Chapter XIX.

Chapter XIX.1-5.Jesus is scourged, crowned with thorns, clothed with a purple garment, and mockingly saluted by the soldiers as King of the Jews; then shown to the people.6-7.The people, led on by the Priests and their servants, demand Christ's death.8-12. Pilate becomes still more unwilling to interfere with Jesus, and again examines Him, and makes known his intention of releasing Him.13-16.Then the Jews charge him with disloyalty to the Roman Emperor, and at length Pilate gives way and delivers Jesus to be crucified.17-22.Jesus is led to Calvary, and crucified between two robbers.23-24.The soldiers divide His other garments among four of them, but cast lots for His tunic.25-27.Jesus gives John to the Blessed Virgin as her son, and her in turn to him as his mother.28-30.Jesus, having partaken of the vinegar which was offered to Him in a soaked sponge, dies.31-37.The legs of the two robbers are broken, and the side of Jesus pierced with a lance.38-42.Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus embalm and bury the body of Jesus.1. Tunc ergo apprehendit Pilatus Iesum, et flagellavit.1. Then, therefore Pilate took Jesus, and scourged him.1. After he had released Barabbas, Pilate now thought of another but a cruel means of saving the life of Jesus. He had Him scourged, hoping thus to satisfy the fury of His enemies (Luke xxiii. 22). Then was fulfilled the prophecy of Isaias:“I have given my body to the strikers, and My cheeks to them that plucked them: I have not turned away my face from them that rebuked me, and spat upon me”(Isaias 1. 6).[pg 330]Had Christ been scourged by Jewish authority, according to the Jewish law He should not have received more than forty stripes.“According to the measure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be: Yet so that they exceed not the number of forty: lest thy brother depart shamefully torn before thy eyes”(Deut. xxv. 2, 3). By Jewish practice the number of stripes was restricted to thirty-nine (See 2 Cor. xi. 24). But as the scourging was ordered by Pilate, it was, doubtless, inflicted according to the cruel Roman method, in which there was no limit to the number of stripes that might be inflicted. The word used by the Greek translator of St. Matthew and by St. Mark in reference to this scourging is φραγελλώσας, which, like that used by St. John (ἐμαστίγωσεν), signifies a scourging with whips or flagella120(notrods, which were sometimes used by the Romans; Acts xvi. 22. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 25). Theflagellumwas chiefly used in the punishment of slaves. It was made of cords or thongs of leather, knotted with bones or circles of bronze, or pieces of hard wood, and sometimes terminated by hooks in which latter case it was called a scorpion. No wonder that Horace (Sat.1, 3, 119) speaks of it as“horribile flagellum.”It was with this brutal instrument of torture, then, that our Lord was mangled on this morning by the fierce Roman soldiers.The pillar to which according to tradition our Lord was tied while being scourged, was brought from Jerusalem to Rome, in 1223a.d.“In a small shrine to the right of the chapel (in the Church of St. Praxedes on the Esquiline, near St. Mary Major's), is preserved the marble pillar to which our Lord is said to have been bound. It measures two feet three inches in height, not including its circular pedestal, which is two inches high; its lower diameter is one foot and a-half, its upper is only nine inches, and its top was attached to a ring, the perforation for which remains”(Dr. Donovan'sRome, Ancient and Modern).2. Et milites plectentes corronam de spinis, imposuerunt capiti eius: et veste purpurea circumdederunt eum.2. And the soldiers platting a crown of thorns, put it upon his head: and they put on him a purple garment.2. There is a difficulty here when we compare this verse with Matt. xxvii. 26-29; Mark xv. 15-18. For, while St.[pg 331]John here represents the crowning with thorns121and the incident of the cloak asprecedingthe sentence of death (see verse 16), SS. Matthew and Mark seem to say that they followed it.Hence, some have held that Christ was twice crowned with thorns and clad with a cloak, and hailed as King of the Jews: once before the sentence as signified here, and once after as indicated by SS. Matthew and Mark.But it seems the more probable opinion that these events occurred only once, and before the sentence was passed, as St. John records. In this view, SS. Matthew and Mark do not record these events and the sentence in the order in which they occurred.122We would suggest, in support of this view, that these Evangelists, in recording the sentence by which Barabbas recovered his liberty (Matt. xxvii. 26; Mark xv. 15), depart from the order of time to record in connection with the liberation of Barabbas the condemnation of Jesus. Thus the sentence of death, though following the crowning with thorns is represented in the two first Gospels as preceding it.A purple garment.If it be objected that while the cloak according to St. John waspurple, according to St. Matthew it wasscarlet, we reply that the same difficulty occurs on a comparison of St. Matthew with St. Mark, for the latter also says the cloak waspurple; and yet all admit that SS. Matthew and Mark refer to the same occasion. In reality, the two Greek words translated purple and scarlet seem to have been frequently interchanged.“Πορφύρα is vaguely used to signify different shades of red, and is especially convertible with crimson = κοκκίνη, Matt.”(Alf. on St. Mark xv. 17).3. Et veniebant ad eum, et dicebant: Ave rex Iudaeorum: Et dabant ei alapas.3. And they came to him, and said: Hail, king of the Jews, and they gave him blows.3.Hail, king of the Jews.The soldiers had derisively arrayed Him in the insignia of royalty; nothing was wanting but the mockery of their homage; this they now offer. St. Matthew is more explicit:“And bowing the knee before him, they mocked him, saying: Hail, king of the Jews”(Matt. xxvii. 29).And they gave him blows.From St. Matthew we learn,[pg 332]too, that“spitting upon him, they took the reed, and struck his head”(Matt. xxvii. 30).4. Exivit ergo iterum Pilatus foras, et dicit eis: Ecce adduco vobis eum foras, ut cognoscatis quia nullam invenio in eo causam.4. Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith to them: Behold I bring him forth unto you, that you may know that I find no cause in him.4. Pilate now brought Jesus forth, hoping that the wretched plight to which our Saviour had been reduced, that the mockery and degradation and suffering to which He had been subjected, would satisfy them, and with this view he says to them in effect: Behold I bring Him forth to you that I may make known to you again that I can find no reason for condemning Him; see, then, the miserable state to which He is reduced, and be satisfied.5. (Exivit ergo Iesus portans coronam spineam, et purpureum vestimentum). Et dicit eis: Ecce homo.5. Jesus therefore came forth bearing the crown of thorns, and the purple garment. And he saith to them: Behold the Man.5. This verse gives us the graphic description of an eye-witness.Behold the Man.“Behold”is an interjection, not a verb. It it were a verb,“man”would be in the accusative case governed by it. This, indeed, is what is suggested by our translation and punctuation:“Behold the Man.”But in the original,“man”is in the nominative case (ὁ ἄνθρωπος), and the meaning is: Behold, here before you isthe Man.6. Cum ergo vidissent eum pontifices et ministri clamabant dicentes: Crucifige, crucifige eum, Dicit eis Pilatus: accipite cum vos et crucifigite: ego enim non invenio in eo causam.6. When the chief priests therefore and the servants had seen him, they cried out, saying: Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith to them: Take him you, and crucify him; for I find no cause in him.6. As soon as Jesus appeared, the chief-priests and the ministers at once raised the savage cry, fearing lest the sight of His bleeding and mangled body might melt the hearts of the people.Pilate's words:Take him, you, and crucify him, are thought by some to be ironical, as if he said: Take him you, if you dare. We prefer, however, to understand the words,[pg 333]like the similar words in versexviii. 31, as the expression of his desire to please the Jews. He was convinced that Jesus was innocent, and was unwilling himself to condemn Him; yet, to please the Jews, he would permit them to put Him to death.7. Responderunt ei Iudaei: Nos legem habemus, et secundum legem debet mori, quia Filium Dei se fecit.7. The Jews answered him: We have a law; and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.7.The Jews answered him: We have a law.The Jews reply, that though the Roman governor sees nothing in Him for which to condemn Him, yet, according to their law, Jesus has incurred the penalty of death:“He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die; all the multitude shall stone him”(Lev. xxiv. 16).Because he made himself the Son of God.Note here that the Jews understood Christ to have claimed to be thenaturalSon of God. Had they understood Him to speak of Himself merely as an adopted son, they could not have blamed Him, for the just are frequently spoken of in the Old Testament as sons of God. From St. Luke xxiii. 2, then, we know that the Jews understood Jesus to claim to be“Christ, the King;”that is to say, to be the Messias; and from the verse before us we learn that they understood Him to claim to be the Son of God. As such then, and for such claims on His part, He was put to death; and the fact that He chose rather to die, than explain away or withdraw these claims, proves that He was understood correctly.8. Cum ergo audisset Pilatus hunc sermonem, magis timuit.8. When Pilate therefore had heard this saying, he feared the more.8.He feared the more.When Pilate heard that Christ claimed to be the Son of God, he becamemoreafraid to interfere with or condemn Him. Already her dream which Pilate's wife had made known to him (Matt. xxvii. 