We hope you find these notes helpful. Do feel free to download the material on this website for your own personal use, and also to distribute if you so wish. Please be aware that all the writing is copyright, so no alterations should be made.
Please feel free to comment on any aspect of what you find on this website using the e-mail address: martin_margaret3@yahoo.co.uk We would be pleased to hear from you.
Structure of the chapter
| (a) | Verses 1-16 | Jesus and His judge |
| (b) | Verses 17-30 | Jesus and His cross |
| (c) | Verses 31-42 | Jesus and His burial |
We now resume the sequence of events by turning to Matthew’s narrative, for several things happened in between the offer to release Jesus and the actual handing over to be crucified with which John 19 begins.
Matthew 27:18
For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.
For he knew that for envy they had delivered him- Pilate had made the offer of releasing either Barabbas, or “Jesus which is called Christ”. According to Mark he also described Him as “the King of the Jews”. Why does Matthew say that he did this because he knew they had delivered Him to him because of envy? Does Pilate think, wrongly, that because they had no real case against Him, but had only accused Him because they were envious of His popularity and ability, that they will back down? Surely they will not call for the crucifixion of a man just because they are envious of Him? Sadly, Pilate’s strategy is going to fail, and his attempt to force the chief priests to retract is going to be unsuccessful. Envy is allied to jealousy, for the latter wants what another person has to be taken from them; envy wants what the other person has to be given to them. The Scripture says that “Jealousy is cruel as the grave: the coals thereof are coals of fire, which hath a most vehement flame”, Song of Solomon 8:6. Remember the words of Luke 23:10, “And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused Him”. Their jealousy had a “most vehement flame”.
27:19
When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.
When he was set down on the judgment seat- so having presented the Jews with a choice, Pilate seats himself on his official judgement seat awaiting their decision.
His wife sent unto him, saying- Pilate in his younger days had been an ordinary cavalryman in the Roman army, but when he was in Rome he met the granddaughter of Augustus Caesar, and they married. Her name was Claudia Procula, and some said she was interested in Judaism, and later became a Christian. It was not usual for governors to be allowed to take their wives with them on their postings, but in this case it was allowed, perhaps because of Claudia’s connections.
Have thou nothing to do with that just man- that she called Him a just man is perhaps an indication of her leanings to Judaism, for this was the way a man would be described in Old Testament terms. By saying “that just man” she is distinguishing Him from the two others destined to be crucified that day, who were unjust men. That she does not name Him may indicate that she and Pilate had discussed matters during the night, perhaps after the visit of Caiaphas, if in fact he did come. Pilate knows to whom she is referring.
She is certain that the charges against Him are false, and He is, as Pilate has said, without fault in relation to those charges. So in effect she is appealing to Pilate to act justly, and not be persuaded by the rulers. That Christ is essentially just is true, but Pilate’s wife is no authority on that. She can only judge outwardly. Perhaps we may detect something of her ancestry in her virtual command to Pilate to have nothing to do with Christ, that is, not be involved in an unjust execution.
For I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of Him- it is quite possible that if, as we have suggested, Caiaphas had visited Pilate during the night, that he had told his wife about the arrangement they had come to, and she went to bed thinking that over in her mind. Perhaps God used that situation to speak to her in a dream, for “God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not. In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed; then He openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction, that he may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man. He keepeth back his soul from the pit, and his life from perishing by the sword”, Job 33:14-17. Perhaps the dream came to Pilate’s wife, rather than to Pilate, first because she seems to have been sympathetic to Jewish things, and secondly because she was more likely to respond than Pilate was, who by all accounts, was a stubborn man.
It is significant that Pilate used this very description of Christ when he washed his hands of Him saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just person”, verse 24.
27:20
But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.
But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude- whilst Pilate was receiving and thinking over the message from his wife, the chief priests are urging the crowd to ask for Barabbas.
That they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus- “ask Barabbas” means that when Pilate asks which of the men they wish to have released, they should ask for Barabbas. They urge them to do this even though they know this will means Christ is “destroyed”, meaning “to bring to nothing”. They were intent on bringing His claims and His popularity to an end, to their own advantage.
27:21
The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas.
The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? Pilate has not received the answer he was hoping for, so even though they have asked for Barabbas, he still offers them the choice of one out of two.
They said, Barabbas- the one word response shows their determination as the whole crowd shouts with one voice, calling for the murderer to be spared his just penalty. They had said about Christ, “by our law He ought to die”, and yet here they are in effect saying of a murderer, “by our law he ought to live”. As Habakkuk said in his day, “For spoiling and violence are before me; And there are that raise up strife and contention. Therefore the law is slacked, and judgement doth never go forth: for the wicked doth compass the righteous; therefore wrong judgement proceedeth”, Habukkuk 1:4. Interestingly, the apostle Paul quoted the next verse of that prophecy to the Jews in the synagogue of Antioch in Pisidia, Acts 13:40,41, as he warned them of the danger of unbelief. There was a close connection between the rejection of Christ by the nation, and the rejection of the nation by God.
27:22
Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? Before, he had called Him the King of the Jews when he offered to release Him. Now he calls Him “Jesus which is called Christ”. He had found that calling Him king did not have the desired effect. They were not overawed by the idea of nailing their king to a cross, for they did not, despite all the evidence, regard Him as their rightful king. They will soon say, “We have no king but Caesar”.
Perhaps they will hesitate about crucifying their Messiah? Pilate knows enough about the Jew’s religion to realise that the Messiah is the one for whom the nation was waiting. In fact, the prophet called Him “the desire of all nations”, Haggai 2:7.
They all say unto him, Let him be crucified- this is their unanimous verdict; at least of those who were present. There were countless multitudes in the country who had believed on Him, who would not agree with this decision.
27:23
And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done?
And the governor said, Why, what evil hath He done? This is Pilate’s next attempt to alter their mind. Luke remarks on this by saying “And he said unto them the third time”, Luke 23:22. At least there was an element of justice in this question. Caesar will look through the Judean crucifixion records, and ask Pilate why he condemned Jesus of Nazareth. Perhaps Matthew is noting this glimmer of justice by calling Pilate “the Governor” at this point. In his official capacity Pilate is responsible to see that justice is done.
Luke adds that Pilate went on to say, “I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go”. As Peter said later on, “he was determined to let him go”, Acts 3:13.
But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified- they denied Him in the presence of Pilate, as Peter also said, Acts 3:13. They were as determined as Pilate. Jacob had spoken of the self-will of Levi and Simeon, and here their descendants are manifesting that with terrible consequences.
27:24
When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made- Rule Number 12 of the Roman justice code stated:
“The idle clamour of the populace is not to be regarded, when they call for a guilty man to be acquitted, or an innocent one to be condemned”. Pilate was allowing both things to happen at once!
He took water, and washed his hands before the multitude- unable to make his voice heard over the roar of the crowd, he had to resort to a visible action to proclaim what he was doing.
Saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person- washing one’s hands will not cleanse the soul. Even what the washing signified, namely a distancing of oneself from what is being done, will not avail, for he was personally responsible for the situation. As Job said, “If I wash myself with snow water, and make myself never so clean; yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch, and mine own clothes shall abhor me”, Job 9:30,31. Ironically it was “the blood of this just person” that could alone cleanse Pilate of his guilt, for “the blood of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, cleanseth us from all sin”, 1 John 1:7.
See ye to it- this is one of the most reprehensible statements of the whole affair; Pilate is abdicating responsibility, and officially transferring the administration of justice to those he knows are baying for the blood of the prisoner without just cause. He cannot on the one hand say, “this just person”, and then hand Him over to those who will execute Him. This is of the Devil, being another attempt to have Christ stoned to death after the Jewish mode of execution, and thus go against the prophecies.
27:25
Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children- so if Pilate seeks to evade responsibility, these, in their mad rage, are accepting it. The people here formally transfer to themselves the guilt of crucifying their Messiah. Paul wrote about his own nation, “Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost”, 1 Thessalonians 2:15,16.
How the nation has suffered down the centuries because of this cry! Not only were they nearly exterminated in AD 70 when Jerusalem was besieged, and the hills around were made bare of trees to provide crosses to hang them on, but time and again they have been persecuted, sometimes by the civil authorities, and sometimes, (to its eternal shame), by the professing church. And then there was the Holocaust, a concerted effort to rid the world of the nation. But even worse is to come for them, for not until the Great Tribulation comes upon them shall “wrath…to the uttermost” be realised. As the Lord Jesus warned, “for then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elects sake those days shall be shortened”, Matthew 24:21,22.
How ironic that the nation which, above all others, cares for its children, should here bring upon them judgment. This directly contradicts the word of the prophet when he wrote, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him”, Ezekiel 18:20. Each person is directly responsible to God for his actions, and cannot be blamed for the actions of others, unless they caused others to sin, which the children of those who crucified Christ did not.
27:26
Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.
Then released he Barabbas unto them- so Pilate sentenced Christ illegally, and the Jews rejected Him unjustly, and now guilty Barabbas is to go free in exchange for the innocent Christ of God. This is how low the administration of justice can sink when the aim is to reject God and His Christ. The kings of the earth and its rulers conspire together to cast Christ out, Acts 4:25-28.
We are told several things about Barabbas. Matthew says he was a notable prisoner, so he is not one that Pilate can let go lightly. Mark tells us that he lay bound in prison with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection. Here is a dangerous man, then, not only to people’s lives, but the Roman state. Luke tells us that it was sedition made in the city, presumably Jerusalem, near at hand to Pilate. Ironically, Barabbas’ name means “son of a father”. So the Jews preferred the wicked son of an earthly father, to the holy Son of God the Father. But Barrabas was also a son of his father the Devil, John 8:44. No greater contrast could there be, and no more wicked and wretched choice could they make.
John tells us he was a robber- so men preferred the one who came “to steal, to kill, and to destroy”, to the one who came “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly”, John 10:10.
Barabbas displayed the features the carnal Jews expected to find in their Messiah, so it is appropriate that they should ask for his release immediately after the conversation with Pilate about the nature of His kingship.
So Barabbas is free; free of prison, free of condemnation by men, free to go on his way as if no crimes had been committed. The holy Christ of God, however, is bound, and is scourged, and is crucified! Could there be a greater difference? Could there be a more eloquent commentary on the iniquity of the human heart? Iniquity is in-equity, a lack of fair dealing, and this is seen here with a vengeance.
And when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified- we shall think of this when we return to John’s account.
27:27
Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers.
Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall- Pilate has had his part in the proceedings in the Hall of Judgment, but now it is the turn of the soldiers in the Common Hall, or as Mark calls it, (he wrote for the Romans), the Praetorium. No doubt this making sport of the prisoner was a compensation for the horrors of war, and in the case of some of them, the horrors of crucifying a man. Much as fox hounds are allowed to tear their prey to pieces, to make sure they do not lose the lust for blood.
And gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers- if He is a king the whole army must own allegiance to Him as Commander-in-Chief.
27:28
And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe.
And they stripped Him- clothing represents character in the Scriptures, and here the soldiers are attempting, in a symbolic act, to deprive Christ of His true character. False teachers tried to do this in the days of the apostles, and Paul penned the epistle to the Colossians to counteract this, and set out, especially in chapter one, the first-born glories of Christ. Joseph’s brothers had stripped him, too, but his firstborn character had been manifest afterwards.
And put on him a scarlet robe- it would spoil their sport if He was wearing the garments of an itinerant preacher. He must have a robe as befits His station as military commander. The Caesars began, at some point in the history of Rome, to be chosen by the soldiers as their leader.
27:29
And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!
And when they had platted a crown of thorns- He has claimed to be king, we shall give Him a crown! In a coming day it will be said of God, “Thou settest a crown of pure gold upon his head”, Psalm 21:3. The soldiers give Him a crown composed of the fruits of the curse which the First Adam brought in. But Christ will “restore that which He took not away”, Psalm 69:4, including the blessing for creation after the curse is removed.
The thorns were probably from a tree that grows in Palestine which has vicious two-inch long thorns. By plaiting them they ensured that they pierced from all directions. They were not plaiting them so they were decorative, but so they were destructive. The nerves of the head are specially sensitive.
The word used here for crown is “stephanos”, the earned crown, whereas the other word used for crown in the New Testament is “diademata”, the inherited crown. The stephanos was the crown of the suitor who had won the heart of his beloved; of the athlete who had won the race; of the citizen who had won the acclaim of his fellows, of the army commander who had won the war. The soldiers do not really believe He has earned anything, so in mockery they pretend He has. Little did they realise that the one they mocked was the one the Father magnified, and acclaimed Him from heaven. He was crowned with glory and honour as He lived amongst men, Hebrews 2:9.
They put it on his head- there is no reason to think they did this gently. The word “put” is used in the phrase translated “wounded him” in Luke 10:30. It has the idea of inflicting a wound, so the crown was put upon His head with the intention of wounding Him. God said to Adam, “thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth unto thee”, Genesis 3:18, and now sinful men are bringing forth thorns for the last Adam.
And a reed in his right hand- if He is King-Commander He must have a sceptre! The Lord Jesus had spoken of “a reed shaken by the wind”, Luke 7:24, as the very symbol of weakness and indecision. To add insult to insult, they place the symbol of weakness in His right hand, the hand of power.
And they bowed the knee before him- just as the crowd in the garden of Gethsemane had gone backward and fallen to the ground, overawed by the presence of the great “I am”, John 18:6, so here. But whereas in the garden the awe was genuine, here it is spurious and mocking. Men mock at the idea of a coming day of judgment, but they would do well to take account of the words of the apostle Paul when he wrote, “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father”, Philippians 2:9-11.
For the mocker there is a day coming when mockery shall be turned into terror, and he will be compelled to bow the knee to Jesus Christ. It would be well for men if they were to repent and believe the gospel while there is time and opportunity, and thus bow the knee willingly to Him, owning Him as Lord.
And mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! The word hail in its verbal form means “to be cheerful”, or “calmly happy”. As a greeting it can mean “be well”, or “rejoice”, Strong’s Concordance. So as they see the pitiful sight before them, battered and bleeding from His scourging, they multiply His sufferings by wishing Him well, and exhorting Him to rejoice. Such is the callousness and insensitivity of the human heart. Little did they know that despite all that He was suffering, the One they mocked was indeed full of joy, for He was doing His Father’s will. He had what He called “My joy”, the joy that was uniquely His, John 15:11, and joy does not depend on what happens, like happiness does. Not only was He glad to be doing His Father’s will at that moment, but He was also sustained by the certainty that joy for evermore at God’s right hand was His portion.
The writer to the Hebrews is encouraging believers going through trial when he pens the words about Christ, “who for the joy set before him endured the cross, despising the shame”, Hebrews 12:2. Then he exhorts his readers to “consider him who endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds”, verse 3. None shall ever exceed the Saviour in suffering and pain, for He must be pre-eminent in this, as well as in honour.
These men have heard the expression “King of the Jews” used three times already, so they fasten on to this claim, and use it to make Him an object of jesting. They would not, as Gentiles, be interested in His claim to be the Christ of God. Nor would they, as Romans, have any concept of Him as Son of God. But a claim to kingship they could understand.
It is said that during excavations around the site of the Praetorium in Jerusalem a room was found which had a chequer-board floor. The suggestion is that the soldiers would use this to amuse themselves when a prisoner was handed over to them. Probably using dice, they would see on which tile he finished. It was either the Servant Tile, or the King Tile, and they proceeded accordingly. Did Jesus Christ finish on the King Tile? And if so, when they were treating Him like a king, did they realise that He was God’s Perfect Servant as well as being His destined King? And did they realise that the Servant who stood before them, whose “visage was marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men”, Isaiah 52:14, shall one day be King over all the earth?
27:30
And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head.
And they spit upon him- if He is a king, then He must be anointed, but not with the fragrant anointing oil that the Israelites were so precisely instructed to make, but the vile spittle of men. The one who was “anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power”, Acts 10:38, (a far more precious anointing even than with the fragrant oil), is destined to be anointed with “the oil of gladness above His fellows”, as God sets Him on the throne of Israel, to exercise universal sway, Hebrews 1:9. Yet this is of no account to these soldiers, who see in Him only a feeble and pathetic pretender to the throne.
And took the reed, and smote him on the head- it is almost as if they mocked the prophecy of Micah which said that “they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek”, Micah 5:1. They think Him to be so weak and powerless that a rod will be too heavy for Him. John tells us that they smote Him with their hands, perhaps smiting Him on the mouth. Not that He said anything, for “when he was reviled, he reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously”, 1 Peter 2:23. He is content to allow His Father to give a verdict on Him, and not ignorant men.
John takes up the account at this point.
THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE, THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES, AS FOUND IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN CHAPTER 19, VERSES 1 TO 24:
19:1 Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him.
19:2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,
19:3 And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands.
19:4 Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.
19:5 Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!
19:6 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.
19:7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
19:8 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid;
19:9 And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.
19:10 Then saith Pilate unto Him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
19:12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.
19:13 When 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.
19:14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
19:15 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 have no king but Caesar.
19:16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.
19:17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:
19:18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.
19:19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
19:20 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.
19:21 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.
19:22 Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.
19:23 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 from the top throughout.
19:24 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, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.
(a) Verses 1-16
Jesus and His judge
19:1
Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him.
Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him- how much is encompassed in the words “scourged him”. Remember, as Peter said, the Jews have taken or arrested Him, but they crucified Him using the wicked hands of the Gentiles, Acts 2:23. Being wicked, or lawless, they were not restrained by the justice system of Israel. In particular, they were not limited by the “forty stripes”, stipulation in the law, Deuteronomy 25:3. In fact, in New Testament times that had been modified to “forty stripes save one”, 2 Corinthians 11:24, in case they lost count and inadvertently inflicted forty-one in violation of the law.
The scourging of a convicted man before he was crucified was called the first death, so severe was it. In fact, many did not survive the ordeal. Two soldiers, trained in the art of this particularly barbaric form of punishment, would take it in turns to lash the prisoner’s back and chest with leather whips to which were fastened jagged pieces of lead or bone. It is too painful to even begin to assess the intense suffering this would cause, yet this is the cruelty that was inflicted on the one who “went about doing good”.
There is a possibility that Pilate did the scourging himself, (for he was said to be sadistic in character), but he probably delegated it to the soldiers who were specially trained to administer the punishment. Excavations in Jerusalem have discovered a room in what is probably the Roman Praetorium. The roof is held up by pillars, but in the centre of the room is a single pillar, which does not support anything. Could this be the post to which the Christ of God was tied to be scourged?
The psalmist had anticipated this treatment when he wrote, “The ploughers ploughed upon my back: they made long their furrows”, Psalm 129:3. And Isaiah prophesied of God’s Servant, “His visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men”, Isaiah 52:14. The measure of the astonishment at His suffering will be the measure of the astonishment when He comes in glory, for Isaiah wrote, “As many were astonied…so shall he sprinkle many nations”.
19:2
And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on His head, and they put on Him a purple robe,
And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns- we have commented on this in the notes on Matthew 27:29.
And they put on Him a purple robe- if in Matthew the soldiers mocked Him as a miltary commander with a scarlet tunic, John tells us of a robe that was purple. It may have depended on how the light struck the cloth. Aloternatively, there may have been two robes, one scarlet, and one purple. Purple is the Imperial colour, and reminds us that despite Matthew being the gospel of the King, there are more references to Christ as King in John’s gospel than there are in Matthew. We should remember that “King of Israel” is a Divine title, Isaiah 44:6. There is a confrontation here between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of Caesar.
19:3
And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands.
And said, Hail, King of the Jews! We have already commented on this in the note on Matthew 27:29.
And they smote him with their hands- perhaps smiting Him on the mouth. Not that He said anything, for “when He was reviled, He reviled not again; when He suffered, He threatened not; but committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously”, 1 Peter 2:23. He is content to allow His Father to give a verdict on Him, and not ignorant men.
John 19:4
Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.
Pilate therefore went forth again- another “therefore”, being a repeat of the first in verse 1, meaning he was trying to get Him released. This is Pilate’s last desperate attempt to avoid being responsible for sending Christ to the cross. He has to go forth because the Jews will not enter a Gentile’s house, being afraid of coming into contact with leaven at the feast of unleavened bread. They had no scruples about this later on, in Matthew 27:62.
And saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you- Pilate is trying to excite pity, but he should have been administering justice. The Jews were normally scrupulously fair in their judgments, especially in capital cases, and ensured that the advantage was always with the accused. But this Man is different, for His righteousness condemns their unrighteousness, and they hate Him for it, John 3:20.
That ye may know that I find no fault in him- this is the third time Pilate has said this. The other occasions were Luke 23:4; 23:14,15. He also said “I have found no cause of death in Him”, Luke 23:22. Yet he had already virtually condemned Jesus, and also had Him scourged, which was the first part of the crucifixion process. Strangely, Matthew and Mark do not mention any of the occasions when Pilate said he found no fault.
19:5
Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!
Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe- it is either that the soldiers would later remove this robe and put His own clothes on Him, Matthew 27:31, or that they put His own clothes on Him but put the imperial purple robe over the top of them, to complement the imperial crown.
The priests should have been the first to come to His aid, binding up His wounds and pouring in oil and wine, Luke 10:34, but sadly they are the first to condemn Him. Jacob had prophesied that instruments of cruelty would be in the habitations of Levi, and his anger and wrath would be fierce and cruel, Genesis 49:5-7, and now it is coming to pass in his descendants, even though they were priests.
And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man! He knows it would not impress them if he called Him their king again, so he appeals to them on the level of common humanity and decency, but they have another, religious agenda. The Spirit of Christ in the psalmist could say, “But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people”, Psalm 22:6.
19:6
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.
When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him- they are unmoved by the pitiful sight, so enraged are they. Religious rage is the worst rage of all, especially when it supposes it is defending the interests of the True God. It was a Jewish rabbi who said in a broadcast that religious persecution says more about the ones persecuting than the ones persecuted.
Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him- is he bluffing, knowing they have not this right, as they themselves said in 18:31? God had seen to it that the death penalty had been taken out of their hands just a few years previously, because that would involve stoning, and this might break His legs, contrary to prophecy, John 19:36.
Or is he granting them the right temporarily so that he could escape the guilt of crucifying Him? But it was by wicked hands, (that is, the lawless hands of the Gentiles), He was to be crucified. The Jewish authorities and the Gentiles must be responsible for His death, Acts 4:27. It is the princes of this world that crucified Him, 1 Corinthians 2:8.
For I find no fault in him- they must do it, if anyone does, because Pilate again pronounces Him guiltless according to Roman law. Thus it stands written that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was executed unjustly and by a miscarriage of justice. Of course, this is not an absolute statement, for Pilate cannot look into the heart. He is stating what is true according to Roman law. God, who looks into the heart, knows there is no fault in absolute terms in Christ.
19:7
The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.
The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law He ought to die- the law of Moses required that those who blaspheme the name of the Lord should die, Leviticus 24:16. Also, those who tried to turn Israel away from the worship of the God of Israel were to die, too, Deuteronomy 13:1-5. This is what Antichrist will do with his image in the temple, yet the majority of Israel will receive him. See John 5:43.
Since the Jews did not believe it when He said, “I and My Father are one”, and therefore to worship Him was to worship God, they thought He was attracting worship to Himself away from the God of Israel.
Because He made himself the Son of God’- that is, made Himself out to be the Son of God by His claims. It was not that they believed that a man could turn himself into the Son of God.
They had avoided this charge when accusing Him before Pilate, even though it was the one by which they condemned Him in the Sanhedrin, Matthew 26:63-66. These men are manipulative and devious, stopping at nothing to gain their ends. They accused Him of being a king so that Pilate would think Him to be a rebel against Rome, but now they have been wrong-footed by Pilate, so revert back to a charge about which they have a law. They forgot that their law also said, “Thou shalt not wrest the judgement of thy poor in his cause. Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked”, Exodus 23:6,7.
19:8
When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid;
When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid- he had been made afraid by the report from his wife about her dream, Matthew 27:19. To a superstitious pagan, dreams were full of meaning, especially if it was more like a nightmare, causing his wife to “suffer many things”, as she put it. He had heard from his wife just before he had released Barabbas and condemned Christ. Now something even more worrying is told him. Nothing has been said to Pilate before about Him claiming to be the Son of God. They have called Him a malefactor, John 18:30. Then they tried the charge of forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, Luke 23:2. Again, they said He stirred up the people, from Galilee to Jerusalem, Luke 23:5. Pilate understood them to mean He perverted the people, Luke 23:14, but neither Herod nor Pilate believed this. Now, as a last resort, they bring forward the charge that they were silent about before, because they did not think Pilate would think it worthy of consideration. Their cause is desperate.
19:9
And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.
And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? He is not asking where He was born, or who His parents are. Pilate is fearful that the gods have sent one of the “sons of the gods” to judge him. The Lord has already distinguished between being born, and coming into the world, 18:37, but this distinction seems to be lost on Pilate.
But Jesus gave him no answer- it is important to notice that sometimes Christ answered, and sometimes He did not, when asked questions during His trials. The prophet had said that He would be dumb before His shearers, so He only answered when He was not being shorn of His own glory. When it was a question of the honour of His Father, or the defence of His disciples, or to rebuke the injustice of His accusers, He spoke.
19:10
Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? He is amazed, (and perhaps annoyed), that this Galilean carpenter should dare to remain silent when questioned by the representative of Rome. But He does not speak because Pilate has already condemned and scourged Him, contrary to justice, (for he pronounced Him innocent and then condemned Him to death), and to co-operate in that would be untrue to Himself as the Just One.
Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? God has put a sword in the hand of the rulers He ordains to be in government. That sword is for the punishment of evildoers, and those who resist that power. We read of this in Romans 13:1-7. So Pilate was right to a certain extent, for he represented a God-ordained ruler, namely Caesar. Pilate had the right to crucify Him if He was guilty of a capital crime; he had the right to release Him if He was innocent or any charge; but he had no authority from God to crucify an innocent man.
19:11
Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above- Pilate was clearly ignorant of the true source of his power. He thought it came from Rome, but he learns now that it comes from heaven. However, Pilate’s power only extended to the punishment of evildoers, and Christ was not one of these. So the only way Pilate can have real power against Christ is by special licence from God, in order that His purpose might be worked out in the death of His Son.
Therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin- Pilate’s sin was great, in that he had condemned a man he himself declared to be innocent. But the high priest Caiaphas’ sin was greater, since he should have had an enhanced sense of justice, as instructed by the law of God.
19:12
And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.
And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him- he had been doing this repeatedly, but now there is fresh urgency.
But the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar- they have now completely abandoned the pursuit of justice, and are simply playing on Pilate’s fears. For his part, Pilate is more fearful of Caesar than he is of God. Scripture says, “The fear of man bringeth a snare”, Proverbs 29:25.
19:13
When 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.
When Pilate therefore heard that saying- the thought that Jesus was the Son of God had preyed on his superstitious fears, but now the priests have preyed on his political fear of the wrath of Caesar, verse 12. The Caesar at that time, Tiberias, reacted harshly against failure in his governors. If Pilate lets a rival to Caesar’s throne go free, (especially when Jerusalem is crowded with perhaps a million excitable Jews), his life would be in jeopardy. Will Pilate fear God rather than men? The answer is clear.
He brought Jesus forth- formerly he had gone out to the Jews, but now brings the prisoner out, so that they can see Him, and Pilate can sit on his judgment seat in full view of the crowd. He is still trying to play on the self-esteem of the Jews, to enable him to release Jesus. Peter says that Pilate “was determined to let him go”, Acts 3:13.
And sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement- Roman judgment seats were often portable, and now Pilate sets his down on a paved area, to formally pronounce sentence. We should remember that he has already had Jesus scourged, which should only have taken place if He had been found guilty. Justice is not being done. The Jews have broken their laws, and Pilate has broken the law of Rome.
Isaiah tells us that in a day to come, “kings shall see, and arise”, 49:7. The kings of the earth will stand in that day, and Christ will be seated on “the throne of His glory”, Matthew 25:31.
But in the Hebrew, Gabbatha- why does John tell us the Hebrew name? This is striking, because Gabbatha does not mean Pavement, but refers to the elevated spot with the pavement in front of it. John will tell us about Golgotha in verse 17. Is he linking the two? Gabbatha means “an elevated spot”. Is he contrasting this with Calvary’s hill? One has on it the representative of worldly justice, the unjust Pilate, and the other the Just One Himself. The one is passing earthly sentence on a sinless man; the other is bearing the sentence for sinful man.
19:14
And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, “Behold your King!:
And it was the preparation of the passover- the word passover was used for the 14th day of the first month, but it was also used for the whole of the seven days of the feast of passover and of unleavened bread. Luke writes, “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the passover”, Luke 22:1.
This is not preparation for the passover, for the passover lamb had been slain the previous day, and the passover meal eaten in that night. The disciples had asked, “where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the passover?” Matthew 27:17. By this they meant the passover meal at night, after the lamb had been slain in between 3pm and sunset, (which is what is meant by “between the two evenings”, Exodus 12:6, margin; the word evening is dual in number there).
Edersheim says, “the evening of the 14th to the 15th is never called in Jewish writings ‘the preparation for’, but ‘the eve of’ the Passover”. Mark defines “the preparation” for us, “And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath”, 15:42.
And about the sixth hour- this has caused difficulty, because Mark 15:25 says, “and it was the third hour, and they crucified Him”. He has already described the crucifixion in the previous verse, and then he deliberately puts a time to it. So it is very clear that Christ was crucified at the third hour, which to a Jew meant 9 o’clock in the morning, since their daytime began at 6am. Various suggestions have been made to solve this problem, such as John using Roman time which some believe made the day begin at midnight.
However, consider the following. Roman governors and other judges had a small tablet with a hinged lid. On the inside was a layer of wax on which they would record the main details of the case they were trying. There would be the record of the promise to appear; attestation that the defendant had appeared; the planned day of the hearing; important individuals who were taking part in the trial; the successive stages of the trial; the judgement pronounced. So John may be recording here what Pilate himself wrote in his tablet, which explains why he put the time of the trial at “about the 6th hour”, or about 6 am. The time mentioned may therefore be when the trial started, according to Pilate, a Roman, therefore it is in Roman time.
We know the Jews held their formal Sanhedrin at the dawn of the day, and reached a quick verdict, for when they took Jesus to Pilate it was still early, John 18:28. So if Pilate noted the time when he began to try Christ, it was indeed about the sixth hour, or just after daybreak, for the use of the word “about” indicates it was just after the sixth hour.
It is Mark in his Servant Gospel who records the critical times. So the time-line for the day of the crucifixion is as follows:
During the night, after the arrest in the Garden, an informal trial was held before Annas and then Caiphas, with “all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes”, Mark 14:53.
Just after 6am, “as soon as it was day”, a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin was convened to endorse the decision taken in the night, Luke 22:66.
A little later, but still “early”, the examination by Pilate begins, John 18:28.
The third hour, meaning 9am, the crucifixion, Mark 15:25.
The sixth hour to the ninth hour, the darkness, Mark 15:33.
Just after the ninth hour, the death of Christ, Mark 15:37.
Before the twelfth hour, the burial of Christ, Mark 15:42.
And he saith unto the Jews, “Behold your King!’ This is Pilate’s last attempt to avoid crucifying the Lord. He is appealing to them one last time. Before, the word was, “Behold the man!” This appealed to their pity as men. Now it is “Behold your King!” He is appealing to their self-esteem as a nation. He is pouring scorn on their suggestion that such a pitiable sight could conceivably be mistaken for the King of the Jews.
If he can get them to drop the charge of being a king, (which affects Pilate’s position, for he must defend Caesar from rivals, however petty they may seem to be), then he can also drop the charge of being the Son of God, as having no relevance to Roman law, and which does not threaten the Roman peace.
19:15
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 have no king but Caesar.
But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him- their response is the same as before, except that they say “Away with him” twice over, and not just “crucify him”. They want to be completely rid of Him, not just put on a cross. They want to rid their thoughts of Him, for He touches their conscience.
Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar- this is the public rejection of Christ as King by the leaders of the nation. But they go further, because ideally the nation was a theocracy, and God was their king. By saying they have no king but Caesar they reject the Kingship of God that Christ came to manifest.
When Israel wanted a king in Samuel’s day, he felt rejected. But God said that it was He who had been rejected, for He was Israel’s true King, see 1 Samuel 8:5-7.
The Rabbis said at the fall of Jerusalem, “The sceptre has departed from Judah, and Messiah has not come”. Hosea said, “The children of Israel shall abide many days without a king…afterward shall the children of Israel return”, Hosea 4:4.
We need to read Matthew 27:31 at this point to learn when the purple robe was removed and His own clothing restored to Him.
27:31
And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him.
And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from Him- both Mark and John tell us that the soldiers put a purple robe on Him. Either the robe was purplish-scarlet, or a scarletty purple, or they used two robes, the first one becoming so blood-stained through the wounds inflicted by the scourging, that they changed it for another.
And put his own raiment on him- unwittingly they prepare in this way for the fulfilment of Scripture, which foretold that His raiment would be gambled for. The soldiers who did this at the foot of the cross also unwittingly fulfilled Scripture.
And led him away to crucify him- we shall think of this phrase as we return to John’s account.
19:16
Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.
Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified- there seems to be a deliberate vagueness here as to whom He was delivered. It reads as if He was delivered to the Jews, but we know in fact that He was handed over to the Roman soldiery. John is emphasising the guilt of the rulers of the nation, just as Peter, Stephen and Paul did in their addresses in the Acts of the Apostles.
Christ rode into Jerusalem and presented Himself as king, John 12:15, for the prophet had foretold this with the words, “Rejoice greatly O daughter of Zion; shout O daughter of Jerusalem: Behold thy king cometh unto thee”, Zechariah 9:9, and now He is taken as king out of the city, His claim rejected.
And they took Jesus, and led him away- if the previous statement sounded as if He was handed over to the Jews, now it is made clear that the Romans were involved too, as Peter said, “Ye (Jews), by wicked hands (the lawless hands of Gentiles), have crucified and slain”.
Both Matthew and Mark tell us the purpose for which they “led Him away”, (Matthew), and “led Him out, (Mark), namely, “to crucify Him”. In other words they were looking for no other outcome. But Jewish law made elaborate provision for the receiving of last-minute evidence. A man on horseback with a white flag would be stationed at the gate in full view of the procession to the execution spot. Another man would accompany the accused. If fresh evidence was brought forward, or if the condemned man wished to produce fresh evidence, then the white flag would be waved, the procession halted, the condemned man brought back into the city, and the trial reopened. None of this happened in the case of Christ, for they led Him out with no other intention than that of crucifying Him.
(b) Verses 17-30
Jesus and His crucifixion
19:17
And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:
And he bearing his cross went forth- He had gone into Jerusalem with the ass bearing Him, and now He goes out of Jerusalem with Him bearing the cross. This movement makes Jerusalem “the city next to the slain man”, Deuteronomy 21:1-9. Under the law of Moses, it was the city next to a slain man that was held responsible to investigate his death. A sacrifice had to be offered to clear the city of the guilt of the man’s murder. Little do the elders of the city of Jerusalem realise that the one they are taking out of the city to execute, is the sacrifice for their sin in doing so. On this basis the word was, “thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem”, Luke 24:47.
Into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha- Jewish tradition said Goliath’s head was buried there. When Christ bowed His head on the cross, the word is the same as when the armies of the aliens were “turned to flight”, Hebrews 11:34, as happened when David slew Goliath, 1 Samuel 17. Golgotha was the place where the greatest giant of all, Satan himself, was defeated, and his forces routed, Hebrews 2:14. Defeated, moreover, by one who was “crucified through weakness”, 2 Corinthians 13:4, and who appeared helpless in the face of all that came upon Him. It was otherwise, however, for He “spoiled principalities and powers”, Colossians 2:15, and “destroyed him that had the power of death, that is, the Devil”, Hebrews 2:14, just as David ensured that the hosts of the Philistines fled.
There is a great contrast suggested here, for the Hebrew word “gulgoleth” from which comes the word Golgotha, is used of the head of Saul after he died in Gilboa. We read that the Philistines…fastened his head (gulgoleth) in the temple of Dagon”, 1 Chronicles 10:10. So instead of the Philistines fleeing because David had slain their champion, they are here on the victory side. And instead of Goliath’s head being cut off and taken to Jerusalem as a trophy of victory over God’s enemies, the head of Saul the king of Israel is hung up as a trophy in the temple of the heathen god. No such disgrace befell the Saviour, however, for He triumphed over the enemy, and God saw to it that His holy body was not mutilated or brought into contact with corruption; much less used as a trophy by the enemy.
At this point Luke tells us what happened on the way to the cross, and the weeping of the women.
Luke 23:26
And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus.
And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country- this is all we know about this man, except that, as Mark tells us, he was the father of Alexander and Rufus, Mark 15:21 Why do we need to know who this man’s sons were, unless he, and they, were afterwards converted as a result of this experience, and the first readers of the gospels would know who they were? Mark also tells us that he was compelled to bear the cross. We remember how Mark is emphasising the servant character of the Lord Jesus, so it is interesting to notice the contrast between the willing acceptance by the Lord Jesus of the burden of dealing with the question of sins, and the seeming unwillingness of Simon to simply carry the cross on which the work would be done. We could understand the reluctance of Simon, for those who were seen carrying a cross to the place of execution were despised of men, and a reproach. Yet did what happened on that cross so affect Simon that he was converted to God, and denied himself, and gladly took up his cross and followed Him? See Matthew 16:24.
Whilst the word “country” does literally means a cultivated field, it is often set in contrast to the city. So, for instance, we read in Luke 8:34, “they told it in the city and in the country“. Or Luke 9:12, “go into the towns and country round about”. The idea behind the word in this context is a rural place rather than an urban place. The point is that to bear the cross he must turn right round, and go in the opposite direction, for he is coming towards the city and Christ is going out of it. If he was, in fact, constrained to believe by this event, then he had a moral turn-round also, which is what conversion is.
And on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus- this incident is taken up by the writer to the Hebrews when he writes, “Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach”, Hebrews 3:12,13. Note the difference between without, or outside, the camp and without the gate. To be without the gate is the physical position the Lord Jesus took up when He endured the cross, corresponding to the place where the sin offering was burnt in Old Testament times. But it had a spiritual meaning, and those who grasp this meaning will take up a moral position in harmony with His moral position as one still rejected by organised religion. If we were exhorted to go outside the gate, we would have to go on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. As it is, outside the camp is a position we take up in our hearts, and translate into practice as we meet with those of like mind in the assembly.
Simon was compelled to bear His cross; we are called to bear His reproach. On the day of atonement one of the last ceremonies was the carrying of the carcases of the sin offerings, (the bullock and the goat), by a man qualified to do this, outside the camp to be burnt. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews encourages us to fulfil that role in its spiritual meaning, and associate with the one who suffered the Divine Fire for us in the outside place. The sin offering had imputed to it the sin of the people, being made sin. It was a detestable thing, therefore. To carry it was to associate closely with it. Now Christ is not a detestable person as far as God is concerned, but He is detested by the religious world, despite what they seem to say about Him. When the full force of Christianity confronts them, they come out in their true character, and deny Him. And so does Judaism. To cleave to Christ, and take the outside place with Him is a place of reproach, yet we should not flinch to do it.
The Lord challenged His disciples to take up their cross. In other words, to make His cross their own, in the sense of association with Him. This is Matthew’s account:
16:24
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me- He has just indicated to the disciples that His cross and suffering are definitely ahead, then the call to discipleship can be issued. A true disciple will count the cost before he sets out, Luke 14:25-35. “Will” speaks of desire, not simply a future event. Those who follow Christ must be aware that He was heading for a cross, not a crown.
Let him deny himself- nothing must stand in the way of this commitment. Self is a major obstacle to full devotion.
And take up his cross and follow me- the cross of Christ is unique, but the true follower will not shrink from fellowship with Christ in the rejection the cross represents. In this way His cross becomes ours. Needless to say this cross is not a physical piece of wood, but a doctrine. The teaching regarding the cross is brought out in Paul’s epistles. For instance, Galatians 1:20, “I am crucified with Christ”; Romans 6:6, “Our old man was crucified with Christ”; Galatians 5:24, “They that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh”; Galatians 6:14, “The cross…by which the world is crucified to me, and I unto the world”.
16:25
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it- the word for life is soul, the person. To save one’s person is to live for self, and is the opposite of denying self. The cross puts an end to self. The believer who lives for self is not living for the Lord, and will find in the day of assessment that he has nothing to be rewarded for. His life will have been wasted and lost. This has nothing to do with losing salvation, which can never happen to a true believer, but everything to do with losing reward.
And whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it- to lose life is to give up one’s own interests in favour of Christ’s. Note it must be “for My sake”, not with the thought of gaining merit, and certainly not as a form of penance, that neglecting of the body which is condemned in Colossians 2:23, and which in fact is satisfying to the flesh. At the Judgment Seat of Christ the life lived for Christ will be found in the form of reward, and at Christ’s appearing it will be found in the form of glory for the One who made it possible, and for the enjoyment of life in the kingdom. Compare 1 Peter 1:7, “found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ”. Then, “Whom having not seen (as He will be when He comes to earth), ye love”. Love to Christ will displace love for self.
16:26
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Such an one will “find” nothing at the end of a life seeking gain for himself. In the light of eternity, to gain everything material is to lose an eternal reward. See Philippians 3:7, where the apostle testifies “What things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ”.
Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? As a man looks back over a wasted life, (even if he has gained the whole world), he realises that all he has accumulated is not enough to buy back lost opportunities. In Ephesians 5:16, the apostle exhorts us to be “Redeeming the time, for the days are evil”, or in other words, “take the hours of the day to the marketplace and sell to the highest bidder, thus putting a high value on them, for days spent as the world spends them are evil and worthless”. How important it is to live in the light of eternity, for the things of time and sense are not lasting, and will not profit spiritually the one occupied with them.
16:27
For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he reward every man according to his works.
For the Son of Man shall come- here the Lord looks on to the day when He comes to reign, and when His followers shall be with Him, and when He shall be glorified in His saints, 2 Thessalonians 1:10. The degree He is glorified then will be the degree we have denied ourselves in favour of His interests now.
In the glory of his Father with his angels- only those things which glorify Christ can be associated with the glory of His Father, and be on display in that day. Other things will have been burnt up. His angels excel in strength and fly swiftly to do heaven’s bidding, and this zeal should mark the believer.
And then shall He reward every man according to his works- reward means recompense. The self-denial has meant hardship, and in the day of glory this will be compensated. Note that denying self is not a negative thing, for it produces works.
We now resume our look at Luke’s account of those who followed Christ for different reasons.
23:27
And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him.
And there followed him a great company of people- no doubt these were pilgrims from all over the world who had come to Jerusalem for the passover, and had perhaps heard of Him from those who had met Christ during His ministry. The priests must have looked on fearfully, for they had told Judas that they did not want to arrest and condemn Him on a feast day, “lest there be an uproar among the people”, Matthew 26:5.
And of women, which also bewailed and lamented him- these seem not to be His female followers, in view of what the Lord said to them in the next verses. Perhaps these are the same as those who provided the stupifying drink which Christ will soon refuse. There is only human sympathy and sentiment, and they are not weeping for the right reason. They would probably have wept like this for any man led out to be crucified.
23:28
But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.
But Jesus turning unto them said- by turning round to face them as they followed, the Lord was making Golgotha the backdrop for His remarks. When the city of Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70, the hills around were covered in crosses, as many thousands of Jews were crucified by the Romans. He will speak of this in His next remarks, as He prophesies what will happen to the nation, not only in AD 70, but also during the Great Tribulation period.
Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children- the expression “daughters of Jerusalem” seems to mark them out as a well-known body of women, who sought to relieve the sufferings of those crucified.
The crowds had said, “His blood be on us, and on our children”, and in view of this they might well weep for themselves and their children. He was refusing mere sentimental weeping, but He appreciates the weeping of the repentant, as the woman of Luke 7:37,38,47 found.
23:29
For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.
For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say- here is a further prophecy to the one recorded in Matthew 24. Despite facing the utmost trial, the Lord takes time to warn these women of the consequences of the cry the crowds had made. He thought not on His own things, but on the things of others, Philippians 2:4,5.
Blessed are the barren- to rejoice that a woman was barren was totally contrary to Old Testament feeling. In those times it was a cause of rejoicing if a woman was expecting a child, for it was the sign of God’s blessing. But such is the suffering that the Lord foresees for His nation, that He predicts they will regret having children. Moses had warned of these times too, for if the people disobeyed God’s statutes, (and they were doing this by rejecting the Prophet He had sent to them, Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Acts 3:22-26), then “Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body”, and, “Thou shalt beget sons and daughters, but thou shalt not enjoy them; for they shall go into captivity”, Deuteronomy 28:18,41.
And the wombs that never bare- not only would barren women be blessed, those who were not barren but who had not borne children would be too.
And the paps which never gave suck- even those who had lost their child at birth, and who had never had the satisfaction of feeding it, would count themselves happy. So the soreness of the tribulation they would experience would completely over-ride the maternal instincts of these women. Those who mourned because of barrenness, or that they had not conceived, or had lost their babies, would be counted as those who should rejoice. For those who did have children would regret it.
We can see why the Lord told them to weep for themselves, in anticipation of the real sorrows that would be theirs for rejecting Him. And we can see why He exhorted them to not weep for Him, because their weeping was unreal and uninformed; they thought He was just another criminal being led out to die, and they wanted to relieve His sufferings for that reason alone. He is not forbidding genuine sorrow for His sufferings, but rejects mere sentimentality. Many today are affected by the sufferings of Christ, and much music has been composed to try to express that sorrow, but all sorrow that is purely superficial is of no avail.
23:30
Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.
Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us- notice the word “begin”, for what is spoken of here would come to pass at the siege and destruction of Jerusalem, but would be repeated in greater intensity during the Great Tribulation, in which unparalleled sufferings would be endured, for we read, “And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every freeman, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; and said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of Him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: for the great day of His wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?” Revelation 6:15-17. To have a mountain fall upon you would be a terrifying thing, so the sufferings here foretold must be even more severe than that.
When speaking of these days, the Lord said, “But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days”, Matthew 24:17. So there is a blessing on childlessness, and a woe on those with child.
23:31
For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?
For if they do these things in a green tree- the psalmist foretold that the Lord Jesus would be “like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth His fruit in His season: His leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever He doeth shall prosper”, Psalm 1:3. And so it was. Whether the season was unfavourable or favourable, the Lord Jesus bore the appropriate fruit to God’s glory. No matter how dry the ground was, (and He was “a root out of a dry ground”, Isaiah 53:2), He flourished, for as the psalmist said elsewhere, “all my springs are in Thee”, Psalm 87:7, and this was true of Christ too. But men did not appreciate the fruit He bore, and reckoned that it was evil and harmful, so they crucified Him.
What shall be done in the dry? Notice the “for” at the beginning of the verse, telling us that this is an extension of the warning in verse 30 about coming judgment for the nation, as represented by “the daughters of Jerusalem”. So the dry tree is the nation of Israel, whose springs were not in God, but in dry ritual and lifeless tradition. They were like the fig tree that the Lord had cursed, which was “dried up from the roots”, Mark 11:20. If the Romans crucified Christ, would they not do the same to Jews in AD 70? And so it came to pass, for there is a close connection between what they did to Christ by handing Him over the Romans, and what the Romans did, when God handed them over to them.
Before the soldiers crucified their victims, it seems it was customary to give them a drink to lessen the pain of being nailed to the cross. Neither Luke nor John mention this, but Matthew and Mark do, Matthew 27:34 and Mark 15:23. This drugged drink was supplied, probably, by the “daughters of Jerusalem” to relieve the sufferings involved in the nailing.
Matthew 27:33
And when they were come to a place called Golgotha, that is to say a place of a skull, they gave Him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when He had tasted thereof, He would not drink.
And when they were come to a place called Golgotha, that is to say a place of a skull, they gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall- notice that Matthew indicates that the vinegar was given as soon as they had arrived and begun the process of crucifixion. This would involve the removal of the clothes, the laying of the victim on the cross as it laid on the ground, and the nailing to the cross. Then the lifting up of the cross into an upright position, and dropping it with a jolt into the hole already made for the base. This would result in the victim’s bones being put out of joint. All His bones were out of joint, but they were not broken, as the Scripture foretold. By causing His bones to be out of joint men thought they had put a stop to Christ’s work. In fact, He did His greatest work with all His bones out of joint.
And when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink- the Lord will ask for a drink later on, but He refuses it when He has ascertained, by sipping it, that it is drugged. He will not allow anything of man to relieve Him of His sufferings. He will bear them in all their full horror. He will die by crucifixion, not poisoning.
Mark’s account is slightly different, as follows:
Mark 15:23
And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.
And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not- there is no discrepancy here, for Mark is stating a fact, whereas Matthew is giving us a sequence, “when they were come…they gave Him…” Seeing that He has refused the first drink, the soldiers, (who perhaps were required to give this drink), offer Him a slightly different one. Instead of their cheap wine or vinegar with gall added, they next add myrrh. But He refuses this without even tasting it. He was given myrrh at His birth, and the gift was accepted, and it relieved hardship, for Joseph and Mary needed resources to travel to Egypt to escape death. Here He is offered it again, but this time from unbelievers, and to relieve the sufferings of death, and the gift was rejected. Perhaps the myrrh gave off a smell, so He did not need to sip it to see what it was.
We now return to John’s account.
John 19:18
Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.
Where they crucified him- the gospel writers spare us the gruesome details. In fact it is noticeable how quickly the narrative moves forward. It is as if the gospel writers cannot bring themselves to explain the details, so hurtful to them was the thought that their Lord and Saviour was crucified. Crucifixion was a disgrace, a disposal, and a deterrent, and a Roman orator said that it was the “most degraded death that could be meted out to any man”. As the old Cornish lady said as she left a meeting where the preacher had dwelt upon these things in the gospel, “T’was a bitter nailing, Sir, a bitter nailing”. And she was right.
The books of Moses give foreshadowings of Calvary; the psalms the feelings; the prophetic books the foretellings; the gospels the facts; the epistles the forthtelling of the meaning.
The meaning of the cross is that the crucifixion of Christ has ended, (a) the believer’s relationship with Adam, for “our old man was crucified with Him”, Romans 6:6. The expression “our old man” meaning the pre-conversion self as linked to Adam.
It has also ended, (b), our relationship with the world, and (c), its relationship with us. The apostle Paul wrote, “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world”, Galatians 6:14. Paul and the world stood on either side, and the cross was in the midst. The world looked at Paul in the light of the cross, and saw him as a rejected man, just like the one on the central cross was rejected. By the same token, Paul looked at the world in the light of the cross, and saw it as rejected, for it had crucified the one who had saved him. By “the cross”, he means the doctrine of the cross, not a piece of wood.
And two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst- is this the order in which they were crucified, or were there soldiers allotted to each victim, so that they were crucified at the same time? When the soldiers came to brake the legs at the end, they came to Jesus last, but they did not break His legs.
He is crucified as King, and in mockery men put on one side a robber, as His Chancellor of the Exchequer in control of the finances, and the other side is a murderer, as His Home Secretary, responsible for the execution of murderers. But all the while the man on the central cross was “despising the shame” that men heaped upon Him, for He knew He was not guilty, and He also knew His Father’s heart was gladdened by His obedience even unto the death of a cross.
