as many as 
the Lord our God will call. I don't think Peter is emphasizing 
patal baptism. I think he's emphasizing grace. The promise is for you and your 
children. You invoke God's wrath by saying 
His blood be on us and our children. So Peter is addressing Jerusalem 
sinners on that day of Pentecost, and he does not let them forget 
that they are guilty of the blood of the Son of God. And he then 
ends his sermon by saying, repent and let every one of you be baptized 
in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Again, 
not a teaching on fatal baptism, but a teaching on the graciousness 
and the kindness and the goodness of God and the efficacy of the 
blood of Jesus Christ. If that blood is able to wash 
Jerusalem sinners who were guilty of the blood of the son of God, 
then that blood is able to wash us from our sins. That blood 
is efficacious for sinners wherever they may be. whatever they may 
have engaged in, whatever rebellion, whatever vileness, whatever wretchedness, 
the blood of Jesus Christ, his son, cleanses us, Paul says, 
not from some sin, but from all sin. Doesn't Paul celebrate that 
fact in 1 Timothy 1? He says, this is a faithful saying 
and worthy of all acceptation that Christ Jesus came into the 
world, sinners to save. But he doesn't stop there. He 
says, of whom I am chief. If you are a sinner here this 
morning, and you are an unsaved sinner here this morning, then 
let me encourage you, there is mercy to be had with God. The 
blood of Jesus does wash murder from a sinner. The blood of Jesus 
washes insurrection from a sinner. The blood of Jesus washes theft 
from a sinner. Whatever your sin, whatever your 
shame, whatever your wickedness, whatever your debauchery, the 
answer isn't try to be a pilot and hide from it, try to be a 
pilot and distance yourself from it, but rather go to Jesus Christ 
because that Jesus receives sinners. That Jesus brings them into safety. That Jesus forgives and imputes 
a righteousness, and it's received by faith alone. So if you're 
in your sins today, the answer, the remedy, the antidote, is 
to believe, to look unto the Lord Jesus Christ, and to recognize 
and realize He went through this in order to save sinners. I think 
at times we're unwilling to believe the greatness of God's grace. 
At times, we want to narrow it. We want to hone in the scope. We want to bring it to bear upon 
one group or upon one church. We call them the frozen chosen 
at times. But brethren, there is a great 
multitude that no man can number from every tribe, tongue, people, 
and nation. And it's all because of that 
one who prevailed to open the seals, that one who died, that 
one who as a lamb nevertheless shepherds, that one saves to 
the uttermost all who draw nigh to God through him. And then 
thirdly, and finally, notice the sentencing proper. Verse 
26a, then he, Pilate, released Barabbas to them. All of his 
distancing or attempt to distance, notwithstanding, All of his attempt 
to, you know, engage in the hand-cleaning ceremony, telling us that he's 
not responsible, telling us, or telling them, you see to it, 
look at what Matthew tells us, just as casually and easily as 
something could be reported. Then he released Barabbas, he 
delivered him. It was always Pilate's deal. It was always Pilate's responsibility. But remember, with reference 
to Barabbas, he who had been a robber, now that word has two 
meanings. It means robber, highwayman, 
or bandit, but it also means revolutionary, insurrectionist, 
guerrilla. they likely wouldn't have executed 
Barabbas and his two compadres via crucifixion if they were 
the former. Now, robbers, highwaymen, and 
bandits would have been punished by the Roman Empire to be sure, 
but would it have been crucifixion? definitely revolutionary insurrectionist 
and guerrilla would have been because they were perceived to 
be a threat to the empire itself. That's why Jesus was perceived 
or made to be perceived by Pilate as a threat to the Roman empire. 
