130. Chapter 17 - The Death of Christ (Historical Details)

Chapter 17 - The Death of Christ (Historical Details) Matthew 27:27-56;Mark 15:16-41;Luke 23:26-49;John 18:39-40;John 19:1-30

Importance The death of Christ for the sins of mankind is the central doctrine of Christianity. By his own deliberate rebellion against God, man is hopelessly lost in sin. He cannot save himself. It is only through God’s mercy and in obedience to Christ’s commands that salvation is offered to man. “God so loved the world, that he gave (gave to die on the cross for us) his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” All efforts to separate the moral elements of Jesus’ teaching from this central proposition inevitably collapse. A social gospel without a divine Redeemer is the futile substitute of the enemies of the cross.

Relation to Resurrection and Deity

It is impossible to separate the death of Christ from His resurrection. As the atoning death of Christ gives meaning to the resurrection, so the resurrection gives power to His death. Inherent in the doctrine of the death of Christ for our sins is the sublime truth that Jesus is the Son of God. Both the person and the work of Christ enter into the good confession that He is the Son of God and our personal Saviour. When Peter made the good confession at Caesarea Philippi, Jesus immediately introduced the first clear prediction of His death. The teaching of Jesus reached its climax in the revelation of His approaching death, its voluntary character, and its purpose. The fact of His divine person was not to be separated from the divine work He was to accomplish in dying for our redemption. The actual events of His earthly life center in the fulfillment of this great purpose of His coming into the world.

God’s Plan From the hour of His birth in Bethlehem, the devil sought to destroy God’s Son. But God saw to it that the Messiah was not slain as an infant in Bethlehem during the bloody orgy of Herod the Great. The Messiah was not to be killed until He had fully proclaimed the divine message and warned men of the righteous judgment of God: neither on the precipice outside Nazareth, nor in any of the many encounters in which the Jews sought to assassinate Him. Well did Paul declare to King Agrippa: “This thing hath not been done in a corner.” The devil sought the death of Christ as a supreme object, but he did not foresee that by God’s grace the death of Christ was to become the very means of wresting men from the clutches of Satan. Its Place in the Preaching of the Apostles

Even a hurried glance through Acts will show how each summary of a gospel sermon carries profound emphasis upon the death of Christ. It had not been easy for the disciples to arrive at this position. With the full pattern of God’s plan of salvation in our hands it is still hard for us to understand the death of Christ. It is not hard to understand the incredulous horror and despair with which the disciples first heard Jesus predict His death at the hands of His enemies. But when finally the fact was faced in the glow of the resurrection, it was understood and became the central proposition of their preaching. By encompassing the death of Jesus and a death of such incredible cruelty and shame, the devil hoped to destroy the influence of God’s Son among men. But the shameful death on the cross became the very glory of the gospel. A glance through any Christian hymnal which has not been polluted by the deletions of the modernist will show a throng of triumphant hymns voicing the faith, hope, and love that center in the cross of Christ.

Friend and Foe at the Cross When Christ went to His death on the cross, friend and foe were gathered in breathless array. The whole event may even be considered from the angle of their attitude and reactions. It is sometimes said that from the arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane to His death on the cross no voice was raised in protest. This is not in accord with the historic facts. It is true that no voice was raised in defense of Him at the trials. None was sought or permitted. Nevertheless, there were certain protests, some tributes, and some venomous attacks that amounted to unconscious confessions. The dull, dead silence of the godly portion of the nation showed not merely a lack of courage and faith which we constantly lament, but their silence thunders down through the ages the protest of all good men of the nation against the incredible crime. And there were audible protests.

Judas A slouchy, slinking figure sagging under the burden of a sin that could not be measured is seen crossing the temple courts to the very entrance to the temple. A conference with the high priests is sought and grudgingly obtained. Hear the terrible outcry from the overburdened conscience of Judas: “I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood” (Matthew 27:4). What a protest and from what a source! Not even the sneers and jeers of the chief priests can drown out this protest, as they said: “What is that to us? see thou to it.” Then Judas “cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary, and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.” It is hard to see how Judas could have managed to cast the pieces of silver into the holy place (the Greek word naos is well translated “sanctuary” and cannot be taken to mean less than the holy place). He seems to have been talking to the priests at the entrance to the court of priests which surrounded the temple structure. Was he able from such a location to hurl the silver into and through the doorway to the holy place? or did he in the boldness of despair brush past the priests and violate the court of priests by entering it, and going to the entrance to the temple cast therein the blood money in token of his desperate remorse and his open declaration of the corruption which filled the house of God in the person of these priests? He was about to die by his own hands. Death at their hands was not a thing to be avoided. And did the priests look on in amazement and not move to strike him down because they realized his desperate mood and did not desire unnecessary violence and undesirable publicity at this juncture? The blood money in the hands of the priests proved a most embarrassing object. Their consciences were hardened, but somehow they could not bear the sight of the money anymore than Judas had been able to do so. They could not leave it lying on the temple floor. They had to collect it and hurried to get rid of it. They tried to cover up their embarrassment by pious pretense that “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is the price of blood” (Matthew 27:6). What else is this but a damaging admission of the quality of their own crime? Their scruples were very absurd since they had paid the money out of the treasury to purchase a terrible crime, but now felt it would not be fitting to put the money back into the treasury because it had been so used. No charitable act such as buying a field in which to bury strangers could really cover up their crime. Nor could it get the money out of sight since the name “field of blood” clung to this plot of ground which had been stripped of its useful soil to make pottery and was sold for burial purposes. Matthew informs us that it was called “The field of blood” because it had been bought with “blood money.” Luke, in Acts, gives the additional information that the plot was so called because the death of Judas occurred on this very plot of ground as “falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out” (Acts 1:18). This description fits with the brief summary of Matthew that “he hanged himself” since the body probably hung unnoticed in an obscure thicket until the rope broke or the neck gave way causing it to “fall headlong” in the manner described. It is Acts that summarizes in regard to the purchase of the field. The statement of Luke that Judas obtained the field finds further illumination in the account of Matthew of just how it took place that Judas cast the money into the sanctuary and the priests bought the field. That which a person does through an agent, he does himself. Since the peculiar process by which the money had been used to buy the field had already been told in detail by Matthew, it was not necessary for Luke to do ought but offer a general summary.

Pilate’s Wife A further protest against the crime was uttered in the very urgent warning Pilate’s wife sent to him in desperate haste as he sat on the seat of judgment: “Have thou nothing to do with that righteous man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him” (Matthew 27:19). Pilate had been summoned at dawn for the trial. His wife, sleeping late, had been filled with terror by a dream concerning Jesus. We are not told whether the dream was miraculous, sent of God that Pilate might have full warning of the terrible responsibility that rested upon him, or was the natural mental reaction from many hours of fearful anxiety over a crisis they had seen approaching and could not fathom. The significant language of Pilate’s wife, “that righteous man,” bespeaks a considerable acquaintance with the unparalleled situation Pilate faced and makes the clearer how great was the responsibility of Pilate in the sight of God.

