Recent investigations at Jerusalem have disclosed what may have been the scene of the punishment. In a subterranean chamber, discovered by Captain Warren, on what Mr Fergusson holds to be the site of Antonia — Pilate's Praetorium — "stands a truncated column, no part of the construction, for the chamber is vaulted above the pillar, but just such a pillar as criminals would be tied to to be scourged." The chamber "cannot be later than the time of Herod " (Fergusson, ' The Temples of the Jews,' p. 176; comp. p. 242).
2. a crown of thorns} Comp. Matt, xxvii. 29, note. The thought is rather of the victor's wreath (as Tiberius' wreath of laurel, which was seen upon his arms: Suet. 'Tib.' c. 17) than of the royal diadem.
3. And said} According to the best authorities, And they came unto Him and said. This vivid detail does not occur in the narratives of the parallel incident. The imperfect (tfpxovro, Vulg. veniebanf) gives the picture of the separate formal acts of homage rendered by the soldiers in succession.
Hail, King of the Jews} The words are evidently a mocking echo of what they had heard. Like Pilate, they ridicule the people no less than the Lord.
smote him...] Some old versions add " on the face." This is probably the true idea. The savage blow took the place of the kiss of homage. Comp. xviii. 22.
him forth to you, that ye may know I find no fault in him.
5 Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!
fore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.
7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought
4. Pi/ate therefore...] And Pilate.... According to the most probable reading the action is not so much a consequence (therefore) as a part of what has gone before, v. i (Pilate therefore... and the soldiers... and Pilate...).
again] xviii. 38. Pilate had returned within the Praetorium to order the scourging.
unto them] The chief actors (xviii. 38) remain constantly present to the mind of the Evangelist, though the episode w. i — 3 has interrupted the narrative.
I bring hint... that ye may know... no fault (charge, i.e. crime)...] If the charge had seemed reasonable the governor would naturally have let the law take its course. That, he had not done so, but brought the accused out again, was a clear proof that he held the charge against Him to be groundless. Yet with strange inconsistency he had treated Him as partly guilty in order to conciliate unrighteous accusers. But to scourge a prisoner whom he pronounced innocent seemed nothing in his eyes if he could by such means gain his end. His words therefore are an appeal at once to the sense of humanity and to the sense of justice in Christ's accusers. See also Acts xxii. 14.
5. Then came Jesus... ] Jesus therefore came... In obedience to the governor's will Christ follows His judge into the presence of the people. He knows all, and so knowing endures all in absolute submission.
wearing...] Each emphatic detail is repeated (the crown of thorns, the purple robe). This array of mockery is presented as the natural dress of Christ (<f>opav. Comp. Matt. xi. 8; James ii. 3; Rom. xiii. 4). So He was through life the suffering King, the true Soldier.
And he (Pilate) saith unto them] Though the name of the Lord has intervened, Pilate is the chief actor now in the apostle's mind. Comp. v. 4 (them). Roman and Jew stand face to face before Christ; and Pilate now, as Caiaphas before (xi. 49 f.). is an unconscious prophet.
Behalf the man!] Contrast v. 14 "Behold, your King! " These words of half-contemptuous pity were designed to change the fierceness of the spectators into compassion. Fear alike and envy, Pilate argues, must disappear at the sight of one enduring with absolute patience such humiliation. " Behold " is an interjection and not a verb: " See, here is before you the man." What lies behind that phrase is unspoken and unthought. It is however natural for us to compare the Lord's prophecy as to Himself with Pilate's appeal (Matt. xxvi. 63 ff., "tell us whether thou be...the Son of God"... "Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you: From henceforth (arc apn) ye shall see the Son of man"...).
6. the chief priests... and officers (the officers)...] The chief priests and their subordinates at once,, when they saw him, anticipated any possible outburst of pity. They " saw " not an object of compassion, but only Him whom they had already doomed. Therefore they give the signal and the command to others. With ''loud cries" ((Kpavyao-av) they demand death, and the death of the vilest malefactor. For the first time the name of the cross is openly used. The sharp, short sentence, Crucify, crucify, exactly reproduces the feelings of the moment, and expresses the answer to Pilate's half measures. The thought is wholly of the punishment. (Contrast Mark xv. 13 f., " Crucify him.") Death, the death of a slave, nothing short of this, is the purpose of the accusers. All the Evangelists agree in representing the special demand for crucifixion as being made towards the end of the trial, after the offer to release a prisoner according to the custom of the feast (Matt, xxvii. aa, Mark xv. 13, Luke xxiii. ai).
Take ye him... no fault...] Take him yourselves...no charge (crime)... Pilate met the peremptory demand of the priests as before (ch. xviii. 31, Take Him yourselves and... judge...) by ironically referring the whole case to their own action. He will not, so he seems to say, simply ratify their decisions. They ask for crucifixion: well, let them crucify— a thing impossible— if his voice is not to be heard.
7. The Jews take up Pilate's challenge and Pilate's judgment in an unexpected manner. He had said Take htm yourselves (Xaj3. ow. vuelf). They answer, If you appeal to us, we have a power whxch we have not yet to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
8 11 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid;
9 And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.
10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
1 1 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above:
invoked. We have a law (finds v. «.) to which you are bound to give effect, whatever you may think of it, and according to the law (rov vofiov) he ought to die. The emphatic " we" answers at once to the emphatic "ye" and to the emphatic " I " of the governor.
made hinue If] cc. v. 18, x. 33, viii. 53 n. The form of expression emphasizes the heinousness of the charge. The claim was asserted in action and not only in word. Comp. v. la, " maketh himself a king."
the Son of God] The absence of the article (vlov 6tov) fixes attention upon the general character of the nature claimed (Son of God) as distinguished from the special personality (comp. i. i, note). A Roman would have no distinct idea of One to whom alone the title " Son of God " truly belongs.
6. *w. 8 — ii. Within the Pnetortum. The origin of Christ untold: the origin of authority revealed.
S. Pilate had already recognised something mysterious in the Person and charge before him (see xviii. 29, note). The fact that Christ was said to have claimed a divine origin naturally deepened the strange fear which His presence inspired: Pilate not only was afraid, but he <was more afraid. Could he have ignominiously scourged one who was in some sense sent by the national divinity? A Roman at this time, when Eastern religions were making themselves felt throughout the empire, would be able to attach a real if vague meaning to the title " Son of God; " and superstition goes with unbelief. Compare Matt, xxvii. 54, where we have an obvious echo of the same words.
that saying'] Rather, this saying or (word (\6yos~): i.e. the general charge now brought against Christ, and not the exact title itself
9. And went... judgment hall...] And he went... palace (praetorlum). The clause marks a new scene.
Whence art thou?] The question is put in a general form. Pilate looks to the answer for the relief or the confirmation of his misgivings. This indecision of the questioner, who indirectly asks from the Lord a revelation of
Himself (comp. viii. 25, x. 24), explains the silence with which he was met. That silence was fitted to lead Pilate to reflect on what he had already heard (ch. xviii. 36); and a direct answer would have been either misleading or unintelligible. Moreover, the claim of justice, which was now in question, was not in any way affected by the circumstances of the Lord's descent. Compare the parallel incident Matt, xxvii. 13 f. See also Isai. liii. 7.
10. Then saith Pilate (Pilate therefore saith)... Speakest thou not unto me?] The pronoun stands with emphasis at the head of the sentence (e'/xol ou A.;): silence before others might have been intelligible, but Pilate was supreme. His sentence was the final voice not of a party but of the law and the government: / have power — rightful authority to crucify...to release] Better, to release... to crucify... The alternatives are presented with the most impressive distinctness. The order in the best authorities places the motive of hope before that of fear, which seems in itself to be more natural.
11. Jesus answered him, Thou couldest (wouldest) have...] The claim of Pilate to the absolute possession of right to act as he pleases leads the Lord to speak again. There was truth and error in the claim. The two required to be distinguished in order that the real relation of the civil and the theocratic powers to the death of Christ might be laid open. In the order of the world Pilate had the authority which he claimed to have. It had been given to him to exercise authority. As the representative of the Emperor his judgment was legally decisive (Rom. xiii. i). But still his right to exercise authority was derived, not inherent. Human government is only valid as the expression of the divine will. He therefore who exercises it is responsible, whatever he may suppose, to a higher power. So far however as any immediate result was concerned Pilate acted within the scope of the "authority which it had been given to him to exercise." "For this reason" the High-Priest, representing the theocracy, was more guilty. Pilate was guilty in using wrongfully his civil power. The High-Priest was doubly guilty, both in using wrongfully a higher (spiritual) power
therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man
go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.
