28.Afterwards, when three o'clock was come, Jesus, knowing that He had done all for which He had been sent, and that the prophecies regarding the Messias had been fulfilled in Himself, in order that one remaining prophecy might be accomplished, said:I thirst. Sorrow, and suffering, and the loss of blood had exhausted the humours of the body, and naturally produced thirst.29. Vas ergo erat positum aceto plenum. Illi autem spongiam plenam aceto, hyssopo circumponentes, obtulerunt ori eius.29. Now there was a vessel set there full of vinegar. And they putting a sponge full of vinegar about hyssop, put it to his mouth.29.Now there was a vessel set there full of vinegar.Some think that the“vinegar”was the posca, or thin wine, which was the ordinary drink of the Roman soldiers, and that it was there on this occasion for their use. But the fact that the sponge and hyssop seem to have been at hand, provided apparently for the sake of the victims, makes it very probable that the vinegar also was provided on their account. We must carefully distinguish this occasion from another referred to by SS. Matt. and Mark, prior to the crucifixion (Matt. xxvii. 34; Mark xv. 23). These Evangelists refer to the present occasion also, but they speak of only one who took the sponge, and gave Christ to drink (Matthew xxvii. 48; Mark xv. 36). We may reconcile St. John's account with theirs, by saying that he simply uses the indefinite plural for the singular; or that he ascribes to many what was done by one with their approval. One of those present, then, probably a soldier, took a sponge,130and soaked it in vinegar, and fastened it around the point of a sprig of hyssop, and then reached it up to our Lord's[pg 349]mouth that He might suck it. Thus was the Scripture accomplished:“And in My thirst they gave Me vinegar to drink”(Ps. lxviii. 22). Many think that the vinegar was given to hasten death.Hyssop is an aromatic plant, which grows upon walls. Its stalks are less than two feet long, so that our Lord's mouth seems not to have been raised higher above the ground than such a stalk in a man's outstretched arm could reach.30. Cum ergo accepisset Iesus acetum, dixit: Consummatum est. Et inclinato capite tradidit spirituum.30. Jesus therefore when he had taken the vinegar, said: It is consummated. And bowing his head, he gave up the ghost.30.It is consummated; that is, all the purpose of My life is completed; only one thing remains, that I finish My course and crown My life and sufferings by My death. Then, as St. Luke tells us:“Jesus crying with a loud voice, said: Father into thy hands I commend my spirit. And saying this he gave up the ghost”(Luke xxiii. 46).He gave up the ghost.He gave up His soul into the hands of His eternal Father. The expression used seems to be employed with the special purpose of showing that His death itself was a voluntary act (comp. x.17,18).“Spiritum cum verbo sponte dimisit, praevento carnificis officio.”(Tertull. Apol., ch. 21, p. 58.) And St. Augustine on this verse says beautifully:“Quis ita dormit quando voluerit, sicut Jesus mortuus est quando voluit? Quis ita vestem ponit quando voluerit, sicut se carne exuit quando vult? Quis ita cum voluerit abit, quomodo ille cum voluit obiit? Quanta speranda vel timenda potestas est judicantis, si apparuit tanta morientis?”It may be useful to set down here together what are commonly referred to as the seven last“words”of Jesus on the cross. The Synoptic Evangelists record four of them, and St. John the other three. The first was:“Father forgive them, for they know not what they do”(Luke xxiii. 34); the second, addressed to the good thief:“Amen, I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise”(Luke xxiii. 43); the third:“Woman behold thy son,”together with the words addressed to St. John:“Behold thy mother”(John xix. 26, 27); the fourth:“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”(Matthew xxvii. 46; Mark xv. 34); the fifth:“I thirst”(John xix. 28); the sixth:“It is consummated”(John xix. 30); and the seventh:[pg 350]“Father into thy hands I commend my spirit”(Luke xxiii. 46).31. Iudaei ergo (quoniam parasceve erat), ut non remanerent in cruce corpora sabbato (erat enim magnus dies ille sabbati), rogaverunt Pilatum ut frangerentur eorum crura, et tollerentur.31. Then the Jews (because it was the parasceve) that the bodies might not remain upon the cross on the sabbath-day (for that was a great sabbath-day) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.31.(Because it was the parasceve) that the bodies, &c. We would take away the brackets. The fact that it was Friday, and that the Sabbath was, therefore, near, made the Jews anxious to have the bodies removed. This verse strongly confirms the view we hold (see above on verse 14) that St. John means by parasceve, the day before the Sabbath, that is to say, Friday; not the day before the Paschal feast. For, in the present verse the fact that it was the parasceve is evidently taken to imply that the next day would be the Sabbath.For that was a great sabbath day.The better-supported Greek reading would be rendered: For great was the day of that sabbath (ἐκεινου τοῦ σαββάτου). The meaning is that this Sabbath was specially solemn, because it was the Sabbath that fell within the Paschal week.And that they might be taken away.We read in Deut. xxi. 22, 23:“When a man hath committed a crime for which he is punished with death, and being condemned to die is hanged on a gibbet, his body shall not remain upon the tree, but shall be buriedthe same day.”It was more than usually necessary to have the bodies buried on the same day in the present case, as the next day was to be a Sabbath, and a very special Sabbath, too. And as the Sabbath began at sunset, hence the anxiety of the Jews[pg 351]to have the bodies removed. The breaking of the legs was intended to insure death. With the Romans it was usual to let the bodies of the crucified hang till they rotted.32. Venerunt ergo milites: et primi quidem fregerunt crura, et alterius, qui crucifixus est cum eo.32. The soldiers therefore came: and they broke the legs of the first, and of the other that was crucified with him.33. Ad Iesum autem cum venissent, ut viderunt eum iam mortuum, non fregerunt eius crura:33. But after they were come to Jesus, when they saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.34. Sed unus militum lancea latus eius aperuit, et continuo exivit sanguis et aqua.34. But one of the soldiers with a spear opened his side, and immediately there came out blood and water.34.Opened(Vulg., aperuit)his side. It is very much more probable that the verb in the original is ἔνυξεν (pierced) not ἤνοιξεν (opened).A spear; (λόνχη). This was the long lance of a horseman. The lance is now preserved and venerated in Rome, in St. Peter's. It wants the point, which is kept in the holy chapel in Paris.It is uncertain whether it was Christ's right side or left that was pierced with a lance. According to the Ethiopian Version, and the apocryphal Gospels of Nicodemus and the Infancy, it was the right. Thus a very early tradition points to the right side, and it was on his right side, too, that St. Francis was marked when he received the sacred stigmata.And immediately there came out blood and water.It is disputed whether this flow of blood and water was natural or miraculous.(1) Some hold that each flow was miraculous, because in adeadbody blood does not flow and water is not found in the region of the heart.(2) Others, on the contrary, hold that in each case the flow was quite natural, because in a dead body theclotor red corpuscles become separated from theserumor watery substance of the blood, and both would naturally flow out when Christ's side was pierced. This opinion, however, is improbable, as the best modern physiologists say it would require four hours after death to effect this separation,131and no such length of time can be admitted between the death of Christ at three o'clock and the piercing of his side, for he had to be buried before sunset, that is to say, at the latest, about 6 p.m.(3) Hence others hold that Christ's heart had broken, and that the blood which had therefore flowed into the pericardium, or sheath of the heart, had become, when extravasated,rapidlydissolved into its constituent elements. This view is held by some writers of great authority. See Dr. Stroud'sTreatise on the Physical Cause of the Death of Christ. Against it, however, we have the opinion of physiologists, that the heart never breaks except in those in whom the organism has been long diseased; and it is contrary[pg 352]to the common opinion that Christ took or had a diseased body, or any diseased organ.