“The Acts of Pilate”

Fascinating because so little is told of so much we would like to know, this became the fertile field for the imagination of the apocryphal writers to spin out their customary additions to the New Testament. The Roman Catholics delight to propagate such fanciful documents; and some Protestants have shown an interest in this apocryphal gospel, “The Acts of Pilate,” which was recently republished in this country under the title “In Caesar’s Court.” A priest in the Vatican at Rome showed an old copy of this work to a tourist preacher who seized upon it as wonderful new information about the life of Jesus and had it copied, brought it back with him, and arranged for its publication in pamphlet form. It requires no more than a glance for any one at all informed to see that it is one of the fanciful romances of the second and third centuries which the ignorant masses delighted to weave about the Gospel narratives. Justin Martyr in his writings refers to the fact that the record of the trial of Jesus before Pilate was to be found in Rome and some have tried to argue that this document, “The Acts of Pilate,” is that legal record. One needs merely to read the document to see that it is not a legal paper, but a fanciful development of Roman Catholic origin. It represents the images on the standards held by the Roman soldiers as bowing before Jesus in profound worship as He is brought into court. A grotesque emphasis is given by having the Jews object that the Roman soldiers were using their hands to make the metal images bow and the entrance is made all over again to show that the metal images actually bowed themselves. Instead of image worship, the images are worshipping! All sorts of imaginary developments are added to the Gospel accounts. Charges are made against Jesus which are not mentioned in the New Testament and witnesses testify for Jesus, even though they have to be protected by Pilate from death at the hands of the Jews. See how contradictory this is to the account of the New Testament where “they all forsook him and fled,” and even Peter denied the Master. This dream of Pilate’s wife attracted their fancy and caused the apocryphal writers to describe conversations in which she is represented as a convert to Judaism.

Pilate

Protests from a judge that he is being compelled by mob violence to commit murder by passing the death sentence upon an innocent man may show the weakness of the judge, but they constitute very strong evidence for the Prisoner. “I find no crime in him...will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?” “Behold, I bring him out to you, that ye may know that I find no crime in him.” “Behold, the man.” “Take him yourselves, and crucify him: for I find no crime in him.” These desperate protests are recorded in John’s narrative. In Matthew’s Gospel we read: “What then shall I do unto Jesus who is called Christ?...Why, what evil hath he done?...I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man; see ye to it.” Lacking the courage and character to risk his fortunes and his life, Pilate yielded to mob pressure, but his protests against the crime bear witness to the righteous character of Christ and to the profound influence of His divine personality upon the hardened Roman governor. The Mocking

John tells of the mocking of Jesus by the soldiers before the death sentence was passed; Matthew and Mark describe it after the death sentence. The soldiers probably continued their cruel sport after the condemnation. Bernard objects that Jesus would not have been scourged twice, but this is pure assumption. The only limit to the torture inflicted was that it must stop short of death, else death would be by scourging rather than by crucifixion. We do not know how long He was scourged, but the extreme cruelty applied to Jesus during the trials explains why He probably fell under the cross and why He died so soon after being nailed to the cross.

Matthew and Mark tell of the crown of thorns at the close of the trials in what is evidently a summary of what had happened shortly before, when the torture of the soldiers had been begun at the command of Pilate. He had hoped by this means to stir pity in the hearts of the enemies or vigorous, vocal protests from the strangely silent friends of Jesus so that he might manage to spare His life. The absence of any effort whatsoever in the Gospel narratives to give a lurid account of the torture of Jesus is most remarkable. The scourging was usually done while the prisoner was tied to a pillar and sometimes lead pieces were attached to the thongs. In arraying Jesus as a King the soldiers put a royal robe upon Him and a crown of thorns upon His head (the thorn branches of the Dom tree which abounds throughout Palestine would have been easily obtainable), and a reed instead of a scepter in His hands. To kneel before Him in mock humility and then leap to their feet, snatch the reed from His hand, smite Him with it and then spit upon Him was sport for these Roman soldiers.

Simon The attitude of the people of the city as Jesus was led forth to die seems to have been stupefied silence. The statement of John that Jesus “went forth bearing the cross for himself” taken with the declarations of the Synoptics that Simon of Cyrene was seized as he was coming in from the country suggests that Jesus fell under the weight of the cross at the city gate; and “as they came out” they seized the nearest man who happened to be Simon “coming from the country” and compelled him to carry the cross. The mention in Mark’s Gospel of the sons of Simon, Rufus and Alexander, suggests that they were prominent members of the early church and that Simon probably became a disciple. This stirs interesting reflections as to Simon’s emotions as he looked back upon the time when he carried the cross of Christ. If the Rufus of Romans 16:13 is the same man as this Rufus, the son of Simon, we have some slight evidence that Mark’s Gospel was written and sent to the Church at Rome. There is a touching reference to the mother of Rufus in Romans 16:13. The Women of Jerusalem The fact that a great multitude of women, who were not of Galilee where His strongest support was found, but from Jerusalem, followed after Him wailing and lamenting, shows that the vicious mob of hirelings, who had served the Sadducees and Pharisees in bullying the Roman governor, had not represented all the people. Afraid to take a stand, but broken-hearted at the condemnation of Christ, the great multitude of His friends had endured in silence. Were the women in less danger or braver than the men, or more emotional and unable to control their grief that they so openly expressed their protest against the death of Christ?

Instead of joining them in their weeping and wailing or expressing appreciation for their sympathy, Jesus’ words to them were so calm and self-possessed that they almost amount to a rebuke. It is like a mighty sermon full of terrific warning delivered to the nation over the heads of these devoted women. They need not weep for Him. He is not being overwhelmed and destroyed by superior, godless force. He is voluntarily giving Himself in fulfillment of God’s will. To those who are slaying Him, not as doing God’s will but as inspired by the devil, He issues a terrible warning of doom. Even as Jesus caused His judges to feel in a mysterious manner that they were the ones who were on trial, so now He caused the nation to meditate upon the solemn warning that He is not the One in need of sympathy, but the Jewish people themselves who are about to face destruction unparalleled and incalculable. “Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. For behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the breasts that never gave suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us. For if they do these things in the green tree, what shall be done in the dry?” As at the triumphal entry, so now Jesus predicts with terrible emphasis the judgment of God which is to come upon the nation in the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans.