19), and the majesty, serenity, and evident innocence of Jesus, must have greatly impressed the governor.9. Et ingressus est praetorium iterum, et dixit ad Iesum: Unde es tu? Iesus autem responsum non dedit ei.9. And he entered into the hall again, and he said to Jesus: Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.9. Again, therefore, he entered the palace (πραιτώριον). Jesus, too, was led in, and Pilate[pg 334]questioned Him in reference to the accusation just made against Him. You have been charged with claiming to be the Son of God:Whence art thou?from heaven, or of earth, like other men? Pilate was unworthy of an answer, or else Jesus thought it useless to explain to one who would not understand or believe it His eternal generation from the Father, and accordingly He was silent.10. Dicit ergo ei Pilatus: Mihi non loqueris? nescis quia potestatem habeo crucifigere te et potestatem habeo dimittere te?10. Pilate therefore saith to him: Speakest thou not to me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and I have power to release thee?10.Speakest thou not to me?In the original the pronoun, standing at the head of the clause, is emphatic. Speakest thou notto me, the representative of Roman power, who have authority (ἐξουσίαν) to liberate or crucify thee?Knowest thou not that I have power, &c. The more probable order of the clauses is:“I have power to release thee, and I have power to crucify thee,”the motive of hope standing before that of fear.11. Respondit Iesus: Non haberes potestatem adversum me ullam, nisi tibi datum esset desuper. Propterea qui me tradidit tibi, maius peccatum habet.11. Jesus answered: Thou shouldest not have any power against me, unless it were given thee from above. Therefore he that hath delivered me to thee, hath the greater sin.11. Pilate's claim to unlimited power over Him makes Jesus again break silence. His words are an implicit admission that Pilate possesses power over Him, but at the same time a reminder that there was One greater than even a Roman governor, without whose permission Pilate could do nothing against Him.Unless it were given thee from above.From the original, in which we have ἦν δεδομένον, not ἦν δεδομένη (datum, not data), it is clear that the verb has not“power”for its subject, but is to be taken impersonally: Unless it were given thee from aboveto have such power.“From above”has been taken by some to refer to the Sanhedrim, as if Christ here referred to it as a higher tribunal than Pilate's; but this view cannot be admitted. Not only is it opposed to the ordinary sense of ἄνωθεν (iii. 31; James i. 17; iii. 15, 17), but it would make our Lord say that Pilate had received his power from the Sanhedrim—a statement which would not be correct.“From above”, then, means: from heaven or from God.Therefore he that hath delivered(παραδούς, not παραδιδούς)me to thee hath the greater sin. Some, as Kuinoel, hold that διὰ τοῦτο is here[pg 335]merely a formula of transition (like the Hebrew לבן, Judg. viii. 7, &c.), of which no account is to be taken. The meaning is then sufficiently clear. But if, as most commentators take for granted, we are to give διὰ τοῦτο its ordinary inferential force, the connection is very obscure, and has been variously explained.(a) Some thus: Because you exercise your powerunwillinglytherefore your sin is less than that of Caiphas and the Sanhedrim, who have delivered me to you, and are forcing you to condemn me. But it is rightly objected against this interpretation, that the word“unwillingly,”upon which it turns, is neither expressed nor suggested in the text.(b) Others thus: Since you have received from God power over Me,but have not had an opportunity of judging of My character, therefore your sin is less than that of Caiphas and the Sanhedrim, who with the clearest evidences of My Divinity before them have yet condemned Me and delivered Me to you. But it is objected to this view also, that the words upon which the interpretation hinges, are not found in the text.(c) Others thus: since you possess lawful authority, therefore the Sanhedrim is more guilty in handing Me over to you than it would be, if you possessed not this authority. For, in handing Me over to you, they try to brand Me as a malefactor, and they surrender Me to one who has the power to put Me to death, even by the cruel death of crucifixion. In this view, held by Toletus, the sin of the Sanhedrim is compared, not with that of Pilate, but with what their own sin would have been, had they merely brought Jesus before some unlawful tribunal.The last connection, though, perhaps, not sufficiently obvious, is the most natural. The meaning of the whole verse is: You have lawful authority indeed, but not independently of God; and since you have lawful authority, therefore, My accusers are the more guilty.The words“he that hath delivered me to thee”refer primarily to Caiphas, the high-priest, but include the Sanhedrim with him in the responsibility for delivering up Christ.12. Et exinde quaerebat Pilatus dimittere eum. Iudaei autem clamabant, dicentes: Si hunc dimittis, non es amicus Caesaris: omnis enim qui se regem facit contradicit Caesari.12. And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him. But the Jews cried out, saying: If thou release this man, thou art not Cesar's friend. For whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh against Cesar.12.And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him.Pilate, who had hitherto tried to shirk the trial of Jesus, or to[pg 336]induce the Jews to call for His release, now“sought”himself to release Him. At this juncture, when all other motives had failed to move Pilate, the Jews exasperated charge him with being the enemy of Cæsar, if he refuse to condemn one who claimed to be a sovereign within Cæsar's dominions. Their words conveyed to Pilate that they would denounce him to Cæsar, in case he persisted in refusing to condemn Jesus. Tiberius (14-37a.d.), who was Roman Emperor at the time, was, according to Suetonius (Vit. Tib., c. 58), a most suspicious tyrant, and one with whom, as Tacitus tells us:“Majestatis crimen omnium accusationum complementum erat”(Ann. iii. 38).13. Pilatus autem cum audisset hos sermones, adduxit foras Iesum: et sedit pro tribunali, in loco qui dicitur Lithostrotos, hebraice autem Gabbatha.13. Now when Pilate had heard these words, he brought Jesus forth; and sat down in the judgment seat, in the place that is called Lithostrotos, and in Hebrew Gabbatha.13. Now when Pilate had heard these words, he brought Jesus forth. Pilate, through fear of the Emperor, at length gave way, and Jesus, who had remained within the house after the interrogation (verses 9-11), while Pilate was signifying his own intention to the people (verse 12), was now brought forth, and Pilate formally took his seat to pass sentence of death.In the place that is called Lithostrotos, and in Hebrew Gabbatha.The Rev. Vers. renders:“At a place called the Pavement, but in Hebrew Gabbatha.”The judgment-seat was usually in front of the Praetorium, on an elevated platform. The Syro-Chaldaic word Gabbatha meansa high place, probably from the root גבה (Gabhah), and such high places were usually paved with many-coloured stones, hence the name“Lithostrotos”(from λίθος, a stone, and στρωτός, covered, or paved). Suetonius (Caes. 8, 46) says that Julius Cæsar carried such a pavement with him on his expeditions.14. Erat autem parasceve paschae, hora quasi sexta, et dicit Iudaeis: Ecce rex vester.14. And it was the parasceve of the pasch, about the sixth hour, and he saith to the Jews: Behold your king.14.And it was the parasceve of the Pasch.“Parasceve”(Gr. παρασκευή) meanspreparation, orday of preparation, and the expression:“the[pg 337]parasceve of the Pasch”mightmean the day of preparation for the Paschal feast, and hence the daybeforethe feast began. This, indeed, is the meaning given to the phrase by all those who hold that Christ, in the last year of His mortal life, celebrated the Paschal Supper a day before the Jews.123They hold that St. John here signifies that the Jewish Pasch had not yet begun. But the phrase may have, and we believe has, a different meaning. We know from St. Mark that“Parasceve”was another name for Friday;“It was the Parasceve, that is, the day before the Sabbath”(Mark xv. 42). Friday naturally enough got this name, because it was theday of preparationfor the Jewish Sabbath.By“the parasceve of the Pasch,”then, we understand the Friday of the Paschal week, and we take it that St. John here indicates the day of the week, as in the words immediately following he indicates the hour of the day. His readers, some of whom were, doubtless, acquainted with the Synoptic Gospels, would be already aware that this day was the first of the Paschal week, and not the eve of the festival. See above onxiii. 1.About the sixth hour.A very great difficulty arises from a comparison of this account with that of St. Mark. For St. Mark says:“And it was thethirdhour, and they crucified Him.... And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole earth until the ninth hour”(Mark xv. 25, 33).Thus, while St. John represents our Lord ascondemnedabout thesixthhour, St. Mark represents Him as alreadycrucifiedat thethirdhour. How, it is asked, could He be crucified at thethirdhour, if He was not condemned till thesixth?Many solutions of this difficulty have been proposed, but some of them are so improbable, that we will not delay upon them. When, for instance, St. Augustine says that St. Mark, in stating that the Jews crucified Jesus at the third hour, means that at that time they crucified Him with theirtonguesby calling for His crucifixion, it is plain from the whole context of St. Mark that such a view cannot be admitted; because he evidently speaks of the real nailing of Jesus to the cross. Thus he says:“And it was the third hour, and they crucified him. And the inscription of his cause was written over,The King of the Jews. And with him they crucify two thieves, the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.... And they that passed by blasphemed him, wagging their heads, and saying:[pg 338]... save thyself, coming down from the cross”(Mark xv. 25-30).But, setting aside the less probable methods of reconciliation, we must notice four which have found favour with commentators.(1) Maldonatus and many of the older commentators hold that besides the division of the Jewish day into twelve hours, there was also another division into four periods, corresponding to the four watches of the night.124Thus, at the Pasch, which occurred about the time of the vernal equinox, these four periods, or“hours,”would be respectively—(a) from 6 to 9 a.m.; (b) from 9 a.m. to noon; (c) from noon to 3 p.m.; and (d) from 3 to 6 p.m. According to Mald., these periods were called respectively, the third, sixth, ninth, and twelfth“hour.”He curiously supposes, however, that sometimes any one of these“hours”or periods was referred to either by the name of the hour with which it began, or by the name of that with which it closed. Hence the period between 9 a.m. and noon, or, to speak more correctly, a time within that period—about 11.30 a.m.