1 Then[683] Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged[684]
_him_.
[683] Matt. 27:26, etc.; Mark 15:16, etc.
[684] Isa. 53:5.
2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put _it_
on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,
3 And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with
their hands.
4 Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto
them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know
that[685] I find no fault in him.
[685] verse 6; ch. 18:38.
5 Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and
the purple robe. And _Pilate_ saith unto them, Behold the
man!
=1-5.= The scourging of Jesus is recounted by all the Evangelists
except Luke, and the mockery more fully by Matthew than here. See
notes on Matthew. Scourging was a common precursor of the
death-sentence; here, however, it appears to have been proposed by
Pilate as a compromise (Luke 23:16).--=And said, Hail, King of the
Jews.= Some manuscripts insert the words _they came unto him_, and
this reading is approved by Tischendorf and Alford. It indicates a
mock reverential approach as to a crowned king, with obeisances and
pretended homage.--=Behold the man.= Pilate’s own sympathies were
awakened by the sight of this patient sufferer, and he made one more
attempt to release him by appealing to the sympathies of the people.
In this act the commentators see an unconscious symbolical teaching
parallel to that of Caiaphas (John 11:51, 52); Jesus is _the_ man, the
only perfect man, the ideal toward which all aspiration is to strive
(Ephes. 4:13). The scene has been a famous one in art, and the picture
of Christ thorn-crowned receives its customary title, _Ecce Homo_,
from two Latin words meaning Behold the man.
6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him,
they cried out, saying, Crucify _him_, crucify _him_.
Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify _him_: for
I find no fault in him.
=6. When the chief priests, therefore, and attendants.= The original
here signifies an officer answering to the modern constable or
policeman.--=They cried out.= The priests mingled in and joined their
voices with those of the crowd. The sight of blood, so far from
appeasing, only whetted their revengeful appetite.--=Take ye him and
crucify him.= This was not a sentence, but rather an endeavor to cast
the responsibility of its execution upon the priesthood. Comp. Matt.
27:24; Luke 23:25. That they felt the reproach is indicated by their
reply.
7 The Jews answered him, We[686] have a law, and by our law
he ought to die, because[687] he made himself the Son of
God.
[686] Lev. 24:16.
[687] ch. 5:18; 10:33.
=7. The Jews answered him, We have a law=, etc. Not because their
previous accusation had failed, and they wished to present a new one
(_Lange_); but because, the death-sentence being already pronounced
and ratified by the act of scourging, they felt safe in disclosing
their real animus. The object of their reply is to justify themselves
to his rebuke.
8 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more
afraid;
9 And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto
Jesus, Whence art thou? But[688] Jesus gave him no answer.
[688] Ps. 38:13; Isa. 53:7; Matt. 27:12, 14; Phil.
1:28.
=8, 9. He was the more afraid, * * * and saith unto Jesus, Whence art
thou?= But Jesus gave him no answer. Pilate’s was not a superstitious
fear, but a genuine awe produced by the personal presence of Jesus,
the power of which was conspicuously manifested on other occasions in
his life (Luke 4:30; 5:8; John 7:45, 46; 18:6). It was doubtless
enhanced by the report of his wife’s dream (Matt. 27:19). His
question, _Whence art thou?_ is to be interpreted by this awe; not
_from what province_, for he knew this (Luke 23:6, 7), nor _of what
parents_, for this was a matter of indifference. The question
indicates that even skeptical Pilate vaguely felt that the prisoner
before him--the King of a kingdom of truth--was no ordinary man.
Christ’s silence was a bitter rebuke. Pilate was no longer an honest
seeker after truth. Christ “kept silent, in fine, because he knew as
well when to hold his peace as when to speak, and no word that he ever
uttered was fuller of inspiration than that silence; no, not even does
that lofty declaration to Pilate, ‘Yes, I am a King, and every true
man is my subject,’ show a more regal dignity of mind. From every
feature, from his whole person, it spoke--spoke of a world of power in
him, power to rise above all personal considerations, and, under the
most terrible circumstances, to find entire serenity in the perfect
possession of himself.”--(_Furness._)
10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me?
knowest[689] thou not that I have power to crucify thee,
and have power to release thee?
[689] Dan. 3:14, 15.
=10. Then said Pilate unto him.= His pride is piqued by the silence of
the prisoner. He boasts of his power, and so seeks to extort an answer
from the prisoner’s fears. Observe that _power_ he had, but right he
had not. “This very boast was a self-conviction of injustice. No just
judge has any such power as this to punish or to loose (see 2 Cor.
13:8), but only patiently to inquire and give sentence according to
the truth.”--(_Alford._)
11 Jesus answered, Thou[690] couldest have no power _at
all_ against me, except it were given thee from above:[691]
therefore he[692] that delivered me unto thee hath the
greater[693] sin.