He does not weep now as He did at the triumphal entry. The time for weeping is past. Doom portends, for the nation has rejected God’s Son and is slaying Him. The times of distress will be so great that mothers will have double distress in witnessing the cruel butchery of their children by the Romans as well as in meeting the same fate themselves. The enigmatic saying about the green tree and the dry is one of those “hard sayings” in which the teaching of Jesus abounds. It would stick in the memory and tantalize the hearer to prolonged meditation as to the meaning. “If they [the Romans] do these things [torture and crucifixion] in the green tree, [Jesus — hard to burn, for no fault was found in Him] what shall be done in the dry [the Jewish nation, godless and rebellious — easy to burn]?”

Golgotha

Bernard denies that the crucifixion took place on a hill, but he can find no valid explanation for the name, “The Place of a Skull.” Gordon’s New Calvary just outside the Damascus Gate to the north of the city is shaped like a skull and two caves facing the city on the side of its rugged cliff look like eyeless sockets. Cyril of Jerusalem, one of the early Christian writers, describes Golgotha as “rising on high and showing itself to this day.” “Calvary” is the Latin name; Kranion, the Greek; Golgotha, the Hebrew name for the hill. The wine offered to Jesus just before the crucifixion was rejected by Him because it contained an anesthetic. A charitable organization of women in Jerusalem was accustomed to provide this wine for men about to be crucified so as to dull their senses and relieve the agony. Jesus would not avoid any of the suffering and would keep His mental faculties alert to the end. Matthew names one of two ingredients; Mark, the other: myrrh and gall. The Crucifixion The Romans used crucifixion as the method of execution for vicious criminals and notorious rebels. The cross was laid upon the ground while the victim was nailed to it, and then lifted and dropped into the hole which had been dug for it. Usually rough, unhewn timbers were used for the cross, which sometimes was shaped like a capital X or a capital T or with the cross piece in the position which tradition has handed down. Justin Martyr very clearly affirms in his Dialogue with Trypho the exact manner in which this crosspiece was placed. The fact that the inscription was placed above the head of Jesus also confirms the form of the cross to which the church has always held rather than a T or an X. Kirsopp Lake, in a class on Early Christian Literature at Harvard, insisted that this passage from Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho simply could not be translated because the Greek could not be construed. One of the students volunteered that he had construed all the Greek words in the passage without difficulty. The professor asked him to translate. When the student had finished a perfectly grammatical translation of every word, the professor objected that this could not be correct because the cross was in the form of a T and not as the church has always held. Thus does prejudice, desperately determined to develop and prove new theories, seek to obliterate the straightforward testimony of this early Christian scholar.

Sometimes the feet were tied to the cross as well as nailed, but both the hands and feet of Jesus were nailed to the cross (Luke 24:39). Sometimes a small seat in the nature of a rough projection on the tree or main timber of the cross enabled the victim to rest the weight of his body upon it as he was dying. There is no indication of this in the New Testament. The cross was frequently tilted forward to increase the agony by throwing the whole weight of the body upon the hands and feet. The cross of Christ was probably not so high as is usually pictured, but it was high enough to necessitate the use of a reed to reach a sponge full of wine to His lips. His Garments The royal robe had been removed and His own clothes had been placed upon Him at the close of the torture by the soldiers in the barracks. Now, as was the custom, His clothes were removed and became the spoils of the executioners. A quarternion of Roman soldiers always had charge of crucifying a victim (John 19:23). The beautiful, seamless robe, which was Jesus’ outer garment, seems to have been the only thing He possessed at death in the way of earthly goods which was worth a quarrel. It was probably the gift of some devoted friend. The four soldiers divided the other garments of Jesus, but gambled for this one in order not to tear it. Thus did rude pagans fulfill intimate prophecies concerning the death of Christ written centuries before. Certainly no one can claim that these soldiers, as they cast their dice in the shadow of the cross, were really trying to fulfill an Old Testament prophecy (Psalms 22:18; John 19:24). The Inscription

We learn from classical writers that it was customary for the criminal to bear a scroll containing the record of his crimes, as he went forth to be crucified. No specific mention has been found in classical writers of the custom of nailing these charges over the head of the victim as he was dying. No mention is made of such charges being nailed over the heads of the robbers. This increases our speculation as to whether Pilate was showing his violent resentment against the crime he had been compelled to commit by nailing the charge against Jesus over the top of His cross. The four narratives differ, but indicate that the full statement was: “This is Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews.” This was both a protest and a cynical taunt as Pilate wrote the words with his own hand preparing to meet the furious hostility which was sure to result from his action. The fact that no fault had been found in Him which could be proved is most solemnly attested by this inscription placed above the dying figure. Whether because it was customary or because Pilate desired to give the widest publicity to the title, he wrote it in the three current languages: Latin, the official language of Rome; Greek, the universal language of all the Roman Empire; Hebrew, the language of the Jews. Probably the latter was in Aramaic so the uneducated might read, since the common people did not know Hebrew and the educated would have been able to read the Greek. The Jewish leaders were enraged when they saw this title because it sounded too much like a statement of fact and was manifestly a charge against them instead of Jesus. They made a bitter protest to Pilate, but since they had staked all on the charge that Jesus claimed to be a King, they could not ask for a different charge. They did ask for a different statement of the charge, but Pilate having rendered his legal decision and written the title himself, refused to be bullied any further. “The perfect tense (Gr. ‘I have written’) marks the permanence and abiding character of his act.” To have rewritten the title that Jesus said He was King would have shifted somewhat the burden of the crime from the Jews to Pilate and have shifted from the real convictions of Pilate to the venomous claims of the Jews. The only recourse the Sadducees and Pharisees now had was to station themselves in front of the cross and interpret the title for all present by their sarcastic jibes. This well suited their plans and mood. Thus did the forces of evil colliding over the death of Christ produce an immortal epitaph written over the cross itself.

Taunts that Offer a Tribute The malicious Jewish leaders who had at last encompassed the death of Christ were the ones who supplied the unusual cruelty of the execution. No matter how wicked a person has been, as he dies people usually have a way of at least withdrawing and leaving that which belongs to God in God’s hands. Least of all do people with the slightest spark of self-respect attempt to slander and ridicule a good man as he is dying. Something of the almost unbelievable depths of diabolical wickedness into which these hypocritical leaders had sunk is seen in the hideous venom and spleen which they cast upon Jesus as they walked back and forth before the cross jeering at Him, inviting Him to come down from the cross, and offering to believe upon Him, if He would do so. The One who was dying knew better, for it was He who had revealed how Abraham said to the rich man in torment: “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead.” And then, in spite of their evil intent, these wicked leaders offered by their insults a tribute for all the ages to ponder: “He saved others; himself he cannot save.” So He had saved others! They admit it in their rash attack which finds them telling the truth in spite of themselves. Moreover, they call attention of all the world to the fact that although He actually had the miraculous power (as they admit), yet He did not use it to save Himself. Nay, He could not, if He would save lost men for whom He had come to die. In a most notable manner the infuriated attacks of these base men tell a supreme truth of which they in their blindness are not conscious. The Prayer for Forgiveness

“Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” This, the first of the sayings on the cross, was uttered in the midst of the early agony of death and the insulting taunts hurled by His enemies. It is the world’s supreme revelation of forgiving love. Stephen’s imitation of Christ as He died praying for his enemies is most remarkable. It is hard for us to understand how it could have been possible for Jesus to say: “they know not what they do.” They had seen the miracles of Jesus and had admitted they were miracles and that they were unable to deny it, yet they had sought to deceive the people, to pretend that Jesus was in league with the devil and, utterly rejecting the teaching and earnest appeals of Jesus, to overthrow His influence with the people and finally to destroy Him. This prayer of Jesus should warn us to leave the judgment of the world in the hands of God who alone knows the hearts and lives of men. If, under such circumstances, it was possible for Jesus to pray for the forgiveness of those who were murdering Him and leering and jeering at Him as He died in agony on the cross, how simple it should be for us to forgive those who wrong us. The idea of this prayer is repeated by Peter on the day of Pentecost and following. In depicting the death of the Messiah, Isaiah had predicted that He would make intercession “for the transgressors” (Isaiah 53:12). This prayer is not based on the philosophical error that knowledge is virtue. It does not teach that if the Jews had known they necessarily would have done right. It rather shows that the measure of guilt is determined by the measure of understanding and willful intent. It does not prove that any sin against knowledge cannot find forgiveness. Jesus prayed that these wicked men might be forgiven, but we are not to understand that this means an appeal for their forgiveness in their present unbelieving and unrepentant state. God does not force forgiveness and mercy upon those who are rebellious. Man must change his heart and life, if he would be reconciled to God. The prayer rather means that they may be spared to hear and accept the full gospel when it is preached at Pentecost. The very mercy and justice of God which were manifested in Jesus’ voluntary death on the cross would have prevented Him from praying that they might be forgiven apart from their acceptance of God’s love in giving His Son to die for them. While doubtless taking in its compass the Roman soldiers who were compelled to crucify Him, the main current of His prayer seems to reach out to the Jewish leaders who had plotted and achieved the crucifixion. The Penitent Thief The first words of Jesus after He was nailed to the cross do not reveal the slightest tinge of hatred or bitterness toward His hateful enemies. At every turn we see not only Jesus, the perfect Man, but Jesus, the Son of God. His second word is just as clear a revelation of His divine character. Matthew and Mark tell that both the thieves joined the crowd in reviling Him. Why they should have done this is not clear, unless they resented the fact that their execution had been hastened to furnish evil company for Jesus in His death. Perhaps in their agony they joined in the jibes without depth of thought. As time passes, however, one of the thieves finds himself strangely moved by the conduct of the mysterious Person who is dying beside him. Perhaps he had heard Him preach in the days when crime had seemed more desirable than virtue, and now it all comes back with tremendous power. Whatever were the mental processes that lie back of the change of heart of this thief, when he addresses his fellow criminal, his words are very pointed and show deep reflection: “Dost thou not even fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: But this man hath done nothing amiss” (Luke 23:40, Luke 23:41). No witnesses had been permitted to appear in defense of Jesus at the six hasty and headlong trials, but now, in spite of all, protests arise. What a protest and tribute is this from lips unaccustomed thus to defend the Saviour of men!

It is curious how many people have become confused over this incident; some, seeking to pattern their own salvation after that of a dying robber; others, even denying that the robber was saved. The following items emerge from a careful study of the text: (1) The robber was repentant (Luke 23:40). He was not ashamed to voice his self-condemnation and the justice of the fate he was meeting. (2) His repentance was based upon his belief in Jesus as the Messiah (Luke 23:40-42). The manner in which he addressed Jesus and spoke of “thy kingdom” shows that as he looked at that inscription over the head of Jesus, he saw more of its true import than many who had had more opportunities to learn. Does not approaching death sometimes open the eyes of the blind to see the futility of sin and the true merit of the Saviour? As to how God will regard such changes as this new slant on life, in what we are accustomed to call “death bed repentance,” is for the great Judge of the world and not mere man to declare. (3) The robber publicly confessed his faith (Luke 23:41). (4) He appealed to Christ to save Him. Since he was dying, he must have believed that Christ could raise him from the dead. He must have had considerable insight into the heart of mercy of the Son of God to have asked Him to “remember me.” The prayer of Jesus for His enemies to which the robber had just listened would have given him a marvelous revelation of the scope of Jesus’ love even if he had not often witnessed similar indications of Jesus’ mercy. Since Christ was dying, the robber must have believed that Christ would survive death in a glorious kingdom. His prayer did not suggest that Christ was about to come down from the cross in answer to the challenge of His foes any more than it suggested that the robber be saved from his present condition on the cross. His petition was remarkably spiritual. The faith of the robber was very great. Plummer says: “Some saw Jesus raise the dead, and did not believe; the robber sees Jesus put to death, and yet believes.” (5) Christ promised to save the robber. In his humble petition, the thief did not openly ask for this, but it is strongly implied: “If there is to be found any mercy for such an abandoned sinner as I am, justly dying for my sins...remember me. Christ promised more than was asked. The request was indefinite; the reply, definite: “Remember me” — “be with me”; “When thou comest” — “Today”; “in thy kingdom” — “in Paradise.” (6) Jesus promised to take him with Himself to a place of blessedness that day. Christ was an impostor, if this was not fulfilled. Christ Himself was in the place of punishment, if the robber was not saved, for they were to be together. The robber, once in Paradise, could not have been sent to hell, for there is an impassable gulf. The Bible continually warns that death ends man’s opportunity to change his character and his relation to God. The thief was not baptized, but Christian baptism was not yet instituted. The church had not yet been established. Until the New Will was probated, men could not be held accountable for its conditions. While the Testator, Christ, still lived among men, He could grant salvation as He would. After His death for our sins, it is granted according to the terms of the will. The Son of man had power on earth to forgive sins. To the paralytic He said, “Thy sins are forgiven thee”; while to the sinful woman who anointed Him in the home of Simon in Galilee, He said, “Her sins which are many are forgiven….Thy sins are forgiven.” To the robber He declared: “Today thou shalt be with me in Paradise.” This statement shows the inaccuracy of the current text of the Apostles’ Creed which affirms (because of failure to discern the difference between hades and gehenna): “He descended into hell.” No! He went into paradise, the temporary place of abode for the righteous. Some hold that Jesus went into hell and endured the torments of the damned as part of His redemptive work. But Jesus cried on the cross as He was dying: “It is finished.” As he died, His sufferings to redeem us from our sins ended. It would have been a cruel deceit practiced upon the thief if, after having been promised that he would be with Christ in Paradise, he actually found himself enduring the torments of the doomed in Tartarus. 1 Peter 3:18-22 offers a discussion of the death, resurrection, and coronation of Jesus. Between the discussion of His death and that of His resurrection, there is this cryptic declaration of what Jesus did: “in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, that aforetime were disobedient, when the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah This suggests the scene of Jesus talking with the saints in Paradise concerning His redemptive death by which He had just achieved man’s salvation. Some nine months before this Jesus had talked with Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration of His approaching death and return to heaven (Luke 9:31). What could be more appropriate than that He should now discuss His death with these saints in Paradise? The passage in 1 Peter suggests that just as Abraham and the rich man talked across the impassable gulf, so now Jesus addressed the lost in Tartarus. He had no good news for them. The Greek verb used in 1 Peter 3:19 is not euangelizomai (“to proclaim good news”), but kerusso (“to announce”). The message Jesus announced to these lost souls in Tartarus was the same that Abraham had announced to the rich man: confirmation of condemnation and doom. The generation of Noah may have been selected for mention by Peter out of all the other generations because of their exceeding sinfulness. We can see the use he makes of the generation of Noah as he compares the ark with Christian baptism. If we knew more about this scene, we might know that the generation of Noah was recorded as receiving this announcement for the same reason that the rich man was recorded as hearing the announcement of Abraham: they had made an appeal and protest. The Apocryphal Gospels show that the imagination of the romancers was strongly stirred by the account of this penitent robber. The Gospel of the Infancy attempts to give the names of two robbers: Titus (the good robber) and Dumachus. They kidnap the family (Mary, Joseph, and Jesus) on the flight to Egypt, but Titus bribes Dumachus to release them. in the Acts of Pilate, the penitent robber is called Dysmas; the other is nameless. In the Latin recension of this work the two are called Dismas and Gestas. The Disciples

