Matthew 27:18
For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.

For he knew that for envy they had delivered him- Pilate had made the offer of releasing either Barabbas, or “Jesus which is called Christ”. According to Mark he also described Him as “the King of the Jews”. Why does Matthew say that he did this because he knew they had delivered Him to him because of envy? Does Pilate think, wrongly, that because they had no real case against Him, but had only accused Him because they were envious of His popularity and ability, that they will back down? Surely they will not call for the crucifixion of a man just because they are envious of Him? Sadly, Pilate’s strategy is going to fail, and his attempt to force the chief priests to retract is going to be unsuccessful. Envy is allied to jealousy, for the latter wants what another person has to be taken from them; envy wants what the other person has to be given to them. The scripture says that “jealousy is cruel as the grave: the coals thereof are coals of fire, which hath a most vehement flame”, Song of Solomon 8:6. Remember the words of Luke 23:10, “And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused Him”. Their jealousy had a “most vehement flame”.

Matthew 27:19
When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.

When he was set down on the judgment seat- having presented the Jews with a choice, Pilate seats himself on his official judgement seat awaiting their decision.

His wife sent unto him, saying- Pilate in his younger days had been an ordinary cavalryman in the Roman army, but when he was in Rome he met the granddaughter of Augustus Caesar, and they married. Her name was Claudia Procula, and some said she was interested in Judaism, and later became a Christian. It was not usual for governors to be allowed to take their wives with them on their postings, but in this case it was allowed, perhaps because of Claudia’s connections.

Have thou nothing to do with that just man- that she called Him a just man is perhaps an indication of her leanings to Judaism, for this was the way a man would be described in Old Testament terms. By saying “that just man” she is distinguishing Him from the two others destined to be crucified that day, who were unjust men. That she does not name Him may indicate that she and Pilate had discussed matters during the night, perhaps after the visit of Caiaphas, if in fact he did come. Pilate knows to whom she is referring.

She is certain that the charges against Him are false, and He is, as Pilate has said, without fault in relation to those charges. So in effect she is appealing to Pilate to act justly, and not be persuaded by the rulers. That Christ is essentially just is true, but Pilate’s wife is no authority on that. She can only judge outwardly. Perhaps we may detect something of her ancestry in her virtual command to Pilate to have nothing to do with Christ, that is, not be involved in an unjust execution.

For I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of Him- it is quite possible that if Caiaphas had visited Pilate during the night, to ensure that he would be available early the next day to hear their case against Christ, that Pilate had told his wife about the arrangement they had come to, and she went to bed thinking that over in her mind. Perhaps God used that situation to speak to her in a dream, for “God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not. In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed; then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction, that he may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man. He keepeth back his soul from the pit, and his life from perishing by the sword.” Job 33:14-17. Perhaps the dream came to Pilate’s wife, rather than to Pilate, first because she seems to have been sympathetic to Jewish things, and secondly because she was more likely to respond than Pilate was, for he, by all accounts, was a stubborn man. It is significant that Pilate used this very description of Christ when he washed his hands of Him saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just person”, verse 24.

Matthew 27:20
But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.

But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude- whilst Pilate was receiving and thinking over the message from his wife, the chief priests are urging the crowd to ask for Barabbas.

That they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus- “ask Barabbas” means that when Pilate asks which of the men they wish to have released, they should ask for Barabbas. They urge them to do this even though they know this will means Christ is “destroyed”, meaning “to bring to nothing”. They were intent on bringing His claims and His popularity to an end, to their own advantage.

Matthew 27:21
The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas.

The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? Pilate has already asked them who they want him to release, and before they answered, his wife had come to him to tell of her dream. Now he repeats the question.

They said, Barabbas- the one word response shows their determination as the whole crowd shouts with one voice, calling for the murderer to be spared his just penalty. They had said about Christ, “by our law he ought to die”, and yet here they are in effect saying of a murderer, “by our law he ought to live”. As Habakkuk said in his day, “Why dost thou show me iniquity and cause me to behold grievance? for spoiling and violence are before me; And there are that raise up strife and contention. Therefore the law is slacked, and judgement doth never go forth: for the wicked doth compass the righteous; therefore wrong judgement proceedeth.” Habakkuk 1:3,4. Interestingly, the apostle Paul quoted the next verse of that prophecy to the Jews in the synagogue of Antioch in Pisidia, Acts 13:40,41, as he warned them of the danger of unbelief. There was a close connection between the rejection of Christ by the nation, and the rejection of the nation by God.

Matthew 27:22
Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.

Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? Before, he had called Him the King of the Jews when he offered to release Him. Now he calls Him “Jesus which is called Christ”. He had found that calling Him king did not have the desired effect. They were not overawed by the idea of nailing their king to a cross, for they did not, despite all the evidence, regard Him as their rightful king. They will soon say, “We have no king but Caesar”.

Perhaps they will hesitate about crucifying their Messiah? Pilate knows enough about the Jews’ religion to realise that the Messiah is the one for whom the nation was waiting. In fact, the prophet called Him “the desire of all nations”, Haggai 2:7.

They all say unto him, Let him be crucified- this is their unanimous verdict; at least of those who were present. There were countless multitudes in the country who had believed on Him, who would not agree with this decision.

Matthew 27:23
And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done?

And the governor said, Why, what evil hath He done? This is Pilate’s next attempt to alter their mind. Luke remarks on this by saying “And he said unto them the third time”, Luke 23:22. At least there was an element of justice in this question. Caesar will look through the Judean crucifixion records, and ask Pilate why he condemned Jesus of Nazareth. Perhaps Matthew is noting this glimmer of justice by calling Pilate “the governor” at this point. In his official capacity Pilate is responsible to see that justice is done.

Luke adds that Pilate went on to say, “I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go”. As Peter said later on, “he was determined to let him go”, Acts 3:13.

But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified- they denied Him in the presence of Pilate, as Peter also said, Acts 3:13. They were as determined as Pilate. Jacob had spoken of the self-will of Levi and Simeon, and here their descendants are manifesting that with terrible consequences.

Matthew 27:24
When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.

When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made- Rule No. 12 of the Roman justice code stated: “The idle clamour of the populace is not to be regarded, when they call for a guilty man to be acquitted, or an innocent one to be condemned”. Pilate was allowing both things to happen at once!

He took water, and washed his hands before the multitude- unable to make his voice heard over the roar of the crowd, he had to resort to a visible action to proclaim what he was doing.

Saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person- washing one’s hands will not cleanse the soul. Even what the washing signified, namely a distancing of oneself from what is being done, will not avail, for he was personally responsible for the situation. As Job said, “If I wash myself with snow water, and make my hands never so clean; yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch, and mine own clothes shall abhor me.” Job 9:30,31. Ironically it was “the blood of this just person” that could alone cleanse Pilate of his guilt, for “the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin”, 1 John 1:7. This would only apply , of course, to those who had repented and believed. John is making a statement as to the character of Christ’s blood.

See ye to it- this is one of the most reprehensible statements of the whole affair; Pilate is abdicating responsibility, and officially transferring the administration of justice to those he knows are baying for the blood of the prisoner without just cause. He cannot on the one hand say, “this just person”, and then hand Him over to those who will execute Him. This is of the Devil, being another attempt to have Christ stoned to death after the Jewish mode of execution, and thus go against the prophecies.

Matthew 27:25
Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children- so if Pilate seeks to evade responsibility, these, in their mad rage, are accepting it. The people here formally transfer to themselves the guilt of crucifying their Messiah. Paul wrote about his own nation, “Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost”, 1 Thessalonians 2:15,16.

How the nation has suffered down the centuries because of this cry! Not only were they nearly exterminated in AD 70 when Jerusalem was besieged, and the hills around were made bare of trees to provide crosses to hang them on, but time and again they have been persecuted, sometimes by the civil authorities, and sometimes, (to its eternal shame), by the professing church. And then there was the Holocaust, a concerted effort to rid the world of the nation. But even worse is to come for them, for not until the Great Tribulation comes upon them shall “wrath…to the uttermost” be realised. As the Lord Jesus warned, “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened”, Matthew 24:21,22.

How ironic that the nation which, above all others, cares for its children, should here bring upon them judgment. This directly contradicts the word of the prophet when he wrote, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” Ezekiel 18:20. Each person is directly responsible to God for his actions, and cannot be blamed for the actions of others, unless they caused others to sin, which the children of those who crucified Christ did not.

Matthew 27:26
Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

Then released he Barabbas unto them- so Pilate sentenced Christ illegally, and the Jews rejected Him unjustly, and now guilty Barabbas is to go free in exchange for the innocent Christ of God. This is how low the administration of justice can sink when the aim is to reject God and His Christ. The kings of the earth and its rulers conspire together to cast Christ out, Acts 4:25-28.

We are told several things about Barabbas. Matthew says he was a notable prisoner, so he is not one that Pilate can let go lightly. Mark tells us that he lay bound in prison with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection. Here is a dangerous man, then, not only to people’s lives, but the Roman state. Luke tells us that it was sedition made in the city, presumably Jerusalem, near at hand to Pilate. Ironically, Barabbas’ name means “son of a father”. So the Jews preferred the wicked son of an earthly father, to the holy Son of God the Father. But Barabbas was also a son of his father the devil, John 8:44. No greater contrast could there be, and no more wicked and wretched choice could they make.

John tells us he was a robber, so men preferred the one who came “to steal, to kill, and to destroy”, to the one who came “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly”, John 10:10.

So Barabbas is free; free of prison, free of condemnation by men, free to go on his way as if no crimes had been committed. The holy Christ of God, however, is bound, and is scourged, and is crucified! Could there be a greater difference? Could there be a more eloquent commentary on the iniquity of the human heart? Iniquity is in-equity, a lack of fair dealing, and this is seen here with a vengeance.

And when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified- we will consider this as we briefly return to John’s account.

Matthew 27:27
Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers.

Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall- Pilate has had his part in the proceedings in the Hall of Judgment, but now it is the turn of the soldiers in the Common Hall, or as Mark calls it, (he wrote for the Romans), the Praetorium. No doubt this making sport of the prisoner was a compensation for the horrors of war, and in the case of some of them, the horrors of crucifying a man.

And gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers- if He is a king the whole army must own allegiance to Him as Commander-in-Chief.

Matthew 27:28
And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe.

And they stripped him- clothing represents character in the scriptures, and here the soldiers are attempting, in a symbolic act, to deprive Christ of His true character. False teachers tried to do this in the days of the apostles, and Paul penned the epistle to the Colossians to counteract this, and set out, especially in chapter one, the first-born glories of Christ. Joseph’s brothers had stripped their brother, but nonetheless his firstborn character had been manifest afterwards; so it is with Christ, God’s Firstborn.

