Study Notes: John 19:16b-27 – The Crucifixion of Jesus Christ

The Crucifixion of Jesus

As we turn to John’s narrative of the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus, one of the things you’ll notice about his description is that he doesn’t spend a lot of time detailing the ins and outs of crucifixion. He doesn’t give the kinds of detail that one finds in the synoptic gospels.

Instead, John is more focused on what Jesus says, and the “why” of this whole event. We too should focus on the why, and not get overly caught up in the gruesomeness of the “how.” I’m not saying that it isn’t important, but rather we need to look to what is of first importance.

That being said, in each of these verses there are some interesting and relevant details that we’ll examine as we go verse by verse.

19:16b-17 So they took Jesus, [17] and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called The Place of a Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha.

The first thing we read in the end of verse 16 is that “they” took Jesus. I think John can only be referring to the Roman soldiers at this point. Jesus is now in the custody of Rome; His trial now over, and He is making His way to the place of execution through the streets of Jerusalem – the path we now refer to as the via dolorosa (The way of Grief/Sorrows).

Lifted Up Along a Highway

Next, the place Jesus was taken was outside the old city walls, to a hill near the road which ran alongside the city where travelers and citizens of the city could see Him and the others being executed. Foreigners coming in for the feast days and for trade in the city would be coming from all over the known world at the time. Therefore, as Jesus was lifted up, He was lifted up for all the world to see.

Remember, that throughout his gospel when John talks about Jesus being “lifted up” this is His way of showing that Jesus is being exalted. The emphasis is that exaltation for the Christ comes through humiliation.

Earlier John wrote this:

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, [15] that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. [16] “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. [18] Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:14-18)

Therefore it is significant that He is led to a place that is highly trafficked, and where travelers from all over the known world would have beheld His humiliation/exaltation.

Now from a Roman perspective, it made a lot of sense to bring criminals to this point along the highway because the execution of criminals near the road would send a message to those daring to oppose their rule.

Any foreigner coming to Jerusalem would know what happens to those who misbehave during their stay in the ancient city, and any native of David’s city would be reminded that they were under occupation by a regime from the north. They were living in the land, and yet living in exile.

Outside the City

The next thing we have to note is that the place the Romans took Jesus was outside of the city walls at the time. From a prophetic perspective, this is really important. Jesus died outside the city just as the OT sacrifices would be slaughtered outside the camp.

In Exodus 29 we read this:

But the flesh of the bull and its skin and its dung you shall burn with fire outside the camp; it is a sin offering. (Exodus 29:14)

And it is no coincidence that in the parable of the vineyard, Jesus describes His own death at the hands of the sinful servants as ending “outside the vineyard”:

And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. (Matthew 21:39)

Taking all of these thoughts and words together, the author of Hebrews explains the significance:

For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. [12] So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. [13] Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured. [14] For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come. [15] Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. [16] Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God. (Hebrews 13:11-16)

So Jesus is led outside the city walls. He is to be a sin offering, our sin offering. He is lifted up, because that it is through humiliation that He will be exalted. This is all done on the edge of a road where travelers from around the known world will behold Him, indeed in this way He will be lifted up for the entire “world” to see (there is a significant parallel with how people from all over the known world gather together in Jerusalem at Pentecost just a few weeks later and hear the truth of God proclaimed in their language – see John Stott’s Acts commentary for more on this).

The Place of the Skull

Now John says Jesus was led to a place called “Golgotha.” From a contextual note, there are a few places where Jesus was said to have suffered and died and historians are not agreed on the exact location.

The two most popular are called “Gordon’s Calvary” and the ground upon which the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is built. I have just recently come back from Jerusalem, and have visited both locations. At Gordon’s Calvary there is still a very distinct side of a mountain where a face (or skull) can be seen etched out of the rock. It used to be that in days past, a rock quarry lay just beneath the etching and that Jesus would have been crucified in front of the skull in the quarry – not on top of that particular hill, but on the hill that the quarry was on top of with the skull providing the background image.