13 11 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and in transgressing his legitimate rules of action. He had failed to fulfil his duty and he had violated its rules. It was the privilege of his office to recognise the Messiah, and to preserve the true spiritual independence of the people. By appealing to a heathen power to execute an unjust (xi. 49 f.) sentence on Christ, he had sinned against God by unfaithfulness, as well as by unrighteousness.
given tbee~\ It does not appear that there is (as is commonly supposed) any reference to the fact that Pilate was an unconscious instrument of the divine will. In this respect the Chief Priests were in the same position; and there was nothing in the fulfilment of the counsel of God to modify the guilt of one or the other (comp. Acts ii. 23).
That which " was given," it must be noticed, is not the authority itself, but the possession and exercise 01 it (I/K 8fdop.tvoi> not;Jj/ from above] i. e. from God. Comp. Rom. iii. i f. The words correct Pilate's assertion of independence. The notion that the clause refers to the reference of the case from " a higher tribunal " (the Sanhedrin) to the Roman Court is wholly unnatural, though it has the confident support of Coleridge. In speaking of the source of Pilate's authority it has been rightly felt that the Lord indicates the source of His own being (whence...?). He spoke of that which He knew and as One who knew (ch. iii. it).
be that delivered me unto thec~\ Caiaphas, the personal representative of "the Jews" (xviii. 30 — 35; comp. Matt, xxvii. 2 note). The responsibility for the act is concentrated in him. There can be no reference to Judas in the surrender to Pilate (to thee).
The double sentence on the Accused and the accusers. The Christ rejected: the Emperor
12. And from thenceforth...If thou let this man <ro...~\ Upon this (omit and)... If thou release this man... Upon this, i.e. " in consequence of this answer" (comp. vi. 66, note), and not simply "after this." Jhe calm majesty of the Lord's words confirmed Plate's fears. He now actively " sought " himself to release Jesus: before he had endeavoured to lead the Jews to suggest his release.
the Jew] The national title stands out in contrast with the plea which they urge. Pilate had refused to carry out a sentence based upon Jewish opinion. The official chiefs of the theocracy convert themselves therefore into jealous guardians of the rights of the empire, and accuse Pilate of negligence. The simple acceptance of the title of "king" is, they argue, a declaration of antagonism to the one emperor. The change in the tactics of the priests is remarkable. Under ordinary circumstances a Roman governor would not have scrupled to give effect to a sentence based on a national religious law. Perhaps the accusers felt that their proceedings had been irregular, and in the face of opposition judged it better to press a political rather than a religious offence. Compare Matt, xxvii. i note.
cried out] According to the most probable reading (cKpavyao-av) the thought found expression in one loud simultaneous cry, as distinguished from the repeated cries of a multitude (ficpavyaCov xii. 13). See vv. 6, 15, xviii. 40. On each occasion St John notices the loud, decisive utterance, though this may have found echoes. Compare Mark xv. 14 («pa£ai/) with Matt, xxvii. 23 (fKpafrv).
Cesar's friend] The phrase was a title of honour frequently given to provincial governors (see Wetstein ad he., Jos. ' Antt.' xiv. 10. 2; Luke ii. i, note); but here it is probably used in a general and not in a technical sense: " a loyal supporter of the emperor."
whosoever (literally, every one that) maketh... speaketh against...] i.e. controverts the emperor's authority, and so virtually sets himself against him in rebellion. Comp. Rom. x ai (Isai. Ixv. 2).
It will be observed how completely the successive charges of the Jews noticed by St Tohn correspond with the natural progress of the examination. They first bring a general accusation of " evil doing." Pilate refuses to accept their judgment. They then press the title "King of the Jews" (implied in xvin. as seditious. Pilate dismisses the charge
12) So lastly, letting drop the formal accusations civil and ecclesiastical, they appeal to Pilate's own fears. In this way they obtained their end by personal motives (Acts xui. 28, JTJo-avro. Comp. Luke xxiii. 24).
13- When Pilate therefore... that saying (these words)...] The new plea left Pilate to choose between yielding to an indefinite sense of reverence and right, and escaping the and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.
14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth
hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
15 But they cried out, Away with hint) away with him^ crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify
danger of a plausible accusation at Rome, before such a man as Tiberius (Tac. 'Ann.' nr. 38). If a late date be assigned to the Crucifixion, Pilate's fear at that time would have been greater, for the suspicions of Tiberius became more cruel after the fall of Sejanus, Pilate's patron (A. D. 31, Suet.'Tib.'6i). It was natural therefore that his fear of the emperor overcame his fear of Christ. His misrule gave him good cause for alarm, and he could easily persuade himself that there would be real peril in neglecting the information which was laid before him. A popular outbreak might follow, even against the will of the Leader whom he believed to be innocent of violent designs. His decision therefore was taken without any further discussion.
brought...forth (without)] After the Ecce homo the Lord had been taken within the Praetorium (v. 9). The formal sentence was given in the open court. The judgmentseat (tribunal) was placed upon a conspicuous spot, which was called in Hebrew (Aramaic) Gabbatka, and in Greek Lithostroton, "a pavement." The courts of the temple were paved (a Chro. vii. 3, Jos. 'B. J.' vi. i. 8), and it is not unlikely that there was a paved platform at the head of the steps leading from the temple to Antonia (Acts xxi. 40), where Pilate's tribunal could be conveniently placed (see however note on Matt, xxvii. 2). There can be no reference under the Hebrew name, to such a portable mosaic floor as Julius Czsar carried about with him for his judgment-seat (Suet. « Cses.' 46).
sat down in the judgment seat] It has been suggested that the verb (fKadio-ev) is transitive (i Cor. vi. 4; Eph. i. ao), and that the sense is, "Pilate placed Him (Christ) on a seat," completing in this way the scene of the " Ecce Homo," by shewing the King on His throne. At first sight the interpretation is attractive, but the action does not seem to fall in with the position of a Roman governor, and the usage of the phrase elsewhere (Acts xii. a i, xxv. 6, 17) appears to be decisive against it. St John, it may be added, never uses the verb transitively.
The absence of the article before "judgment seat," in the original (eVi /3»//iaroy, according to the true reading), probably indicates that this was an improvised and not a regular tribunal. Contrast Acts xii. ai, xxv. 6, 17. In Matt, xxvii. 19 the verb is different. Comp. Jos. ' B. J.' ii. 14. 8 f
14. the preparation of the passover] The day before — the "Eve" of — the Passover. See note on Matt, xxvii.
Behold^ your King!] The words are spoken with bitterness. The people had refused to regard the appeal to their humanity (•u. 5); and Pilate now implies that the wounded and mocked Prisoner is alone fit to represent them (saith to the Jews). At the same time, too, he may intend to remind them of the welcome which Christ had received at His entry into Jerusalem. This was the end of that enthusiasm. The priests had overawed the people.
" Behold " is here, as in i;. 5, an interjection: "See, here is the king, of whom you spoke, and who befits you! "
15. But they...] They therefore. The pronoun (eKeu/ot) isolates the adversaries of the Lord, and sets them in this last scene apart from and over against Him. With one loud universal cry ((Kpavyavav) they disclaim all connexion with the King whom Pilate assigned to them: " Away, away with him."
Pilate, however, still presses his reproaches: Shall (Must) I crucify your King? The emphasis lies on the last words. From the beginning to the end the thought of kingship runs through the whole examination before Pilate.
The chief priests'] There is singular force in the exact definition of the speakers here. They are not simply described as " the Jews" (xviii. 31, xix. 7), nor yet as "the chief priests and the officers" (xix. 6). The official organs of the theocracy themselves proclaim that they have abandoned the faith by which the nation had lived. The sentence " We have no king but Csesar " (the foreign emperor) is the legitimate end of their policy, the formal abdication of the Messianic hope. The kingdom of God, in the confession of its rulers, has
your King? The chief priests an- forth into a place called the place of a
fore unto them to be crucified. And 18 Where they crucified him, and they took Jesus, and led him away. two other with him, on either side
17 And he bearing his cross went one, and Jesus in the midst.
become the kingdom of the world. In the place of the Christ they have found the emperor. They first rejected Jesus as the Christ, and then, driven by the irony of circumstances, they rejected the Christ altogether.
