Luke 23

CHAPTER XXIII

Luke 23:1

1 And the whole crowd of them, having arisen, led him to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, This fellow we found perverting our nation and hindering to pay taxes to Caesar and claiming himself to be a Christ-king.

It is Luke who brings out the fact that no less than “the whole crowd of them” led Jesus to Pilate. This means the entire Sanhedrin plus a considerable detachment of the Levitical Temple police. A sufficient force must have been taken along because Jesus was to be led through the streets of the city and was to be under guard before the Praetorium of Pilate until Pilate took him in charge. Any attempt to rescue Jesus that might be undertaken by the pilgrims who were still in the city had to be blocked in advance. Pilate was to be impressed; the size of the Temple guard and the whole body of the Sanhedrin were to show him the dangerous character of the prisoner that was thus brought to him. It was early morning, but Roman courts were always available early in the day.

The Praetorium, which is called thus as being the seat of the praetor or commander of the soldiery, must have been the fortress Antonia at this time. Pilate’s tribunal was in front of the building, the Romans dispensed justice in the open.

Luke 23:2

2 We must insert John 18:28–32 at this point (on which see the author’s exposition) because it is so necessary in order to get the full story. After they had arrived at the Praetorium, Pilate comes out, seats himself as the judge, but learns that all that the Sanhedrin wants of him is to execute the prisoner on the basis of the verdict it had already rendered. The Sanhedrists lose out in this first skirmish. Pilate refuses to be a mere tool of theirs, they are compelled to take the role of accusers, and Pilate is the judge in the case. It is thus that “they began to accuse him” before Pilate.

But they are not consenting to a new trial by the governor. Not at all; they offer him only a statement of what they as a court have already “found,” the finding on which they have decreed the prisoner’s deaths. Τοῦτον is highly derogatory, “this fellow”; and “we found” is a legal term which states the finding of their trial. This implies that they went into the case in due legal form and established everything through witnesses. They state this because they are not ready to have Pilate do all this over again as though this amounted to nothing in his court.

They name the crimes on the basis of which they have passed the verdict of death on Jesus. We are dumbfounded to hear them, for not one of these crimes was even breathed at their two court sessions. The great Sanhedrin faces the Roman governor with the rankest lies. Nor was there one man who dissented, one man who opened his mouth to tell the truth about what they had “found.” Caiaphas and a few leaders do the speaking, but all the rest lend their assent. This need not surprise us. They who plotted judicial murder are capable of carrying it out by means of bold lying.

Three capital crimes are charged against Jesus. “Perverting our nation,” turning it this way and that way from its peaceful course, working it up in dangerous agitation, is the first crime. The emperor wanted peace; other rebellions had been started and had to be put down; Jesus was another agitator. The present participles that are used in stating the crimes signify that Jesus was now engaged in these nefarious acts. They say “our nation” and use ἔθνος which the Jews seldom used because it put them into the same class with the other “nations”; they loved the term λαός which was used in the sense of the covenant “people” that was exalted above all the ἔθνη or nations. They prefer the secular word in this instance in order not to ruffle Pilate. They count on his having heard of the fame of Jesus in Galilee, among the Jews generally, and here in Jerusalem, where his royal entry had occurred last Sunday, and all the thousands of pilgrims had enthused about him.

So this was it: they wanted Pilate to think of a dangerous agitation by this fellow, and that the Sanhedrin has stepped in and squelched it and brought the leader of it to book. What more need Pilate say except to order the fellow’s execution forthwith?

The other charges are added with two “and,” which means coordination but also that all three are of the same kind. “Hindering to pay taxes to Caesar” has the plural of φόρος, the same word that was used in 20:22, which is used to designate tribute received from a subject nation, the Greek verb being “to give.” The Sanhedrists had tried to trick Jesus into a declaration that such taxes that were paid to Caesar were unlawful for godly Jews, but his declaration had been the very opposite. This is a bold lie indeed! But how can Pilate get at the truth? They were wholly safe in even this lie. But when Pilate hears even an intimation of this kind, it must arouse his suspicion. Rebellion against Roman taxation had already caused trouble enough, and Pilate was fully aware of the fact that the Jews chafed under this tax and would respond to any agitation to throw off this galling yoke.