—is referred to by St. Mark as thethirdhour; while a time within the same period, but about an hour earlier is referred to by St. John as the sixth hour.This view is now generally abandoned, and not without reason. For, in the first place, there are no solid grounds for believing that the fourfold division of the Jewish day here supposed, ever existed. In the second place, even if it had existed, we should require a great deal of proof, indeed, before we could believe that the“hours”were numbered in so strange and confusing a fashion.(2) More probable than the preceding is the view of Cornely (Introd., vol. iii., § 73, 3). He, too, like Mald., holds the above fourfold division of the day, but says that the divisions were called respectively, the first, third, sixth, and ninth hour. Now, the Synoptic Evangelists, he says, follow this fourfold division of the day; and, hence, St. Mark's third hour is the time from 9 a.m. to noon. St. John, on the other hand, reckons according to the more accurate Jewish method of dividing the day into twelve equal parts; and, therefore, his phrase,“about the sixth hour,”meansabout noon. Cornely thinks that the vagueness of the phrase:“Aboutthe sixth hour”justifies us in supposing[pg 339]that the time when Pilate passed sentence upon our Lord, according to St. John, may have been as early as half-past ten. Thus, condemned about half-past ten, Jesus could be led out to Calvary and put upon the cross before noon; in other words, while, as St. Mark says, it was still the third hour.Though this view is more probable than the preceding, we cannot accept it. For it supposes, like the preceding, a division of the day into four“hours,”for which Cornely offers no evidence any more than Maldonatus. Moreover, we cannot bring ourselves to believe that St. John would refer to a time so early as half-past ten as“about the sixth hour.”(3) Others think that while St. Mark follows the Jewish division of the day, and, therefore counts the hours from sunrise, St. John, on the other hand, follows the Greek method, and counts them from midnight. Thus, about the time of the equinox, St. Mark's“third hour”would mean about 9 a.m., while St. John's“about the sixth hour”would mean about 6 a.m. According to this view, our Lord was condemned about 6 a.m., and nailed to the cross about 9 a.m.Against this view, it is held by many writers that St. John, like the other Evangelists, counts the hours of the day from sunrise, that is to say, according to the Jewish method.125But a still more serious difficulty against this view arises from the difficulty of finding time for all the events of the morning of the Crucifixion between day-dawn and 6 a.m.—the time at which, in this opinion, our Lord was condemned by Pilate.“Those events ... were—(1) the meeting of the Council; (2) the procession to Pilate's Court; (3) the various incidents recorded by the four Evangelists on the occasion of our Lord's first appearance before Pilate's tribunal; (4) the sending of our Lord to Herod; (5) the interview between our Lord and Herod; (6) the mocking of our Lord by Herod's soldiers; (7) the[pg 340]return to the Court of Pilate; (8) the scourging; (9) the crowning with thorns; (10) the mocking of our Lord by the Roman soldiers; (11) the incident of the‘Ecce Homo,’and (12) the final interview, within the Praetorium, between our Lord and Pilate, at the close of which Pilate came forth, and, after a final effort to obtain the liberation of our Lord, took his place on the judgment seat,‘and it was now about the sixth hour.’(4)“It would seem, then, that the most satisfactory solution of the difficulty is that given by the great majority of modern commentators—Catholic as well as Protestant—namely, that an error has crept into the text of St. John's Gospel, and that the true reading of the passage in question there (xix. 14), is to be obtained by substituting‘third’for‘sixth.’“Manifestly, such a correction of the text removes the difficulty we are considering. On the one hand, it leaves abundance of time before Pilate's sentence—three or four hours—for the events of the earlier part of the morning. On the other hand, it leaves quite sufficient time—an interval, it may be supposed, of nearly an hour—between the passing of the sentence and the actual crucifixion; for St. John's statement, that it was‘about’the third hour, might surely be understood of any time between half-past eight and nine o'clock; and St. Mark's words are quite consistent with the supposition that our Lord was crucified at any time between nine and ten.“And it is not to be supposed that the emendation of the text is suggested merely ona priorigrounds. For (1) this reading is actually found in one of the five Greek MSS. of the New Testament that rank highest in antiquity and authority—Codex D. (CantabrigiensisorBezae): this MS dates probably from the 5th or 6th century. Moreover (2) we have in its favour the very strong testimony of an ancient writer, the author of theChronicon Paschale(circ.a.d.630), who adopts this reading on the authority of many‘accurate copies,’and mentions the striking fact that the clause was thus read in St. John's original autograph of his Gospel, then extant, and, of course, deeply venerated by the faithful in the Church at Ephesus.”(See Patrizzi,De Evangeliis, lib. ii., n. 195.)“But, it may be objected, is it not a somewhat forced hypothesis to suppose that an interchange of two words so dissimilar as τρίτη and ἕκτη,—the Greek words for‘third’and‘sixth’respectively—could have occurred by an error of transcription? By no[pg 341]means. For, in the first place, it must be remembered that the usage was almost universal of using the numeral characters—which, in Greek consist of letters of the alphabet—instead of writing the words in full. Thus the change would consist merely in the substitution of one letter for another. But, furthermore, it is essential to explain that when the ancient MSS. of the Greek Testament were written, it was the usage to employ only capital, or, as they are called, uncial letters—thus those MSS. themselves are commonly known as uncial. Now, since the character by which the numeral 3 was represented wasgamma, thethirdletter of the Greek alphabet, its uncial form was Γ. The character by which the numeral 6 was represented was the now obsoletedigamma, at one time thesixthletter of the Greek alphabet: its uncial form was Ϝ.“Thus then we find that the error which, it is suggested, has crept into this verse of the text of St. John consisted merely in the interchange of the characters Ϝ and Γ—a mistake so easily made that its very facility constitutes a strong antecedent probability in favour of the view that it, in fact, occurred.”126In this view, which seems to us the most probable, Christ was condemnedaboutthethirdhour. As thethirdhour at the season of the Pasch extended from about 8 till 9 a.m., St. Mark's“third hour”may refer to a time immediately after 8 a.m. This opinion allows abundance of time for the events which on that Good Friday morning preceded the sentence of death. For, as the sun at the Pasch rose about 6 a.m., day-dawn began about half-past four; and thus we have nearly four hours from the assembling of the Sanhedrim, before which Jesus was led at dawn, till the sentence was pronounced upon Him by Pilate. In this view, our Lord was put upon the cross about 9 a.m.Behold your king.This, like Pilate's words in the next verse, was probably said to annoy the Jews because they had forced him to condemn Jesus.15. Illi autem clamabant: Tolle, tolle, crucifige eum. Dicit eis Pilatus: Regem vestrum crucifigam? Responderunt pontifices: Non habemus regem, nisi Caesarem.15. But they cried out: Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith to them: Shall I crucify your king? The chief priests answered: We have no king but Cesar.15.We have no king but Caesar.Though the Jews were at this time chafing under the dominion of the Romans,[pg 342]the chief priests, blinded by their hatred of Christ, here proclaimed their submission to the Roman yoke.16. Tunc ergo tradidit eis ilium ut crucifigeretur. Susceperunt autem Iesum, et eduxerunt.16. Then therefore he delivered him to them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him forth.16. And now Pilate at last delivered Jesus to them to be crucified, having first, as St. Matthew tells us, gone through the vain ceremony of washing his hands, as if he could thus wash his soul from the guilt of weakly consenting to Christ's death!17. Et baiulans sibi crucem, exivit in eum qui dicitur Calvariae locum, hebraice autem Golgotha:17. And bearing his own cross he went forth to that place which is called Calvary, but in Hebrew Golgotha.17. The words“and led him forth,”are probably not genuine. We learn from the Synoptic Evangelists that Jesus was now mocked, stripped of the purple cloak, and clothed with His own garments. Then, like Isaac of old (Gen. xxii. 6), bearing the wood on which He was to suffer, Jesuswent forth(comp.xviii. 1) to the place where He was crucified. By Jewish as well as Roman law the execution should take place outside the city; Numb. xv. 35; 3 K. xxi. 13. And Cicero says: Quid enim attinuit, cum Mamertinimore atque instituto suo, crucem fixissentpost urbemin via Pompeia, &c. (Verr. v. 66). Calvary, which is now within the walls of Jerusalem, was then outside them, lying to the west of the city. A very old tradition represents Jesus as falling three times beneath the cross on His way to Calvary; and the three Synoptic Evangelists tell us that Simon of Cyrene127, probably a Jew who had come to Jerusalem to celebrate the Pasch, was forced to carry the cross. It is disputed whether Simon was made to bear the cross alone[pg 343]or merely to assist Jesus. The latter view is frequently followed in paintings, but the former seems more probable. Jesus was now worn and weak, and as the Jews were impatient to hurry on to the place of punishment; perhaps, too, through a fear that He might otherwise die on the way and deprive them of the pleasure of seeing Him writhing on the cross, they would be more likely to relieve Him from even helping to carry the cross.“Nota,”says A Lapide,“non videri Simonem crucem gestasse cum Christo hac ratione, ut Christus priorem crucis partem, Simon posteriorem portaret, uti pingunt pictores; sed ipsum solum totam Christi praeeuntis crucem gestasse”(A Lap. on St. Matt. xxvii. 32).St. Luke alone mentions the incident of the women of Jerusalem, who followed Jesus bewailing and lamenting for Him (Luke xxii. 27-31). A very ancient tradition represents the Blessed Virgin as meeting Jesus in this sad procession to Calvary.Calvariain the Vulgate is not a proper name.