Shall I release to you the King of the Jews? (18:39— 19:7)

Shall I release to you the King of the Jews? (18:39—19:7)

Jesus had done nothing to deserve death, according to Herod. This emboldened Pilate to face the Jewish leaders and attempt to set the prisoner free. He called together the chief priests and rulers, telling them he had found no guilt in Jesus, that Herod had found no guilt in Jesus, and that the next step would be to punish Jesus and let Him go. The Jews had already made it clear they wanted Jesus dead (John 18:31), but Pilate was weakly trying to do the noble thing.

To reinforce this, Pilate suggested bargaining with the Jewish leaders. At Passover it was the custom for the governor to release a prisoner to please the Jews. Why not Jesus? Or he might pardon Barabbas, but why would the Jews want him set free? For he was a robber (John 18:40), a notable prisoner (Matt. 27:16), a rebel, and a murderer (Luke 23:19). Who would want to free a prisoner like that?

The crowd, incredible as it seems, demanded Barabbas! But the chief priests and elders persuaded the people (Matt. 27:20), who had no religious convictions leading to justice and equity. National feelings at Passover were always at a high pitch, and a vote for Barabbas was a vote against Rome. Jesus had been a popular figure among the people, but many of them no doubt were disappointed that He had failed to lead a popular uprising to overthrow Rome. Perhaps they had even hoped that His "triumphal entry" a few days before would mark the beginning of Jewish liberation.

It is impossible to explain the way a mob chooses its heroes. No doubt many of the Jews admired Barabbas for his cunningness and courage and rejoiced that he was fighting Rome. If they had honestly contrasted and compared the two “candidates,” the people would have had to vote for Jesus Christ. But a mob worked upon by crafty leaders, in the heat of patriotic excitement, loses its head and begins to think with its feelings instead of its brains. Their condemnation vote was not a vote for the Son of God, but it said a lot about them.

Pilate, never at a loss for ideas, tried a new approach—sympathy. The people had shouted, “Crucify him!" (Mark 15:14) But perhaps if Jesus were scourged, they would be satisfied. What man could see a tortured prisoner and desire to have him crucified? The scourge was a leather whip, knotted and weighted with bits of metal or bone, and many a prisoner did not live through the whipping. We are grieved to think that the sinless Son of God was treated so cruelly. He was innocent, and yet He was treated as though He were guilty, and He did it for us. He was slapped in the face before Annas (John 18:22) and spat upon and beaten before Caiaphas and the council (Matt. 26:67). Pilate scourged Him, and the soldiers smote Him (John 19:1–3), and before they led Him to Calvary, the soldiers mocked Him and beat Him with a rod (Mark 15:19). How much He suffered for us!

Pilate had called Him "King of the Jews" (John 18:39), so the soldiers decided that the "king" should have a crown and robe. The Jews had mocked His claim to be a prophet (Matt. 26:67–68), and now the Gentiles mocked His claim to be a king. The Greek verb tenses in John 19:3 show that the soldiers went to Jesus again and again, mocking Him and beating Him with their hands. The forces of hell were having a field day in Pilate’s hall.

Sin had brought thorns and thistles into the world (Gen. 3:17–19), so it was only fitting that the Creator wear a crown of thorns as He bore the sins of the world on the cross. And with the metal He had made and put in the ground, He made nails to drive through His hands and feet.

Pilate went out again to the people, a third time, bringing Jesus with him (John 18:29, 38; 19:4). Surely the sight of this scourged and humiliated prisoner would stir some pity in their hearts, but it did not. Again, Pilate declared that he could find no fault in Jesus, but his words only stirred their hatred the more. “Behold the man!” conveys the idea, “Look at this poor fellow! Hasn't He suffered enough? Have mercy on Him, and release Him.” Pilate’s attempt was admirable, but it did not succeed.

Pilate’s plan failed; it teaches us an important lesson: it takes more than human sentiment to bring the lost sinner to salvation. There is one view of the Atonement called “the moral influence theory” that would dovetail nicely with the governor’s approach. It says the sinner’s heart is moved to turn from sin and to begin to love God by realizing the sufferings of our Lord. It is purely subjective and has nothing to do with the holiness of God or the importance of satisfying divine justice.

If any crowd should have been moved with pity, it was the Jewish crowd that waited on Pilate. What nation has suffered more than the Jews? Here was one of their own, a Jewish prophet, suffering unjustly at the hands of the Romans, yet the Jews did not repent or show any pity! If those who saw Christ in His sufferings did not repent, what hope is there for those twenty centuries later who only read of His agonies?

The cross is far more than a display of innocent suffering. On that cross, the Son of God paid the price for the sins of the world, thereby declaring the love of God and defending the holiness and justice of God. We are not saved by having pity for Jesus. We are saved by repenting of our sins and trusting in Jesus, the sinless substitute. 

This is not to imply that the believer is wrong to contemplate the cross and meditate upon the sufferings of Christ. The well-known hymn, “When I Survey the Wond’rous Cross,” is particularly valuable in bringing home to us anew the cost Jesus bore for us, but we must not confuse sentimentality with true spiritual emotion. It's one thing to cry in church; it's another to sacrifice, suffer, and serve after the service. We don’t just look at the cross; we carry it.

For the third time Pilate said, “I find no fault in Him!” Then the crowd could have shouted, ‘Then why did you have Him scourged?' Pilate's words belied his actions. He was a weak man, like many politicians, seeking a convenient compromise to satisfy everyone. 

The religious leaders had a forceful reply: “We have a law, and by our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God” (John 19:7). This statement is not found in the other Gospels (but cf. Matt. 26:63–64), but it fits perfectly into John's purpose in writing his gospel (John 20:31).