Gordon’s Calvary is named after British General Charles “Chinese” Gordon who popularized the idea that this could be the location. The Garden Tomb Association, who owns the land there now, gives this brief history on their website:

As early as 1842 a German Theologian named Otto Thenius proposed the idea that the outcropping of rock known today as “Skull Hill” could possibly be significant in the identification of the site of the crucifixion. That idea lay seemingly dormant for quite some time until General Charles Gordon on sabbatical in the area (1883) began to publish similar ideas. Because of his importance in British society at that time the idea took hold and people began to look seriously at the claims that this could possibly be the site listed in the New Testament as Golgotha (Aramaic) or Calvary (Latin) – the place of the skull. It was the efforts of two ladies in particular, Charlotte Hussey and Louisa Hope, who followed these ideas and began to take them seriously and thought that the place ought to be preserved.

They also discovered a tomb nearby which matched many of the descriptions of the tomb we find in the Bible narrative where Jesus was laid:

After people began to take seriously the claims that the area at the base of the rock cliff could possibly be Golgotha, it led to a renewed interest in other findings of earlier times. In 1867 an ancient Jewish tomb had been discovered and subsequently detailed and published by Conrad Schick. In light of all that was happening, people began to believe that the site may have significance and they re-examined what had been detailed previously. The Bible describes that Jesus was crucified outside the city of Jerusalem near a gate of the city along a major thoroughfare, that at the place where He was crucified there was a garden and in the garden a tomb. The tomb is described as being a tomb cut out of rock, belonging to a wealthy man by the name of Joseph of Arimathea. It had a weeping chamber, a burial chamber, it was sealed with a rolling stone, it had a traditionally low doorway through which the disciples were forced to stoop in order to look into (and enter) the tomb that morning. (http://www.gardentomb.com/about/why-the-garden/)

The second location, and I might say the “first” in terms of historical tradition, is the location upon which the current Church of the Holy Sepulcher is built.

This location is located in the Christian Quarter of Jerusalem and has been held at the traditional site since at least the 4th century. Wikipedia (that all knowing and trustworthy source…) has a few graphs on the early history:

According to Eusebius, the Roman emperor Hadrian in the 2nd century built a temple dedicated to the Roman goddessVenus in order to bury the cave in which Jesus had been buried.[4][5] The first Christian Emperor, Flavius Constantinus, ordered in about 325/326 that the temple be replaced by a church.[6] During the building of the Church, Constantine’s mother, Helena, is believed to have rediscovered the True Cross, and a tomb (although there are some discrepancies among authors).

In his ‘Life of Constantine’ Eusebius speaks about this location saying that it showed “a clear and visible proof” that it was the tomb of Jesus.

It is interesting that most commentators I read during my exegetical study of the passage completely rule our Gordon’s Calvary. But whatever the place, we know that both locations stood outside of where the city boundaries were during those days.

19:18 There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them.

Crucifixion was the most horrific way a person could die in these days. Carson gives a good explanation:

In the ancient world, this most terrible of punishments is always associated with shame and horror. It was so brutal that no Roman citizen could be crucified without the sanction of the Emperor. Stripped naked and beaten to a pulpy weakness, the victim could hang in the hot sun for hours, even days. To breathe, it was necessary to push with the legs and pull with the arms to keep the chest cavity open and functioning. Terrible muscle spasm wracked the entire body; but since collapse meant asphyxiation, the strain went on and on. This is why the sedecula (the piece of wood that was sort of like a seat) prolonged life and agony: it partially supported the body’s weight, and therefore encouraged the victim to fight on.

The history behind this form of execution is well documented. William Barclay describes the background:

Even the Romans themselves regarded it with a shudder of horror. Cicero declared that it was ‘the most cruel and horrifying death.’ Tacitus said that it was a despicable death.’ Crucifixion was originally a Persian method of execution. It may have been used because, to the Persians, the earth was sacred, and they wished to avoid defiling it with the body of a criminal and an evildoer; so they nailed him to a cross and left him to die there, and then left the vultures and the carrion crows to complete the work. The Carthaginians took over crucifixion from the Persians; and the Romans learned it from the Carthaginians. Crucifixion was never used as a method of execution in Italy; it was only used in the provinces, and there only in the case of slaves. It was unthinkable that a Roman citizen should die by such a death. Cicero says, ‘It is a crime for a Roman citizen to be bound; it is a worse crime for him to be beaten; it is well nigh parricide for him to be killed; what am I to say if he be killed on a cross? A nefarious action such as that is incapable of description by any word, for there is none fit to describe it.’ It was that death, the most dreaded death in the ancient world, the death of slaves and criminals, that Jesus died” (Boice’s Commentary on John, Volume 5, Pg. 1496).

