1‐5. *Jesus is scourged, crowned with thorns, clothed with a
purple garment, and mockingly saluted by the soldiers as King of
the Jews; then shown to the people.*
6‐7. *The people, led on by the Priests and their servants, demand
Christ’s death.*
*8‐12. Pilate becomes still more unwilling to interfere with
Jesus, and again examines Him, and makes known his intention of
releasing Him.*
13‐16. *Then the Jews charge him with disloyalty to the Roman
Emperor, and at length Pilate gives way and delivers Jesus to be
crucified.*
17‐22. *Jesus is led to Calvary, and crucified between two
robbers.*
23‐24. *The soldiers divide His other garments among four of them,
but cast lots for His tunic.*
25‐27. *Jesus gives John to the Blessed Virgin as her son, and her
in turn to him as his mother.*
28‐30. *Jesus, having partaken of the vinegar which was offered to
Him in a soaked sponge, dies.*
31‐37. *The legs of the two robbers are broken, and the side of
Jesus pierced with a lance.*
38‐42. *Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus embalm and bury the body
of Jesus.*
1. Tunc ergo apprehendit 1. Then, therefore Pilate took
Pilatus Iesum, et flagellavit. Jesus, and scourged him.
1. After he had released Barabbas, Pilate now thought of another but a
cruel means of saving the life of Jesus. He had Him scourged, hoping thus
to satisfy the fury of His enemies (Luke xxiii. 22). Then was fulfilled
the prophecy of Isaias: “_I have given my body to the strikers_, and My
cheeks to them that plucked them: I have not turned away my face from them
that rebuked me, and spat upon me” (Isaias 1. 6).
Had Christ been scourged by Jewish authority, according to the Jewish law
He should not have received more than forty stripes. “According to the
measure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be: Yet so that
they exceed not the number of forty: lest thy brother depart shamefully
torn before thy eyes” (Deut. xxv. 2, 3). By Jewish practice the number of
stripes was restricted to thirty‐nine (See 2 Cor. xi. 24). But as the
scourging was ordered by Pilate, it was, doubtless, inflicted according to
the cruel Roman method, in which there was no limit to the number of
stripes that might be inflicted. The word used by the Greek translator of
St. Matthew and by St. Mark in reference to this scourging is φραγελλώσας,
which, like that used by St. John (ἐμαστίγωσεν), signifies a scourging
with whips or flagella(120) (not _rods_, which were sometimes used by the
Romans; Acts xvi. 22. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 25). The _flagellum_ was chiefly
used in the punishment of slaves. It was made of cords or thongs of
leather, knotted with bones or circles of bronze, or pieces of hard wood,
and sometimes terminated by hooks in which latter case it was called a
scorpion. No wonder that Horace (_Sat._ 1, 3, 119) speaks of it as
“horribile flagellum.” It was with this brutal instrument of torture,
then, that our Lord was mangled on this morning by the fierce Roman
soldiers.
The pillar to which according to tradition our Lord was tied while being
scourged, was brought from Jerusalem to Rome, in 1223 A.D. “In a small
shrine to the right of the chapel (in the Church of St. Praxedes on the
Esquiline, near St. Mary Major’s), is preserved the marble pillar to which
our Lord is said to have been bound. It measures two feet three inches in
height, not including its circular pedestal, which is two inches high; its
lower diameter is one foot and a‐half, its upper is only nine inches, and
its top was attached to a ring, the perforation for which remains” (Dr.
Donovan’s _Rome, Ancient and Modern_).
2. Et milites plectentes 2. And the soldiers platting a
corronam de spinis, crown of thorns, put it upon
imposuerunt capiti eius: et his head: and they put on him
veste purpurea circumdederunt a purple garment.
eum.
2. There is a difficulty here when we compare this verse with Matt. xxvii.
26‐29; Mark xv. 15‐18. For, while St. John here represents the crowning
with thorns(121) and the incident of the cloak as _preceding_ the sentence
of death (see verse 16), SS. Matthew and Mark seem to say that they
followed it.
Hence, some have held that Christ was twice crowned with thorns and clad
with a cloak, and hailed as King of the Jews: once before the sentence as
signified here, and once after as indicated by SS. Matthew and Mark.
But it seems the more probable opinion that these events occurred only
once, and before the sentence was passed, as St. John records. In this
view, SS. Matthew and Mark do not record these events and the sentence in
the order in which they occurred.(122) We would suggest, in support of
this view, that these Evangelists, in recording the sentence by which
Barabbas recovered his liberty (Matt. xxvii. 26; Mark xv. 15), depart from
the order of time to record in connection with the liberation of Barabbas
the condemnation of Jesus. Thus the sentence of death, though following
the crowning with thorns is represented in the two first Gospels as
preceding it.
*A purple garment.* If it be objected that while the cloak according to
St. John was _purple_, according to St. Matthew it was _scarlet_, we reply
that the same difficulty occurs on a comparison of St. Matthew with St.
Mark, for the latter also says the cloak was _purple_; and yet all admit
that SS. Matthew and Mark refer to the same occasion. In reality, the two
Greek words translated purple and scarlet seem to have been frequently
interchanged.
“Πορφύρα is vaguely used to signify different shades of red, and is
especially convertible with crimson = κοκκίνη, Matt.” (Alf. on St. Mark
xv. 17).
3. Et veniebant ad eum, et 3. And they came to him, and
dicebant: Ave rex Iudaeorum: said: Hail, king of the Jews,
Et dabant ei alapas. and they gave him blows.
3. *Hail, king of the Jews.* The soldiers had derisively arrayed Him in
the insignia of royalty; nothing was wanting but the mockery of their
homage; this they now offer. St. Matthew is more explicit: “And bowing the
knee before him, they mocked him, saying: Hail, king of the Jews” (Matt.
xxvii. 29).
*And they gave him blows.* From St. Matthew we learn, too, that “spitting
upon him, they took the reed, and struck his head” (Matt. xxvii. 30).
4. Exivit ergo iterum Pilatus 4. Pilate therefore went forth
foras, et dicit eis: Ecce again, and saith to them:
adduco vobis eum foras, ut Behold I bring him forth unto
cognoscatis quia nullam you, that you may know that I
invenio in eo causam. find no cause in him.
4. Pilate now brought Jesus forth, hoping that the wretched plight to
which our Saviour had been reduced, that the mockery and degradation and
suffering to which He had been subjected, would satisfy them, and with
this view he says to them in effect: Behold I bring Him forth to you that
I may make known to you again that I can find no reason for condemning
Him; see, then, the miserable state to which He is reduced, and be
satisfied.
5. (Exivit ergo Iesus portans 5. Jesus therefore came forth
coronam spineam, et purpureum bearing the crown of thorns,
vestimentum). Et dicit eis: and the purple garment. And he
Ecce homo. saith to them: Behold the Man.
5. This verse gives us the graphic description of an eye‐witness. *Behold
the Man.* “Behold” is an interjection, not a verb. It it were a verb,
“man” would be in the accusative case governed by it. This, indeed, is
what is suggested by our translation and punctuation: “Behold the Man.”
But in the original, “man” is in the nominative case (ὁ ἄνθρωπος), and the
meaning is: Behold, here before you is _the Man_.
