To follow the sequence of events at the Crucifixion, we now need to go to John’s account.
|
John 19:17 And he bearing his cross went forth- He had gone into Jerusalem with the ass bearing Him, and now He goes out of Jerusalem bearing his own burden. 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 17:51,52. 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 their champion had been slain, 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. |
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, as follows:
Matthew 27:33
And when they were come to a place called Golgotha, that is to say a place of a skull,
And when they were come to a place called Golgotha, that is to say a place of a skull- 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.
27:34
They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.
They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink- before the nailing to the cross and the dropping of it into its position, there would be given a drugged drink supplied, probably, by the “daughters of Jerusalem” to relieve the sufferings involved in the nailing.
And when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink- the Lord will ask for a drink later on, but He refuses this one 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- 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. |
Matthew 27:35
And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
And they crucified him- how much meaning is compressed into these four words. The most important event in the history of time is made known by them. They also tell of the most unjust action men have ever performed. Men must be shown up in their true light, and Satan must overreach himself, so that God may be glorified in what took place on a Roman gibbet! No wonder the apostle wrote that “the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness”, whereas to those who are saved “it is the power of God”, 1 Corinthians 1:18.
And parted his garments, casting lots- no doubt they had removed these garments before they nailed Him to the cross, but now they return to claim them. The ordinary Jew had five articles of clothing, as follows: head-dress, inner tunic, outer cloak, girdle, and sandals. It seems that there were four soldiers and a centurion on duty at the crucifixion, and perhaps to take the victim’s clothes was a bonus for the four soldiers. But there are five items, so, rather than divide up the cloth, the inner vesture is gambled for, as John tells us in his account.
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.
27:37
and set up over his head his accusation written, This is Jesus the King of the Jews.
and set up over his head his accusation written- the 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” was to claim to be King. Matthew’s gospel is written to assure us His claim is genuine. 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, “the city of the great King”, Matthew 5:35, until He went there to die. In John, however, the gospel is built around His visits to Jerusalem, for that was, ideally considered, “the place of “The Name”, i.e. where God dwelt.
This is Jesus the King of the Jews- none of the gospel writers gives us all of the title, but selects what is relevant to his purpose.
Matthew- “This is Jesus the King of the Jews”. The name and the claim.
Mark- “The King of the Jews”. Emphasis not so much on His name but on His office as King, in effect, He is God’s Servant to reign.
Luke- “This is the King of the Jews”. Emphasis on the person, “this person is…”
John- “Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews”. John is the only one to mention Nazareth. Literally it is “Jesus the Nazarean”. The King was to be born at Bethlehem and reign in Jerusalem, but Pilate highlights disreputable Nazareth. Again, he is scorning the Jews.
Matthew makes no comment about the three languages the title was written in, for he is only interested in Christ’s relation to Israel. John, however, whose interest was in the world, tells us more:
|
John 19:20 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- the language of the Jews, the men of religion; of the Greeks, the men of philosophy and learning; of the Romans, the men of politics. This is all there is to the world as far as power and influence are concerned. They are the languages of the princes of this world, that crucified the Lord of Glory in ignorance, 1 Corinthians 2:8. Hebrew addresses the soul through religion. Greek addresses the mind through philosophy. Latin addresses the will through politics. The Lord addresses the heart. He is King, with sovereign power, able to bring in a superior way of worshipping God; a superior way of thinking; a superior way of governing. 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. Only Luke and John tell us about the three languages. Luke, the Greek man of earthly learning, puts Greek first, then Latin, then Hebrew. John the Jewish man of Old Testament learning puts Hebrew first, the language of the Old Testament, then the Greek, the language of the New Testament, then Latin, the language of the occupying Romans. John 19:21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate- only in John is there objection from the priests, and 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, Deuteronomy 21:22,23. They were afraid that there would be more opportunity for the crowds to come if it was a rest day. We know “they feared the people”, Mark 12:12. 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 of 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. The context of those words reminds us of the Millenial reign, John 1:43-51. John 19:22 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. |
We return to Matthew:
27:39
And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads,
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.