And put on him a scarlet robe- it would spoil their sport if He was wearing the garments of an itinerant preacher. He must have a robe as befits His station as military commander. The Caesars began, at some point in the history of Rome, to be chosen by the soldiers as their leader.

Matthew 27:29
And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!

And when they had platted a crown of thorns- He has claimed to be king, we shall give Him a crown! In a coming day it will be said of God, “Thou settest a crown of pure gold upon his head”, Psalm 21:3. The soldiers give Him a crown composed of the fruits of the curse which the First Adam brought in. But Christ will restore that which He took not away, Psalm 69:4, including the blessing for creation after the curse is removed, Romans 8:21; Colossians 1:20.

The thorns were probably from a tree that grows in Palestine which has vicious two-inch long thorns. By plaiting them they ensured that they pierced from all directions. They were not plaiting them so they were decorative, but so they were destructive. The nerves of the head are specially sensitive.

The word used here for crown is “stephanos”, the merited crown, whereas the other word used for crown in the New Testament is “diademata”, the inherited crown. The stephanos was the crown of the suitor who had won the heart of his beloved; of the athlete who had won the race; of the citizen who had won the acclaim of his fellows, of the army commander who had won the war. The soldiers do not really believe He has earned anything, so in mockery they pretend He has. Little did they realise that the one they mocked was the one the Father magnified, and acclaimed Him from heaven. He was crowned with glory and honour as He lived amongst men, Hebrews 2:9.

They put it on his head- there is no reason to think they did this gently. The word “put” is used in the phrase translated “wounded him” in Luke 10:30. It has the idea of inflicting a wound, so the crown was put upon His head with the intention of wounding Him. God said to Adam when he cursed the ground, “thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth unto thee”, Genesis 3:18, and now sinful men are bringing forth thorns for the last Adam.

And a reed in his right hand- if He is King-Commander He must have a sceptre! The Lord Jesus had spoken of “a reed shaken with the wind”, Luke 7:24, as the very symbol of weakness and indecision. To add insult to insult, they place the symbol of weakness in His right hand, the hand of power.

And they bowed the knee before him- the crowd in the garden of Gethsemane had gone backward and fallen to the ground, overawed by the presence of the great “I am”, John 18:6. But whereas in the garden the awe was genuine, here it is spurious and mocking. Men mock at the idea of a coming day of judgment, but they would do well to take account of the words of the apostle Paul when he wrote, “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Philippians 2:9-11.

For the mocker there is a day coming when mockery shall be turned into terror, and he will be compelled to bow the knee to Jesus Christ. It would be well for men if they were to repent and believe the gospel while there is time and opportunity, and thus bow the knee willingly to Him, owning Him as Lord.

And mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! The word hail in its verbal form means “to be cheerful”, or “calmly happy”. As a greeting it can mean “be well”, or “rejoice”, (Strong’s Concordance). So as they see the pitiful sight before them, battered and bleeding from His scourging, they multiply His sufferings by wishing Him well, and exhorting Him to rejoice. Such is the callousness and insensitivity of the human heart. Little did they know that despite all that He was suffering, the One they mocked was indeed full of joy, for He was doing His Father’s will. He had what He called “My joy”, John 15:11, and joy does not depend on what happens, like happiness does. Not only was He glad to be doing His Father’s will at that moment, but He was also sustained by the certainty that joy for evermore at God’s right hand was His prospect.

The writer to the Hebrews is encouraging believers going through trial when he pens the words about Christ, “who for the joy set before him endured the cross, despising the shame”, Hebrews 12:2. Then he exhorts his readers to “consider him who endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood”, verses 3,4. None shall ever exceed the Saviour in suffering and pain, for He must be pre-eminent in this, as well as in honour.

These men have heard the expression “King of the Jews” used twice already, so they fasten on to this claim, and use it to make Him an object of jesting. They would not, as Gentiles, be interested in His claim to be the Christ of God. Nor would they, as Romans, have any concept of Him as Son of God. But a claim to kingship they could understand.

It is said that during excavations around the site of the Praetorium in Jerusalem a room was found which had a chequer-board floor. The suggestion is that the soldiers would use this to amuse themselves when a prisoner was handed over to them. Probably using dice, they would see on which tile he finished. It was either the Servant Tile, or the King Tile, and they proceeded accordingly. Did Jesus Christ finish on the King Tile? And if so, when they were treating Him like a king, did they realise that He was God’s Perfect Servant as well as being His destined King? And did they realise that the Servant who stood before them, whose “visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men”, Isaiah 52:14, shall one day be King over all the earth?

Matthew 27:30
And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head.

And they spit upon him- if He is a king, then He must be anointed, but not with the fragrant anointing oil that the Israelites were so precisely instructed to make, but the vile spittle of men. The one who was “anointed…with the Holy Ghost and with power”, Acts 10:38, (a far more precious anointing even than with the fragrant oil), is destined to be anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows, as God sets Him on the throne of Israel, to exercise universal sway, Hebrews 1:9. Yet this is of no account to these soldiers, who see in Him only a feeble and pathetic pretender to the throne.

And took the reed, and smote him on the head- it is almost as if they mocked the prophecy of Micah which said that “they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek”, Micah 5:1. They think Him to be so weak and powerless that a rod will be too heavy for Him.

Matthew 27:31

And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him.

And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him- both Mark and John tell us that the soldiers put a purple robe on Him. Either the robe was purplish-scarlet, or a scarletty purple, or they used two robes, the first one becoming so blood-stained through the wounds inflicted by the scourging, that they changed it for another.

And put his own raiment on him- unwittingly they prepare in this way for the fulfilment of Scripture, which foretold that His raiment would be gambled for. The soldiers who did this at the foot of the cross also unwittingly fulfilled Scripture.

And led him away to crucify him- we shall think of this phrase as we return to John’s account.

Luke 23:26
And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus.

And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country- this is all we know about this man, except that, as Mark tells us, he was the father of Alexander and Rufus, Mark 15:21. Why do we need to know who this man’s sons were, unless he, and they, were afterwards converted as a result of this experience, and the first readers of the gospels would know who they were? Mark also tells us that he was compelled to bear the cross. We remember how Mark is emphasising the servant character of the Lord Jesus, so it is interesting to notice the contrast between the willing acceptance by the Lord Jesus of the burden of dealing with the question of sins, and the seeming unwillingness of Simon to simply carry the cross on which the work would be done. We could understand the reluctance of Simon, for those who were seen carrying a cross to the place of execution were despised of men, and a reproach. Yet did what happened on that cross so affect Simon that he was converted to God, and denied himself, and gladly took up his cross and followed Him?

Whilst the word “country” does literally means a cultivated field, it is often set in contrast to the city. So, for instance, we read in Luke 8:34, “they told it in the city and in the country“. Or Luke 9:12, “go into the towns and country round about”. The idea behind the word in this context is a rural place rather than an urban place. The point is that to bear the cross he must turn right round, and go in the opposite direction, for he is coming towards the city and Christ is going out of it. If he was, in fact, constrained to believe by this event, then he had a moral turn-round also, which is what conversion is.

And on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus- this incident is taken up by the writer to the Hebrews when he writes, “Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.” Hebrews 13:12,13. Note the difference between without, or outside, the camp and without the gate. To be without the gate is the physical position the Lord Jesus took up when He endured the cross, corresponding to the place where the sin offering was burnt in Old Testament times. But it had a spiritual meaning, and those who grasp this meaning will take up a moral position in harmony with His position as one still rejected by organised religion. If we were exhorted to go outside the gate, we would have to go on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. As it is, outside the camp is a position we take up in our hearts, and translate into practice as we meet with those of like mind in the assembly.

Simon was compelled to bear His cross; we are called to bear His reproach. On the day of atonement one of the last ceremonies was the carrying of the carcases of the sin offerings, (the bullock and the goat), by a man qualified to do this, outside the camp to be burnt. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews encourages us to fulfil that role in its spiritual meaning, and associate with the one who suffered the Divine Fire for us in the outside place. The sin offering had imputed to it the sin of the people, being made sin. It was a detestable thing, therefore. To carry it was to associate closely with it. Now Christ is not a detestable person as far as God is concerned, but He is detested by the religious world, despite what they seem to say about Him. When the full force of Christianity confronts them, they come out in their true character, and deny Him. And so does Judaism. To cleave to Christ, and take the outside place with Him is a place of reproach, yet we should not flinch to do it.

Matthew 16:24
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me- He had just indicated to the disciples that His cross and suffering are definitely ahead, and it at that point that the call to discipleship was issued. A true disciple will count the cost before he sets out, Luke 14:25-35. “Will” speaks of desire, not simply a future event. Those who follow Christ must be aware that He was heading for a cross, not a crown.

Let him deny himself- nothing must stand in the way of this commitment. Self is a major obstacle to full devotion.

And take up his cross and follow me- the cross of Christ is unique, but the true follower will not shrink from fellowship with Christ in the rejection the cross represents. In this way His cross becomes ours. Needless to say this cross is not a physical piece of wood, but a doctrine. The teaching regarding the cross is brought out in Paul’s epistles. For instance, “I am crucified with Christ”, Galatians 2:20; “our old man is crucified with him”, Romans 6:6; “they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh”, Galatians 5:24; “the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world”. Galatians 6:14.

Matthew 16:25
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it- the word for life is soul, the person. To save one’s person is to live for self, and is the opposite of denying self. The cross puts an end to self. The believer who lives for self is not living for the Lord, and will find in the day of assessment that he has nothing to be rewarded for. His life will have been wasted and lost. This has nothing to do with losing salvation, which can never happen to a true believer, but everything to do with losing reward.

And whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it- to lose life is to give up one’s own interests in favour of Christ’s. Note it must be “for my sake”, not with the thought of gaining merit, and certainly not as a form of penance, that neglecting of the body which is condemned in Colossians 2:23, and which in fact is satisfying to the flesh, as the apostle says in that verse. At the Judgment Seat of Christ the life lived for Christ will be found in the form of reward, and at Christ’s appearing it will be found in the form of glory for the One who made it possible, and for the enjoyment of life in the kingdom. Compare 1 Peter 1:7, where the results of the trial of our faith will be “found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ”. Then the apostle goes on to refer to love for Christ, for this will displace love for self.

Matthew 16:26
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Such a person will “find” nothing at the end of a life seeking gain for himself. In the light of eternity, to gain everything material is to lose an eternal reward. See Philippians 3:7, where the apostle testifies “But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.”

Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? As a man looks back over a wasted life, (even if he has gained the whole world), he realises that all he has accumulated is not enough to buy back lost opportunities. In Ephesians 5:16, the apostle exhorts us to be “Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.” Or in other words, to take the hours of the day to the marketplace and sell to the highest bidder, thus putting a high value on them, for days spent as the world spends them are evil and worthless. How important it is to live in the light of eternity, for the things of time and sense are not lasting, and will not profit spiritually the one occupied with them.

Matthew 16:27
For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he reward every man according to his works.

For the Son of Man shall come- here the Lord looks on to the day when He comes to reign, and when His followers shall be with Him, and when He shall be glorified in His saints, 2 Thessalonians 1:10. The degree He is glorified then will be the degree we have denied ourselves in favour of His interests now.

In the glory of his Father with his angels- only those things which glorify Christ can be associated with the glory of His Father, and be on display in that day. Other things will have been burnt up. His angels excel in strength and fly swiftly to do heaven’s bidding, and this zeal should mark the believer now.

And then shall he reward every man according to his works- reward means recompense. The self-denial has meant hardship, and in the day of glory this will be compensated. Note that denying self is not a negative thing, for it produces works.

Luke 23:27
And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him.

And there followed him a great company of people- no doubt these were pilgrims from all over the world who had come to Jerusalem for the passover, and had perhaps heard of Him from those who had met Christ during His ministry. The priests must have looked on fearfully, for they had told Judas that they did not want to arrest and condemn Him on a feast day, “lest there be an uproar among the people”, Matthew 26:5.

And of women, which also bewailed and lamented him- these seem not to be His female followers, in view of what the Lord said to them in the next verses. Perhaps these are the same as those who provided the stupefying drink which Christ will soon refuse. Their wailing is only the expression of human sympathy and sentiment, and they are not weeping for the right reason. They would probably have wept like this for any man led out to be crucified.

Luke 23:28
But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.

But Jesus turning unto them said- by turning round to face them as they followed, the Lord was making Golgotha the backdrop for His remarks. When the city of Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70, the hills around were covered in crosses, as many thousands of Jews were crucified by the Romans. He will speak of this in His next remarks, as He prophesies what will happen to the nation, not only in AD 70, but also during the Great Tribulation period.

Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children- the expression “daughters of Jerusalem” seems to mark them out as a well-known body of women, who sought to relieve the sufferings of those crucified.

The crowds had said, “His blood be on us, and on our children”, and in view of this they might well weep for themselves and their children. He was refusing mere sentimental weeping, but He appreciates the weeping of the repentant, as the woman of Luke 7:37-50 found.

Luke 23:29
For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.

For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say- here is a further prophecy to the one recorded in Matthew 24. Despite facing the utmost trial, the Lord takes time to warn these women of the consequences of the cry the crowds had made. He thought not on His own things, but on the things of others, Philippians 2:4,5.

Blessed are the barren- to rejoice that a woman was barren was totally contrary to Old Testament feeling. In those times it was a cause of rejoicing if a woman was expecting a child, for it was the sign of God’s blessing. But such is the suffering that the Lord foresees for His nation, that He predicts they will regret having children. Moses had warned of these times too, for if the people disobeyed God’s statutes, (and they were doing this by rejecting the Prophet He had sent to them, Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Acts 3:22-26), then “Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body”, and, “Thou shalt beget sons and daughters, but thou shalt not enjoy them; for they shall go into captivity”, Deuteronomy 28:18,41.

And the wombs that never bare- not only would barren women be blessed, those who were not barren but who had not borne children would be too.

And the paps which never gave suck- even those who had lost their child at birth, and who had never had the satisfaction of feeding it, would count themselves happy. So the soreness of the tribulation they would experience would completely over-ride the maternal instincts of these women. Those who mourned because of barrenness, or that they had not conceived, or had lost their babies, would be counted as those who should rejoice. For those who did have children would regret it.

We can see why the Lord told them to weep for themselves, in anticipation of the real sorrows that would be theirs for rejecting Him. And we can see why He exhorted them to not weep for Him, because their weeping was unreal and uninformed; they thought He was just another criminal being led out to die, and they wanted to relieve His sufferings for that reason alone. He is not forbidding genuine sorrow for His sufferings, but rejects mere sentimentality. Many today are affected by the sufferings of Christ, and much music has been composed to try to express that sorrow, but all sorrow that is purely superficial is of no avail.

Luke 23:30
Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.

Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us- notice the word “begin”, for what is spoken of here would come to pass at the siege and destruction of Jerusalem, but would be repeated in greater intensity during the Great Tribulation, in which unparalleled sufferings would be endured, for we read, “And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every freeman, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; and said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: for the great day of His wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?” Revelation 6:15-17. To have a mountain fall upon you would be a terrifying thing, so the sufferings here foretold must be even more severe than that.

Luke 23:31
For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?

For if they do these things in a green tree- the psalmist foretold that the blessed man would be “like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.” Psalm 1:3. And so it was. Whether the season was unfavourable or favourable, the Lord Jesus bore the appropriate fruit to God’s glory. No matter how dry the ground was, (and He was “a root out of a dry ground”, Isaiah 53:2), He flourished, for as the psalmist said elsewhere, “all my springs are in thee”, Psalm 87:7, and this was true of Christ too. But men did not appreciate the fruit He bore, and reckoned that it was evil and harmful, so they crucified Him.

What shall be done in the dry? Notice the “for” at the beginning of the verse, telling us that this is an extension of the warning in verse 30 about coming judgment for the nation, as represented by “the daughters of Jerusalem”. So the dry tree is the nation of Israel, whose springs were not in God, but in dry ritual and lifeless tradition. They were like the fig tree that the Lord had cursed, which was “dried up from the roots”, Mark 11:20. If the Romans crucified Christ, would they not do the same to Jews in AD 70? And so it came to pass, for there is a close connection between what they did to Christ by handing Him over the Romans, and what the Romans did, when God handed them over to them.

Matthew 27:33
And when they were come to a place called Golgotha, that is to say a place of a skull, they gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.

And when they were come to a place called Golgotha, that is to say a place of a skull, they gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall- notice that Matthew indicates that the vinegar was given as soon as they had arrived and begun the process of crucifixion. This would involve the removal of the clothes, the laying of the victim on the cross as it laid on the ground, and the nailing to the cross. Then the lifting up of the cross into an upright position, and dropping it with a jolt into the hole already made for the base. This would result in the victim’s bones being put out of joint. All His bones were out of joint, but they were not broken, as the Scripture foretold. By causing His bones to be out of joint men thought they had put a stop to Christ’s work. In fact, He did His greatest work with all His bones out of joint.

And when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink- the Lord will ask for a drink later on, but He refuses it when He has ascertained, by sipping it, that it is drugged. He will not allow anything of man to relieve Him of His sufferings. He will bear them in all their full horror. He will die by crucifixion, not poisoning.

Mark 15:23
And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.

And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not- there is no discrepancy here, for Mark is stating a fact, whereas Matthew is giving us a sequence, “when they were come…they gave him”. Seeing that He has refused the first drink, the soldiers, (who perhaps were required to give this drink), offer Him a slightly different one. Instead of their cheap wine or vinegar with gall added, they next add myrrh. But He refuses this without even tasting it. He was given myrrh at His birth, and the gift was accepted, and it relieved hardship, for Joseph and Mary needed resources to travel to Egypt to escape death. Here He is offered it again, but this time from unbelievers, and to relieve the sufferings of death, and the gift was rejected. Perhaps the myrrh gave off a smell, so He did not need to sip it to see what it was.

Luke 23:34
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

Then said Jesus, Father- there are those who believe that the Lord Jesus was bearing sins and forsaken of God for the whole six hours between His crucifixion and His death. This expression suggests otherwise, for He is in the full consciousness of His relationship with His Father. Of course, He was always the Son of His Father, even when forsaken of His God, for that forsaking was not on account of anything He had done, and the relationship remained intact. But the enjoyment of that relationship does depend on whether He is bearing sin or not. It is true that Peter writes, that “who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree”, but we should remember that He was on the tree for a little while at least after He had died, but He was not bearing sin then. Peter, by saying “on the tree”, is ensuring we do not confuse Christ’s pattern sufferings in His life, (to which he has just referred), with His penal sufferings on the cross.

Forgive them- there are certain psalms which are called imprecatory, in which the psalmist calls down vengeance on his enemies. There is nothing of that here, “For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” Luke 9:56.

During His ministry the Lord Jesus spoke of the death of two men, one at the beginning of the Old Testament and one at the end. The Old Testament scriptures were arranged differently to today, and they began with Genesis and ended with the Second Book of Chronicles. The examples Christ gives here are from those two books. Abel was slain by his brother because he was righteous, 1 John 3:12, and so was Zacharias, slain for the same reason, for we read, “And the Spirit of God came upon Zachariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, 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. And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of the Lord. Thus Joash the king remembered not the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him, but slew his son. And when he died, he said, The Lord look upon it, and require it.” 2 Chronicles 24:20-22. (The reason Zacharias is called the son of Berachias by the Lord is that Zecharias’ father, Jehoiada, was so revered that after his death he was named Jehoiada the Blessed, and that is the meaning of the word Barachias).

There is a similarity of attitude on the part of these two men in their death. Abel’s blood cried to God for vengeance upon Cain, Genesis 4:10,11, so that he was “cursed from the earth”; and as he died Zacharias called for his death to be requited. The first Christian martyr, however, called for forgiveness for his murderers, Acts 7:60, for he had learnt from Christ the way of forgiveness.

This is the only saying from the cross which was a formal prayer. It would remind us of the fact that on the Day of Atonement the blood of the sin-offering was sprinkled on the altar of incense, Leviticus 16:18, incense being a symbol of prayer. (See the distinction between the two altars in Leviticus 4:18).

This was true also of the blood of the sin offering for the priest who had sinned. The priests had certainly sinned that day, and there was provision in the sacrifice of Christ even for them. So by appealing to His Father to forgive, the Lord is not only exhibiting His gracious attitude, but is also establishing Himself as the true sin offering, by which alone men may have forgiveness now. Many of them came to realise this, for we read in Acts 6:7 that “a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith”.