6. Cum ergo vidissent eum 6. When the chief priests
pontifices et ministri therefore and the servants had
clamabant dicentes: Crucifige, seen him, they cried out,
crucifige eum, Dicit eis saying: Crucify him, crucify
Pilatus: accipite cum vos et him. Pilate saith to them:
crucifigite: ego enim non Take him you, and crucify him;
invenio in eo causam. for I find no cause in him.
6. As soon as Jesus appeared, the chief‐priests and the ministers at once
raised the savage cry, fearing lest the sight of His bleeding and mangled
body might melt the hearts of the people.
Pilate’s words: *Take him, you, and crucify him*, are thought by some to
be ironical, as if he said: Take him you, if you dare. We prefer, however,
to understand the words, like the similar words in verse xviii. 31, as the
expression of his desire to please the Jews. He was convinced that Jesus
was innocent, and was unwilling himself to condemn Him; yet, to please the
Jews, he would permit them to put Him to death.
7. Responderunt ei Iudaei: Nos 7. The Jews answered him: We
legem habemus, et secundum have a law; and according to
legem debet mori, quia Filium the law he ought to die,
Dei se fecit. because he made himself the
Son of God.
7. *The Jews answered him: We have a law.* The Jews reply, that though the
Roman governor sees nothing in Him for which to condemn Him, yet,
according to their law, Jesus has incurred the penalty of death: “He that
blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die; all the multitude
shall stone him” (Lev. xxiv. 16).
*Because he made himself the Son of God.* Note here that the Jews
understood Christ to have claimed to be the _natural_ Son of God. Had they
understood Him to speak of Himself merely as an adopted son, they could
not have blamed Him, for the just are frequently spoken of in the Old
Testament as sons of God. From St. Luke xxiii. 2, then, we know that the
Jews understood Jesus to claim to be “Christ, the King;” that is to say,
to be the Messias; and from the verse before us we learn that they
understood Him to claim to be the Son of God. As such then, and for such
claims on His part, He was put to death; and the fact that He chose rather
to die, than explain away or withdraw these claims, proves that He was
understood correctly.
8. Cum ergo audisset Pilatus 8. When Pilate therefore had
hunc sermonem, magis timuit. heard this saying, he feared
the more.
8. *He feared the more.* When Pilate heard that Christ claimed to be the
Son of God, he became _more_ afraid to interfere with or condemn Him.
Already her dream which Pilate’s wife had made known to him (Matt. xxvii.
19), and the majesty, serenity, and evident innocence of Jesus, must have
greatly impressed the governor.
9. Et ingressus est praetorium 9. And he entered into the
iterum, et dixit ad Iesum: hall again, and he said to
Unde es tu? Iesus autem Jesus: Whence art thou? But
responsum non dedit ei. Jesus gave him no answer.
9. Again, therefore, he entered the palace (πραιτώριον). Jesus, too, was
led in, and Pilate questioned Him in reference to the accusation just made
against Him. You have been charged with claiming to be the Son of God:
*Whence art thou?* from heaven, or of earth, like other men? Pilate was
unworthy of an answer, or else Jesus thought it useless to explain to one
who would not understand or believe it His eternal generation from the
Father, and accordingly He was silent.
10. Dicit ergo ei Pilatus: 10. Pilate therefore saith to
Mihi non loqueris? nescis quia him: Speakest thou not to me?
potestatem habeo crucifigere knowest thou not that I have
te et potestatem habeo power to crucify thee, and I
dimittere te? have power to release thee?
10. *Speakest thou not to me?* In the original the pronoun, standing at
the head of the clause, is emphatic. Speakest thou not _to me_, the
representative of Roman power, who have authority (ἐξουσίαν) to liberate
or crucify thee?
*Knowest thou not that I have power*, &c. The more probable order of the
clauses is: “I have power to release thee, and I have power to crucify
thee,” the motive of hope standing before that of fear.
11. Respondit Iesus: Non 11. Jesus answered: Thou
haberes potestatem adversum me shouldest not have any power
ullam, nisi tibi datum esset against me, unless it were
desuper. Propterea qui me given thee from above.
tradidit tibi, maius peccatum Therefore he that hath
habet. delivered me to thee, hath the
greater sin.
11. Pilate’s claim to unlimited power over Him makes Jesus again break
silence. His words are an implicit admission that Pilate possesses power
over Him, but at the same time a reminder that there was One greater than
even a Roman governor, without whose permission Pilate could do nothing
against Him.
*Unless it were given thee from above.* From the original, in which we
have ἦν δεδομένον, not ἦν δεδομένη (datum, not data), it is clear that the
verb has not “power” for its subject, but is to be taken impersonally:
Unless it were given thee from above _to have such power_.
“From above” has been taken by some to refer to the Sanhedrim, as if
Christ here referred to it as a higher tribunal than Pilate’s; but this
view cannot be admitted. Not only is it opposed to the ordinary sense of
ἄνωθεν (iii. 31; James i. 17; iii. 15, 17), but it would make our Lord say
that Pilate had received his power from the Sanhedrim—a statement which
would not be correct. “From above”, then, means: from heaven or from God.
*Therefore he that hath delivered* (παραδούς, not παραδιδούς) *me to thee
hath the greater sin*. Some, as Kuinoel, hold that διὰ τοῦτο is here
merely a formula of transition (like the Hebrew לבן, Judg. viii. 7, &c.),
of which no account is to be taken. The meaning is then sufficiently
clear. But if, as most commentators take for granted, we are to give διὰ
τοῦτο its ordinary inferential force, the connection is very obscure, and
has been variously explained.
(_a_) Some thus: Because you exercise your power _unwillingly_ therefore
your sin is less than that of Caiphas and the Sanhedrim, who have
delivered me to you, and are forcing you to condemn me. But it is rightly
objected against this interpretation, that the word “unwillingly,” upon
which it turns, is neither expressed nor suggested in the text.
(_b_) Others thus: Since you have received from God power over Me, _but
have not had an opportunity of judging of My character_, therefore your
sin is less than that of Caiphas and the Sanhedrim, who with the clearest
evidences of My Divinity before them have yet condemned Me and delivered
Me to you. But it is objected to this view also, that the words upon which
the interpretation hinges, are not found in the text.
(_c_) Others thus: since you possess lawful authority, therefore the
Sanhedrim is more guilty in handing Me over to you than it would be, if
you possessed not this authority. For, in handing Me over to you, they try
to brand Me as a malefactor, and they surrender Me to one who has the
power to put Me to death, even by the cruel death of crucifixion. In this
view, held by Toletus, the sin of the Sanhedrim is compared, not with that
of Pilate, but with what their own sin would have been, had they merely
brought Jesus before some unlawful tribunal.
The last connection, though, perhaps, not sufficiently obvious, is the
most natural. The meaning of the whole verse is: You have lawful authority
indeed, but not independently of God; and since you have lawful authority,
therefore, My accusers are the more guilty.
The words “he that hath delivered me to thee” refer primarily to Caiphas,
the high‐priest, but include the Sanhedrim with him in the responsibility
for delivering up Christ.
12. Et exinde quaerebat 12. And from thenceforth
Pilatus dimittere eum. Iudaei Pilate sought to release him.
autem clamabant, dicentes: Si But the Jews cried out,
hunc dimittis, non es amicus saying: If thou release this
Caesaris: omnis enim qui se man, thou art not Cesar’s
regem facit contradicit friend. For whosoever maketh
Caesari. himself a king, speaketh
against Cesar.