“It is simply the Latin for κρανίον, abare skull, and used in Vulgate only here (Matt.) and in the parallel passages of Mark, Luke, and John when describing the crucifixion—nowhere else in the Old or New Testament. Golgotha was the Hebrew name of the spot where our Lord was crucified. The pure Hebrew form of the word גלגלת (Gulgoleth), meaning a skull (from גלל (galal)to roll, to be round), is found in Judges ix. 53. Thence came the Chaldaic (rather we should say, Syro-Chaldaic), Gulgalta, abbreviated into Golgotha. But why was the place called Golgotha, orskull? Either because criminals were commonly executed on that spot, and many skulls were found there bleaching in the sun (St. Jerome and most modern Catholic comm.); or the mound was skull-like (St. Cyril of Jerusalem alludes to this view, but refutes it); or (according to tradition) the skull of the first man, Adam, was buried there (Orig., St. Epiph., and nearly all the fathers) ...: In accordance with this opinion (of the fathers), we see so often in paintings and pictures a skull placed at the foot of the cross. Although we read constantly in sermons of thehillof Calvary, there is little to show that there was any hill or mound on the spot namedGolgotha. St. Cyril of Jerusalem objects to the derivation of Calvary from the mound being skull-shaped, because he says there wasno hillthere. In the whole history of the Passion no mention is made of themountor hill of Calvary.... The traditional spot is simply on a high ground, like Holborn in London, or Patrick's-hill in[pg 344]Dublin, or the Pantheon in Paris”(Dr. M'Carthy, on St. Matthew, xxvii. 33).18. Ubi crucifixerunt eum, et cum eo alios duos hinc et hinc, medium autem Iesum.18. Where they crucified him, and with him two others, one on each side, and Jesus in the midst.18. Whether Jesus was nailed to the cross while it was lying upon the ground, or whether the cross was first erected and He then raised up to it by ropes and ladders, is disputed.128As to the shape of the cross, too, on which He was crucified, there is a slight difference of opinion. Setting aside thecrux simplex, which was merely an upright stake, thecrux compacta, so called from the parts being joined together, was threefold:“decussata(cut into two equal parts), like the letter X;commissa, like the letter T, andimmissa, or Latin +, which differs from thecommissa, by having the long upright beam projecting over the transverse bar”(M'Carthy). The almost unanimous tradition of the fathers holds that Christ died upon the Latin cross, and there is no reason to doubt that this is correct.And with him two others.These are described as“robbers”(λῃισταί), by St. Matt. (xxvii. 38), and St. Mark (xv. 27), and as“malefactors”by St. Luke (xxiii. 32). It may possibly have been to add to His disgrace and shame that the Jews had these punished together with Jesus.“And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith:And with the wicked he was reputed”(Mark xv. 28).19. Scripsit autem et titulum Pilatus: et posuit super crucem, Erat autem scriptum:Iesus Nazarenus, rex Iudaeorum.19. And Pilate wrote a title also: and he put it upon the cross. And the writing was,Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.19.Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.It was usual to indicate in some such way the name and offence of those crucified, and so Pilate had an inscription placed over the head of Jesus, giving His name, and the reason why He suffered. We should have expected, however, that Pilate would have caused to be written: Jesus of Nazareth whoclaimed to beking of the Jews. But no, either to annoy the Jews, or by an over-ruling Providence, Pilate wrote:“King of the Jews,”thus[pg 345]proclaiming Christ's royal dignity even while he crucified Him.The title is slightly different in all four Evangelists.Hic est Jesus Rex Judaeorum(Matthew);Rex Judaeorum(Mark);Hic est Rex Judaeorum(Luke);Jesus Nazarenus Rex Judaeorum(John).It is very probable that St. John gives the precise words of the title, the others the substance. For all that is at present legible129of the Hebrew text of the title agrees exactly with St. John.The title, written on a whitened wooden tablet, together with the true cross, nails, and lance, was discovered during the excavations ordered by an English woman, St. Helen, the mother of Constantine the Great, about the year 326a.d.The title was placed by St. Helen in the Church of the Holy Cross on the Esquiline, in Rome, where it is still venerated. See Dr. Donovan'sRome, Ancient and Modern, vol. i., p. 508.20. Hunc ergo titulum multi Iudaeorum legerunt: quia prope civitatem erat locus, ubi crucifixus est Iesus: et erat scriptum hebraice, graece, et latine.20. This title therefore many of the Jews did read: because the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin.20.The place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city.Calvary was less than a mile from the centre of Jerusalem, and as the city was then crowded, many read the title. The title was in three languages, that all might be able to read it. The Jews resident in Palestine could read the Syro-Chaldaic; the strangers could read the Greek; and the Roman soldiers, the Latin. It was formerly held by some commentators that the three inscriptions were in Latin, but written in Syro-Chaldaic, Greek, and Latin characters, respectively. This opinion, however, has nothing to recommend it. The obvious sense of the verse before us, and the relics of the title, prove that the inscription was in three different languages. Many authorities reverse the order of the two last clauses in this verse:“in Latin, and in Greek.”21. Dicebant ergo Pilato pontifices Iudaeorum: Noli scribere, Rex Iudaeorum: sed quia ipse dixit: Rex sum Iudaeorum.21. Then the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate: Write not, the king of the Jews, but that he said: I am the king of the Jews.21.Then the chief priests.Rather,“the chief priests of the Jews,therefore,”&c.[pg 346]22. Respondit Pilatus: Quod scripsi, scripsi.22. Pilate answered: What I have written, I have written.22.What I have written, I have written.Pilate, already tired of the painful business, and disgusted with the Jews, refused to make any change in what he had written.23. Milites ergo cum crucifixissent eum, acceperunt vestimenta eius (et fecerunt quatuor partes: unicuique militi partem), et tunicam. Erat autem tunica inconsutilis, desuper contexta per totum.23. The soldiers therefore when they had crucified him, took his garments (and they made four parts, to every soldier a part) and also his coat. Now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.23. It was the custom to give the clothes to the executioners. The tunic was the inner garment worn next the skin, and reaching from the neck to the ankles. It was usually fastened round the neck with a clasp.24. Dixerunt ergo ad invicem: Non scindamus eam, sed sortiamur de illa cuius sit. Ut scriptura impleretur, dicens: Partiti sunt vestimenta mea sibi: et in vestem meam miserunt sortem. Et milites quidem haec fecerunt.24. They said then one to another: Let us not cut it, but let us cast lots for it whose it shall be; that the scripture might be fulfilled, saying:They have parted my garments among them: and upon my vesture they have cast lots. And the soldiers indeed did these things.24. As Christ's tunic was seamless, and the soldiers thought it a pity to tear it, they cast lots for it; God so ordaining, in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled. According to an old tradition, the tunic had been woven for Jesus by the Blessed Virgin's own hands.25. Stabant autem iuxta crucem Iesu mater eius, et soror matris eius, Maria Cleophae, et Maria Magdalene.25. Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.25.By the cross.There is no contradiction between this and the Synoptic Evangelists (Matt. xxvii. 55; Mark xv. 40; Luke xxiii. 49), who represent the women as[pg 347]standing“afar off;”for they refer to a time subsequent to Christ's death, St. John to a time when He was hanging on the cross still alive.His mother's sister.Mary of Cleophas was the wife of Cleophas, and mother of the Apostle James the Less. She was a cousin of the Blessed Virgin. Some writers, however, prefer to think, that she is called a“sister,”because her husband Cleophas was brother to St. Joseph.26. Cum vidisset ergo Iesus matrem, et discipulum stantem quem diligebat, dicit matri suae: Mulier, ecce filius tuus.26. When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing, whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son.27. Deinde dicit discipulo: Ecce mater tua. Et ex illa hora accepit eam discipulus in sua.27. After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour the disciple took her to his own.26, 27.Woman(γύναι) is the same term by which Jesus addressed His mother at the marriage feast of Cana (Johnii. 4). Its use on the present sad, solemn occasion were itself sufficient proof that the term implies no disrespect. (See above onii. 4.) The virgin disciple is here commended to the Blessed Virgin's care, to be loved and treated as her son; and she, in turn, to His care, to be loved and respected and supported as a mother. There is no reason for doubting the common opinion that St. Joseph was dead at this time; had he been still alive, the Blessed Virgin would, doubtless, have remained under his care.To his own(εἰς τὰ ἴδια,i.e.δώματα). The meaning is that he took her to where he himself abode. He may have had a house of his own, for his father seems to have been a man of some means (Mark i. 20), and the expression would most naturally refer to his own house (Acts xxi. 6). But it is possible, too, that he merely lodged in another's house. Inxvi. 32, it is predicted that the Apostles should be scattered every man to his own (εἰς τὰ ἴδια), and very few of these poor Galilean fishermen can have owned houses in Jerusalem.Regarding the common belief that St. John, at the foot[pg 348]of the cross, represented the whole human race, or, at least, all the faithful, it must be said that the fathers make no mention of this view, and that there is nothing in the obvious literal sense of the passage to indicate that St. John held any such representative capacity.28. Postea sciens Iesus quia omnia consummata sunt, ut consummaretur scriptura, dixit: Sitio.28. Afterwards Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, said: I thirst.