This prayer of the Lord cannot be a blanket forgiveness of all men’s sins, or else there would be no need for the gospel to be preached. The details concerning the sin offering in the Old Testament will help us here. There was provision for the priest, the congregation, a ruler, or one of the common people, when they sinned in ignorance. Of the last three categories, after an acceptable sin offering had been brought, killed, and burnt, and thereby atonement made for sin, it is said, “It shall be forgiven them”, or “it shall be forgiven him”, as the case may be, Leviticus 4:20,26,31 and 35. So forgiveness was on the basis of the recognition of sin, and the bringing of a suitable offering to atone for it. Forgiveness was not a general thing, therefore, that could be pronounced to all the people regardless of their attitude to their sin. If that was the principle established of old time, then it would not be over-ridden by Christ without explanation.

It was said by the rabbis that the sin of the whole congregation referred to a wrong decision of the Sanhedrin. They certainly had made a wrong decision that day, but the Lord, in marvellous grace, presents Himself as the means of their forgiveness, if they will repent. So it is that Peter, when speaking to the people in the temple courts, said, “But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; and killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses…And now brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers…repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out”, Acts 3:14,15,17,19. So the people are offered forgiveness on the basis of the death of Christ, even though many of them had said, “His blood be on us, and on our children”, Matthew 27:25.

It is very solemn to notice, however, that in the case of “the priest that is anointed”, these words of forgiveness are not spoken, although the sin was in fact forgiven. It is also solemn to notice that when Peter was addressing the high priest directly, he does not offer forgiveness to him specifically, (even though Luke is careful to name the priests Peter is addressing, Acts 4:5,6), but speaks in general terms, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved”, verse 12. When before these men at His so-called trial, when they asked Him if He was the Christ, He had said, “If I tell you, ye will not believe”, Luke 22:67. No doubt Peter had that statement in mind as he spoke to these same men.

For they know not what they do- notice the punctuation of this phrase. It is not “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do”, as if the reason for the forgiveness was their ignorance. Rather, it is “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do”. The semi-colon after “them” makes the distinction plain. In other words, there is the appeal for forgiveness, and then the reason why that forgiveness is necessary. The ground of the forgiveness is not their ignorance, but His sacrifice and God’s grace.

And they parted his raiment, and cast lots- the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much, James 5:16, so it is interesting to notice that Luke links the clothing with the prayer. That which symbolised His righteous character is associated with His fervent prayer. The Lord said to His Father at the grave of Lazarus, “I knew that thou hearest me always”, John 11:42. So His prayer is answered in virtue of His righteous manhood and His essential Deity. What surer basis can there be for a prayer?

Mark 15:25
And it was the third hour, and they crucified him

And it was the third hour, and they crucified him-  see notes on John 19:14 about this. It is Mark in his Servant Gospel who records the critical times. He has learnt the value of time-keeping from God’s perfect Servant. So the time-line for the day of the crucifixion is as follows:

During the night, after the arrest in the Garden, an informal trial was held before Annas and then Caiphas, with “all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes”, Mark 14:53.

Just after 6am, “as soon as it was day”, a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin was convened to endorse the decision taken in the night, Luke 22:66.

A little later, but still “early”, the examination by Pilate begins, John 18:28.

The third hour, meaning 9am, the crucifixion, Mark 15:25.

The sixth hour to the ninth hour, the darkness, Mark 15:33.

Just after the ninth hour, the death of Christ, Mark 15:37.

Before the preparation day for the sabbath began at 6 pm, (the twelfth hour), the burial of Christ, Mark 15:42.

Matthew 27:36
And sitting down they watched him there;

And sitting down they watched him there- the sense is that were keeping guard over Him, lest there should be an uprising among the people, and an attempt made to rescue Him from the cross. If they had allowed this the soldiers would have been executed, so they have a personal interest in ensuring He remains on the cross. Unwittingly they are bearing testimony to the fact that He was there, and not replaced by another, just as His tomb was sealed by the authorities, and by this means it is ensured that His dead body is not substituted for another. God is making the wrath of man to praise Him, Psalm 76:10. But that Scripture goes on to say, “the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain”, so there is a limit put upon what men can do to God’s Son when He is impaled on a cross.

Mark 15:28
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.

And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors- it is significant that it should be Mark who quotes these words, for his is the Servant Gospel, and they come from Isaiah’s classic chapter about God’s Perfect Servant. The prophet wrote, “he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors”, Isaiah 53:12. The prophet is giving reasons why God’s Servant will be recompensed by His God. First, it is because He “poured out his soul unto death”. The giving up of His life was the ultimate surrender to the will of God, for He was “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross”, and merits the ultimate exaltation. Second, because “He was numbered with the transgressors”. This was the ultimate disgrace, and is met by the ultimate honour. Third, because “He bare the sin of many”, the ultimate burden, and is rewarded by a weight of glory. Fourth, because “He made intercession for the transgressors”, the ultimate act of forbearance is rewarded by the ultimate reward of having some of those He prayed for, surrounding Him for all eternity. So the ultimate disgrace is being crucified, and that between two thieves, as if He is no different. He who had not come to “steal, and to kill, and to destroy”, like a thief, John 10:10, but rather to give life to men, is given the same punishment as thieves.

The Lord had already quoted these words Himself before His arrest. “And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.” Luke 22:35-38.

The Lord is clearly preparing His disciples for changed circumstances after He had been crucified. During His ministry He had been with them, and provided for them, no doubt largely through the women who followed Him and “ministered unto him of their substance”, Luke 8:3. But now He is going away, and things are going to be different. Before, they had only briefly gone into Gentile territory, but they would soon be sent into all the world. They would now need to provide for themselves, as Paul did with his tent-making, and they would need a purse for money, and a scrip or provisions bag. Moreover, the constraints of God’s law would not be present in the lawless world of the Gentiles as they were in Israel, so they would need a sword to defend themselves from those who would harm them on their journeys. To put it another way, the disciples were about to venture forth into a lawless world, but, as ever, the Captain of their salvation led the way, for the start of this change was His arrest, trial, and execution, all of which would be unjustly done. The prophet had foreseen what would happen, and foretold that He would be tried by the lawless, sentenced by the lawless, and slain as if He were lawless.

Matthew 27:39,40
And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, and saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.

And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, and saying- thus is fulfilled the prophecy of the psalmist when he wrote beforehand of the experiences of Christ: “But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.” Psalm 22:6-8. Despite all this provocation, the Lord did not rebuke, threaten, or revile. “Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously”, 1 Peter 2:23. Peter gives this as a prime example of the fact that He “did no sin”, verse 22. When under the greatest stress from crucifixion, and the most provocative statements from those who mocked and jeered Him, He remained passive, and confidently rested in His Father’s will. The holiest of saints would have given way, but not He. It is said of Moses that he was “very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth”, Numbers 12:3. Yet he “spake unadvisedly with his lips” because the people had “provoked his spirit”, Psalm 106:33. No such thing happened with Christ, despite the most severe provocation.

Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself- this goes back to His first public passover appearance, when He said, (having purged the temple because it was a den of thieves), when asked what His authority for thus purging it was, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”, John 2:19. There was nothing in that statement about Him destroying the temple. In fact, He was using a figure of speech, and likening His body to a temple, which the Jewish authorities would destroy by causing His death, with its dissolution of spirit, soul, and body.

They sarcastically suggest that if He can destroy and build a temple in three days single–handedly, He can surely remove a few nails from His hands and feet and walk free. But they are using the word “save” in a physical sense, whereas the reason why He willingly remained on the cross was to save men’s souls.

Far from mocking Him, they should have realised that His prophecy had come true, and they were in the process of ensuring His death in the most horrid way. This should have convicted their conscience, but they are too hard-hearted at this point to allow this to happen, seemingly.

If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross- now another matter that came up at His trial, and the one for which the Jews had accused Him, 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 is clear from 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 recently brought Lazarus from the grave, is that not enough proof?

Matthew 27:41,42
Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.

Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save- now it is the turn of the chief priests, scribes and elders. They cannot deny that He saved others as far as physical diseases were concerned, (and that was a very significant admission), but they here suggest that His power was limited, and did not extend to helping Himself by physically saving Himself from the cross. Near the beginning of His ministry the Lord quoted the proverb, “Physician heal thyself”, meaning that they thought He had the remedy for His unpopularity in His own hands. Luke 4:23-24. This is what they are in effect saying to Him now.

If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him- the mocking of the passers-by was directly at Him, whereas the chief priests are not so much talking to Him as to the crowds, (note that they speak in the third person, “he”, whereas the passers-by said “thou”), making statements which they hope will convince them that His claims were false, so that they are not inclined to side with Him. What would be the consequence if multitudes 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.

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?

Matthew 27:43
He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.

He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God- how close this comes to the words of the psalmist, “He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him”, Psalm 22:8. 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 if the latter claim, to be the Son of God, (and “I am the Son of God” is their climax), can be exposed as false because God does not come to His rescue, vindicates them, so they think, for executing Him as a false prophet and a blasphemer.

Luke 23:36,37
And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar, and saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself.

And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar- the soldiers, being pagans, would not appreciate the finer points of what the chief priests were saying, but they enter into the spirit of the occasion to make sport of Him, as they had done in the Common Hall.

They had offered Him vinegar and gall, and vinegar and myrrh, but now it is just the simple drink they had with them. As if to say that He was no better than a common soldier. It seems as if they came towards Him with a drink, and then at the last moment withdrew it, thus cruelly teasing Him. Such is the callous heart of man. And this sort of treatment has been repeated down through the centuries, as His people have been subjected to cruel oppression. As He warned His disciples, “Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.” John 15:20.

And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself- here is the fifth class of mockers. As soldiers, they are used to the idea of the successful battle commander being made Caesar, for it was the soldiers who chose him. So if this one is king, He must have some extraordinary ability to escape difficult circumstances, and turn the situation around. What they did not and could not understand was that the Holy Sufferer had no intention of saving Himself from the sufferings of the cross. They had been allotted to Him in eternity, and prophesied of Him in times past. To seek to escape would overturn Divine and eternal counsels. He did indeed pray to be saved from death, Hebrews 5:7, but only in the sense of being brought into resurrection the other side of death. He was “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross”, Philippians 2:8.

Note the soldiers do not ask Him to save them, as the malefactors did, for they did not think they had need of it, being on the dominant side as Romans. They think only in terms of political salvation, but when Paul wrote to the believers in Rome he made clear that salvation was from sin and self.

Matthew 27:44
The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.

Luke 23:39
And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him- as Matthew tells us in the quotation given above, both malefactors reviled Him at first, but then a great change came over one of them, and their destinies changed also. If the mutual enmity of Herod and Pilate was overridden by their enmity for Christ, inasmuch as they became friends, so here the suffering of these two men was less than their mockery of Him. They see mocking Christ as a distraction, taking their minds off their pain. So they caused Him more pain, and themselves less. This is selfishness typical of the unbeliever.

Saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us- they had heard the chief priests mockingly say, “Let Christ, the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Mark 15:32. The thieves take up that mockery. If He really was the Messiah, or Christ, He must have great power and influence, even if it was only to persuade the centurion in charge of the execution to halt the proceedings. Let Him demonstrate the truth of His claim, starting with saving Himself and them.

Luke 23:40
But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

But the other answering rebuked him- so there came a great difference between these two men in the closing hours of their lives. We can tell what made the change by listening to what the second man said. A seeker after the truth will learn to rebuke the wrong thoughts of the natural mind, and realise that the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.

In verse 32 Luke had used the word “heteros” for “other”, for that is the word which emphasises the difference between the two malefactors and Christ. He was pure and righteous, they were other than that. He still uses this word here, for despite his search for the truth the man is still different to Christ. But he is also to a certain extent different to the first malefactor now, because he is becoming inclined towards Christ.

Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? The rebuke centred on his lack of fear of God. He was about to be plunged into eternity, and face the judgment of God; was this not reason to fear God? “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”, Proverbs 9:10. The fact that he rebuked his fellow-malefactor showed he was beginning to have strong and robust ideas about sin, and the judgment it will receive. The condemnation he speaks of here is being condemned to death, but he realises there is something beyond the judgment of men. The administration of justice is often faulty in the hands of men, but the judge of all the earth shall do right, Genesis 18:25. Those who do not believe there is a God must also believe that justice will never be done. This is counter-intuitive.

Luke 23:41
And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

And we indeed justly- this man now realises, on the brink of death, that his punishment is just. He must now believe that sin should be punished, even if the sin in question is his own. When a man starts to have a right view of sin, and that it must be punished, he is on the road to blessing.

For we receive the due reward of our deeds- before, he would have done everything to escape justice, and give reasons why he should not be punished. He was a thief, and might have argued that he needed to steal to survive. Now he realises that “Thou shalt not steal” means what it says, and that transgression of this law has its consequences. He now has an enhanced sense of the seriousness of sin. By due reward the man means what the Romans had determined that a thief should suffer. The law of Moses said, “If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.” Exodus 22:1. So restitution of the stolen property was the punishment and the deterrent; to slay a man for stealing was to devalue the punishment of death for murder. The punishment must suit the crime, so in that sense the punishment of crucifixion for stealing was unjust. Perhaps this shows that the malefactors had done more that simply steal. (We are not told whether they were members of Barabbas’ gang, guilty of murder). We may be sure that the just judgment of God will ensure that every sin reaps its due punishment in eternity. This man, however, came into the good of Divine forgiveness whilst he had time and opportunity.

But this man hath done nothing amiss- by saying this he spoke more than he knew. As far as he was aware, the charge against Christ was baseless. Had he noted the difference in attitude and speech of the man on the central cross? “Father, forgive them” spoke volumes to him, and he was the first to be converted through those words, which would explain why they were spoken out loud. But he is not the last, for many have found the forgiveness of sins and peace with God through the One who spoke them, and His sacrificial work on the cross. What of my reader? Do you know the forgiveness of sins through the redeeming blood of Christ? See Acts 13:38,39.

But we need not rely on the imperfect testimony of this man, for we have the perfect testimony of the Word of God. Wrote the apostle John, “And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.” The word came from heaven on more than one occasion, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”, Matthew 3:17; 17:5. Would the Father have said that if there was any trace of sin in His Son? He lived in disreputable Nazareth for thirty years, yet no defilement spoiled Him. He moved in public ministry amongst men for three and a half years, exposed to relentless pressure from both the Devil and men, yet in no instance was He found wanting; always He was “holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners”, Hebrews 7:26. John could also write, “this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world”, John 3:19. The presence of the undiluted holiness of Christ in this world was outright condemnation of its sin, and clearly showed God’s attitude to it.

Notice that John does not write “in him was no sin”, although that is true, but “in him is no sin”. He is not referring simply to the past. Rather, he is saying that at whatever moment we look at Him, past, present, or future, the only conclusion we can come to is that in Him is no sin. John is probing His essence, nature and character, and telling us that there is no sin of any sort there.

Note how John, (the man of insight), links the person and the work when he writes, “in him is no sin”, and “to take away our sins”. Peter, (the man of intention), does the same when he writes, “Who did no sin”, and “who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree”, 1 Peter 2:22,24. And also Paul, (the man of intellect), who wrote, “He hath made him to be sin for us”, and “who knew no sin”, 2 Corinthians 5:21. We could compare the three sacrifices that are linked together as being most holy, (that is, they meet the approval of a thrice holy God), Leviticus 6:17. They are, the meal offering, telling of Christ’s nature, (John’s view); the sin offering, telling of His being made sin, (Paul’s view), and the trespass offering, speaking of the way He took account of the faults of others, (Peter’s view). No wonder God specifically mentions in that verse that leaven, (a symbol of corrupting sin), is to excluded from those offerings, for no suggestion of sin must spoil our thoughts of Christ and His work. The repentant thief, although unaware of these precious truths during most of his life, is enjoying them now in eternity.

Luke 23:42
And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

And he said unto Jesus, Lord- notice he does not address Jesus as King, although that was the title on the cross, and although he was going to speak of His kingdom. Where does he gain the truth that Jesus is Lord? Can it be that he saw through the taunts of the priests and people, and realised that those titles they gave Him were in fact true? Why else would He be heard addressing God as His Father, and asking for forgiveness for them? And this was just one indication of His attitude to what He was being subjected to. When He was reviled, He reviled not again, as Peter wrote later. No word of anger, bitterness or cursing passed His lips. Someone who could ask for forgiveness for those who crucified Him must be of a different order of character altogether. He is totally in control of Himself, and the malefactor becomes convinced that this is because He is Lord, as the titles used of Him suggest. If He is Lord, then He is worthy of our faith and submission.

The acknowledgement of Christ as Lord is an essential part of response to Christ. The apostle put it like this, “The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is the word of faith, which we preach; that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Romans 10:8-13. This acknowledgement of His Lordship contains within it a recognition of personal unworthiness and sin, the starting-point of true repentance.

Remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom- if He is King He must have a kingdom, and since He has been taunted with the titles “King of the Jews” and “Messiah”, His kingdom must be destined to be set up on earth, and this man wants to have a part in that. He takes the humble place, for he does not presume to have a position in the kingdom, but simply asks that he might be remembered by the King, leaving it to Him to decide his destiny. The mother of Zebedee’s children wanted a prominent place in the kingdom for her sons, Matthew 20:20-22, and she was rebuked for it, but this man is content to just be in the kingdom. Those who genuinely come to Christ in faith do so with humility, owning that they are not worthy of the least of His blessings.

Luke 23:43
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee- his humility meets a ready response from the Saviour. He has asked for nothing in the present, only a future remembrance, but he is given a present blessing which would merge into eternal glory. He was hesitant, but there is nothing hesitant about the reply, prefaced, as it is, by the word of certainty, “Verily”.

To day shalt thou be with me in paradise- so the man’s confidence in the Lord is justified, for he now learns that not only does He have a future kingdom, but controls the destiny of men. The fact that the Lord knew that both of them would be dead before the day ended would confirm this. We read in the book of Genesis that Joseph was able to interpret the dream both of the butler and the baker, and explain their respective destinies, but he had no control over those destinies. Here we see that Christ’s kingship extends to the control of men’s future.

So the promise to the dying thief was that when he died, he would go to the place of comfort, as would Christ. The word paradise was borrowed from the Persian, and became the Hebrew word “pardes”, meaning “park, or forest, or orchard”. The idea is that of the pleasant grounds surrounding a splendid palace, in which one may walk and enjoy its delights, just as Adam did in the Garden of Eden before he fell. So the thief, by Divine grace, is granted to walk in the pleasure gardens of his Lord, and will no longer steal, because he will have all he needs to satisfy him.

Notice how this shows that there is consciousness after death, or the promise would have no meaning or value. Men say they cannot know what there is beyond death. But they can, for God has given us His word which bears testimony about these matters. If men remain in ignorance it is because they reject God’s word. As the Lord Jesus indicated, it is not someone back from the dead who will convince men, but the scriptures, for he said, “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead”, Luke 16:31.

Matthew 27:45
Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

Now from the sixth hour- this is Jewish time and we would call it twelve noon. So it begins the period when the Eastern sun is at its hottest. But the heat of the sun was nothing compared to the heat of the wrath of God which He is about to endure. The sun was darkened at this time, so relieving the two malefactors of the intensity of the heat, but for the one on the central cross there was no relief at all. He must be pre-eminent even in that detail.

There was darkness over all the land- the time is daytime, but it is turned into darkness. This is what Psalm 22 anticipated, for the words of Christ as written beforehand in that psalm are, “O my God, I cry in the day-time, 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 any 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 Firstborn Son of God and also 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.

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 at its maximum, 71 minutes long, and in the winter time was at its minimum, 49 minutes long. 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.

Matthew 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 15:34
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? 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, for as Jews they would know what the words meant, for they were in Hebrew, the language of Israel and the Old Testament). Matthew then translates so that non-Jewish readers will understand this important cry.

Mark, however, interprets the words, for the word for God he records is of Chaldean origin, He has to translate so that they may be understood in New Testament times and in the Greek New Testament. (See note below on the fact that the Lord Jesus normally spoke Hebrew).

So it is quite possible that there were two cries, one after the other. One was at the ninth hour, and one was about the ninth hour. And since they were cries uttered out of a sense of forsaken-ness, and therefore in the darkness, (for the darkness loses is point if He is forsaken when it is light as well), then Matthew’s cry must have been just before Mark’s. If this is the case, we need to search for the significance.

Matthew’s Gospel presents to us the King of Israel as He associates with His people. It is fitting therefore that He, as their King, should cry in Hebrew, the national language. The language, moreover, in which the Old Testament is written, and in particular, that the prophecies are written in, for the most part. The nation is being confronted with the reality of what their sin has done, for their rightful King has been abandoned by God. Yet therein lay their hope, for He ever identified Himself with His people, and even whilst they are rejecting Him He is working for their restoration to favour with God.

But why did the Lord use, according to Mark, the Chaldean word for “My God”? (Assuming that He did). Consider the following: 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. When Daniel was taken into the king’s court, he had to learn the Chaldean language, Daniel 1:4, and Daniel 2:4-7:28, was originally in the Chaldean language.

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.