We read of “two other with him”, so there were but three crosses that day. Where are the others? The false witnesses were required by law to be given the same sentence as the one they falsely accused was facing, see Deuteronomy 19:16-21. This was conveniently forgotten in their haste and determination to see Christ crucified.
Only Luke gives us the first saying of the Lord Jesus whilst on the cross:
Luke 23:34
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
Then said Jesus, Father- there are those who believe that the Lord Jesus was bearing sins and forsaken of God for the whole six hours between His crucifixion and His death. This expression suggests otherwise, for He is in the full consciousness of His relationship with His Father. Of course, He was always the Son of His Father, even when forsaken of His God, for that forsaking was not on account of anything He had done, and the relationship remained intact. But the enjoyment of that relationship does depend on whether He is bearing sin or not. It is true that Peter writes, that “He bare our sins in his own body on the tree”, but we should remember that He was on the tree for a little while at least after He had died, but He was not bearing sin then. Peter, by saying “on the tree”, is ensuring we do not confuse Christ’s pattern sufferings in His life, (to which he has just referred), with His penal sufferings.
Forgive them- there are certain psalms which are called imprecatory, in which the psalmist calls down vengeance on his enemies. There is nothing of that here, for “the Son of Man came not to destroy men’s lives, but to save them”, Luke 9:56.
This is the only saying from the cross which was a formal prayer. It would remind us of the fact that on the Day of Atonement the blood of the sin-offering was sprinkled on the altar of incense, Leviticus 16:18, incense being a symbol of prayer. (See the distinction between the two altars in Leviticus 4:18).
This was true also of the blood of the sin offering for the priest who had sinned. The priests had certainly sinned that day, and there was provision in the sacrifice of Christ even for them. So by appealing to His Father to forgive, the Lord is not only exhibiting His gracious attitude, but is also establishing Himself as the true sin offering, by which alone men may have forgiveness now. Many of them came to realise this, for we read in Acts 6:7 that “a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith”.
This prayer of the Lord cannot be a blanket forgiveness of all men’s sins, or else there would be no need for the gospel to be preached. The details concerning the sin offering in the Old Testament will help us here. There was provision for the priest, the congregation, a ruler, or one of the common people, when they sinned in ignorance. Of the last three categories, after an acceptable sin offering had been brought, killed, and burnt, and thereby atonement made for sin, it is said, “It shall be forgiven them”, or “it shall be forgiven him”, as the case may be, Leviticus 4:20, 26, 31 and 35. So forgiveness was on the basis of the recognition of sin, and the bringing of a suitable offering to atone for it. Forgiveness was not a general thing, therefore, that could be pronounced to all the people regardless of their attitude to their sin. If that was the principle established of old time, then it would not be over-ridden by Christ without explanation.
It was said by the rabbis that the sin of the whole congregation referred to a wrong decision of the Sanhedrin. They certainly had made a wrong decision that day, but the Lord, in marvellous grace, presents Himself as the means of their forgiveness, if they will repent. So it is that Peter, when speaking to the people in the temple courts, said, “But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; and killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses…And now brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers…repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out”, Acts 3:14,15,17,19. So the rulers, and the congregation, are offered forgiveness on the basis of the death of Christ.
It is very solemn to notice, however, that in the case of “the priest that is anointed”, these words of forgiveness are not spoken, although the sin was in fact forgiven. It is also solemn to notice that when Peter was addressing the high priest directly, he does not offer forgiveness to him specifically, (even though Luke is careful to name the priests Peter is addressing, Acts 4:5-7), but speaks in general terms, “Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved”, verse 12. The priests must humble themselves, and become like one of the common people.
For they know not what they do- notice the punctuation of this verse. It is not “forgive them for they know not what they do”, as if the reason for the forgiveness was their ignorance. Rather, it is “forgive them; for they know not what they do”. The semi-colon after “them” makes the distinction plain. In other words, there is the appeal for forgiveness, and then the reason why that forgiveness is necessary. The ground of the forgiveness is not their ignorance, but His sacrifice and God’s grace.
And they parted His raiment, and cast lots- the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much, James 5:16, so it is interesting to notice that Luke links the clothing with the prayer. That which symbolised His righteous character is associated with His fervent prayer. The Lord said to His Father at the grave of Lazarus, “I knew that thou hearest me always”, John 11:42. So His prayer is answered in virtue of His righteous manhood and His essential Deity. What surer basis can there be for a prayer?
All four gospel writers mention the distribution of His garments, but John’s account is more detailed. He had leant on the bosom of Jesus at supper, this being a reference to the fold of His garment:
John 19:23
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 from the top throughout.
Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part- they must have removed these garments in order to put Him on the cross, and now they come back to claim them. It seems from this that there were four soldiers allotted the task of crucifying Christ, besides the centurion in overall charge.
How humiliating and depressing this was! Humiliating, because His basic necessities were being taken away from Him without permission, showing that He was thought of as having forfeited all rights as a human being. Was it not expressed beforehand in the psalm, “But I am a worm, and no man”, Psalm 22:6?
It was depressing, because to be deprived of clothing in such circumstances means that there is no further use for them. As Job said, “Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither”, Job 1:21. We should remember that His mother was standing by as these things happened. Should not these garments have been given to her as the nearest relative? But all considerations of politeness and respect are lacking at this time.
The normal clothing for a Jewish man consisted of a head-dress, sandals, a girdle, and an outer tunic, and an inner tunic, referred to in the next verse as a coat. That which these things symbolised was of no account to the soldiers, for they thought of them just as items of clothing, blood-soaked at that. But to the believer, how suggestive these garments are.
Think of His head-dress. In Scripture the covering for the head denotes the recognition of the headship of another, a fact that ought to be borne in mind in these days when so many women who wish to be known as Christians gather together to engage in spiritual exercises without covering their heads. This is an affront to God and Christ, and confuses the angels. See 1 Corinthians 11:1-16.
The head-covering of Christ speaks of His recognition of the headship of His God over Him. Paul writes, “the head of Christ is God”, 1 Corinthians 11:3. When He took manhood, the Son of God accepted the place of subjection to His Father. This does not alter His relationship to the Father as sharing His Deity. But it does mean that having been “made in the likeness of men”, Philippians 2:7, He accepts the place of subjection that man has. Sadly, men rebel against the idea of the headship of God, but the Lord Jesus is the believer’s glorious example, for He gladly submitted to the authority of His Father over Him as a man.
We should remember that every believing man has Christ for his head, and every believing woman has the believing man for her head, which is why she should cover her head when engaged in spiritual exercises, even when men are not present. The angels still look on whether men are present or not, and when they are not, there is more need for the woman to signify her godly submission. The man does not cover His head during spiritual exercises because now that Christ is back in heaven, he, the man, is responsible for the exercise of authority on earth, and therefore to signify this he does not wear a head-covering when engaged in activities God-ward. He is the image and glory of God, 1 Corinthians 11:7.
Then there were Christ’s sandals. This would tell of His pilgrimage, for He said to the disciples, “I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father”, John 16:28. Or again, as John wrote of Him, “Jesus…knowing that He was come from God and went to God”, John 13:3. In His ministry in the upper room, the Lord was not only preparing His disciples for the shock of His departure, He was preparing them for their departure also, and teaching them “the way”. They were to wear the sandals of pilgrimage too, and seek to “walk even as He walked”, 1 John 2:6.
Then there was His girdle, the sign of service. How busy He had been! He said, “I must work the works of Him that sent Me while it is day: the night cometh when no man can work”, John 9:4. And again, “For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many”, Mark 10:45.
Now the girdle of service is left to His people, for He said, “If any man serve Me, let Him follow Me; and where I am, there shall also My servant be: if any man serve Me, him will My Father honour”. So as we follow His steps, we shall find service to engage in, and then be where He is in heaven, John 12:26.
Then there was His outer coat, in which was He appeared to the world. This would speak of His character as He moved amongst men. Men might blame Him and scorn Him, but they could not deny the good He had done and been. These features should mark His people too, for the apostle urges us to “put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lust thereof”, Romans 13:14, and again, “as many as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ”, Galatians 3:27.
And also His coat- we could think first, how that His inner coat must have still smelled of the spikenard that Mary had poured upon Him. That ointment lasted many days, so it is said. Mary of Bethany did not need to be at the cross, but her ointment must have comforted the Saviour in His sufferings. His thoughts would turn to those who, although not standing by the cross physically, were with Him in His sufferings morally. Mary did not need to be at the sepulchre, for she had kept the ointment against the day of His burying, as the Lord had said, John 12:6, but had changed her mind, and anointed Him beforehand. Nor did she need to be at the empty tomb, for she had learnt of Him at His feet, and had heard from Martha His own words, “I am the resurrection and the life”. How could such an one stay in the tomb- He must rise in three days as He said He would.
There must have been something special about this garment, for if it had been of little value they would have ripped it into four. This is not to say that the Lord was wearing a rich man’s garment, for that would not suit His character, for He had become poor in so many senses, 2 Corinthians 8:9. Rather, it showed the love and devotion of the one who had given Him the garment. For He is worthy of the best that we can give Him. We will surely not give the Lord of glory that which is second-hand or second-best.
Caiaphas had rent his garments; the vail was rent, the rocks, too, but not this coat. Nothing personal to Christ must be spoilt. His Father will see to that. Possibly the garments of the thieves were torn already through their violent life-style. But this one “had done no violence”, Isaiah 53:9.
These garments must have been stained with His blood, after the scourging. Joseph’s coat was dipped in the blood of a goat to deceive his father Jacob, Genesis 37:31-35. But Christ’s Father in heaven was able to discern perfectly what those blood-stained robes meant. They told of His Son’s total surrender to His will. To have blood-stained garments would be the very last thing Jacob would wish for his favourite son. Yet this is the will of God regarding His Beloved Son, His Only-begotten.
If His outer garment symbolised His character, that which was evident to men, the inner tunic is that which is close to Himself, and unseen, speaking of that which is personal, of His very nature. We are not told the material this coat was made from, but whatever it was, was a product of the earth, whether linen, cotton or wool. It would not be a mixture of these because that was prohibited by the law, Leviticus 19:19, and the Lord Jesus kept the law perfectly. The mixing of fibres in a garment suggests compromise, and there was none of that with Him. Too often our lives are a mixture of spiritual and carnal, but not His.
Now the coat was without seam- how like Christ it is to have coat without seam. For a seam is a place of weakness, where the material is vulnerable to being rent. The Lord spoke of old garments rending when He was giving teaching about the way the old covenant was to be replaced by the new, Matthew 9:16. His garment is not rent at all, for He brings in that which is eternal, and shall never need replacing. The high priest had rent his garments during the trial of Christ, Matthew 26:65, even though this was forbidden, Leviticus 21:10. But it symbolised the end of the Levitical system of priesthood. Christ’s priesthood is for ever, Hebrews 7:21.
Woven from the top throughout- this too is deeply significant in connection with Christ. The garment is made in one piece, with no additions afterwards. There was nothing that needed to be added to Christ, He was complete in His person. Of course He “increased in wisdom and stature”, Luke 2:52, but what was growing was what was there from the beginning. The believer is to grow in Christ-likeness until the goal is reached, even “the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ”, “the perfect man”, Ephesians 4:13,15.
As the weaver began the work on this garment, the first thing to emerge from the loom was that which was to be the top of the garment. The Lord Jesus presented a stark contrast in His words to the Pharisees. He said, “Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world”, John 8:23. How searching these words were to the men who stood before Him in their long white Pharisee-robes. But these were but a covering for their unrighteousness. He was so different, coming from heaven as He did, and remaining in touch with heaven.
19:24
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, They parted My raiment among them, and for My vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.
They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be- if there were five items of clothing, (head-dress, girdle, sandals, outer garment, inner garment), why did not the centurion claim the best article? Or does “they said therefore among themselves” mean that the soldiers are agreeing amongst themselves without the centurion knowing? A few hours later he will affirm that Jesus is the Son of God, and a righteous man. This is his appreciation of His person (represented by the inner garment), and character, (represented by the outer garment). If it was a question of having Christ’s garment, or having an appreciation of what the garment signified, he chose the better part. In any case, the word from Christ, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”, must have been in marked contrast to the reaction of the other two men, and, indeed, all others that he had been responsible for crucifying, and made a deep impression on him.
That the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith- the soldiers are not doing this so that Scripture might be fulfilled, for they have no interest in that. It could be read “to the fulfilling of Scripture”.
‘They parted My raiment among them, and for My vesture they did cast lots’- these are words from Psalm 22:18. John does not quote the first verse of that psalm, as Matthew and Mark do, for “Eli Eli, lama sabachthani” are expressive of the Lord’s feelings as the Sin Offering, abandoned of His God. John’s theme is the Burnt Offering, and so he is interested in linking Christ with the Old Testament, and the way in which He was prepared to surrender His will to the Father even to the extent of being deprived of His basic needs.
How graphic is this scene. At the foot of the cross there are those who are gambling with one another. But that is what their lives were like. As Roman soldiers they fought Caesar’s battles. If they were slain, they were slain. If they survived, they survived. They believed their lives were games of chance, their fortunes in “the lap of the gods”. But on the cross above them there was one who was “delivered by the determinate will and counsel of God”. His death was not a chance, but His choice, for He was acting in line with the will of God. It is this truth that gives what He did on the cross such meaning.
These things therefore the soldiers did- John is affirming the fact, reminding us that he was an eye-witness of the event. Perhaps this suggests that the soldiers were not really allowed to do this, so John is saying that, contrary to custom, they really did it on this occasion.
We notice now Mark’s account and his time-keeping.
Mark 15:25
And it was the third hour, and they crucified him
And it was the third hour, and they crucified him- see notes on John 19:14. It is Mark in his Servant Gospel who records the critical times. So the time-line for the day of the crucifixion is as follows:
During the night, after the arrest in the Garden, an informal trial was held before Annas and then Caiphas, with “all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes”, Mark 14:53.
Just after 6am, “as soon as it was day”, a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin was convened to endorse the decision taken in the night, Luke 22:66.
A little later, but still “early”, the examination by Pilate begins, John 18:28.
The third hour, meaning 9am, the crucifixion, Mark 15:25.
The sixth hour to the ninth hour, the darkness, Mark 15:33.
Just after the ninth hour, the death of Christ, Mark 15:37.
Before the twelfth hour, the burial of Christ, Mark 15:42.
Matthew adds a detail at this point, as follows:
Matthew 27:36
And sitting down they watched him there;
And sitting down they watched him there- the sense is that were keeping guard over Him, lest there should be an uprising among the people, and an attempt made to rescue Him from the cross. If they had allowed this the soldiers would have been executed, so they have a personal interest in ensuring He remains on the cross. Unwittingly they are bearing testimony to the fact that He was there, and not replaced by another, just as His tomb was sealed by the authorities, and by this means it is ensured that His dead body is not substituted for another. God is making the wrath of man to praise Him, Psalm 76:10. But that Scripture goes on to say, “The remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain”, so there is a limit put upon what men can do to God’s Son when He is impaled on a cross.
We now continue with John’s account.
19:19
And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross- the usual procedure was for the accusation against the victim to be written on a piece of wood, and nailed to the cross. It seems Pilate personally wrote this title, a further jibe at the Jews for having such a person for their king. The title recorded the crime for which the man was crucified. Christ’s only “crime”, according to Pilate was to claim to be King. Matthew’s gospel is written to assure us His claim is genuine, but there are more references to Christ as King in John’s gospel, the gospel of His Deity, than there are in Matthew, the gospel of His sovereignty, for ‘King of Israel’ is a Divine title, Isaiah 43:15.
In Matthew’s gospel there is no record of Christ being at Jerusalem, (which He Himself described as “the city of the Great King”, Matthew 5:35), until He went there to die. And there is no record in Matthew of Him being in Jerusalem after He was crucified and risen either. John’s gospel, however, is built around His visits to Jerusalem, for that was, ideally considered, “the place of the Name”, that is, where God dwelt. So it is fitting that the one who bears “the Name” should be found there so much in John.
And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS- no one gospel writer gives us all of the title, but each selects what is relevant to his purpose.
Matthew: “This is Jesus the King of the Jews”.
This is the name and the claim. Matthew is the official gospel.
Mark: “The King of the Jews”.
Here the emphasis is not so much on His name but on His office as King; in effect, He who is God’s Servant will serve as God’s King. Mark is the ministerial gospel.
Luke: “This is the King of the Jews”.
Luke emphasises the person, as if to say “this person is…” Luke is the personal gospel.
John: “Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews”.
John is the only one to mention that the title included the place where He lived, Nazareth. Pilate is scorning the Jews for having a king from such a place. But He came from heaven to Nazareth, for John is the filial gospel, the gospel of the Son. John is not embarrassed to record what Pilate wrote, for he has made an irrefutable argument throughout his gospel for the Deity of Christ.
Pilate wrote “Jesus of Nazareth”, but the King was to be born at Bethlehem and reign in Jerusalem, whereas Pilate highlights disreputable Nazareth. Again, he is scorning the Jews. But as he does so he reminds us that the Lord Jesus is pleased to be known by this lowly title. When He was arrested in the garden, the arrest party said they were coming for “Jesus of Nazareth”, and the Lord steps forward and declares, “I am He”. And when He confronted Saul of Tarsus on the Damascus road, He announced Himself to still be “Jesus of Nazareth”, even though He is in heaven, Acts 22:8. No doubt Saul was proud of having come from Tarsus, but there is no pride with Christ. He is not embarrassed by His humble upbringing, for He made Himself of no reputation, even as to His home town.
19:20
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.
This title then read many of the Jews- Jerusalem would be full of pilgrims at passover time. Some say as many as three million. We can see why the authorities did not want to arrest Christ on a feast day, Mark 14:2, and why they wanted the bodies removed quickly, John 19:31. They feared that Jews from other countries might be curious about this Jesus of Nazareth, and begin to question why He had been crucified if He had done such good.
For the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city- the maiden in the Song of Solomon found her beloved a little way past the watchmen that patrolled the walls, Song of Solomon 3:3,4. He still has the outside place, but He is not so far removed that men cannot seek and find Him. He separates Himself from the “camp” of Israel, but as in Moses’ day, the “tabernacle” is outside the camp, and those who seek the Lord will go unto Him there, see Exodus 33:7,8. He tabernacled amongst Israel, John 1:14, and now is tabernacled outside the camp, yet even though they have rejected Him He is not far away.
And it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin- Hebrew was the language of the Jews, the men of religion; Greek was that of the Greeks, the men of philosophy and learning; Latin was used by the Romans, the men of politics. This is all there is to the world as far as power and influence are concerned. These are the languages of the princes of this world, that crucified the Lord of Glory in ignorance, despite all that was available to them in these languages, 1 Corinthians 2:8. Hebrew addresses the soul through religion. Greek addresses the mind through philosophy. Latin addresses the will through politics. But the Lord addresses the heart, not by the writings of men, but by the Scriptures that tell of Him and His work.
He is King, with sovereign power, able to bring in a superior way of worshipping God, for He is a Priest-King. He brings in a superior way of thinking, for He is the Wisdom of God. And because “King of Israel” is a Divine title, and He is equal with God, He brings in a superior way of governing. In the first chapter of the Kingly Gospel, He is said to be Emmanuel, meaning “God with us”, Matthew 1:23. He is God’s choice for ruler, all others in His genealogy having failed, for they could not save their people from their sins. By the cross He has shown Himself “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God”, 1 Corinthians 1:24. He has power superior to David, and wisdom superior to Solomon. And He is able to bring Israel back, like Josiah did, who was Israel’s best king, 2 Kings 23:25.
Only Luke and John tell us about the three languages. Luke, the Greek man of earthly learning, puts Greek first, then Latin, then Hebrew, for that is the order of his awareness. As a Greek, his earliest recollections were in that language. But then he began to realise that it was the Romans who ruled men, and he needed their language too. But when he was converted he came into the good of the Hebrew Scriptures. John the Jewish man of Old Testament learning puts Hebrew first, the language of his first acquaintance with the things of God as he listened in the synagogue to the Scriptures read in Hebrew, the language of the Old Testament. Then he learned Greek, for he would be used to write much of the New Testament, and he would do so in Greek. Then he would know Latin, the language of the occupying Romans.
19:21
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.
Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate- only in John is there objection from the priests.
Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews- they wish it to be a statement by Christ rather than by Pilate. Then it would not look as though His claim was recognised. He had been prepared to agree that He was King of the Jews, Matthew 27:11, for it was the time of His humiliation, and “Jew” is a title of disgrace, only being used after Israel had gone into captivity. He will reign as King of Israel, and King of kings. Nathaniel was right to address Him as King of Israel, and the context of his words reminds us of the millenial reign of Christ, John 1:43-51.
19:22
Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.
Pilate answered, What I have written I have written- Pilate was, by all accounts, a very stubborn man, and also held the Jews in contempt. He will not allow them to have the last word. He has had Him crucified because of His claim to kingship, with its implied threat to the supremacy of Caesar. To simply accuse Him of claiming to be King is not strong enough to enable Pilate to escape censure. It may be that Pilate means that he has written, (over the cross), what he has written, (on his tablet). He cannot erase his official record, and the title must agree with his trial records. In effect it means that the person charged was Jesus of Nazareth, and the accusation against Him was “King of the Jews”, and these two facts were written over Him.
Mark adds a detail at this point, and then gives his account of the mocking of the bystanders, which John does not record.
Mark 15:28
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors- it is significant that it should be Mark who quotes these words, for his is the Servant Gospel, and they come from Isaiah’s classic chapter about God’s Perfect Servant. The prophet wrote, “And he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors”, Isaiah 53:12. The prophet is giving reasons why God’s Servant will be recompensed by His God. First, it is because He “poured out his soul unto death”. The giving up of His life was the ultimate surrender to the will of God, for He was “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross”, and merits the ultimate exaltation. Second, because “He was numbered with the transgressors”. This was the ultimate disgrace, and is met by the ultimate honour. Third, because “He bare the sin of many”, the ultimate burden, and is rewarded by a weight of glory. Fourth, because “He made intercession for the transgressors”, the ultimate act of forbearance is rewarded by the ultimate reward of having some of those He prayed for, surrounding Him for all eternity. So the ultimate disgrace is being crucified, and that between two thieves, as if He is no different. He who had not come to “steal, and to kill, and to destroy”, like a thief, John 10:10, but rather to give life to men, is given the same punishment as thieves.
The Lord had already quoted these words Himself before His arrest. “And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough”, Luke 22:35-38.
The Lord is clearly preparing His disciples for changed circumstances after He had been crucified. During His ministry He had been with them, and provided for them, no doubt largely through the women who followed Him and “ministered unto him of their substance”, Luke 8:3. But now He is going away, and things are going to be different. Before, they had only briefly gone into Gentile territory, but they would soon be sent into all the world. They would now need to provide for themselves, as Paul did with his tent-making, and they would need a purse for money, and a scrip or provisions bag. Until they made converts, who would be responsible for supplying their needs, 1 Corinthians 9:14, they would need these things. Moreover, the constraints of God’s law would not be present in the lawless world of the Gentiles as they were in Israel, so they would need a sword to protect themselves from the perils on their journey. Now the start of this change was His arrest, trial, and execution, all of which would be unjustly done. The prophet had foreseen what would happen, and foretold that He would be tried by the lawless, sentenced by the lawless, and slain as if He were lawless.
John does not record the insults that those around the cross flung at the Holy Sufferer, but the other three gospel writers do, as represented by Matthew, as follows:
Matthew 27:39,40
And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, and saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.
And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, and saying- thus is fulfilled the prophecy of the psalmist when he wrote beforehand of the experiences of Christ: “But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, ‘He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him'”, Psalm 22:6-8. Despite all this provocation, the Lord did not rebuke, threaten, or revile. “When he was reviled, he reviled not again; when he suffered he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously”, 1 Peter 2:23. Peter gives this as a prime example of the fact that He “did no sin”, verse 22. When under the greatest stress from crucifixion, and the most provocative statements from those who mocked and jeered Him, He remained passive, and confidently rested in His Father’s will. The holiest of saints would have given way, but not He. It is said of Moses that he was “very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth”, Numbers 12:3. Yet he “spake unadvisedly with his lips” because the people had “provoked his spirit”, Psalm 106:33. No such thing happened with Christ, despite the most severe provocation.
Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself- this goes back to His first public passover appearance, when He said, (having purged the temple because it was a den of thieves), when asked what His authority for thus purging it was, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”, John 2:19. There was nothing in that statement about Him destroying the temple. In fact, He was using a figure of speech, and likening His body to a temple, which the Jewish authorities would destroy by causing His death, with its dissolution of spirit, soul, and body.
They sarcastically suggest that if He can destroy and build a temple in three days single–handedly, He can surely remove a few nails from His hands and feet and walk free. But they are using the word “save” in a physical sense, whereas the reason why He willingly remained on the cross was to save men’s souls.
Far from mocking Him, they should have realised that His prophecy had come true, and they were in the process of ensuring His death in the most horrid way. This should have convicted their conscience, but they are too hard-hearted at this point to allow this to happen, seemingly.
If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross- now another matter that came up at His trial, and the one for which He was being crucified, namely His claim to be the Son of God. They seem to think that if He is equal with God, (and the name Son of God signifies this, as He made plain in John 10:30,33,36), then He can do what He pleases, including release Himself. What they do not realise is that it was not so much the nails that fastened Him to the tree, but His great love for His Father’s interests. And His Father’s interests included, amongst other things, the salvation of men. He had spent His entire ministry showing without a shadow of a doubt that He was the Son of God, and the majority had not believed Him. Simply making a dramatic gesture would not convince them. He had brought Lazarus from the grave, is that not enough proof?