1-5.Jesus is scourged, crowned with thorns, clothed with a purple garment, and mockingly saluted by the soldiers as King of the Jews; then shown to the people.6-7.The people, led on by the Priests and their servants, demand Christ's death.8-12. Pilate becomes still more unwilling to interfere with Jesus, and again examines Him, and makes known his intention of releasing Him.13-16.Then the Jews charge him with disloyalty to the Roman Emperor, and at length Pilate gives way and delivers Jesus to be crucified.17-22.Jesus is led to Calvary, and crucified between two robbers.23-24.The soldiers divide His other garments among four of them, but cast lots for His tunic.25-27.Jesus gives John to the Blessed Virgin as her son, and her in turn to him as his mother.28-30.Jesus, having partaken of the vinegar which was offered to Him in a soaked sponge, dies.31-37.The legs of the two robbers are broken, and the side of Jesus pierced with a lance.38-42.Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus embalm and bury the body of Jesus.

1-5.Jesus is scourged, crowned with thorns, clothed with a purple garment, and mockingly saluted by the soldiers as King of the Jews; then shown to the people.

6-7.The people, led on by the Priests and their servants, demand Christ's death.

8-12. Pilate becomes still more unwilling to interfere with Jesus, and again examines Him, and makes known his intention of releasing Him.

13-16.Then the Jews charge him with disloyalty to the Roman Emperor, and at length Pilate gives way and delivers Jesus to be crucified.

17-22.Jesus is led to Calvary, and crucified between two robbers.

23-24.The soldiers divide His other garments among four of them, but cast lots for His tunic.

25-27.Jesus gives John to the Blessed Virgin as her son, and her in turn to him as his mother.

28-30.Jesus, having partaken of the vinegar which was offered to Him in a soaked sponge, dies.

31-37.The legs of the two robbers are broken, and the side of Jesus pierced with a lance.

38-42.Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus embalm and bury the body of Jesus.

1. After he had released Barabbas, Pilate now thought of another but a cruel means of saving the life of Jesus. He had Him scourged, hoping thus to satisfy the fury of His enemies (Luke xxiii. 22). Then was fulfilled the prophecy of Isaias:“I have given my body to the strikers, and My cheeks to them that plucked them: I have not turned away my face from them that rebuked me, and spat upon me”(Isaias 1. 6).

Had Christ been scourged by Jewish authority, according to the Jewish law He should not have received more than forty stripes.“According to the measure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be: Yet so that they exceed not the number of forty: lest thy brother depart shamefully torn before thy eyes”(Deut. xxv. 2, 3). By Jewish practice the number of stripes was restricted to thirty-nine (See 2 Cor. xi. 24). But as the scourging was ordered by Pilate, it was, doubtless, inflicted according to the cruel Roman method, in which there was no limit to the number of stripes that might be inflicted. The word used by the Greek translator of St. Matthew and by St. Mark in reference to this scourging is φραγελλώσας, which, like that used by St. John (ἐμαστίγωσεν), signifies a scourging with whips or flagella120(notrods, which were sometimes used by the Romans; Acts xvi. 22. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 25). Theflagellumwas chiefly used in the punishment of slaves. It was made of cords or thongs of leather, knotted with bones or circles of bronze, or pieces of hard wood, and sometimes terminated by hooks in which latter case it was called a scorpion. No wonder that Horace (Sat.1, 3, 119) speaks of it as“horribile flagellum.”It was with this brutal instrument of torture, then, that our Lord was mangled on this morning by the fierce Roman soldiers.

The pillar to which according to tradition our Lord was tied while being scourged, was brought from Jerusalem to Rome, in 1223a.d.“In a small shrine to the right of the chapel (in the Church of St. Praxedes on the Esquiline, near St. Mary Major's), is preserved the marble pillar to which our Lord is said to have been bound. It measures two feet three inches in height, not including its circular pedestal, which is two inches high; its lower diameter is one foot and a-half, its upper is only nine inches, and its top was attached to a ring, the perforation for which remains”(Dr. Donovan'sRome, Ancient and Modern).

2. There is a difficulty here when we compare this verse with Matt. xxvii. 26-29; Mark xv. 15-18. For, while St.[pg 331]John here represents the crowning with thorns121and the incident of the cloak asprecedingthe sentence of death (see verse 16), SS. Matthew and Mark seem to say that they followed it.

Hence, some have held that Christ was twice crowned with thorns and clad with a cloak, and hailed as King of the Jews: once before the sentence as signified here, and once after as indicated by SS. Matthew and Mark.

But it seems the more probable opinion that these events occurred only once, and before the sentence was passed, as St. John records. In this view, SS. Matthew and Mark do not record these events and the sentence in the order in which they occurred.122We would suggest, in support of this view, that these Evangelists, in recording the sentence by which Barabbas recovered his liberty (Matt. xxvii. 26; Mark xv. 15), depart from the order of time to record in connection with the liberation of Barabbas the condemnation of Jesus. Thus the sentence of death, though following the crowning with thorns is represented in the two first Gospels as preceding it.

A purple garment.If it be objected that while the cloak according to St. John waspurple, according to St. Matthew it wasscarlet, we reply that the same difficulty occurs on a comparison of St. Matthew with St. Mark, for the latter also says the cloak waspurple; and yet all admit that SS. Matthew and Mark refer to the same occasion. In reality, the two Greek words translated purple and scarlet seem to have been frequently interchanged.

“Πορφύρα is vaguely used to signify different shades of red, and is especially convertible with crimson = κοκκίνη, Matt.”(Alf. on St. Mark xv. 17).

3.Hail, king of the Jews.The soldiers had derisively arrayed Him in the insignia of royalty; nothing was wanting but the mockery of their homage; this they now offer. St. Matthew is more explicit:“And bowing the knee before him, they mocked him, saying: Hail, king of the Jews”(Matt. xxvii. 29).

And they gave him blows.From St. Matthew we learn,[pg 332]too, that“spitting upon him, they took the reed, and struck his head”(Matt. xxvii. 30).