We see it in Matthew's gospel. We see it in Luke's gospel. We 
see it in all the gospel narratives. When these Sanhedrin present 
Jesus to Pilate They don't say, oh, he's a blasphemer. They say 
that, but they also invoke the civil crime or the real thing 
that would alert the civil authority that they needed to dispatch 
Jesus. He forbids people to pay taxes. Oh, now Pilate's going 
to listen. He has arrogated to himself the title of King, and 
as King, he therefore sets him up as a competitor to Caesar. 
See, they formulated it that way because they wanted the capital 
sentence imposed by Pilate, and so Pilate now answers, He had 
granted them amnesty to one of the two prisoners, and now it's 
a done deal. He released Barabbas to them, 
and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. 
Now, in the Roman Catholic Church, they make much of the passion. 
In fact, if you go into a Roman Catholic Church, there's what's 
called Stations of the Cross on the walls. I think even Protestants 
do this now too, which... Gotta keep my my breakfast in 
that Protestants would ate that it's a terrible thing But at 
these stations of the cross they wave incense and you think about 
what happened in each stage stage of the cross That that movie 
that it came out several years ago was a was a big-budget Hollywood 
production of the passion and it celebrated the gore aspect 
in terms of the crucifixion of our Lord the gospel narratives 
don't do that and They don't give us the 14 stations or the 
12 stations of the cross. They don't give us a big-budget 
Hollywood movie to celebrate the gore and the infliction of 
punishment upon the Son of God. You don't get that in Matthew. 
You don't get that in Mark. You don't get that in Luke or John. 
So as we read this, it's a pretty simple statement. He scourged 
Jesus and he delivered him to be crucified. Now, while I don't 
want to engage in any popish sort of celebration of the physical 
gore, it is important for us to understand, at least to some 
degree, what that means when it says he had scourged Jesus. D.A. Carson describes it this 
way. Among the Jews, scourging was limited to 40 lashes. Deuteronomy 
5, 2 Corinthians 11. You'll have seen that passage 
with reference to Deuteronomy 25. That shows the justice of 
God in the punishment of criminals. In other words, because a man 
or a woman engages in criminal activity, they are not stripped 
of their dignity as an image bearer. Deuteronomy 25, people 
mock the Old Testament as some barbaric ancient code that's 
designed to ruin people's lives. Nothing could be further from 
the truth. There were specific rules set down in terms of the 
infliction of corporal punishment to a criminal offender in that 
civil polity. Deuteronomy 25 specifies that 
procedure. You couldn't proceed without 
witnesses. You had to have due process. There had to be a chance 
for cross-examination. And when it came time to actually 
sentencing, and when it came time to actually punishing, you 
could not exceed 40 lashes, lest you strip this man of his dignity. See, the Old Testament is even 
concerned about the dignity of an image-bearer who's a criminal. 
That is not barbaric. What we see today is barbaric. Prison, life, for whatever offense, 
is to strip a man ultimately of his dignity. But I will not 
get into that particular venture at this point. Anyways, among 
the Jews, scourging was limited to 40 lashes, but the Romans 
were restricted by nothing but their strength and whim. The 
whip was the dreaded flagellum, made by plating pieces of bone 
or lead into leather thongs. The victim was stripped and tied 
to a post. Severe flogging not only reduced 
the flesh to bloody pulp, but could open up the body until 
the bones were visible and the entrails exposed. Flogging as 
an independent punishment not infrequently ended in death. 
It was also used to weaken the prisoner before crucifixion. 
They didn't want to go on with this for hours and hours and 
hours and days. This is why they would break 
the legs of the criminal that was hanging. And when the soldier 
comes to Jesus, he doesn't need to break his legs because he 
was already dead. That little block of wood that 
the criminal stood on while he was being crucified. And by saying 
criminal, I'm not suggesting Jesus was guilty. I'm just saying 
that that was designed so that he could get breath. The process 
of death on the cross was through asphyxiation. And so getting 
a little push off that little block kept him in the fight. 