16. 7Zw« therefore be delivered...~] There was now no longer room for delay. The end was reached. The last word had been spoken. So the zealots for the Roman empire were empowered to work their will. But Pilate pronounced no sentence himself. He simply let the chief priests have their way (comp. Matt. xxvii. 26; Mark xv. 15; Luke xxiii. ajV He had conceded a little against justice in false policy (v. i), and he was driven to concede all against his will. From St Matthew it appears that he typically abjured the responsibility for the act, while the Jews took Christ's blood upon themselves (Matt xxvii. 24, 25). So they became the real executioners, and carried out the foreign law (be delivered Him up to them). Yet even so their dependence was also indicated: the last clause runs not that they should crucify (v. 6), but that be should be crucified.
In this last issue it will be noticed that the Jews and Pilate were self-condemned of a double treason: the Jews of treason to their true king, on the plea of religion, and Pilate of treason to his office on the plea of loyalty.
The record of the last scene of the Passion contains very much that is peculiar to St John: the challenging of the title (20 — 22), the last bequest (25 — 27), two words (28 — 30), the piercing of the side (31 — 37), the ministry of Nicodemus (39 f.). For a time at least St John was an eye-witness (w. a6, 35).
4. The t<wo requests (31 — 42)- Generally it will be observed that St John dwells on the fulfilment of the Old Covenant, on prophecies and types (vv. 24, 28, 36, 37), and on the Majesty of the Lord in suffering. In all the will of God and the will of Christ * is seen to be accomplished.
In especial St John seems to insist on details (v. 29) which tended to identify the
I. vv. 17 — 22. The Crucifixion. The two and the King. The title challenged and confirmed.
16 to. They therefore took (received) Jesus, and he...~\ Pilate "delivered up" and the " chief priests " "received Jesus." The word (nape\a$ov) may serve to recall the phrase at the beginning of the Gospel: His own received (irapfXafiov) Him not (i. n). The Jews received Christ from the hands of the Roman governor for death: they did not receive Him from the teaching of their own prophets for life. They " received " 'Him and "crucified" Him (v. 18), though the Roman soldiers were their instruments (v. 23; Matt, xxvii. 27). The act was theirs, even while they carried it out "by the hand of lawless men (i.e. Gentiles)" (Acts ii. 43; comp. iii. 15).
17. bearing his cross~\ Or, according to the better reading, bearing the cross for himself. From the Synoptists (Matt, xxvii. 32; Mark xv. 21; Luke xxiii. 26) it appears that on the way Simon of Gyrene (see Mark /. c. note) was taken either to carry or to assist in carrying the cross. This the Lord at first bore for Himself; and the remarkable language of St Mark (xv. 22, fopovtnv, see note) lends countenance to the belief that He sank beneath the burden. Comp. Matt, xxvii. 31 f. notes.
Many writers from the time of Melito (Routh, ' Rell. Sacrr.' I. 12*2) have seen in the history of Isaac (Gen. xxii. 6) a type of this incident. Comp. xviii. 12, note.
18. they crucified'] i.e. the Jews, not indeed directly but acting through the Roman soldiers (v. 23), to whom the charge of the execution was committed. For the nature of the punishment, see Matt, xxvii. 35, note.
two other] described as "robbers" (Xwrrnf, comp. ch. xviii. 40) by St Matthew (xxvii. 38, see note) and St Mark (xv. 27), and as "malefactors" (/caKoDpyot, comp. xviii. 10) by St Luke (xxiii. 32). It may have been of design that these criminals were put to death with the Lord, in order to place His
19 fl And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZA- RETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city:
and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.
22 Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.
alleged offence of treason on a level with theirs. Comp. ch. xviii. 40, note.
in the midst] as holding the position of pre-eminence in that scene of uttermost shame. Even in suffering Christ appears as a King. St John by the addition of this clause emphasizes the thought which the other Evangelists leave to be deduced (Matt, xxvii. 38; Mark xv. 27; Luke xxiii. 33).
19. And Pilate... title &lso, and..."] It was not unusual to attach to the cross the name and offence of the sufferer (see Matt, xxvii. 37, note). This St John calls by the technical Roman term "titulus" (i-n-Xoj).
And the writing was] And there was written. It appears likely that St John has preserved exactly one of the forms of the "title" (the Greek). The other Evangelists speak of "the inscription of his accusation" (fi eirtypa(f)fi rfjs atria? avVoC, 'Mark XV. 26), " his accusation " (77 mn'a av'rou, Matt, xxvii. 37), and "an inscription" (eViypa^jj, Luke xxiii. 38).
The facts that Pilate himself drew up the inscription and caused it to be placed (wrote... and placed if) on the cross are mentioned only by St John. The act appears to have been an afterthought (eypa^ev Se *al r.); or the form of expression may perhaps imply that the placing of the Lord " in the midst" was due to Pilate's direction. The form of the sentence, which throws the emphasis on "title" and not on " Pilate," is in favour of this view. In either case the Roman governor found expression to the last for the bitterness which had been called out in him by the opposition of the Jews (vv. 14, 15). The incidents which have been related before explain perfectly why the title was written, and how the heathen governor completed the unwilling testimony of the Jewish priest (xi. 49 f.).
20. in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin] Rather, according to the best authorities, in Hebrew, and in Latin, and in Greek. This detail also is peculiar to St John, for the corresponding clause in Luke xxiii. 38 is an interpolation. Such multilingual inscriptions were not uncommon in the Roman provinces. The correspondence between the different texts (it may be added) was in all probability not so much verbal as substantial.
The order of the languages, according to the true reading, answers to the position which they would naturally occupy: the national dialect, the official dialect, the common dialect. These three languages gathered up the results of the religious, the social, the intellectual, preparation for Christ, and in each witness was given to His office.
21. Then said the chief priests....] The chief priests... said therefore... The place was public, and the inscription was so written as to be intelligible (perhaps) to all the visitors at the Feast. " The chief priests of the Jews " were consequently anxious to make it clear that they and all whom they represented were not compromised by the condemnation of " the King." Pilate's shaft went home. Perhaps we may see in the difference of form between the title assigned by Pilate, "The King of the Jews " (o ftaa-iXevs r. 'I.), and that suggested by the priests as claimed by Jesus, " King of the Jews" (/3a<nXei>s r. 'I.), an instinctive unwillingness on their part to connect in any way the Messianic dignity — " the Kingship " — with Him whom they had condemned. They wished to make Him a mere ordinary usurper (comp. v. 12). Or it may have been that they would not acknowledge even by implication that such a title was possible, keeping, as pure secularists, to their former assertion, " We have no king but Caesar."
the chief priests of the Jews'] This unique title appears to be used here to emphasize the contrast between the faithless priests and the true King; and also to indicate that this priesthood had given way to another. Comp. ii. 6, 13, notes.
22. When there was no longer personal danger Pilate held to his purpose. The trait corresponds perfectly with his character, and the form of the answer is characteristically Roman, though it is found also in Rabbinic writings.
The account which Philo gives of the character of Pilate (' Leg. ad Caium,' § 38), "self-willed at once and implacable" (/^era TOV avdddovs a/ieiAiKTos), illustrates St John's description. When the people besought him to remove the shields, which he had set up in Herod's palace in honour of the emperor, he was unwilling alike to undo what he had done and to gratify any popular wish. At the
they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also bis coat: now the coat was without seam, II woven from the top throughout.
24 1 hey said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but
cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, ^They parted my rai- d P«aL ment among them, and for my ves- l8' ture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.
25 f Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's
same time he was greatly alarmed lest the Jews should expose to Tiberius his various acts of " corruption, outrage, robbery, insult, contumely; his indiscriminate and continuous murders; his unceasing and most vexatious cruelty."