(4) Hence, with Corluy, we think the most probable view is, that the blood flowed naturally from a bodyonly a short time dead, the water miraculously. Certainly the fathers generally seem to see in this flow of blood and water a mystery, something that was not ordinary or natural, and many think that our Evangelist himself, in the next verse,insistsupon the truth of what he says, as if it were something wholly unnatural and difficult to believe. It may, however, be replied to this latter argument that he insists upon the truth of the facts, not because anything miraculous and difficult to believe had taken place, but because there was question of the fulfilment of two important Messianic prophecies.According to the fathers, the flow of blood typified the Sacrament of the Blessed Eucharist, that of water, the Sacrament of Baptism. Thus St. Cyril of Alex.:“Lancea latus ejus perfodiunt, unde cruor aqua mistus scaturiit, quod Eulogiae mysticae et baptismatis imago quaedam erat atque primitiae.”35. Et qui vidit, testimonium perhibuit: et verum est testimonium eius. Et ille scit quia vera dicit: ut et vos credatis.35. And he that saw it hath given testimony: and his testimony is true. And he knoweth that he saith true; that you also may believe.35.And he that saw(hath seen)it hath given testimony.“It”is not represented in the original, and ought not to stand in our English version, as it seems to determine the reference to be merely to the sight of the flow of blood and water. We take the object of the verb“hath seen,”to beallthat is stated in the two preceding verses; namely, that Christ's legs were not broken, that His side was pierced, and that blood and water flowed. That this is the meaning is proved by the next verse.That you also may believe.The sense is not that you also may believe that blood and water flowed, or that Christ really died; but, with Beel.; Bisp., Corl., that you also, as well as I, may more firmly believe that Jesus is the Messias foretold by the prophets. These words, then, express the full purpose that our Evangelist had in view in testifying to the facts just stated. ἵνα (that) may be taken to depend upon the three preceding clauses, or upon the words immediately preceding:“saith true.”36. Facta sunt enim haec, ut scriptura impleretur: Os non comminuetis ex eo.36. For these things were done that the scripture might be fulfilled:You shall not break a bone of him.36.For these things were done.“For”establishes the connection, and proves, we[pg 353]think, the view we hold. It is as if the Evangelist said: these things happened, and I insist upon their truth, because they afford a strong argument why you should believe that Jesus was the Messias.You shall not break a bone of him, had reference in its literal sense (Exod. vii. 46; Num. ix. 12) to the Paschal lamb; yet, St. John tells us here that the prophecy was fulfilled in Christ. Hence we have here an invincible argument for the existence of a mystical sense in Scripture.37. Et iterum alia scriptura dicit: Videbunt in quem transfixerunt.37. And again another scripture saith:They shall look on him whom they pierced.37. The quotation is from Zach. xii. 10, according to the Hebrew text, except that, perhaps, the correct reading in Zach. is“on me,”and not“on him.”The passage in Zach. is Messianic in its literal sense, and the context shows that there is question of looking upon Jesus in sorrow and regret for what had taken place. We know from St. Luke that“all the multitude returned (from Calvary) striking their breasts”(xxiii. 48).38. Post haec autem rogavit Pilatum Ioseph ab Arimathaea (eo quod esset discipulus Iesu, occultus autem propter metum Iudaeorum), ut tolleret corpus Iesu. Et permisit Pilatus. Venit ergo, et tulit corpus Iesu.38. After these things Joseph of Arimathea (because he was 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 leave. He came therefore and took away the body of Jesus.38.After these things.We learn from SS. Matthew and Mark that when Joseph approached Pilate it was evening (Matthew xxvii. 57; Mark xv. 42). Joseph was“a rich man”(Matthew xxvii. 57),“a noble counsellor”(Mark xv. 43), that is a member of the Sanhedrim,“a good and a just man”(Luke xxiii. 50).Arimathea.Opinion is divided as to whether this was Rama in the tribe of Benjamin (Matt. ii. 18), or Rama (Ramathaimsophim) in the tribe of Ephraim (1 Kings i. 1). The latter, the birthplace of the Prophet Samuel, is called Ramatha in 1 Kings i. 19. St. Luke calls Arimathea“a city of Judea”(Luke xxiii. 51). St. Jerome (Onom. sacr., 2nd Ed., p. 178) identifies Arimathea with Remftis, now Rantieh, on the plain North of Lydda. See Smith'sB. D.sub voc.Secretly.Till now he had been a disciple in secret, but after the death of Christ both he and Nicodemus boldly appeared in public as devoted friends of their dead Master.And Pilate gave leave.Permission was usually given to the friends of one who had been executed to bury his body. Sometimes, indeed,[pg 354]Roman Governors granted such permission only on receiving money from the friends (Cic., Verr. v. 45), but in the present instance Pilate granted the privilege gratis (“Donavitcorpus Jesu,”Mark xv. 45).We learn from St. Mark that Pilate gave the body only after he had summoned the centurion and learned that Jesus was dead (Mark xv. 44, 45).He came therefore and took away the body of Jesus.We learn from St. Mark (xv. 46), and St. Luke (xxiii. 53), that he“took down”the body of Jesus, either aiding in or directing the work. Hence he must have returned to the foot of the cross, before the orders given to the soldiers (verses 31, 32) were fully carried out. If we suppose Joseph to have come soon after the Jews (verse 31) to Pilate, the governor, before granting his request, would naturally wish to be certain that Jesus was dead, and would therefore summon the centurion and make inquiry (Mark xv. 44, 45); then Joseph, returning from wherever Pilate was at the time, arrived before the body of our Lord had been taken down by the soldiers.39. Venit autem et Nicodemus, qui venerat ad Iesum nocte primum, ferens mixturam myrrhae et aloës, quasi libras centum.39. And Nicodemus also came, he who at first came to Jesus by night, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred poundweight.39.He who at first came to Jesus by night.The reference is to the visit recorded above iniii. 1, ff. St. John alone makes mention of Nicodemus on this occasion. The phrase“at first”may imply that Nicodemus visited Christ on other occasions, or it may indicate merely the beginning of Christ's ministry. The present public act of reverence in the light of day, beside a crowded city, is thrown into relief by contrast with the timid visit then paid“by night.”Bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.[pg 355]“The compound was made of the gum of the myrrh tree, and a powder of the fragrant aloe wood. The amount of the preparation (‘about a hundred pound weight,’that is, a hundred Roman pounds of nearly twelve ounces) has caused some needless difficulty. The intention of Nicodemus was, without doubt, to cover the body completely with the mass of aromatics. Comp. 2, Chro. (Paralip.) xvi. 14: for this purpose the quantity was not excessive as a costly gift of devotion.”(Westc. inThe Speaker's Commentary.)40. Acceperunt ergo corpus Iesu, et ligaverunt illud linteis cum aromatibus, sicut mos est Iudaeis sepelire.40. They took therefore the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.40.And bound it in linen cloths(ὁθόνια). They bound the body in swathes of linen cloth covered with layers of the aromatic mixture. The Synoptists speak only of“a linen cloth”(σινδών) in which the body was“wrapped.”We may naturally suppose that the body when embalmed was wrapped in a large linen cloth.A new sepulchre, wherein no man yet had been laid.We learn from St. Matthew (xxvii. 60), that the sepulchre belonged to Joseph, and from all the Synoptists that it was hewn out of a rock, and therefore artificial. As no other body had been buried in the sepulchre, there could be no possible doubt that the body that rose was that of our Lord.41. Erat autem, in loco ubi crucifixus est, hortus, et in horto monumentum novum, in quo nondum quisquam positus erat.41. Now there was in the place, where he was crucified, a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein no man yet had been laid.42. Ibi ergo propter parasceven Iudaeorum, quia iuxta erat monumentum, posuerunt Iesum.42. There therefore because of the parasceve of the Jews they laid Jesus, because the sepulchre was nigh at hand.42.Because the sepulchre was nigh at hand.It seems to be implied that if there had been more time, some other sepulchre would have been chosen. As it was, because the Sabbath was at hand they laid Him in the tomb that was most convenient. St. John writing for the Christians of Asia Minor, speaks of“the parasceve of the Jews,”because when he wrote, Saturday was the Parasceve of Christians, the day of rest having been already changed from Saturday to Sunday, in honour of our Blessed Lord's resurrection. (See Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2.)