After Peter left the palace of the high priest and wept bitterly over his failure, we are unable to trace the course of any of the apostles until the hour of crucifixion. Peter seems to have rejoined the others immediately. The group stood and watched the crucifixion from afar. Unless their emotions were so utterly exhausted as to leave them dull and helpless, they must, at times, with tightly clenched hands and eyes filled with tears have strained to see the execution and watch the conduct of His enemies. The multitude probably “stared as at a spectacle, full of vulgar curiosity.” While the rulers sneered and mocked, the soldiers joined in mocking Him (Luke 23:36). The Greek tenses indicate that the Roman soldiers did not continue in the mocking as the rulers did (aorist tense — the soldiers; imperfect tense — the rulers). We find no unnecessary cruelty on the part of the soldiers and except for this solitary mention by Luke we would not know that they joined in the mocking. It is not to be implied that the centurion joined in this mocking.

Luke probably refers to the anesthetic offered to Jesus at the first when he tells of their mocking, rather than the vinegar which was given to Him as He was dying. Luke says of their mocking as the vinegar was given: “offering him vinegar.” This seems to imply that Jesus did not accept it. They probably indulged in pantomime repeating the offer of wine. The records are so brief, however, that this may be an entirely different incident from the two recorded by Matthew, Mark, and John.

Gathered in a little group by the cross were some of the disciples of Jesus: some women and the apostle John. Mary of Nazareth, the mother of Jesus, was present, also Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Jeses, and the sister of Jesus’ mother, Salome, who was the mother of the sons of Zebedee (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25). Only John notes the presence of the mother of Jesus at the cross. The fact that there is no mention of her following the body to the tomb would lead us to suppose that at the death of Jesus she collapsed and was taken to the home of John, according to the tender instructions which were given from the cross. John was the maternal cousin of Jesus and the nephew of Mary, His mother. Since Joseph is not mentioned in the Gospel narratives after the visit to the temple when Jesus was twelve years of age, we conclude that he was now dead. The sons of Joseph and Mary were unbelieving (John 7:5). In her extreme agony their home would be intolerable. Her sister, Salome, was in complete sympathy with her and John, the beloved disciple, would be quite able to care for Mary. The Gospel writers always mention essential facts about Mary in such incidental fashion as to leave no ground for any special reverence for her such as Roman Catholics indulge. Jesus is never quoted as applying the title “Mother” to Mary. On the cross He uses the dignified title — gune — “Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold, thy mother!” (John 19:26, John 19:27).

Since his hands were nailed, Jesus must have indicated to whom He was speaking by a movement of His head and eyes. If this instruction was given before the darkness came over the earth, as seems probable, it would not have been difficult for Him, speaking in a quiet tone, to make known His wishes. The disciples were undoubtedly very close to the cross. As the darkness came and the multitudes dispersed, the disciples would have come closer. Bernard notes how the sayings of Jesus decrease in scope from the wider circle of a prayer offered for all His enemies, to a word of forgiveness to a dying robber, to the instructions as to care for His mother, and then the personal petitions and consolations as He was in the last throes of death. While this suggestion is very impressive, it needs to be checked by the fact that the saying which has the widest reach of all came next to last — as He was actually dying: “It is finished!” This saying took in the whole world and all the ages in its vision. The Darkness

“Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour” (Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44). Mark tells in Mark 15:25 that it was the third hour when Jesus was crucified, while John declares that it was about the sixth hour as the trial before Pilate drew to its close. Since John quite evidently used the Roman method of counting time in writing for world-wide circulation about two decades after the destruction of the Jewish nation, these seemingly contradictory figures are seen to fit perfectly. The third hour by Jewish count from sunrise would be 9:00 a.m.; the sixth by Roman count, which was like our method, would be 6:00 a.m. The trial was still in progress at 6:00 a.m.; the crucifixion, after the torture and the journey to Golgotha, was at 9:00 a.m. For a more detailed examination of the complicated data on the day when Jesus was put to death, see chapter entitled “The Date of the Crucifixion”. When the darkness came it is not certain from the Greek noun used (which can mean either land or earth) whether the darkness extended over all the land of Judaea or over all the earth. The plague in Egypt when darkness came over all the land is usually cited as a parallel case. Victor of Antioch, an early Christian writer, says: “This is the sign from heaven for which the Jews had been asking.” This is probably the kind of sign they had in mind when they demanded a sign from heaven, but inasmuch as Jesus said no sign should be given them except that of Jonah (His resurrection), the darkness evidently had a further purpose than to impress the evil rulers of the nation.