23. Then the soldiers...'] The soldiers therefore... as carrying out in the customary manner the sentence which they had to execute (v. 1 8). St John describes in minute detail what the other Evangelists state summarily (Matt, xxvii. 35; Mark xv. 24; Luke xxiii. 34), and explains what they say of " casting lots." See Matt, xxvii. 35, note.
his garments... also the coat] The large, loose, outer dress with girdle, &c. (ra J/xarta), and the close-fitting inner tunic or vest ( viro5i/). The former could be conveniently divided, but not the latter.
Chrysostom, who may write from personal knowledge, thinks that the detail is added to shew "the poorness of the Lord's garments, and that in dress, as in all other things, He followed a simple fashion."
24. They said therefore among themselves (one to another, xvi. 17)] It is easy to imagine how St John (v. 26) watched earnestly each act, and listened as the soldiers talked over their work.
that the scripture...] Omit which saith. The central thought in the original context (Ps. xxii. 1 8) is that the enemies of the Lord's Anointed treated Him as already dead, and so disposed of His raiment. Part was torn asunder, part was to be worn by another. St John marks how this double appropriation of Christ's dress was brought about; and he appears to have had in mind the contrast which exists in the original between the overclothing (DHJ3) and the body-dress (t^ia1?), though this is obscured in the LXX. transla-
This reference to the psalm, it may be noticed, has been inserted from this place in Matt, xxvii. 35. See note there.
my raiment] my garments. The same word is used as in v. 23 (I/ulna).
25 ff. There were others at the Cross besides the soldiers. The two groups are placed in significant contrast (" the soldiers on the one hand [oi p.fv ovv or.]"... "on the other there were standing [e2crr»7«t(rai> 8e']"...). At the very moment when His executioners fulfil the last part of their office, Christ in calm sovereignty works for others. The soldiers at their will dispose of His raiment, but He Himself, even from the Cross, determines the relationships of life.
25. Now there stood...'] More exactly, But there were standing ((i<rTi]K(i<Tav, not simply stood. See xviii. 5, note). This group seems to have formed the more courageous part of " the many beholding from afar," mentioned by St Matthew (xxvii. 55 f., see notes), who therefore notices the three by name, though he does not record that they approached the Cross.
The text leaves room for doubt as to the number of the women mentioned. According to one interpretation, the name "Mary the wife of Clopas" is added as explanatory of the preceding phrase, "His mother's sister," so that three women only are specified: according to another interpretation, two pairs of women are distinguished, the first two not named but signified only, " His mother and His mother's sister;" and the second two plainly named, " Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene." The former interpretation would involve the most unlikely supposition that two sisters bore the same name. The parallelism of the second interpretation is like St John's style, and is supported by other considerations. St Mark (xv. 40) mentions among those present " Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of loses, and Salome" (comp. Matt, xxvii. 56). There is no doubt as to the identity of "Mary the wife of Clopas" and "Mary the mother of James the less." It seems natural therefore to suppose that when two groups of three stand out clearly in the same connexion, in which
sister, Mary the wife of ' Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that
26 When Jesus therefore saw his hour that disciple took her unto his mother, and the disciple standing own home.
28 11 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplish-
by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
two persons are the same, that the third is also the same; and so that "the sister of the Lord's mother" is "Salome," "the mother of the sons of Zebedee." This near connexion of St John with the mother of the Lord helps to explain the incident which follows, as well as the general relation in which St John stood to the Lord. The omission of the name of Salome, on this supposition, falls in with St John's usage as to his brother and to himself. It may be added that the Peshito (Syriac) version distinctly adopts this view by inserting and before " Mary the wife of Clopas."
Mary the wife of Cleophas (Clop as)] This seems to be the true meaning of the elliptical phrase (M. 17 roC KXwTra). " Clopas" must then be regarded as identical with " Alphaeus" (Matt. x. 3). It is commonly supposed that both forms represent the Aramaic *B?n. The form "Cleophas" (A. V.) comes from late Latin MSS. and has no Greek authority.
There is no direct ground for identifying Clopas (KXwTras) with Cleopas (KXtoTrar), mentioned in Luke xxiv. 18, and none therefore for supposing that this Mary was either his "mother" or his "wife" or his "daughter."
It will be noticed that Mary Magdalene is introduced abruptly, as well known, without any explanation.
26. When Jesus therefore...] All who were present at the scene acted according to their true natures: priests (•:;. 21), soldiers (w. 23, 24), Jews (jv. 31); and so Christ fulfilled the last office of filial piety. The soldiers treated Him as already dead (v. 24, note), and He still exercised His royal power over the souls of men.
whom he loi-ed~\ See ch. xiii. 23, note. The clause is at once an explanation of what follows, and a word of thanksgiving; of humility, not of pride.
Woman} Comp. ii. 4, note. Special earthly relationships are now at an end. For Christ the title of parentage ("Mother") is exchanged for the common title of respect (yvvai). If, as appears most likely, the "brethren" of Christ were sons of Joseph by a former marriage, and St John was the son of the sister of the Lord's mother, the difficulty which has. been felt as to the charge which he received in preference to the brethren, who appear among the first believers (Acts i. 14), wholly disappears. St John was nearest to the Virgin by ties of blood. Comp. T>. 25, note.
27. Behold, thy mother!'} Here no title of address is used. To St John the Lord stood in the same relation as before. The absence of a vocative in this clause (Hebr. ii. n) fixes attention on the meaning of that which was used before.
The four exclamations in this chapter, the two of Pilate, Behold, the man! (v. 5), Behold, your King! (v. 14), and these two of the Lord, Behold, thy son! Behold, thy mother! form a remarkable picture of what Christ is and what He reveals men to be. The word " Behold" is in each case an interjection.
And from that hour} The words are to be understood literally, but it does not follow that St John's "home" was at Jerusalem (but see note on Mark i. 20). He at once accepted and fulfilled the duties of his new sonship. The crisis of Christ's Passion ("His hour," comp. xiii. i) closed finally His individual relation, as man, to His earthly mother. The simple connexion of the word and the deed (and, not therefore) is full of meaning. The act was not so much a consequence drawn from that which the Lord had said as something felt to be included in it. Perhaps St John conveyed the mother of the Lord at once to his own lodging, and himself returned.
Nothing is known with reasonable certainty of the later life of the mother of the Lord. Epiphanius was evidently unacquainted with any accepted tradition upon the subject ('Hasr.' LXXVIII. ii). He leaves it in doubt whether she accompanied St John to Asia Minor or not. But in the course of time surmises were converted into facts; and Nicaphorus Callisti (f c. 1350, 'Hist. Eccles.' ii. 3) relates that she lived with St John at Jerusalem for eleven years after the death of the Lord, and died there in her 59th year. The site of the "Tomb of the Virgin," just to the north of the garden of Gethsemane, is not mentioned by any traveller of the first six centuries, and the later tradition that the church there was built by Helena is certainly false. See Quaresmius, ii. 240 fF.; Williams, ' Holy City,' II. 434 fF. From a passage in a Synodical Letter of the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431, ' Cone.' in. 573, Labbe) it appears that, according to another tradition, the mother of the Lord accompanied St John to Ephesus and was buried there.
28. After this} The phrase is not indefinite, as " after these things," see ch. v. i. The ministry of Christ to others was ended. Then notice is taken of His own suffering. But all thought is concentrated upon the Lord Himself, upon His words and His actions; and it may be for. this reason that St John omits all tm-ntion of the three hours' darkness (Matt, xxvii. 45; Mark xv. 33).
that the scripture might be fulfilled'} This clause can be connected either with the words which precede ("were now accomplished that the...") or with the words which follow ("...accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith..."). The stress which the Evangelist lays upon the fulfilment of prophetic words in each detail of Christ's sufferings appears to shew that the latter interpretation is correct. The "thirst," the keen expression of bodily exhaustion, was specified as part of the agony of the Servant of God (Ps. Ixix. 21), and this Messiah endured to the uttermost. The incident loses its full significance unless it be regarded as one element in the foreshadowed course of the Passion. Nor is there any difficulty in the phrase "are now finished" as preceding it. The "thirst" was already felt, and the feeling included the confession of it. The fulfilment of the Scripture (it need scarcely be added) was not the object which the Lord had in view in uttering the word, but there was a necessary correspondence between His acts and the divine foreshadowing of them.
be fulfilled\ be accomplished, perfected. The word used (reXetw^, Vulg. consummaretur, for which some copies substitute the usual word ir\r)pa>6fi) is very remarkable. It appears to mark not the isolated fulfilling of a particular trait in the scriptural picture, but the perfect completion of the whole prophetic image. This utterance of physical suffering was the last thing required that Messiah might be "made perfect "(Hebr.ii. 10, v. 7 ff.), and so the ideal of prophecy "made perfect" in Him. Or, to express the same thought otherwise, that "work" which Christ came to "make perfect" (ch. iv. 34, xvii. 4) was written in Scripture, and by the realisation of the work thp Srrintnrp was "nerfected." Thus under different aspects of this word and of that which it implies, prophecy, and the earthly work of Christ, and Christ Himself, were "made perfect."