27:40
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 saying, 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
Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said,
Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said- now it is the turn of the chief priests, scribes and elders. 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 tens of thousands of 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 about His decease, not His reign, Luke 9:31.
27:42
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.
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- they cannot deny that He saved others as far as physical diseases were concerned, (and that was a very significant admission), but here suggest that His power was limited, and did not extend to helping Himself, to physically save 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.
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 written by 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 to make 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.
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.
27:44
The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.
The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth- Luke assures us that one of these thieves repented of his attitude, and sought the mercy of the Lord. He was given the promise that he would be in Paradise with Christ that very day. He asked for a place in a distant kingdom, but was granted an immediate blessing, as well as the place in the kingdom. Such is the grace of Christ. See Luke 23:39-43 for the full account.
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 its 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.
|
Psalm 22:1 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 be 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. Psalm 22:2 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 enable 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”. Psalm 22:3 But Thou art holy- here we have the first of several “buts” in the psalm. Each has its own shade of meaning. They are as follows: This “but”, therefore, 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? Psalm 22:4 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. |
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 Christ has accepted the responsibility of dealing with all sin, and consequently 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:
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. Much as a convicted criminal may be “detained at His Majesty’s pleasure”. We may be certain that King Charles derives no enjoyment from that situation, but it is his 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 Magdalene 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 judgement 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 normally 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. Hence, the offer of wine.
27:49
The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.
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?
27:50
Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
Matthew does not actually tell us about the Lord Jesus taking the vinegar, but John does:
|
John 19:30 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, and 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. |
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 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, with only the veil affected.
The rending of the veil is deeply significant in several respects.
First, it showed that the first tabernacle 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. He has consecrated the way into the presence of God for us by treading the path before us.
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.
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.
27:55
And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him:
And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him- Luke 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, 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.
27:56
Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children.
Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children- we have already noticed that the only women that stood by the cross and were named, were those that had the name Mary. Now Mary means bitter, and it was indeed a bitter experience, especially for Mary His mother, to see the Saviour crucified. The other women were there to share that bitterness with her, and indeed with Him. It seems that the women withdrew after Mary had been committed to John’s care. After Christ’s death, these women bought sweet spices, Mark 16:1, as if to say that the bitterness of death was over for Him, as indeed it was.
At this point there took place what John records, the breaking of the legs of the two malefactors, and the piercing of the side of Christ. This is John’s account:
|
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 that began 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 Sixth, in AD 30, or on Friday April Third, 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, perhaps 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. John 19:32 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. John 19:33 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”, perhaps), 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. John 19:34 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. John 19:35 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 Twenty First 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. John 19:36 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 did 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 is 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. John 19:37 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 with these words, “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. |
We return to Matthew’s account:
Matthew 27:57
When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus’ disciple:
When the even was come- the Jewish day had two evenings, the first, at around 3pm, when the sun was past its height and was beginning to decline, and the second, at 6pm, when the darkness was approaching, and three stars were visible. This began the next day. Joseph had a window of opportunity between just after the ninth hour, when Christ died, and the start of the next day, which was a sabbath.
We learn from the 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.
There came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus’ disciple- he was indeed a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, for 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.
A clue as to why he changed sides is found in the prophecy that Isaiah gave of what he would do, which reads as follows: “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”, Isaiah 53:9. So the prophet tells us that the reason Christ’s grave was with the rich man, and therefore He would not be thrown into the grave the soldiers would dig at the foot of the cross, was because He had done no violence, nor was deceit found in His mouth. This was true all His life, of course, but Joseph had special opportunity to watch at close hand the behaviour and demeanour of the Lord Jesus when under the extreme provocation of His trial. As a result he became His disciple, and did what he could at the time, even donate his own new tomb.
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.
27:58
He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.
He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus- 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 Jewish 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 the 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”.
Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered- 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 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.
27:59
And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
And when Joseph had taken the body- it would seem from this account that Joseph did this himself, although we see from John 19:39,40 that for some of the time at least he was helped by Nicodemus. 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.
It was a high privilege for the Levites to carry the vessels of the tabernacle. But it was a higher privilege to carry, as Simon the Cyrenean did, His cross, thus 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.