27:41,42
Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save- now it is the turn of the chief priests, scribes and elders. They cannot deny that He saved others as far as physical diseases were concerned, (and that was a very significant admission), but they here suggest that His power was limited, and did not extend to helping Himself by physically saving Himself from the cross. At the beginning of His ministry the Lord quoted a proverb, “Physician heal thyself”, and this is what they are in effect saying to Him now.
If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him- the mocking of the passers-by was directly at Him, whereas the chief priests are not so much talking to Him as to the crowds, (note that they speak in the third person, “he”, whereas the passers by said “thou”), making statements which they hope will convince them that His claims were false, so that they are not inclined to side with Him. What would be the consequence if some two million pilgrims suddenly became convinced that He was being wrongly executed? They reason that if He does not come down from the cross, then His claims were bogus. In fact, the reverse is true, for His right to eventually reign as King of Israel rests on the work of the cross. There can be no glory without the sufferings. The apostles learned this when, on the Mount of Transfiguration, the conversation between Christ, Moses, and Elijah was His decease, not His reign, Luke 9:31.
Note the repeated attempts to get Him to come down from the cross, and to save Himself. Does the Devil realise that he has over-reached himself, and what he dreads, even the precise fulfilment of Scripture, is happening?
27:43
He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.
He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God- how close this comes to the words of the psalmist, “He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him”. On the one side there is His trust in God, and on the other, God’s delight in Him. How sad that they are making these statements sarcastically. They see His remaining on the cross as vindication of their sentence on Him, and to their minds it proves He was a fraud. For these mockings are a mirror image of His trials, where the questions addressed were whether He was the destroyer and rebuilder of the temple, or the King of Israel, or the Son of God. And the latter claim, to be the Son of God, (and “I am the Son of God” is their climax), and then be exposed as false, vindicates them, so they think, for executing Him as a false prophet and a blasphemer.
But then the soldiers joined in, as Luke tells us:
Luke 23:36,37
And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar, and saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself.
And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar- the soldiers, being pagans, would not appreciate the finer points of what the chief priests were saying, but they enter into the spirit of the occasion to make sport of Him, as they had done in the Common Hall.
They had offered Him vinegar and gall, and vinegar and myrrh, but now it is just the simple drink they had with them. As if to say that He was no better than a common soldier. It seems as if they came towards Him with a drink, and then at the last moment withdrew it, thus cruelly teasing Him. Such is the callous heart of man. And this sort of treatment has been repeated down through the centuries, as His people have been subjected to cruel oppression. As He warned His disciples, “Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also”, John 15:20.
And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself- here is the sixth class of mockers. As soldiers, they are used to the idea of the successful battle commander being made Caesar, for it was the soldiers who chose him. So if this one is king, He must have some extraordinary ability to escape difficult circumstances, and turn the situation around. What they did not and could not understand was that the Holy Sufferer had no intention of saving Himself from the sufferings of the cross. They had been allotted to Him in eternity, and prophesied of Him in times past. To seek to escape would overturn Divine and eternal counsels. He did indeed pray to be “saved from death”, Hebrews 5:7, but only in the sense of being brought into resurrection the other side of death. He was “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross”, Philippians 2:8.
Note the soldiers do not ask Him to save them, as the malefactors did, for they did not think they had need of it, being on the dominant side as Romans. They think only in terms of political salvation, but when Paul wrote to the believers in Rome he made clear that salvation was from sin and self.
Even those crucified alongside of Him reviled Him. At first both of them did so, but then there came a change, and they disagreed with one another, and then one turned to Christ:
Matthew 27:44
The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.
Luke 23:39
And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him- as Matthew tells us in the quotation given above, both malefactors reviled Him at first, but then a great change came over one of them, and their destinies changed also. If the mutual enmity of Herod and Pilate was overridden by their enmity for Christ, so here the suffering of these two men was less than their mockery of Him. They see mocking Christ as a distraction, taking their minds off their pain. So they caused Him more pain, and themselves less. This is selfishness typical of the unbeliever.
Saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us- they mocked Him because of the claim His accusation made for Him. If He really was the King of the Jews, He must have great power and influence, even if it was only to persuade the centurion in charge of the execution to halt the proceedings. Let Him demonstrate the truth of His claim, starting with saving Himself and them.
23:40
But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
But the other answering rebuked him- so there came a great difference between these two men in the closing hours of their lives. We can tell what made the change by listening to what the second man said. A seeker after the truth will learn to rebuke the wrong thoughts of the natural mind, and realise that the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.
In verse 32 Luke had used the word “heteros” for “other”, for that is the word which emphasises the difference between the two malefactors and Christ. He was pure and righteous, they were other than that. He still uses this word here, for despite his search for the truth the man is still different to Christ. But he is also to a certain extent different to the first malefactor now, because he is becoming inclined towards Christ.
Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? The rebuke centred on his lack of fear of God. He was about to be plunged into eternity, and face the judgment of God; was this not reason to fear God? “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”, Proverbs 9:10. The fact that he rebuked his fellow-malefactor showed he was beginning to have strong and robust ideas about sin and the judgment it will receive. The condemnation he speaks of here is being condemned to death, but he realises there is something beyond the judgment of men. The administration of justice is often faulty in the hands of men, but the judge of all the earth shall do right, Genesis 18:25. Those who do not believe there is a God must also believe that justice will never be done. This is counter-intuitive.
23:41
And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
And we indeed justly- this man now realises, on the brink of death, that his punishment is just. He must now believe that sin should be punished, even if the sin in question is his own. When a man starts to have a right view of sin, and that it must be punished, he is on the road to blessing.
For we receive the due reward of our deeds- before, he would have done everything to escape justice, and give reasons why he should not be punished. He was a thief, and might have argued that he needed to steal to survive. Now he realises that “Thou shalt not steal” means what it says, and that transgression of this law has its consequences. He now has an enhanced sense of the seriousness of sin. By due reward the man means what the Romans had determined that a thief should suffer. The law of Moses said, “If a man steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep”, Exodus 22:1. So restitution of the stolen property was the punishment and the deterrent; to slay a man for stealing was to devalue the punishment of death for murder. The punishment must suit the crime, so in that sense the punishment of crucifixion for stealing was unjust. Perhaps this shows that the malefactors had done more that simply steal. We may be sure that the just judgment of God will ensure that every sin reaps its due punishment in eternity. This man, however, came into the good of Divine forgiveness whilst he had time and opportunity.
But this man hath done nothing amiss- by saying this he spoke more than he knew. As far as he was aware, the charge against Christ was baseless. Had he noted the difference in attitude and speech of the man on the central cross? “Father, forgive them” spoke volumes to him, and he was the first to be converted through those words, which would explain why they were spoken out loud. But he is not the last, for many have found the forgiveness of sins and peace with God through the One who spoke them, and His sacrificial work on the cross. What of my reader? Do you know the forgiveness of sins through the redeeming blood of Christ?
But we need not rely on the imperfect testimony of this man, for we have the perfect testimony of the Word of God. Wrote the apostle John, “And ye know he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin”. The word came from heaven on more than one occasion, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”, Matthew 3:17; 17:5. Would the Father have said that if there was any trace of sin in His Son? He lived in disreputable Nazareth for thirty years, yet no defilement spoiled Him. He moved in public ministry amongst men for three and a half years, exposed to relentless pressure from both the Devil and men, yet in no instance was He found wanting; always He was “holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners”, Hebrews 7:26. John could also write, “this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world”, John 3:19. The presence of the undiluted holiness of Christ in this world was outright condemnation of its sin, and clearly showed God’s attitude to it.
Notice that John does not write “in him was no sin”, although that is true, but “in him is no sin”. He is not referring simply to the past. Rather, he is saying that at whatever moment we look at Him, past, present, or future, the only conclusion we can come to is that in Him is no sin. John is probing His nature and character, and telling us that there is no sin of any sort there.
Note how John, (the man of insight), links the Person and the work when he writes, “in him is no sin”, and “to take away our sins”. Peter, (the man of intention), does the same when he writes, “Who did no sin”, and “who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree”, 1 Peter 2:22,24. And also Paul, (the man of intellect), who wrote, “He hath made him to be sin for us”, and “who knew no sin”, 2 Corinthians 5:21. We could compare the three sacrifices that are linked together as being most holy, (that is, they meet the approval of a thrice holy God), Leviticus 6:17. They are, the meal offering, telling of Christ’s nature, (John’s view); the sin offering, telling of His being made sin, (Paul’s view), and the trespass offering, speaking of the way He took account of the faults of others, (Peter’s view). No wonder God specifically mentions in that verse that leaven, (a symbol of corrupting sin), is to excluded from those offerings, for no suggestion of sin must spoil our thoughts of Christ and His work. The repentant thief, although unaware of these precious truths during most of his life, is enjoying them now in eternity.
23:42
And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
And he said unto Jesus, Lord- notice he does not address Jesus as King, although that was the title on the cross, and although he was going to speak of His kingdom. Where does he gain the truth that Jesus is Lord? Can it be that he saw through the taunts of the priests and people, and realised that those titles they gave Him were in fact true? Why else would He be heard addressing God as His Father, and asking for forgiveness for them? And this was just one indication of His attitude to what He was being subjected to. When He was reviled, He reviled not again, as Peter wrote later. No word of anger, bitterness or cursing passed His lips. Someone who could ask for forgiveness for those who crucified Him must be of a different order of character altogether. He is totally in control of Himself, and the malefactor becomes convinced that this is because He is Lord, as the titles used of Him suggest. If He is Lord, then He is worthy of our faith and submission.
The acknowledgement of Christ as Lord is an essential part of response to Christ. The apostle put it like this, “The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is the word of faith, which we preach; that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved”, Romans 10:8-13. This acknowledgement of His Lordship contains within it a recognition of personal unworthiness and sin, the starting-point of true repentance.
Remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom- if He is King He must have a kingdom, and since He has been taunted with the titles “King of the Jews” and “Messiah”, His kingdom must be destined to be set up on earth, and this man wants to have a part in that. He takes the humble place, for he does not presume to have a position in the kingdom, but simply asks that he might be remembered by the King, leaving it to Him to decide his destiny. The mother of Zebedee’s children wanted a prominent place in the kingdom for her sons, Matthew 20:20,21, and she was rebuked for it, but this man is content to just be in the kingdom. Those who genuinely come to Christ in faith do so with humility, owning that they are not worthy of the least of His blessings.
23:43
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee- his humility meets a ready response from the Saviour. He has asked for nothing in the present, only a future remembrance, but he is given a present blessing which would merge into eternal glory. He was hesitant, but there is nothing hesitant about the reply, prefaced, as it is, by the word of certainty, “Verily”.
To day shalt thou be with me in paradise- so the man’s confidence in the Lord is justified, for he now learns that not only does He have a future kingdom, but controls the destiny of men. The fact that the Lord knew that both of them would be dead before the day ended would confirm this. We read in the Book of Genesis that Joseph was able to interpret the dream both of the butler and the baker, and explain their respective destinies, but he had no control over those destinies. Here we see that Christ’s kingship extends to the control of men’s future.
So the promise to the dying thief was that when he died, He would go to the place of comfort, as would Christ. The word paradise was borrowed from the Persian, and became the Hebrew word “pardes”, meaning “park, or forest, or orchard”. The idea is that of the pleasant grounds surrounding a splendid palace, in which one may walk and enjoy its delights, just as Adam did in the Garden of Eden before he fell. So the thief, by Divine grace, is granted to walk in the pleasure gardens of his Lord, and will no longer steal, because he will have all he needs to satisfy him.
Notice how this shows that there is consciousness after death, or the promise would have no meaning or value. Men say they cannot know what there is beyond death. But they can, for God has given us His word which bears testimony about these matters. If men remain in ignorance it is because they reject God’s word. As the Lord Jesus indicated, it is not someone back from the dead who will convince men, but the Scriptures, Luke 16:31.
We now note what John has to say about those who stood by the cross:
John 19:25
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother- this is the occasion foretold by Simeon when he said to Mary, “a sword shall pierce through thine own soul also”, Luke 2:35. The Catholic system calls Mary “Redemptrix”, claiming that she is able to mediate salvation. This is blasphemous. There is one mediator, not two, even “the man Christ Jesus”, and He gave Himself a ransom for all, so there is no need or room for anyone else, 1 Timothy 2:4. Redemption is by the blood of the Lamb, 1 Peter 1:19, but Mary is not on the cross dying, but beside it, no doubt weeping.
The other reference to Mary in John’s gospel emphasises that links with Christ must be spiritual, for the Lord had said to her, “Woman, what have I to do with thee, mine hour is not yet come”, John 2:4, so spiritual relationships with Christ are established through His death.
In Matthew chapter 12:46-50, when His mother and His brethren wanted to speak with Him, He replied, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother'”. Note that every true believer is brother, sister, mother, as is shown by the singular verb “is”. It is not that some believers are brothers, some are sisters, and some are mothers. Note the parallel passages in Mark 3:31-35 and Luke 8:19-21, which show that to hear the word of God and to do the will of God are vitally linked.
The same title that He gave to His mother at the wedding in Cana, He gives to her now that He is on the cross. It was a title of respect, for the Lord Jesus honoured His earthly mother and legal father, and thus magnified the law and made it honourable, Isaiah 42:21, for the command to honour father and mother is the first commandment with a promise attached to it, Ephesians 6:1-3. And yet for all that He was hung upon the cross as if He were a stubborn and rebellious son who would not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, see Deuteronomy 21:18-23.
The last mention of Mary is in Acts chapter 1:14, where she is found in the upper room waiting for the Spirit to come on the day of Pentecost, when she, along with all believers of this age, would be united to the Lord Jesus in a far higher relationship. “Mine hour is not yet come” indicates a time when this relationship would be initiated. At the cross earthly links are broken, Galatians 2:20, and at Pentecost spiritual links are established, 1 Corinthians 6:16; 12:13.
It is interesting to note that He goes to a marriage where a natural relationship and joining is enacted, and yet He implies by His word that natural relationships must give way to spiritual ones at the appropriate moment. We should ever hold natural relationships in their proper place, and not allow them to hinder love to Christ. He Himself said, “He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me”, Matthew 10:37. Yet at the same time the apostle condemns those who have no natural affection, 2 Timothy 3:3, so we should keep these things in their proper balance.
Notice also that Mary is found in the room praying with the others as they waited for the Spirit of God to come. They were not praying to Mary, nor was she praying for them. They were all praying to God.
And his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene- only those standing by the cross before Christ died, (whether standing near or far off, Matthew 27:56), whose name was Mary are given a name. So He is surrounded by those whose name means “bitter”. After He has died Salome is named, Mark 15:40. She, Mary the mother of James, and Mary Magdalene, bought sweet spices after the bitterness of the cross was over, Mark 16:1.
The name Mary is the equivalent of the Old Testament Miriam. Was Miriam, (meaning “bitter”) named because of the bitter affliction in Egypt under Pharoah? Yet she sang in triumph on the banks of the Red Sea, Exodus 15:20,21, for the people had been saved from their affliction.
The waters of Mara were made sweet after the tree was cut down and thrown into them, Exodus 15:23-25.
Naomi asked to be called “Mara”, for, she said, “The Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me”, Ruth 1:20,21. Yet she was soon to hold an ancestor of David, Solomon, and Christ in her arms, Ruth 4:16,17. So bitter as the experience of standing by the cross was to these women, the bitterness would turn to joy after He was raised from the dead.
It is very unlikely that we should understand “His mother’s sister” to be “Mary the wife of Cleophas”, or else there would be two sisters named Mary in the same family at the same time. (Cleophas should not be confused with the Cleopas of the Emmaus road, Luke 24:18). This means there were four women and one man beside the cross. And there were four soldiers and a centurion also. God had His representatives at the cross as well as Caesar. The soldiers clearly do not think that these five are any threat to the process of crucifixion.
We must admire the courage of these women and John to stand by the cross, for there were not only common bystanders there jeering, but chief priests, and scribes also. To associate with Christ was very brave of them. It must have been a great solace to Christ to see them there. All believers are called to suffer with Him, 2 Timothy 2:12. And Paul wrote of the sufferings of Christ that he was able to share, Colossians 1:24.
19:26
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
When Jesus therefore saw his mother- later on, as described in Psalm 22:9,10. He would think how He had been cast on the Lord from the womb, and lived a life of utter dependence. (It is possible to trace allusions to the cries from the cross in Psalm 22). Now He will commit His mother to the care of another, having fully discharged His responsibilities to her as her son. He had honoured His father and mother, yet His days were not long upon the earth, as the promise attached to that commandment said, Exodus 20:12. He forfeited His rights under the law, for He was made a curse, and the blessing was withheld from Him.
We see from this incident that His dealings with His mother in John 2:4 and Matthew 12:46-50 were not a slight upon her, but the maintaining of righteous principles. Relations with Christ can only be spiritual, they cannot be natural.
It could be said that He is identifying Himself as the Seed of the woman at this point, the fulfilment of that first promise in Eden. He is about to bruise the serpent’s head.
And the disciple standing by- this is usually thought to be John. In the upper room He was leaning on the bosom of Jesus; here he is standing by the cross of Jesus; in John 20:4 he is running to the tomb of Jesus; in John 21:22 he is waiting for the coming of Jesus. In Revelation 1:17 he is seen falling at His feet.
Whom he loved- this does not mean that the Lord loved John but did not love, say, Andrew, for He said to them all that He loved them as His Father loved Him, John 15:9. It means that John is so aware of the love of the Lord for him, that he feels free to describe himself in this way. It was John who later wrote, “We love him because he first loved us”, 1 John 4:19. We ought to notice that in John 20:1, where we read of “Simon Peter, and…the other disciple, whom Jesus loved”, the expression “whom Jesus loved” applies to Peter as well as to John.
He saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! His care for His mother will extend beyond His death. One of the features of the last days is that men will be “without natural affection”. He is requiting His parent, as Paul exhorts us all to do, 1 Timothy 5:4.
“Behold thy son” did not mean He was no longer her son, but meant she had gained another son. He was confident that John would be a true son to her, as indeed church history says he was, caring for her until her death.
19:27
Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home- it seems that all the apostles were lodging in or near Jerusalem at this time, see 20:2. Was it at Bethany, which would be another reason why Mary of Bethany is not at the cross? They may have been in separate houses, though, for it seems Mary Magdalene had to run to find Peter, then to find John, suggesting he was elsewhere, no doubt to avoid all being arrested at one place.
Possibly Mary Magdalene moves away at this point, (for Matthew 27:55,56 describes her as being at a distance), and the other two accompany Mary home to where John was staying. She would not want to stay alone with the soldiers.
It is unlikely that a fisherman from Galilee would have his own house in Jerusalem, so it says much for whoever he was staying with that it was called “his own home”. The expression “every man went to His own home”, John 7:53, is different to “took her to his own home”. The former uses the word for house, the latter simply means John’s own things, meaning, probably, that John took Mary to a place he called his own at that time. Many pilgrims stayed in Jerusalem for the passover.
We notice now the reference to the darkness found in Matthew, Mark and Luke, but not John. Apart from anything else, this will silence the mocking of those around the cross, and enable the Holy Sufferer to do His work of sin-bearing without interference.
Matthew 27:45
Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.
Now from the sixth hour- this is Jewish time and we would call it twelve noon. So it begins the period when the Eastern sun is at its hottest. But the heat of the sun was nothing compared to the heat of the wrath of God which He is about to endure. The sun was darkened at this time, so relieving the two malefactors of the intensity of the heat, but for the one on the central cross there was no relief at all. He must be pre-eminent even in that detail.
There was darkness over all the land- the time is daytime, but it is turned into darkness. This is what Psalm 22 anticipated, for the words of Christ as written beforehand in that psalm are, “O my God, I cry in the daytime, and thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent”, verse 2. From the sixth hour to the ninth hour is daytime, but it became a night season as darkness shrouded the scene. It was not just like night-time, but it was really a night season for Him, for that was what those hours were in character, as darkness descended over Him.
Matthew, who writes about Christ as King, says the darkness was over the land, for it is Immanuel’s Land, Isaiah 8:8, and it is draped in sackcloth, mourning the impending death of the King.
Mark, who writes about Christ as Servant, says “there was darkness over the whole land”, with the emphasis on the extent of the darkness. No-one, anywhere, could work, whilst the Servant of the Lord is performing His greatest service. He had already forbidden any to carry a vessel through the temple courts, Mark 11:16, thus establishing Himself as the sole burden bearer, and here He is doing the work of bearing sin. The darkness would no doubt hinder if not halt the work of the priests in the temple courts, but the supreme sacrifice was being offered outside the city walls, and the God who is not prevented from seeing by darkness, was taking account of that. Interestingly, the matter of taking animals for sacrifice came up when the plague of darkness was on Egypt, Exodus 10:21-26. The darkness resulted in Pharoah being forced to allow animals for sacrifice to be taken into the wilderness. Here, God Himself has provided the sacrifice, and it is offered in the darkness.
Luke emphasises that the darkness was over the whole earth, for the Son of man has jurisdiction over it all, and can, if He chooses, put a stop to the activities of men whilst He is at work.
John does not tell us of the darkness, for he concentrates on what he witnessed himself, and whilst he would know it was dark, he was pre-occupied with caring for Mary at home. Just as Israel had light in their dwellings whilst the land of Egypt was plagued with darkness, Exodus 10:23, so John had the light of the glory of Christ in his soul as he comforted Mary. On passover night all except those sheltered by the blood of the lamb were distraught with sorrow, as their firstborn sons all died. Yet Mary’s firstborn Son is about to die, and He the Lamb of God. How she must have sorrowed!
Unto the ninth hour- this was the hour of prayer in the temple, as Acts 3:1 informs us. We learn from the next verse, and the psalm it quotes, that the holy sufferer’s prayer was not answered during those three hours, although it was answered afterwards. It was also the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice consisting of a lamb. The nation persisted with its rituals, because they did not realise that the true evening lamb was suffering outside the city walls. It was especially on that first day of unleavened bread that the Chagigah, or peace offering was brought by godly Israelites.
We often speak of the three hours of darkness as if they were three hours of sixty minutes each. But the Jewish day was from sunrise to sunset, and was always reckoned to have twelve hours, as we see from the Lord’s words, “Are there not twelve hours in the day?” John 11:9. That period of time was divided into twelve equal parts. So in the summer time the hour was a maximum of 71 minutes long, and in the winter time was a minimum of 49 minutes. The emphasis in the expression “from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour” is not on the number of minutes, but on the things associated with the two times mentioned. There were Divinely set limits on the suffering of the Saviour. He did not need to have the day lengthened miraculously as Joshua did when he was fighting the King of Jerusalem and his allies, Joshua 10:13. The darkness came when the sun was at its brightest, at noon, and the light returned when the sun was beginning to decline, so in fact the day was virtually shortened by three hours, such was the ability of the greater than Joshua. Joshua’s name means “Jehovah the Saviour”, and is testimony to the saving power of God, and is the equivalent to “Jesus”. But Jesus does not simply bear the same name as Joshua, but He fills out the name, for He is Jehovah the Saviour, as Matthew makes clear, Matthew 1:21-23. No wonder He does not need extra time to “save his people from their sins”, for He has Divine resources at His disposal, and the shortening of the hours of the day does not prevent Him from finishing the work.
27:46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Mark writes, “And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? Which is, being interpreted, “my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? So Matthew says the cry was made “about the ninth hour”, whereas Mark says “at the ninth hour”. Who was right? They cannot both be; or can they? Notice that Matthew says, “Eli” was the word used, whereas Mark says it was “Eloi”. Matthew says “that is to say”, whereas Mark says, “being interpreted”. Matthew does not need to interpret for his first readers, who would be Jews, (for it is usually thought that Matthew wrote for the nation of Israel in the first instance). As Jews they would know what the words meant, for they were in Hebrew, the language of Israel and the Old Testament. Matthew simply transposes them into his account.
Mark, however, has to interpret the words, even for Jews, for they are in the Chaldean language. He has to translate them so that they may be understood in New Testament times and in the Greek New Testament. So it is quite possible that there were two cries, one after the other. One was at the ninth hour, and one was about the ninth hour. And since they were cries uttered out of a sense of forsaken-ness, and therefore in the darkness, (for the darkness loses is point if He is forsaken when it is light as well), then Matthew’s cry must have been just before Mark’s. If this is the case, we need to search for the significance.
Matthew’s Gospel presents to us the King of Israel as He associates with His people. It is fitting therefore that He, as their King, should cry in Hebrew, the national language. The language, moreover, in which the Old Testament is written, and in particular, that the prophecies are written in, for the most part. The nation is being confronted with the reality of what their sin has done, for their rightful King has been abandoned by God. Yet therein lay their hope, for He ever identified Himself with His people, and even whilst they are rejecting Him He is working for their restoration to favour with God.
When the nation of Israel was about to enter the land of Canaan, the Lord said to Moses, “Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them. Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us? And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods”, Deuteronomy 31:16-18.
And so it came to pass, for they entered the land, and went after the gods of the heathen. Centuries later, the Spirit of the Lord came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, and he said, “Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the Lord, that ye cannot prosper? Because ye have forsaken the Lord, he hath forsaken you”, 2 Chronicles 24:20. The response of the people was to conspire against him, and stone him to death in the courts of the Lord, verse 21.
The sign that God had forsaken them was that they were taken into captivity, and another prophecy came to pass which said, “Because thou servedst not the Lord thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart…the Lord shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand”, Deuteronomy 28:47,49. So it was that the Chaldeans came and took the people into captivity, and they were surrounded by those who spoke the Chaldean language. The passage from chapter 2:4 of the Book of Daniel up to chapter 7:28, was originally in the Chaldean language, and so was Jeremiah 10:11.