29. The act on this occasion (contrast Luke xxiii. 36) appears to have been a natural act of compassion, and not at all of mockery. The emphasis is laid upon the physical suffering of the Lord, and not upon the manner in which it was met.
Now (omit) there was... -ve-ssel... vinegar! It seems to be certain from Luke xxiii. 36 that the "vinegar" was thin sour wine the ordinary drink of the soldiers. This may have been brought by them for their own use during the long watch. The mention of the " vessel set " is peculiar to St John.
and they filled...and put it...} having therefore placed a sponge full of the vinegar upon hyssop they put it... St John's narrative leaves the persons undetermined. "They" may refer to the soldiers whose action has been described above, or "the Jews," who are in his mind the real agents throughout (v. 16). The account in St Matthew (xxvii. 48, see note) and St Mark (xv. 36), with equal vagueness, refers the action to "one of them that stood by," but since St Luke (xxiii. 36) speaks of "the soldiers" as having offered "vinegar" to the Lord at an earlier stage of His Passion, there can be little doubt that one of these, touched with awe by what had intervened, now brought in compassion the draught which had been offered in mockery before.
tyssop} In St Matthew and St Mark "a reed " is mentioned, which is probably to be distinguished from the hyssop; though the "hyssop" has been frequently identified with the caper-plant, which has stems three or four feet long. Cotnp. Matt, xxvii. 48, note, and the 'Dictionary of the Bible,' s. -v.
30. received} The Lord, it will be noticed, asked for and received this slight refreshment, which restored natural forces, while He refused the stupefying potion which was before offered to Him. See Matt, xxvii. 34, note. He gave up life while in full possession of the powers of life.
It is finished} Comp. v. 28. The earthly life had been carried to its issue. Every essential point in the prophetic portraiture of Messiah had been realized (Acts xiii. 29). The last suffering for sin had been endured. The " end " of all had been gained. Nothing was left undone or unborne; The absence of a definite subject forces the reader to call up
finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on
the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. 32 Then came the soldiers, and each work which was now brought to an end. Comp. Luke xviii. 31, xxii. 37, and the phrase of St Paul, a Tim. iv. 7. See Matt, xxvii.
gave up the ghost (His spirit)] The death itself is described as a voluntary act (Tertull. ' Apol.' ch. 21, p. 58, "Suffixus spiritum cum verbo sponte dimisit prasvento carnificis officio "). Among later writers who dwell on this idea, Augustine (in loc.~) may be speci-
ally quoted: ' ' Quis ita dormit quando voluerit, sicut Jesus mortuus est quando voluit? Quis ita vestem ponit quando voluerit, sicut se carne exuit quando vult? Quis ita cum voluerit abit, quomodo ille cum voluit obiit? Quanta speranda vel timenda potestas est judicantis, si apparuit tanta morientis? " In this sense
the words stand in close relation with the phrase of St Paul, He gave up Himself (TTOpe8a>Kfv eavrov, Eph. v. 2, 25; Gal. ii. 20). Comp. i Pet. ii. 23, and, under another aspect, Acts vii. 59. St Luke (xxiii. 46) gives the words which the Lord used (7rap<m'0ejuai, Ps. xxxi. 5). Such a willing surrender of life was an exact fulfilment of what the Lord had said of Himself, ch. x. 1 7 f. Under these circumstances it may not be fitting to speculate on the physical cause of the Lord's death, but it has been argued that the symptoms agree with a rupture of the heart, such as might be produced by intense mental agony (Stroud, 'The physical cause of the Death of Christ,' 1847, r87i; see note on -v. 34). In connexion with St John's language here it may be noticed that in the Apocalypse he seems to avoid the word "died" in speaking of the Lord: i. 18, ii. 8 (yei/eV#<u j/eKpor); yet see c. xii. 33, xi. 51. The phrases in the parallel accounts are different, Matt, xxvii. 50 (affrrJKfv TO Trvfv/ia); and Mark xv. 37; Luke xxiii. 46
The "seven words from the Cross," which are preserved some by one Evangelist and some by another, form a whole which requires to be studied by itself. One is given by St Matthew and St Mark only. Three are peculiar to St Luke, and three to St John. The following list presents the order in which they appear to have been uttered.
T. Father, forgive them • for they know not what they do (iroiovviv), Luke xxiii. 34.
I' Or, Clttfas.
2. Verily I say, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise (Luke xxiii. 43).
7. Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit (Luke xxiii. 46).
The last word of the Lord which St John records is a voice of triumph. Comp. xvi. 33.
(a) The request of the Jews. The sign of life in the crucified Lord (w. 31 — 37).
31 — 37. The main thought of this section is that of the Life of the Lord in Death. The sign of life is called out by wanton insult: the unconscious agency of enemies effects the fulfilment of the divine purpose.
The incidents are peculiar to St John. Yet see the early addition to St Matt, xxvii. 49, " But another took a spear and pierced His side, and there came out water and blood."
31. The Jews therefore...] The connexion is not with that which immediately precedes, for the Jews did not yet know of Christ's death. But the narrative goes back to follow out the conduct of the chief actors in the tragedy (w. 7, 20); they had wrought their will, and now they were eager to satisfy the letter of the Law: Deut. xxi. 22 f. Jos. ' B. J.' iv. 5. 2. Comp. xviii. 28.
Under any circumstances the dead bodies ought to have been removed before night; but this obligation became more urgent on the day of the Crucifixion, since that day preceded a great Festival, " the first day of unleavened bread" (Exod. xii. 16; Lev. xxiii. 7), which, according to the common view, coincided on this occasion with the weekly Sabbath (see Matt, xxvi., note), so that the day was "a great day" in itself, and by the concurrence of two " Sabbaths."
besought] Rather, asked (rjpunrjo-av), as for that which they might reasonably expect to be granted.
brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.
33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he
21). It was no part of the punishment of crucifixion itself, but was inflicted in this case, and perhaps generally in Jewish crucifixions (Lact. IV. 26), in order to hasten death. Compare Lipsius, 'De cruce,' 11. 14. The punishment was abolished, together with crucifixion, by the first Christian emperor Constantine (Lipsius, ill. 14).
3 2. Then...the soldiers} The soldiers therefore,— to whom the carrying out of the execution had been committed — came from their place of guard to fulfil these new instructions.
the frst...the other...] starting perhaps from the two sides at which they had been stationed.
34. The wantonness of the soldiers' violence was in part checked (they brake not his legs), but one of them, in order, no doubt, to learn the certainty of the Lord's death, pierced His side. The word which describes the wound (fia'*ei») is used both of a light touch (Ecclus. xxii. 19) and of a deep gash (Jos. ' B. J.' in. 7. 35). Here there is no doubt that the latter is described, both from the weapon used (Aoyx.v, Vulg. lancea, the long lance of a horseman) and from the object of the blow. The word is quite distinct from that used in •v. 37 (ig(K(VTrjo-av, pierced through, or deeply: i Chro. x. 4). The reading of the Latin Vulgate, opened (aperuit), comes from a false reading of the Greek (qi>ot£«c for ew£tv).
blood and water] It has been argued (with the* greatest plausibility and authority by Dr Stroud, ' The physical cause of the Death of Christ,' ed. 2, 1871) that this is a natural phenomenon. The immediate cause of death was (it is said) a rupture of the heart, which was followed by a large effusion of blood into the pericardium. This blood, it is supposed, rapidly separated into its more solid and liquid parts (crassamentum and serum), which flowed forth in a mingled stream, when the pericardium was pierced by the spear from below. But it appears that both this and the other naturalistic explanations of the sign are not only inadequate but also inconsistent with the real facts. There is not sufficient evidence to shew that such a flow of blood and water as is described would occur under the circumstances supposed, and the separation of the blood into its constituent parts is a process of corruption, and we cannot but believe that even from the moment of death the Body of the Lord underwent the beginnings of that change which issued in the Resurrection. The issuing of the blood and water from His side must therefore be regarded as a sign of life in death. It shewed both His true humanity and (in some mysterious sense) the permanence of His human life. Though dead, dead in regard to our mortal life, the Lord yet lived; and as He hung upon the cross He was shewn openly to be the source of a double cleansing and vivifying power, which followed from His death and life.