12. *And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him.* Pilate, who had
hitherto tried to shirk the trial of Jesus, or to induce the Jews to call
for His release, now “sought” himself to release Him. At this juncture,
when all other motives had failed to move Pilate, the Jews exasperated
charge him with being the enemy of Cæsar, if he refuse to condemn one who
claimed to be a sovereign within Cæsar’s dominions. Their words conveyed
to Pilate that they would denounce him to Cæsar, in case he persisted in
refusing to condemn Jesus. Tiberius (14‐37 A.D.), who was Roman Emperor at
the time, was, according to Suetonius (Vit. Tib., c. 58), a most
suspicious tyrant, and one with whom, as Tacitus tells us: “Majestatis
crimen omnium accusationum complementum erat” (Ann. iii. 38).
13. Pilatus autem cum audisset 13. Now when Pilate had heard
hos sermones, adduxit foras these words, he brought Jesus
Iesum: et sedit pro tribunali, forth; and sat down in the
in loco qui dicitur judgment seat, in the place
Lithostrotos, hebraice autem that is called Lithostrotos,
Gabbatha. and in Hebrew Gabbatha.
13. Now when Pilate had heard these words, he brought Jesus forth. Pilate,
through fear of the Emperor, at length gave way, and Jesus, who had
remained within the house after the interrogation (verses 9‐11), while
Pilate was signifying his own intention to the people (verse 12), was now
brought forth, and Pilate formally took his seat to pass sentence of
death.
*In the place that is called Lithostrotos, and in Hebrew Gabbatha.* The
Rev. Vers. renders: “At a place called the Pavement, but in Hebrew
Gabbatha.” The judgment‐seat was usually in front of the Praetorium, on an
elevated platform. The Syro‐Chaldaic word Gabbatha means _a high place_,
probably from the root גבה (Gabhah), and such high places were usually
paved with many‐coloured stones, hence the name “Lithostrotos” (from
λίθος, a stone, and στρωτός, covered, or paved). Suetonius (Caes. 8, 46)
says that Julius Cæsar carried such a pavement with him on his
expeditions.
14. Erat autem parasceve 14. And it was the parasceve
paschae, hora quasi sexta, et of the pasch, about the sixth
dicit Iudaeis: Ecce rex hour, and he saith to the
vester. Jews: Behold your king.
14. *And it was the parasceve of the Pasch.* “Parasceve” (Gr. παρασκευή)
means _preparation_, or _day of preparation_, and the expression: “the
parasceve of the Pasch” _might_ mean the day of preparation for the
Paschal feast, and hence the day _before_ the feast began. This, indeed,
is the meaning given to the phrase by all those who hold that Christ, in
the last year of His mortal life, celebrated the Paschal Supper a day
before the Jews.(123) They hold that St. John here signifies that the
Jewish Pasch had not yet begun. But the phrase may have, and we believe
has, a different meaning. We know from St. Mark that “Parasceve” was
another name for Friday; “It was the Parasceve, that is, the day before
the Sabbath” (Mark xv. 42). Friday naturally enough got this name, because
it was the _day of preparation_ for the Jewish Sabbath.
By “the parasceve of the Pasch,” then, we understand the Friday of the
Paschal week, and we take it that St. John here indicates the day of the
week, as in the words immediately following he indicates the hour of the
day. His readers, some of whom were, doubtless, acquainted with the
Synoptic Gospels, would be already aware that this day was the first of
the Paschal week, and not the eve of the festival. See above on xiii. 1.
*About the sixth hour.* A very great difficulty arises from a comparison
of this account with that of St. Mark. For St. Mark says: “And it was the
_third_ hour, and they crucified Him.... And when the sixth hour was come,
there was darkness over the whole earth until the ninth hour” (Mark xv.
25, 33).
Thus, while St. John represents our Lord as _condemned_ about the _sixth_
hour, St. Mark represents Him as already _crucified_ at the _third_ hour.
How, it is asked, could He be crucified at the _third_ hour, if He was not
condemned till the _sixth_?
Many solutions of this difficulty have been proposed, but some of them are
so improbable, that we will not delay upon them. When, for instance, St.
Augustine says that St. Mark, in stating that the Jews crucified Jesus at
the third hour, means that at that time they crucified Him with their
_tongues_ by calling for His crucifixion, it is plain from the whole
context of St. Mark that such a view cannot be admitted; because he
evidently speaks of the real nailing of Jesus to the cross. Thus he says:
“And it was the third hour, and they crucified him. And the inscription of
his cause was written over, _The King of the Jews_. And with him they
crucify two thieves, the one on his right hand, and the other on his
left.... And they that passed by blasphemed him, wagging their heads, and
saying: ... save thyself, coming down from the cross” (Mark xv. 25‐30).
But, setting aside the less probable methods of reconciliation, we must
notice four which have found favour with commentators.
(1) Maldonatus and many of the older commentators hold that besides the
division of the Jewish day into twelve hours, there was also another
division into four periods, corresponding to the four watches of the
night.(124) Thus, at the Pasch, which occurred about the time of the
vernal equinox, these four periods, or “hours,” would be
respectively—(_a_) from 6 to 9 a.m.; (_b_) from 9 a.m. to noon; (_c_) from
noon to 3 p.m.; and (_d_) from 3 to 6 p.m. According to Mald., these
periods were called respectively, the third, sixth, ninth, and twelfth
“hour.” He curiously supposes, however, that sometimes any one of these
“hours” or periods was referred to either by the name of the hour with
which it began, or by the name of that with which it closed. Hence the
period between 9 a.m. and noon, or, to speak more correctly, a time within
that period—about 11.30 a.m.—is referred to by St. Mark as the _third_
hour; while a time within the same period, but about an hour earlier is
referred to by St. John as the sixth hour.
This view is now generally abandoned, and not without reason. For, in the
first place, there are no solid grounds for believing that the fourfold
division of the Jewish day here supposed, ever existed. In the second
place, even if it had existed, we should require a great deal of proof,
indeed, before we could believe that the “hours” were numbered in so
strange and confusing a fashion.
(2) More probable than the preceding is the view of Cornely (Introd., vol.
iii., § 73, 3). He, too, like Mald., holds the above fourfold division of
the day, but says that the divisions were called respectively, the first,
third, sixth, and ninth hour. Now, the Synoptic Evangelists, he says,
follow this fourfold division of the day; and, hence, St. Mark’s third
hour is the time from 9 a.m. to noon. St. John, on the other hand, reckons
according to the more accurate Jewish method of dividing the day into
twelve equal parts; and, therefore, his phrase, “about the sixth hour,”
means _about noon_. Cornely thinks that the vagueness of the phrase:
“_About_ the sixth hour” justifies us in supposing that the time when
Pilate passed sentence upon our Lord, according to St. John, may have been
as early as half‐past ten. Thus, condemned about half‐past ten, Jesus
could be led out to Calvary and put upon the cross before noon; in other
words, while, as St. Mark says, it was still the third hour.
Though this view is more probable than the preceding, we cannot accept it.
For it supposes, like the preceding, a division of the day into four
“hours,” for which Cornely offers no evidence any more than Maldonatus.