The climax is the third crime: “declaring himself to be a Christ-king.” We think that the two words should be regarded as one concept and not, as is generally done, as two: “Christ, a king.” The view that “Christ” meant nothing to Pilate and that “king” was therefore added, shows only that “Christ” should then have been left out and “king” alone used. If “king” is only an apposition, we should then have “the Christ.” No; “a Christ-king” these Sanhedrists say, namely one who capitalizes the Christ-hopes of the Jews and is therefore vastly more dangerous than any ordinary pretender to the throne of Israel would be, like Herod the Great and men who had only political interests. Pilate and anyone who was slightly acquainted with the Jews knew of this Christ-hope of theirs. This charge is made the last, the climax, and throws light on the other two.

Luke 23:3

3 Did the enumeration of these crimes impress Pilate? Very little. But since they are finally stated, he proposes to proceed as the judge to try the case, but not by any means immediately to underwrite the verdict that the Sanhedrin wants executed. And, in fact, if these were the crimes of which Jesus was guilty, it would be easy also for Pilate to determine that fact.

But Pilate inquired of him, saying, Thou, art thou the king of the Jews? And he answering said to him, Thou sayest it.

Read the exposition of John 19:33–38. Pilate rose from his judgment seat and entered the Praetorium and gave the order to bring Jesus inside it for examination. He takes the most direct manner for investigating the charges; he will begin by examining the prisoner. He could do this outside of the Praetorium, but that would leave the prisoner in the hands of the Jewish police. By his going inside the building the Jews are compelled automatically to hand this prisoner over to the Roman soldier guards of Pilate. He did not examine Jesus in secret.

The Romans were wholly averse to secrecy. Any Jews who cared to hear the examination could come into the Praetorium—Pilate certainly would not cater to their unpleasant scruples about ceremonial defilement by examining Jesus on the outside. The Roman guards heard the examination, and also other persons may have been there.

As the governor Pilate had kept a watchful eye on every movement in the land under his jurisdiction. He had undoubtedly heard about Jesus but never of any royal pretensions on his part, of any force of men he was gathering, of any political disturbance whatever. The emphasis is on σύ: “Thou, art thou?” etc. Pilate’s question is tinged strongly with incredulity. He cannot bring himself to think that this man, beaten, bruised, arrested, alone, was pretending to be a king that was hostile to Rome.

There is also mockery in the question. The dignity of Jesus had not as yet had a chance to impress the governor. Pilate despised the Jews and at first regarded Jesus as being only another Jew. “The king of the Jews”—did this Jew think himself to be “a Christ-king,” “the Jews’ king”? Grand king he would be for the Jews! Pilate had quite a different picture in his mind of what earthly kings looked like.

Pilate takes up only the charge about being some kind of a king, for the other two charges were contained in this one. The synoptists report with exceeding briefness so that John felt the need of supplementing their brevity. Jesus did, indeed, affirm that he was a king, John states that he explained fully what kind of a king he was. The synoptists let us infer this from the way in which Pilate spoke and acted after the examination into this kingship. “Thou sayest it” is like the affirmation recorded in 22:70 and in the parallel passages, also in John 19:37, and the quibbling about its not being a definite affirmation ought to cease.

Luke 23:4

4 And Pilate said to the high priests and the multitudes, I find no crime in this man.

Pilate came out again and took his seat on the judge’s throne facing the Sanhedrists, their police force, and the other crowds of spectators who had gathered by this time. Some think that he left Jesus inside the building and had him brought out later; but it was ever the Roman custom to confront prisoners with their accusers. Jesus was led out of the Praetorium behind Pilate. The governor delivers his judicial finding. He acquits Jesus. Whatever the Sanhedrin claims to have found, Pilate asserts that he has found the opposite.

The neuter adjective αἴτιον in the sense of crime or criminal charge is used as a noun. Pilate is not, however, true to himself or to his verdict. He stops short with his bare announcement; he does not forthwith order the prisoner discharged and give him the necessary protection; he does not order the crowds of Jews to disperse and to leave the premises and, if necessary, drive them off by ordering out the cohort. This is the first fatal flaw in the action of the Roman judge.

Luke 23:5

5 But they kept insisting, declaring, He is exciting the people by teaching through the whole of Judea, also starting from Galilee till here.

Mark adds the detail that they brought on more accusations, Matthew and Mark that Pilate asked Jesus why he answered nothing to all this, and that he marvelled at Jesus’ silence. But Pilate had rendered his verdict. Did he intend to turn the defense of that verdict over to Jesus? Was it not his business to examine into any new charges if he deemed them worthy of attention? Jesus disdains to answer these trumped-up charges. Pilate shows that he, too, scorns them because he does not take them up.