The Sign by which this revelation was made becomes intelligible from the use of the terms " blood" and " water" elsewhere in the writings of St John. i. "Blood" is the symbol of the natural life (comp. i. 13); and so especially of life as sacrificed; and Christ by dying provided for the communication of the virtue of His human life: vi. 53 — 56, xii. 24 ff. Comp. Rev. i. 5, v. 9, vii. 14. 2. « Water" is the symbol of the spiritual life (see iv. 14, iii. 5, and vii. 38; [Zech. xiv. 8]); and Christ by dying provided for the outpouring of the Spirit: xvi. 7. Comp. Rev. xxi. 6, xxii. i, 17, [vii. 17]. The cleansing from sin and the quickening by the Spirit are both consequent on Christ's death.
Thus we are brought by this sign of " blood and water" to the ideas which underlie the two Sacraments and which are brought home to faith in and through them; and the teaching of the third and sixth chapters is placed at once in connexion with the Passion. It is through the death of Christ, and His new Life by Death, that the life of the Spirit and the support of the whole complex fulness of hilman life is assured to men. The symbols of the Old Covenant (Hebr. ix. 19) found their fulfilment in the New.
Comp. i John v. 6 ff. Lightfoot quotes a remarkable tradition from 'Shemoth R.' 122 a, based on the interpretation of Ps. Ixxviii. 20 (D'D 131P1), that "Moses struck the rock twice, and first it gushed out blood and then water."
For a summary of the patristic interpretations of the passage see Additional Note.
He that bath seen (6 e'wpaKw's) hath borne witness dj.fp,apTvpr)K(i>, not €^iaprvprjo-fv), and his witness is true: and he knoweth that he saith things that are true that ye also may believe.
his witness is true (d\?; #11/17) ] i.e. it answers to the full conception of adequate testimony. Comp. viii. 16, 14 and notes. je~\ ye also, even as the apostle himself,
36 For these things were done, /"Exod. iz./that the scripture sjiould be fulfilled, Numb. 9. A bone of him shall not be broken. Psai. 34. 37 And again another scripture
38 f AAnd after this Joseph oPMa"-27- Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
36. For these things (were done (rather, came to pass)...] The stress is laid upon the correspondence of the two facts with the details of type and prophecy. It was wonderful, as the events fell out, that the legs of Christ were not broken: it was further wonderful, when He had escaped this indignity, that His side was pierced. The first fact pointed the student of Scripture to the fulfilment in Jesus of the symbolism of the Law: the second to the fulfilment in Him of the promises as to the representative of Jehovah. For the two passages quoted are not to be regarded only as isolated quotations, but also as indicating the two great lines of preparatory teaching to which they severally belong.
A bone...'] Exod. xii. 46; (Num. ix 12). Comp. i Cor. v. 7. The ordinance extended to the burnt-offerings (Lev. i. 6, into bis pieces}. That which was offered to God might not be arbitrarily mutilated. It was fitting that it should be brought to Him in its full strength. And conversely God preserves "the righteous" (Acts iii. 14, &c.), so that " not one of his bones is broken " (Ps. xxxiv. 20), even in his uttermost distress. The spiritual correspondence of the fact with the phrase in the Psalm should not be overlooked.
37. They shall look...] Zech. xii. TO. See note. Comp. Introduction, p. xiv. " The Jews " are the subject of the whole sentence. The Crucifixion was their act (v. 16); and in unbelief and in belief they represent the world. It is important to notice that the prophetic vision is referred to Christ under a twofold aspect. As presented by the prophet himself, it is the vision of a Saviour late recognised by a penitent people (comp. ch. xii. 32). As applied in the Apocalypse, it is primarily the vision of one slain returning to Judgment (Rev. i. 7). Perhaps these two aspects of Christ's death are reconciled in that final Truth which lies at present beyond our sight.
(b) The request of Joseph of Arimath<ea. The quickening of love in disciples (vv. 38 — 42).
38 — 42. Just as the last section deals with the unconscious ministry of enemies, this deals with the devoted ministry of friends. The Death of the Lord evoked in disciples that courage which had been latent during His lifetime (secretly, v. 38, by night at the first, v. 39). From this point of sight it is natural that the ministry of the women should be passed over (Matt, xxvii. 61; Mark xv. 47; Luke xxiii. 55 f.): their continued service revealed no sudden growth of love or selfsacrifice.
All the Evangelists record the request ot Joseph. St John alone notices the offering and the presence of Nicodemus (vv 39 f.).
38. after this] More exactly, after these things (p.fra ravTa): the phrase marks an indefinite, general, sequence and not a direct sequence (/zero TOVTO, v. 28). Comp. vi. i, note. The form of expression is of importance here because it shews that the Evangelist does not (as has been supposed) place the request of Joseph after the incident related in vv. 32 ff., but simply after the issue of the crucifixion: comp. Mark xv. 44 f.
for fear of the Jews] xii. 42, vii. 13. St Mark adds most significantly, with a clear reference to this fact: Joseph... (went in boldly unto Pilate... literally, having dared (i-oA/ir/o-as), having ventured on an act foreign to his natural temper (Mark xv. 43, note).
take away] The permission given to Joseph is in complete harmony with the instructions given to the soldiers (v. 31 f., that they might be taken away). Joseph would be able to prefer his request after the death of the Lord (Mark xv. 44), and before the bodies were removed in the ordinary course. Thus he "took down" the Lord's Body (Mark xv. 46; Luke xxiii. 53), either assisting in or directing the act.
gave him leave] This was in accordance with Roman law except in extreme cases. See the passage quoted by Wetstein on Matt.
demus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
42. There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.
xxvii. 58. An avaricious governor was able to sell the privilege of burial (Cic. ' Verr.' v. 45), yet Pilate did not do this (Mark xv. 45, (8a>pj](TaTo): see note in he. and contrast Matt, xxviii. 14. Compare also the burial of the bodies of John the Baptist (Matt. xiv. 12) and St Stephen (Acts viii. 2) by their friends. the body of Jesus'] According to the best authorities, his body.
39. And there came also...] The order of the words, corresponding to that in the former clause, seems to suggest the thought that the act of Joseph gave Nicodemus courage to join him.
which...came to Jesus (to him)] iii. i ff., vii. 50. The addition of the words " by night " here (not in vii. 50 according to the true reading) is designed apparently to contrast this open act of reverence to Christ, done before the day had closed, with the secrecy of his first visit. The use of the phrase " at the first " probably implies at the same time that Nicodemus had come to Christ on other occasions; though it may indicate only the beginning of the Lord's ministry (comp. ch. x. 40).
and brought (bringing) a mixture (or, according to a probable reading, a roll) of myrrh and aloes'] Comp. Ps. xlv. 8, " All thy garments are myrrh and aloes..." The compound was made of the gum oi the myrrh tree (comp. Matt. ii. n; 'Diet, of Bible,' j. v.) and a powder of the fragrant aloe wood.
The amount of the preparation ("about a hundred pound weight," that is, a hundred Roman pounds of nearly twelve ounces) has caused some needless difficulty. The intention of Nicodemus was, without doubt, to cover the Body completely with the mass of aromatics (comp. a Chro. xvi. 14): for this purpose the quantity was not excessive as a costly gift of devotion.
<wound (bound) it in linen clothes (cloths)] The exact word used (odovtd) is found also in Luke xxiv. 12, a verse which appears to have been a very early addition to St Luke's Gospel. The diminutive form which is used in Greek medical writings for bandages, seems to distinguish these "swathes" in which the Body was bound from "the linen cloth" mentioned by the other Evangelists, the manner of the Jews'] as contrasted with that (e.g.} of the Egyptians, who removed parts of the body before embalming (Herod. II. 86 fF.). The phrase may, however, only mark the Jewish custom of embalming as contrasted with burning: comp. Tac. ' Hist.' v. 3- to bury\ Or more exactly, to prepare for burial. Comp. ch. xii. 7; Matt. xxvi. 12; Mark xiv. 8. The same word (evrafyiafav) is used in the LXX. for the " embalming " of Jacob (Gen. 1. 2 f.). The process indicated is the simple wrapping of the dead body in swathes of linen cloth covered with thick layers of the aromatic preparation.