And so at a time when they thought he had suffered enough, they'd 
break his legs so that he couldn't push off the little block and 
he would give in to death. When they come to Jesus, he was 
already dead. They didn't need to break his legs. That consistent 
with Old Testament prophecy, by the way. But in this instance, 
it was a horrific way to go. The gospel narratives, according 
to RT France, both at this point and at the point of crucifixion, 
make no attempt to draw out the sheer physical horror of the 
procedure. Though Matthew's first readers 
would have known, as modern readers do not, that Roman flogging was 
something far more serious and obscene than a few strokes with 
a whip. And that's why we belittle the 
gospel narrative and the demand of discipleship when Jesus says, 
take up your cross daily and follow me. And we say, well, 
I have a difficult son. That's my daily cross. I have 
a difficult work situation. That's my daily cross. When Jesus 
issues those words in Matthew's gospel, it means be ready to 
die for me. on the cross of crucifixion in 
the most excruciatingly horrific way known. So when we relegate 
that to, oh, I've got this problem with a compadre at work, and 
that's my cross to bear. No, it isn't. If you signed up 
by God's grace in the army of Jesus Christ, your cross to bear 
is physical, if called upon. Your cross to bear is physical, 
if necessary. If our God, in his mercy, calls 
you to suffer shame for his name, as far as the apostles were concerned, 
they rejoiced over that. They didn't say, oh, woe is me. 
They embraced it. Read the history of the martyrs. 
These were men and women of great courage that embraced what God 
had given them because they understood all too well the contours of 
discipleship. We say we're Christ, are we willing 
to go to the cross for Christ? Praise God most high, most of 
us don't have to, but the demand of discipleship isn't just having 
to deal with the knucklehead at work. It may have to deal 
with actually embracing crucifixion as the means of death in order 
to identify with your Savior and not recant faith in Him. And I would suggest, brethren, 
the suffering servant of the Lord is the background. for this 
passage. Though Matthew doesn't quote 
it, though Matthew doesn't cite it, Matthew is alluding to it 
thematically, conceptually, just as in verse 14. But he answered him not one word, 
so that the governor marveled greatly. That is Isaiah 53, 7. Well, here, He had scourged Jesus, 
He delivered Him to be crucified. Remember Isaiah 53, again, verse 
5. But He was wounded for our transgressions, 
He was bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement for our peace 
was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. So this ends the 
trial before Pilate. Jesus is condemned to die. God 
willing, in the coming weeks, we'll trace out what happens 
in terms of him going to the cross. First, his time with the 
Roman soldiers who mock him and who abuse him and ultimately 
deliver him up to be crucified for us men and for our salvation. Well, in conclusion, just a few 
thoughts. In the first place, we ought to appreciate and I 
don't mean it in a positive, happy way, the human responsibility 
in the death of Christ. The betrayer, Judas, tries to 
rid himself of responsibility. Chapter 27, verses 4 and 5. The 
governor tries to rid himself of responsibility in verse 24, 
but he was guilty. Of course, the religious leaders 
along the way and the people of Israel, they actually own 
the responsibility. So, when it comes to this particular 
act, yes, man acted in rebellion against God to engage in absolute 
wickedness in delivering up the Son of God. Secondly, though, 
we ought to appreciate the divine sovereignty in the death of Christ. Notice that Jesus does not act 
surprised in any of these events. Jesus understands the purpose 
that he came for very, very well. He set his face like a flint 
to go to Jerusalem. On three occasions, at least 
with his disciples, chapter 16, chapter 17, and chapter 20, he 
announces that he must go to Jerusalem. And when he says must, 
that is a divine necessity. This is a must-ness owing its 
legitimacy to what is theologically called the covenant of redemption. 
Jesus must go to Jerusalem. There he must be tried at the 
hands of godless men. There he must be delivered up, 
and there he must be crucified. So what we see in the gospel 
narratives, as horrifying as it is, it legitimizes, rather 
confirms or corroborates what had always been announced by 
God in terms of the means by which sinners would be saved, 
sinners would be reconciled. As well, we have the predictions 
of the Savior, we have the specific words of the Savior, and we have 
the apostolic preaching of the cross in Acts chapter 2, and 
the apostolic praying concerning the cross in Acts chapter 4. 