He wrapped it in a clean linen cloth- this is to be distinguished from the linen clothes that were wound around the body in the sepulchre. During the short journey from the cross to the garden tomb, (which was very near at hand, John 19:41), no contamination must touch the body of Christ, and even contact with Joseph is very limited. The promise that Christ laid hold of was that His Father would not suffer His Holy One to see corruption, Psalm 16:10; Acts 2:27; 13:34. It seems as if Joseph took down the body single-handed, but perhaps this spurred Nicodemus to come out into the open and help him. Only reverent hands touched the body of Jesus after His side had been pierced. His Father is caring for Him in death.
27:60
And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.
And laid it in his own new tomb- 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 own anointing in death, just as Joseph’s tomb was for his own burial? Just as Mary of Bethany had kept the spikenard, but then brake the box, so it could not be gathered up again, Nicodemus devoted a costly gift to a dead man in a tomb.
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 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 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.
Which he had hewn out in the rock- as the incident involving Joshua circumcising the people in Joshua 5:2 shows, if a surgically clean surface is needed then one way to obtain it is to split a rock, (for the words “sharp knives” could be translated “flint knives”). So it is that as Joseph hews his tomb, he is exposing clean surfaces to the air for the first time. This is fitting, for Christ’s flesh must not see corruption in any way.
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, and more to the point, he knows where he has laid the body of Christ.
2. It is a very secure place, with no escape routes. “and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid”, Luke 23:53. It is very different to the burial-places of the two thieves, in a shallow grave at the foot of the cross.
3. It had never had a body laid in it before. “A new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid”, John 19:41.
4. It was new, as if freshly prepared for Christ.
5. It was near where he was crucified, for “the sepulchre was nigh at hand”. John 19:42. There is a very close association between Christ’s death and His burial.
6. It was so designed that a stone had to be rolled over the entrance, so that it could be sealed.
And he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed- this was no doubt a stone like a millstone, in a stone channel which sloped down towards the entrance, so it was comparatively easy to roll it down, but more difficult to roll it up and away.
The text of John 19:41,42 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.
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- Joseph may depart, but these two women remain, as if they cannot bear to leave. At every point in the process of burying Christ’s body there are at least two witnesses to the events, for “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established”, 2 Corinthians 13:1. As we shall notice, the testimony of women was not allowed as evidence in a Jewish court of law, which shows that the gospel records are not the work of forgers, or else they would not have given such a prominent place, (or any place at all), to the testimony of the women.
By “the other Mary” Matthew presumably means the other Mary that had been standing afar off, verse 56.
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- the Jews had requested that the victims’ death be hastened so that the bodies should not hang on the cross on the sabbath day. John describes the day on which the Lord died as the Preparation, that is, the day in which preparation for the sabbath was made, John 19:31. Matthew is now referring to the next day, which was in fact the sabbath day, but significantly, he describes it another way, without using the word sabbath, as if to signify that the sabbath as an institiution was receding. He will write “in the end of the sabbath”, in 28:1, a phrase which means more than that the sabbath was past.
The chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate- they had refused to do this on the morning of the crucifixion, but now they seem to have overcome their scruples, so afraid are they that the disciples will intervene to steal the body. The chief priests were mainly of the party of the Saduccees, who did not believe in resurrection. The Pharisees, on the other hand, believed strongly in the resurrection of the body, see Acts 23:6-8. Here both are united in their dread of the disciples stealing the body. They do not realise that their fears are unfounded, for the last thing the disciples were expecting was that He would rise from the dead the third day. We see this from their reaction when He did rise.
We learn from Luke 18:34 that when the Lord foretold yet again His death, and His resurrection on the third day, that “they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken”. They were sure He would rise from the dead at the resurrection at the last day, but did not believe He would rise after three days. We may have confidence, therefore, that Christ is in fact risen, as we see the change that comes upon them when they see Him again. They preached His resurrection not as those who had convinced themselves it was true even though it was not, but as those who did not believe it would happen, but were now sure it did.
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, while he was yet alive- we could note three things from these words. First, that the authorities had ensured that they knew what Christ was teaching, so they say, “We remember”. He Himself could say, “I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing”, John 18:20.