The silence of Jesus leaves the responsibility where it belongs, on Pilate, the judge. Luke records only the charge of exciting (shaking to and fro) the people (λαός this time). “Also starting from Galilee till here” in the very capital of Judaism reminds Pilate that seditions usually start in turbulent Galilee. Pilate lets the Sanhedrists offer this indignity to his high court after pronouncing the verdict. He sits there, looks at Jesus, asks him to answer, and takes no measures to clear out the Jews. Since when must the judge’s verdict please the plaintiff when it acquits the defendant? Since when may the plaintiff assail the verdict before the judge himself?

Luke 23:6

6 Now, on hearing it, Pilate inquired whether the man was a Galilean. And on learning that he was from the jurisdiction of Herod, he sent him up to Herod, he, too, being in Jerusalem in these days.

After Pilate acted as though he must obtain the consent of the Sanhedrin to his verdict of innocence, all he could do was merely to delay the fatal outcome. The mention of Galilee caught his ear, and a new thought flashed into his mind: he would get rid of this entire affair by turning it over to the ruler of Galilee. So he asked whether the prisoner was from Galilee. A criminal might be tried before three courts, the forum originis, domicilii, or delicti, at the court of his birthplace, of his domicile, or of the place of the commission of his crime. Jesus had lived and worked in Galilee for so long a time that he might well be remanded to the jurisdiction of Herod. There is no need of discussing Bethlehem as being the actual place of Jesus’ birth.

Luke 23:7

7 Yes, Pilate was told that Jesus, whose home was at Capernaum and who grew up to manhood in Nazareth, was “from the jurisdiction of Herod” (the Greek retains “is” in the indirect discourse after a past tense). Pilate forthwith sent Jesus to Herod. “Send up” is a legal term for remanding one to trial. “Sent up to Herod” means that Pilate turned the case over to Herod. Strange, indeed! It was too late to do such a thing, for Pilate had rendered his verdict. By doing it nevertheless, more decisively than by listening to new charges he disregarded not only his verdict but even the fact that he had rendered one. The whole case is thrown wide open, and legal procedure and legal safeguards are thrown to the wind. The trial has ended, what follows is no longer a trial but only a miserable jockeying and haggling; the outcome could not be in doubt after this sort of thing was begun.

“Herod” is the only name that is used in the New Testament, but this is Herod Antipas, one of the sons of Herod the Great. He had inherited and was by Rome granted only a portion of his father’s dominion and ruled as tetrarch over Galilee and Perea. When Mark calls him “king,” this was a title that was used by the people. He did plan to become king and to regain Judea and his father’s entire territory. When, at the instigation of Herodias, he made the attempt at the time when Caligula became emperor, his brother Herod Agrippa accused him before the new emperor, who sent him into exile for the rest of his life. This was the Herod who had taken his brother Philip’s wife Herodias, who had beheaded John the Baptist, who feared that Jesus was the Baptist returned from the dead, whom Jesus called “that fox.” Desiring to be the king of the Jews in the full sense of the word, he who was only a nominal Jew was giving himself the appearance of Jewish zeal at this time and also attending the Passover festival at Jerusalem.

Luke 23:8

8 Now Herod, on seeing Jesus, was exceedingly glad, for he was wanting to see him for a long time on account of hearing concerning him, and he was hoping to see some sign being done by him.

Pilate hit it right as far as Herod was concerned by sending Jesus to him. Herod was pleased with the friendly gesture on the part of Pilate in turning the Galilean prisoner over to him right here in the procurator’s own domain, and he was actually delighted to have his long desire finally granted actually to see Jesus of whom he had heard so much for so long a time. The periphrastic imperfect ἦνθέλων is strongly durative: “was wanting”; the English would use the past perfect “had been wanting.” In temporal phrases the Greek idiom ἐκ indicates the point of departure (R. 597), reckons from the far point to the present; the Greek likewise employs plurals in certain cases, here “considerable times.” Διά states the reason for this constant desire, and the present infinitive denotes that he kept hearing about Jesus all the time.

This might have been a desire like that of Zacchaeus, which was due to the way in which Jesus treated poor sinners who were distressed and uneasy about their sin and guilt—and Herod certainly had awful sins on his soul. Luke dispels all such thought. What Herod hoped for from Jesus was that with his own eyes he might see the performance of some sign or miracle by Jesus. He regarded the miracles of Jesus as nothing but exhibitions that put on a novel and an astounding show. Kings often entertained their courts and themselves by calling in some expert and having him perform his feats for their delectation. That is what Herod hoped to secure from Jesus at some time. And when he now had Jesus before him he thought that the hour had come to have his craving satisfied.