In Acts 2.23, Peter says, Him, being delivered by the determined 
purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless 
hands, have crucified, and put to death. We don't live in a 
happenstance world. We don't live in a world governed 
by luck, by fate, by chance, by forces that are not wise. 
good and holy and right, but rather God is sovereign. He is 
in the heavens and he does whatever he pleases. And this is the culmination 
of his redemptive plan in order to save his people from their 
sins. Acts 4, same thing. Verse 27, for truly against your 
holy servant, Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius 
Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered 
together to do whatever your hand and your purpose determined 
before to be done. So while we meditate upon the 
horrors involved, not only with crucifixion, but the horrors 
involved with humanity, that would actually say, of one that 
was holy, harmless, and undefiled, away with them, away with them, 
crucify them, we also must meditate upon the fact that this was the 
plan of God. This was the purpose of God. 
This is the reason Leviticus exists. Was it simply the case 
that God just wanted a bunch of animals to be slaughtered? 
No, it was typical. It pointed forward to the Lamb 
of God who takes away the sin of the world. What the prophets 
spoke of, specifically Isaiah in chapter 53, or going back 
to Psalm 22. David speaks of crucifixion several 
hundred years before there's crucifixion, as far as he knows. 
The Bible everywhere tells us that what we see going on in 
the gospel narrative is the purpose and plan of God for the redemption 
of his people. And then the final observation, 
and I want to make sure we're clear here, there is the doctrine 
of substitutionary atonement. People love denying this. Penal 
substitutionary atonement. Substitution means just that. 
Somebody standing in the place of another. That's what substitution 
is. You've had a substitute teacher 
before at school. That meant your teacher got sick. 
Your teacher got hit by a car, your teacher couldn't make it, 
and so there was a substitute. Well, the doctrine of penal substitutionary 
atonement is most blessed, it's most wondrous, it's most glorious, 
and it's at least given an emblem here or a symbolization here. Notice what we have in terms 
of verse 26. I don't know what happened to 
Barabbas. I don't know if he went out after this and confessed 
faith in Christ. I'm not suggesting that at this 
point, with reference to the data we have, we know that Barabbas 
went to heaven. But the emblem is strong. The symbol is strong. We have the just taking the place 
of the unjust. We have the righteous taking 
the place of the unrighteous. Brethren, that is the foundation 
upon which we know joy, because the just took our place on the 
cross. John Gill says, this man Barabbas 
was an emblem of the persons for whom Christ suffered, both 
in his character and in his release. He was a notoriously wicked man 
that was released. We're notoriously wicked men 
who are released. Why? Because the just one took 
our spot. The just one went to the cross. The just one took the penalty 
that was due for us and our sins in himself so that we might be 
forgiven and so that we might receive his righteousness. Let us pray. Our Father, we thank 
you for your word and we thank you for what the Son of God went 
through on our behalf. And Lord in heaven, we thank 
you that you not only give us the word that we can read, but 
you give us the word that we can see in the sacraments. And 
as we eat this bread and as we drink this cup, we do proclaim 
the Lord's death until he comes. Help us to find great joy in 
this occasion, not in the act of physical suffering or torture, 
the brutality of crucifixion, but in the reality that our blessed 
Savior, the just one, went to that cross for us unjust ones, 
and that he paid the debt we could never pay, and that he 
rendered a perfect sacrifice, a substitutionary atoning sacrifice 
for us and for our salvation. And we rejoice as well that he 
didn't stay in the tomb, that he rose again, that he now is 
enthroned at your right hand. So give us encouragement, give 
us grace, give us strength, and we pray this through Jesus Christ 
our Lord. Amen. we can turn