There were also two men on either side of Jesus. Each was a criminal – the language used by John could indicate that they could have been rebel fighters/guerillas/insurrectionists. We know from Luke’s account and from the other gospel writers, that one of them had a miraculous change of heart, and place his faith on Jesus before his life expired. John, however, does not focus on that event, but rather chooses to give us insights that the other writers had not mentioned to date.

19:19-22 Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It read, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” [20] Many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Aramaic, in Latin, and in Greek. [21] So the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but rather, ‘This man said, I am King of the Jews.’” [22] Pilate answered, “What I have written I have written.”

It was common practice for the Romans to inscribe the crime of an offender on a piece of wood or label like this and then hang it around the neck of the criminal during the execution. After the criminal died, the tag would be fastened to the cross as a reminder of the payment, the cost if you will, of committing that crime. People could look up, see the crime of “stealing” or “sedition” and note in one glance the blood stained cross which served as an indicator what that crime had cost the one associated with it. A significant deterrent.

Now the crime that we read is associated with Jesus is the one which the Jews used before the Romans, and not the one they had used in the Jewish trial. In the Jewish trial before Caiaphas and Annas, they had accused Jesus of blasphemy because He had claimed to be equal with God. But before the Romans they accused Him of being s traitor and inciting sedition because He claimed to be the Christ, a king. And even though Pilate didn’t buy it, he still gave Jesus over to be killed – an act of murder for one not found to be guilty.

Therefore, Jesus’ sign said – in Aramaic (Hebrew), Latin, and Greek – that He was the king of the Jews. The variance of languages served as a way for all men who would be passing by to be able to read what was written, “the local vernacular, the official language, and the language of common international communication” with Latin being the official language of the Roman soldier (cf. Ridderbos, Boice etc.).

Of course having the crime indicate that Jesus was king of the Jews enraged the Jewish leadership, so they wanted an adaptation. However, Pilate basically delivered a final shot to the Jews by saying “hey, you used this charge of sedition to accuse this man, and now your stuck with your accusation, even if it makes your people look ridiculous.” So this was another way to demean the Jews, and exact some vengeance on them for forcing his hand in the verdict.

19:23 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his garments and divided them into four parts, one part for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom, [24] so they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be.” This was to fulfill the Scripture which says, “They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.” So the soldiers did these things,

Here again John sees fulfilled prophecy in each little even that happens in the death of Jesus. He has had decades to think on these things, to search the scriptures, and to realize the depth of richness that encompass what took place here on Golgotha.

The OT passage that John cites is from Psalm 22. That Psalm was written by David and carries with it great significance. The Psalms talks of the faithfulness of God to His elect. It describes the pain of David, and his anguish and humiliation before his enemies. But his writing found its greater and fuller significance in David’s Greater Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whose body was wasted away to nothing on our account. It is a Psalm which celebrates the salvation/righteousness of God to all who are His people – including “a people yet unborn” – from every tribe, tongue and nation.

There is one first, 22:1, which Jesus quoted from the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Later in the Psalm we read the specific passage that pertains to His garments, which we have just read about here in John, but it also mentions his hands and feet being pierced, and even his thirsty condition.

I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within my breast; [15] my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in the dust of death. [16] For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet— [17] I can count all my bones— they stare and gloat over me; [18] they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots. (Psalm 22:14-18)

I love how the Psalm ends, and George Robertson describes its meaning:

It is the suffering of Christ that has secured these patterns of faithfulness for the unfaithful. Jesus did this by carrying out God’s eternal plan to provide “righteousness” through his own sacrificial death (Ps. 22:31; Rev. 13:8). His cry of forsakenness from the cross was the announcement that he had become a “curse” for his people, which “redeemed us from the curse of the law” and fulfilled the Abrahamic promise to bring salvation to the nations (Gal. 3:13-14; cf. Ps. 22:1). Those who put their faith in Christ can therefore be assured that they will never be cursed (The Gospel Transformation Bible).