The man was utterly shallow; as far as Jesus was concerned, he entertained not even a serious thought or wish regarding him, to say nothing of anything spiritual. Jesus had filled his land with the gospel and divine works of grace and mercy. It was all lost on Herod who looked only for diverting entertainment from him. “To see some sign occurring by him” (present participle) means a view of such a sign as actually taking place before the eyes.

Luke 23:9

9 And he continued to inquire of him in many words; but he answered him not a thing.

Jesus was most likely brought before Herod by a detachment of Pilate’s soldiers who, on delivering their prisoner, return to the Praetorium. Having taken over the prisoner from the Sanhedrin, Pilate would hardly return him to its custody. We imagine that Herod’s court assembled quickly, and that quite a scene was staged. Pilate had sent Jesus to Herod, which means that Herod was to conduct the trial and determine the prisoner’s fate. But he does nothing of the kind. His long desire is now to be gratified, and so he proceeds with that and only that end in view.

All his extensive questioning of Jesus is not judicial in any way. Herod does not sit in the judge’s seat or function as a judge. Various opinions are naturally held as to the questions with which he plied Jesus. “In many words” means “at length,” with many questions. They most likely turned on what filled his mind, the signs. How did Jesus do them? Were they real?

How about this sign and that of which Herod had heard? And especially whether he would do one for Herod right now. Herod’s “many words” reveal his light mentality. He rattled on, and it took a while for him to understand the situation.

Jesus met this flow of questions with absolute silence. Over against Herod’s volubility he placed this calm, dignified, impressive, and most significant silence. The reason lies on the surface. We may be assured that, if Herod had proceeded as a judge and in the proper judicial way, Jesus would have given the necessary answers. The supposition that Jesus disallowed the jurisdiction of Herod is untenable. Herod was staging a show, and that made Jesus silent. This silence was a rebuke to Herod. It showed the scorn of Jesus for “this fox” and his antics.

Luke 23:10

10 But the high priests and the scribes were standing strenuously accusing him.

“The high priests and the scribes” designates the Sanhedrin in the current manner. They had followed in a body with their force of Levitical police. They were ready to accept a trial by Herod and were determined to have Jesus remanded to death. But a trial was far from Herod’s mind. The descriptive imperfect used in v. 9 is continued by εἱστήκεισαν, this past perfect being used as an imperfect and the perfect as a present. As soon as the Sanhedrists could do so they voiced their most strenuous accusations against Jesus and reiterated them at every opportunity. This was to be a trial, and they were trying to do their part.

Moreover, they may well have feared that, if Jesus amused Herod by working some miracle before him, Herod might be so pleased as to try to retain Jesus in his court to show him off on occasion. So they used all their vigor. But that is all. Herod did not seem to hear. He was too shrewd to take over this trial from Pilate. For one thing, he was under no obligation to the Sanhedrin, saw no special advantage in taking up this trial, and, more important still, saw the great advantage of returning Pilate’s compliment by restoring the prisoner to him. So the Sanhedrists barked in vain.

Luke 23:11

11 Having, however, set him at nought and mocked him, Herod with his following, after throwing around him a shining garment, sent him up to Pilate.

This is the answer of Herod to the Sanhedrin regarding Jesus, a sort of verdict in answer to their accusations, which repeated in a way those that had been made before Pilate in v. 2. He refuses to take Jesus seriously, he makes light of the whole affair, he finds Jesus harmless, and he does not care to determine any crimes of his. He is satisfied to get a laugh out of this unexpected encounter and to let it go at that. Fear of the pilgrims who were attending the festival does not actuate him, and all superstitious fears of Jesus as being the Baptist returned to life have been dispelled this long time. Nor had Jesus ever directly assailed Herod in his preaching as had the Baptist. He had received his two hundred talents regularly from his provinces and had paid Rome in due order without any disturbances about the taxes.

The personality of Jesus in no way registers anything in this tetrarch’s mind. So he has his fun with Jesus and duly sends him back to Pilate’s court.

Three aorist participles state the subsidiary actions that preceded the return of the prisoner to Pilate. The silence with which Jesus answered Herod’s questions led Herod to “set him at nought,” to treat him as nothing. This was intended to be tit for tat. Did Jesus treat Herod as nothing by refusing to answer the gracious questions of so high a ruler as this tetrarch? Very well, let Jesus understand that this was pure condescension on the part of the ruler, and that, as far as he is concerned who pretends to be king of the Jews, he is just nothing to Herod.