So when the Lord uses the Chaldean language for His cry, as Mark records, He is highlighting the fact that the nation had once been in captivity for serving other gods, and they had become used to hearing the Chaldean language. And this is in Mark, the servant gospel, for they had served other gods and not the Lord. How ironic that the one who had indeed served the Lord “with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart”, was the one who was forsaken. He did not serve other gods, for He says twice over, “My God, my God”, thus emphasising that even though His God had forsaken Him, He had not forsaken God. Israel were the opposite, for they were forsaken because they did forsake God.
That is to say, my God, my God- whether in Chaldean or Hebrew, the meaning is the same. This is a declaration of dependence, as He endures the wrath of God in the hours of darkness. God had always been His Father, for He was “that eternal life, which was with the Father”, 1 John 1:2. He had become His God, however, when He was conceived. Psalm 22:10 reads “Thou art my God from my mother’s belly”. It was when He became incarnate at His conception that His relationship with the Father was given a new dimension, and He can now begin to address His Father as His God, the one on whom He depended as a man. Now that dependence is being shown to its greatest degree.
This expression is also one of submission. When He came into manhood, Christ accepted the headship of God, 1 Corinthians 11:3, a relationship involving subjection. Under the supreme trial of the wrath-bearing, will His submission falter? The fact that it did not is clear from this verse, for twice over He affirms that God is still His God, and He recognises His claims over Him as His Son in manhood. Adam in ideal circumstances was found to rebel and be insubject. Not so the Last Adam.
It is also an expression of devotion, for He, even in His hour of suffering, was a true worshipper, and did not move from total allegiance to His God. How trying it must have been to Him to be in extreme sorrow, when the psalmist said, (and it is a Messianic psalm), “Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another god”.
In the patriarchs we have the fore-shadowing of His sufferings, and in the prophets we have the foretelling of the sufferings, in such passages as Isaiah 53. When we come to the New Testament, we have the fact of the sufferings in the accounts in the four Gospels, and then the forth-telling of the meaning of it all in the Epistles. But in the Psalms we have the feelings of the sufferings, as in poetic form the trauma of Calvary is expressed.
Why hast thou forsaken me? Notice that the being forsaken is still continuing, for these words are a direct quotation from Psalm 22:1, and that psalm goes on “Why art Thou so far from helping me”, so the suffering was ongoing at that point, although soon to end. So it should not be translated, “why didst thou forsake me?”
Is there any final answer to this question? Who can ever understand why it was the will of God that the Son of God should be abandoned of His God? How can He who is “in the bosom of the Father”, John 1:18 be said to be forsaken? Especially as the “is” of that quotation has the force of “ever is”. It is a position that cannot be given up. At whatever point we view Christ, whether in eternity or time, and even upon the cross, He is in the bosom of the Father, for this is an expression that tells of the unique relationship He has with the Father as His Only-begotten Son.
Psalm 22 presents to us the sin-offering aspect of the work of Christ at Calvary, beginning as it does with this cry as one forsaken of God. Something of great moment must have happened if the Son of God’s love, His only-begotten, was caused to ask why He had been forsaken. And indeed it had, for He had been “made sin”, as 2 Corinthians 5:21 declares.
We are helped to understand this a little by reference to what happened when a sin-offering was brought in tabernacle times. The sinner brought his animal, and laid his hands upon it, thus identifying himself with it, and acknowledging that he indeed was a sinner. From then on, the animal was reckoned to stand in the stead of the sinner, and the man’s sin was attributed to it. In fact, since the word for sin and sin offering is the same, to be a sin offering means to be made sin. (This is the basis of Paul’s word that “God hath made him to be sin for us”, in 2 Corinthians 5:21). Whatever the sin deserved is inflicted upon the animal, and not on the man. So it was that the offering is killed beside the altar of burnt offering, but is not laid upon it. Its blood having been shed, and poured out at the base of the altar, it is taken outside the camp and burnt on the ground. The fire of God’s wrath consumed it, so that in figure the sin was no more.
Now each of the vessels of the tabernacle was the support for something else. The ark supported the mercy-seat; the lamp-stand supported the lamps; the altar of incense supported the censer; the table supported the loaves; the laver supported the water, and finally, the altar supported the sacrifices laid upon it. So it is that the person of Christ is the support of His work. So the altar represents the person of Christ as the one who is able to undertake the work of sacrifice. And the bringing of the sin-offering to that altar to be killed recognised that fact.
But the major part of the sin-offering was burnt on the ground, and not on the altar at all. So the offering is disconnected from the altar, suggesting to us that in His sin-offering work Christ is dealt with as if He is not the person He is, for He is standing in as the substitute for others, and has been made sin. He does not confess those sins as if they were His own, but He does have attributed to Him that which is totally contrary to Himself personally. But since God is “of purer eyes that to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity”, Habakkuk 1:13, He had to turn away. God says, “But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear”, Isaiah 59:2, hence He must distance Himself from His own Son.
However, He is still the person He ever was, for the apostle Paul, when speaking of the purpose of God to bless us, spoke of Him as “He who spared not his own Son, but freely delivered him up for us all”, Romans 8:32, so He was still His own Son, even though, as the sinner’s representative, and made sin, He was abandoned by God. But it only lasted as long as the three hours of darkness, for after they were ended, He then said, “Father”. The sense of desertion was over, for the sins had been borne. It only remained for Him to die, and rise again, so as to introduce those who believe into the good of His death, in association with Him in resurrection.
We are also helped to understand what happened in the darkness by reference to the experience of the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement. It was banished to the land of separation and desolation, bearing as it did, in figure, the tremendous load of Israel’s sins. Having heard the sins confessed by Aaron over the head of the goat, the nation sees them carried away, and no doubt many in Israel mused upon the fact, so graphically presented to them, that sins do indeed separate, and they do mean that, if unforgiven, those sins will consign the sinner to the ultimate place of forsaken-ness. God made provision, however, so that the goat might experience the isolation, whilst they could enjoy the continued presence of God amidst the camp of Israel. We see the fulfilment of this at Calvary, where the lamb of God bore away the sin of the world. This is not to say that the whole world is therefore free of its sin. Rather, it means that all the sin has been answered for, and those who believe enter into the good of it.
As we can see from Leviticus 23:29, any in Israel who failed to afflict their souls, (meaning repentance), and cease from work, (meaning resting in faith), on the Day of Atonement, were to be cut off from the nation. If in Israel’s case they could opt out of the blessing, in the case of men now they need to opt in.
So Aaron sent the goat away from the gate of the tabernacle which faced east, and the fit man let it go. The one removed the sins from the camp of Israel, the other ensured that the sins were sent to a place of no return. This reminds us of the psalmist, who rejoiced that “as far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us”, Psalm 103:12. We are glad it is as far as the east is from the west, for that is an infinite distance. If it had been as far as the north is from the south, then that would be a limited distance, and our sins might return to haunt us.
The goat as it wandered in the desolate place was largely unaware of its situation. It may have been nervous, but would soon become used to its plight. Not so with the Lord Jesus at Calvary. So intense was the suffering He endured because He was forsaken of God, and became the object of His wrath against the sins He was taking responsibility for, (for to “bare sins”, means to “take responsibility for sins”), those hours of darkness and abandonment were limited to just three. But into those hours was compressed an infinite amount of suffering, because an infinite God was satisfying Himself infinitely. No wonder there is wrung from the lips of the Lord Jesus that most heart-rending of cries, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” The goat bore its load of sins until it died, whereas the Lord Jesus carried the load of sins until He emerged from the darkness, for He was in full fellowship with His Father when He gave up His spirit in death. He endured the darkness and the abandonment that His people might know the light and glory of heaven for eternity.
We learn from Psalm 22 that during those hours of darkness the Lord was crying to His Father. Such was the intensity of His call, that He describes it as roaring. We should notice that Psalm 22 contains no confession of sin, so it is not David’s personal experience that is being described. The suffering in the psalm is uniquely Christ’s. This is how the psalm continues:
Psalm 22:1-5
Why art thou so far from helping me- as a dependent man, the Lord Jesus could always count on the support of His Father. The promise of the Father to Him was “I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son”, Hebrews 1:5. These were words originally spoken about Solomon, 2 Samuel 7:14, but “a greater than Solomon is here”, Matthew 12:42; if the words were true of Solomon, how much more so of Christ. All that a dutiful son may expect his father to be in terms of support and resources, God had been to Him. God had been His God, as He moved in lowly dependence before Him. But He had been a true Son to His Father, and that gave great pleasure to God.
We are often reminded of the contrast between God’s words to Israel in Malachi’s day, and His word to Christ on the banks of the Jordan. In Malachi we read of God saying, “A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: If I then be a Father, where is mine honour? And if I be a Master, where is my fear?” Malachi 1:6. As a result of Israel’s failure as a nation in this regard, (and remember it was God’s national son, Exodus 4:22), God went on to say, “I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of Hosts”, verse 10. How different was the scene at Jordan, when the word came, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased”, Matthew 3:17. And He would go on to honour Him and serve Him faithfully, for He came not to be ministered unto, but to minister.
At the end of Malachi’s prophecy, God promises to spare Israel, “as a father spareth his own son that serveth him”, 3:17. Yet the language of Romans 8:32 is, “He that spared not his own Son” What has happened? Certainly not a breakdown of the relationship between Father and Son; that could never be. But a new situation has arisen, where the Son is standing in the place of sinners as the one made sin, and God’s attitude must necessarily take account of that. So it is that the Divine help He was afforded during His life, seems now to be withdrawn temporarily.
And from the words of my roaring? We read of God that His arm is “not shortened that it cannot save, neither his ear heavy that it cannot hear”, Isaiah 59:1. But now it seems that in relation to His own Son, His arm is not stretched out to save when He calls for help; nor does His ear seem to be open to His cry. It is not that His prayer is not fervent enough, for the expressive term “My roaring” tells of the most intense of cries. If it were not for the fact that He has been made sin, His prayer would have been answered long before. The writer to the Hebrews speaks of the strong crying and tears of the Saviour, Hebrews 5:7, and this is a prime example.
O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not- notice the deep feeling expressed in the “O”; He is directly addressing His God, and pleading, not so much with the intensity of prayer as in verse 1, but the constancy of it. As far as the clock was concerned, it was daytime, and He constantly appealed to His God, such is the reality of His need, and His confidence that His need could be met. He is not asking to be delivered from the experience He was going through, but to be enabled to endure it. He had said to His disciples, “The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?” John 18:11, so He was not desiring to be relieved of the suffering, but to be enabled to pass through it with spiritual success. And even though His prayer seemingly met no response, in reality it was otherwise, for He can say in verse 21 “Thou hast heard me”. So we are to understand “Thou hearest not”, as meaning “Thou gavest me no indication that thou wast hearing me”.
And in the night season, and am not silent- although it was day as far as the clock was concerned, it was night as far as the supernatural darkness was concerned. Scripture tells us of great darkness that came over the earth when the Saviour was hanging upon the cross. Darkness within strictly confined limits, (from the sixth to the ninth hour, Luke 23:44), and therefore Divinely sent and controlled. As a result, the sun was darkened, verse 45. So the darkness was not that of an eclipse, (which cannot occur at full moon anyway), but was brought about by heaven’s intervention. The sun was still shining, but the darkness intervened. Is this not a parable? The Sun of Righteousness was still shining in all the brightness of His glory, but the thick darkness of our sins clothed Him in sackcloth.
Whilst the Saviour was on the cross in the darkness, the priests were preparing to offer the incense at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour, Acts 3:1. This incense was unique, for no man was to make anything like it, Exodus 30:38. Yet this was only a symbol. The true incense of prayer was offered on the cross, and there is no prayer like His.
But thou art holy- here we have the first of several “buts” in the psalm. Each has its own shade of meaning. In verse 3 there is the “but” of the refusal of an unspoken, unacceptable alternative. In verse 6 the “but” of contrast, for Israel had been delivered and He has not been, thus far. In verse 9, the “but” of faithfulness, even though as yet not delivered, He continues on with undiminished trust in His God. In verse 19 the “but” of an appeal. In verse 24 the “but” of recompense, for we read, “but when he cried unto him, he heard”.
So the “but” of verse 3 is that of an unspoken and unacceptable alternative. Faced with a situation of extreme trauma, when earnest prayers seem to go unanswered, many a saint might, if only for a fleeting moment, entertain wrong thoughts of God. Not so this Holy Sufferer. He banishes the thoughts before they arise. For Him, to sin is not an option, and to doubt the goodness of God, even when passing through this situation, would be to sin. But His holy mind will have none of it, and He immediately ascribes holiness to God. By saying this He is safeguarding God’s honour, seeking God’s interests, and securing God’s praise, as the next phrase goes on to indicate. After all, how can it be proper to praise a God whose dealings are less than holy?
O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel- the blood of atonement enabled God to dwell amongst His people for a further year, even though they in many senses were unclean, Leviticus 16:16. Christ is conscious that His blood is that which will enable God to dwell with His people for ever, so He must go through with the work. But there is more than that. What if He failed God by attributing to Him wrong motives, or failure to help those in need? How that would spoil the praises of the righteous, for as they were rejoicing in the just dealings of their God, doubt would be cast upon those dealings if His own Son thought Him to be less than righteous. Perhaps before the darkness had come, the voices of the temple-choir had drifted across the air. How He would feel the fact that even whilst the worshippers were rejoicing in the courts of the Lord, He Himself was consigned to the desolation and loneliness of Calvary. Their joy tried His soul in His sorrow.
Our fathers trusted in thee- as He thinks of the praises of Israel, He remembers it is passover time, the celebration of the great deliverance from Egypt, when God had heard the groanings of the children and had come down to deliver them, Exodus 3:7,8. How they had sung on the banks of the Red Sea! That first recorded song in the Bible is testimony to the saving power of God when He delivers His helpless people. And He is part of that people, a True Israelite, for He says “our” fathers, thus associating Himself with them. Yet He is seemingly forgotten.
They trusted, and thou didst deliver them- note in these two verse the repetition, as if the matter is constantly occupying His mind. Their trust was not misplaced, for deliverance came. He is sure that His confidence is not misplaced, (for to think otherwise would be to sin), but it does not meet with the same response as Israel’s trust did.
They cried unto thee, and were delivered- now the emphasis is on their cry, as before it was upon their trust. They cried because they trusted, and they received the answer to their cry. God said, “I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows; and I am come down to deliver them”, Exodus 3:7,8. “Affliction…heard their cry…their sorrows…am come down to deliver them”. Yet what of His affliction, His cry, His sorrows? Where was the “come down to deliver” for Him?
They trusted in thee, and were not confounded- their trust in God was rewarded, and they were not embarrassed by any delay in the deliverance. Yet His deliverance was seemingly not at hand. Such were the feelings of the Lord Jesus, recorded beforehand, as He hung alone in the darkness.
In seeking to understand a little of the mystery of Christ’s abandonment by His God, we are helped if we consider a little more the contrast between the Burnt Offering and the Sin Offering in the Levitical system, as follows:
Acceptance or rejection
In the burnt offering there is a question of acceptance, for the acceptableness of the offering was transferred to the offerer when he laid his hands upon it. How gratifying it must have been to read the words “it shall be accepted for him”, Leviticus 1:4. How much more gratifying for us to know that because of Calvary God has caused believers to be accepted in the Beloved, Ephesians 1:6. All that the Father finds delightful about His Beloved Son is attributed to His people; we are graced in Him.
The sin offering was different, however, for now the unacceptableness of the offerer is dealt with by being transferred to the offering, so that atonement for sin can be made. The apostle Paul had this side of things in mind when he wrote “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him”, 2 Corinthians 5:21. These words are an echo of what is stated in Leviticus 16:9, where the words “offer him for a sin offering” can be literally rendered “make it sin”. Who can tell what it meant to Christ to be made sin; to be reckoned by God as if He were sin itself, and to be treated accordingly?
The fire making or destroying
In the burnt offering the fire is said to make the offering, for it is “an offering made by fire”, Leviticus 1:9. As the flame fed upon the carcase, there was caused to ascend heavenwards that which spoke to God of Christ. As the flame progressed from one part to the other, (for the parts of the animal were laid in order, not at haphazard), the varied excellencies of Christ came before the Father in all their acceptablenes. The head would tell of His intelligent devotion; the legs His patient progress; the inwards His heart-affection, and the fat His energetic determination to please His Father in all things. At Calvary these things, that had been so delightful to His Father during His life, were now surrendered in holy sacrifice.
With the sin offering, however, the flame consumed the carcase, destroying it so that it was utterly done away. This is what Christ has done by His sacrifice, for “once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, Hebrews 9:26. The expression “put away” meaning to abolish or destroy. Hebrews 13:11,12 interprets the fire for us. It was nothing less than suffering. The bodies of beasts burnt outside the camp find their counterpart in Jesus suffering without the gate. With this difference, however, that the animal was dead when it was burnt, but Christ suffered before He died, and in those hours of darkness upon the cross endured what no tongue can tell. Every faculty was alert and alive to the pain. His senses not at all dulled by sin as with us. He endured unimaginable horrors at the hand of His God because of our sins. The penalty was not one whit lessened because it was the Son of God who was paying the awful price. The wrath was not less fierce because of who it was that suffered under it. God said He would spare Israel “as a man spareth his own son that serveth him”, Malachi 3:17. Yet here is the Son beyond all sons, who had served beyond all others, and He is not spared! As the apostle Paul wrote in Romans 8:32, “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?”
Voluntary or compulsory
The burnt offering was a voluntary offering, for “of his own voluntary will” is the language of Leviticus 1:3. Christ came willingly to Bethlehem, stooping to take the servant’s form and to be made in the likeness of men. His willingness took Him further still, for He humbled Himself even unto death, and that the death of the cross, Philippians 2:8. His devotion was unmistakeable, for coming into the world He said, “Lo, I come, (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God”, Hebrews 10:7. Christ went willingly to Calvary, for although men “led him away”, it is also true that He “went forth” to that place to do the Father’s will, John 19:16,17.
The sin offering was compulsory, however, for “let him bring”, is the decisive and immediate requirement of God, Leviticus 4:3. Sin made its demands on Christ, and He would not rest until the obligation laid upon Him to settle the matter to His Father’s glory was accomplished. He could say “But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do”, John 14:31. That He has satisfied every Divine requirement regarding sin is seen in the fact that He has sat down on the right hand of the One whose will He had promised to do, Hebrews 10:12. He who is the brightness of Divine glory, and the exact expression of the essence of God, had purged sins in such a glorious way that He could sit Himself down on the right hand of God in all His majesty with the utmost confidence, Hebrews 1:3.
Sweet savour or intense displeasure
The burnt offering was a sweet savour offering, God’s nostrils being delighted by that which spoke to Him of Christ. When Noah offered his burnt offerings after the flood, it is said that the Lord smelled a sweet savour, Genesis 8:20,21. Literally these words could be rendered, “a savour of rest”, or “a soothing fragrance”. After looking upon all the turmoil and unrest of the pre-flood world, God could at last rest in what spoke to Him of Calvary. After all the distress to His heart, when men’s imagination was only evil continually, how soothing for Him to enjoy the fragrance of Noah’s sacrifice, anticipating as it did the effects of the work of Christ.
The sin offering was not like this, however, for there is no mention of a sweet savour with it. Sin is hateful to God, and gives Him no pleasure. Surely it gave God no pleasure to judge His Son. It is true that Isaiah said “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him”, Isaiah 53:10, but this means that it was God’s good pleasure, His determining will, to do this thing. A convicted criminal may be “detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure”, but we may be certain that Queen Elizabeth derives no enjoyment from that situation, but it is her sovereign pleasure nonetheless. Because Christ was made sin, He must needs be treated by God as if He is that detestable thing. From that standpoint there was no pleasure for God in the matter.
Nearness or distance
The burnt offering was burnt on the altar, which became known because of this as the altar of burnt offering, Exodus 40:29. This was the place where God promised He would meet with His people, Exodus 29:43. The altar becomes the point at which God, sacrifice, and people meet. Such is Calvary, for did not the Lord Jesus say, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me”, John 12:32?
The major part of the sin offering, however, was burnt outside the camp, the place of rejection. So the burnt offering emphasised the nearness of Christ to the Father as He undertook the work of sacrifice, whereas the sin offering highlighted the distance at which Christ was put because of our sin. As the prophet said about Israel, “But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear”, Isaiah 59:2.
Heavenward or downward
The burnt offering was lifted up onto the altar, the blood was sprinkled round about upon the altar, and a sweet savour ascended up from the altar, so everything was elevated heavenwards. Now the “burnt offering gospel”, is the gospel of John. It is that gospel which emphasises the relationship between the Son and the Father typified so wonderfully by the burnt offering. The gospel, too, which tells of the upward journey of Christ via the place of sacrifice.
He speaks to Nicodemus of ascending to heaven, John 3:13, then speaks of being lifted up on the cross, as the brazen serpent had been lifted up, verse 14. He speaks of giving His flesh for the life of the world, then asks, “What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before?” John 6:51,62. He refuses to allow Mary to touch Him, because He was not yet ascended to the Father, John 20:17. (Her contact with Him must be a spiritual one, forged once He had returned to His Father and sent down the Spirit from thence). Yet His conversation with Mary took place in the garden of the place where He was crucified, John 19:41, thus linking together the sacrifice and the ascending. He speaks of His ascent in the place of His sacrifice. Just as the angel who appeared to Manoah and his wife ascended up in the flame of the burnt offering, Judges 13:20, may we not say that in a grander way, Christ has ascended in the flame of His sacrifice? Yet John does not record the ascension, as if to indicate that the return of Christ to heaven was to him a foregone conclusion.
With the sin offering, however, all was downward. The animal was burnt on the ground, (except the fat which was burnt on the altar), the blood was poured out at the base of the altar, (except what was sprinkled before the vail, or on the altars), and the fire consumed the carcase until all that was left was a heap of ashes on the ground. How low Christ was prepared to go for us! Not content with descending to earth, He humbled Himself still further to the depths of suffering at Calvary. But He who went so low, has been taken up so high, for the same God and Father who required His obedience, has “also”, as well as doing that, highly exalted Him, Philippians 2:9.
Whilst all these things are true, it is also instructive to notice that God was careful to preserve the integrity of the person of Christ even in these Old Testament illustrations. God is a jealous God, jealous of His own glory and that of His Son. We see this in the following ways:
First, the sin offering is killed in the same place as the burnt offering, on the north side of the altar, and before the Lord, Leviticus 4:24. The same place witnessed the death of two very different sorts of sacrifice. Calvary, too, witnessed the death of one who combined in His person the burnt offering aspect of things and also the sin offering side.
Second, we find that although the major part of the sin offering was to be burnt up outside the camp in the place of rejection and loneliness, the fat was to be burnt as a sweet savour on the altar of burnt offering, Leviticus 4:8-10.
Third, we read that the sin offering was to be burnt where the ashes of the burnt offering were poured out, in a clean place, Leviticus 4:12. The ashes of the burnt offering had been collected with due ceremony and deposited in a clean place outside the camp, Leviticus 6:11, and it is in this selfsame place that the sin offering was burnt, so that when the fire had done its work, a pile of ashes remained that was a mixture of burnt offering ashes and sin offering ashes. Could anything more graphically preserve the integrity of Christ, in that even when dealing with sins in the place of abandonment, He was associated by God with that which spoke of full acceptance? God spared not, but it was His own Son that He spared not. God gave to the horrors of Calvary, but it was His only begotten Son that He gave, John 3:16.
May the Lord help us to have an enhanced appreciation of these things, so that we may offer to our God the intelligent and adoring worship He so much desires from our hearts. “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ”, 1 Peter 2:5.
We now return to Matthew’s narrative.
27:47
Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.
Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias- we see now why Matthew and Mark need to ensure that we know exactly what the Lord meant when He uttered the words. It is vital that the link with Psalm 22 be established in our minds. These bystanders, however, seem to mistakenly think that He is calling for Elias, or Elijah, to come to save Him. (This shows that they are responding to the cry “Eli”, and not “Eloi”, for surely they would not mistake the latter for Elijah). They seem to have no idea that there is a connection with Psalm 22.
Malachi foretold that Elijah would be sent “before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord”, Malachi 4:5. Even the association of Elijah with the day of judgment does not seem to disturb these men. Elijah was indeed noted for great deliverances, but his services were not needed here. After all, more than twelve legions of angels stood ready to assist Christ if He called for them, but the call never came, Matthew 26:53. The reason it never came is found in the next verse of that passage, “But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?” The carrying out of God’s will as detailed in the Old Testament was of paramount importance, and deliverance from suffering was not on His mind at all. The only deliverance He asked for was to be brought into resurrection.
It is possible that since the name Elijah can be translated “God Himself”, that those standing by watching the proceedings thought He was asking for God Himself to come and save Him. The priests had said, “He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God”, so perhaps the bystanders thought He was calling for God Himself to intervene in some way.
27:48
And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.
And straightway one of them ran- there are five cries that come in quick succession just before and just after the hours of darkness finished. The first two are questions, (assuming there were two similar cries), “Why hast Thou forsaken Me?” The third is an implied request, “I thirst”. The fourth is a statement, “It is finished”. The fifth is a committal, “into Thy hands I commend My spirit”.
And took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar- perhaps the spunge was part of their equipment, to wipe their hands from the blood of the men they had crucified. If this is the case, we find that the blood of Christ and cheap wine are associated together. And that is all men think of the blood of Christ. God describes it as precious, men value it little; in fact, on the same level as cheap wine. In fact, the blood of all three men may have been on the spunge, telling us they thought His blood no different to that of the malefactors. The writer to the Hebrews warns the nation that they were counting the blood of the covenant an unholy thing, Hebrews 10:29. Such behaviour, as the writer goes on to say, merits vengeance from God.