28.Afterwards, when three o'clock was come, Jesus, knowing that He had done all for which He had been sent, and that the prophecies regarding the Messias had been fulfilled in Himself, in order that one remaining prophecy might be accomplished, said:I thirst. Sorrow, and suffering, and the loss of blood had exhausted the humours of the body, and naturally produced thirst.29. Vas ergo erat positum aceto plenum. Illi autem spongiam plenam aceto, hyssopo circumponentes, obtulerunt ori eius.29. Now there was a vessel set there full of vinegar. And they putting a sponge full of vinegar about hyssop, put it to his mouth.29.Now there was a vessel set there full of vinegar.Some think that the“vinegar”was the posca, or thin wine, which was the ordinary drink of the Roman soldiers, and that it was there on this occasion for their use. But the fact that the sponge and hyssop seem to have been at hand, provided apparently for the sake of the victims, makes it very probable that the vinegar also was provided on their account. We must carefully distinguish this occasion from another referred to by SS. Matt. and Mark, prior to the crucifixion (Matt. xxvii. 34; Mark xv. 23). These Evangelists refer to the present occasion also, but they speak of only one who took the sponge, and gave Christ to drink (Matthew xxvii. 48; Mark xv. 36). We may reconcile St. John's account with theirs, by saying that he simply uses the indefinite plural for the singular; or that he ascribes to many what was done by one with their approval. One of those present, then, probably a soldier, took a sponge,130and soaked it in vinegar, and fastened it around the point of a sprig of hyssop, and then reached it up to our Lord's[pg 349]mouth that He might suck it. Thus was the Scripture accomplished:“And in My thirst they gave Me vinegar to drink”(Ps. lxviii. 22). Many think that the vinegar was given to hasten death.Hyssop is an aromatic plant, which grows upon walls. Its stalks are less than two feet long, so that our Lord's mouth seems not to have been raised higher above the ground than such a stalk in a man's outstretched arm could reach.30. Cum ergo accepisset Iesus acetum, dixit: Consummatum est. Et inclinato capite tradidit spirituum.30. Jesus therefore when he had taken the vinegar, said: It is consummated. And bowing his head, he gave up the ghost.30.It is consummated; that is, all the purpose of My life is completed; only one thing remains, that I finish My course and crown My life and sufferings by My death. Then, as St. Luke tells us:“Jesus crying with a loud voice, said: Father into thy hands I commend my spirit. And saying this he gave up the ghost”(Luke xxiii. 46).He gave up the ghost.He gave up His soul into the hands of His eternal Father. The expression used seems to be employed with the special purpose of showing that His death itself was a voluntary act (comp. x.17,18).“Spiritum cum verbo sponte dimisit, praevento carnificis officio.”(Tertull. Apol., ch. 21, p. 58.) And St. Augustine on this verse says beautifully:“Quis ita dormit quando voluerit, sicut Jesus mortuus est quando voluit? Quis ita vestem ponit quando voluerit, sicut se carne exuit quando vult? Quis ita cum voluerit abit, quomodo ille cum voluit obiit? Quanta speranda vel timenda potestas est judicantis, si apparuit tanta morientis?”It may be useful to set down here together what are commonly referred to as the seven last“words”of Jesus on the cross. The Synoptic Evangelists record four of them, and St. John the other three. The first was:“Father forgive them, for they know not what they do”(Luke xxiii. 34); the second, addressed to the good thief:“Amen, I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise”(Luke xxiii. 43); the third:“Woman behold thy son,”together with the words addressed to St. John:“Behold thy mother”(John xix. 26, 27); the fourth:“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”(Matthew xxvii. 46; Mark xv. 34); the fifth:“I thirst”(John xix. 28); the sixth:“It is consummated”(John xix. 30); and the seventh:[pg 350]“Father into thy hands I commend my spirit”(Luke xxiii. 46).31. Iudaei ergo (quoniam parasceve erat), ut non remanerent in cruce corpora sabbato (erat enim magnus dies ille sabbati), rogaverunt Pilatum ut frangerentur eorum crura, et tollerentur.31. Then the Jews (because it was the parasceve) that the bodies might not remain upon the cross on the sabbath-day (for that was a great sabbath-day) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.31.(Because it was the parasceve) that the bodies, &c. We would take away the brackets. The fact that it was Friday, and that the Sabbath was, therefore, near, made the Jews anxious to have the bodies removed. This verse strongly confirms the view we hold (see above on verse 14) that St. John means by parasceve, the day before the Sabbath, that is to say, Friday; not the day before the Paschal feast. For, in the present verse the fact that it was the parasceve is evidently taken to imply that the next day would be the Sabbath.For that was a great sabbath day.The better-supported Greek reading would be rendered: For great was the day of that sabbath (ἐκεινου τοῦ σαββάτου). The meaning is that this Sabbath was specially solemn, because it was the Sabbath that fell within the Paschal week.And that they might be taken away.We read in Deut. xxi. 22, 23:“When a man hath committed a crime for which he is punished with death, and being condemned to die is hanged on a gibbet, his body shall not remain upon the tree, but shall be buriedthe same day.”It was more than usually necessary to have the bodies buried on the same day in the present case, as the next day was to be a Sabbath, and a very special Sabbath, too. And as the Sabbath began at sunset, hence the anxiety of the Jews[pg 351]to have the bodies removed. The breaking of the legs was intended to insure death. With the Romans it was usual to let the bodies of the crucified hang till they rotted.32. Venerunt ergo milites: et primi quidem fregerunt crura, et alterius, qui crucifixus est cum eo.32. The soldiers therefore came: and they broke the legs of the first, and of the other that was crucified with him.33. Ad Iesum autem cum venissent, ut viderunt eum iam mortuum, non fregerunt eius crura:33. But after they were come to Jesus, when they saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.34. Sed unus militum lancea latus eius aperuit, et continuo exivit sanguis et aqua.34. But one of the soldiers with a spear opened his side, and immediately there came out blood and water.34.Opened(Vulg., aperuit)his side. It is very much more probable that the verb in the original is ἔνυξεν (pierced) not ἤνοιξεν (opened).A spear; (λόνχη). This was the long lance of a horseman. The lance is now preserved and venerated in Rome, in St. Peter's. It wants the point, which is kept in the holy chapel in Paris.It is uncertain whether it was Christ's right side or left that was pierced with a lance. According to the Ethiopian Version, and the apocryphal Gospels of Nicodemus and the Infancy, it was the right. Thus a very early tradition points to the right side, and it was on his right side, too, that St. Francis was marked when he received the sacred stigmata.And immediately there came out blood and water.It is disputed whether this flow of blood and water was natural or miraculous.(1) Some hold that each flow was miraculous, because in adeadbody blood does not flow and water is not found in the region of the heart.(2) Others, on the contrary, hold that in each case the flow was quite natural, because in a dead body theclotor red corpuscles become separated from theserumor watery substance of the blood, and both would naturally flow out when Christ's side was pierced. This opinion, however, is improbable, as the best modern physiologists say it would require four hours after death to effect this separation,131and no such length of time can be admitted between the death of Christ at three o'clock and the piercing of his side, for he had to be buried before sunset, that is to say, at the latest, about 6 p.m.(3) Hence others hold that Christ's heart had broken, and that the blood which had therefore flowed into the pericardium, or sheath of the heart, had become, when extravasated,rapidlydissolved into its constituent elements. This view is held by some writers of great authority. See Dr. Stroud'sTreatise on the Physical Cause of the Death of Christ. Against it, however, we have the opinion of physiologists, that the heart never breaks except in those in whom the organism has been long diseased; and it is contrary[pg 352]to the common opinion that Christ took or had a diseased body, or any diseased organ.