[690] ch. 7:30; Luke 22:53.
[691] Ps. 39:9.
[692] ch. 18:3; Mark 14:44.
[693] Heb. 6:4-8; James 4:17.
=11.= The connection of Christ’s answer here is difficult. It appears
to me to be as follows: All civil and political power comes from God
(Rom. 13:1; comp. Ps. 75:6, 7; Dan. 2:21). Even on earth kings are
recognized as the administrators of the divine will (Isa. 44:28;
45:1). Caiaphas and the priesthood, therefore, in delivering Jesus to
Pilate, are endeavoring not only to accomplish a deed of injustice,
but to induce a divinely appointed minister of God to prove false to
the trust reposed in him. Therefore their sin is greater than his;
they are the instigators, he the partially ignorant and unwilling
instrument. Comp. Luke 12:47, 48. Stier observes that Pilate’s
ignorance includes him in the Lord’s prayer, “Father, forgive them,
for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). That most wonderful
declaration of the O. T., “He knoweth our frame, he remembereth that
we are dust” (Ps. 103:14), receives its most wonderful illustration in
Christ’s compassion for the perplexed but guilty Pilate.
12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but
the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou
art not Cæsar’s friend: whosoever[694] maketh himself a
king, speaketh against Cæsar.
[694] Luke 23:2; Acts 17:7.
=12. From thenceforth.= Or rather, _on this account_. The original is
capable of either rendering; but Pilate had already sought to release
Jesus; he now made a new effort, moved thereto apparently in part by
his awe for Christ, and in part by Christ’s expression of compassion
for him.--=Thou art not Cæsar’s friend.= Of all the Cæsars, Tiberius
was the most suspicious and exacting; and of all crimes, that of
indifference to his interests was in his eyes the worst. In these
words of the priesthood there is implied a threat of an accusation to
Tiberius against Pilate if he release Jesus.
13 When[695] Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought
Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat, in a place
that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.
[695] Prov. 29:25; Acts 4:19.
=13. Upon the judgment-seat in a place called Pavement.= The
judgment-seat was probably a small elevated platform, such as was used
among the ancients, on which orators stood to address a concourse,
generals to harangue their troops, or magistrates to hear causes. The
accompanying illustration from a bas-relief represents Trajan sitting
on such a judgment-seat to receive the submission of a Parthian king.
The employment of a similar platform both by Pilate and by Florus is
referred to by Josephus (_Wars of Jews_, Rom. II: 9, 3; 14, 8). The
Pavement was probably a tessellated or mosaic square in front of the
tower of Antonia, on which the judgment-seat or bema was placed.
[Illustration: ROMAN JUDGMENT-SEAT.]
14 And[696] it was the preparation of the passover, and about
the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your
King!
[696] Matt. 27:62.
=14. It was the preparation of the passover.= That is, the preparation
for the Passover Sabbath. The strictness of the Mosaic law respecting
the Sabbath necessitated special preparations for it on the previous
day, and in process of time the whole day prior came to be known as
_the preparation_ (Mark 15:42). If we so understand the passage, there
is nothing in it inconsistent with the fact indicated by the other
Evangelists that the paschal supper was taken by Christ and his
disciples, in common with the rest of the nation, on the evening
preceding.--=About the sixth hour.= But according to Mark it was the
_third hour_ (Mark 15:25); and this is sustained by the whole course
of the transactions and the circumstances, as also by the statements
of Matthew (27:45), Luke (23:44), and Mark (15:33), that the darkness
commenced at the sixth hour, after Jesus had for some time hung upon
the cross. Of this discrepancy many explanations have been proposed,
but only two are worthy of any consideration. One that by an early
error in transcription the sixth was substituted for the third hour
here; the other that John here only indicates that the sixth hour was
approaching, or, as Lange renders it, _it was going on towards the
sixth hour_; that is, the third hour, which closed the preceding watch
into which the day was divided, had already passed, and that Mark’s
language simply implies that the third hour had already passed
before the crucifixion. It is certain that the ancients did not fix
the time with as great precision as we do, and that in particular, as
Godet says, “the apostles did not count with the watch in their
hands.”--=Behold your King.= The previous appeal (ver. 5) had been to
the pity of the people; this was to their national pride.
15 But they cried out, Away with _him_, away with _him_,
crucify him! Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your
King? The chief priests answered, We[697] have no king but
Cæsar.
[697] Gen. 49:10.
16 Then[698] delivered he him therefore unto them to be
crucified. And they took Jesus, and led _him_ away.
[698] Matt. 27:26, etc.; Mark 15:15, etc.; Luke
23:24, etc.