The last few verses in Psalm 22 read this:

All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you. [28] For kingship belongs to the LORD, and he rules over the nations. [29] All the prosperous of the earth eat and worship; before him shall bow all who go down to the dust, even the one who could not keep himself alive. [30] Posterity shall serve him; it shall be told of the Lord to the coming generation; [31] they shall come and proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn, that he has done it. (Psalm 22:27-31)

19:25-27 but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. [26] When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” [27] Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

Last Will 

These words of Jesus are said to be His “last will and testament”, and we’ve all no doubt studied them in the past. It is of great significance that Jesus cared for those around Him until His dying breath.

I am reminded of John’s words from chapter 13, “Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end” (John 13:1).

How convicting is it – and revealing of our corrupted hearts – that during trials and great ordeals we cannot think of anything or anyone but ourselves and the circumstances which envelope us.

Think to your last trial – perhaps even a current trial you are wading through. What preoccupied your thoughts in those difficult hours? Who were you primarily concerned with?

I find my own thoughts in times of great peril or trial are often turned inward, at myself and my own survival.

Not so with Jesus.

Jesus was a man who was touched with the infirmities of humanity. He was suffering excruciating pain (that word, by the way, is a etymological creation passed down from the pain of the crucifixion) and yet His mind wavered not. It was on His mission, and on those closest to Him.

Also, I find it very interesting that Jesus was on a great mission to save the world, and yet He did not overlook the weakest among Him. He took care of His earthly mother before departing this world. So often it is great men of this world who are so enraptured in their work, or their circumstances, that they fail to love and tenderly care for those who are their kin. This is so much the case in the evangelical church that Pastor’s children are notoriously ill-behaved. These great men of God fail utterly to invest in their children. They are so busy carrying out their life’s mission that they overlook those whom God has given them to care for most.

Our loved ones ought not to be sacrificed on the alter of “mission” – whether that be the mission at work, or the mission of the Gospel. We have been entrusted by the Almighty God with the investiture of souls who ought to be loved and cared for above all else. This is the example of Jesus, our Lord. He suffered not to let Mary go into the remainder of her life without the care and attention of a specific caretaker. That caretaker was John.

What a grand lesson to all who are entrusted with mighty tasks. Let world leaders, church leaders, political and business leaders take note. Let us humble ourselves before the example of our Lord and Savior, and seek to emulate His caring heart.

Study Notes for John 19:1-16a: ‘Behold the Man’

Here are my (rough) notes for John 19:1-16a. As a side note, there aren’t as many written out parallels with Is. 53 as I will likely reference tomorrow while teaching this. I will not be back to teach for another two weeks. In the meantime, I hope these notes are edifying to you, and that you see the sovereign hand of God in every step of Jesus’ final hours before death.

ecce homo by Antonio Ciseri
ecce homo by Antonio Ciseri

John Chapter 19

19:1 Then Pilate took Jesus and flogged him. [2] And the soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head and arrayed him in a purple robe. [3] They came up to him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” and struck him with their hands.

As we read these words, those of Jesus come to mind: “For he will be delivered over to the Gentiles and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon. And after flogging him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise.” (Luke 18:32-33)

I just note this passage again, as I did previously, and as I will do in the future, because as these things happen to Jesus I want to keep in the forefront of our minds that Jesus knew exactly what would happen to him. The “flogging”, the “mockery” and the “shameful” treatment is already taking place. The rest is soon to come.

With that in mind, a few notes on what was going on here. The flogging of someone who wasn’t proven guilty was pretty common. In America in the 21st century, we have this concept of being presumed innocent until proven otherwise. What is so despicable about so much of the media attention that surrounds modern trials is that in the minds of the public innocence and guilt is obscured, and justice is whatever people’s emotions dictate. This is what is means to make a “mockery” of justice.

What we are seeing here is mockery at its zenith.