(4) Hence, with Corluy, we think the most probable view is, that the blood flowed naturally from a bodyonly a short time dead, the water miraculously. Certainly the fathers generally seem to see in this flow of blood and water a mystery, something that was not ordinary or natural, and many think that our Evangelist himself, in the next verse,insistsupon the truth of what he says, as if it were something wholly unnatural and difficult to believe. It may, however, be replied to this latter argument that he insists upon the truth of the facts, not because anything miraculous and difficult to believe had taken place, but because there was question of the fulfilment of two important Messianic prophecies.According to the fathers, the flow of blood typified the Sacrament of the Blessed Eucharist, that of water, the Sacrament of Baptism. Thus St. Cyril of Alex.:“Lancea latus ejus perfodiunt, unde cruor aqua mistus scaturiit, quod Eulogiae mysticae et baptismatis imago quaedam erat atque primitiae.”35. Et qui vidit, testimonium perhibuit: et verum est testimonium eius. Et ille scit quia vera dicit: ut et vos credatis.35. And he that saw it hath given testimony: and his testimony is true. And he knoweth that he saith true; that you also may believe.35.And he that saw(hath seen)it hath given testimony.“It”is not represented in the original, and ought not to stand in our English version, as it seems to determine the reference to be merely to the sight of the flow of blood and water. We take the object of the verb“hath seen,”to beallthat is stated in the two preceding verses; namely, that Christ's legs were not broken, that His side was pierced, and that blood and water flowed. That this is the meaning is proved by the next verse.That you also may believe.The sense is not that you also may believe that blood and water flowed, or that Christ really died; but, with Beel.; Bisp., Corl., that you also, as well as I, may more firmly believe that Jesus is the Messias foretold by the prophets. These words, then, express the full purpose that our Evangelist had in view in testifying to the facts just stated. ἵνα (that) may be taken to depend upon the three preceding clauses, or upon the words immediately preceding:“saith true.”36. Facta sunt enim haec, ut scriptura impleretur: Os non comminuetis ex eo.36. For these things were done that the scripture might be fulfilled:You shall not break a bone of him.36.For these things were done.“For”establishes the connection, and proves, we[pg 353]think, the view we hold. It is as if the Evangelist said: these things happened, and I insist upon their truth, because they afford a strong argument why you should believe that Jesus was the Messias.You shall not break a bone of him, had reference in its literal sense (Exod. vii. 46; Num. ix. 12) to the Paschal lamb; yet, St. John tells us here that the prophecy was fulfilled in Christ. Hence we have here an invincible argument for the existence of a mystical sense in Scripture.37. Et iterum alia scriptura dicit: Videbunt in quem transfixerunt.37. And again another scripture saith:They shall look on him whom they pierced.37. The quotation is from Zach. xii. 10, according to the Hebrew text, except that, perhaps, the correct reading in Zach. is“on me,”and not“on him.”The passage in Zach. is Messianic in its literal sense, and the context shows that there is question of looking upon Jesus in sorrow and regret for what had taken place. We know from St. Luke that“all the multitude returned (from Calvary) striking their breasts”(xxiii. 48).38. Post haec autem rogavit Pilatum Ioseph ab Arimathaea (eo quod esset discipulus Iesu, occultus autem propter metum Iudaeorum), ut tolleret corpus Iesu. Et permisit Pilatus. Venit ergo, et tulit corpus Iesu.38. After these things Joseph of Arimathea (because he was 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 leave. He came therefore and took away the body of Jesus.38.After these things.We learn from SS. Matthew and Mark that when Joseph approached Pilate it was evening (Matthew xxvii. 57; Mark xv. 42). Joseph was“a rich man”(Matthew xxvii. 57),“a noble counsellor”(Mark xv. 43), that is a member of the Sanhedrim,“a good and a just man”(Luke xxiii. 50).Arimathea.Opinion is divided as to whether this was Rama in the tribe of Benjamin (Matt. ii. 18), or Rama (Ramathaimsophim) in the tribe of Ephraim (1 Kings i. 1). The latter, the birthplace of the Prophet Samuel, is called Ramatha in 1 Kings i. 19. St. Luke calls Arimathea“a city of Judea”(Luke xxiii. 51). St. Jerome (Onom. sacr., 2nd Ed., p. 178) identifies Arimathea with Remftis, now Rantieh, on the plain North of Lydda. See Smith'sB. D.sub voc.Secretly.Till now he had been a disciple in secret, but after the death of Christ both he and Nicodemus boldly appeared in public as devoted friends of their dead Master.And Pilate gave leave.Permission was usually given to the friends of one who had been executed to bury his body. Sometimes, indeed,[pg 354]Roman Governors granted such permission only on receiving money from the friends (Cic., Verr. v. 45), but in the present instance Pilate granted the privilege gratis (“Donavitcorpus Jesu,”Mark xv. 45).We learn from St. Mark that Pilate gave the body only after he had summoned the centurion and learned that Jesus was dead (Mark xv. 44, 45).He came therefore and took away the body of Jesus.We learn from St. Mark (xv. 46), and St. Luke (xxiii. 53), that he“took down”the body of Jesus, either aiding in or directing the work. Hence he must have returned to the foot of the cross, before the orders given to the soldiers (verses 31, 32) were fully carried out. If we suppose Joseph to have come soon after the Jews (verse 31) to Pilate, the governor, before granting his request, would naturally wish to be certain that Jesus was dead, and would therefore summon the centurion and make inquiry (Mark xv. 44, 45); then Joseph, returning from wherever Pilate was at the time, arrived before the body of our Lord had been taken down by the soldiers.39. Venit autem et Nicodemus, qui venerat ad Iesum nocte primum, ferens mixturam myrrhae et aloës, quasi libras centum.39. And Nicodemus also came, he who at first came to Jesus by night, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred poundweight.39.He who at first came to Jesus by night.The reference is to the visit recorded above iniii. 1, ff. St. John alone makes mention of Nicodemus on this occasion. The phrase“at first”may imply that Nicodemus visited Christ on other occasions, or it may indicate merely the beginning of Christ's ministry. The present public act of reverence in the light of day, beside a crowded city, is thrown into relief by contrast with the timid visit then paid“by night.”Bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.[pg 355]“The compound was made of the gum of the myrrh tree, and a powder of the fragrant aloe wood. The amount of the preparation (‘about a hundred pound weight,’that is, a hundred Roman pounds of nearly twelve ounces) has caused some needless difficulty. The intention of Nicodemus was, without doubt, to cover the body completely with the mass of aromatics. Comp. 2, Chro. (Paralip.) xvi. 14: for this purpose the quantity was not excessive as a costly gift of devotion.”(Westc. inThe Speaker's Commentary.)40. Acceperunt ergo corpus Iesu, et ligaverunt illud linteis cum aromatibus, sicut mos est Iudaeis sepelire.40. They took therefore the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.40.And bound it in linen cloths(ὁθόνια). They bound the body in swathes of linen cloth covered with layers of the aromatic mixture. The Synoptists speak only of“a linen cloth”(σινδών) in which the body was“wrapped.”We may naturally suppose that the body when embalmed was wrapped in a large linen cloth.A new sepulchre, wherein no man yet had been laid.We learn from St. Matthew (xxvii. 60), that the sepulchre belonged to Joseph, and from all the Synoptists that it was hewn out of a rock, and therefore artificial. As no other body had been buried in the sepulchre, there could be no possible doubt that the body that rose was that of our Lord.41. Erat autem, in loco ubi crucifixus est, hortus, et in horto monumentum novum, in quo nondum quisquam positus erat.41. Now there was in the place, where he was crucified, a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein no man yet had been laid.42. Ibi ergo propter parasceven Iudaeorum, quia iuxta erat monumentum, posuerunt Iesum.42. There therefore because of the parasceve of the Jews they laid Jesus, because the sepulchre was nigh at hand.42.Because the sepulchre was nigh at hand.It seems to be implied that if there had been more time, some other sepulchre would have been chosen. As it was, because the Sabbath was at hand they laid Him in the tomb that was most convenient. St. John writing for the Christians of Asia Minor, speaks of“the parasceve of the Jews,”because when he wrote, Saturday was the Parasceve of Christians, the day of rest having been already changed from Saturday to Sunday, in honour of our Blessed Lord's resurrection. (See Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2.)
