But they cried out in reply saying, Crucify, crucify him.
Pilate had already judged this prisoner innocent. Luke records the crowd's answer as one word, shouted twice over and then repeated again and again. The question the scene forces is why so unjust a demand was the one that won.
They did not simply ask for a death. They named a penalty, and one writer explains what that word carried.
Crucifixion and death are not necessarily the same thing. Crucifixion speaks of judicial dealing, and it assumes that someone has the right to act that way. "Shall I crucify your King?" asked Pilate. "Crucify him, crucify him," was the cry of the crowd. A person might die in many ways, but crucifixion was punishment under law: it was what they did to criminals.
Their own law never used this penalty. That is why they had to take the demand to a Roman governor.
They hanged Him on a tree — "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree." It was not, as we know, the Jewish way of punishing criminals. The Old Testament Scriptures show that when the Jews put an offender to death, they stoned him. But hanging a man on a gallows was a Gentile, a heathen method of execution. So they handed Christ over to the Romans, saying, "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death."
It is easy to hear this as mob noise. One writer looks at who led it.
This was not merely the act of an ignorant rabble, or of the common crowd. It was the high priests and religious leaders of the nation who were at the front of that terrible cry, "Crucify Him, crucify Him."
The welcome had come first, from the same city.
Even the children are crying aloud in the streets. Is He indeed to be recognised and accepted as King? Are they ready to dress Him in the purple robe? It is a sad thing for man, for Jerusalem and for Israel! They did not know the time when God came to them. Soon, in place of the shouts of welcome, come the angry cries: "Away with this man!" "Crucify Him!"
Luke gives the reason a few lines later: the voices prevailed.
This may be the most shocking moment in the trial of the Son of God. The judge was convinced. The evidence that the Man Christ Jesus was innocent was overwhelming. Yet we read: "But they were urgent, demanding with loud cries that he should be crucified. And their voices prevailed. So Pilate decided that their demand should be granted." This sentence is the exact opposite of the evidence. The simple but telling reason is that the voices "prevailed." When pressure becomes too strong, political judgement bows to pressure. The Son of Man has no comment to make on any of it: "like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth."
The cry did not condemn one nation only.
So the whole world was proved guilty before God, but no one was more deeply involved than those who should have been the last to do it. The people who had the law fell under its curse. It was not only that they disobeyed its requirements. Worst of all, they were determined to reject their own Messiah and put Him to death — and this while the foreign ruler was trying to let Him go. This is what the world was proved to be, once reality came out through the One who alone was real, the Holy and the True.
The cry exposed the heart that made it.
If we want a perfect standard by which to measure the world, to measure the human heart, to measure sin, we must look at the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ... When the human voice cried out, "Crucify Him! crucify Him!" that voice was the utterance of the human heart, declaring, as nothing else could declare, its true condition in the sight of God... When man preferred a robber and murderer to Christ, he proved that he would rather have robbery and murder than light and love.
The story does not end with the shout. The same city will one day sound very different.
In the very city where He suffered so much shame at His first coming, they will give Him honour and glory... Yes, where they whipped Him, struck Him, spat on Him, tore the hair from His cheek, and cried, "Away with Him! Crucify Him! crucify Him!" — there they will obey Him, serve Him, thank Him and honour Him. And they will cry, "Blessed be His holy name forever and ever!"
- Demand. "Crucify" was not a general call for death. It named a legal punishment, the kind given to criminals.
- Curse. The Jews stoned criminals. Crucifixion was a Gentile execution, and it carried the written curse on everyone hanged on a tree.
- Voices. Religious leaders led the cry as much as the crowd did, and it won for one reason: the voices prevailed over the evidence. The Lord answered nothing.
- Verdict. The shout proved the whole world guilty — most of all the people who had the law, since even the foreign governor wanted to release Him.
- Reversal. The cross measures the human heart at its worst, and the same lips that shouted this will one day bless His name.