4. Pilate now brought Jesus forth, hoping that the wretched plight to which our Saviour had been reduced, that the mockery and degradation and suffering to which He had been subjected, would satisfy them, and with this view he says to them in effect: Behold I bring Him forth to you that I may make known to you again that I can find no reason for condemning Him; see, then, the miserable state to which He is reduced, and be satisfied.

5. This verse gives us the graphic description of an eye-witness.Behold the Man.“Behold”is an interjection, not a verb. It it were a verb,“man”would be in the accusative case governed by it. This, indeed, is what is suggested by our translation and punctuation:“Behold the Man.”But in the original,“man”is in the nominative case (ὁ ἄνθρωπος), and the meaning is: Behold, here before you isthe Man.

6. As soon as Jesus appeared, the chief-priests and the ministers at once raised the savage cry, fearing lest the sight of His bleeding and mangled body might melt the hearts of the people.

Pilate's words:Take him, you, and crucify him, are thought by some to be ironical, as if he said: Take him you, if you dare. We prefer, however, to understand the words,[pg 333]like the similar words in versexviii. 31, as the expression of his desire to please the Jews. He was convinced that Jesus was innocent, and was unwilling himself to condemn Him; yet, to please the Jews, he would permit them to put Him to death.

7.The Jews answered him: We have a law.The Jews reply, that though the Roman governor sees nothing in Him for which to condemn Him, yet, according to their law, Jesus has incurred the penalty of death:“He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die; all the multitude shall stone him”(Lev. xxiv. 16).

Because he made himself the Son of God.Note here that the Jews understood Christ to have claimed to be thenaturalSon of God. Had they understood Him to speak of Himself merely as an adopted son, they could not have blamed Him, for the just are frequently spoken of in the Old Testament as sons of God. From St. Luke xxiii. 2, then, we know that the Jews understood Jesus to claim to be“Christ, the King;”that is to say, to be the Messias; and from the verse before us we learn that they understood Him to claim to be the Son of God. As such then, and for such claims on His part, He was put to death; and the fact that He chose rather to die, than explain away or withdraw these claims, proves that He was understood correctly.

8.He feared the more.When Pilate heard that Christ claimed to be the Son of God, he becamemoreafraid to interfere with or condemn Him. Already her dream which Pilate's wife had made known to him (Matt. xxvii. 19), and the majesty, serenity, and evident innocence of Jesus, must have greatly impressed the governor.

9. Again, therefore, he entered the palace (πραιτώριον). Jesus, too, was led in, and Pilate[pg 334]questioned Him in reference to the accusation just made against Him. You have been charged with claiming to be the Son of God:Whence art thou?from heaven, or of earth, like other men? Pilate was unworthy of an answer, or else Jesus thought it useless to explain to one who would not understand or believe it His eternal generation from the Father, and accordingly He was silent.

10.Speakest thou not to me?In the original the pronoun, standing at the head of the clause, is emphatic. Speakest thou notto me, the representative of Roman power, who have authority (ἐξουσίαν) to liberate or crucify thee?

Knowest thou not that I have power, &c. The more probable order of the clauses is:“I have power to release thee, and I have power to crucify thee,”the motive of hope standing before that of fear.

11. Pilate's claim to unlimited power over Him makes Jesus again break silence. His words are an implicit admission that Pilate possesses power over Him, but at the same time a reminder that there was One greater than even a Roman governor, without whose permission Pilate could do nothing against Him.

Unless it were given thee from above.From the original, in which we have ἦν δεδομένον, not ἦν δεδομένη (datum, not data), it is clear that the verb has not“power”for its subject, but is to be taken impersonally: Unless it were given thee from aboveto have such power.

“From above”has been taken by some to refer to the Sanhedrim, as if Christ here referred to it as a higher tribunal than Pilate's; but this view cannot be admitted. Not only is it opposed to the ordinary sense of ἄνωθεν (iii. 31; James i. 17; iii. 15, 17), but it would make our Lord say that Pilate had received his power from the Sanhedrim—a statement which would not be correct.“From above”, then, means: from heaven or from God.

Therefore he that hath delivered(παραδούς, not παραδιδούς)me to thee hath the greater sin. Some, as Kuinoel, hold that διὰ τοῦτο is here[pg 335]merely a formula of transition (like the Hebrew לבן, Judg. viii. 7, &c.), of which no account is to be taken. The meaning is then sufficiently clear. But if, as most commentators take for granted, we are to give διὰ τοῦτο its ordinary inferential force, the connection is very obscure, and has been variously explained.

(a) Some thus: Because you exercise your powerunwillinglytherefore your sin is less than that of Caiphas and the Sanhedrim, who have delivered me to you, and are forcing you to condemn me. But it is rightly objected against this interpretation, that the word“unwillingly,”upon which it turns, is neither expressed nor suggested in the text.

(b) Others thus: Since you have received from God power over Me,but have not had an opportunity of judging of My character, therefore your sin is less than that of Caiphas and the Sanhedrim, who with the clearest evidences of My Divinity before them have yet condemned Me and delivered Me to you. But it is objected to this view also, that the words upon which the interpretation hinges, are not found in the text.

(c) Others thus: since you possess lawful authority, therefore the Sanhedrim is more guilty in handing Me over to you than it would be, if you possessed not this authority. For, in handing Me over to you, they try to brand Me as a malefactor, and they surrender Me to one who has the power to put Me to death, even by the cruel death of crucifixion. In this view, held by Toletus, the sin of the Sanhedrim is compared, not with that of Pilate, but with what their own sin would have been, had they merely brought Jesus before some unlawful tribunal.

The last connection, though, perhaps, not sufficiently obvious, is the most natural. The meaning of the whole verse is: You have lawful authority indeed, but not independently of God; and since you have lawful authority, therefore, My accusers are the more guilty.

The words“he that hath delivered me to thee”refer primarily to Caiphas, the high-priest, but include the Sanhedrim with him in the responsibility for delivering up Christ.

12.And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him.Pilate, who had hitherto tried to shirk the trial of Jesus, or to[pg 336]induce the Jews to call for His release, now“sought”himself to release Him. At this juncture, when all other motives had failed to move Pilate, the Jews exasperated charge him with being the enemy of Cæsar, if he refuse to condemn one who claimed to be a sovereign within Cæsar's dominions. Their words conveyed to Pilate that they would denounce him to Cæsar, in case he persisted in refusing to condemn Jesus. Tiberius (14-37a.d.), who was Roman Emperor at the time, was, according to Suetonius (Vit. Tib., c. 58), a most suspicious tyrant, and one with whom, as Tacitus tells us:“Majestatis crimen omnium accusationum complementum erat”(Ann. iii. 38).

13. Now when Pilate had heard these words, he brought Jesus forth. Pilate, through fear of the Emperor, at length gave way, and Jesus, who had remained within the house after the interrogation (verses 9-11), while Pilate was signifying his own intention to the people (verse 12), was now brought forth, and Pilate formally took his seat to pass sentence of death.

In the place that is called Lithostrotos, and in Hebrew Gabbatha.The Rev. Vers. renders:“At a place called the Pavement, but in Hebrew Gabbatha.”The judgment-seat was usually in front of the Praetorium, on an elevated platform. The Syro-Chaldaic word Gabbatha meansa high place, probably from the root גבה (Gabhah), and such high places were usually paved with many-coloured stones, hence the name“Lithostrotos”(from λίθος, a stone, and στρωτός, covered, or paved). Suetonius (Caes. 8, 46) says that Julius Cæsar carried such a pavement with him on his expeditions.

14.And it was the parasceve of the Pasch.“Parasceve”(Gr. παρασκευή) meanspreparation, orday of preparation, and the expression:“the[pg 337]parasceve of the Pasch”mightmean the day of preparation for the Paschal feast, and hence the daybeforethe feast began. This, indeed, is the meaning given to the phrase by all those who hold that Christ, in the last year of His mortal life, celebrated the Paschal Supper a day before the Jews.123They hold that St. John here signifies that the Jewish Pasch had not yet begun. But the phrase may have, and we believe has, a different meaning. We know from St. Mark that“Parasceve”was another name for Friday;“It was the Parasceve, that is, the day before the Sabbath”(Mark xv. 42). Friday naturally enough got this name, because it was theday of preparationfor the Jewish Sabbath.

By“the parasceve of the Pasch,”then, we understand the Friday of the Paschal week, and we take it that St. John here indicates the day of the week, as in the words immediately following he indicates the hour of the day. His readers, some of whom were, doubtless, acquainted with the Synoptic Gospels, would be already aware that this day was the first of the Paschal week, and not the eve of the festival. See above onxiii. 1.

About the sixth hour.A very great difficulty arises from a comparison of this account with that of St. Mark. For St. Mark says:“And it was thethirdhour, and they crucified Him.... And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole earth until the ninth hour”(Mark xv. 25, 33).