28.Afterwards, when three o'clock was come, Jesus, knowing that He had done all for which He had been sent, and that the prophecies regarding the Messias had been fulfilled in Himself, in order that one remaining prophecy might be accomplished, said:I thirst. Sorrow, and suffering, and the loss of blood had exhausted the humours of the body, and naturally produced thirst.29. Vas ergo erat positum aceto plenum. Illi autem spongiam plenam aceto, hyssopo circumponentes, obtulerunt ori eius.29. Now there was a vessel set there full of vinegar. And they putting a sponge full of vinegar about hyssop, put it to his mouth.29.Now there was a vessel set there full of vinegar.Some think that the“vinegar”was the posca, or thin wine, which was the ordinary drink of the Roman soldiers, and that it was there on this occasion for their use. But the fact that the sponge and hyssop seem to have been at hand, provided apparently for the sake of the victims, makes it very probable that the vinegar also was provided on their account. We must carefully distinguish this occasion from another referred to by SS. Matt. and Mark, prior to the crucifixion (Matt. xxvii. 34; Mark xv. 23). These Evangelists refer to the present occasion also, but they speak of only one who took the sponge, and gave Christ to drink (Matthew xxvii. 48; Mark xv. 36). We may reconcile St. John's account with theirs, by saying that he simply uses the indefinite plural for the singular; or that he ascribes to many what was done by one with their approval. One of those present, then, probably a soldier, took a sponge,130and soaked it in vinegar, and fastened it around the point of a sprig of hyssop, and then reached it up to our Lord's[pg 349]mouth that He might suck it. Thus was the Scripture accomplished:“And in My thirst they gave Me vinegar to drink”(Ps. lxviii. 22). Many think that the vinegar was given to hasten death.Hyssop is an aromatic plant, which grows upon walls. Its stalks are less than two feet long, so that our Lord's mouth seems not to have been raised higher above the ground than such a stalk in a man's outstretched arm could reach.30. Cum ergo accepisset Iesus acetum, dixit: Consummatum est. Et inclinato capite tradidit spirituum.30. Jesus therefore when he had taken the vinegar, said: It is consummated. And bowing his head, he gave up the ghost.30.It is consummated; that is, all the purpose of My life is completed; only one thing remains, that I finish My course and crown My life and sufferings by My death. Then, as St. Luke tells us:“Jesus crying with a loud voice, said: Father into thy hands I commend my spirit. And saying this he gave up the ghost”(Luke xxiii. 46).He gave up the ghost.He gave up His soul into the hands of His eternal Father. The expression used seems to be employed with the special purpose of showing that His death itself was a voluntary act (comp. x.17,18).“Spiritum cum verbo sponte dimisit, praevento carnificis officio.”(Tertull. Apol., ch. 21, p. 58.) And St. Augustine on this verse says beautifully:“Quis ita dormit quando voluerit, sicut Jesus mortuus est quando voluit? Quis ita vestem ponit quando voluerit, sicut se carne exuit quando vult? Quis ita cum voluerit abit, quomodo ille cum voluit obiit? Quanta speranda vel timenda potestas est judicantis, si apparuit tanta morientis?”It may be useful to set down here together what are commonly referred to as the seven last“words”of Jesus on the cross. The Synoptic Evangelists record four of them, and St. John the other three. The first was:“Father forgive them, for they know not what they do”(Luke xxiii. 34); the second, addressed to the good thief:“Amen, I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise”(Luke xxiii. 43); the third:“Woman behold thy son,”together with the words addressed to St. John:“Behold thy mother”(John xix. 26, 27); the fourth:“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”(Matthew xxvii. 46; Mark xv. 34); the fifth:“I thirst”(John xix. 28); the sixth:“It is consummated”(John xix. 30); and the seventh:[pg 350]“Father into thy hands I commend my spirit”(Luke xxiii. 46).31. Iudaei ergo (quoniam parasceve erat), ut non remanerent in cruce corpora sabbato (erat enim magnus dies ille sabbati), rogaverunt Pilatum ut frangerentur eorum crura, et tollerentur.31. Then the Jews (because it was the parasceve) that the bodies might not remain upon the cross on the sabbath-day (for that was a great sabbath-day) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.31.(Because it was the parasceve) that the bodies, &c. We would take away the brackets. The fact that it was Friday, and that the Sabbath was, therefore, near, made the Jews anxious to have the bodies removed. This verse strongly confirms the view we hold (see above on verse 14) that St. John means by parasceve, the day before the Sabbath, that is to say, Friday; not the day before the Paschal feast. For, in the present verse the fact that it was the parasceve is evidently taken to imply that the next day would be the Sabbath.For that was a great sabbath day.The better-supported Greek reading would be rendered: For great was the day of that sabbath (ἐκεινου τοῦ σαββάτου). The meaning is that this Sabbath was specially solemn, because it was the Sabbath that fell within the Paschal week.And that they might be taken away.We read in Deut. xxi. 22, 23:“When a man hath committed a crime for which he is punished with death, and being condemned to die is hanged on a gibbet, his body shall not remain upon the tree, but shall be buriedthe same day.”It was more than usually necessary to have the bodies buried on the same day in the present case, as the next day was to be a Sabbath, and a very special Sabbath, too. And as the Sabbath began at sunset, hence the anxiety of the Jews[pg 351]to have the bodies removed. The breaking of the legs was intended to insure death. With the Romans it was usual to let the bodies of the crucified hang till they rotted.32. Venerunt ergo milites: et primi quidem fregerunt crura, et alterius, qui crucifixus est cum eo.32. The soldiers therefore came: and they broke the legs of the first, and of the other that was crucified with him.33. Ad Iesum autem cum venissent, ut viderunt eum iam mortuum, non fregerunt eius crura:33. But after they were come to Jesus, when they saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.34. Sed unus militum lancea latus eius aperuit, et continuo exivit sanguis et aqua.34. But one of the soldiers with a spear opened his side, and immediately there came out blood and water.34.Opened(Vulg., aperuit)his side. It is very much more probable that the verb in the original is ἔνυξεν (pierced) not ἤνοιξεν (opened).A spear; (λόνχη). This was the long lance of a horseman. The lance is now preserved and venerated in Rome, in St. Peter's. It wants the point, which is kept in the holy chapel in Paris.It is uncertain whether it was Christ's right side or left that was pierced with a lance. According to the Ethiopian Version, and the apocryphal Gospels of Nicodemus and the Infancy, it was the right. Thus a very early tradition points to the right side, and it was on his right side, too, that St. Francis was marked when he received the sacred stigmata.And immediately there came out blood and water.It is disputed whether this flow of blood and water was natural or miraculous.(1) Some hold that each flow was miraculous, because in adeadbody blood does not flow and water is not found in the region of the heart.(2) Others, on the contrary, hold that in each case the flow was quite natural, because in a dead body theclotor red corpuscles become separated from theserumor watery substance of the blood, and both would naturally flow out when Christ's side was pierced. This opinion, however, is improbable, as the best modern physiologists say it would require four hours after death to effect this separation,131and no such length of time can be admitted between the death of Christ at three o'clock and the piercing of his side, for he had to be buried before sunset, that is to say, at the latest, about 6 p.m.(3) Hence others hold that Christ's heart had broken, and that the blood which had therefore flowed into the pericardium, or sheath of the heart, had become, when extravasated,rapidlydissolved into its constituent elements. This view is held by some writers of great authority. See Dr. Stroud'sTreatise on the Physical Cause of the Death of Christ. Against it, however, we have the opinion of physiologists, that the heart never breaks except in those in whom the organism has been long diseased; and it is contrary[pg 352]to the common opinion that Christ took or had a diseased body, or any diseased organ.