=15, 16. We have no king but Cæsar.= This was true. By this very act
they disavowed allegiance to Jehovah as their King (1 Sam. 12:12).
They were thus emphatically guilty themselves of the crime of
blasphemy, for which they had condemned Jesus. Some of these very men
subsequently perished in rebellion against Cæsar, thus by their death
testifying to the hypocrisy of their pretended zeal. He who refuses
Christ as his King subjects himself to the despotism of worldly
authority.--=Then delivered he to them to be crucified.= Giving them a
guard of soldiers to execute the decree. Thus Roman and Jew shared in
both decreeing and executing the sentence.
* * * * *
ON THE CHARACTER OF PONTIUS PILATE.--Concerning Pilate’s life before
he became procurator nothing is known, except that his name indicates
a probability that he was a freedman, or the descendant of a freedman,
connected with the Pontian house. He succeeded Valerius Gratus as
procurator of Judea and Samaria, about the year 26 A. D., and he held
the appointment for a period of ten years. Secular history shows him
to have been unscrupulous in the exercise of his authority; and
instances are recorded by Josephus of his contempt of the Jews. His
behavior was equally tyrannical toward the Samaritans; and on their
complaint to Vitellius, president or prefect of Syria, Pilate was
ordered to go to Rome to answer for his conduct before the emperor.
His deposition must have occurred in A. D. 36, most probably prior to
the Passover. Before he arrived in Rome, however, Tiberius was dead.
According to tradition, Pilate was banished by Caligula to Vienne, in
Gaul; according to Eusebius, he died by his own hand.
Though in the oldest Christian creed his name is indissolubly linked
with the crucifixion, in the phrase “suffered under Pontius Pilate,”
and though he was directly responsible for it, since it could not have
been consummated without his judicial approbation, yet that
approbation was wrested from him by a mob, and he yielded only when
further resistance would have hazarded his office, if not his life.
The story of the trial of Christ before Pilate is the story of a
conflict between a judge who appealed in vain to the moral sense of
the priesthood, and a priesthood who appealed not in vain to the fears
of the judge. First he scornfully bids the Jews try Jesus according to
their own law, knowing that they cannot put their prisoner to death
(ch. 18:31); then catches, in the clamor, the word “Galilee,” and
endeavors to rid himself of responsibility by sending the prisoner to
Herod (Luke 23:4-12); on the return of the prisoner to his custody,
proposes to release him, as a customary act of good-will, to the
populace (Matt. 27:19-23; Mark 15:8-14); orders the scourging, in an
idle hope so to satisfy the clamor of the mob (Matt. 27:26-30; Mark
15:15-19; John 19:1-3); having appealed in vain to their pity,
appeals, also in vain, to their patriotism (John 19:4-15); and finally
pronounces sentence of death only under an implied threat of complaint
to the jealous Tiberius Cæsar (John 19:12, 16). But it would be a
mistake to suppose that in this pitiable conflict with a mob, which it
was Pilate’s first duty to quell, he was influenced by considerations
of either humanity or justice. The contempt which a Roman soldier
would naturally feel for the Jewish priesthood was intensified into a
bitter personal hate by the fact that their cunning had twice
overmatched his strength--once when, immediately after his
inauguration, they had compelled him to remove the hated Roman
standards from the city of Jerusalem to the old-time Roman military
headquarters at Cæsarea Philippi; once when they had secured orders
from Tiberius Cæsar directing him to take down the Roman shields from
the vicinity of the temple. The one sentiment which was strong in a
Roman soldier was that of justice; to be compelled by a Jewish mob,
instigated by the Jewish priesthood, to assume the judicial robes only
to do flagrant injustice in them, and that in executing the Jewish
will, angered him. He was a tool in the hands of an unscrupulous and
despised hierarchy; knew it, and fought against the humiliation
weakly, and therefore in vain. He was also powerfully affected by the
personal bearing of Christ. “If there is any power in the human
countenance, in the eye, in the voice, in the whole air and manner of
a man, that power must have been manifested in Jesus in the very
highest degree. * * * Not that he (Pilate) had the slightest insight
into the lofty nature of that power. His very ignorance of it served,
by creating a feeling of mystery, only to heighten the effect of it
upon his mind.”--(_Furness._) And this effect was still further
increased by the dream of his wife; for skepticism and superstition
are twins, and the skeptical Pilate was not above the universal
superstitions of his times. All these elements made Pilate angry with
himself and with the hierarchy, but they did not serve in lieu of a
noble resolution, which alone could have enabled him to resist the
threatening danger of an emeute. So he dallied, argued, appealed,
yielded. The crime of Pontius Pilate was the crime of moral cowardice.