Various explanations of the darkness are offered: (1) Some early Christians say that nature was throwing a veil over the sufferings of Jesus or expressing sympathy with them or protesting against the conduct of the Jews, as they reviled Jesus after nailing Him to the cross. This explanation, however, personifies nature and suggests pantheism. (2) G. Campbell Morgan holds that the devil brought on the darkness in this hour of his triumph and, by means of the darkness and the suffering, wrung from Jesus out of the encompassing darkness the cry: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” But the darkness had been over the face of the land for three hours before Jesus uttered this cry of anguish (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34). Furthermore it is doubtful whether the devil had the power to work such changes in the face of nature. Was not God using His power to add further proof of the divine character and mission of His Son rather than allowing the devil to use miraculous power to tempt His Son? (3) Skeptics, ancient and modern, have attempted to explain this miracle away as a natural phenomenon which by merest coincidence happened at the time Jesus was dying. This position was advanced by hostile critics very early in the history of Christianity. Early Christian writers discuss it at length. Julius Africanus argues against the pagan historian Thallus who had tried to explain the darkness as an eclipse. He shows that an eclipse was impossible at this time. The Acts of Pilate states that the Jews tried to explain away the darkness as an eclipse. Origen and Eusebius tell that a Roman historian named Phiegon recorded both the darkness and the eclipse. (4) The darkness, then, was a direct act of God and the probable purpose was to veil the dying moments of His Son from the reviling multitude. Jesus did not answer their insults except to pray for them, but God answered them, and in such a manner as filled them with terror. Somewhat parallel is the voice from heaven and the descent of the Holy Spirit at the time of His baptism and the bright cloud that enveloped the group on the Mount of Transfiguration, a cloud from which God spoke. In each case God was confirming His Son by His miraculous manifestations, as here at the cross. The foolish proposal of Peter to build three tabernacles on the mountain, giving as much honor to mere men — Moses and Elijah — as to God’s Son was answered by God from the cloud. The darkness that enveloped the earth as Jesus died seems another manifestation of miraculous support of the Son by the Father. The Cry of Anguish

Hardest to fathom of all the sayings on the cross is this cry of anguish: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” The fact that it is a direct quotation of the twenty-second Psalm helps our understanding, as we see Jesus clothing his utterance of suffering in the language of the Old Testament. It is hardly satisfactory, however, to accept the interpretation of those commentators who suggest that Jesus was quoting this Psalm not as an expression of His own suffering so much as for the instruction of those who heard and would be stirred to read again the Old Testament and see that it predicted the suffering of the Messiah. It may be that there is some truth in the suggestion, but it hardly sounds the depths of such intense agony as Jesus expressed. Certainly Jesus is not casting reproach upon God in this cry. He does not accuse God of having forsaken Him in any sense that is not compatible with God’s love and mercy’ for all, most of all for His only begotten Son. It is rather a word of intimate understanding and appeal even though clothed in the form of a protesting question. Radical critics like to refer to this cry and the prayers in Gethsemane as evidence of “the disillusionment of Jesus.” Such a phrase is not compatible with the deity, and especially the miraculous foreknowledge of Jesus.

It is easy to read much into such a cry as this. What is read into it ought to come out of the rest of the record of Jesus’ life among men and not out of our imagination or preconceived ideas. The cry had more of profound content than any mere man may hope to encompass. When we seek to understand God completely, there is always a depth we cannot sound; even as when we try to imitate His righteousness, love, and power, we fall far short of His glory. We should not be distressed that we cannot understand all about God or all the content of this cry of anguish. It is exactly what finite man should expect in facing the Infinite. Jesus was bearing the sins of the world in His own body on the tree. He was doing this in a sense in which God, the Father, was not. According to God’s plan of redemption, Jesus was left to bear this crushing burden unto death on the cross. The cry of Jesus was misunderstood by some who stood by and thought he was speaking of Elijah instead of crying to God. The similarity of the words, and the swollen tongue and parched lips that would have made speech less intelligible, may have caused this confusion on the part of some. Still toying with the thought of the miracles and the divine claims of Jesus, some cried: “Let be; let us see whether Elijah cometh to save him.”

Thirst In the agony of death, Jesus made the request common to mortal man in that final hour: “I thirst.” The action of the one who brought Him some of the sour wine or vinegar which the soldiers were accustomed to drink seems to have been humane. Lew Wallace makes Ben Hur to be a hero who rushes up to give Jesus a drink before any one can interfere. It is hard to tell whether there was any of this heroic color in the actual event. When they had offered Jesus wine mingled with myrrh and gall just before nailing Him to the cross, He had refused it because it contained an anesthetic. He now accepts the wine offered because it does not contain such elements. A reed was used to lift the sponge full of vinegar to His lips. Bernard holds that hyssop (John 19:29) does not afford a long stem on which a sponge might be tied and he emends the text by suggesting that the word in the original was issos or javelin on which the sponge was tied. This suggestion, of course, rests purely upon Bernard’s idea as to how high the cross was. A chorus of suggestions went up from the crowd as one ran forward to give Him a drink. The ejaculation “Let be” seems to mean: “Wait, let us see what happens or if it will happen” — wondering if Elijah is going to appear in answer to what they understood as an appeal of Jesus for Elijah to come to His rescue. The bystanders who are quoted by Matthew (Matthew 27:49) apparently mean: “Stand back! Do not interfere! We desire to see whether Elijah comes to help him.” Mark quotes the words of the man in response as he gives Jesus a drink. He is defending his course and indicates that they must permit him to perform this ministration to Jesus as the means of lengthening His life with further opportunity to see if Elijah will come. Luke 23:36 in describing the same incident indicates that some made it the occasion of adding a sneer at Jesus. The accounts taken together give a very vivid picture of the people in the crowd with their different ideas, character, and motives. Hence the varied, excited comments and appeals. The Last Words

Seemingly in quick succession come now the final words of Jesus as He cries, “It is finished,” thinking of His great divine commission to procure the redemption of man from eternal doom and, “Father into thy hands I commend my spirit,” as He dies in complete and absolute communion and harmony with God. If Jesus’ last word had been, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” it would have been more difficult to understand, even considering the struggle of the human and the divine within Him. But the last word is one of absolute trust and peace.

These last two dying utterances of Jesus contain nothing of a question mark. He speaks with absolute knowledge and divine assurance. The meekness and humility which characterized His whole earthly life mark His dying statements, but there is also that finality of statement which bespeaks the Infinite. If the cry of anguish can be called a revelation of His humanity which makes Him exceeding precious and near to us and proves that His death was real agony and not play-acting, then we might call His final statement a revelation of His deity. His oneness with God is at the heart of His last words which concern His personal relationship with God. Then the saying, “It is finished,” might be called the bridge which unites man and God for it is the saying which announces the fulfillment of that divine sacrifice which makes possible the reconciliation to a loving but outraged God of sinful but repentant man.

He died a thousand million deaths on the cross as He died for all of us. We cannot comprehend how great was His suffering for us. If we could multiply the agony of death by as many millions of people as have lived in this world, we might approach the sum-total of His suffering: He bore the sins of all mankind as He died. As His life was absolutely unique, so was His death. His death was actual and real, but His suffering was so much greater than any of us can ever know that we can scarcely comprehend it. Jesus did not say: “I am finished.” This saying (or words to the same effect) is so often heard from mortal man in the hour of death. He has done all he can to fend off the fatal hour, but he cannot fight on any longer and so he cries: “I am finished.” Not so with the Son of God. The voluntary character of Jesus’ death is everywhere seen in the record of these hours on the cross. He says: “It is finished.” His thought is of the supreme work of God which He left heaven to accomplish.