(4) Hence, with Corluy, we think the most probable view is, that the blood flowed naturally from a bodyonly a short time dead, the water miraculously. Certainly the fathers generally seem to see in this flow of blood and water a mystery, something that was not ordinary or natural, and many think that our Evangelist himself, in the next verse,insistsupon the truth of what he says, as if it were something wholly unnatural and difficult to believe. It may, however, be replied to this latter argument that he insists upon the truth of the facts, not because anything miraculous and difficult to believe had taken place, but because there was question of the fulfilment of two important Messianic prophecies.According to the fathers, the flow of blood typified the Sacrament of the Blessed Eucharist, that of water, the Sacrament of Baptism. Thus St. Cyril of Alex.:“Lancea latus ejus perfodiunt, unde cruor aqua mistus scaturiit, quod Eulogiae mysticae et baptismatis imago quaedam erat atque primitiae.”35. Et qui vidit, testimonium perhibuit: et verum est testimonium eius. Et ille scit quia vera dicit: ut et vos credatis.35. And he that saw it hath given testimony: and his testimony is true. And he knoweth that he saith true; that you also may believe.35.And he that saw(hath seen)it hath given testimony.“It”is not represented in the original, and ought not to stand in our English version, as it seems to determine the reference to be merely to the sight of the flow of blood and water. We take the object of the verb“hath seen,”to beallthat is stated in the two preceding verses; namely, that Christ's legs were not broken, that His side was pierced, and that blood and water flowed. That this is the meaning is proved by the next verse.That you also may believe.The sense is not that you also may believe that blood and water flowed, or that Christ really died; but, with Beel.; Bisp., Corl., that you also, as well as I, may more firmly believe that Jesus is the Messias foretold by the prophets. These words, then, express the full purpose that our Evangelist had in view in testifying to the facts just stated. ἵνα (that) may be taken to depend upon the three preceding clauses, or upon the words immediately preceding:“saith true.”36. Facta sunt enim haec, ut scriptura impleretur: Os non comminuetis ex eo.36. For these things were done that the scripture might be fulfilled:You shall not break a bone of him.36.For these things were done.“For”establishes the connection, and proves, we[pg 353]think, the view we hold. It is as if the Evangelist said: these things happened, and I insist upon their truth, because they afford a strong argument why you should believe that Jesus was the Messias.You shall not break a bone of him, had reference in its literal sense (Exod. vii. 46; Num. ix. 12) to the Paschal lamb; yet, St. John tells us here that the prophecy was fulfilled in Christ. Hence we have here an invincible argument for the existence of a mystical sense in Scripture.37. Et iterum alia scriptura dicit: Videbunt in quem transfixerunt.37. And again another scripture saith:They shall look on him whom they pierced.37. The quotation is from Zach. xii. 10, according to the Hebrew text, except that, perhaps, the correct reading in Zach. is“on me,”and not“on him.”The passage in Zach. is Messianic in its literal sense, and the context shows that there is question of looking upon Jesus in sorrow and regret for what had taken place. We know from St. Luke that“all the multitude returned (from Calvary) striking their breasts”(xxiii. 48).38. Post haec autem rogavit Pilatum Ioseph ab Arimathaea (eo quod esset discipulus Iesu, occultus autem propter metum Iudaeorum), ut tolleret corpus Iesu. Et permisit Pilatus. Venit ergo, et tulit corpus Iesu.38. After these things Joseph of Arimathea (because he was 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 leave. He came therefore and took away the body of Jesus.38.After these things.We learn from SS. Matthew and Mark that when Joseph approached Pilate it was evening (Matthew xxvii. 57; Mark xv. 42). Joseph was“a rich man”(Matthew xxvii. 57),“a noble counsellor”(Mark xv. 43), that is a member of the Sanhedrim,“a good and a just man”(Luke xxiii. 50).Arimathea.Opinion is divided as to whether this was Rama in the tribe of Benjamin (Matt. ii. 18), or Rama (Ramathaimsophim) in the tribe of Ephraim (1 Kings i. 1). The latter, the birthplace of the Prophet Samuel, is called Ramatha in 1 Kings i. 19. St. Luke calls Arimathea“a city of Judea”(Luke xxiii. 51). St. Jerome (Onom. sacr., 2nd Ed., p. 178) identifies Arimathea with Remftis, now Rantieh, on the plain North of Lydda. See Smith'sB. D.sub voc.Secretly.Till now he had been a disciple in secret, but after the death of Christ both he and Nicodemus boldly appeared in public as devoted friends of their dead Master.And Pilate gave leave.Permission was usually given to the friends of one who had been executed to bury his body. Sometimes, indeed,[pg 354]Roman Governors granted such permission only on receiving money from the friends (Cic., Verr. v. 45), but in the present instance Pilate granted the privilege gratis (“Donavitcorpus Jesu,”Mark xv. 45).We learn from St. Mark that Pilate gave the body only after he had summoned the centurion and learned that Jesus was dead (Mark xv. 44, 45).He came therefore and took away the body of Jesus.We learn from St. Mark (xv. 46), and St. Luke (xxiii. 53), that he“took down”the body of Jesus, either aiding in or directing the work. Hence he must have returned to the foot of the cross, before the orders given to the soldiers (verses 31, 32) were fully carried out. If we suppose Joseph to have come soon after the Jews (verse 31) to Pilate, the governor, before granting his request, would naturally wish to be certain that Jesus was dead, and would therefore summon the centurion and make inquiry (Mark xv. 44, 45); then Joseph, returning from wherever Pilate was at the time, arrived before the body of our Lord had been taken down by the soldiers.39. Venit autem et Nicodemus, qui venerat ad Iesum nocte primum, ferens mixturam myrrhae et aloës, quasi libras centum.39. And Nicodemus also came, he who at first came to Jesus by night, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred poundweight.39.He who at first came to Jesus by night.The reference is to the visit recorded above iniii. 1, ff. St. John alone makes mention of Nicodemus on this occasion. The phrase“at first”may imply that Nicodemus visited Christ on other occasions, or it may indicate merely the beginning of Christ's ministry. The present public act of reverence in the light of day, beside a crowded city, is thrown into relief by contrast with the timid visit then paid“by night.”Bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.[pg 355]“The compound was made of the gum of the myrrh tree, and a powder of the fragrant aloe wood. The amount of the preparation (‘about a hundred pound weight,’that is, a hundred Roman pounds of nearly twelve ounces) has caused some needless difficulty. The intention of Nicodemus was, without doubt, to cover the body completely with the mass of aromatics. Comp. 2, Chro. (Paralip.) xvi. 14: for this purpose the quantity was not excessive as a costly gift of devotion.”(Westc. inThe Speaker's Commentary.)40. Acceperunt ergo corpus Iesu, et ligaverunt illud linteis cum aromatibus, sicut mos est Iudaeis sepelire.40. They took therefore the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.40.And bound it in linen cloths(ὁθόνια). They bound the body in swathes of linen cloth covered with layers of the aromatic mixture. The Synoptists speak only of“a linen cloth”(σινδών) in which the body was“wrapped.”We may naturally suppose that the body when embalmed was wrapped in a large linen cloth.A new sepulchre, wherein no man yet had been laid.We learn from St. Matthew (xxvii. 60), that the sepulchre belonged to Joseph, and from all the Synoptists that it was hewn out of a rock, and therefore artificial. As no other body had been buried in the sepulchre, there could be no possible doubt that the body that rose was that of our Lord.41. Erat autem, in loco ubi crucifixus est, hortus, et in horto monumentum novum, in quo nondum quisquam positus erat.41. Now there was in the place, where he was crucified, a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein no man yet had been laid.42. Ibi ergo propter parasceven Iudaeorum, quia iuxta erat monumentum, posuerunt Iesum.42. There therefore because of the parasceve of the Jews they laid Jesus, because the sepulchre was nigh at hand.42.Because the sepulchre was nigh at hand.It seems to be implied that if there had been more time, some other sepulchre would have been chosen. As it was, because the Sabbath was at hand they laid Him in the tomb that was most convenient. St. John writing for the Christians of Asia Minor, speaks of“the parasceve of the Jews,”because when he wrote, Saturday was the Parasceve of Christians, the day of rest having been already changed from Saturday to Sunday, in honour of our Blessed Lord's resurrection. (See Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2.)