Moreover, we cannot bring ourselves to believe that St. John would refer
to a time so early as half‐past ten as “about the sixth hour.”
(3) Others think that while St. Mark follows the Jewish division of the
day, and, therefore counts the hours from sunrise, St. John, on the other
hand, follows the Greek method, and counts them from midnight. Thus, about
the time of the equinox, St. Mark’s “third hour” would mean about 9 a.m.,
while St. John’s “about the sixth hour” would mean about 6 a.m. According
to this view, our Lord was condemned about 6 a.m., and nailed to the cross
about 9 a.m.
Against this view, it is held by many writers that St. John, like the
other Evangelists, counts the hours of the day from sunrise, that is to
say, according to the Jewish method.(125)
But a still more serious difficulty against this view arises from the
difficulty of finding time for all the events of the morning of the
Crucifixion between day‐dawn and 6 a.m.—the time at which, in this
opinion, our Lord was condemned by Pilate. “Those events ... were—(1) the
meeting of the Council; (2) the procession to Pilate’s Court; (3) the
various incidents recorded by the four Evangelists on the occasion of our
Lord’s first appearance before Pilate’s tribunal; (4) the sending of our
Lord to Herod; (5) the interview between our Lord and Herod; (6) the
mocking of our Lord by Herod’s soldiers; (7) the return to the Court of
Pilate; (8) the scourging; (9) the crowning with thorns; (10) the mocking
of our Lord by the Roman soldiers; (11) the incident of the ‘Ecce Homo,’
and (12) the final interview, within the Praetorium, between our Lord and
Pilate, at the close of which Pilate came forth, and, after a final effort
to obtain the liberation of our Lord, took his place on the judgment seat,
‘and it was now about the sixth hour.’
(4) “It would seem, then, that the most satisfactory solution of the
difficulty is that given by the great majority of modern
commentators—Catholic as well as Protestant—namely, that an error has
crept into the text of St. John’s Gospel, and that the true reading of the
passage in question there (xix. 14), is to be obtained by substituting
‘third’ for ‘sixth.’
“Manifestly, such a correction of the text removes the difficulty we are
considering. On the one hand, it leaves abundance of time before Pilate’s
sentence—three or four hours—for the events of the earlier part of the
morning. On the other hand, it leaves quite sufficient time—an interval,
it may be supposed, of nearly an hour—between the passing of the sentence
and the actual crucifixion; for St. John’s statement, that it was ‘about’
the third hour, might surely be understood of any time between half‐past
eight and nine o’clock; and St. Mark’s words are quite consistent with the
supposition that our Lord was crucified at any time between nine and ten.
“And it is not to be supposed that the emendation of the text is suggested
merely on _a priori_ grounds. For (1) this reading is actually found in
one of the five Greek MSS. of the New Testament that rank highest in
antiquity and authority—Codex D. (_Cantabrigiensis_ or _Bezae_): this MS
dates probably from the 5th or 6th century. Moreover (2) we have in its
favour the very strong testimony of an ancient writer, the author of the
_Chronicon Paschale_ (circ. A.D. 630), who adopts this reading on the
authority of many ‘accurate copies,’ and mentions the striking fact that
the clause was thus read in St. John’s original autograph of his Gospel,
then extant, and, of course, deeply venerated by the faithful in the
Church at Ephesus.” (See Patrizzi, _De Evangeliis_, lib. ii., n. 195.)
“But, it may be objected, is it not a somewhat forced hypothesis to
suppose that an interchange of two words so dissimilar as τρίτη and
ἕκτη,—the Greek words for ‘third’ and ‘sixth’ respectively—could have
occurred by an error of transcription? By no means. For, in the first
place, it must be remembered that the usage was almost universal of using
the numeral characters—which, in Greek consist of letters of the
alphabet—instead of writing the words in full. Thus the change would
consist merely in the substitution of one letter for another. But,
furthermore, it is essential to explain that when the ancient MSS. of the
Greek Testament were written, it was the usage to employ only capital, or,
as they are called, uncial letters—thus those MSS. themselves are commonly
known as uncial. Now, since the character by which the numeral 3 was
represented was _gamma_, the _third_ letter of the Greek alphabet, its
uncial form was Γ. The character by which the numeral 6 was represented
was the now obsolete _digamma_, at one time the _sixth_ letter of the
Greek alphabet: its uncial form was Ϝ.
“Thus then we find that the error which, it is suggested, has crept into
this verse of the text of St. John consisted merely in the interchange of
the characters Ϝ and Γ—a mistake so easily made that its very facility
constitutes a strong antecedent probability in favour of the view that it,
in fact, occurred.”(126)
In this view, which seems to us the most probable, Christ was condemned
_about_ the _third_ hour. As the _third_ hour at the season of the Pasch
extended from about 8 till 9 a.m., St. Mark’s “third hour” may refer to a
time immediately after 8 a.m. This opinion allows abundance of time for
the events which on that Good Friday morning preceded the sentence of
death. For, as the sun at the Pasch rose about 6 a.m., day‐dawn began
about half‐past four; and thus we have nearly four hours from the
assembling of the Sanhedrim, before which Jesus was led at dawn, till the
sentence was pronounced upon Him by Pilate. In this view, our Lord was put
upon the cross about 9 a.m.
*Behold your king.* This, like Pilate’s words in the next verse, was
probably said to annoy the Jews because they had forced him to condemn
Jesus.
15. Illi autem clamabant: 15. But they cried out: Away
Tolle, tolle, crucifige eum. with him, away with him,
Dicit eis Pilatus: Regem crucify him. Pilate saith to
vestrum crucifigam? them: Shall I crucify your
Responderunt pontifices: Non king? The chief priests
habemus regem, nisi Caesarem. answered: We have no king but
Cesar.
15. *We have no king but Caesar.* Though the Jews were at this time
chafing under the dominion of the Romans, the chief priests, blinded by
their hatred of Christ, here proclaimed their submission to the Roman
yoke.
16. Tunc ergo tradidit eis 16. Then therefore he
ilium ut crucifigeretur. delivered him to them to be
Susceperunt autem Iesum, et crucified. And they took
eduxerunt. Jesus, and led him forth.
16. And now Pilate at last delivered Jesus to them to be crucified, having
first, as St. Matthew tells us, gone through the vain ceremony of washing
his hands, as if he could thus wash his soul from the guilt of weakly
consenting to Christ’s death!
17. Et baiulans sibi crucem, 17. And bearing his own cross
exivit in eum qui dicitur he went forth to that place
Calvariae locum, hebraice which is called Calvary, but
autem Golgotha: in Hebrew Golgotha.
17. The words “and led him forth,” are probably not genuine. We learn from
the Synoptic Evangelists that Jesus was now mocked, stripped of the purple
cloak, and clothed with His own garments. Then, like Isaac of old (Gen.
xxii. 6), bearing the wood on which He was to suffer, Jesus _went forth_
(comp. xviii. 1) to the place where He was crucified. By Jewish as well as
Roman law the execution should take place outside the city; Numb. xv. 35;
3 K. xxi. 13. And Cicero says: Quid enim attinuit, cum Mamertini _more
atque instituto suo_, crucem fixissent _post urbem_ in via Pompeia, &c.