And put it on a reed, and gave Him to drink- John tells us, (and we should remember that by this time he would have returned to Calvary), that the soldier put the spunge on hyssop, thus telling us what the reed was made of. It also suggests that the cross was not very high, for hyssop is a small shrub and would not have long branches.
The accounts of Matthew and Mark, (Luke does not record the incident), seem to read as if the giving of a drink is in response to the cry “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani”, but we know from John’s account that the statement “I thirst” came soon after that cry. Nevertheless is it possible that the cry of Christ was difficult to decipher, (remember His tongue is cleaving to His jaws, Psalm 22:15), so some think He is calling to Elijah, but others may have confused “Sabacthani” with the Latin word “bacchari” which means “to celebrate the festival of Bacchus”, the Roman god of wine. With uncouth insensitivity they think He is suggesting a party, hence the offer of wine.
27:49
The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save Him.
So we have the mingling here of the response to the cry of abandonment, which some misunderstood as a call for Elijah to help Him, and the statement, “I thirst”. Does this indicate that the cries were very close together?
We now need to revert to John’s account to get the sequence.
19:28
After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
After this- there are over three hours between verses 27, when He committed His mother to John, and this verse. John makes no mention of the mockery of the bystanders, (he is more interested in those who were sympathetic as they stood by), or of the conversation with the repentant thief, or the darkness, or the cry “Eli, Eli, lama, sabacthani, Why hast Thou forsaken Me?” We could explain the absence of reference to the last two, because John is concerned to tell us only what he witnessed, and he no doubt was with Mary during the hours of darkness, only returning to Calvary when it ended. John’s sensitive spirit recoiled from the railing of men, including that of both thieves at first. His theme is the burnt offering aspect of the death of Christ, so he does not emphasise the desertion because that emphasises Christ’s sin-offering work.
Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished- the word “accomplished” is the same as that translated “fulfilled” in this verse, and “finished” in verse 30. The cry “It is finished” is the last phrase of Psalm 22, just as “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me” is the first phrase of that psalm. So what is finished takes in all that the psalm speaks of, whether His sufferings or His ever-expanding glories. In anticipation of the fulfilment of everything, the Lord knows that all things are accomplished in the “now” of Divine insight. It is a characteristic of John’s gospel to highlight the knowledge of the Lord Jesus, just as the head of the animal for the burnt offering was specially mentioned. He is acting with Divine intelligence as to what satisfies God. He had spoken in anticipation in John 17:4, “I have finished the work thou gavest me to do”. The work was given Him from the Father, but was foreshadowed in the Old Testament scriptures.
Now He is going to speak in anticipation again. In order to announce He has finished the work He needs His throat to be refreshed. Psalm 22 is His own description of His condition, and He says there, “My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws”, verse 15. His prayers had been described as roaring in Psalm 22, so His throat was no doubt sore. This will prevent Him crying out in triumph, which He fully intends to do. He refused drink to relieve His own sufferings, but called for a drink now so that men might hear clearly and plainly that the work of sacrifice was over, and they need not suffer for their sins.
In Psalm 22 Christ is concerned lest four things prevent Him from announcing that His work is finished. They are the sword, the power of the dog, the lion’s mouth, and the horns of the unicorns.
The sword
God has put a sword into the hand of those who rule. The apostle Paul spoke of these things when he wrote, “Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil,” Romans 13:1-4.
So power has been given to rulers to do four things: To execute those who murder; to punish those who resist their authority, (for those who do this resist God); to protect decent citizens, and in that sense be a force for good, and praise those who abide by the law.
Now Pilate, representative of the power of Caesar as he was, had made decisions about two men. He had convicted Barabbas of murder, insurrection, and robbery, Mark 15:7; John 18:40, yet had released him. And he had, (against his better judgment, John 18:38), convicted Jesus Christ of insurrection, for this was what the Jews accused Him of before Pilate, with the words, “We found this fellow perverting the nation, forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King”, Luke 23:2. It was also the implication behind the accusation over the cross, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews”.
Now if the death of Christ is the direct result of Pilate using the “sword”, then it will go down in the record books that He was an evil-doer and an insurrectionist. The only way of avoiding this is for Christ to lay down His own life, thus keeping the initiative. It was His soul that was delivered from the sword, for His soul-longing was to obey the command of His Father to lay down His own life. He is not asking to be delivered from the sword of Divine Justice spoken of in Zechariah 13:7.
The power of the dog
We have been told of the dogs in Psalm 22:16, and here we meet them again. There it was in connection with Him being crucified, as they pierced His hands and His feet, and gambled for His clothes. Now they have power of a different sort. The Jewish authorities would soon ask Pilate that the legs of the victims be broken to hasten their death, because the next day, that began at 6pm, was drawing near. These Gentile dogs have the power to wield the club that will break Christ’s legs, and cause His almost immediate death, for He will no longer be able to push Himself up so as to breathe.
The lion’s mouth
We have been told of those who were lion-like, in verse 13, the princes of this world. But now the prince of this world is mentioned, the one who the Lord Jesus prophesied would come. We know from Hebrews 2:14,14 that this one had the power of death in Old Testament times. This was because men had a sinful nature, and as such were in the domain of Satan, for the wages of sin is death, and they were in bondage to him because of their fear of death. This is not true of Christ personally, but He is acting as representative of sinful men, and has been made sin. Satan thinks he has power over Him, and asserts that power with his mouth. In other words, accuses Him before God. He is the accuser of the brethren, Revelation 12:10, and uses every opportunity and excuse to do so. That Satan has not the power of death over Christ is true, but the impression will be given that it is so, unless Christ keeps the initiative, and is strengthened to lay down His life of Himself, and not through external pressure.
The horns of the unicorns
Despite not having received any answer to His pleadings thus far, the Lord Jesus is confident that His God has heard, and will answer at the moment of His choosing. That moment is about to come. The unicorn was a wild ox, and a group of such animals are here pictured as lowering their heads for the final charge at their victim. We read of bulls of Bashan in verse 12, symbolising the ceremonially clean but morally unfit priesthood. Here they are again, but this time they are exposed in their true character as wild, fierce and vicious. They had already shown that to be the case, for we read that the chief priests “were the more fierce”, as they accused Him before Pilate, Luke 23:5. Their fierceness is coming to a climax, for they are concerned lest the bodies hang on the cross after the end of the day, at the twelfth hour. So they “besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away”, John 19:31. Their request was granted, and the soldiers brake the legs of the malefactors, “but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not His legs”, verse 33.
Unknown to the priests, the request of Christ had been granted, strength had been given Him, and He had not only cried “It is finished”, but had given up His spirit to God, John 19:30.
So it was that He did not die by the sword of Caesar as if He was a malefactor; His death was not hastened by the Roman club; He was delivered from the mouth of the lion, and the horns of the unicorns did not impale Him and cause His death. His trust in God had been vindicated, His work had been completed, and the sin-bearing was over.
Returning to our passage in John:
That the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst- He will only ask to be relieved somewhat, (a) after His sin-bearing is over, (and it is, for He now reverts back to saying “Father”), and (b) so that He may fulfil the last scripture that is outstanding. It is a vital scripture, and He is intent on fulfilling it. It is not that some scripture foretold that He would say these words, (as, for instance, Psalm 22:1 foretold His cry “Eli, Eli…”), but the scripture to be fulfilled is the whole of what was written in that psalm, not only about His sufferings, but also His glory. They are about to be completely finished, and He needs to declare this. He had come into the world with the intention of doing God’s will, Hebrews 10:5,7, and now He leaves the world announcing He has done it.
19:29
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.
Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar- the Lord had been offered wine or vinegar before. In Matthew 27:34 the soldiers gave Him “vinegar…mingled with gall”. Then they crucified Him, verse 35, so presumably the drink was offered before He was put on the cross. But when He tasted what it was, He would not drink. Gall is poisonous, and He was destined to die by crucifixion, not poisoning. This may be the same vinegar they gave Him at the end, but then it was without the gall, and He accepted it. Then in Mark 15:23 we read, “and they gave Him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but He received it not”. If this is a different drink, then it was possibly that which the “daughters of Jerusalem” provided out of compassion for the victims on the cross. The soldiers, realising He would not have His life cut short, offer Him this drink, but He will not have His senses dulled, for it is His soul, (that is His person in its entirety), that is to be made an offering for sin, Isaiah 53:10, and He will go into the suffering fully alert. He has transactions with God to go through with in the hours of darkness, and He wishes to be fully aware of everything. This also ensures than none of His people can suffer more pain than He. He can sympathise fully. Then there was the drink that the soldiers offered Him mocking Him. “And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar, and saying, “If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself'”, Luke 23:36.
So there was the wine of mercy; the wine of sympathy; the wine of mockery, and now the wine of necessity. He receives it because it will serve His purpose.
That the vessel was full of vinegar shows it was not the vessel from which the other drinks had been taken. It was just vinegar, therefore, and had no other ingredients. It was purely to whet His throat for the final cries.
And they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth- hyssop was a small shrub that grew on walls. This shows the Saviour was not very far from the ground, or else the hyssop branch would not reach. Solomon “spake of trees, from the cedar tree that is in Lebanon, even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall”, 1 Kings 4:23. Notice the “even unto”, which we may compare to the “unto…even” of Philippians 2:8. The mighty cedar tree would symbolise Christ in His majesty, (“in the form of God”), whereas the lowly hyssop would remind us of His humiliation, even unto death on a cross. John does not quote any scripture about this incident, for the words of Psalm 69:21 had been fulfilled when the soldiers offered Him vinegar and gall at the start of the crucifixion.
19:30
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar- instead of a throat dried like a potsherd, and His tongue cleaving to His jaws, making it difficult to articulate words, His throat and mouth are refreshed, and He is able to cry with a loud voice, (as the other gospels tell us He did, Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37). He had spoken “Eli, Eli…” with a loud voice, but that cry was to His God. This cry must reverberate around Jerusalem.
What is it that is finished? Consider the following:
1. The sacrifices are finished
Not because they were faulty, but because they were temporary, and now they are rendered obsolete by the supreme sacrifice. “It” would indicate the whole range of sacrifices. With regard to these it is said, “He taketh away the first that he may establish the second”, Hebrews 10:9. Just as Christ had purged the temple of its sacrifices on former occasions, so now again, and for the last time, He renders the temple system outdated.
For three hours the temple rituals had been hampered, if not stopped, by the thick darkness that had covered the earth. Now the light has returned, and the sacrifices could resume. But as they did so a voice rings out to tell that they were now obsolete.
The gospel writers are careful to document the time at which things happened at Calvary, so we know that the time from His crucifixion to the end of the hours of darkness was from the third hour to the ninth, Mark 15:25,33,34. It was during this period, from the offering of incense at the third hour, to the offering of it again at the ninth hour, that the worshippers would be bringing their sacrifices, whether they be burnt offerings, meal offerings, peace offerings, or sin offerings. Yet at the end of it all, there sounds out a loud cry across the temple courts, and amazingly, it comes from the Man on the central cross. “It is finished”, He declares, or “It is fulfilled”. The will of God expressed in sacrifices and offerings has been brought to its climax, and now, with a word, He “taketh away the first, that he may establish the second”, Hebrews 10:9. And it is by that will that believers have been perfected by His one offering. We see how important it is, then, for Him to have strength, not only to cry this cry with loud voice so as to reach the temple courts, but also to commit His spirit to God, laying down His life in wholehearted surrender to His Father’s will.
2. The Scriptures concerning the suffering of Messiah are fulfilled
As He said to the disciples after His resurrection, “all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me”, Luke 23:44.
3. The work given Him to do is accomplished
He had declared the Father in all the variety of His attributes. Nothing of what God is has not been expressed by Christ.
4. The battle with the forces of darkness is over
He has triumphed, for He is about to give up His own life, showing the Devil’s power is broken. He foretold that as a result of His lifting up on a cross the prince of this world would be cast out, John 12:31. This will be finally enacted when the Devil is cast into the lake of fire, Revelation 20:10. In the mysterious ways of God he is still allowed some liberty. One reason for this is that God’s children may show their growth in Divine things by overcoming him by the use of the Word of God, 1 John 2:14.
And he bowed his head- even though His strength had been dried up, yet He is refreshed enough by the vinegar not only to cry out in triumph, but also to deliberately bow His head before He gave up His spirit. Normally the head would drop after the life was ended, but Christ shows His total control of the situation by this simple act.
The word for “bow” is also used in Hebrews 11:34, where it is translated “turned to flight”. It was faith which caused the Philistine army to be put to flight by David, having fought and defeated Goliath. So here, for “Goliath” has been defeated, and his army of evil forces routed utterly.
The Saviour said that the foxes had holes, (where they went to rest in the daytime), and the birds of the air have their nests, (where they go to rest in the night-time), but the Son of Man had not where to lay His head. Now He lays His head to rest whilst hanging on the cross, the only resting-place heartless man gave Him.
And gave up the ghost- by “ghost” is meant the spirit of man. It is written in the Old Testament, “There is no man that hath power over the spirit to retain the spirit; neither hath he power in the day of death: and there is no discharge in that war; neither shall wickedness deliver those that are given to it”, Ecclesiastes 8:8. So it is not in the power of man to retain his spirit. Even if a man commits suicide, he still does it in God’s permissive will. He has not gained the initiative, even though he might think he has. It is God that gives men breath, Daniel 5:23; Acts 17:25, and only at the moment of His choosing does a man die.
The Lord Jesus is real man, and so is bound by this principle. But there is an over-riding principle, namely, that He had come to do His Father’s will, and His Father gave Him commandment to lay down His life of Himself, and not let anyone take it from Him. He would be bound by this principle, and, having authority to lay down His life, does so in obedience to His Father. He was obedient even to the extent of death on a cross, Philippians 2:8, even though that sort of death would usually render any other man unable to control his actions. With Christ it was different, for He was in total control.
Luke gives the actual words He spoke, for as a doctor, Luke was very interested in death, and carefully records the manner of this death, Luke 23:46. He is also very interested in the manhood of Christ, and part of what He took when He became man was the ability to die. He records that the Saviour said:
Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit- He not only commits His spirit in line with Psalm 31, but also commends it, confident that there is nothing that the Father does not find commendable about His spirit. He is confident also, in line with Psalm 16:9,10, that His soul and body will be preserved and watched over by His Father. His soul would not be abandoned permanently in hell, neither would God suffer His Holy One to see corruption as to the body.
It was the practice of godly Israelites to quote the words of Psalm 31:5 when they retired to bed after the day’s work was done, saying, “Into thy hand I commit my spirit”. Satisfied they had done God’s will during the day, they commit their spirit to God for safe keeping until the morning light. So it was with Christ in a far higher sense. He had worked the works of Him that sent Him while it was day, and now the night had come, John 9:4. Content that He has fulfilled His Father’s will in every detail, He confidently commits His spirit to God, safe in the knowledge that He will keep it until the morning light of resurrection, when He would take His life again.
At this point Matthew and Mark record the rending of the veil in the temple.
Matthew 27:51
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom- Matthew is impressed deeply by the things he is about to describe, and he calls out attention to them by the word behold. He wants us to lay hold of the significance.
After Matthew had begun to follow Christ, he made Him a feast in his house, 9:9-17, although he humbly does not tell us this, (although Mark and Luke do, calling him Levi). During that feast the Lord Jesus gave teaching on the great change that was brought about by His coming. The subject was raised by the disciples of John, who asked the Lord why John’s disciples fasted, and His did not. The answer was that there had been a change in God’s dealings with men. The law and the prophets were until John, Luke 16:16, so he was the last of the Old Testament prophets. Now that Christ had come God was dealing in grace not law. So if under John the disciples fasted, under grace His disciples rejoiced. And these two situations cannot be mixed, for it would be like putting a new patch on an old garment, or new wine in old bottles, (meaning wine-skins), for the new would ruin the old, and the new could not be held by the old. So Matthew learns in his own house about the ways of God with men in the past and the then-present. But he also learnt on the Mount of Olives that there were changes coming in the future as well, after the present age was finished.
So it is that Matthew delights to build up a picture for us as he relates historic events. For instance, he tells us how that Christ went into Egypt as a child, then came back, (just as Israel had come out of Egypt), was baptised in the Jordan, and then went into the wilderness. This is in some ways different to Israel’s journey. True, they came out of Egypt, but they then went into the wilderness so that God could know what was in their heart, Deuteronomy 8:2, (the next verse was quoted by the Lord in His wilderness temptation). They then crossed the Jordan into the promised land. God knew what was in Christ’s heart before He went into the wilderness temptation, and He did not need to be tried by those experiences to see whether He was fit to go into the land. So Matthew is presenting comparisons and contrasts between the history of Israel and that of Christ, showing He can relate to the nation as its rightful king.
And so it is here, for Matthew sees that those things which happened when Christ died have deep significance. After all, surely the Creator of all things cannot die without creation responding. He gives to us the key to the way he is thinking by calling Jerusalem “the holy city”. Now Jerusalem was anything but holy when it cast out God’s Son. Nor was it holy when it persecuted the apostles. But one day the city will merit the title, and it is that day that Matthew has in mind.
Coming back to the veil of the temple, we read that it was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. This clearly indicates that a Divine hand was at work, for not only was it was rent from the top, but also the veil was so thick that no human hand could have done it. This was not the result of the earthquake, for the damage was very precise.
The rending of the veil is deeply significant in several respects.
First, it showed that the first tabernacle, (continued in the form of the temple), no longer had any standing before God. There were degrees of privilege in the earthly sanctuary, with the High Priest alone able to enter the presence of God within the veil, the priests able to enter the Holy Place, and the ordinary Israelite not able to enter either compartments. This was by design, for the division of the tabernacle into holy and most holy was a sign from the Holy Spirit that “the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest , while as the first tabernacle was yet standing”, Hebrews 9:8. By “first tabernacle” is meant the first compartment of the tabernacle, called the Holy Place. As long as that had a standing separate from the Most Holy Place, the priests could not enter right in to God. Since the presence of that veil meant the Holiest of All was not available to the priesthood, the virtual destruction of the veil meant that this situation has come to an end. The veil was Divinely ordained, and Divinely removed. The writer to the Hebrews calls it the time of reformation, 9:10. Earlier in the epistle he had spoken of a better hope, or prospect, even that of drawing near to God, 7:19.
To signify these things, not only was the veil rent by a Divine hand, (for only God can bring to an end what He Himself has brought in), but it was also rent in twain, so there was a completeness about the deed, and a signal that the whole system which revolved around the veil was finished with. The high priest had already rent his clothes, unwittingly telling of the end of the priesthood, and now the veil is rent to signify the end of the Levitical system as a whole.
Second, it tells of a completely new arrangement, for “that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away”, Hebrews 8:13. It is Matthew who tells us most about what happened when Christ gave up His spirit, for Matthew’s is the kingly gospel, and Christ is a King-Priest after the order of Melchisedec. His office does not depend on an earthly sanctuary.
Third, it tells of a better intercessor. In Hebrews 7 the writer also speaks of the Lord Jesus ever living to make intercession, and it is the altar of incense in the tabernacle that spoke of prayer being offered. Luke adds the detail that the veil was rent in the midst. This means that it opened up opposite the altar of incense, and since it happened at the ninth hour, the time of the offering of incense, the officiating priest may well have been standing there as it happened.
It is said that the Jews had hung two veils in the sanctuary, one cubit apart, because they were unsure from the details given in the Book of Exodus which side of the pillars it was suspended, and indeed where the pillars themselves were. So even if the veil that God recognised was rent, the way into the holiest of the earthly temple was still not open, and this because of the ignorance of the Jews. And so it is still, they may prepare to construct their temple, but they do so in ignorance of God as a nation.
God only knows of one veil, and that has been rent. The Jews had spare veils in the event of one becoming dilapidated, so they would soon have replaced the rent one. And Christendom is like this too, for instead of learning the lesson of the rent veil, they have replaced it with another of their own devising, the current system which is part Judaistic, part pagan.
Luke has his own way of noticing the rending of the veil, for he links it with the darkening of the sun, Luke 23:44. So the darkening of the sun called a halt temporarily to the ceremonies in the temple courts, and the rending of the veil called a halt permanently to them as far as God was concerned. And in between those two points Christ was made sin, in part “for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance”, Hebrews 9:15, those who are called being Christian priests, and their eternal inheritance being the privilege of serving God in eternity.
Fourth, in Luke the veil and its rending is spoken of before the Lord had actually died, telling us in symbol that the way was open for Christ to enter heaven to begin His work of intercession. In Matthew and Mark the veil is said to be rent after Christ gave up His spirit, telling us in symbol that the way is now open for those to enter the presence of God who are in the good of His death; or as the writer to the Hebrews would put it, who enter “by the blood of Jesus”, Hebrews 10:19.
Fifth, in connection with the words of Hebrews 10, the believer now has free access into the presence of God “through the veil, that is to say, His flesh”, verse 20. So this give significance to the veil which hung across the path of the Old Testament priest. It was a sign that, because Christ had not yet come, there was a barrier to the presence of God. But once He had lived, and then given up Himself in death, then the barrier could be rent, thus ending the old system and introducing the new in Christ risen and ascended. So it was that when the Lord Jesus dismissed His spirit, and died, (for the body without the spirit is dead, James 2:25) the veil in the temple was rent in twain. This was a sign of heaven’s response to the giving up of the life of Christ. Now that He has returned to heaven, He Himself, considered as the one who lived and died upon the earth, is the means by which we enter into God’s presence. His life on earth and all that it implied does not represent a barrier, but rather a means of access. Hence we are said to enter through the vail, and not within the vail. “Within the vail” is an Old Testament expression, speaking of a situation that prevailed then, but which does not prevail now. There is no veil in the heavenly sanctuary, for it is all thrice holy, and has not the degrees of holiness that marked the earthly sanctuary.
And the earth did quake, and the rocks rent- notice that the veil is rent before the earthquake is mentioned. The veil was rent directly by God, and not indirectly by an earthquake. That is not to say that the earthquake was a coincidence, but that it was not the cause of the rent veil. After all, it would be most unusual for an earthquake to rend something from the top down. It is not that the structure of the temple collapsed and rent the veil that way. The rending was very selective.
Something of the severity of this earthquake is seen in that the rocks rent, signifying that the very layers of rock beneath the surface were ruptured. And this resulted in visible effects, for we read that the centurion saw what was done. And this was selective too, for Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb was hewn out of the rock, but that remained intact. The Jews would not have sealed a tomb that had an escape route out from it in the form of a path through the rock made by the earthquake. Nothing that was personal to Christ was rent that day; His garments were not rent, nor was His tomb.
Matthew is continuing to build up his picture. He has indicated the ending of the Old Testament era by the rending of the veil. Now he is reminding us that in a future day the earth is going to be shaken. Again we turn to the words of the writer to the Hebrews. “See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire”, Hebrews 12:25-29. God spoke
at Sinai at the giving of the law, and the mountain quaked, and so did Moses. As a result, the people asked for someone to act for them, and God promised a prophet like Moses, Deuteronomy 18:18. This is fulfilled in Christ, as Peter made clear in Acts 3:22. Although the nation refused Him, He still speaks in grace from His exalted place in heaven, and there is no need for men to quake. But the time is coming when not only the earth but the heavens shall be shaken as Christ speaks in wrath, and then they shall have every reason to quake in fear.
27:52
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
And the graves were opened- at the end of the time of tribulation, the first resurrection as it relates to Old Testament saints will take place, and this is a preview of it. We read, “And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God, Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned. And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth”, Revelation 11:16-18.
This is in accord with the prophecy of the Lord Jesus when He said, “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil to the resurrection of damnation”, John 5:28,29. Daniel had been told of this in the words, “and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt”, Daniel 12:1,2. These two resurrections are one thousand years apart, and the first of them is the resurrection of Old Testament saints, prefigured by what happened when Christ died.
And many bodies of the saints which slept arose- so it is only saints who rise here, just as only saints will rise at the end of the Tribulation Period. Notice the testimony to the fact that there shall be a bodily resurrection. The world has not seen Christ in resurrection, but these resurrected saints were seen.
27:53
And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
And came out of the graves after his resurrection- so there is a link established between the raising of these saints and the resurrection of Christ. He must rise first because it is His resurrection that ensures theirs. Even though they came out after His resurrection, Matthew establishes that they did so in connection with His death. So to put both ideas together, these saints rise because He died and rose. And this is true of the resurrection of all believers.
And went into the holy city- as already noticed, this is the key to the passage, showing that Matthew is looking at the events he details as figurative as well as literal, for at that time Jerusalem was not actually a holy city. But it is holy potentially, for John foresaw that the new Jerusalem in eternity will be called “the holy city”, Revelation 21:2, and even the Millennial city will be called “holy Jerusalem”, verse 10. Such is the cleansing power of the blood of Christ that even the sin of crucifying their Messiah will be dealt with. When a man was found slain in the countryside, the city next to the slain man was responsible for discovering the murderer. We read of this in Deuteronomy 21:1-9. Under the law, the elders of the city nearest to where the man was slain were to offer a sacrifice to clear themselves of any suggestion of guilt. This the elders of Jerusalem did not do, which is why the apostle Peter, having charged the nation with the sin of crucifying their Messiah, called on his hearers to “Save yourselves from this untoward generation”, Acts 2:40, thus distancing themselves from the nation that had sinned so grievously.
And appeared unto many- the idea is that they manifested themselves to many. So presumably they had not long died, or else those in the city would not recognise them and the process would be meaningless. If Noah for instance came back from the dead, they presumably would not know who he was. But the point is that these were known to those to whom they appeared. This showed the reality of their resurrection, and gave a foretaste of what will happen just before Christ sets up His kingdom.