It was more appalling in its results, but it was not different in its
nature, from the many manifestations of that crime which we all often
witness, and which most of us sometimes have experienced.
* * * * *
Ch. 19:17-42. DEATH AND BURIAL OF JESUS.--A FALSE JUDGE WRITES A TRUE
EPITAPH (19).--A WEAK JUDGE PROVES HIMSELF OBSTINATE (22).--THE
INHUMANITY OF MAN (24).--THE SYMPATHY OF CHRIST ILLUSTRATED (27).--THE
FULFILLMENT OF ALL SCRIPTURE (28).--REDEMPTION A FINISHED WORK
(30).--THE HYPOCRISY OF CEREMONIALISM (31).--THE NATURE, MEANING, AND
CERTAINTY OF CHRIST’S DEATH (34, 35).--THE POWER OF THAT DEATH TO MAKE
COWARDS COURAGEOUS (38, 39).--THE SEPULCHRE IN THE GARDEN; THE TOMB
AMID FLOWERS (41, 42).
The accounts of all Evangelists should be compared. For chronological
harmony and for full notes on what is common to them all, see Matt.
27:32-56. Several incidents are peculiar to Luke; some to John. The
latter gives more fully the division of Christ’s garments among the
soldiers (verses 23, 24); alone speaks of Christ’s parting words to
his mother (verses 25-27), and of the piercing of his side (ver. 34).
17 And he bearing his cross went[699] forth into a place
called _the place_ of a skull, which is called in the
Hebrew, Golgotha:
[699] Numb. 15:36; Heb. 13:12.
18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on
either side one, and Jesus in the midst.
=17, 18.= The cross was usually borne by the condemned. In this case
it was transferred from Christ to Simon the Cyrene. See Matt. 27:32,
note. The Hebrew word Golgotha is the same as the Latin word Calvary
(_Calvaria_), and means _a skull_. The location is uncertain. For
statement of different hypotheses and picture of most probable site,
see Matt. 27:33, note.--The two others crucified with Christ were
brigands, one of whom joined in the taunts of the multitude; the other
rebuked his companion, and sought and obtained the blessing of the
dying Redeemer. See Luke 23:39-43, notes.
19 And[700] Pilate wrote a title, and put _it_ on the
cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF
THE JEWS.
[700] Matt. 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38.
20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place
where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was
written in Hebrew, _and_ Greek, _and_ Latin.
21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write
not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of
the Jews.
22 Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.
=19-22. And Pilate wrote a title.= It was customary to bear before the
condemned an inscription which designated his crime; this was
subsequently attached to the cross, as a warning against similar
offences.--The inscription in this case was written in the three
languages of the time--that of the court (Latin), that of the Gentile
population (Greek), and that of the Jews (Hebrew or Aramaic).--It
really affixed a stigma rather upon the Jews than upon Jesus. Hence
their attempt to have it altered, and Pilate’s refusal. The Jews were
insulting Jesus; Pilate took a petty revenge upon them for their
victory over him by insulting them. The inscription is reported by the
four Evangelists, in all of them substantially, in none of them
verbally, the same. Thus:
This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.--(_Matthew._)
The King of the Jews.--(_Mark._)
This is the King of the Jews.--(_Luke._)
Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.--(_John._)
Apparently there were three inscriptions, in the three different
languages; some commentators suppose that they differed slightly, and
that the variations in the language of the inscription indicate the
variations in the original. See this ingeniously argued in Townsend’s
N. T. But the better opinion is that the inscription was the same in
the three languages, and that the verbal differences are such as we
might expect from individual narrators, who, in minor details, were
left to their own recollection. So Robinson, Alford, Greenleaf, etc.
Analogous verbal differences are to be constantly met with in the
Evangelists: Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16; John 1:27--Matt. 9:11;
Mark 2:16; Luke 5:30--Matt. 15:27; Mark 7:28--Matt. 16:6-9; Mark
8:17-19--Matt. 20:33; Mark 10:51; Luke 18:41--Matt. 21:9; Mark 11:9;
Luke 19:38--Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42--Matt. 28:5, 6; Mark
16:6; Luke 24:5, 6. Pilate illustrates the difference between firmness
and obstinacy. In yielding the crucifixion of an innocent man, Pilate
showed a pitiable lack of firmness; in insisting on retaining an
insulting inscription, he showed a petty obstinacy. In this
inscription he was an unconscious prophet of the truth to all
on-lookers--Greek, Roman, Jew. Comp. John 11:51, 52.
23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took
his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a
part; and also _his_ coat: now the coat was without seam,
woven[701] from the top throughout.
[701] Exod. 39:22.
24 They said therefore among themselves. Let us not rend
it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the
scripture might be fulfilled, which saith,[702] They parted
my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast
lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.
