After Pilate released Barabbas, the murderous felon, he handed Jesus, whom he knew to be innocent, over to his men, professional military men, to the end that he would be crucified. Nevertheless, before that would occur these men would mock Jesus (Mark 15:15-16). They were professionals, and they knew how to cause their enemy to look and feel small and weak. To be mocked, then, is to receive no honor, no respect or comfort. It means all one’s closest associates had deserted him to face this hour alone. And, all the high-sounding loyalty of: “Though I should die with you, yet I will not deny knowing you…” (Matthew 26:35; Mark 14:31; cp. Matthew 26:72, 74; Mark 14:71; Luke 22:60-61) is but an echo of boisterous dinner talk, which, truth be told, has no place in reality. The professionals really know how to make one’s life appear meaningless.
They stripped Jesus of his own apparel and clothed him in purple, the color of royalty, and placed a crown of thorns on his head instead of the victor’s wreath (Mark 15:17). They saluted him as king of the Jews (Mark 15:18), instead of the King of Truth (John 18:36-37) or the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (1Timothy 6:15; Revelation 17:14; 19:16). They gave him a reed (Matthew 27:9) instead of a royal scepter (symbol of authority) and struck him in the head with it (Mark 15:19) instead of holding it toward the one the king accepts (cp. Esther 5:2; 8:4). Then, they bowed their knees in mock worship (Matthew 27:29; Mark 15:19), and, instead of kissing the scepter as a sign of submission, they spit upon him to express their contempt. When they were finished, they removed the purple cloak and dressed him in his own apparel and led him out to be crucified (Mark 15:20). In other words, they took from him what he claimed to be, and dressed him in what they said he was. After doing their ugly deed, they removed what they said he was, and dressed him in what he claimed to be. Then they led him away to be crucified.
Neither Luke nor John records the soldiers mocking Jesus, and Matthew says the soldiers put a crimson cloak upon him instead of a purple one (Matthew 27:28). Some have pointed this out as though it were a contradiction and proof that the Gospel narratives can’t be trusted. Nevertheless, the event’s absence from Luke and John is an argument of silence and proof of nothing. If the soldiers meant to mock Jesus, crowning him with thorns instead of a victory wreath, giving him a reed instead of a scepter; spat upon him instead of kissing his scepter, hailed him as king of the Jews instead of what he claimed to be, then the crimson robe was meant in the same vein as all the rest. It was meant to be what it was not, purple, the color of royalty.
What can be said of these things? How about: “You could have no power against me, except it were given to you from above. Therefore, he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin” (John 19:11). Pilate only thought he had authority over Jesus (John 19:10), because a higher authority than his own said he did. The soldiers who mocked Jesus only thought they had authority to do as they did, because a higher authority handed Jesus over to them. Therefore, Pilate’s sin was greater than theirs, and the chief priests’ was greater than Pilate’s. So what sin is the greatest of all, the pivot upon which Jesus is mocked, or made to play the fool?
I submit that sin is the sin of promoting false doctrine. It was just such a sin that hid Jesus from those who sought him (John 12:21, 32-36), and it was just such a sin that persuaded the people to demand of, even dare, Pilate to crucify Jesus (Matthew 27:20, 24; Mark 15:11, 14; Luke 23:21-23). Without false doctrine (John 12:34), the Jewish authorities would have no power with which to persuade the people (Matthew 27:20), and Pilate wouldn’t have had an opportunity to judge Jesus, nor would the soldiers have been able to mock him. False doctrine not only hindered folks entering the Kingdom of God (Matthew 23:13), but by it the nations blaspheme Jesus (Mark 7:13; Romans 2:24). However, who would admit to believing false doctrine? By its very nature its only claim to success would be that its lie is believed and spread to others.
What might that lie be? Jesus was crucified on the accusation that he was King of the Jews, but is that what he admitted to? When asked, if he were the king of the Jews, Jesus replied “You say!” (Matthew 27:11; Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3), which some conclude to be an affirmation, but, really, it is and it isn’t. Jesus admits to being King, but not in the sense that Pilate thinks or in the sense that he was being accused of being by the Jewish authorities. Rather, Jesus claimed his Kingdom isn’t of this world but is, rather, a Kingdom that spreads truth (John 18:33-37)! In other words, Christ’s Kingdom isn’t a physical one, over physical territory, in which one reigns out of a physical throne. Rather, the Kingdom of God and of Christ is within man (Luke 17:21). Nevertheless, the false doctrine is that Christ will, indeed, return one day to physically slay his enemies. After which, he will go to physical Jerusalem and reign in that physical city out of a physical Temple from a physical throne – exactly what was expected of him in the first century AD and was responsible for handing him over to Pilate to be crucified and to his soldiers to be mocked. One has to wonder what has changed from that time to this?
Smoodock's Blog 
2 responses to “What Has Changed from Jesus’ Day to This?”
Hi Eddie
You know I am a regular reader of yours. …but this time I may disagree with you a bit. Promoting false doctrine is a sin (knowingly), and indeed some folks do profit from such activities, but I would submit that the majority of evangelicals are not in sin, but they definitely have been deceived. I don’t think that most folks who embrace dispensationalism do so out of sin but out of ignorance.
I must admit it is an issue that is making it difficult for me to re-embrace church life now that we have moved across country!
God Bless
Greetings Dave, and thanks for your continued interest in my studies, Lord bless you.
We are free to disagree with one another, and that without animosity. The Lord values our opinion whether correct or incorrect, not that he values error, but he values our desire to know and understand truth, and truth comes to those who seek it, though in the present they embrace error. The process is important to both us and the Lord.
Thank you for your correction, but I’m not persuaded by your argument. One is able to “miss the mark” on purpose or ignorantly. No matter how it is done, it is “missing the mark,” and to “miss the mark” is sin. The only difference is one’s culpability.
I understand your difficulty in reembracing ‘church-life’. It is a problem for me as well, since I moved in 2019. For nearly 30 years I was a Sunday school teacher, and I was able to continue until I embraced Preterism. The coming of Christ is an important doctrine for all Christians, and at least in the church I worshiped, it was often the subject of conversation and pointed to in a Sunday school environment. I had promised the pastor I wouldn’t teach anything that opposed the doctrines of the denomination of the local church. I was faithful to that promise, but it became increasingly difficult not to mention how I believed as the subject came up–and the subject often came up. So, I resigned my teaching position, because of how I believed and because of the difficulty it presented in that environment. This occurred just before I moved out of the area. Nevertheless, I haven’t felt compelled to reenter ‘church-life’. I wouldn’t know what that would be like in a context of not being able to teach. Serving my church community was very important to me, and without that, simply attending an assembly as a theatrical observer, doesn’t appeal to me. False doctrine, you see, compels those who enforce it (ignorantly or not) to remove opportunity for discussion and thereby grow in truth. All my growth in the word, has occurred in private study, not by the church ‘informing’ me about Christ. While I understand that new believers benefit wonderfully in ‘church-life’ their growth in the word can never really go beyond what that particular denomination approves of as truth, and thereby a false sense of security develops in the misunderstanding that, once one is taught what the church approves, one ‘knows’ the truth wholly and no further growth can occur until Christ comes!!!