28.Afterwards, when three o'clock was come, Jesus, knowing that He had done all for which He had been sent, and that the prophecies regarding the Messias had been fulfilled in Himself, in order that one remaining prophecy might be accomplished, said:I thirst. Sorrow, and suffering, and the loss of blood had exhausted the humours of the body, and naturally produced thirst.
29.Now there was a vessel set there full of vinegar.Some think that the“vinegar”was the posca, or thin wine, which was the ordinary drink of the Roman soldiers, and that it was there on this occasion for their use. But the fact that the sponge and hyssop seem to have been at hand, provided apparently for the sake of the victims, makes it very probable that the vinegar also was provided on their account. We must carefully distinguish this occasion from another referred to by SS. Matt. and Mark, prior to the crucifixion (Matt. xxvii. 34; Mark xv. 23). These Evangelists refer to the present occasion also, but they speak of only one who took the sponge, and gave Christ to drink (Matthew xxvii. 48; Mark xv. 36). We may reconcile St. John's account with theirs, by saying that he simply uses the indefinite plural for the singular; or that he ascribes to many what was done by one with their approval. One of those present, then, probably a soldier, took a sponge,130and soaked it in vinegar, and fastened it around the point of a sprig of hyssop, and then reached it up to our Lord's[pg 349]mouth that He might suck it. Thus was the Scripture accomplished:“And in My thirst they gave Me vinegar to drink”(Ps. lxviii. 22). Many think that the vinegar was given to hasten death.
Hyssop is an aromatic plant, which grows upon walls. Its stalks are less than two feet long, so that our Lord's mouth seems not to have been raised higher above the ground than such a stalk in a man's outstretched arm could reach.
30.It is consummated; that is, all the purpose of My life is completed; only one thing remains, that I finish My course and crown My life and sufferings by My death. Then, as St. Luke tells us:“Jesus crying with a loud voice, said: Father into thy hands I commend my spirit. And saying this he gave up the ghost”(Luke xxiii. 46).
He gave up the ghost.He gave up His soul into the hands of His eternal Father. The expression used seems to be employed with the special purpose of showing that His death itself was a voluntary act (comp. x.17,18).“Spiritum cum verbo sponte dimisit, praevento carnificis officio.”(Tertull. Apol., ch. 21, p. 58.) And St. Augustine on this verse says beautifully:“Quis ita dormit quando voluerit, sicut Jesus mortuus est quando voluit? Quis ita vestem ponit quando voluerit, sicut se carne exuit quando vult? Quis ita cum voluerit abit, quomodo ille cum voluit obiit? Quanta speranda vel timenda potestas est judicantis, si apparuit tanta morientis?”
It may be useful to set down here together what are commonly referred to as the seven last“words”of Jesus on the cross. The Synoptic Evangelists record four of them, and St. John the other three. The first was:“Father forgive them, for they know not what they do”(Luke xxiii. 34); the second, addressed to the good thief:“Amen, I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise”(Luke xxiii. 43); the third:“Woman behold thy son,”together with the words addressed to St. John:“Behold thy mother”(John xix. 26, 27); the fourth:“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”(Matthew xxvii. 46; Mark xv. 34); the fifth:“I thirst”(John xix. 28); the sixth:“It is consummated”(John xix. 30); and the seventh:[pg 350]“Father into thy hands I commend my spirit”(Luke xxiii. 46).
31.(Because it was the parasceve) that the bodies, &c. We would take away the brackets. The fact that it was Friday, and that the Sabbath was, therefore, near, made the Jews anxious to have the bodies removed. This verse strongly confirms the view we hold (see above on verse 14) that St. John means by parasceve, the day before the Sabbath, that is to say, Friday; not the day before the Paschal feast. For, in the present verse the fact that it was the parasceve is evidently taken to imply that the next day would be the Sabbath.
For that was a great sabbath day.The better-supported Greek reading would be rendered: For great was the day of that sabbath (ἐκεινου τοῦ σαββάτου). The meaning is that this Sabbath was specially solemn, because it was the Sabbath that fell within the Paschal week.
And that they might be taken away.We read in Deut. xxi. 22, 23:“When a man hath committed a crime for which he is punished with death, and being condemned to die is hanged on a gibbet, his body shall not remain upon the tree, but shall be buriedthe same day.”It was more than usually necessary to have the bodies buried on the same day in the present case, as the next day was to be a Sabbath, and a very special Sabbath, too. And as the Sabbath began at sunset, hence the anxiety of the Jews[pg 351]to have the bodies removed. The breaking of the legs was intended to insure death. With the Romans it was usual to let the bodies of the crucified hang till they rotted.
34.Opened(Vulg., aperuit)his side. It is very much more probable that the verb in the original is ἔνυξεν (pierced) not ἤνοιξεν (opened).A spear; (λόνχη). This was the long lance of a horseman. The lance is now preserved and venerated in Rome, in St. Peter's. It wants the point, which is kept in the holy chapel in Paris.
It is uncertain whether it was Christ's right side or left that was pierced with a lance. According to the Ethiopian Version, and the apocryphal Gospels of Nicodemus and the Infancy, it was the right. Thus a very early tradition points to the right side, and it was on his right side, too, that St. Francis was marked when he received the sacred stigmata.
And immediately there came out blood and water.It is disputed whether this flow of blood and water was natural or miraculous.
(1) Some hold that each flow was miraculous, because in adeadbody blood does not flow and water is not found in the region of the heart.