[702] Ps. 22:18.
=23, 24.= The account of John of this incident is fuller and more
exact than those of the other Evangelists. Comp. Matt. 27:35; Mark
15:24; Luke 23:34. There were four soldiers--a quaternion--detailed
to watch the execution of the sentence of the procurator. The clothing
of the convicted was the perquisite of the soldiers. The outer
garments of Christ were divided among them, one to each. The inner
garment, or tunic, was a seamless robe, woven in one piece, probably
of wool. There is no ground for the fanciful comparison of this robe
with those worn by the priests, as though it indicated a priestly
function on Christ’s part. There is more reason in the surmise that it
was a gift to him by some of the women who had followed him from
Galilee (Luke 8:1-3).--But this is a mere surmise, having no other
support than the fact that the soldiers seem to have recognized in it
a peculiar value, a garment which it were a pity to destroy. Dice were
in Rome what cards are in modern life. One of the soldiers took a set
out of his pocket; the helmet would have served as a dice-box; and
thus, under the shadow of the cross, they gambled for this seamless
robe. The incident affords a most striking illustration of the
inhumanity of man, and scarcely less of the indurating influence of
the passion for gambling. “No earthly creatures but gamblers could be
so lost to all feeling as to sit down coolly under a dying man to
wrangle for his garments, and arbitrate their avaricious differences
by casting dice for his tunic, with hands spotted with his spattered
blood, warm and yet undried upon them.”--(_H. W. Beecher._) The
twenty-second Psalm, to the prophecy of which John refers, was
regarded by the Jews, as it has been universally regarded by all
Christian critics, as a Messianic Psalm. A curious illustration of
fanciful interpretation is afforded by Wordsworth’s treatment of this
scene, though he quotes Augustine as his authority: The parted
garments is an emblem of the church in its universality, to be sent
out into the four quarters of the globe; the unparted garment is
emblematic of the church in its unity, to be kept whole and unparted;
the gambling soldiers are an emblem of those who treat the unity of
the church of Christ as a matter of indifference.
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and
his mother’s sister, Mary the _wife_ of Cleophas,[703] and
Mary Magdalene.
[703] Luke 24:18.
26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple
standing by,[704] whom he loved, he saith unto his mother,
Woman,[705] behold thy son!
[704] ch. 13:23.
[705] ch. 2:4.
27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother![706]
And from that hour that disciple took her unto his
own[707] _home_.
[706] 1 Tim. 5:2.
[707] ch. 16:32.
=25-27. Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother=, etc. There
is some question whether we are to understand by this verse that
there were _four_ women there, or only three. Some scholars read the
phrases “his mother’s sister” and “Mary of Cleophas” as in apposition,
and suppose them to refer to the same person; but the better opinion
regards them as different persons, the mother’s sister being
identified with Salome, the mother of James and John, who, if this
interpretation be correct, were own cousins to Jesus. See Note on the
Twelve Apostles, Matthew, ch. 10, Vol. I, p. 148, where this question
is more fully discussed. It is important only in its bearing on the
question of the relationship of Jesus to James and John.--=Woman,
behold thy son; * * * behold thy mother.= Some doubt has been thrown
on this incident by rationalistic critics, who have thought it
improbable that these women could have been standing near enough to
the cross to hear the words of Jesus; or that they could have been
willing to do so; or that the incident, if it really occurred, could
have escaped the other Evangelists; for it is peculiar to John. The
answer to this criticism is admirably given by Dr. Furness:
“Unquestionably it must have been agonizing to her to witness that
awful sight. And it would have been no less agonizing to her to keep
at a distance from him. May she not have thought within herself, ‘It
kills me to see him suffer so, but I cannot lose a word that may fall
from his lips; perhaps he may speak to me’? The women friends of Jesus
stood looking on at a distance; but if there were one among them who
stood nearer to the cross than the others, it must have been his
mother. Here again the words of Jesus to his mother and the beloved
disciple lose the living truth of nature in our Common Version, which
gives them in the form of complete sentences, ‘_Woman, behold thy
son_,’ and to John, ‘_Behold thy mother_.’ But in the original it is
‘_Woman! look! thy son!_’ and to John, ‘_Look! thy mother!_’ brief as
possible, ejaculatory, broken, and in the fullest accord with the
physical condition in which he then was--a state of extreme torture,
admitting only at the moment of such imperfect utterance. His mother
was not very near the cross, but near enough to allow Jesus, by a
strong effort mastering his agony, to gasp out these few words,
leaving it to the keen sense of his mother and John to make out his
meaning. Indeed, if I could suspect such an incident as this to be an
invention, I should not know what limit to assign to the inventive
power of the authors of the Gospels.”--(_Notes on Schenckel’s
Character of Jesus._)--=And from that hour that disciple took her to
his own.= The words _from that hour_ are not to be taken literally, as
though John and the mother of Jesus did not remain till death had
brought the lingering tortures of the crucifixion to an end. The words
_his own_ are more significant without the addition of the word
_home_, added by the translators. John took the mother into his own
circle, and as his own mother, from that time. The language does not
imply that he had a fixed domicile in Jerusalem. This is not
inherently probable, for he was a Galilean; and certainly nothing
recorded had occurred to make any of the disciples prior to this time
inclined to take up a permanent residence in Jerusalem.