(Verr. v. 66). Calvary, which is now within the walls of Jerusalem, was
then outside them, lying to the west of the city. A very old tradition
represents Jesus as falling three times beneath the cross on His way to
Calvary; and the three Synoptic Evangelists tell us that Simon of
Cyrene(127), probably a Jew who had come to Jerusalem to celebrate the
Pasch, was forced to carry the cross. It is disputed whether Simon was
made to bear the cross alone or merely to assist Jesus. The latter view is
frequently followed in paintings, but the former seems more probable.
Jesus was now worn and weak, and as the Jews were impatient to hurry on to
the place of punishment; perhaps, too, through a fear that He might
otherwise die on the way and deprive them of the pleasure of seeing Him
writhing on the cross, they would be more likely to relieve Him from even
helping to carry the cross. “Nota,” says A Lapide, “non videri Simonem
crucem gestasse cum Christo hac ratione, ut Christus priorem crucis
partem, Simon posteriorem portaret, uti pingunt pictores; sed ipsum solum
totam Christi praeeuntis crucem gestasse” (A Lap. on St. Matt. xxvii. 32).
St. Luke alone mentions the incident of the women of Jerusalem, who
followed Jesus bewailing and lamenting for Him (Luke xxii. 27‐31). A very
ancient tradition represents the Blessed Virgin as meeting Jesus in this
sad procession to Calvary.
_Calvaria_ in the Vulgate is not a proper name. “It is simply the Latin
for κρανίον, a _bare skull_, and used in Vulgate only here (Matt.) and in
the parallel passages of Mark, Luke, and John when describing the
crucifixion—nowhere else in the Old or New Testament. Golgotha was the
Hebrew name of the spot where our Lord was crucified. The pure Hebrew form
of the word גלגלת (Gulgoleth), meaning a skull (from גלל (galal) _to roll,
to be round_), is found in Judges ix. 53. Thence came the Chaldaic (rather
we should say, Syro‐Chaldaic), Gulgalta, abbreviated into Golgotha. But
why was the place called Golgotha, or _skull_? Either because criminals
were commonly executed on that spot, and many skulls were found there
bleaching in the sun (St. Jerome and most modern Catholic comm.); or the
mound was skull‐like (St. Cyril of Jerusalem alludes to this view, but
refutes it); or (according to tradition) the skull of the first man, Adam,
was buried there (Orig., St. Epiph., and nearly all the fathers) ...: In
accordance with this opinion (of the fathers), we see so often in
paintings and pictures a skull placed at the foot of the cross. Although
we read constantly in sermons of the _hill_ of Calvary, there is little to
show that there was any hill or mound on the spot named _Golgotha_. St.
Cyril of Jerusalem objects to the derivation of Calvary from the mound
being skull‐shaped, because he says there was _no hill_ there. In the
whole history of the Passion no mention is made of the _mount_ or hill of
Calvary.... The traditional spot is simply on a high ground, like Holborn
in London, or Patrick’s‐hill in Dublin, or the Pantheon in Paris” (Dr.
M’Carthy, on St. Matthew, xxvii. 33).
18. Ubi crucifixerunt eum, et 18. Where they crucified him,
cum eo alios duos hinc et and with him two others, one
hinc, medium autem Iesum. on each side, and Jesus in the
midst.
18. Whether Jesus was nailed to the cross while it was lying upon the
ground, or whether the cross was first erected and He then raised up to it
by ropes and ladders, is disputed.(128)
As to the shape of the cross, too, on which He was crucified, there is a
slight difference of opinion. Setting aside the _crux simplex_, which was
merely an upright stake, the _crux compacta_, so called from the parts
being joined together, was threefold: “_decussata_ (cut into two equal
parts), like the letter X; _commissa_, like the letter T, and _immissa_,
or Latin +, which differs from the _commissa_, by having the long upright
beam projecting over the transverse bar” (M’Carthy). The almost unanimous
tradition of the fathers holds that Christ died upon the Latin cross, and
there is no reason to doubt that this is correct.
*And with him two others.* These are described as “robbers” (λῃισταί), by
St. Matt. (xxvii. 38), and St. Mark (xv. 27), and as “malefactors” by St.
Luke (xxiii. 32). It may possibly have been to add to His disgrace and
shame that the Jews had these punished together with Jesus. “And the
Scripture was fulfilled which saith: _And with the wicked he was reputed_”
(Mark xv. 28).
19. Scripsit autem et titulum 19. And Pilate wrote a title
Pilatus: et posuit super also: and he put it upon the
crucem, Erat autem scriptum: cross. And the writing was,
IESUS NAZARENUS, REX JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF
IUDAEORUM. THE JEWS.
19. *Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.* It was usual to indicate in
some such way the name and offence of those crucified, and so Pilate had
an inscription placed over the head of Jesus, giving His name, and the
reason why He suffered. We should have expected, however, that Pilate
would have caused to be written: Jesus of Nazareth who _claimed to be_
king of the Jews. But no, either to annoy the Jews, or by an over‐ruling
Providence, Pilate wrote: “KING OF THE JEWS,” thus proclaiming Christ’s
royal dignity even while he crucified Him.
The title is slightly different in all four Evangelists. _Hic est Jesus
Rex Judaeorum_ (Matthew); _Rex Judaeorum_ (Mark); _Hic est Rex Judaeorum_
(Luke); _Jesus Nazarenus Rex Judaeorum_ (John).
It is very probable that St. John gives the precise words of the title,
the others the substance. For all that is at present legible(129) of the
Hebrew text of the title agrees exactly with St. John.
The title, written on a whitened wooden tablet, together with the true
cross, nails, and lance, was discovered during the excavations ordered by
an English woman, St. Helen, the mother of Constantine the Great, about
the year 326 A.D. The title was placed by St. Helen in the Church of the
Holy Cross on the Esquiline, in Rome, where it is still venerated. See Dr.
Donovan’s _Rome, Ancient and Modern_, vol. i., p. 508.
20. Hunc ergo titulum multi 20. This title therefore many
Iudaeorum legerunt: quia prope of the Jews did read: because
civitatem erat locus, ubi the place where Jesus was
crucifixus est Iesus: et erat crucified was nigh to the
scriptum hebraice, graece, et city: and it was written in
latine. Hebrew, in Greek, and in
Latin.
20. *The place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city.* Calvary
was less than a mile from the centre of Jerusalem, and as the city was
then crowded, many read the title. The title was in three languages, that
all might be able to read it. The Jews resident in Palestine could read
the Syro‐Chaldaic; the strangers could read the Greek; and the Roman
soldiers, the Latin. It was formerly held by some commentators that the
three inscriptions were in Latin, but written in Syro‐Chaldaic, Greek, and
Latin characters, respectively. This opinion, however, has nothing to
recommend it. The obvious sense of the verse before us, and the relics of
the title, prove that the inscription was in three different languages.
Many authorities reverse the order of the two last clauses in this verse:
“in Latin, and in Greek.”
21. Dicebant ergo Pilato 21. Then the chief priests of
pontifices Iudaeorum: Noli the Jews said to Pilate: Write
scribere, Rex Iudaeorum: sed not, the king of the Jews, but
quia ipse dixit: Rex sum that he said: I am the king of
Iudaeorum. the Jews.
21. *Then the chief priests.* Rather, “the chief priests of the Jews,
_therefore_,” &c.