41. a garden] Comp. xviii. i. The scene of the betrayal and the scene of the triumphant rest answer one to the other. The detail is peculiar to St John.
Josephus relates of Uzziah (' Ant.' ix. 10. 4, KrjTrots), and of Manasseh ('Ant.' x. 3.2, TJ-apafifiWs), that they were buried in their " gardens."
a new sepulchre"] St Matthew adds that it belonged to Joseph (xxvii. 60, see note), and all the Synoptists notice that it was cut in the rock. The fact that "no one had ever yet been laid in it " (comp. Luke xxiii. 53) is emphasized (as it appears) to shew that the Lord was not brought into contact with corruption.
42. There...because...] The embalmment could not (according to their views) be deferred, and for this ample provision was made. But it is implied that the sepulchre in which the Lord was laid was not chosen as His final resting-place.
laid they] From another point of view it is said most naturally (Acts xiii. 29) of "the Jews and their rulers" generally, that "they placed" Christ in the tomb. It was the act of both, on the one side from the aspect of devotion and on the other from the aspect of hatred.
the term " preparation " is unfavourable to the view that it is used simply for the day of the week (Friday).
NOTE ON ST JOHN'S RECKONING OF HOURS. St John mentions a definite hour of the day on four occasions:
He also records this saying of the Lord, "Are there not twelve hours in the day? " (xi. 9).
The question therefore arises whether the incidents of which the time is given furnish any clue to the mode of reckoning: whether, that is, the hours were reckoned from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. and from 6 a.m. to 6p.m. according to the common ancient mode followed by the Jews, or from midnight to noon, and from noon to midnight, according to the modem "Western mode.
The different passages will first be examined separately, in order that it may be seen how far the context helps to determine the answer.
(1)1.39. After the mention of the hour, it is said that the disciples abode with Jesus "that day" (TTJV rjpfpav €\fivr)v). It appears likely also that Jesus left the Baptist early in the day (i. 35 ff.). It is then scarcely conceivable that it was 4p.m. (4 a.m. is out of the question) before He reached the place " where He abode; ' ' and even less conceivable that the short space of the day then remaining should be called "that day," which, in fact, appears to have been full of incident. On the other hand, loa.m. suits both conditions. It is an hour by which a wayfarer would seek to have ended his journey; and it would leave practically "a day" for intercourse.
(2) iv. 6. In this case the hour marks a pause on a journey: the visit of the disciples to a town to purchase provisions; a coming of a woman to the well to draw water. 1 1 can scarcely be questioned that these three things fall in better with 6p.m. than with noon. It is most unlikely that a woman would come from a distance at midday to the well, and on the other hand, evening was the usual time: Gen. xxiv. ii. It is more natural that the purchases would be made when the day's travel was over. Sychar too was at about the usual distance of a day's journey from within the borders of Judaea, and arrangements would probably be made to spend the night outside the city, which was afterwards entered by special invitation (iv. 30, 40). If the incident fell in summer (v. i, Additional Note) there would be ample time for the conversation and the return to the city.
(3) iv. 52. The uncertainty of the site of Cana causes a little difficulty in determining the time required for the journey from Capernaum to Cana. This may however be fairly reckoned at about four or five hours. (Comp. Jos. 'Vit.' c. 1-7: a night journey from Cana to Tiberias.) It is then possible that the father may have planned that his journey to and from Cana should be included in one natural day, and that he did not meet his servants till after 6p.m., when they would perhaps speak of ip.m. as "yesterday, about the seventh hour" (comp. Lukexxiii. 54); though such a usage of "yesterday" appears to be distinctly at variance with St John's own usage of "day:"xx. 19 (comp. Luke xxiv. 29, 33) Still it is more likely that the words of Jesus were spoken to the nobleman at Cana in the evening at seven o'clock, when it was already too late for him to return home that night, and that he returned to Capernaum on the next morning, when his servants met him on the way. In this case, of course, the sense, and not the phrase of the servants is given.
(4) xix. 14. In this place it is admitted that the date of noon cannot be brought into harmony with the dates of St Mark (xv. 25). But if we suppose that the time approximately described was about 6.30 a.m. it is not difficult to fit in all the events of the trial: see p. 288.
So far then the examination of the passages themselves is decidedly favourable to the supposition that the modern Western reckoning of the hours is followed by St John. The mention of "twelve hours in the day" has no bearing on the decision one way or other; for we commonly use the same phrase though we reckon from midnight to noon.
It must however be admitted that this mode of reckoning hours was unusual in ancient times. The Romans (Mart. iv. 8) and Greeks, no less than the Jews, reckoned their hours from sunrise. But the Romans reckoned their civil days from midnight (Aul. Cell. in. 2; comp. Matt, xxvii. 19, "this day,") and not from sunrise, or from sunset (as the Jews). And there are also traces of reckoning the hours from midnight in Asia Minor. Polycarp is said ('Mart. Pol.' c. 21) to have been martyred at Smyrna "at the eighth hour." This, from the circumstances, must have been %a.m. Pionius again is said to have been martyred (at Smyrna also) at "the tenth hour," which can hardly have been 4p.m., since such exhibitions usually took place before noon. These two passages furnish a sufficient presumption that St John, in using what is the modern reckoning, followed a practice of the province in which he was living and for which he was writing.
The part which Pilate occupies in the history of the Passion attracted the attention of
Christian writers at an early time. He came to be regarded by many as the representative of the better instincts of heathendom overpowered by the relentless malice of the Jews. A large and popular literature grew up, consisting of " Acts," " Letters" and legends of the death of Pilate. O f these writings, the " Acts," which form the first part of what is known as ' ' the Gospel of Nicodemus," are the most important and the most ancient. The " Acts" were in circulation in the middle of the second century; and the texts still preserved have, as it appears beyond all doubt, been formed, by successive revisions and interpolations, from that original. In its present shape the narrative may probably be referred to a Greek text of the 4th century. Much of it is unquestionably earlier. But even when regarded only as a late and apocryphal commentary on the records of the Gospels, it has great interest. The narrative is found in Greek and Latin copies; and a Coptic fragment also remains as old as the jth century. All the MSS. give substantially the same outline, though the variations in detail and language are very considerable.
The narrative opens with the formal complaint of a body of Jews, headed by "Annas and Caiaphas," and including "Gamaliel" and "Alexander" (Acts iv. 6), addressed to Pilate. They accuse Jesus of saying that He is ''Son of God and King," of wishing to abrogate the law, and of violating the sabbath by cures, wrought by evil arts (yorjs ta-ri), and pray that He may be brought before fiim. Pilate orders an officer to summon Him. The officer, who had been present at the triumphal entry, spreads a robe before Him to walk on; and when Jesus enters the court, the standards bend before Him in the hands of their bearers. The same act of adoration is afterwards repeated when the Jews depute twelve of the strongest of their number to hold the standards. Pilate, in amazement, is about to rise, when the message of his wife (a proselyte, Procula) is brought to him. "See," said the Jews, "He is, as we told you, an enchanter." On this, Pilate asks Jesus, "What do these witness against Thee? Sayest Thou nothing? " Jesus answered, "If they had not had authority (e'£ov<ri'a), they would have spoken nothing: each one has authority over his own mouth to speak good and bad: they themselves shall see to it." "What shall we see?" is the rejoinder. " We have seen that Thou wast born of fornication: that Thy Birth brought the slaughter of the infants at Bethlehem: that Thy father and Thy mother fled in fear to Egypt." On this, certain of the Jews attest that the mother of the Lord was duly wedded to Joseph. Then follows St John xviii. 29— 37, transcribed almost verbally; but Pilate's last question is not left unanswered: "Truth," Jesus saith to him, "is from heaven." Pilate saith: " Is there not truth on earth? " Jesus saith to Pilate: "Seest thou? How are they that speak the truth judged by those that have the authority upon earth?" The Jews then press the charge of blasphemy. "What shall I do to Thee?" Pilate asks of Jesus. " As it was given thee, " is the answer. "How given? " Jesus saith to him: "Moses and the prophets prophesied of my Death and Resurrection." On this, when Pilate charges the Jews to inflict the punishment which is due, they answer, "We wish Him to be crucified." This demand leads to the most remarkable addition to the Gospel narrative. A number of the disciples, Nicodemus, the paralytic of Bethesda, a blind man, a leper, the woman who had the issue of blood (Veronica), and others, plead for the Saviour who had healed them.