And he said the third time to them, What evil then has this [man] done? I have found no cause of death in him I will chastise him therefore and release him.
Pilate has already declared Jesus innocent twice. Here he says it a third time. Then, in the same breath, he offers to have Him whipped before letting Him go. A judge who finds no crime must release the prisoner. So why did Pilate not do it?
Pilate found no crime, yet he did not release Jesus. The crowd drove the case, not the evidence.
It seems Pilate had not expected such a choice, so he tried to reason with the people again. All he heard was their unreasoning, vicious demand: crucify Jesus. For the third time Pilate insisted that he had found no cause in Him for the death penalty. Yet, as before, Pilate said he would have Him whipped. In fact, John tells us that Pilate did whip Him (John 19:1) even before his final efforts to release Him. So Pilate added more injustice than the Jews had demanded.
The offer sounds like mercy. In fact, it handed each side something.
His conclusion, however, must surprise any fair observer: "I will therefore punish and release him" (v. 16). This verdict was designed to serve Pilate's aims and the crowd's at the same time. On the one hand, it would allow Pilate to release Jesus (as he knew he should). On the other hand, it would satisfy the crowd by declaring the Lord guilty in two ways. First, He would be punished — which meant the cruel practice of whipping (John 19:1). Second, He would be released, not because He was innocent, but because Pilate had to release a criminal at the feast. … In one word, Pilate's proposal rested on the principle of compromise.
Pilate did go through with the whipping. Another writer traces what came of it:
Pilate, now in their hands, hands Jesus over to be whipped. It seems he hoped this would satisfy the people, just as his earlier proposal had aimed to do (Luke 23:22), so that he could then release Him. In every compromise of this kind he simply fails, and fails miserably.
The question was asked about a life His enemies had watched for years. They wanted a flaw and never found one.
During His three and a half years of ministry the Saviour lived in the fierce glare of hostile criticism. He did not live apart in the desert, as John the Baptist did. He moved freely among the people. So all the facts of His life were known. If His foes could have discovered a single flaw in Him, how it would have delighted their evil hearts! But He was God's holy One. The Passover lamb was to be "without blemish"; only so could it picture Him who was at once holy in nature and stainless in all His ways.
The words were a legal finding about a charge sheet. They also describe something no other person on earth could have said of himself.
He is One of whom Pilate had to say, "I have found in him no guilt deserving death" (Luke 23:22). Pilate said this as a judge, yet it was true in the fullest sense. We must die. But here at last on earth stands a blessed perfect Man over whom death has no claim. Plenty of cause of death in us, but no cause of death in Him.
The judge cleared Him and sentenced Him anyway. Both sides in that courtroom convicted themselves.
Was there ever such a barefaced travesty of justice? What judge would dare let the accusers' shouting settle the verdict? And here the verdict was death. Pilate passed the death sentence while saying he found no fault in our Lord. That made the Gentiles guilty. The Jews shouted for His death. That made the Jews guilty.
The verdict reached far beyond that courtroom:
So all the world was proved guilty before God, but none were so deeply involved as those whom it least suited. The people who had the law fell under its curse … worst of all, because they were set on rejecting their own Messiah to death, and this when the Gentiles were trying to let Him go. Such was the world shown to be, where the reality came out through Him who alone was real, the Holy and the True. No room for boasting any more. In truth there never was any, but now it is plain and no one can deny it.
- Verdict — Three times the judge stated the same finding: no guilt deserving death. Justice had one next step: release.
- Compromise — "Punish and release" was meant to satisfy his conscience and the crowd at once. It treated an innocent Man as guilty, to look merciful.
- Failure — Every half-measure of this kind fails. The whipping did not save Jesus, and it did not save Pilate. It only added injustice no one had demanded.
- Innocence — "What evil has he done?" met silence. Years of hostile watching had found no flaw in Him — the Lamb without blemish.
- Reversal — The court judged itself. He had no guilt deserving death; we have plenty. The sentence that condemned Him proved the world guilty and left it nothing to boast of.