Of course the purple robe is intended to signify royalty or importance. Purple was expensive, and was held in high regard. In Acts 16 we read of a lady named Lydia who was a clothier of some kind, and Luke goes out of this way to mention that she dealt with “purple” cloth:

One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. (Acts 16:11)

By looking at this fact, and the other clues in the passage, Pastor Matt Chandler says its safe to assume Lydia was a wealthy, successful lady who catered to the upper class (that final part is my own assumption).

The crown of thorns, and what kind of bush these came from, is a subject of debate. Easton’s Bible Dictionary takes the view that the thorns were not very long or painful, but could be easily made into the crown described by John and the other gospel writers:

…our Lord was crowned with a, in mockery by the Romans (Matt. 27:29). The object of Pilate’s guard in doing this was probably to insult, and not specially to inflict pain. There is nothing to show that the shrub thus used was, as has been supposed, the spina Christi, which could have been easily woven into a wreath. It was probably the thorny nabk, which grew abundantly round about Jerusalem, and whose flexible, pliant, and round branches could easily be platted into the form of a crown.

Fausset seems to agree upon the pliable nature, though not the type of plant:

Christ’s “crown of thorns” has been supposed to have been made of the Ramnus nabeca (Hasselquist) or the Lycium spinosum, probably the latter (Sieber). To mock rather than to pain Him was the soldiers’ object, and they took whatever came to their hand first. The dark green was a parody of the triumphal ivy wreath.

Whatever the nature of the crown, it made a mockery of the kingship of Jesus. And I am personally reminded that those who suffer mockery for the sake of Jesus will eventually win the “crown of life” (Rev. 2:10).

Lastly, and I was struck by this, the Romans struck Jesus with their hands. I really think that at this point they weren’t working to inflict pain as much as make a mockery of Him. I began to think about the thoughts and emotions that go through a person’s mind before inflicting any kind of blow upon another person. Usually human beings react in anger to being hurt, or are defending their honor or another’s before taking a swing at someone. However, that doesn’t seem to be the case here. These men have not been wronged by Jesus, nor have they likely even heard of Him before. To them, He’s just another Jew.

What do I bring this up? Because it displays the nature of mankind. Man is in a depraved and evil state from birth. His nature is twisted, and his motives are selfish and turned against his Maker. Environment (so-called “nurture”) can lessen or increase the outward effects of sin, but it’s effects are there on the heart – branded, as it were, from birth.

Ironically, these are the types of men Jesus came to save. He came to save us from ourselves.

NOTE: There is a lot of debate among the scholars as to the nature of the beating administered here. There were three grades of beating (cf. Carson) that the Romans administered, and this one was likely the least severe, with the intent to simply appease the Jews – this of course didn’t work. The most severe beating is the one which involved the famed ‘cat of nine tails’, each “tail” having bits of metal or bone embedded into the ends. The bones and metal chips would land in the flesh, and then rip the flesh off, thus exposing the body’s internal organs and bones after a time. This third degree of beating was likely what Jesus received after being formally and finally condemned by Pilate (we aren’t quite there yet in the narrative, and its hard to see how Pilate would have moved to this degree of beating without a final verdict being given).

19:4-5 Pilate went out again and said to them, “See, I am bringing him out to you that you may know that I find no guilt in him.” [5] So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, “Behold the man!”

I am reminded of the fakery of this ceremony when I read these words simply because it was typical to adorn a king with certain trappings of the office and then hail him as king before the people. For instance, in 2 Chronicles 23 we read of the crowning of Joash, a very young man at the time:

Then they brought out the king’s son and put the crown on him and gave him the testimony. And they proclaimed him king, and Jehoiada and his sons anointed him, and they said, “Long live the king.” (2 Chronicles 23:11)

When Pilate declares, “behold the man”, he is of course mocking Jesus. But in his words there is a great deal of irony. Jesus is the man. He is the God-man. He is certainly human, and yet the passage is inescapably tinged with His divinity.

All of this occurs despite the fact that Pilate found no guilt in Jesus. I don’t suppose we have a full account of all that was said, but John has included what was necessary to give us a picture of the proceedings.

19:6-7 When the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, “Crucify him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no guilt in him.” [7] The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.”

Now Pilate once again seeks to release Jesus. The Jews didn’t want Him released, and it is typical that when people are riled up about something they cool down after a while and after seeing their enemy sufficiently humiliated. But for these Jews, Pilate’s humiliation of Jesus wasn’t enough.