22. Respondit Pilatus: Quod 22. Pilate answered: What I
scripsi, scripsi. have written, I have written.
22. *What I have written, I have written.* Pilate, already tired of the
painful business, and disgusted with the Jews, refused to make any change
in what he had written.
23. Milites ergo cum 23. The soldiers therefore
crucifixissent eum, acceperunt when they had crucified him,
vestimenta eius (et fecerunt took his garments (and they
quatuor partes: unicuique made four parts, to every
militi partem), et tunicam. soldier a part) and also his
Erat autem tunica coat. Now the coat was without
inconsutilis, desuper contexta seam, woven from the top
per totum. throughout.
23. It was the custom to give the clothes to the executioners. The tunic
was the inner garment worn next the skin, and reaching from the neck to
the ankles. It was usually fastened round the neck with a clasp.
24. Dixerunt ergo ad invicem: 24. They said then one to
Non scindamus eam, sed another: Let us not cut it,
sortiamur de illa cuius sit. but let us cast lots for it
Ut scriptura impleretur, whose it shall be; that the
dicens: Partiti sunt scripture might be fulfilled,
vestimenta mea sibi: et in saying: _They have parted my
vestem meam miserunt sortem. garments among them: and upon
Et milites quidem haec my vesture they have cast
fecerunt. lots_. And the soldiers indeed
did these things.
24. As Christ’s tunic was seamless, and the soldiers thought it a pity to
tear it, they cast lots for it; God so ordaining, in order that the
Scripture might be fulfilled. According to an old tradition, the tunic had
been woven for Jesus by the Blessed Virgin’s own hands.
25. Stabant autem iuxta crucem 25. Now there stood by the
Iesu mater eius, et soror cross of Jesus, his mother,
matris eius, Maria Cleophae, and his mother’s sister, Mary
et Maria Magdalene. of Cleophas, and Mary
Magdalen.
25. *By the cross.* There is no contradiction between this and the
Synoptic Evangelists (Matt. xxvii. 55; Mark xv. 40; Luke xxiii. 49), who
represent the women as standing “afar off;” for they refer to a time
subsequent to Christ’s death, St. John to a time when He was hanging on
the cross still alive.
*His mother’s sister.* Mary of Cleophas was the wife of Cleophas, and
mother of the Apostle James the Less. She was a cousin of the Blessed
Virgin. Some writers, however, prefer to think, that she is called a
“sister,” because her husband Cleophas was brother to St. Joseph.
26. Cum vidisset ergo Iesus 26. When Jesus therefore had
matrem, et discipulum stantem seen his mother and the
quem diligebat, dicit matri disciple standing, whom he
suae: Mulier, ecce filius loved, he saith to his mother:
tuus. Woman, behold thy son.
27. Deinde dicit discipulo: 27. After that, he saith to
Ecce mater tua. Et ex illa the disciple: Behold thy
hora accepit eam discipulus in mother. And from that hour the
sua. disciple took her to his own.
26, 27. *Woman* (γύναι) is the same term by which Jesus addressed His
mother at the marriage feast of Cana (John ii. 4). Its use on the present
sad, solemn occasion were itself sufficient proof that the term implies no
disrespect. (See above on ii. 4.) The virgin disciple is here commended to
the Blessed Virgin’s care, to be loved and treated as her son; and she, in
turn, to His care, to be loved and respected and supported as a mother.
There is no reason for doubting the common opinion that St. Joseph was
dead at this time; had he been still alive, the Blessed Virgin would,
doubtless, have remained under his care.
*To his own* (εἰς τὰ ἴδια, _i.e._ δώματα). The meaning is that he took her
to where he himself abode. He may have had a house of his own, for his
father seems to have been a man of some means (Mark i. 20), and the
expression would most naturally refer to his own house (Acts xxi. 6). But
it is possible, too, that he merely lodged in another’s house. In xvi. 32,
it is predicted that the Apostles should be scattered every man to his own
(εἰς τὰ ἴδια), and very few of these poor Galilean fishermen can have
owned houses in Jerusalem.
Regarding the common belief that St. John, at the foot of the cross,
represented the whole human race, or, at least, all the faithful, it must
be said that the fathers make no mention of this view, and that there is
nothing in the obvious literal sense of the passage to indicate that St.
John held any such representative capacity.
28. Postea sciens Iesus quia 28. Afterwards Jesus knowing
omnia consummata sunt, ut that all things were now
consummaretur scriptura, accomplished, that the
dixit: Sitio. scripture might be fulfilled,
said: I thirst.
28. *Afterwards*, when three o’clock was come, Jesus, knowing that He had
done all for which He had been sent, and that the prophecies regarding the
Messias had been fulfilled in Himself, in order that one remaining
prophecy might be accomplished, said: *I thirst*. Sorrow, and suffering,
and the loss of blood had exhausted the humours of the body, and naturally
produced thirst.
29. Vas ergo erat positum 29. Now there was a vessel set
aceto plenum. Illi autem there full of vinegar. And
spongiam plenam aceto, hyssopo they putting a sponge full of
circumponentes, obtulerunt ori vinegar about hyssop, put it
eius. to his mouth.
29. *Now there was a vessel set there full of vinegar.* Some think that
the “vinegar” was the posca, or thin wine, which was the ordinary drink of
the Roman soldiers, and that it was there on this occasion for their use.
But the fact that the sponge and hyssop seem to have been at hand,
provided apparently for the sake of the victims, makes it very probable
that the vinegar also was provided on their account. We must carefully
distinguish this occasion from another referred to by SS. Matt. and Mark,
prior to the crucifixion (Matt. xxvii. 34; Mark xv. 23). These Evangelists
refer to the present occasion also, but they speak of only one who took
the sponge, and gave Christ to drink (Matthew xxvii. 48; Mark xv. 36). We
may reconcile St. John’s account with theirs, by saying that he simply
uses the indefinite plural for the singular; or that he ascribes to many
what was done by one with their approval. One of those present, then,
probably a soldier, took a sponge,(130) and soaked it in vinegar, and
fastened it around the point of a sprig of hyssop, and then reached it up
to our Lord’s mouth that He might suck it. Thus was the Scripture
accomplished: “And in My thirst they gave Me vinegar to drink” (Ps.
lxviii. 22). Many think that the vinegar was given to hasten death.
Hyssop is an aromatic plant, which grows upon walls. Its stalks are less
than two feet long, so that our Lord’s mouth seems not to have been raised
higher above the ground than such a stalk in a man’s outstretched arm
could reach.
30. Cum ergo accepisset Iesus 30. Jesus therefore when he
acetum, dixit: Consummatum had taken the vinegar, said:
est. Et inclinato capite It is consummated. And bowing
tradidit spirituum. his head, he gave up the
ghost.
30. *It is consummated*; that is, all the purpose of My life is completed;
only one thing remains, that I finish My course and crown My life and
sufferings by My death. Then, as St. Luke tells us: “Jesus crying with a
loud voice, said: Father into thy hands I commend my spirit. And saying
this he gave up the ghost” (Luke xxiii. 46).
*He gave up the ghost.* He gave up His soul into the hands of His eternal
Father. The expression used seems to be employed with the special purpose
of showing that His death itself was a voluntary act (comp. x. 17, 18).