Sometimes a man gives his life to save some one from a burning building or from death by drowning or some other tragic manner, and lapsing into consciousness at the last, asks: “Did I manage to save them?” This is very noble. Jesus, Himself, said of such: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” But Jesus had no question mark about His statement and there is a depth of love that we cannot measure. He knew that the divine part of man’s redemption had been accomplished. Men might still crowd one another down the broad way that leads to destruction in spite of God’s tender and urgent appeals, but God’s part in the giving of His Son to die in our stead was finished. Of this wonderful moment, the Epistle to the Hebrews says in majestic language: “looking unto Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross) despising shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of God” (Hebrews 12:2). He sang a hymn in that upper room as He was facing the cross, and now as He dies there is in His heart the joy of saving lost men so precious that He despises the shame which wicked men heap upon Him and the suffering which they bring to Him.

Physical Cause of Death The statement is almost identical in the four narratives that He “gave up the ghost.” Matthew says He “cried again with a loud voice, and yielded up his spirit”; Mark records “Jesus uttered a loud voice.” John adds the touching detail that “he bowed his head, and gave up his spirit.” Some hold that this unanimous declaration concerning giving up His spirit means that Jesus voluntarily ended His life. But this sounds too much like suicide to allow one to read such a meaning into so general a statement. It certainly should not be taken to mean more than that as the physical resistance to the tide of death weakened, He refused to use His will and miraculous power to fend off that death by any supernatural means and hence “yielded up His spirit,” dying as the result of physical causes which He did not attempt to overcome miraculously.

Stroud in his book, The Physical Cause of the Death of Christ holds that the death of Jesus resulted from a rupture of the heart (Westcott, Commentary on John p. 279). That He did not die from exhaustion is evident from the great cry which He uttered as He died. He did not grow weaker and weaker until He could not speak above a whisper. If Stroud’s analysis is correct, then this would explain why Jesus died so soon after being nailed to the cross. No explanation is needed, however, in the light of all He endured before He was crucified. Men often lingered for two or three days in dying condition on the cross. The death of Jesus came swiftly and suddenly. Yet He clearly realized and declared that death was at hand. Stroud held that death by rupture of the heart explains why, when His side was pierced, blood and water came forth for this was the “separated clot and serum of the escaped blood in the pericardial sac, which the lance had pierced.” Bernard presents at length the view of Roman Catholic tradition that it was the right side of Jesus which was pierced. Stroud’s opinion supposes the left side to have been pierced. The Scripture does not say, but inasmuch as the soldier with his own life at stake was assuring himself and the guard that Jesus was dead beyond any shadow of doubt, then it seems most probable that it was the left side which was pierced to the heart.

Some physicians have rejected Stroud’s view, notably Dr. C. Creighton, who is quoted by Bernard (Commentary on John., Vol. II, p. 646). Creighton holds that “the blood escaping into a serum cavity from rupture of a great organ remains thick dark-red blood” instead of being separated into a clot and serum. Creighton suggests that there was only a light touch of the spear against some “discoloured wheal or exudation, such as the scourging might have left.” He thinks this use of the spear “was a thoughtless rather than a brutal act.” This last certainly misses the point of the narrative. The act of the soldier was anything but thoughtless. It had a very definite, imperative design. The Scripture does not represent it as particularly brutal above the act of slaying Jesus. Roman soldiers were executing men condemned to be crucified. It was their business to see that the men were slain. They made no mistake and took no chances. Creighton further holds (as quoted by Bernard) “Water not unmixed with blood from some such superficial source is conceivable, but blood and water from an internal source are a mystery.” And so, as often, the doctors disagree. The Spear Thrust The Greek word for spear means “a long slender spear, not so heavy as the hyssos or pilum which was the usual weapon of Roman legionaries.” Bernard suggests that this lighter weapon fits the idea that the soldier only gave the silent, still body a light prod with his spear to see if there was any living reaction, but while the verb used here is found in passages in the Apocrypha and classical Greek where it means a light touch of “pricking the eye” or “prodding a sleeping person to awaken him,” or “touching a man with a dagger to see if he were dead,” it is also found where it describes a spear wound which kills a man. Origen in commenting on Matthew 27:54 “seems to say that a lance thrust was sometimes given as a coup de grace to hasten the death of those who had been crucified.”

Bernard admits that the Gospel of John plainly sets forth that the purpose of the soldier was to make sure Jesus was dead, whether the thrust was light or deep. Some manuscripts of Matthew insert between Matthew 27:49 and Matthew 27:50 the similar statement “And another took a spear and pierced his side, and there came out water and blood.” Inasmuch as the next verse declares: “And Jesus cried again with a loud voice, and yielded up his spirit,” this would make the spear thrust the direct cause of Jesus’ death, instead of being the method the soldier used of assuring himself that Jesus was already dead. Bernard shows clearly that Chrysostom is misquoted by those who try to claim his support for this interpolated verse. Chrysostom refers to the spear thrust as “their madness so far as to insult a dead body.” Bernard also shows that Tatian is falsely cited in support of this insertion in Matthew, as there is no trace of it in Tatian’s Diatessaron.

Blood and Water

Westcott maintains that we cannot expect a complete physical explanation of the causes of Jesus’ death. What if the blood and water flowing from His side is a mystery? Was not His life unique? And His death, while real and actual, must have been unique since His body did not see corruption, a thing which sets in immediately with man’s death. Origen seems to have been the first to argue this position, and it has been frequently held. Origen held that in dead bodies the “blood is clotted and water does not flow” and that the flowing of water and blood from the body of Jesus is a miracle. Bernard, reciting this, expresses the opinion that John probably noted this phenomenon of the blood and water flowing from the side of Jesus, along with his very solemn affirmation that he himself witnessed the act and can give direct and indisputable testimony to it, as a very effective means of destroying the Docetic heresy prevalent in the churches of Asia Minor. These heretics held that the body of Jesus was a mere phantom. 1 John 4:2, 1 John 4:3 shows how strongly he was contending against this false doctrine. The statement of 1 John 5:6 “This is He that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood” seems to refer to our baptism in water in obedience to Christ for the remission of sins, by which act of obedience we are baptized into the death of Christ (Romans 6:4). The passage from 1 John is often cited in connection with the water and blood which flowed from the side of Jesus (John 19:34) as indicating the two inseparable elements which God in His mysterious wisdom has decreed shall prevail for our salvation, if we will accept His mercy. The Veil of the Temple