It is almost a re-run of the incident between Joshua and the people at the end of Joshua’s life. He had reminded them that “Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods”, Joshua 24:2. Then he rehearses God’s gracious dealing with them as a nation, and encourages them to serve the Lord with the words, “Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve the Lord.”, verse 14. Part of the response of the people was, “God forbid that we should forsake the Lord, to serve other gods”, verse 16. Sadly, many of them were not true to their word, and they reaped the consequences, for they were taken into captivity to Babylon, “the other side of the flood”, (meaning the Euphrates), where their forefathers were idolaters. Centuries later, the True Joshua is reminding them, as He is forsaken of God, that He is taking responsibility for their forsaking of 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 “I was cast upon thee from the womb: 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. 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”.

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 God’s dear Son, His only-begotten, was caused to ask why He had been forsaken. And indeed it had, for He had been “made sin”, as 2 Corinthians 5:21 declares.

We are helped to understand this a little by reference to what happened when a sin-offering was brought in tabernacle times. The sinner brought his animal, and laid his hands upon it, thus identifying himself with it, and acknowledging that he indeed was a sinner. From then on, the animal was reckoned to stand in the stead of the sinner, and the man’s sin was attributed to it. In fact, since the word for sin and sin offering is the same, to be a sin offering means to be made sin. (This is the basis of Paul’s word that “God hath made him to be sin for us”, in 2 Corinthians 5:21). Whatever the sin deserved is inflicted upon the animal, and not on the man. So it was that the offering is killed beside the altar of burnt offering, but is not laid upon it. Its blood having been shed, and poured out at the base of the altar, it is taken outside the camp and burnt on the ground. The fire of God’s wrath consumed it, so that in figure the sin was no more.

Now each of the vessels of the tabernacle was the support for something else. The ark supported the mercy-seat; the lamp-stand supported the lamps; the altar of incense supported the censer; the table supported the loaves; the laver supported the water, and finally, the altar supported the sacrifices laid upon it. So it is that the person of Christ is the support of His work. So the altar represents the person of Christ as the one who is able to undertake the work of sacrifice. And the bringing of the sin-offering to that altar to be killed recognised that fact.

But the major part of the sin-offering was burnt on the ground, and not on the altar at all. So the offering is disconnected from the altar, suggesting to us that in His sin-offering work Christ is dealt with as if He is not the person He is, for He is standing in 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. 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. Habakkuk wrote, “Thou art of purer eyes that to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity”, Habakkuk 1:13. So God had to turn away, even to the extent of distancing Himself, in one sense, 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 that 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”; not indeed, to suggest that He had not been His Father in the hours of darkness, but to signify that the cause of the forsaking 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, not just the sin of Israel, but the sin of the world. This is not to say that the whole world is therefore free of its sin. Rather, it means that all the sin has been answered for, to God’s satisfaction, and those who believe enter into the good of it.

As we can see from Leviticus 23:28,29, 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 we are considering. 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.

Matthew 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 “My God, my God”. 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. It is said that the word for Elijah in Aramaic is Eloi. If this is the case, it would explain why some thought He called, in His forsaken state, for Elijah so that he could come to help Him.

Malachi foretold that Elijah would be sent “before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord”, Malachi 4:5. Even the association of Elijah with the day of judgment does not seem to disturb these men. Elijah was indeed noted for great deliverances, but his services were not needed here. After all, more than twelve legions of angels stood ready to assist Christ if He called for them, but the call never came, Matthew 26:53. The reason it never came is found in the next verse of that passage, “But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?” The carrying out of God’s will as detailed in the Old Testament was of paramount importance, and deliverance from suffering was not on His mind at all. The only deliverance He asked for was to be brought into resurrection.

It is also possible that since the name Elijah can be translated “God himself”, that those who were standing by to watch 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.

Matthew 27:48
And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.

And straightway one of them ran- there are five cries that come in quick succession just before and just after the hours of darkness finished. The first two are questions, (assuming there were two similar cries), “Why hast thou forsaken me?” The third is an implied request, “I thirst”. The fourth is a statement, “It is finished”. The fifth is a committal, “into thy hands I commend my spirit”.

And took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar- perhaps the spunge was part of their equipment, to wipe their hands from the blood of the men they had crucified. If this is the case, we find that the blood of Christ and cheap wine are associated together. And that is all men think of the blood of Christ. God describes it as precious, men value it little; in fact, on the same level as cheap wine. In fact, the blood of all three men may have been on the spunge, telling us they thought His blood no different to that of the malefactors. The writer to the Hebrews warns the nation that they were counting the blood of the covenant an unholy thing, Hebrews 10:29. Such behaviour, as the writer goes on to say, merits vengeance from God.

And put it on a reed, and gave him to drink- John tells us, (and we should remember that by this time he would have returned to Calvary), that the soldier put the spunge on hyssop, thus telling us what the reed was made of. It also suggests that the cross was not very high, for hyssop is a small shrub and would not have long branches.

The accounts of Matthew and Mark, (Luke does not record the incident), seem to read as if the giving of a drink is in response to the cry “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani”, but we know from John’s account that the statement “I thirst” came soon after that cry. Nevertheless is it possible that the cry of Christ was difficult to decipher, (remember His tongue is cleaving to His jaws, Psalm 22:15), so some think He is calling to Elijah, but others may have confused “Sabacthani” with the Latin word “bacchari” which means “to celebrate the festival of Bacchus”, the Roman god of wine. With uncouth insensitivity they think He is suggesting a party, hence the offer of wine.

Matthew 27:49
The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save Him.

So we have the mingling here of the response to the cry of abandonment, which some misunderstood as a call for Elijah to help Him, and the statement, “I thirst”. Does this indicate that the cries were very close together?

Luke 23:46
And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit”.

And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit”. The cry in a loud voice was “It is finished”, as recorded by John.

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.
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.

Matthew 27:51
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom- Matthew is impressed deeply by the things he is about to describe, and he calls out attention to them by using 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, Matthew 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 they, John’s disciples, fasted, and His did not. The answer was that there had been a change in God’s dealings with men. The law and the prophets were until John, Luke 16:16, so he was the last of the Old Testament prophets. Now that Christ had come God was dealing in grace not law. So if under John the disciples fasted, under grace His disciples rejoiced. And these two situations cannot be mixed, for it would be like putting a new patch on an old garment, or new wine in old bottles, (meaning wine-skins), for the new would ruin the old, and the new could not be held by the old. So Matthew learns in his own house about the ways of God with men in the past and the then-present. But he also learnt on the Mount of Olives that there were changes coming in the future as well, after the present age was finished.

So it is that Matthew delights to build up a picture for us as he relates historic events. For instance, he tells us how that Christ went into Egypt as a child, then came back, (just as Israel had come out of Egypt), was baptised in the Jordan, and then went into the wilderness. This is in some ways different to Israel’s journey. True, they came out of Egypt, but they then went into the wilderness so that God could know what was in their heart, Deuteronomy 8:2, (the next verse was quoted by the Lord in His wilderness temptation). They then crossed the Jordan into the promised land. God knew what was in Christ’s heart before He went into the wilderness temptation, and He did not need to be tried by those experiences to see whether He was fit to go into the land. So Matthew is presenting comparisons and contrasts between the history of Israel and that of Christ, showing He can relate to the nation as its rightful king.

And so it is here, for Matthew sees that those things which happened when Christ died have deep significance. After all, surely the Creator of all things cannot die without creation responding. He gives to us the key to the way he is thinking by calling Jerusalem “the holy city”. Now Jerusalem was anything but holy when it cast out God’s Son. Nor was it holy when it persecuted the apostles. But one day the city will merit the title, and it is that day that Matthew has in mind.

Coming back to the veil of the temple, we read that it was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. This clearly indicates that a Divine hand was at work, for not only was it was rent from the top, but also the veil was so thick that no human hand could have done it. This was not the result of the earthquake, for the damage was very precise.

The rending of the veil is deeply significant in several respects, as follows:

First, it showed that the first tabernacle, (continued in the form of the temple), no longer had any standing before God. There were degrees of privilege in the earthly sanctuary, with the High Priest alone able to enter the presence of God within the veil, the priests able to enter the Holy Place, and the ordinary Israelite not able to enter either compartments. This was by design, for the division of the tabernacle into holy and most holy was a sign from the Holy Spirit that “the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing”, Hebrews 9:8. By “first tabernacle” is meant the first compartment of the tabernacle, called the Holy Place. As long as that had a standing separate from the Most Holy Place, the priests could not enter right in to God. Since the presence of that veil meant the Holiest of All was not available to the priesthood, the virtual destruction of the veil meant that this situation has come to an end. The veil was Divinely ordained, and Divinely removed. The writer to the Hebrews spoke of “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 speaks of the Lord Jesus ever living to make intercession, and it is the altar of incense in the tabernacle that represents the offering of prayer. 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. 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, and part of the result of that was that the transgressions that were under the first testament were dealt with, and they which are called receive the promise of eternal inheritance, Hebrews 9:15. Those who are called being Christian priests, and their eternal inheritance being the privilege of serving God in eternity.

Fourth, in Luke the veil and its rending is spoken of before the Lord had actually died, telling us in symbol that the way was open for Christ to enter heaven to begin His work of intercession. In Matthew and Mark the veil is said to be rent after Christ gave up His spirit, telling us in symbol that the way is now open for those to enter the presence of God who are in the good of His death; or as the writer to the Hebrews would put it, who enter “by the blood of Jesus”, Hebrews 10:19.

Fifth, in connection with the words of Hebrews 10, the believer now has free access into the presence of God “through the veil, that is to say, his flesh”, verse 20. So this give significance to the veil which hung across the path of the Old Testament priest. It was a sign that, because Christ had not yet come, there was a barrier to the presence of God. But once He had lived, and then given up Himself in death, then the barrier could be rent, thus ending the old system and introducing the new in Christ risen and ascended. So it was that when the Lord Jesus dismissed His spirit, and died, (for the body without the spirit is dead, James 2:26) 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. As the prophet warns, “For thus saith the Lord of Hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; and I will shake all nations”, haggaai 2:6.

Matthew 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.

Matthew 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. We should remember, however, that these saints did not have their resurrection bodies, so they, like Lazarus, died again, but their rising from the grave does illustrate what shall happen when Christ comes again.

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.
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.

Matthew 27:54
Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus- they were not casual onlookers, but were keeping watch over the scene, no doubt alert for any attempt by His disciples to rescue Him from the cross.

Saw the earthquake, and those things that were done- they were watching Him, and watching for disciples, but God gave them other things to watch. Things, moreover, that could only be from heaven.

They feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God- the centurion and his soldiers would be superstitious pagans, and earthquakes would be thought of by them as intervention by the gods. Thus what they said may only have meant that they believed that Christ was one of the “sons of the gods”. No wonder they feared, for they had executed Him!

In Mark’s account what impressed the centurion was the way He cried out to give up His spirit. He writes, “And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.” Mark 15:39. The centurion had seen many die by crucifixion, and he well knew that victims usually died of respiratory failure, unable to breathe fast enough to remove acid from their blood, and consequently with chest expanded so they could not speak. This One cries out loudly twice, showing He died of blood loss. He poured out His soul unto death, for the life of the flesh is in the blood.

In Luke the emphasis was on the character of Christ, for he writes, “Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.” Luke 23:47. He would no doubt know somewhat of the circumstances of the arrest and trial of Christ, and all the surrounding circumstances have impressed him with the truth that he has been treated unjustly. Yet he himself had heard the prayer, “Father forgive them”, and realised that this was no ordinary man, for He did not react to injustice as ordinary men did.

Luke also tells us the following, “And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts, and returned.” Luke 23:48. By contrast, Mark tells us, “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; (who also, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him); and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem.” Mark 15:40,41. So some only came to see “the sight” of men being crucified, whereas others came together because of the man on the central cross. They had served Him in His life, and now, with constancy of heart, served Him in His death. How comforting for Him to see them there in the closing minutes of His life, between the darkness going, and His death.

Isaiah 53:9
And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

And he made his grave with the wicked- verses 7 and 8 have described the way men treated the Lord Jesus. They oppressed and afflicted Him, sought to destroy His character, and at last took Him and slaughtered Him on a cross. In all this it seemed as if they were in control, and that He was the helpless victim of circumstances, but this verse tells us it was not so. The apostle Peter emphasised this on the day of Pentecost when he declared that the nation of Israel had by means of the wicked hands of the Gentiles crucified Him, and allowed that crucifixion process to continue until He was slain, Acts 2:23; they callously allowed Him to suffer, and only planned to curtail His sufferings because the sabbath day was near.

There was another dimension to this, however, as Peter points out at the same time. The fact is that He was delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. Men were only allowed to do what they did because it was part of God’s plan. Indeed, the basis of God’s plan. Now Isaiah 53:10 tells us that the pleasure of the Lord prospers in the hand of the Lord Jesus. As God’s Firstborn Son, (as well as His Only begotten Son), He was charged with the task of administering God’s affairs. Not in any dispassionate way, but personally, and a major part of those affairs involved Him in suffering of different sorts. He suffered in life, as earlier verses of the chapter have told us; He suffered in the three hours of darkness, as verse 5 has told us; He suffered injustice and cruelty at the hands of men, as verses 7 and 8 clearly show. But He not only suffered in these ways, as He carried out the will of His Father, He was in control as He did so. So, for instance, we find verses 7-9 alternate between passive and active. He was oppressed…He was afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth. Passive in oppression and affliction, but active in not opening His mouth. He is brought…He is dumb. Men bring Him, and He passively allows this, but He actively remained as dumb. So also in verse 8. He is taken…He was cut off…stricken. But then the active, He made. Each time the active is the answer to the passive. So when He made His grave with the wicked, He was responding to something that He had passively allowed, but during which He was totally in control.

The question is, of course, in what way was He in control so that He made His grave with the wicked? And if He was in control in this matter, why did it not happen? And how can He make His grave with the wicked and with the rich at the same time? So tightly interwoven is this prophecy that it can be fulfilled in the experience of only one man.

We need to notice that the word wicked is in the plural, and the word rich is in the singular. So there are wicked men, and there is a rich man. The word for wicked used here is an actively bad person. We know that “all have sinned”, but not all set out to be actively bad. We are told in verse 12 that the Lord Jesus was “numbered with the transgressors”, and the word transgressors means persons who have broken away in revolt against just authority. The words are quoted by Mark when he describes the Lord Jesus being crucified between two thieves. So we begin to see a picture building up of Christ in some way making His grave with wicked men by being crucified. He submitted Himself to arrest, trial and execution, knowing that normally the end result of that process was to be flung unceremoniously, (and in company with the others crucified with Him), into a pit dug at the foot of the cross. But even though it is true that He submitted Himself to the process of arrest and all that followed, nonetheless He was in complete control of the situation. He did not call for the legions of angels that were at His disposal, Matthew 26:53. He did not allow His followers to try to prevent His arrest, and rebuked Peter for attempting it, and remedied the damage he had done with his sword. He could have any moment passed through the midst of them and gone His way, as He had done several times during His ministry when the crowds were hostile. He did none of these things. And by thus not resisting He ensured that His grave would be with the others crucified with Him, even though this was a distasteful prospect, and normally to be avoided at all costs.

It is interesting to notice that the words “he was numbered with the transgressors” are quoted twice in the gospel records. Once by Mark as he records the crucifixion, but prior to that by the Lord Jesus as He is about to leave the upper room and make His way to Gethsemane, Luke 22:37. So these words bracket together the whole series of events from the arrest in Gethsemane, to the crucifixion at Golgotha.

And with the rich in his death- there is a big problem, however, with this situation, and it is this. It is vitally important that the Lord Jesus be put in an easily identified and publicly-known grave, and, moreover, is put there on His own. If He is buried at the foot of the cross with the two thieves, who is to know whether He has risen from the dead? In theory those near of kin to the thieves could even come to the place, remove the body of their relative, and claim he had risen from the dead! And even if this is unlikely to be attempted, the followers of the Lord could be accused of doing the same, and pretending that He had risen.

There is also the consideration that the psalmist prophesied by the Spirit that God would not suffer His Holy One, meaning the Messiah, to see corruption, Psalm 16:10. There would certainly be corruption in a grave at the foot of the cross, with the remains of many criminals mingling together there. Now of course whilst the whole of creation is in the bondage of corruption, nonetheless only humans are morally corrupt. So the requirement is that the Lord Jesus must be buried in a marked grave, which has had no-one else in it before, and has no-one else put into it whilst He is there. Only in this way can it be sure that the one who was put into it is the one who came out.

How can this situation be brought about? It will be necessary for this grave to be more than a marked grave in the ground. It will need to be secure and unused. This involves expense, and the Lord Jesus had not the material resources to arrange for this to happen. Yet our passage says “He made his grave…with the rich in his death.” It is certainly not that He had influential friends who could rise to the occasion in this matter. His followers were poor, as He was. And yet in a real sense He does arrange this matter, for our passage says “He made his grave…with the rich”.

In the event, the rich individual pinpointed in this passage was Joseph of Arimathea. He was not a prominent member of the disciples that followed the Lord. In fact, he was only a disciple secretly, because he feared the Jews, and what they would think of him. For he was a counsellor, meaning that he was a member of the Sanhedrin, and as such had been one of those spoken of in John 12:42,43, which reads, “Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.” But Luke records that “the same had not consented to the counsel and the deed of them”, Luke 23:51. The “same” meaning Joseph; “them” referring to his fellow-members of the Sanhedrin.

He was assisted by a Pharisee, Nicodemus, who also was a secret disciple, and who is designated by John as “he that came to Jesus by night”, reminding us of his conversation with the Lord Jesus in John 3. He presumably was a member of the Sanhedrin since he is described as a ruler of the Jews, John 3:1. He seems to have had great influence amongst them as we see from John 7:45-53. On that occasion the chief priests and Pharisees had sent officers to arrest the Lord Jesus, no doubt on the pretence that He had interrupted the temple services by crying out, “If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink”, verse 37. The officers returned without Him, and when the Pharisees protested at this, Nicodemus said, “Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? Thus he showed himself to be prepared to defend the interests of Christ in a small way, and to appeal for justice to be done. Things have changed, now, however, for he has to make a decision. He cannot be neutral about Christ any longer, and something makes him side with Christ publicly, like Joseph of Arimathea.

Because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth- we might well ask ourselves what it is that convinced them of the genuineness of Christ’s claims. Remember, our answer must be in line with what the prophet said, which was, “He made his grave…with the rich in his death”. We notice that the words “in his death” are only applicable to His grave with the rich. The prophet did not say “He made his grave with the wicked in his death”. So to all intents and purposes He was destined for a grave with the wicked; but in the event, and by His own ordering, His grave was actually with the rich in His death.

We are told several things about the character of Joseph. First, that he was a good man, the direct opposite of the wicked men between whom the Lord Jesus was crucified. Second, that he was just man, meaning he was diligent in trying to keep the law, in direct contrast to the transgressors, who rebelled against all law. Third, he waited for the kingdom of God, showing that he had a longing for the fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah. Fourth, he was a rich man, so is a candidate for the role marked out in Isaiah 53. Fifth, he was an honourable counsellor, which implies that, (as indeed was the case), there were members of the Sanhedrin who were not honourable. Sixth, he was prepared to make sacrifices, for he gave up his own tomb in favour of the carpenter from Nazareth. And seventh, he came from secret discipleship to open and bold discipleship at last.

It is the first three qualities that we need to focus on. A reading of the gospel records will show that the whole council, meaning the Sanhedrin, of which Joseph was a member, were present at the first trial before Caiaphas. Matthew 26:59 reads, “Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death”. Here is the first test for Joseph. He is a just man, and he must ask himself whether justice is being done here. He is a good man, and must ask himself if the prisoner is being treated respectfully. We have already noticed, in connection with John 18, that the rules which governed the arrest of prisoners have been broken.

And then when the first trial before Caiaphas is taking place, Joseph has further questions to answer, for he is a member of the body that is conducting this trial. It will be clear to him, as a just man, that in the proceedings of the trial, and the manner of the bringing forth of witnesses, justice is not being done.

And then, the morning comes, and Mark tells us “the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council”. So Joseph must be present at this meeting also.

Now at some time during these proceedings Joseph made a stand. We read that he “had not consented to the counsel and deed of them”, Luke 23:51, the “them” meaning the other members of the Sanhedrin. Their deliberations, and what they had done, both by sins of omission and by commission, he disagreed with strongly.

But there was more than the breaking of rules involved here. The prisoner is special, and is making dramatic claims. There was something about the way those claims were made that convinced Joseph. What that was is told us in the next phrases in Isaiah 53:9. “He made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth”. The reason why Joseph came forward to offer his tomb, is because there was no violence with Christ, and because he came to believe that when He testified as to His person, there was no deceit in His mouth.

Peter tells us that “when he was reviled, he reviled not again; when he suffered he threatened not”, 1 Peter 2:23. There was something about the way Christ presented Himself, His poise, His calm, His answers, and His restraint under the most intense provocation that so impressed Joseph, that he was resolved to distance himself from the decision of the Sanhedrin. It is too late to resign membership, but he can “bring forth works unto repentance” by honouring Christ in His death, in contrast to the dishonour done by others to Him in His life.