“Spiritum cum verbo sponte dimisit, praevento carnificis officio.”
(Tertull. Apol., ch. 21, p. 58.) And St. Augustine on this verse says
beautifully: “Quis ita dormit quando voluerit, sicut Jesus mortuus est
quando voluit? Quis ita vestem ponit quando voluerit, sicut se carne exuit
quando vult? Quis ita cum voluerit abit, quomodo ille cum voluit obiit?
Quanta speranda vel timenda potestas est judicantis, si apparuit tanta
morientis?”
It may be useful to set down here together what are commonly referred to
as the seven last “words” of Jesus on the cross. The Synoptic Evangelists
record four of them, and St. John the other three. The first was: “Father
forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke xxiii. 34); the
second, addressed to the good thief: “Amen, I say to thee, this day thou
shalt be with me in paradise” (Luke xxiii. 43); the third: “Woman behold
thy son,” together with the words addressed to St. John: “Behold thy
mother” (John xix. 26, 27); the fourth: “My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me?” (Matthew xxvii. 46; Mark xv. 34); the fifth: “I thirst”
(John xix. 28); the sixth: “It is consummated” (John xix. 30); and the
seventh: “Father into thy hands I commend my spirit” (Luke xxiii. 46).
31. Iudaei ergo (quoniam 31. Then the Jews (because it
parasceve erat), ut non was the parasceve) that the
remanerent in cruce corpora bodies might not remain upon
sabbato (erat enim magnus dies the cross on the sabbath‐day
ille sabbati), rogaverunt (for that was a great sabbath‐
Pilatum ut frangerentur eorum day) besought Pilate that
crura, et tollerentur. their legs might be broken,
and that they might be taken
away.
31. *(Because it was the parasceve) that the bodies*, &c. We would take
away the brackets. The fact that it was Friday, and that the Sabbath was,
therefore, near, made the Jews anxious to have the bodies removed. This
verse strongly confirms the view we hold (see above on verse 14) that St.
John means by parasceve, the day before the Sabbath, that is to say,
Friday; not the day before the Paschal feast. For, in the present verse
the fact that it was the parasceve is evidently taken to imply that the
next day would be the Sabbath.
*For that was a great sabbath day.* The better‐supported Greek reading
would be rendered: For great was the day of that sabbath (ἐκεινου τοῦ
σαββάτου). The meaning is that this Sabbath was specially solemn, because
it was the Sabbath that fell within the Paschal week.
*And that they might be taken away.* We read in Deut. xxi. 22, 23: “When a
man hath committed a crime for which he is punished with death, and being
condemned to die is hanged on a gibbet, his body shall not remain upon the
tree, but shall be buried _the same day_.” It was more than usually
necessary to have the bodies buried on the same day in the present case,
as the next day was to be a Sabbath, and a very special Sabbath, too. And
as the Sabbath began at sunset, hence the anxiety of the Jews to have the
bodies removed. The breaking of the legs was intended to insure death.
With the Romans it was usual to let the bodies of the crucified hang till
they rotted.
32. Venerunt ergo milites: et 32. The soldiers therefore
primi quidem fregerunt crura, came: and they broke the legs
et alterius, qui crucifixus of the first, and of the other
est cum eo. that was crucified with him.
33. Ad Iesum autem cum 33. But after they were come
venissent, ut viderunt eum iam to Jesus, when they saw that
mortuum, non fregerunt eius he was already dead, they did
crura: not break his legs.
34. Sed unus militum lancea 34. But one of the soldiers
latus eius aperuit, et with a spear opened his side,
continuo exivit sanguis et and immediately there came out
aqua. blood and water.
34. *Opened* (Vulg., aperuit) *his side*. It is very much more probable
that the verb in the original is ἔνυξεν (pierced) not ἤνοιξεν (opened). *A
spear*; (λόνχη). This was the long lance of a horseman. The lance is now
preserved and venerated in Rome, in St. Peter’s. It wants the point, which
is kept in the holy chapel in Paris.
It is uncertain whether it was Christ’s right side or left that was
pierced with a lance. According to the Ethiopian Version, and the
apocryphal Gospels of Nicodemus and the Infancy, it was the right. Thus a
very early tradition points to the right side, and it was on his right
side, too, that St. Francis was marked when he received the sacred
stigmata.
*And immediately there came out blood and water.* It is disputed whether
this flow of blood and water was natural or miraculous.
(1) Some hold that each flow was miraculous, because in a _dead_ body
blood does not flow and water is not found in the region of the heart.
(2) Others, on the contrary, hold that in each case the flow was quite
natural, because in a dead body the _clot_ or red corpuscles become
separated from the _serum_ or watery substance of the blood, and both
would naturally flow out when Christ’s side was pierced. This opinion,
however, is improbable, as the best modern physiologists say it would
require four hours after death to effect this separation,(131) and no such
length of time can be admitted between the death of Christ at three
o’clock and the piercing of his side, for he had to be buried before
sunset, that is to say, at the latest, about 6 p.m.
(3) Hence others hold that Christ’s heart had broken, and that the blood
which had therefore flowed into the pericardium, or sheath of the heart,
had become, when extravasated, _rapidly_ dissolved into its constituent
elements. This view is held by some writers of great authority. See Dr.
Stroud’s _Treatise on the Physical Cause of the Death of Christ_. Against
it, however, we have the opinion of physiologists, that the heart never
breaks except in those in whom the organism has been long diseased; and it
is contrary to the common opinion that Christ took or had a diseased body,
or any diseased organ.
(4) Hence, with Corluy, we think the most probable view is, that the blood
flowed naturally from a body _only a short time dead_, the water
miraculously. Certainly the fathers generally seem to see in this flow of
blood and water a mystery, something that was not ordinary or natural, and
many think that our Evangelist himself, in the next verse, _insists_ upon
the truth of what he says, as if it were something wholly unnatural and
difficult to believe. It may, however, be replied to this latter argument
that he insists upon the truth of the facts, not because anything
miraculous and difficult to believe had taken place, but because there was
question of the fulfilment of two important Messianic prophecies.
According to the fathers, the flow of blood typified the Sacrament of the
Blessed Eucharist, that of water, the Sacrament of Baptism. Thus St. Cyril
of Alex.: “Lancea latus ejus perfodiunt, unde cruor aqua mistus scaturiit,
quod Eulogiae mysticae et baptismatis imago quaedam erat atque primitiae.”
35. Et qui vidit, testimonium 35. And he that saw it hath
perhibuit: et verum est given testimony: and his
testimonium eius. Et ille scit testimony is true. And he
quia vera dicit: ut et vos knoweth that he saith true;
credatis. that you also may believe.
35. *And he that saw* (hath seen) *it hath given testimony*. “It” is not
represented in the original, and ought not to stand in our English
version, as it seems to determine the reference to be merely to the sight
of the flow of blood and water. We take the object of the verb “hath
seen,” to be _all_ that is stated in the two preceding verses; namely,
that Christ’s legs were not broken, that His side was pierced, and that
blood and water flowed. That this is the meaning is proved by the next
verse.
*That you also may believe.* The sense is not that you also may believe
that blood and water flowed, or that Christ really died; but, with Beel.;
Bisp., Corl., that you also, as well as I, may more firmly believe that
Jesus is the Messias foretold by the prophets. These words, then, express
the full purpose that our Evangelist had in view in testifying to the
facts just stated. ἵνα (that) may be taken to depend upon the three
preceding clauses, or upon the words immediately preceding: “saith true.”