Thus, while St. John represents our Lord ascondemnedabout thesixthhour, St. Mark represents Him as alreadycrucifiedat thethirdhour. How, it is asked, could He be crucified at thethirdhour, if He was not condemned till thesixth?

Many solutions of this difficulty have been proposed, but some of them are so improbable, that we will not delay upon them. When, for instance, St. Augustine says that St. Mark, in stating that the Jews crucified Jesus at the third hour, means that at that time they crucified Him with theirtonguesby calling for His crucifixion, it is plain from the whole context of St. Mark that such a view cannot be admitted; because he evidently speaks of the real nailing of Jesus to the cross. Thus he says:“And it was the third hour, and they crucified him. And the inscription of his cause was written over,The King of the Jews. And with him they crucify two thieves, the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.... And they that passed by blasphemed him, wagging their heads, and saying:[pg 338]... save thyself, coming down from the cross”(Mark xv. 25-30).

But, setting aside the less probable methods of reconciliation, we must notice four which have found favour with commentators.

(1) Maldonatus and many of the older commentators hold that besides the division of the Jewish day into twelve hours, there was also another division into four periods, corresponding to the four watches of the night.124Thus, at the Pasch, which occurred about the time of the vernal equinox, these four periods, or“hours,”would be respectively—(a) from 6 to 9 a.m.; (b) from 9 a.m. to noon; (c) from noon to 3 p.m.; and (d) from 3 to 6 p.m. According to Mald., these periods were called respectively, the third, sixth, ninth, and twelfth“hour.”He curiously supposes, however, that sometimes any one of these“hours”or periods was referred to either by the name of the hour with which it began, or by the name of that with which it closed. Hence the period between 9 a.m. and noon, or, to speak more correctly, a time within that period—about 11.30 a.m.—is referred to by St. Mark as thethirdhour; while a time within the same period, but about an hour earlier is referred to by St. John as the sixth hour.

This view is now generally abandoned, and not without reason. For, in the first place, there are no solid grounds for believing that the fourfold division of the Jewish day here supposed, ever existed. In the second place, even if it had existed, we should require a great deal of proof, indeed, before we could believe that the“hours”were numbered in so strange and confusing a fashion.

(2) More probable than the preceding is the view of Cornely (Introd., vol. iii., § 73, 3). He, too, like Mald., holds the above fourfold division of the day, but says that the divisions were called respectively, the first, third, sixth, and ninth hour. Now, the Synoptic Evangelists, he says, follow this fourfold division of the day; and, hence, St. Mark's third hour is the time from 9 a.m. to noon. St. John, on the other hand, reckons according to the more accurate Jewish method of dividing the day into twelve equal parts; and, therefore, his phrase,“about the sixth hour,”meansabout noon. Cornely thinks that the vagueness of the phrase:“Aboutthe sixth hour”justifies us in supposing[pg 339]that the time when Pilate passed sentence upon our Lord, according to St. John, may have been as early as half-past ten. Thus, condemned about half-past ten, Jesus could be led out to Calvary and put upon the cross before noon; in other words, while, as St. Mark says, it was still the third hour.

Though this view is more probable than the preceding, we cannot accept it. For it supposes, like the preceding, a division of the day into four“hours,”for which Cornely offers no evidence any more than Maldonatus. Moreover, we cannot bring ourselves to believe that St. John would refer to a time so early as half-past ten as“about the sixth hour.”

(3) Others think that while St. Mark follows the Jewish division of the day, and, therefore counts the hours from sunrise, St. John, on the other hand, follows the Greek method, and counts them from midnight. Thus, about the time of the equinox, St. Mark's“third hour”would mean about 9 a.m., while St. John's“about the sixth hour”would mean about 6 a.m. According to this view, our Lord was condemned about 6 a.m., and nailed to the cross about 9 a.m.

Against this view, it is held by many writers that St. John, like the other Evangelists, counts the hours of the day from sunrise, that is to say, according to the Jewish method.125

But a still more serious difficulty against this view arises from the difficulty of finding time for all the events of the morning of the Crucifixion between day-dawn and 6 a.m.—the time at which, in this opinion, our Lord was condemned by Pilate.“Those events ... were—(1) the meeting of the Council; (2) the procession to Pilate's Court; (3) the various incidents recorded by the four Evangelists on the occasion of our Lord's first appearance before Pilate's tribunal; (4) the sending of our Lord to Herod; (5) the interview between our Lord and Herod; (6) the mocking of our Lord by Herod's soldiers; (7) the[pg 340]return to the Court of Pilate; (8) the scourging; (9) the crowning with thorns; (10) the mocking of our Lord by the Roman soldiers; (11) the incident of the‘Ecce Homo,’and (12) the final interview, within the Praetorium, between our Lord and Pilate, at the close of which Pilate came forth, and, after a final effort to obtain the liberation of our Lord, took his place on the judgment seat,‘and it was now about the sixth hour.’

(4)“It would seem, then, that the most satisfactory solution of the difficulty is that given by the great majority of modern commentators—Catholic as well as Protestant—namely, that an error has crept into the text of St. John's Gospel, and that the true reading of the passage in question there (xix. 14), is to be obtained by substituting‘third’for‘sixth.’

“Manifestly, such a correction of the text removes the difficulty we are considering. On the one hand, it leaves abundance of time before Pilate's sentence—three or four hours—for the events of the earlier part of the morning. On the other hand, it leaves quite sufficient time—an interval, it may be supposed, of nearly an hour—between the passing of the sentence and the actual crucifixion; for St. John's statement, that it was‘about’the third hour, might surely be understood of any time between half-past eight and nine o'clock; and St. Mark's words are quite consistent with the supposition that our Lord was crucified at any time between nine and ten.

“And it is not to be supposed that the emendation of the text is suggested merely ona priorigrounds. For (1) this reading is actually found in one of the five Greek MSS. of the New Testament that rank highest in antiquity and authority—Codex D. (CantabrigiensisorBezae): this MS dates probably from the 5th or 6th century. Moreover (2) we have in its favour the very strong testimony of an ancient writer, the author of theChronicon Paschale(circ.a.d.630), who adopts this reading on the authority of many‘accurate copies,’and mentions the striking fact that the clause was thus read in St. John's original autograph of his Gospel, then extant, and, of course, deeply venerated by the faithful in the Church at Ephesus.”(See Patrizzi,De Evangeliis, lib. ii., n. 195.)

“But, it may be objected, is it not a somewhat forced hypothesis to suppose that an interchange of two words so dissimilar as τρίτη and ἕκτη,—the Greek words for‘third’and‘sixth’respectively—could have occurred by an error of transcription? By no[pg 341]means. For, in the first place, it must be remembered that the usage was almost universal of using the numeral characters—which, in Greek consist of letters of the alphabet—instead of writing the words in full. Thus the change would consist merely in the substitution of one letter for another. But, furthermore, it is essential to explain that when the ancient MSS. of the Greek Testament were written, it was the usage to employ only capital, or, as they are called, uncial letters—thus those MSS. themselves are commonly known as uncial. Now, since the character by which the numeral 3 was represented wasgamma, thethirdletter of the Greek alphabet, its uncial form was Γ. The character by which the numeral 6 was represented was the now obsoletedigamma, at one time thesixthletter of the Greek alphabet: its uncial form was Ϝ.

“Thus then we find that the error which, it is suggested, has crept into this verse of the text of St. John consisted merely in the interchange of the characters Ϝ and Γ—a mistake so easily made that its very facility constitutes a strong antecedent probability in favour of the view that it, in fact, occurred.”126

In this view, which seems to us the most probable, Christ was condemnedaboutthethirdhour. As thethirdhour at the season of the Pasch extended from about 8 till 9 a.m., St. Mark's“third hour”may refer to a time immediately after 8 a.m. This opinion allows abundance of time for the events which on that Good Friday morning preceded the sentence of death. For, as the sun at the Pasch rose about 6 a.m., day-dawn began about half-past four; and thus we have nearly four hours from the assembling of the Sanhedrim, before which Jesus was led at dawn, till the sentence was pronounced upon Him by Pilate. In this view, our Lord was put upon the cross about 9 a.m.

Behold your king.This, like Pilate's words in the next verse, was probably said to annoy the Jews because they had forced him to condemn Jesus.

15.We have no king but Caesar.Though the Jews were at this time chafing under the dominion of the Romans,[pg 342]the chief priests, blinded by their hatred of Christ, here proclaimed their submission to the Roman yoke.

16. And now Pilate at last delivered Jesus to them to be crucified, having first, as St. Matthew tells us, gone through the vain ceremony of washing his hands, as if he could thus wash his soul from the guilt of weakly consenting to Christ's death!