Pilate therefore again seeks to set Christ free, but is finally met by the cry, "We acknowledge Cassar for our king, not Jesus. The Magi brought gifts to Him as a king, but Herod sought to kill Him." " Is this He," he then asks, "whom Herod sought?" And when he hears that He is, he washes his hands, places the guilt upon the accusers, and gives his sentence: "Thy nation hath proved Thee to be king, I therefore pronounce that Thou be scourged and then crucified in the garden where Thou wast taken; and that two malefactors, Dysmas and Gestas, be crucified with Thee."
It is needless to pursue the narrative further, or to dwell upon the strange contrast which it offers to the Gospels. The thought of Pilate as the executor of the divine will which runs through it finds its most remarkable expression in an account of his execution by the order of "the Emperor." After he had ended a prayer to the Lord for pardon, a voice came
from heaven, saying, "All the generations and the families of the Gentiles shall bless thee, because under thee (eVl troii) were fulfilled all these things that were spoken by the prophets about me; and thou too hast to appear as my witness at my second coming, when I shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel and those that confessed not to my name" ('Parad. Pil.' §10).
The texts of the different copies of the " Acts" and other writings are given most completely by Tischendorf in his 'Evangelia Apocrypha,' 203 ff. Thilo has given an elaborate commentary on the Evangelium Nicodemi in his 'Codex Apocryphus N. T.' r. 490 ff., and his 'Prolegomena,' § 8 pp. cxviii. ft., give a very full literary history of the book. Tischendorf has published a slight essay on the relation of the Acts to the Gospels ('Pilati circa Christum judicio'.-.iSjj), and the date and composition of the book have been discussed by Lipsius (1871) after other German scholars. "The Gospel of Nicodemus" was translated into Anglo-Saxon; and it was repeatedly printed in English in the sixteenth century.
The patristic interpretation of ch. xix. 34 offers an instructive example of the method and characteristics of ancient commentators. It will therefore be worth while to quote at seme length without further discussion the views of the Greek and Latin fathers upon the passage. The reader will judge how far there is any general consent between the different writers or any clear independence of judgment in dealing with the Original text.
The earliest writer1 who distinctly refers to the passage is CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS (c. 170 A.D.).
Apollinaris speaks of the Lord as Him "who had His holy side pierced ((KKevTydfis, John xix. 37), who poured forth from His side the two elements that again purify (ra 8vo Tra\tv Kadapo-ta), water and blood (the order is changed), word and spirit..." (Routh, 'Rell.' I. 161). The introduction of the word "again" appears to connect the water and the blood with the use of water and blood under the old Covenant. As to the deeper meaning of the sign, Apollinaris, according to the most probable view, interprets it of the word of the gospel (Xoyoj), and of the sanctification of the spirit (Trvfvfia), that is of the historic and of the inward testimony. There may be also a further but obscure reference to the human and divine natures of the Lord.
ORIGEN in two places dwells uport the phenomenon as a divine sign. " In the case of all
other dead bodies," he writes, "the blood is coagulated, and pure water does not flow from them. But in the Case of Jesus the marvel in His dead body was that even in the dead body there was blood and water poured forth from His sides'* ('c. Gels.' il.c. 36; cf. c. 69.).
"How great," he writes again, "was His mercy that for our salvation He not only was made Flesh, but descended even to the dead, and in death itself has the marks of the living. For water and blood cdme forth from His side" ('Comm. in Thess.' IV. 15, quoted by
Jerome ' Ep. ad Minerv. et Alex.' § to, if indeed the quotation from Origen extends so far. In a fragment of his commentary on the Galatians [v. 268 ed. Lommatzsch] he treats the sign as a proof of the reality of the Lord's body).
1 A passage quoted by Clement from a Valentinian writer (' Exec, ex Thcod. ' § 61) must be excepted, in which the issuing of the blood and water is interpreted of the expulsion of the passions from the Body of the Lord. Irenseus alludes to the "mixed cup" (V. 2. 3; [iv. 33. 2]), but without any reference to St John. In another early writing, the ' Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons' (Euseb. *H. E.' V. i), the effusion of water appears to be connected with ch. vii. 38.
EUSEBIUS OF C^ESAR^A ('Dem. Ev.' x. 8, p. 504) treats the passage as a fulfilment of Ps. xxii. 14, "I am poured out like water," without dwelling further upon it.
CYRIL OF JERUSALEM applies the twofold issue to the two baptisms of blood and water
('Cat.' nl. 10): "The Saviour redeeming the world through the cross, being pierced in His side, brought forth ((f-yyayev) blood and water, in order that some in seasons of peace may be baptized in water, others in seasons of persecution may be baptized in their own blood («/ oiKfiots atuacriv, the blood of their death)."
CHRYSOSTOM ('Horn.' LXXXV. In /o<r.) interprets the fact of the two sacraments: " Not
without a purpose (an-Xw?) or by chance did those springs come forth, but because the Church consisteth of these twd together (e'£ d/i<poTepa>v TOVTCOV (rvvecmjKt). And those that are initiated know it, being regenerate by water (dvaytwca/jifvoi) and nourished (rpe0ofifvoi) by the Blood and Flesh. Hence the Sacraments (ra HVO-TTIPIO) take their beginning; in order that when thou drawest near to the awful Cup thou mayest so approach, as drinking from the very Side."
CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (ad loc.") thinks that " God appointed the fact as an image and firstfruits, so to speak, of the Mystic Blessing (EvXoyta; see Suicer, s.-v.) and Holy Baptism. For Holy Baptism is really of Christ and from Christ; and the power of the Mystic Blessing springs (oW0u) for us out of the Holy Flesh."
The recently discovered work of MACA- RIUS MAGNES has an interesting note on the passage, though the text is unhappily corrupt:
"One of the soldiers pierced the side... in order that when blood flowed and water in a gushing stream, by the blood they may be delivered who occupied the place of captivity, and by the water they may be washed who bear the stripes of sins. Certainly this hath been done not without a purpose, but of Providence, as though the divine forethought laid down that it should come to pass; for since [from the side came the origin of sin] it was necessary that from the side should flow the source of salvation: from the side came the sting (ij TrXjjyq), from the side the spring (?? TV1?): fr°m the side the malady, from the side the cure..." (i. 18).
The same thoughts occur in a homily ' On the Passion ' (§ 25), falsely attributed to Athanasius (iv. 186 ff., ed. Migne), as also in Apollinarius, Euthymius, Theophylact, and Tertullian, quoted below; and more particularly in a quotation from Antiochus of Ptolemais in Cramer's ' Catena,' ad he.
A very remarkable note of APOLLINARIUS [of Laodicea] is given in the ' Catena' of Corderius upon the passage: "The Lord offered
a side for a side: the woman [Eve] was a side, and the evil which came from here is undone (Xvcrai) by the Lord's Passion. For from that side proceeded the counsel which brought ruin on man; but from the holy side water is poured forth and blood, through which the world is cleansed, as we get ourselves washed of our sins, since the elements which were separated in the Law come together in Him. For there were [under the Law] sprinklings of blood for purification (Trpoy Kadapo-tc), and baptisms by water for sanctification (irpos dyi/io-pop)- Since therefore all things were devised beforehand in regard to Christ, the Body of the Lord furnished both these to the world, sacred blood and holy water, even when it was already dead in human fashion; for He hath in Himself great power of life."
JOHN OF DAMASCUS ('De fide,' iv. 9) gives the same interpretation: Christ " caused to flow for us from His holy and undefiled side a fountain of remission: water for regeneration and washing (eVi'/cXvo-ts) of sin and corruption; blood as a drink to furnish life everlasting (norov fafjs d'idiov npo- £fvov)."