John makes clear that the piercing of the side of Jesus did not take place until after the death of Jesus had been reported to Pilate, and the soldiers sent to investigate the report and accomplish the speedy death of the victims. The rending of the veil of the temple was immediate upon the death of Jesus. The earthquake, also, occurred at this juncture. Many readers do not perceive that, according to Matthew’s explicit statement, the resurrection of various godly people and their appearance to friends did not occur until after the resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 27:53). Hebrews 9:3 speaks of the second curtain which separated the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place in order to distinguish it from the first curtain which was at the entrance of the Holy Place from the outer court. Jewish traditions declare that this second curtain was really double curtains a cubit apart. The veil was rent from top to the bottom as God would rend it, not from the bottom to the top as man might attempt to rend it. Plummer cites a passage in the Talmud which tells that some forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem, the heavy gates of the temple, which could with difficulty be moved by many men, and which were locked at the time, flew open about midnight at the Passover. But this reminds one of Peter’s miraculous release as much as it does of this rending of the temple veil. Josephus tells of something like this happening just before the destruction of the city. Neander is cited by Plummer as saying these sketchy references seem to indicate that some marvelous event happened which was remembered in connection with the crucifixion. The rending of the veil by a miracle, at just the moment Jesus died, seems to indicate that as the law was nailed to the cross, the very holy of holies, which was the center of the worship established by the law, was no longer sacred. It further shows that the temple will no longer be defended by God and will be trampled under foot of the godless Romans. Jesus had predicted this at the triumphal entry in lamenting the unbelief of the nation and the resultant destruction. It demonstrates that the way is now made open for the Christian to enter into God’s presence by the death of Jesus: “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by the way which he dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and having a great priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in fulness of faith” (Hebrews 10:19-22). The Centurion A comparison of the accounts shows that the Roman centurion in charge of the crucifixion made at least two distinct statements concerning Christ. Matthew makes clear that those who were associated with the centurion agreed with him in his emphatic statement. The manner in which Jesus died (Mark 15:39) and the miracles that accompanied His death (Matthew 27:54; Luke 23:47) caused the centurion to arrive at his conclusions. One of his statements concerned the character of Jesus and the other His divine personality. “Certainly this was a righteous man” matches the protest and the tribute of the dying robber. The centurion heard the worst the enemies of Jesus were able to weave into slurs and jeers against Him, and he had heard the prayer of Jesus for them in response. The more he reflected upon what he saw and heard as Jesus died in his presence, the more convinced he became of the terrible crime in which he had been compelled to take a leading part. His faith and penitence are alike expressed in his outcry.

“Truly this man was the Son of God” is his estimate of the origin and person of Jesus. Did ever the deity of Jesus show itself so clearly as when He died, unless it be in His resurrection? It is true that the definite article “the” is not stated in the Greek, but this is frequently the case where it is plainly implied. A basic rule of Greek grammar declares that the definite article may be written or omitted with a proper name. The names “God” and “Son of God” are used freely with or without the definite article. Those who feel the Roman centurion was merely expressing superstitious, pagan ideas about Jesus being one of the sons of the gods face an arresting fact in the use of the singular instead of the plural: not “son of Gods” but “Son of God.” The singular urges the monotheism of Israel rather than the polytheism of Rome. The centurion had just heard the Jewish scholars deriding Jesus: “If thou art the Son of God, come down from the cross.” The least that can be affirmed of his statement is that he snatches up their proposition and declares his belief in the righteousness and the divine character of Jesus, even though He had not saved Himself from death at their hands. Moreover, while the centurion probably was not a proselyte to Judaism and hence could not be expected to express as much depth in the tide “Son of God” as those about him, he certainly had heard over and over this strange charge during the trials and, associating it with the marvelous teaching and miracles of Jesus, would have come to deep conclusions as he saw Jesus’ conduct and heard His words on the cross. The centurion of Capernaum with faith so great that Jesus had not seen its like in Israel (Luke 7:9) and the centurion of Caesarea obeying the Old Testament Scriptures, praying, and receiving the commendation of God in having Peter sent to preach to him the first gospel sermon directed to the Gentiles, should quite definitely make us hesitate in affirming this centurion was expressing pagan ideas. Translators have certainly done well in translating his words “Truly this man was the Son of God.” After all, the depth of meaning in those words challenges a life-time of study for the mind of the profoundest Christian thinker. To grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus is ever the challenge to him who approaches the Son of God. In passing it may be noted that here is another deadly blow to the Two-source Theory for it is Mark who is presumed to present Jesus merely as an heroic man, and it is supposed that the gradual development of the worship of Jesus took place through Matthew and Luke to John as the Gospel narratives were written. Yet, here, it is Mark, as well as Matthew, who reports “the Son of God” and Luke, who is supposed to represent the fuller development of ideas, reports “a righteous man.”

Witnesses

Strange indeed is the assortment of witnesses who spoke for Jesus of Nazareth as He went to His death! Formal defense was not permitted at the trials, but impromptu and irrepressible testimony in his defense was given in the most unexpected manner and from most surprising sources. His chosen disciples, who had been with Him through His ministry and had expressed such great faith in Him as the Son of God and the Messiah, all forsook Him and fled. Those who were His leading followers were silent. But the impact of His divine personality wrested from most unlikely sources the strongest imaginable declarations. The contemptible traitor who sold his Master into the hands of His enemies was driven to bear witness and then rush out to end his worthless life. The cynical Roman judge, before whom Jesus was tried, offered repeated and desperate protests and tributes, but he was not willing to stake his life on the issues. A robber whose life was ebbing away in its last fleeting hours cried out in amazing faith and insight. The centurion who had charge of the cruel task of execution spoke in a voice of awe whose depth we cannot sound. In all of these men the tides of worldly desires and prejudice must have been running strongly against Jesus of Nazareth, hence the power of their testimony is the greater.

It is not possible for us even to imagine all of the heavenly joy and the divine glory which filled Paradise on the day when the Son of God returned after having conquered the devil and having achieved the forgiveness of man’s sins. Of all the thrilling events which transpired in Paradise on this day, we know but one: “Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” What a poor, lost sheep was this, the Good Shepherd brought back to the Father’s house on the day that the Messiah died for the sins of the world.

“Were you there when they crucified my Lord? Were you there when they nailed Him to the tree?” Did you see what happened? “Sometimes it causes me to tremble.” Did you hear and witness what I saw and heard? How did you feel when you looked into the face of the Son of God as He was dying? Could you see through your tears? How did it seem to you when you realized that it was for our sins He was dying, that we were the ones who should have been nailed to the cross? What did you do? Did you cast down your burden of sins at the foot of the cross? Did you joyously seize the flaming torch and lift it high that the dark corners of the world might see? Did you commit your life to Him and take up your own cross to follow Him even to Golgotha?