28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now
accomplished, that the scripture[708] might be fulfilled,
saith, I thirst.
[708] Ps. 69:21.
29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and
they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put _it_ upon
hyssop, and put _it_ to his mouth.
30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he
said, It[709] is finished: and he bowed his head, and
gave[710] up the ghost.
[709] ch. 17:4.
[710] Isa. 53:10, 12; Heb. 2:14, 15.
=28-30.= See Matt. 27:47-49, notes. The incident is common to all the
Evangelists, but their accounts are quite different. John alone
repeats the utterance, “It is finished,” which is to be regarded not
merely as a presage of death, equivalent to, The era of suffering is
ended, the era of joy begins; but as triumphant and prophetic: The
work which thou gavest me to do is finished (ch. 17:4); and this
because Christ died once for all, thus perfecting a sacrificing which
needs never to be repeated (Heb. 9:28), and because by it he offers to
the believer a redemption which is finished, and which needs not to be
supplemented to make it efficacious. The cry of almost despair, “My
God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” was followed by the cry of
triumph, uttered with a loud voice (Matt. 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke
23:46); and then, with the prayer, “Father, into thy hands I commit my
spirit” (Luke 23:46), he bowed his head and gave up the ghost. Some
scholars (_Chrysostom_, _Hengstenberg_, _Godet_, etc.) hold that the
reference to prophecy here is to Psalm 69:21, and that the meaning is
that Christ said “I thirst” in order to fulfill prophecy; others
(_Meyer_, _Luthardt_) make the phrase “that the Scripture might be
fulfilled” dependent on the preceding clause, and the meaning to be
that all things were accomplished that the Scripture might be
fulfilled. This seems to me to be the better interpretation. The other
makes Christ utter the expression of thirst for the purpose of calling
forth in others the fulfillment of a prophecy. It may be remarked here
that the constant use of the phrase _that the Scripture might be
fulfilled_ gives to a casual reader the impression that a multitude
of minor incidents were ordered by God, and unimportant acts were
performed by Christ, merely to fulfill O. T. prophecy. The reader
must, however, remember that the Gospels were written primarily for
Jewish readers in large measure, and that the test by which every Jew
determined whether or no Jesus was the Messiah was by asking the
question, Does he fulfill the ancient prophecies? While, therefore, it
is true that Christ’s life does fulfill, even in marvellously minute
details, the prophecies of the O. T., it is also true that these
fulfillments are pointed out by the Evangelists with an emphasis which
in our time seems excessive, but which was not so in their age and for
their immediate purpose. Compare the apostolic speeches to Jewish
audiences, as reported in Acts, which are almost wholly devoted to
proving that Christ’s life and death were in accordance with ancient
Jewish prophecies.
31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation,[711]
that the bodies should not remain[712] upon the cross on
the sabbath day, (for[713] that sabbath day was an high
day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and
_that_ they might be taken away.
[711] verse 42.
[712] Deut. 21:23.
[713] Lev. 23:7, 8.
32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first,
and of the other which was crucified with him.
33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead
already, they brake not his legs:
34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side,
and forthwith came thereout blood[714] and water.[715]
[714] Heb. 9:22, 23; 1 John 5:6, 8.
[715] 1 Pet. 3:21.
35 And[716] he that saw _it_ bare record, and his record
is true; and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might
believe.
[716] 1 John 1:1-3.
36 For these things were done, that the scripture[717]
should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
[717] Exod. 12:46; Numb. 9:12; Ps. 34:20.
37 And again another scripture[718] saith, They shall look
on him whom they pierced.
[718] Ps. 22:16; Zech. 12:10; Rev. 1:7.
=31-37. Because it was the preparation.= That is, for the Sabbath. At
first the hours, then the entire day, immediately preceding the
Sabbath, was called by the Jews the Preparation. See on ver. 14, and
more fully on Mark 15:42. The Jews, who had no hesitation about
compassing by the most unscrupulous methods the death of an innocent
man, were scrupulous about leaving his corpse to hang on the cross
over the Sabbath--a notable illustration of Sabbatical ceremonialism.