The testimony of the Lord Jesus revolved around His claim to be the Son of God, and the Messiah, and the Son of Man. Joseph comes to believe that those claims are true, and resolves to act accordingly. His mind is made up, he must absolve himself from complicity in the crime of murdering the Son of God, by repentance and faith in Him, as Peter exhorted the rest of the nation to do at Pentecost, six weeks later.

Now this is very powerful testimony from within the council-chamber itself, and from one who was present as a member of that council. It is also a powerful rebuke for those who remained steadfast in their hostility towards Christ after His resurrection.

Matthew 27:61
And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.

And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre- this is important, because there are those who suggest that on the resurrection morning these women went to the wrong tomb, and that was why they found no body there. Matthew tells us that they knew very well where the tomb was, because they were watching what Joseph and Nicodemus were doing. Luke tells us specifically that they “followed after, beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid”, Luke 23:55, so they went from standing afar off after Christ had died, followed Joseph and Nicodemus, and then sat near to His sepulchre. Mark says they “beheld where he was laid”, Mark 15:47, so they must have been close enough to have seen these things. Now that Christ was dead the anger of the authorities would subside, and these women would be in less danger, but that does not diminish from their bravery as they sat close by to see Him buried.

Luke 23:56
And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments- would preparing to anoint the dead be exempt from Sabbath regulations? Mary of Bethany did not come to the sepulchre, either whilst His body was in it or after He was risen, because she had already anointed His body whilst He could appreciate it. She knew He would die and be buried, for she had sat at His feet and heard His word, Luke 10:39; did she also realise that He would rise quickly, making another reason for her to anoint Him during His life? The nation should have anointed Him as their Messiah, but on the eve of His riding into Jerusalem as Israel’s King, (the only time He formally presented Himself to the nation), she anointed Him privately as one who believed in Him.

And rested the sabbath day according to the commandment- clearly they did not have time between seeing where the body was laid and the twelfth hour, for when Joseph and Nicodemus laid the body in the near-at-hand tomb, they did so because they had not much time.

Matthew 27:62
Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,

Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation- Joseph departs, his task completed. But the authorities are not satisfied. It is the day after the preparation, and this means it is the sabbath day, so the urgency of the matter makes them endanger the sanctity of the day. They had refused to go in to Pilate because it was the first day of unleavened bread, which was a festival sabbath, John 18:28, Leviticus 23:7, but they are willing to go to a Gentile’s residence on the sabbath day which was a high day, John 19:31, even though it is still the feast of unleavened bread, and that house may contain leaven.

The chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate- they have a conscience about Christ even when He is dead. They even command Pilate to act, and he, also with a guilty conscience, agrees to do as they say, even though at other times he showed he loathed them, and stubbornly refused their requests. Perhaps the centurion has told Pilate about the events surrounding the death of Christ, and his conviction that he was the Son of God, and this would remind Pilate of his conversation with Christ about whether He was the Son of God. It is ironic if, as is likely, the chief priests were of the Sadducees, like Caiaphas and Annas, then they did not believe in the resurrection of the body. Yet they are concerned about the resurrection of Christ’s body, although they mask this by talking of the body being stolen.

Matthew 27:63
Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.

Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said- if they believed Him to be a deceiver, then He would not rise, for He declared He would, but according to them His word is untrue. Here is the second inconsistency in their thinking. As soon as Christ is thought of as a deceiver, logic is jettisoned. Note how careful they are to be respectful to Pilate now, calling him “Sir”, for they are worried lest he refuses their request. The title they use implies that he is in control. They had been arrogant when Pilate had not gone along with their plot at the first. See, for instance, John 18:30.

While he was yet alive- so even His sworn enemies bore testimony to the fact that at that moment He was no longer alive. The giving up of His spirit; the reaction of the soldiers as they came to break His legs; the spear thrust and the blood and water; the testimony of the centurion to Pilate when he was called to give account; the licence that Pilate gave to Joseph to take the body; all these things bear testimony to the reality of His death. So why do some persist in suggesting He only swooned, and revived in the cool of the tomb?

After three days I will rise again- they give themselves away again here, for there is now no twisting of His words as there was at His trial. Then they had tried to suggest that the “raise it in three days” was a reference to the temple, which would indicate they thought He had magical powers. They knew very well the meaning of His words, but had not been willing to believe Him to the saving of their souls. But they are now willing to believe Him to the saving of their reputation and station in Israel.

Matthew 27:64
Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.

Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day- when these same people had wanted the bodies removed, (from the cross), they besought, or asked Pilate that it might happen. Now they are anxious that the body be not removed, (from the tomb). This time they do not simply ask, but bluntly tell him what to do. It is as if they are commanding the Commander to command, such is their desperation.

Those who think that Christ died on a Friday would say the following:

By Jewish reckoning, if it was Friday, and something was going to happen on Sunday, you would say it would happen on the third day, for the day you were speaking was counted as the first day, Saturday would be the second, and Sunday the third. This is contrary to our modern way of reckoning, but it is how things were in Bible times, and we should not seek to impose our thinking on the situation. So, for instance, Rehoboam told Jeroboam to “Depart yet for three days, then come again to me”, 1 Kings 12:5. Then we read, “So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day”, verse 12. And lest we think they came back a day early, the narrative goes on, “as the king appointed, saying, Come to me again the third day”.

These men are speaking to Pilate on Saturday, but they are thinking of the time between Christ’s death and His resurrection. In that context the third day was the next day.

We should also notice in this connection the phrase “three days and three nights”. The Lord said, “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Matthew 12:40. Nowadays we would immediately think that three days of 12 hours each and three nights of 12 hours each is in view, making 72 hours. But we read that Esther told the Jews, “fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night and day”, Esther 4:16. They did this, and “it came to pass on the third day, that Esther put on her royal apparel, and stood in the inner court of the king’s house”, 5:1. So to a Jew three days and three nights ended on the third day. For the alternative, see on John 19:31.

Lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away- little did they realise that the disciples did not believe He would rise soon. They believed in the resurrection of the dead, but not that He would rise beforehand. They thought that since He had died without setting up His kingdom, they were in for a long wait. When the Lord told the disciples the details about what was soon to happen to Him, including “and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again”, we read, “And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.” Luke 18:33,34.

There are three verbs here, “understood”, “hid”, and “knew”. The word translated “understood” means, in a literal sense, to put together, and hence to comprehend. The disciples were unable to put together the prophecies of a glorious reign, and this prophecy of a shameful death, and hence were not able to comprehend what was being spoken. This was true of the two on the road to Emmaus, and the Lord had to rebuke them for not believing “all that the prophets have spoken”, Luke 24:25. They only believed some of the things, and ignored the passages about the sufferings.

The second word is “hid”, meaning concealed by being covered over. The first and the third words relate to their reaction to the statement, whereas this is what happened to them from outside. God withheld the understanding of the truth that Christ would rise. It could not be said that they waited so eagerly for Him to rise that in their religious fervour they imagined it had happened, and also preached as if it had happened. So the great change that came over the disciples was not due to imagination, but the reality of His resurrection.

Even after they had been told by the women that He was risen, they refused to believe, for we read, “And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.” Luke 24:11. This time, however, the Lord “upraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen”, Mark 16:14. Their unbelief was now inexcusable, for He had appeared in resurrection, and he expected them to believe the women.

The third word is “knew”, or got to know. Because they were unwilling to accept that the Messiah would suffer, the truth was hid from them for a time, and hence they did not come to know what was to take place. These three facts show that the disciples would have no intention of stealing the body, even if they could.

And say unto the people, He is risen from the dead- but that is exactly what they did say, not because they had stolen the body, but because He was indeed risen from the dead and they had seen Him. The Jewish rulers realised that the resurrection of Christ from the dead would indicate God’s approval of Him, and also God’s disapproval of them for crucifying Him.

So the last error shall be worse than the first- their reason for crucifying Him was His claim to be the Son of God. They believed this to be an error, the first one, not only because the matter of His Sonship came up at His first trial before Caiaphas, but because it was the subject of His first discourse in John’s gospel. The last error would be, in their eyes, the claim that He had risen from the dead. They do not say “first error…second error”, for they believe that the disciples would not be able to face persecution in defence of a lie, and would therefore be silenced, so there would be no third error, for the “error” of claiming He was risen would be the last, in their view. It is indeed the case that men will not in normal circumstances die for what they know to be untrue, and so they reason that the sect of the Nazarene will soon be extinct.

Matthew 27:65
Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.

Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch- the temple guard was under the control of the Jewish authorities, as we see from John 7:32,45, so they did not need Roman soldiers. This in itself would be significant, because the Jews could not say that the Romans had been careless and let the disciples steal the body. At every stage the sepulchre was under scrutiny, not least because it was near the place where Christ died, which was “nigh to the city”, close enough for the title on the cross to be read.

Go your way, make it as sure as ye can- the Jews now have permission to tamper with a private sepulchre. Unwittingly, they are ensuring that the only way Christ can emerge from death is by resurrection. He will have a spiritual body when He rises, so will not be prevented by a wall of rock from emerging from the tomb. He will not need the stone to be moved to let Him out, as Lazarus did, for the latter regained his old body, with all its limitations. The surer the sepulchre is made, the surer the truth that He rose.

Matthew 27:66
So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

So they went, and made the sepulchre sure- we may be certain that in the circumstances they will not seal the tomb without assuring themselves that the body is still there. They will also be very careful to examine the tomb to make sure that the earthquake that occurred when Christ died, Matthew 27:51,52, and which rent the rocks in the area, has not damaged the rock-hewn tomb of Joseph, thus providing a means of access for disciples without the watch knowing.

Sealing the stone- after they have satisfied themselves that the body is still there, they seal the stone to the wall of the rock. If the seal is broken, they will know something is amiss. They are convinced that the only way for Him to emerge out of the tomb is if the disciples take the body. They do not believe He is going to rise the next day.

And setting a watch- there is no verb here, it is simply “with a watch”, so the verb is supplied from “made the sepulchre sure…with a guard”. They are watching here to prevent stealing, then later they use stealing as the excuse for Him not being in the tomb, 28:13.

Despite all these precautions, sometime between 6 o’clock on the Sabbath evening, (the hour at which the first day of the week began), and 4 o’clock in the morning on the first day of the week, (the hour at which it begins to get light in Palestine in April), Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God and Israel’s Messiah, rose triumphantly from among the dead, to die no more.