Second, they call Him a deceiver. If they are correct, then His prophecy about His resurrection will not come to pass, and they need not worry. Even if the disciples do steal the body, they cannot bring it to life again. The origin of the word for deceiver is “far-off vagabond”, indicating the contempt they still felt towards Christ, even though He was now dead.
Third, they admit that Christ was dead. They bear testimony to the reality of that, and give the lie to the notion that He only swooned, was buried, and then recovered.
After three days I will rise again- the nearest to this statement is found in Mark 8:31, and Mark tells us that “he spake that saying openly”. Other instances are when He said to the scribes and Pharisees that as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, “so shall the Son of man be three days and nights in the heart of the earth”, Matthew 12:40. Or when, at the beginning of His ministry He said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”, John 2:19. John explains that He spake of the temple of His body, verse 21. Now this latter reference to three days was used against Him at His trial, but not as claiming to intend to rise again, but as a threat to destroy the literal temple in Jerusalem.
The angels at the tomb referred Mary Magdalene to Christ’s words in Galilee, where He said, “and be raised the third day”, Luke 9:22. See also Matthew 17:22,23. But they quoted them as “the third day rise again”, Luke 24:7. Whichever statement they are referring to, the fact remains that the authorities believe that He said He would rise after three days, and this means He will rise on the first day of the week.
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- somewhat of the nervousness of the Jews is seen in their word to Pilate to “command”. We shall see in verse 65 somewhat of his impatience with them. The authorities are on edge.
Notice that the Jews do not ask for soldiers, but only that the sepulchre might be made sure. In other words, that exit from it might be prevented. The whole process of crucifixion was handed over to the Romans by the Jews, and now they wish to interfere with another man’s property, and need to have permission to do so.
Lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away- as we have noted when thinking of verse 62, the disciples did not believe He was going to rise the third day anyway, except perhaps Mary of Bethany, and she was in no position to steal the body.
And say unto the people, He is risen from the dead- the first question the people will ask if it is preached that He is risen from the dead would be “Where is He, if He is risen from the dead?” Of course, Peter’s response to that would be that He is ascended to the right hand of God, Acts 2:34. What is presented to men is not a body, but the testimony of Scripture, with its eye-witness accounts of the resurrection. Stealing the body will not achieve anything, anyway, for a lifeless body is not proof of resurrection! By “the people” the Jews mean the ordinary folk in Israel, who they treated with disdain, John 7:49.
So the last error shall be worse than the first- to them there would be two errors if the people believed that Christ was risen. The last error was that he was risen. The first error to their mind was the claim Christ had made in His first public discourse in John’s gospel, namely that He was equal with the Father, John 5:17-31. And these two “errors”, are in fact true, and interconnected, for the apostle Paul asserts that Jesus Christ was declared to be the Son of God by the resurrection of the dead, Romans 1:3,4.
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- it seems from Matthew 28:11-15 that the soldiers were Romans, but accountable to the chief priests. In normal times there was a band of soldiers based in the Antonia fortress overlooking the temple courts who had certain duties in connection with the temple. Notice they do not ask for soldiers so as to form a watch. All they ask is permission to seal the tomb, it being under the control of the Roman authorities, even though Joseph’s personal possession.
Go your way, make it as sure as ye can- there is a certain abruptness in these words, “ye have…go…make”. Perhaps Pilate has no worries about Christ rising again, even if the Jews have. So Pilate has certified Christ has died, and now he is giving permission for his tomb to be guarded. These actions only serve to reinforce the genuineness of Christ’s resurrection.
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, sealing the stone, and setting a watch- armed with this permission from the governor, they made the sepulchre sure. That is, they ensured no-one could escape from it. They did this by sealing the stone so that it could not be moved either from inside or outside, and setting a watch or guard, to prevent anyone moving the stone from the outside.
By doing all this they unwittingly furthered God’s plan, for even His enemies were now guaranteeing that Christ’s holy body was not interfered with. Psalm 16:10 had told of His confidence that His Father would preserve Him when He was dead, (His soul not left in Hades, and His holy body not touched at all by external corruption), and this is one way in which it happened. As the psalmist said elsewhere, “Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain”, Psalm 76:10.