(2) Others, on the contrary, hold that in each case the flow was quite natural, because in a dead body theclotor red corpuscles become separated from theserumor watery substance of the blood, and both would naturally flow out when Christ's side was pierced. This opinion, however, is improbable, as the best modern physiologists say it would require four hours after death to effect this separation,131and no such length of time can be admitted between the death of Christ at three o'clock and the piercing of his side, for he had to be buried before sunset, that is to say, at the latest, about 6 p.m.
(3) Hence others hold that Christ's heart had broken, and that the blood which had therefore flowed into the pericardium, or sheath of the heart, had become, when extravasated,rapidlydissolved into its constituent elements. This view is held by some writers of great authority. See Dr. Stroud'sTreatise on the Physical Cause of the Death of Christ. Against it, however, we have the opinion of physiologists, that the heart never breaks except in those in whom the organism has been long diseased; and it is contrary[pg 352]to the common opinion that Christ took or had a diseased body, or any diseased organ.
(4) Hence, with Corluy, we think the most probable view is, that the blood flowed naturally from a bodyonly a short time dead, the water miraculously. Certainly the fathers generally seem to see in this flow of blood and water a mystery, something that was not ordinary or natural, and many think that our Evangelist himself, in the next verse,insistsupon the truth of what he says, as if it were something wholly unnatural and difficult to believe. It may, however, be replied to this latter argument that he insists upon the truth of the facts, not because anything miraculous and difficult to believe had taken place, but because there was question of the fulfilment of two important Messianic prophecies.
According to the fathers, the flow of blood typified the Sacrament of the Blessed Eucharist, that of water, the Sacrament of Baptism. Thus St. Cyril of Alex.:“Lancea latus ejus perfodiunt, unde cruor aqua mistus scaturiit, quod Eulogiae mysticae et baptismatis imago quaedam erat atque primitiae.”
35.And he that saw(hath seen)it hath given testimony.“It”is not represented in the original, and ought not to stand in our English version, as it seems to determine the reference to be merely to the sight of the flow of blood and water. We take the object of the verb“hath seen,”to beallthat is stated in the two preceding verses; namely, that Christ's legs were not broken, that His side was pierced, and that blood and water flowed. That this is the meaning is proved by the next verse.
That you also may believe.The sense is not that you also may believe that blood and water flowed, or that Christ really died; but, with Beel.; Bisp., Corl., that you also, as well as I, may more firmly believe that Jesus is the Messias foretold by the prophets. These words, then, express the full purpose that our Evangelist had in view in testifying to the facts just stated. ἵνα (that) may be taken to depend upon the three preceding clauses, or upon the words immediately preceding:“saith true.”
36.For these things were done.“For”establishes the connection, and proves, we[pg 353]think, the view we hold. It is as if the Evangelist said: these things happened, and I insist upon their truth, because they afford a strong argument why you should believe that Jesus was the Messias.
You shall not break a bone of him, had reference in its literal sense (Exod. vii. 46; Num. ix. 12) to the Paschal lamb; yet, St. John tells us here that the prophecy was fulfilled in Christ. Hence we have here an invincible argument for the existence of a mystical sense in Scripture.
37. The quotation is from Zach. xii. 10, according to the Hebrew text, except that, perhaps, the correct reading in Zach. is“on me,”and not“on him.”The passage in Zach. is Messianic in its literal sense, and the context shows that there is question of looking upon Jesus in sorrow and regret for what had taken place. We know from St. Luke that“all the multitude returned (from Calvary) striking their breasts”(xxiii. 48).
38.After these things.We learn from SS. Matthew and Mark that when Joseph approached Pilate it was evening (Matthew xxvii. 57; Mark xv. 42). Joseph was“a rich man”(Matthew xxvii. 57),“a noble counsellor”(Mark xv. 43), that is a member of the Sanhedrim,“a good and a just man”(Luke xxiii. 50).
Arimathea.Opinion is divided as to whether this was Rama in the tribe of Benjamin (Matt. ii. 18), or Rama (Ramathaimsophim) in the tribe of Ephraim (1 Kings i. 1). The latter, the birthplace of the Prophet Samuel, is called Ramatha in 1 Kings i. 19. St. Luke calls Arimathea“a city of Judea”(Luke xxiii. 51). St. Jerome (Onom. sacr., 2nd Ed., p. 178) identifies Arimathea with Remftis, now Rantieh, on the plain North of Lydda. See Smith'sB. D.sub voc.
Secretly.Till now he had been a disciple in secret, but after the death of Christ both he and Nicodemus boldly appeared in public as devoted friends of their dead Master.
And Pilate gave leave.Permission was usually given to the friends of one who had been executed to bury his body. Sometimes, indeed,[pg 354]Roman Governors granted such permission only on receiving money from the friends (Cic., Verr. v. 45), but in the present instance Pilate granted the privilege gratis (“Donavitcorpus Jesu,”Mark xv. 45).
We learn from St. Mark that Pilate gave the body only after he had summoned the centurion and learned that Jesus was dead (Mark xv. 44, 45).
He came therefore and took away the body of Jesus.We learn from St. Mark (xv. 46), and St. Luke (xxiii. 53), that he“took down”the body of Jesus, either aiding in or directing the work. Hence he must have returned to the foot of the cross, before the orders given to the soldiers (verses 31, 32) were fully carried out. If we suppose Joseph to have come soon after the Jews (verse 31) to Pilate, the governor, before granting his request, would naturally wish to be certain that Jesus was dead, and would therefore summon the centurion and make inquiry (Mark xv. 44, 45); then Joseph, returning from wherever Pilate was at the time, arrived before the body of our Lord had been taken down by the soldiers.
39.He who at first came to Jesus by night.The reference is to the visit recorded above iniii. 1, ff. St. John alone makes mention of Nicodemus on this occasion. The phrase“at first”may imply that Nicodemus visited Christ on other occasions, or it may indicate merely the beginning of Christ's ministry. The present public act of reverence in the light of day, beside a crowded city, is thrown into relief by contrast with the timid visit then paid“by night.”
Bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.[pg 355]“The compound was made of the gum of the myrrh tree, and a powder of the fragrant aloe wood. The amount of the preparation (‘about a hundred pound weight,’that is, a hundred Roman pounds of nearly twelve ounces) has caused some needless difficulty. The intention of Nicodemus was, without doubt, to cover the body completely with the mass of aromatics. Comp. 2, Chro. (Paralip.) xvi. 14: for this purpose the quantity was not excessive as a costly gift of devotion.”(Westc. inThe Speaker's Commentary.)
40.And bound it in linen cloths(ὁθόνια). They bound the body in swathes of linen cloth covered with layers of the aromatic mixture. The Synoptists speak only of“a linen cloth”(σινδών) in which the body was“wrapped.”We may naturally suppose that the body when embalmed was wrapped in a large linen cloth.
A new sepulchre, wherein no man yet had been laid.We learn from St. Matthew (xxvii. 60), that the sepulchre belonged to Joseph, and from all the Synoptists that it was hewn out of a rock, and therefore artificial. As no other body had been buried in the sepulchre, there could be no possible doubt that the body that rose was that of our Lord.
42.Because the sepulchre was nigh at hand.It seems to be implied that if there had been more time, some other sepulchre would have been chosen. As it was, because the Sabbath was at hand they laid Him in the tomb that was most convenient. St. John writing for the Christians of Asia Minor, speaks of“the parasceve of the Jews,”because when he wrote, Saturday was the Parasceve of Christians, the day of rest having been already changed from Saturday to Sunday, in honour of our Blessed Lord's resurrection. (See Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2.)