36. Facta sunt enim haec, ut 36. For these things were done
scriptura impleretur: Os non that the scripture might be
comminuetis ex eo. fulfilled: _You shall not
break a bone of him_.
36. *For these things were done.* “For” establishes the connection, and
proves, we think, the view we hold. It is as if the Evangelist said: these
things happened, and I insist upon their truth, because they afford a
strong argument why you should believe that Jesus was the Messias.
*You shall not break a bone of him*, had reference in its literal sense
(Exod. vii. 46; Num. ix. 12) to the Paschal lamb; yet, St. John tells us
here that the prophecy was fulfilled in Christ. Hence we have here an
invincible argument for the existence of a mystical sense in Scripture.
37. Et iterum alia scriptura 37. And again another
dicit: Videbunt in quem scripture saith: _They shall
transfixerunt. look on him whom they
pierced_.
37. The quotation is from Zach. xii. 10, according to the Hebrew text,
except that, perhaps, the correct reading in Zach. is “on me,” and not “on
him.” The passage in Zach. is Messianic in its literal sense, and the
context shows that there is question of looking upon Jesus in sorrow and
regret for what had taken place. We know from St. Luke that “all the
multitude returned (from Calvary) striking their breasts” (xxiii. 48).
38. Post haec autem rogavit 38. After these things Joseph
Pilatum Ioseph ab Arimathaea of Arimathea (because he was a
(eo quod esset discipulus disciple of Jesus, but
Iesu, occultus autem propter secretly for fear of the Jews)
metum Iudaeorum), ut tolleret besought Pilate that he might
corpus Iesu. Et permisit take away the body of Jesus.
Pilatus. Venit ergo, et tulit And Pilate gave leave. He came
corpus Iesu. therefore and took away the
body of Jesus.
38. *After these things.* We learn from SS. Matthew and Mark that when
Joseph approached Pilate it was evening (Matthew xxvii. 57; Mark xv. 42).
Joseph was “a rich man” (Matthew xxvii. 57), “a noble counsellor” (Mark
xv. 43), that is a member of the Sanhedrim, “a good and a just man” (Luke
xxiii. 50).
*Arimathea.* Opinion is divided as to whether this was Rama in the tribe
of Benjamin (Matt. ii. 18), or Rama (Ramathaimsophim) in the tribe of
Ephraim (1 Kings i. 1). The latter, the birthplace of the Prophet Samuel,
is called Ramatha in 1 Kings i. 19. St. Luke calls Arimathea “a city of
Judea” (Luke xxiii. 51). St. Jerome (Onom. sacr., 2nd Ed., p. 178)
identifies Arimathea with Remftis, now Rantieh, on the plain North of
Lydda. See Smith’s _B. D._ _sub voc._
*Secretly.* Till now he had been a disciple in secret, but after the death
of Christ both he and Nicodemus boldly appeared in public as devoted
friends of their dead Master.
*And Pilate gave leave.* Permission was usually given to the friends of
one who had been executed to bury his body. Sometimes, indeed, Roman
Governors granted such permission only on receiving money from the friends
(Cic., Verr. v. 45), but in the present instance Pilate granted the
privilege gratis (“_Donavit_ corpus Jesu,” Mark xv. 45).
We learn from St. Mark that Pilate gave the body only after he had
summoned the centurion and learned that Jesus was dead (Mark xv. 44, 45).
*He came therefore and took away the body of Jesus.* We learn from St.
Mark (xv. 46), and St. Luke (xxiii. 53), that he “took down” the body of
Jesus, either aiding in or directing the work. Hence he must have returned
to the foot of the cross, before the orders given to the soldiers (verses
31, 32) were fully carried out. If we suppose Joseph to have come soon
after the Jews (verse 31) to Pilate, the governor, before granting his
request, would naturally wish to be certain that Jesus was dead, and would
therefore summon the centurion and make inquiry (Mark xv. 44, 45); then
Joseph, returning from wherever Pilate was at the time, arrived before the
body of our Lord had been taken down by the soldiers.
39. Venit autem et Nicodemus, 39. And Nicodemus also came,
qui venerat ad Iesum nocte he who at first came to Jesus
primum, ferens mixturam by night, bringing a mixture
myrrhae et aloës, quasi libras of myrrh and aloes, about an
centum. hundred pound _weight_.
39. *He who at first came to Jesus by night.* The reference is to the
visit recorded above in iii. 1, ff. St. John alone makes mention of
Nicodemus on this occasion. The phrase “at first” may imply that Nicodemus
visited Christ on other occasions, or it may indicate merely the beginning
of Christ’s ministry. The present public act of reverence in the light of
day, beside a crowded city, is thrown into relief by contrast with the
timid visit then paid “by night.”
*Bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.*
“The compound was made of the gum of the myrrh tree, and a powder of the
fragrant aloe wood. The amount of the preparation (‘about a hundred pound
weight,’ that is, a hundred Roman pounds of nearly twelve ounces) has
caused some needless difficulty. The intention of Nicodemus was, without
doubt, to cover the body completely with the mass of aromatics. Comp. 2,
Chro. (Paralip.) xvi. 14: for this purpose the quantity was not excessive
as a costly gift of devotion.” (Westc. in _The Speaker’s Commentary_.)
40. Acceperunt ergo corpus 40. They took therefore the
Iesu, et ligaverunt illud body of Jesus, and bound it in
linteis cum aromatibus, sicut linen cloths with the spices,
mos est Iudaeis sepelire. as the manner of the Jews is
to bury.
40. *And bound it in linen cloths* (ὁθόνια). They bound the body in
swathes of linen cloth covered with layers of the aromatic mixture. The
Synoptists speak only of “a linen cloth” (σινδών) in which the body was
“wrapped.” We may naturally suppose that the body when embalmed was
wrapped in a large linen cloth.
*A new sepulchre, wherein no man yet had been laid.* We learn from St.
Matthew (xxvii. 60), that the sepulchre belonged to Joseph, and from all
the Synoptists that it was hewn out of a rock, and therefore artificial.
As no other body had been buried in the sepulchre, there could be no
possible doubt that the body that rose was that of our Lord.
41. Erat autem, in loco ubi 41. Now there was in the
crucifixus est, hortus, et in place, where he was crucified,
horto monumentum novum, in quo a garden; and in the garden a
nondum quisquam positus erat. new sepulchre, wherein no man
yet had been laid.
42. Ibi ergo propter 42. There therefore because of
parasceven Iudaeorum, quia the parasceve of the Jews they
iuxta erat monumentum, laid Jesus, because the
posuerunt Iesum. sepulchre was nigh at hand.
42. *Because the sepulchre was nigh at hand.* It seems to be implied that
if there had been more time, some other sepulchre would have been chosen.
As it was, because the Sabbath was at hand they laid Him in the tomb that
was most convenient. St. John writing for the Christians of Asia Minor,
speaks of “the parasceve of the Jews,” because when he wrote, Saturday was
the Parasceve of Christians, the day of rest having been already changed
from Saturday to Sunday, in honour of our Blessed Lord’s resurrection.
(See Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2.)