It was the Roman custom to leave the corpse to putrefy; this was
forbidden by the Jewish law, which, partly as a sanitary, partly as a
ceremonial regulation, required immediate burial. See Deut.
21:23.--=That their legs might be broken.= A barbarous but not
uncommon method of accelerating death, adopted in order to enhance
rather than mitigate the horrors of the execution.--=Then came the
soldiers and brake the legs=, etc. The implication is, of course, that
this was done under the orders of Pilate. Nor is there anything
inconsistent in this account with that in Mark (Mark 15:44), that
Pilate was surprised to learn that Jesus was dead, and inquired into
the certainty of the fact before giving permission to Joseph of
Arimathea to remove the body. For when the death of Jesus was reported
to him, the circumstances would also have been reported; and thus
Pilate would have known that the soldiers found him already dead when
they came to break the legs of the three.--=But one of the soldiers
with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came thereout blood and
water.= On the physical significance of this fact, see below, Note on
the Physical Cause of Christ’s Death. From it the spiritualizing
commentators have drawn many mystical lessons, most of them of very
doubtful profit; _e. g._, the comparison of the drawing of Eve from
the side of Adam and the drawing of the church from the side of
Christ; the necessity of both blood and water to regeneration (ch.
3:5); the use of both as emblems of the sacraments, etc. All such uses
of this incident belong at best to the poet, not the commentator, and
its use even by the poet must be cautious, or it becomes unprofitable.
The object of the spear-thrust was not to determine whether death had
actually taken place so much as to ensure death, if there were any
doubt. The record is given partly to set at rest the ancient Gnostic
skeptical whim that the death took place only in seeming; it equally
does set at rest the suggestion of more modern skepticism that Christ
merely fainted from exhaustion and was subsequently restored by the
disciples.--=And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true=,
etc. The use of this phraseology shows the importance which John gave
to this particular fact; partly, perhaps, because it established the
all-important fact of the actual death of the Lord, the culmination of
his life of self-sacrifice, and equally the foundation of that proof
of his divinity which is afforded by his resurrection from the dead.
But I believe that it also gives emphasis to the real cause of the
death of our Lord--a broken heart, broken for the sins of the world,
which he bore on the tree. It is also a water-mark of authorship. “The
testimony thus declared to be veracious is just the record itself
which the narrator was setting down; and, as he says it comes from no
other than the eye-witness, he certainly gives us to understand that
he, the Evangelist, is also the disciple whom Jesus loved.”--(_James
Martineau._)--The prophetic Scriptures referred to are Exod. 12:46 and
Zech. 12:10. The first passage, “A bone of him shall not be broken,”
refers primarily to the paschal lamb; but that lamb was regarded by
the Jews, and is treated both by the Old Testament and the New, as a
type of the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world.
* * * * *
NOTE ON THE PHYSICAL CAUSE OF CHRIST’S DEATH.--The immediate cause of
Christ’s death is veiled in obscurity; for a brief statement of
various critical opinions on this subject, see Meyer’s notes on this
passage. I believe that there is at least good reason for the opinion
that he died of a literally broken heart. Crucifixion produced a very
lingering death. No vital organ was directly affected. The victim
rarely died in less than twenty-four hours. Instances are recorded of
his lingering a full week. It was customary to dispatch the condemned
after a few hours of torture by speedier means. This was done in the
case of the thieves. Pilate was surprised at the intelligence that
Jesus was already dead. The guard seems to have shared that surprise.
Up to the last moment there was no sign of weakness, no decay of power
or vitality. Jesus conversed with the thief and spoke to his friends.
His last cry was not that of exhausted nature; he cried with a
loud--literally great, _i. e._, strong--voice. His death was instant.
There was something remarkable in it--something that attracted the
attention of the centurion and his band. It followed immediately after
the cry, “My God! my God! why hast thou forsaken me?” This agony
succeeded that of Gethsemane. In that midnight struggle the heart and
blood-vessels were affected. The palpitation of the heart was so
intense as to cause bloody sweat--a phenomenon rare, but not unknown,
and produced by intense mental excitement. That this was a truly
bloody sweat, see Luke 22:44, note. The heart would probably have been
weakened by such an experience. A repetition of the agony then endured
might truly rupture the membrane of the heart. Such an experience has
been known to produce such a result. If it did, death would instantly
ensue. The blood would flow into the pericardium, an outer sac in
which the heart is enclosed; there it would be liable to separate very
rapidly into clots of extravasated blood and water. When the soldier
thrust the spear into Jesus’ side, it was probably with a double
purpose: to ascertain whether Jesus was dead; to ensure his death if
he were not. For this purpose he would aim at the heart. The spear
would pierce, of course, the left, not the right side, as portrayed in
nearly all art representations of the crucifixion. The water, followed
and accompanied by the clots of blood, would flow from the wound. It
is impossible to account for this phenomenon, not only recorded by
John, but evidently regarded by him of considerable importance, except
upon the hypothesis of a broken heart, or of some organic disease.