Their desires now fully match their father the Devil’s. They want to see Jesus dead, and they begin to cry out for His death with shouts of “crucify him!”

I spoke of this before, and so won’t spend a lot of time on it, but Pilate doesn’t really find anything wrong with Jesus, and he doesn’t feel the need to be involved in killing Him either. But we shouldn’t mistake this for altruism on Pilate’s part. It may be true that his heart was being softened at this moment, but that doesn’t seem likely. What seems likely given the context is that he is simply mocking the Jews.

When Pilate says, “take him yourselves and crucify him” he’s just rubbing in the lack of ability for the Jews to do this because they were under the governance of the Romans. It’s as if Pilate was saying, “go kill him yourself…oh, wait, that’s right you’re under the boot of Roman rule…ya sorry about that!”

Now the response of the Jews shows how laser focused they were in accomplishing their objective. They didn’t blink an eye at the insult of Pilate, for they knew very well that they weren’t allowed to kill anyone. Instead they continue to make the case that Jesus has to die, and therefore the Romans need to be the ones to do it.

Why They Want Him Dead

If you notice here, it’s the chief priests who are demanding the execution of Jesus. Why? Because “he has made himself the Son of God.” Their case is based on theological grounds.

Here’s why I think that its worth taking a minute to pause and reflect on this statement: There have been many liberal scholars, and secular academics, who claim that Jesus never claimed to be God, or divine, or anything more than a good teacher, but this assertion simply doesn’t hold up.

This text is “exhibit A” as to why the “good teacher” argument doesn’t hold up: Even His enemies knew what He was claiming. Though they had many other accusations to hurl (i.e. that he intended to destroy the temple), this is the one they come to Pilate with when everything is on the line. Their main accusation is one of blasphemy. Jesus, this man from Nazareth, has claimed to be equal with God.

There are several passages to show this, but one need only look at chapter eight to see an excellent example of the clash between Jesus’ claims and the teaching/leadership of the Pharisees:

Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?” [54] Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ [55] But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. [56] Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” [57] So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” [58] Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” [59] So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. (John 8:53-59)

So here we have just one example of His clear claim to divinity. And we’ve spoken about this passage in the past, but its important to realize the profundity of these words and how they must have antagonized the Pharisees.

Carson summarizes with great circumspection:

In man contexts that was demonstrably untrue. The anointed king of Israel was sometimes referred to as God’s Son in the Old Testament (Ps. 2:7; 89:26-27), and in some intertestamental sources ‘Son of God’ is parallel to ‘Messiah’ (4Q Florilegium). But Jesus’ opponents rightly recognize that as he uses the title there are overtones not only of messiahship but of sharing the rights and authority of God himself (vs. 1:34; 5:19-30).

19:8-11 When Pilate heard this statement, he was even more afraid. [9] He entered his headquarters again and said to Jesus, “Where are you from?” But Jesus gave him no answer. [10] So Pilate said to him, “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?” [11] Jesus answered him, “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.”

It’s interesting to read Carson and Ridderbos and others discuss what John must mean by Pilate being “more afraid.” They seem to think that Pilate, like many Romans, was likely a very superstitious man, and that it wasn’t so much that he was convinced or had a strong feeling of Jesus’ deity that this statement confirms.

No, the man Pilate had no clue that Jesus was the God-man, and indeed very God of very God. Rather, he was either concerned that there might be something super-human about him (as in Greco-Roman mythology – so Carson) or he was afraid/nervous about his tenuous position as maintainer of order during the proceedings (so Ridderbos), which were tending toward absurdity and chaos, rather than justice and order.

Jesus then doesn’t answer Pilate – He’s really already answered this question before (see vs. 36) and, as is remarked upon by some, He likely doesn’t see Pilate as a rightful judge in these matters. The silence, of course, is not indefinite. But it partly fulfills what we read in the prophets “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth” (Is. 53:7).

Next, Pilate severely aggravated by the silent treatment, flaunts his authority before the One who created him from nothing in the first place.