27:54
Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.
Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus- they were not casual onlookers, but were keeping watch over the scene, no doubt alert for any attempt by His disciples to rescue Him from the cross.
Saw the earthquake, and those things that were done- they were watching Him, and watching for disciples, but God gave them other things to watch. Things, moreover, that could only be from heaven.
They feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God- the centurion and his soldiers would be superstitious pagans, and earthquakes would be thought of by them as intervention by the gods. Thus what they said may only have meant that they believed that Christ was one of the “sons of the gods”. No wonder they feared, for they had executed Him!
In Mark’s account what impressed the centurion was the way He cried out to give up His spirit. He writes, “And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God”, Mark 15:39. The centurion had seen many die by crucifixion, and he well knew that victims usually died of respiratory failure, unable to breathe fast enough to remove acid from their blood, and consequently with chest expanded so they could not speak. This One cries out loudly twice, showing He died of blood loss. He poured out His soul unto death, for the life of the flesh is in the blood.
In Luke the emphasis was on the character of Christ, for he writes, “Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man”. He would no doubt know somewhat of the circumstances of the arrest and trial of Christ, and all the surrounding circumstances have impressed him with the truth that he has been treated unjustly. Yet he himself had heard the prayer, “Father forgive them”, and realised that this was no ordinary man, for he did not react to injustice as ordinary men did.
Luke also tells us the following, “And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts, and returned”, Luke 23:48. By contrast, Mark tells us, “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; (Who also, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him;) and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem”, Mark 15:40,41. So some only came to see “the sight” of men being crucified, whereas other came together because of the man on the central cross. They had served Him in His life, and now, with constancy of heart, served Him in His death. How comforting for Him to see them there in the closing minutes of His life, between the darkness going, and His death.
We now turn to John for the account of the request to Pilate that the bodies be taken down from the cross:
John 19:31
The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
The Jews therefore- the “therefore” does not follow on from the previous verse, but introduces the next incident John records. He says nothing of the exclamation of the centurion, just as he had not recorded the conversion of the repentant thief. He will not record favourable words, or unfavourable ones, such as the jeering of the bystanders. He wants to emphasise his testimony as an apostle and an eye-witness. In the final analysis, the assurance of the believer is based on the word of God, not the word of men.
Because it was the preparation- this is not the preparation for the passover feast, in the sense of the passover plus the feast of unleavened bread, “which is called the passover”, Luke 22:1, for that had already begun. Edersheim says that this phrase was never used by the Jews for the preparation for the passover. The passover had been sacrificed the previous afternoon, “between the two evenings”, that is, between 3pm, (when the sun started to decline), and 6pm, (when the sun set and three stars were visible). And the passover supper had been eaten that night.
This is a reference to the preparation of the passover, that is, the preparation for something during the eight-day feast begun on the passover day. The question is, what is it preparation for? Those who believe the Lord died on a Friday will say that it is the preparation for the normal Sabbath day. Passover, it is said, was on Thursday April 6th, in AD 30, or on Friday April 3rd, in AD 33.
That the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day)- the Scripture they had in mind reads, “And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance”, Deuteronomy 21:22,23. Only John tells us about the demand that His body be taken away before evening, “because it was the sabbath day”, verse 31. Scripture said nothing about the sabbath day in the command about removing bodies, for it applied to any day of the week, Deuteronomy 21:22,23. So why are the authorities concerned about the bodies being on the cross on the sabbath day? The answer is surely that Jerusalem is filled with pilgrims, hundreds of thousands of them. Luke has already told us that a great company of people followed the procession out to Calvary. They will have opportunity to survey the scene outside the city walls. If there are three victims dying in agony on crosses, they will be curious. And they will specially curious if they discover that one of them has the title “King of the Jews” over His head. Questions will be asked, and the priests are obviously concerned that there might be a popular rising against them once the people learn of their wicked dealings.
Besought Pilate that their legs might be broken- the Jewish authorities have no control over the crucifixion process, so have to ask Pilate to grant their request. The Jews ask for the body to break it, Joseph of Arimathea asked for the body to care for it.
The breaking of the legs would not only mean excruciating pain, but also would prevent the victims pushing themselves up so that they could breathe. Death soon came in those circumstances. God had seen to it that His Son had died by a means that did not involve the breaking of bones, as would be the case if He had been executed by the Jewish means, namely stoning. All His bones were out of joint it is true, for Psalm 22:14 says so, but not one was broken. God had seen to it that the nailing of hands and feet to the cross did not break any of His bones.
And that they might be taken away- they wish to rid the scene of the sight of these men. Hypocrites that they were, they would say it was because of God’s requirement. Really, it was because of their fear of the multitudes. Ironically, Christ was taken away, but by loving hands, to be laid, not in a hastily dug grave at the foot of the cross, but in a new tomb nearby.
19:32
Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.
Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him– the pathway of these men had been crooked and devious, and they had walked in sin. It might be thought fitting that their life should end with the breaking of their legs. However, this was only true of one of them now, for the other man had repented, and his past had been blotted out. This was nothing to the soldier who came to hasten his death, however. Little did he realise he was hastening his pathway into paradise.
19:33
But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already- these are experienced executioners, and know what a dead man looks like. They did not appreciate the significance of His cry when He committed His spirit to God. They probably thought it was a pious hope. Whereas they came to exercise the authority of Rome over Him, they did not realise He had already exercised the authority given to Him by His Father.
They brake not his legs- they are restrained from breaking them “to make sure”, even though they are not restrained from piercing His side. They had received instructions to do so, but a Divine hand is restricting and allowing. He has been crucified according to the “determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God”, Acts 2:23, and this part of the proceedings is no exception. The reason why they are not allowed to break His legs is given to us in verse 36.
19:34
But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side- this is the last time an unbelieving man will touch the body of the Lord Jesus. Is this a spontaneous action on the part of the soldier, with God allowing it, to fulfil scripture, just as He did not allow the braking of the legs, to fulfil scripture?
The fact this was easily done would suggest that those crucified were not far off from the ground, as is often depicted by artists. This also means that John was easily able to see what happened.
And forthwith came there out blood and water- since He is God’s Holy One, who will not even see corruption from outside, it is no surprise to find that the blood of Christ is not congealed and beginning to putrefy, as if He was subject to corruption, but runs freely from His side as if He is still alive. The Lord Jesus has taken flesh and blood, but that does not mean He was corrupt in body, for Adam had a body that was incorrupt before he sinned. God pronounced everything very good after He had made man and woman, so there was no corruption anywhere. Corruption came in through the fall of man, Romans 8:19-22. Christ is the start of the new creation, and no corruption shall be there either.
Some see in this blood and water what John wrote of later on, when he penned, “This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood”, 1 John 5:6. The reference there is to the fact that the gospel does not just involve Jesus Christ as one introduced to public ministry after His water baptism, but also Jesus Christ, introduced to His heavenly ministry by His death. But John may see a symbol of this in the blood and water from His side.
Others will speak of this blood as the blood that saves. But the gospel uses the word “blood” as a figure for the life given up, not specifically of the physical blood. God said to Israel, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul”, Leviticus 17:11. So it is blood in connection with sacrifice that makes atonement, and blood as the life of the flesh. So the blood stands for the life, or soul. So when we read that the Messiah would “pour out his soul unto death”, Isaiah 53:12, then we understand that this means “He will die by his own will”. This is the shedding of blood of which God speaks. The blood that flowed from the side of Christ was as a result of man’s act, and not His, and therefore is not Him pouring out His soul. It is the blood of a living man given in death that saves, whereas this blood is coming from a dead body. Significantly, John does not link this blood with atonement when he explains the meaning of the spear-thrust. He sees significance in the non-use of the club, and the use of the spear.
19:35
And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
And he that saw it bare record- John is concerned to assure us that he is an eye-witness of the things he tells us about. This is especially the case because of the unique phenomenon of the water and blood flowing from a dead body.
Peter spoke of the qualification to be an apostle- “Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, until that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection”, Acts 1:21,22. John was one of these apostles; but so was Matthew, yet the latter did not stand by the cross. So it is important to notice that the apostles were witness to the resurrection, even though they were not witnesses of the resurrection actually taking place. They were inspired by the Spirit of truth to write the truth.
To bear record is perhaps a slightly different idea to bearing witness. The latter can be done by word of mouth, whereas to bear record includes the idea of John writing something down to make it available to a wide readership. So a link is established between the man who stood by the cross, and we who read his account in the 21st century.
And his record is true- in a court of law, statements that are made must be supported by the witness or testimony of others. In Jewish law, a man’s own testimony was not allowed, unless accompanied by the witness of others. This is why the Pharisees disputed Christ’s right to testify about Himself. The testimony of Christ, if it were unsupported by others, would not be valid, but since it is supported by the testimony of the Father, and the Old Testament, then it is allowable.
So just as the Lord Jesus had a Divine person, the Father, to endorse what He said, so the apostle had a Divine Person, the Spirit, to endorse what he said. John wrote, (and it is the next verse after the mention of water and blood), “If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son”, 1 John 5:9,10.
Of course John is not saying we accept without question the testimony of everyone, whether they are trustworthy or not. He is referring to what the Lord said in John 7:18, “It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true”. The law was referring to court-conditions, when men were required, (under penalty if they lied), to give a true witness. In those circumstances we accept the testimony of two credible and sane eye-witnesses. If we accept the testimony of mere men, John argues, we should the rather accept the testimony of Divine persons. And the Father and the Spirit both testify to the Son, and those who believe receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, and He indwells them. They now have the witness in themselves, and need not to rely on man, for they have the testimony directly from God.
And he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe- John is confident that what he is saying is true not only because he was present at the cross and saw events unfold before his very eyes, but also because he is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and so has the testimony in his own spirit. That being the case, we ought to believe, not only the testimony of a man like John, but also the testimony of the Spirit of God who indwelt John and who indwells believers. The double purpose of John’s writings was to bring us to initial faith is Christ, John 20:30,31, and to encourage us to continue in the faith, 1 John 5:13.
19:36
For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
For these things were done- a reference to the non-breaking of His legs, and the piercing of His side, so both the negative and the positive had meaning. They were not trivial things, but had deep significance.
That the scripture should be fulfilled- not that the soldiers set out to fulfil scripture, but rather, that what they did or did not do was over-ruled by God, so that whilst it was their act, it was His will. And since that will had been expressed beforehand in Old Testament Scripture, they unwittingly fulfilled the prophecy.
A bone of Him shall not be broken- despite the fact that the human hand and foot contain many bones, God saw to it that not one was broken when He was nailed to the cross.
The relevant scriptures are these:
“neither shall ye break a bone thereof”, Exodus 12:46
“nor break any bone of it”, Numbers 9:12.
“Many are the afflictions of the righteous: But the Lord delivereth him out of them all. He keepeth all his bones: Not one of them is broken”, Psalm 34:19,20.
The first scripture is the word of God through Moses in connection with the original passover night. The lamb was to be without spot and blemish, because no lamb with a broken bone was acceptable. The lamb had been scrutinised for four days, and if any of its bones was broken this would have become evident. The Lord Jesus was in the public eye after His baptism, (we could think of the Father’s commendation at that time as the selection of the Lamb of God), and was closely watched by men. There was no fault found in Him. It is true men blamed Him, but they did not have just cause to do so, and He was in fact, as Peter says, “without blemish and without spot”, 1 Peter 1:19. We read of John the Baptist that “looking on Jesus as he walked, he said, Behold the Lamb of God, John 1:36. This testimony is especially valuable because John was the greatest prophet among those that are born of women, Luke 7:28, and as such was intelligent as to God’s thoughts. He was also of the priestly line, even though he did not function in the temple like his father did. Even though he did not officiate in the temple, he had priestly discernment, and just as the priest was to examine an offering to see if it was acceptable, John has done this to Christ. As he walked there was no physical limping; nor was there anything of this in the moral sphere.
David sinned grievously in the matter of Bathsheba, and God dealt with him in discipline because of it, for not only the child that resulted from his adultery die, but Absalom his son rebelled against him, and the sword did not depart from his house, 2 Samuel 12:10-14.
He repented of his sin, however, and in Psalm 51, one of his repentance psalms, he wrote, “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones thou hast broken may rejoice”, verses 7,8. In his days as a shepherd, if there had been a lamb that had the tendency to stray, he would have broken its leg, so that it would have to keep close by him if he was to survive. Once the broken bone had healed, it would be safe for it to roam free again. That was David’s experience, for God had severely disciplined him, broken his bones so to speak, so that he might learn not to stray. But now he has been disciplined, and he tells us his experience.
There was nothing of this with Christ. His legs never needed to be broken, for he had no intention of straying. It is fitting then that this should be emphasised after He had died. He had carried the sins of His people like the scapegoat carried Israel’s sins, and did not limp or stumble. He walked the whole of the journey to “the land not inhabited”.
The second scripture is found in the instructions God gave in the case of those who could not keep the passover in the first month because they were “in a journey far off”, Numbers 9:10. In that situation they could keep the passover in the second month. This looks on to the future, for Israel has, so to speak, missed the first passover, not recognising that “Christ our passover has been sacrificed for us”, 1 Corinthians 5:7. They have been in a journey far off since 70AD, for they have been scattered amongst the nations. If they will return to God, they will find that there is provision for them even after their long lapse.
The third scripture makes the prediction more personal, and it is the passage John quotes, for whereas in Exodus and Numbers the pronoun is “it”, in Psalm 34 it is “him”. The person in view is a righteous man, persecuted and afflicted, but He keeps all his bones.
The Lord Jesus never strayed from the pathway of obedience to His Father, and therefore never needed to be disciplined. He was the truly Righteous Man, who walked in the paths of righteousness, Psalm 23:3. It is fitting, therefore, that His bones should not be broken, even after His death. He was confident that His Father would preserve Him, even as to the body.
19:37
And again another scripture saith, They shall look on Him whom they pierced.
And again another scripture saith- notice that John does not say this Scripture has been fulfilled. The quotation in verse 36 was about what did not happen; this one is about what did happen.
They shall look on him whom they pierced- just as the scripture in Numbers looks on to a future day for Israel, so does this one. It is a quotation from Zechariah 12:10 which reads, “And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and supplications: And they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn”. Notice that the three persons of the Godhead are here, for there is “me”, and “him”, and “the Spirit of grace”. Yet remarkably, it is the Lord of Hosts who says “look upon me whom they pierced”, and yet they mourn for “him”. And the “him” is God’s only-begotten and His firstborn, titles of the Lord Jesus.
The reference is to the second coming of Christ, which John describes in the Book of Revelation, “Behold, He cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen”, Revelation 1:7.
We see how important is an apparently simple matter of whether the Lord’s legs were broken, for the piercing with the spear would most likely not have taken place if His legs had been broken, for we do not read of the two malefactors having their side pierced.
So it was that in Jerusalem that day there was a dead body that could not be confused with any other body, for whereas the malefactors’ bodies had broken legs and unpierced side, Christ’s was the only one with a pierced side and unbroken legs.
19:38
And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for 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.
And after this Joseph of Arimathaea- we learn from the other gospels that Joseph was “a rich man of Arimathaea, who also himself was Jesus’ disciple”, (Matthew); “an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God”, (Mark); “a counsellor, and he was a good man, and a just: (the same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them;) he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God”, (Luke).
An honourable counsellor was a member of the inner circle of the Sanhedrin, so he was a very high official amongst the Jews.
He waited for the kingdom of God, so was looking for the Messiah, and came to the conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth was He.
He was a good and just man, who had not agreed to the decisions of the Sanhedrin about Christ, (for he was just, and saw their injustice). Nor did he agree with their actions, (for he was good, and saw their actions were evil).
He came from Arimathaea, which Luke, (always interested in detailed historical matters), tells us was a city of the Jews. He tells us this because in Old Testament times the city was reckoned to be in Samaria, but the boundary was changed. It is possibly the same as Ramah, or Ramathaim-zophim, the birthplace of Samuel, 1 Samuel 1:1.
Being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews- we read in John 12:42,43 that “Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God”. Joseph would be amongst this company, but at this point he comes out into the open, thus showing he realised it is much better to have the praise of God than of men.
Why did Joseph change sides? Isaiah 53:9 will help us with this question, as the prophet describes the burial of the Lord Jesus:
Isaiah 53:9
And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
And he made his grave with the wicked- verses 7 and 8 have described the way men treated the Lord Jesus. They oppressed and afflicted Him, sought to destroy His character, and at last took Him and slaughtered Him on a cross. In all this it seemed as if they were in control, and that He was the helpless victim of circumstances, but this verse tells us it was not so. The apostle Peter emphasised this on the day of Pentecost when he declared that the nation of Israel had by means of the wicked hands of the Gentiles crucified Him, and allowed that crucifixion process to continue until He was slain, Acts 2:23; they callously allowed Him to suffer, and only planned to curtail His sufferings because the feast day was near.
There was another dimension to this, however, as Peter points out at the same time. The fact is that He was delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. Men were only allowed to do what they did because it was part of God’s plan. Indeed, the basis of God’s plan. Now Isaiah 53:10 tells us that the pleasure of the Lord prospers in the hand of the Lord Jesus. As God’s Firstborn Son, as well as His Only begotten Son, He was charged with the task of administering God’s affairs. Not in any dispassionate way, but personally, and a major part of those affairs involved Him in suffering of different sorts. He suffered in life, as earlier verses of the chapter have told us; He suffered in the three hours of darkness, as verse 5 has told us; He suffered injustice and cruelty at the hands of men, as verses 7 and 8 clearly show. But He not only suffered in these ways, as He carried out the will of His Father, He was in control as He did so. So, for instance, we find verses 7-9 alternate between passive and active. He was oppressed…He was afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth. Passive in oppression and affliction, but active in not opening His mouth. He is brought…He is dumb. Men bring Him, and He passively allows this, but He actively remained as dumb. So also in verse 8. He is taken…He was cut off… stricken. But then the active, He made. Each time the active is t he answer to the passive. So when He made His grave with the wicked, He was responding to something that He had passively allowed, but during which He was totally in control.
The question is, of course, in what way was He in control so that He made His grave with the wicked? And if He was in control in this matter, why did it not happen? And how can He make His grave with the wicked and with the rich at the same time? So tightly interwoven is this prophecy that it can be fulfilled in the experience of only one man.
We need to notice that the word wicked is in the plural, and the word rich is in the singular. So there are wicked men, and there is a rich man. The word for wicked used here is an actively bad person. We know that “all have sinned”, but not all set out to be actively bad. We are told in verse 12 that the Lord Jesus was “numbered with the transgressors”, and the word transgressors means persons who have broken away in revolt against just authority. The words are quoted by Mark when he describes the Lord Jesus being crucified between two thieves. So we begin to see a picture building up of Christ in some way making His grave with wicked men by being crucified. He submitted Himself to arrest, trial and execution, knowing that normally the end result of that process was to be flung unceremoniously, (and in company with the others crucified with Him), into a pit dug at the foot of the cross. But even though it is true that He submitted Himself to the process of arrest and all that followed, nonetheless He was in complete control of the situation. He did not call for the legions of angels that were at His disposal, Matthew 26:53. He did not allow His followers to try to prevent His arrest, and rebuked Peter for attempting it, and remedied the damage he had done with his sword. He could have any moment passed through the midst of them and gone His way, as He had done several times during His ministry when the crowds were hostile. He did none of these things. And by thus not resisting He ensured that His grave would be with the others crucified with Him, even though this was a distasteful prospect, and normally to be avoided at all costs.
It is interesting to notice that the words “he was numbered with the transgressors” are quoted twice in the gospel records. Once by Mark as he records the crucifixion, but prior to that by the Lord Jesus as He is about to leave the upper room and make His way to Gethsemane, Luke 22:37. So these words bracket together the whole series of events from the arrest in Gethsemane, to the crucifixion at Golgotha.
And with the rich in His death- there is a big problem, however, with this situation, and it is this. It is vitally important that the Lord Jesus be put in an easily identified and publicly-known grave, and, moreover, is put there on His own. If He is buried at the foot of the cross with the two thieves, who is to know whether He has risen from the dead? In theory those near of kin to the thieves could even come to the place, remove the body of their relative, and claim he had risen from the dead! And even if this is unlikely to be attempted, the followers of the Lord could be accused of doing the same, and pretending that He had risen.
There is also the consideration that the psalmist prophesied by the Spirit that God would not suffer His Holy One, meaning the Messiah, to see corruption, Psalm 16:10. There would certainly be corruption in a grave at the foot of the cross, with the remains of many criminals mingling together there. Now of course whilst the whole of creation is in the bondage of corruption, nonetheless only humans are morally corrupt. So the requirement is that the Lord Jesus must be buried in a marked grave, which has had no-one else in it before, and has no-one else in it whilst He is there. Only in this way can it be sure that the one who was put into it is the one who came out.
How can this situation be brought about? It will be necessary for this grave to be more than a marked grave in the ground. It will need to be secure and unused. This involves expense, and the Lord Jesus had not the material resources to arrange for this to happen. Yet our passage says “He made His grave…with the rich in His death.” It is certainly not that He had influential friends who could rise to the occasion in this matter. His followers were poor, as He was. And yet in a real sense He does arrange this matter, for our passage says “He made His grave…with the rich”.
In the event, the rich individual pinpointed in this passage was Joseph of Arimathaea. He was not a prominent member of the disciples that followed the Lord. In fact, he was only a disciple secretly, because he feared the Jews, and what they would think of him. For he was a counsellor, meaning that he was a member of the Sanhedrin, and as such was one of those spoken of in John 12:42,43, which reads, “Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on Him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God”. Luke records that “the same had not consented to the counsel and the deed of them”, Luke 23:51. The “them” referring to his fellow-members of the Sanhedrin.
He was assisted by a Pharisee, Nicodemus, who also was a secret disciple, and who is designated by John as “he that came to Jesus by night”, reminding us of his conversation with the Lord Jesus in John 3. He presumably was a member of the Sanhedrim since he is described as a ruler of the Jews, John 3:1. He seems to have had great influence amongst them as we see from John 7:45-53. On that occasion the chief priests and Pharisees had sent officers to arrest the Lord Jesus, no doubt on the pretence that He had interrupted the temple services by crying out, “If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink”, verse 37. The officers returned without Him, and when the Pharisees protested at this, Nicodemus said, “Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? Thus he showed himself to be prepared to defend the interests of Christ in a small way, and to appeal for justice to be done. Things have changed, now, however, for he has to make a decision. He cannot be neutral about Christ any longer, and something makes him side with Christ publicly, like Joseph of Arimathea.
Because He had done no violence, neither was any deceit in His mouth- we might well ask ourselves what it is that convinced them of the genuineness of Christ’s claims. Remember, our answer must be in line with what the prophet said, which was, “He made his grave…with the rich in his death. We notice that the words “in his death” are only applicable to His grave with the rich. The prophet did not say “He made His grave with the wicked in His death”. So to all intents and purposes He was destined for a grave with the wicked; but in the event, and by His own ordering, His grave was actually with the rich in His death.
We are told several things about the character of Joseph. First, that he was a good man, the direct opposite of the wicked men between whom the Lord Jesus was crucified. Second, that he was just man, meaning he was diligent in trying to keep the law, in direct contrast to the transgressors, who rebelled against all law. Third, he waited for the kingdom of God, showing that he had a longing for the fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah. Fourth, he was a rich man, so is a candidate for the role marked out in Isaiah 53. Fifth, he was an honourable counsellor, which implies that, (as indeed was the case), there were members of the Sanhedrin who were not honourable. Sixth, he was prepared to make sacrifices, for he gave up his own tomb in favour of the carpenter from Nazareth. And seventh, he came from secret discipleship to open and bold discipleship at last.
It is the first three qualities that we need to focus on. A reading of the gospel records will show that the whole council, meaning the Sanhedrin, of which Joseph was a member, were present at the first trial before Caiaphas. Matthew 26:59 reads, “Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put Him to death”. Here is the first test for Joseph. He is a just man, and he must ask himself whether justice is being done here. He is a good man, and must ask himself if the prisoner is being treated respectfully.
We have already noticed, in connection with John 18, that the rules which governed the arrest of prisoners have been broken.
And then when the first trial before Caiaphas is taking place, Joseph has further questions to answer, for he is a member of the body that is conducting this trial. It will be clear to him, as a just man, that in the proceedings of the trial, and the manner of the bringing forth of witnesses, justice is not being done.
And then, the morning comes, and Mark tells us “the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council“. So Joseph must be present at this meeting also.
Now at some time during these proceedings Joseph made a stand. We read that he “had not consented to the counsel and deed of them”, Luke 23:51, the “them” meaning the other members of the Sanhedrin. Their deliberations, and what they had done, both by sins of omission and by commission, he disagreed with strongly.
But there was more than the breaking of rules involved here. The prisoner is special, and is making dramatic claims. There was something about the way those claims were made that convinced Joseph. What that was is told us in the next phrases in Isaiah 53:9. “He made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in His death, because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth”. The reason why Joseph came forward to offer his tomb, is because there was no violence with Christ, and because he came to believe that when He testified as to His person, there was no deceit in His mouth.
Peter tells us that “when He was reviled, He reviled not again; when He suffered He threatened not”, 1 Peter 2:23. There was something about the way Christ presented Himself, His poise, His calm, His answers, and His restraint under the most intense provocation that so impressed Joseph, that he was resolved to distance himself from the decision of the Sanhedrin. It is too late to resign membership, but he can “bring forth works unto repentance” by honouring Christ in His death, in contrast to the dishonour done to Him in His life.