17. The words“and led him forth,”are probably not genuine. We learn from the Synoptic Evangelists that Jesus was now mocked, stripped of the purple cloak, and clothed with His own garments. Then, like Isaac of old (Gen. xxii. 6), bearing the wood on which He was to suffer, Jesuswent forth(comp.xviii. 1) to the place where He was crucified. By Jewish as well as Roman law the execution should take place outside the city; Numb. xv. 35; 3 K. xxi. 13. And Cicero says: Quid enim attinuit, cum Mamertinimore atque instituto suo, crucem fixissentpost urbemin via Pompeia, &c. (Verr. v. 66). Calvary, which is now within the walls of Jerusalem, was then outside them, lying to the west of the city. A very old tradition represents Jesus as falling three times beneath the cross on His way to Calvary; and the three Synoptic Evangelists tell us that Simon of Cyrene127, probably a Jew who had come to Jerusalem to celebrate the Pasch, was forced to carry the cross. It is disputed whether Simon was made to bear the cross alone[pg 343]or merely to assist Jesus. The latter view is frequently followed in paintings, but the former seems more probable. Jesus was now worn and weak, and as the Jews were impatient to hurry on to the place of punishment; perhaps, too, through a fear that He might otherwise die on the way and deprive them of the pleasure of seeing Him writhing on the cross, they would be more likely to relieve Him from even helping to carry the cross.“Nota,”says A Lapide,“non videri Simonem crucem gestasse cum Christo hac ratione, ut Christus priorem crucis partem, Simon posteriorem portaret, uti pingunt pictores; sed ipsum solum totam Christi praeeuntis crucem gestasse”(A Lap. on St. Matt. xxvii. 32).

St. Luke alone mentions the incident of the women of Jerusalem, who followed Jesus bewailing and lamenting for Him (Luke xxii. 27-31). A very ancient tradition represents the Blessed Virgin as meeting Jesus in this sad procession to Calvary.

Calvariain the Vulgate is not a proper name.“It is simply the Latin for κρανίον, abare skull, and used in Vulgate only here (Matt.) and in the parallel passages of Mark, Luke, and John when describing the crucifixion—nowhere else in the Old or New Testament. Golgotha was the Hebrew name of the spot where our Lord was crucified. The pure Hebrew form of the word גלגלת (Gulgoleth), meaning a skull (from גלל (galal)to roll, to be round), is found in Judges ix. 53. Thence came the Chaldaic (rather we should say, Syro-Chaldaic), Gulgalta, abbreviated into Golgotha. But why was the place called Golgotha, orskull? Either because criminals were commonly executed on that spot, and many skulls were found there bleaching in the sun (St. Jerome and most modern Catholic comm.); or the mound was skull-like (St. Cyril of Jerusalem alludes to this view, but refutes it); or (according to tradition) the skull of the first man, Adam, was buried there (Orig., St. Epiph., and nearly all the fathers) ...: In accordance with this opinion (of the fathers), we see so often in paintings and pictures a skull placed at the foot of the cross. Although we read constantly in sermons of thehillof Calvary, there is little to show that there was any hill or mound on the spot namedGolgotha. St. Cyril of Jerusalem objects to the derivation of Calvary from the mound being skull-shaped, because he says there wasno hillthere. In the whole history of the Passion no mention is made of themountor hill of Calvary.... The traditional spot is simply on a high ground, like Holborn in London, or Patrick's-hill in[pg 344]Dublin, or the Pantheon in Paris”(Dr. M'Carthy, on St. Matthew, xxvii. 33).

18. Whether Jesus was nailed to the cross while it was lying upon the ground, or whether the cross was first erected and He then raised up to it by ropes and ladders, is disputed.128

As to the shape of the cross, too, on which He was crucified, there is a slight difference of opinion. Setting aside thecrux simplex, which was merely an upright stake, thecrux compacta, so called from the parts being joined together, was threefold:“decussata(cut into two equal parts), like the letter X;commissa, like the letter T, andimmissa, or Latin +, which differs from thecommissa, by having the long upright beam projecting over the transverse bar”(M'Carthy). The almost unanimous tradition of the fathers holds that Christ died upon the Latin cross, and there is no reason to doubt that this is correct.

And with him two others.These are described as“robbers”(λῃισταί), by St. Matt. (xxvii. 38), and St. Mark (xv. 27), and as“malefactors”by St. Luke (xxiii. 32). It may possibly have been to add to His disgrace and shame that the Jews had these punished together with Jesus.“And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith:And with the wicked he was reputed”(Mark xv. 28).

19.Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.It was usual to indicate in some such way the name and offence of those crucified, and so Pilate had an inscription placed over the head of Jesus, giving His name, and the reason why He suffered. We should have expected, however, that Pilate would have caused to be written: Jesus of Nazareth whoclaimed to beking of the Jews. But no, either to annoy the Jews, or by an over-ruling Providence, Pilate wrote:“King of the Jews,”thus[pg 345]proclaiming Christ's royal dignity even while he crucified Him.

The title is slightly different in all four Evangelists.Hic est Jesus Rex Judaeorum(Matthew);Rex Judaeorum(Mark);Hic est Rex Judaeorum(Luke);Jesus Nazarenus Rex Judaeorum(John).

It is very probable that St. John gives the precise words of the title, the others the substance. For all that is at present legible129of the Hebrew text of the title agrees exactly with St. John.

The title, written on a whitened wooden tablet, together with the true cross, nails, and lance, was discovered during the excavations ordered by an English woman, St. Helen, the mother of Constantine the Great, about the year 326a.d.The title was placed by St. Helen in the Church of the Holy Cross on the Esquiline, in Rome, where it is still venerated. See Dr. Donovan'sRome, Ancient and Modern, vol. i., p. 508.

20.The place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city.Calvary was less than a mile from the centre of Jerusalem, and as the city was then crowded, many read the title. The title was in three languages, that all might be able to read it. The Jews resident in Palestine could read the Syro-Chaldaic; the strangers could read the Greek; and the Roman soldiers, the Latin. It was formerly held by some commentators that the three inscriptions were in Latin, but written in Syro-Chaldaic, Greek, and Latin characters, respectively. This opinion, however, has nothing to recommend it. The obvious sense of the verse before us, and the relics of the title, prove that the inscription was in three different languages. Many authorities reverse the order of the two last clauses in this verse:“in Latin, and in Greek.”

21.Then the chief priests.Rather,“the chief priests of the Jews,therefore,”&c.

22.What I have written, I have written.Pilate, already tired of the painful business, and disgusted with the Jews, refused to make any change in what he had written.

23. It was the custom to give the clothes to the executioners. The tunic was the inner garment worn next the skin, and reaching from the neck to the ankles. It was usually fastened round the neck with a clasp.

24. As Christ's tunic was seamless, and the soldiers thought it a pity to tear it, they cast lots for it; God so ordaining, in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled. According to an old tradition, the tunic had been woven for Jesus by the Blessed Virgin's own hands.

25.By the cross.There is no contradiction between this and the Synoptic Evangelists (Matt. xxvii. 55; Mark xv. 40; Luke xxiii. 49), who represent the women as[pg 347]standing“afar off;”for they refer to a time subsequent to Christ's death, St. John to a time when He was hanging on the cross still alive.

His mother's sister.Mary of Cleophas was the wife of Cleophas, and mother of the Apostle James the Less. She was a cousin of the Blessed Virgin. Some writers, however, prefer to think, that she is called a“sister,”because her husband Cleophas was brother to St. Joseph.

26, 27.Woman(γύναι) is the same term by which Jesus addressed His mother at the marriage feast of Cana (Johnii. 4). Its use on the present sad, solemn occasion were itself sufficient proof that the term implies no disrespect. (See above onii. 4.) The virgin disciple is here commended to the Blessed Virgin's care, to be loved and treated as her son; and she, in turn, to His care, to be loved and respected and supported as a mother. There is no reason for doubting the common opinion that St. Joseph was dead at this time; had he been still alive, the Blessed Virgin would, doubtless, have remained under his care.

To his own(εἰς τὰ ἴδια,i.e.δώματα). The meaning is that he took her to where he himself abode. He may have had a house of his own, for his father seems to have been a man of some means (Mark i. 20), and the expression would most naturally refer to his own house (Acts xxi. 6). But it is possible, too, that he merely lodged in another's house. Inxvi. 32, it is predicted that the Apostles should be scattered every man to his own (εἰς τὰ ἴδια), and very few of these poor Galilean fishermen can have owned houses in Jerusalem.

Regarding the common belief that St. John, at the foot[pg 348]of the cross, represented the whole human race, or, at least, all the faithful, it must be said that the fathers make no mention of this view, and that there is nothing in the obvious literal sense of the passage to indicate that St. John held any such representative capacity.

Back to Index Next