Andrews’s hypothesis that it was supernatural has nothing but a devout
surmise to sustain it. The reader who desires to investigate this
subject more thoroughly will find by far the fullest and ablest
discussion of it in Stroud’s _Physical Cause of the Death of Christ_,
London, 1847, especially ch. iv, pp. 73-156, and notes iv and v, pp.
389-420. If this is not within his reach, he will find a brief but
adequate statement of the argument in M’Clintock and Strong’s
_Biblical Cyclopædia_, art. _Crucifixion_.
38 And after this Joseph of Arimathæa, being a disciple of
Jesus, but secretly for[719] fear of the Jews, besought
Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and
Pilate gave _him_ leave. He came therefore, and took the
body of Jesus.
[719] ch. 9:22; 12:42.
39 And there came also[720] Nicodemus, which at the first
came to Jesus by night, and[721] brought a mixture of myrrh
and aloes, about an hundred pound _weight_.
[720] ch. 3:1, 2; 7:50.
[721] 2 Chron. 16:14.
40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound[722] it in
linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is
to bury.
[722] Acts 5:6.
41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a
garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was
never man yet laid.
42 There[723] laid they Jesus therefore because[724] of the
Jews’ preparation _day_; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.
[723] Isa. 53:9; 1 Cor. 15:4.
[724] verse 31.
=38-42. After this came Joseph of Arimathea.= Of him nothing is known
except what may be gathered from the accounts of the Evangelists
concerning him in this connection. Mark implies that he was a member
of the Sanhedrim (Mark 15:43), and Luke that he had nothing to do with
the condemnation of Jesus; probably was not present (see Luke 23:51,
note), either because he knew what was coming before them and that his
resistance would be in vain, or because the others knew his character,
and did not summon him. Luke also describes him as a “good man and
just.” His act in requesting the body of Christ after the crucifixion
was one requiring some courage. In later martyrdoms such a request
cost men their lives; in this case it must at least have cost Joseph
much obloquy. The site of Arimathea is entirely uncertain. The effect
of Christ’s death to make the cowardly strong is noticed by all
commentators.--=Pilate gave him leave.= After making sure that Christ
was really dead (Mark 15:44, 45). --=Took the body of Jesus.= This
taking down from the cross was probably done by the loving hands of
the disciples; this is more probable than that it was done by the
Roman soldiers. Their last duty was performed when they made sure of
the death of the condemned.--=There came also Nicodemus.= It was now
even, that is, the early evening, probably between four o’clock and
sunset. See Matt. 27:57, note. On the character of Nicodemus, see ch.
3:1, note.--=Brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred
pounds weight.= “Myrrh-resin and aloe-wood; these fragrant materials
(Ps. 45:8) were placed, in a pulverized condition, between the
bandages. But the surprising quantity (comp. ch. 12:3) is here
explained from the fact that superabundant reverence in its sorrowful
excitement does not easily satisfy itself; we may also assume that a
portion of the spices was designed for the couch of the body in the
grave” (_Meyer_); or to be burned. See below.--=As the manner of the
Jews is to bury.= There is no evidence that the Hebrews ever practised
systematic embalming, as the Egyptians did. In the O. T. there is but
one mention of any such practice, that of the case of Asa, and he was
not properly embalmed, but laid in the bed which he had prepared for
himself “with perfumes and spices” (2 Chron. 16:14). It appears to
have been the custom in the time of Christ to wash the body and anoint
it, then to wrap it in fine linen, with spices and ointments enveloped
in the folds, and afterwards to pour more ointment upon it, and
sometimes to burn spices. In the case of Christ, the approach of the
Sabbath hurried the preparations of the body, which were not yet
completed at sunset, and were left to be finished the day after the
Sabbath.--Comparing the four accounts of the burial, it appears that
the body was wrapped in fine linen, with some of the spices, and laid
hurriedly away in a rock-hewn sepulchre in a garden near the place of
the crucifixion, one in which no previous burial had ever taken place.
According to Matthew, it belonged to Joseph (Matt. 27:59, 60; Mark
15:46; Luke 23:53, 54). For illustration of the body prepared for
burial, see Acts 5:6, note; for illustration of Jewish tomb, see Mark
16:2-4, notes. For a striking sermon on the Significance of the
Sepulchre in the Garden, sorrow amid flowers, see Harper’s edition of
H. W. Beecher’s sermons.