But they were urgent with loud voices, begging that he might be crucified. And their voices [and those of the chief priests] prevailed.
The trial reaches its decisive moment. The evidence had not changed. The shouting grew louder than the judge's conscience. Two questions follow: why did Pilate give in, and what does the crowd's choice show about the human heart?
Luke calls the crowd "urgent". A Bible dictionary explains the word:
"Urgent" — that is, with persistent, unrelenting pressing. Luke 7:4; Luke 23:23; Acts 26:7; Rom. 12:12; 2 Tim. 4:2.
Everything in the case pointed one way. The sentence went the other. One writer names the reason, and points to the silence of the One on trial:
Despite the convictions of the judge and despite the overwhelming evidence for the innocence of the Man Christ Jesus, we read: "But they were urgent, demanding with loud cries that He should be crucified. And their voices prevailed. So Pilate decided that their demand should be granted" (vs. 23, 24). This sentence goes directly against the evidence. The reason is simple and telling: the "voices prevailed". When pressure becomes too strong, political judgement bows to it. … The Son of Man makes no comment on these proceedings: "like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth" (Isa. 53:7).
Noise alone does not explain why a judge dropped his own verdict. The same writer points to a threat from the crowd that touched Pilate's own position:
It was not only the intensity of the pressure, not only the rage of the crowd, that prompted Pilate to give in. John's Gospel shows the argument that changed his mind: "If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend" (John 19:12). In politics (and sometimes elsewhere), good relationships with powerful people protect your own position and career. So a just verdict that puts your own prospects and relationships at risk must be avoided at all costs.
Older translations add the chief priests to the voices that prevailed. Commentators say the religious leaders led, the state followed, and both were guilty:
Religious evil had taken the lead in this wickedness. Now it had only to draw the world along to finish it. The civil power had to give in to the deliberate evil of God's people, who had turned away from Him. This is the history of the world. Of the two, the religious side is always nearest to Satan… The guilt of the Jews was complete, and so was the guilt of the Gentiles, for Pontius Pilate declared Him innocent and wanted to release Him. The Roman governor was cruel enough himself, yet he disliked cruelty in others. Still, he would not go so far as to save Him from the hatred of His enemies. That would have cost him something. It threatened his own interest, and Pilate gave way. The one thing that is strong in the world is enmity against Christ.
Pilate had one more way out: a custom of releasing a prisoner. The crowd used it to make a choice. One writer refuses to let readers stand outside that choice:
This compromise not only fails. It shows how deep into evil the Jewish nation had sunk. To carry out the custom, they choose Barabbas, a prisoner held for murder and robbery, to be released. Such is the evil of our hearts. We may dislike a murderer and a thief. Yet if the question is Christ or the murderer, then apart from the grace of God we will choose the murderer — the one who takes life rather than the One Who gives life.
The voices that prevailed turned justice on its head:
The man proven guilty of rebellion against the government and of murder went free. The One whom the judge three times declared faultless was condemned to crucifixion! Pilate must surely have carried a torturing, burning conscience for the rest of his life.
The count in that crowd is the sharpest detail, and one writer turns it into a question for the reader:
Jesus or Barabbas? This was the question which divided them. Surely someone will speak up for Jesus. Not one! I think I hear you say, "I would, had I been there." Well, show yourself on His side now. Side with Jesus, and let the world know, too, that you have done so.
- Urgent — the word means pressing without letting up. They did not argue the case; they wore the judge down.
- Prevailed — the sentence contradicted the evidence for one reason only: the voices won. Judgement bowed to pressure.
- Interest — Pilate's career and standing with Caesar were at stake. A just verdict would have cost him, so he gave way.
- Choice — given a murderer or the One who gives life, the crowd took the murderer. Not one voice spoke for Jesus. Commentators say this exposes every heart, not just theirs.
- Now — the answer to "I would have spoken up" is to take His side today, in the open, where it can still cost something.