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.

Introduction

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.

Pilate's Self-Absolution

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,

Pilate's Inability to Absolve Jesus

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.

The Hand-Washing Ceremony

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.

Spurgeon on Pilate's Guilt

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.

Responsibility of All the People

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.

The Omen of AD 70

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.

The Greatness of God's Grace

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.

The Sentencing of Jesus

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.

The Scourging of Christ

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.

Application

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.

Divine Sovereignty in Christ's Death

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.

Penal Substitutionary Atonement

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.

Closing Prayer

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

Scripture References

• Leviticus 24
• Deuteronomy 21; 25
• Joshua 7
• Psalm 22
• Isaiah 53; 53:5; 53:7
• Matthew 16; 17; 20; 21-23; 23; 24; 27:4-5; 27:11-14; 27:13; 27:15-23; 27:20-21; 27:24-26
• Luke 23:4; 23:14; 23:22; 23:28
• John 18:38; 19:4; 19:6
• Acts 2:23; 4:27
• 2 Corinthians 5; 11
• Galatians 2
• 1 Timothy 1
• Hebrews 7