What is interesting about Jesus’ response is that in our English translations, the word “therefore” seems to act as a connector word to the previous sentence about the nature of how Pilate derived his authority. However, that is deceiving. Jesus is not connecting the authority of Pilate with his lack of culpability/responsibility for the sin of this ridiculous trial. Rather He is making two separate statements.

The first statement leaves us in great awe of the majestic sovereignty of the Lord, and reminds us of the compatibilist viewpoint of the New Testament writers (cf. Carson). God is behind every thing going on in this situation. God is the ultimate source of all authority, and therefore Pilate could not be operating – or living and breathing for that matter – without the express consent and decree of God. Yet this does not rob men of their responsibility to obey God. He is mysteriously ordaining every act of men, yet we are still responsible for our actions.

Secondly, playing off the first statement, Pilate is still responsible for his sinfully unjust trial. Yet the degree of this sinfulness is eclipsed by those men (or man – it is in the singular in the Gk) who delivered Jesus over to him.

I can’t personally decide with certainty who it is that is at issue here – whether it is Caiaphas (as Morris and Carson have deducted), or whether it is the Jewish leaders as a whole (as Ridderbos says – he says that the Evangelist is speaking in a redemptive-historical sense, and thereby the singular use of the pronoun “he” is figurative in a sense). If I were pressed, I would say that it represents Caiaphas directly, and the Jewish leaders and the people as a whole indirectly. Caiaphas was the leader of the Council, and the head of the governing body of the Jews. He represented the nation in a federal sense, one might say (just as Jesus represented a nation so to speak, on the cross – see also John 11:49-52)

The key to this passage is this: God is in control of the large and small aspects of history. He ordains all that comes to pass. Not one evil deed is done without His oversight and permission. Yet this does not excuse wickedness, nor does it deny the culpability of man. Rather it shows God’s mercy and the depth of His mysterious ways that He allows evil to work in its fashion for good. These things will not long be the case, as when He comes back in glory the Lord Jesus will put all evil to death, and will usher in an eternity of joy, peace, and abundant life – that which was inaugurated will be consummated.

19:12-16a From then on Pilate sought to release him, but the Jews cried out, “If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar.” [13] So when Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Stone Pavement, and in Aramaic Gabbatha. [14] Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, “Behold your King!” [15] They cried out, “Away with him, away with him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.” [16a] So he delivered him over to them to be crucified.

Now Pilate has asked once again if the Jews will allow Jesus to be released. Pilate is troubled by this Jesus, and he is annoyed at the petulance of the Jews. Yet he is walking a fine line here, and he’s a smart politician. He won’t allow the Jews to get their way on a whim, as if they rule the province, yet he won’t allow the situation to devolve into anarchy which would cause an even bigger headache for him.

Ridderbos rightly says, “Though he (Pilate) knew from long experience with the Jews the hypocrisy of this sudden loyalty to the emperor, he understood from this renewed mention of the emperor that all further delay was futile and could even get him into trouble.”

Therefore it is at this moment that the Jews play a final card – and an effective one at that. In a statement simply drenched in irony and hypocrisy, they claim that if Pilate releases Jesus he will show himself to be a disloyal subject of the Caesar! In other words, they’re claiming that they are more loyal to Caesar than Pilate is! The Jews – specifically “the chief priests” – solidify their (fraudulent) claim to loyalty by shouting “we have no king by Caesar!”

Indeed they had surrendered all kingship to secular authorities, and by this statement revealed for all to see that they were under the kingship of Satan and his ruling authorities rather than the God they claimed to serve.

What immediately came to mind was the rejection of Samuel in the OT. The people claimed to want a king like all the other nations. But what was God’s interpretation of those events? Here is what He said to Samuel:

But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the LORD. [7] And the LORD said to Samuel, “Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. (1 Samuel 8:6-7)

All of this serves to remind us of all that Jesus had to suffer before being crucified. Wrongly accused, Jesus has to go through the injustice of a trial which is nothing but a sham. Then He observes as the people He created in His own image deny His kingship and swear a false loyalty to a pagan worshiping man thousands of miles away, all in an effort to crucify the One sent to save them from their sins.

The terrible irony of of this back and forth between Pilate and the Jews is finally put to rest as Pilate acquiesces to their Satanically inspired desires.