The testimony of the Lord Jesus revolved around His claim to be the Son of God, and the Messiah, and the Son of Man. Joseph comes to believe that those claims are true, and resolves to act accordingly. His mind is made up, he must absolve himself from complicity in the crime of murdering the Son of God, by repentance and faith in Him, as Peter exhorted the rest of the nation to do at Pentecost, six weeks later.
Now this is very powerful testimony from within the council-chamber itself, and from one who was present as a member of that council. It is also a powerful rebuke for those who remained steadfast in their hostility towards Christ after His resurrection.
With these thoughts in mind we return to the narrative:
Besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave- so it is that after the Lord Jesus has died Joseph steps boldly forward. Each one of the steps in the burial of the Lord Jesus is carefully documented, and there is no room for doubt to any fair-minded person that He who was put, dead, in Joseph’s tomb, was He who rose the third day.
We know from John 19:31 that the Jewish authorities demanded that the victims be taken down before the sabbath began at 6 o’clock in the evening, the twelfth hour. Neither Jew nor Gentile authority had any interest in taking down anything other than dead bodies. The Gentiles because the integrity of their law system was involved, and the Jews because they wanted above all else to see Christ dead. So it is that the soldiers hasten the death of two thieves, but find Christ is dead already. They must be sure however, so what stops them breaking Christ’s legs? The answer is given to us by the apostle John, who was there as a witness. It is because the scripture had said that as the true passover lamb His bones must not be broken. But still the soldiers must be satisfied, and so must the centurion, for he is soon going to be asked by Pilate if Jesus of Nazareth is dead. So it is that the side of Christ is pierced, and the evidence that death has recently taken place is seen in the issuing forth of blood and water, no doubt meaning the blood from around the heart and the watery fluid that was in the pericardium that surrounds the heart.
So it is that Joseph now goes to Pilate, and begs the body of Jesus. We now have the remarkable sight of a rich man begging, and his request is granted. As a rich man, Joseph had longed to be able to gain many things; now his only desire is to be associated with a dead body, for he is a changed man, and the things of earth that money can buy have now lost their attraction.
Pilate is surprised that the victim is dead. It is more than his position is worth for him to allow a body to be taken down from the cross when it is not dead. The victim may recover, and thus escape justice. Pilate may even have faced the death penalty himself if this should happen.
He therefore summons the centurion to him, and verifies it from him as the man in charge of the crucifixion, who, as a professional executioner, will certainly know whether a person is dead or not. Mark 15:44 reads, “And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead”. He does not simply ask the centurion to send a message, but has a face to face conversation with him. There is no possibility of a note being forged and passed off as a message from the centurion, or later, a note passed off as a message from Pilate. This also ensures that the centurion knows who Joseph is, for both are now before Pilate at the same time. Notice that Pilate wants to know if He has been dead a while, for it might have appeared He had died, but then He may have revived. So the next verse says, “And when he knew it” (that is, that he had been dead a while), “he gave the body to Joseph”.
Pilate grants the body to Joseph, but why should he do so? It was customary to allow close relatives of the deceased victims to take the body if they wished, but Joseph is not one of these. So why does Pilate allow it? Of course, one reason is that the Scripture says that Christ will be with the rich in his death; but Pilate has no interest in furthering the fulfilment of Scripture.
Is it because he has a guilty conscience? His last conversation with Christ had been on the fact that He was Son of God. Superstitious Pilate was no doubt fearful lest he had killed a “son of the gods”, and would receive Divine vengeance. Perhaps this is his feeble attempt to repair the damage resulting from his clumsy and cowardly dealing during the trial. In any event, he grants the body to Joseph, in effect signing Christ’s death certificate, and thus proclaiming with all the authority of the world-empire of Rome that Jesus of Nazareth was really dead. When John says “Pilate gave him leave”, he uses a word for leave which is used by Luke in Acts 21:40, “and when he had given him licence”. So Pilate has formally licensed, as the representative of Roman law, that Jesus Christ is really dead. Joseph holds the death certificate in his hand, if not literally, certainly metaphorically.
Not only does Pilate give Joseph leave to have the body, but he also commands the centurion to put this into effect, as we learn from Matthew 27:58, “Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered”. So the jurisdiction of Rome still controls the body until the moment Joseph takes it down from the cross. Every stage of the proceedings depends on the one before.
So it is that a well-known man, with the authority of the centurion and through him of Pilate, takes a body certified as dead down from the cross. He does this in full view of everyone, for the place of execution was near the city, John 19:20. John tells us that the title on the cross was readable from the highway; so also must the action of Joseph be easily observable. Moreover, he takes the body down in full view of the Roman authorities, and also, no doubt, of the Jewish authorities also, who are anxious to ensure that the bodies are taken down before the twelfth hour, when the sabbath day will start. They also have a commandment from God to not allow hanged bodies to remain after nightfall, but to ensure they are buried the day they died, Deuteronomy 21:22,23.
So it is also that He is not taken down by one of His long-time followers, who could be said to have an interest in trying to get scripture fulfilled. A new convert, who has not spoken to Christ at all as far as the record goes, is now the centre of the action.
He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus- it would seem from the accounts that Joseph did this himself, although see on verse 40. We learn from Mark, for instance, that “he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen”, Mark 15:46. So either before or after he had requested the body, (probably before), Joseph bought a linen cloth, and wrapped the body in that single cloth at the foot of the cross, thus ensuring that even during the short journey from the cross to the tomb the body was not exposed to external defilement. This would also spare the feelings of the devout women who looked on, and followed to the tomb.
So Simon the Cyrenean carried His cross, that associating with a man who was to be crucified. Joseph of Arimathea carried His body, thus associating with a man who was buried. Mary Magdalene carried His news, thus associating with a man who was raised. All believers do this when they get baptized, for by that act they identify themselves with a crucified, buried and risen man, Romans 6:1-11.
19:39
And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night- John is the only one to mention Nicodemus in this connection. He highlights that Nicodemus was the one who came by night, but now he is coming into the light of day in open allegiance to Christ. He has been brought from darkness to light by the work of the cross.
And brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight- Joseph gave his tomb, and bought fine linen, Nicodemus brought spices. They are intent on giving Christ a royal burial, after His death between two thieves. He became poor, but from now on He shall be rich in glory, and these two men anticipate the process.
Joseph had to buy the linen, for it was not something he would need to keep, but Nicodemus seems to have had the spices to hand, for he is not said to buy them, but bring them, as if he already possessed them. Were they for some other purpose? Were they for his anointing in death, just as Joseph’s tomb was for Joseph’s burial? Just as Mary of Bethany had kept the spikenard, and then brake the box, so it could not be gathered up again, Nicodemus is going to devote a costly gift to a dead man in a tomb. It is said that spikenard clings to the clothing for days, so Christ’s clothing as He went to the cross reminded Him of the devotion of Mary. Now the fragrance of myrrh and aloes will linger in the tomb. But Mary had already anointed Him for the burial, and did not need to be present here. Hers is a better part, for she lavished her gift on Him when He could appreciate it.
The word “pound” does not mean an English pound. Rather, “an hundred pound weight” amounts to about five English pounds. The wise men gave Him myrrh soon after His birth, for as the Psalmist said, “I am afflicted and ready to die from my youth up”. Myrrh was bitter to the taste, flowed like tears from a pierced tree, and yet yielded a sweet fragrance. So the bitter experiences of Christ in life and death have yielded a sweet fragrance to God. The juice of the Aloe Verae plant was bitter, but was used for embalming. It is also used as a healing agent, reminding us that “by his stripes ye were healed”, 1 Peter 2:24.
19:40
Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
Then took they the body of Jesus- this would refer to the short journey from the cross to the tomb. It seems as if Joseph took down the body single-handed, but perhaps this spurred Nicodemus to come out into the open and help Joseph. Only reverent hands touched the body of Jesus after His side had been pierced. His Father is caring for Him in death.
And wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury- note that now the word for cloth is plural, and that it is not “the linen clothes”, as if it referred to the initial cloth used to wrap the body before bringing to the tomb. These are other linen clothes. The body is wound in linen, so that there is no possibility of revival and escape from the clothes. One of the things that convinced John that Christ had risen was the way the linen clothes were lying, as if the body was still within, but the napkin was in a separate place, showing that there was in fact no body there because there was no neck. This is why Joseph used linen clothes, not a linen cloth, for there would be need for at least two, and probably several more, separate pieces. There would be one for each arm, and one for each leg, another one or more for the trunk, and then another for His head.
The body is buried in the Jewish manner, which means that strips of linen cloth are wound round the body, with fragrant spices between the layers. Even if the Lord Jesus were still alive, it would be impossible for Him to extricate Himself from these grave clothes. Other methods as used by the heathen would involve the removal of certain organs from the body, but the body of Christ was kept intact, as His Father answered the prayer of His Son to not let His body see corruption.
All this is done outside the sepulchre, for it is not until the process is finished that the body is placed within, as both Matthew 27:59,60, and Mark 15:46, 47 show. John seems to go further, for he alone tells us the position of the tomb in relation to the place of crucifixion, but mentions the wrapping in linen before saying where the tomb was, thus suggesting that the wrapping was done near the tomb, and then the body was placed inside the tomb. In any event, all is under the watchful eye of unbelieving men. There is no possibility of bodies being switched in transit, with a disciple substituted for Christ, and disappearing from the tomb, with Christ’s dead body buried in a secret location. All is open and transparent.
There is no mention here of a shroud covering the body. Christendom may parade its Shroud of Turin, but far from being a cloth used to cover the dead body of Christ, it was more likely to be a cloth depicting Christ used in passion plays. In any case, Christianity does not have to do with relics, but realities. Much shame has been brought to the name of Christ by the sale of supposed pieces of the cross and other superstitious items. All such practices are foreign to Christianity.
Joseph is of Arimathea, a city of the Jews, as Luke carefully tells us. (Arimathea was in Samaria in Old Testament times, but with boundary changes it was classed in New Testament times as a city in Judea. Luke is a world-class historian, and wants us to have the facts in our minds. He draws attention to this relatively obscure matter so that we realise he is competent. We can trust Luke even in apparently inconsequential matters like boundary changes, so we can trust him also in the vital matters also). Yet Joseph’s tomb is not in Arimathea, but Jerusalem. This shows his strength of commitment to the things of God, for he wishes to be buried near the centre of Messiah’s kingdom, for which he waited, and yet it is ordered of God so that his tomb is near the place of crucifixion for the burying of Christ. It is the cross that is the centre of the moral universe. Joseph must associate with the place of sacrifice before he can associate with the throne, and this is true of all.
It is not only important that the body of the Lord Jesus should be immediately identifiable, (which was ensured by the fact, as we have noticed, that He is the only one of the three persons crucified that day who had unbroken legs and a pierced side), but He must be placed in a readily identifiable tomb. A tomb, moreover, which has no dead bodies in it before Christ’s dead body is placed there, and no dead body in it until He has come forth. Moses’ burying place is unknown, no doubt lest it be turned into a shrine. The tomb of Christ must be known, and yet it was not turned into a shrine. As we read the Acts of the Apostles we look in vain for any reference to the sepulchre, apart from when the resurrection of Christ is preached.
19:41
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.
Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden- it was near the place of execution, which itself was near the city, so was well known and could not be mistaken for another. In any case, the Jewish authorities clearly know which tomb it is, for they set a watch over it. It is fitting that just as life and death were first experienced in a garden, so death should be defeated in a garden, so that those who believe may have a life that cannot be touched by death.
We are told several things about this sepulchre:
1. It was “his (Joseph’s) own new tomb, which he had hewn out in a rock”, Matthew 27:60. Because it was his, Joseph can vouch that it is empty before Christ is put into it. He can also locate it if asked.
2. it was “a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock”, Mark 15:46. It is a very secure place, with no escape routes. It is very different to the burial-places of the two thieves, in a shallow grave at the foot of the cross.
3. It was “a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid”, Luke 23:53. It had never had a body laid in it before.
4. it was “a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid”, John 19:41. It was new, as if freshly prepared for Christ.
5. It was “nigh at hand”. John 19:42. There is close association between Christ’s death and His burial.
And in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid- this was Joseph’s own sepulchre, prepared for his own burial. This being the case, and since this was a last-minute decision on the part of Joseph, there would be no point in having any secret passageway away from this tomb through which to take away a body. Such a thought would not have crossed Joseph’s mind.
It was hewn out in a rock, so it was clearly identifiable, in contrast to the graves at the foot of the cross. It would also be impregnable. As already mentioned, Matthew is not embarrassed when he tells us that the rocks were rent when Christ died, and he even implies that because of this some Old Testament saints came out of their tombs after Christ’s resurrection. He has no reason to hide these facts, for he is confident that when the rocks were rent, Joseph’s tomb was unaffected. If it had been, Joseph would not have offered it for use. The tomb had never been used before, so the one who was laid there was the one who came out again.
19:42
There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews’ preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.
There laid they Jesus therefore- so it is that, assisted by Nicodemus, Joseph carries the body and lays it in the sepulchre, and then rolls the stone to the entrance. This was no doubt a stone like a millstone, in a stone channel which sloped towards the entrance, so it was comparatively easy to roll it down, but more difficult to roll it up and away.
It is said of the bird for a burnt offering, “And he shall pluck away his crop with his feathers, and cast it beside the altar on the east part, by the place of the ashes”, Leviticus 1:16. If in the case of the lamb, the killing of the animal at the north side of the altar is specially mentioned, then here we have the east part specified as being the place of the ashes. If the north side was the place of the shadows, then the east part was surely the place of the sun-rise. For the rays of the rising sun would first strike the east wall of the altar, which, in fact, was the side nearest to the offerer as he approached it.
It is not too difficult to relate the place of the sun-rising with the place of resurrection. The words of Mark are interesting in this connection, “And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun”, Mark 16:2. Couple this with the fact made known by John that the garden-tomb was in the place where Jesus was crucified, 19:41, or to put it another way, was in the “place of sacrifice”. Then we readily see that the sun is rising on the east wall of the altar, so to speak, and is lighting up the place of the ashes. For the ashes were evidence that a sacrifice had been offered and were carefully deposited, with due ceremony, (Leviticus 6:8-11), firstly at the base of the altar, and then without the camp in a clean place.
Correspondingly, the body of the Lord Jesus was reverently taken down from the cross and laid in a new tomb. And all this took place “without the camp” Hebrews 13:12,13. So like the ashes in the ancient ritual, his body was not only associated with the place of death as it lay buried, (thus the link is maintained between the Christ who died, and the Christ who was buried), but at the same time was disassociated from the uncleanness of the camp of Israel, (for the garden was outside the gate of Jerusalem).
But not only was He buried in a garden, but having risen from the dead, He appeared to Mary in that garden. And these are the very things that the apostle links together in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, “Christ died…He was buried…He rose again…He was seen”. There can be no gospel without the setting forth of these fundamental doctrines, and they who preach, yet ignore them, betray the Son of God again. Beware of a so-called gospel which appeals to some supposed good in man, whilst forgetting that it was man that put the Lord of glory on a cross.
Because of the Jews’ preparation day: For the sepulchre was nigh at hand- this explains the “therefore” of the start of the verse. The text reads as if the body was laid in the tomb as a temporary measure, since John seems to imply that they laid the body there because it was nearly the twelfth hour, and the Sabbath was about to begin. It was indeed a temporary measure, but not for the reason Joseph and Nicodemus thought. Christ would be gone in three days, gloriously risen. They would be prevented from moving the body to another location by the presence of the guard, and the seal, although at that point they did not know the tomb would be secured by the authorities. If this is the case, it shows that the Lord had not arranged to be buried with the rich man so as to fulfil Scripture, for that rich man intended to move His body from his own tomb, showing there was no collusion.
Matthew adds a detail at this point.
Matthew 27:61
And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.
And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre- this is important, because there are those who suggest that on the resurrection morning these women went to the wrong tomb, and that was why they found no body there. Matthew tells us that they knew very well where the tomb was, because they were watching what Joseph and Nicodemus were doing. Luke tells us specifically that they “followed after, beheld the sepulchre, and how His body was laid”, Luke 23:55, so they went from standing afar off after Christ had died, followed Joseph and Nicodemus, and then sat near to His sepulchre. Mark says they “beheld where He was laid”, Mark 15:47, so they must have been close enough to have seen these things. Now that Christ was dead the anger of the authorities would subside, and these women would be in less danger, but that does not diminish from their bravery as they sat close by to see Him buried.
Luke’s account centres on the group of women from Galilee led by Joanna, and in contrast to Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses, who stayed longer at the tomb, and therefore did not have time to buy the spices they needed, (they bought them after the Sabbath was past, Mark 16:1), they had time to prepare spices so as to be able to anoint His body on the first day of the week.
Luke 23:56
And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.
And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments- would preparing to anoint the dead be exempt from Sabbath regulations? Mary of Bethany did not come to the sepulchre, either whilst His body was in it or after He was risen, because she had already anointed His body whilst He could appreciate it. She knew He would die and be buried, for she had sat at His feet and heard His word, Luke 10:39; did she also realise that He would rise quickly, making another reason for her to anoint Him during His life? The nation should have anointed Him as their Messiah, but on the eve of His riding into Jerusalem as Israel’s King, (the only time He formally presented Himself to the nation), she anointed Him privately as one who believed in Him.
And rested the sabbath day according to the commandment- the question is whether this is the normal weekly sabbath, or one of the festival sabbaths? The first day of unleavened bread was a sabbath, and so was the last day, so there were other sabbaths. John tells us that this sabbath was a high day. What does he mean to tell us by that? Why would it be breaking the sabbath to anoint His body, but not breaking the sabbath to prepare the spices and ointments? Clearly they did not have time between seeing where the body was laid and the twelfth hour, for when Joseph and Nicodemus laid the body in the near-at-hand tomb, they did so because they had not much time.
27:62
Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation- Joseph departs, his task completed. But the authorities are not satisfied. It is the day after the preparation, and this means it is the sabbath day, so the urgency of the matter makes them endanger the sanctity of the day. They had refused to go in to Pilate because it was the first day of unleavened bread, which was a festival Sabbath, John 18:28, Leviticus 23:7, but they are willing to go to a Gentile’s residence on the sabbath day which was a high day, John 19:31, even though it is still the feast of unleavened bread, and that house may contain leaven.
The chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate- they have a conscience about Christ even when He is dead. They even command Pilate to act, and he, also with a guilty conscience, agrees to do as they say, even though at other times he showed he loathed them, and stubbornly refused their requests. Perhaps the centurion has told Pilate about the events surrounding the death of Christ, and his conviction that he was the Son of God, and this would remind Pilate of his conversation with Christ about whether He was the Son of God. It is ironic if, as is likely, the chief priests were of the Sadducees, like Caiaphas and Annas, then they did not believe in the resurrection of the body. Yet they are concerned about the resurrection of Christ’s body, although they mask this by talking of the body being stolen.
27:63
Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said- if they believed Him to be a deceiver, then He would not rise, for He declared He would, but according to them His word is untrue. Here is the second inconsistency in their thinking. As soon as Christ is thought of as a deceiver, logic is jettisoned. Note how careful they are to be respectful to Pilate now, calling him “Sir”, for they are worried lest he refuses their request. The title they use implies that he is in control. They had been arrogant when Pilate had not gone along with their plot at the first. See, for instance, John 18:30.
While he was yet alive- so even His sworn enemies bore testimony to the fact that at that moment He was no longer alive. The giving up of His spirit; the spear thrust and the blood and water; the reaction of the soldiers as they came to break His legs; the testimony of the centurion to Pilate when he was called to give account; the licence that Pilate gave to Joseph to take the body; all these things bear testimony to the reality of His death. So why do some persist in suggesting He only swooned, and revived in the cool of the tomb?
After three days I will rise again- they give themselves away again here, for there is now no twisting of His words as there was at His trial. Then they had tried to suggest that the “raise it in three days” was a reference to the temple, which would indicate they thought He had magical powers. They knew very well the meaning of His words, but had not been willing to believe Him to the saving of their souls. But they are now willing to believe Him to the saving of their reputation and station in Israel.
27:64
Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day- when these same people had wanted the bodies removed, they besought, or asked Pilate that it might happen. Now they are anxious that the body be not removed. This time they do not simply ask, but bluntly tell him what to do. It is as if they are commanding the Commander to command, such is their desperation.
By Jewish reckoning, if it was Friday, and something was going to happen on Sunday, you would say it would happen on the third day, for the day you were speaking was counted as the first day, Saturday would be the second, and Sunday the third. This is contrary to our modern way of reckoning, but it is how things were in Bible times, and we should not seek to impose our thinking on the situation. So, for instance, Rehoboam told Jeroboam to “Depart yet for three days, then come again to me”, 1 Kings 12:5. Then we read, “So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day”, verse 12. And lest we think they came back a day early, the narrative goes on, “as the king appointed, saying, Come to me again the third day”.
These men are speaking to Pilate on Saturday, but they are thinking of the time between Christ’s death and His resurrection. In that context the third day was the next day.
We should also notice in this connection the phrase “three days and three nights”. The Lord said, “for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly: so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”, Matthew 12:40. Nowadays we would immediately think that three days of 12 hours each and three nights of 12 hours each is in view, making 72 hours. But we read that Esther told the Jews, “fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night and day”, Esther 4:16. They did this, and “it came to pass on the third day, that Esther put on her royal apparel, and stood in the inner court of the king’s house”, 5:1. So to a Jew three days and three nights ended on the third day.
Lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away- little did they realise that the disciples did not believe He would rise soon. They believed in the resurrection of the dead, but not that He would rise beforehand. They thought that since He had died without setting up His kingdom, they were in for a long wait. When the Lord told the disciples the details about what was soon to happen to Him, including “and put Him to death: and the third day He shall rise again”, we read, “And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken”, Luke 18:33,34.
There are three verbs here, “understood”, “hid”, and “knew”. The word translated “understood” means, in a literal sense, to put together, and hence to comprehend. The disciples were unable to put together the prophecies of a glorious reign, and this prophecy of a shameful death, and hence were not able to comprehend what was being spoken. This was true of the two on the road to Emmaus, and the Lord had to rebuke them for not believing “all that the prophets have spoken”, Luke 24:25. They only believed some of the things, and ignored the passages about the sufferings.
The second word is “hid”, meaning concealed by being covered over. The first and the third words relate to their reaction to the statement, whereas this is what happened to them from outside. God withheld the understanding of the truth that Christ would rise. It could not be said that they waited so eagerly for Him to rise that in their religious fervour they imagined it had happened, and also preached as if it had happened. So the great change that came over the disciples was not due to imagination, but the reality of His resurrection.
Even after they had been told by the women that He was risen, they refused to believe, for “their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not”, Luke 24:11. This time, however, the Lord “upraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him after He was risen”, Mark 16:14. Their unbelief was now inexcusable, for He had appeared in resurrection.
The third word is “knew”, or got to know. Because they were unwilling to accept that the Messiah would suffer, the truth was hid from them for a time, and hence they did not come to know what was to take place. These three facts show that the disciples would have no intention of stealing the body, even if they could.
And say unto the people, He is risen from the dead- but that is exactly what they did say, not because they had stolen the body, but because He was indeed risen from the dead and they had seen Him. The Jewish rulers realised that the resurrection of Christ from the dead would indicate God’s approval of Him, and also God’s disapproval of them for crucifying Him.
So the last error shall be worse than the first- their reason for crucifying Him was His claim to be the Son of God. They believed this to be an error, the first one, not only because the matter of His Sonship came up at His first trial before Caiaphas, but because it was the subject of His first discourse in John’s gospel. The last error would be, in their eyes, the claim that He had risen from the dead. They do not say “first error…second error”, for they believe that the disciples would not be able to face persecution in defence of a lie, and would therefore be silenced, so there would be no third error, for the “error” of claiming He was risen would be the last, in their view. It is indeed the case that men will not in normal circumstances die for what they know to be untrue, and so they reason that the sect of the Nazarene will soon be extinct.
27:65
Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch- the temple guard was under the control of the Jewish authorities, as we see from John 7:32,45, so they did not need Roman soldiers. This in itself would be significant, because the Jews could not say that the Romans had been careless and let the disciples steal the body. At every stage the sepulchre was under scrutiny, not least because it was near the place where Christ died, which was “nigh to the city”, close enough for the title on the cross to be read.
Go your way, make it as sure as ye can- the Jews now have permission to tamper with a private sepulchre. Unwittingly, they are ensuring that the only way Christ can emerge from death is by resurrection. He will have a spiritual body when He rises, so will not be prevented by a wall of rock from emerging from the tomb. He will not need the door to be moved to let Him out, as Lazarus did, for the latter regained his old body, with all its limitations. The surer the sepulchre is made, the surer the truth that He rose.
27:66
So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.
So they went, and made the sepulchre sure- we may be sure that in the circumstances they will not seal the tomb without assuring themselves that the body is still there. They will also be very careful to examine the tomb to make sure that the earthquake that occurred when Christ died, Matthew 27:51,52, and which rent the rocks in the area, has not damaged the rock-hewn tomb of Joseph, thus providing a means of access for disciples without the watch knowing.
Sealing the stone- after they have satisfied themselves that the body is still there, they seal the stone to the wall of the rock. If the seal is broken, they will know something is amiss. They are convinced that the only way for Him to emerge out of the tomb is if the disciples take the body. They do not believe He is going to rise the next day.
And setting a watch- there is no verb here, it is simply “with a watch, (or guard)”, so the verb is supplied from “made the sepulchre sure…with a guard”. They are watching here to prevent stealing, then later they use stealing as the excuse for Him not being in the tomb, 28:13.
Despite all these precautions, sometime between 6 o’clock on the Sabbath evening, (the hour at which the first day of the week began), and 4 o’clock in the morning on the first day of the week, (the hour at which it begins to get light in Palestine in April), Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God and Israel’s Messiah, rose triumphantly from among the dead, to die no more.