The phrase σὺντοῖςστρατεύμασιν does not mean “with his men of war” (A. V.), “with his soldiers” (R. V.), “with his forces” (M.-M. 593) for the simple reason that the tetrarch would certainly not enter the domain of the Roman procurator with anything like a body of troops, especially at the Passover. Luther is correct: Hofgesinde; as are the German commentators: Gefolge, “his following” or retinue. Herod certainly made a grand display at Jerusalem, but never with a military force. The second participle about the mockery seems to be added in explanation of the first: by mocking Herod set Jesus at nought, his whole court followed its illustrious chief’s lead. The details are left to our imagination.

Only one item is specified. Before the order was given that Jesus be led away Herod threw a shining garment around Jesus and dismissed him. The color of the garment is debated, and some assert that almost any color could be “shining” if the robe had a brilliant sheen. Although this is true enough, this word λαμπρός is so often used (also regarding angels) in the sense of brilliant white as to make this meaning very probable here. Priests wore white, but no reference to anything priestly appears in the narrative. White was worn frequently by the great and illustrious, and Herod therefore chose such a robe for Jesus.

He or one who had been commanded to do so threw it around Jesus over his other clothing. Herod intended that, when Pilate saw Jesus, he could see at a glance what Herod thought of the man. “Sent up” is the same court term that was used in v. 7.

Herod and Pilate have been compared with each other. Both men find Jesus harmless, not in the least dangerous, at most a fanatic. But Herod laughs at Jesus and makes a great joke of him; Pilate is impressed more and more by Jesus, goes to great lengths to set him free, and labors to rid himself of the blood-guilt of his death.

Luke 23:12

12 Moreover, both Herod and Pilate became friends with one another on that day, for they were in enmity with each other.

This states the result of Pilate’s sending Jesus to Herod. As far as Jesus was concerned, the action was of no moment for him except to prolong his Passion and to let this minor Jewish ruler add his mite to the Jewish rejection of the Savior. No one knows why Herod and Pilate had been enemies until this time. Whether the event that is related in 13:1 contributed to the cause is problematic. Pilate had nothing to do with depriving Herod of Judea as a part of his domain, and that had been done before he was appointed governor. The fact that they were neighbors, ruled adjacent territory may have furnished friction enough.

Yet this turned into friendship when each offered the other the compliment that is here recorded. For when Herod returned Jesus to Pilate’s court he said in effect that he would approve any disposition of the case that Pilate might make. The Sanhedrin brought Jesus to Pilate because it was forced to do so; after being asked to take the trial Herod freely placed it into Pilate’s hand. Although Pilate again had the troublesome case on his hands he felt the honor that had been accorded him by Herod, the more so since they had been at enmity.

The participle with the imperfect of ὑπάρχω resembles a periphrastic tense form, the participle repeating the durative idea, and πρό in the verb bringing out the idea of a previous condition. This friendship of Herod and Pilate is really not a case where enemies join hands against Jesus, for both men regard Jesus as really being harmless. This is a case where men subject the highest interests, those that center in Christ and in religion, to their own cheap personal ends. And the latter is just as bad as the former.

Luke 23:13

13 Now Pilate, having called together the high priests and the rulers and the people, said to them: You brought this man to me as turning away the people. And lo, I myself, having made examination before you, found no crime in this man as to the things you are charging against him. No, nor Herod, for he sent him up to us, and lo, nothing worthy of death has been done by him. Therefore, after chastising, I will release him.

As Pilate sent a message to Herod with the prisoner, so Herod likewise sent a message on returning the prisoner. A Roman guard transferred Jesus to Herod; how he was returned to the custody of Pilate is not clear, save that Pilate again has him in the hands of his guards, and Jesus is not in the hands of the Jewish police. Luke places us at the point where the governor has once more ascended his elevated seat as the judge. The Sanhedrists and the people generally were scattered about before the Praetorium. When Pilate takes his place, and Jesus is standing under guard near by, he has everybody summoned. “The high priests and the rulers” are the Sanhedrin, but “the people” are also included, of whom there must have been a great number. Why “the people”?

Because Pilate felt sure that many of these were friendly toward Jesus, the mass of them certainly were not, like the Sanhedrin, set on doing him to death. He counted on them to support his effort to save Jesus.

Luke 23:14

14 Pilate thus speaks to this entire assembly as the judge. His tone and his language are judicial. He sums up the case. All sounds well until the last statement. There the fatal weakness of this judge again appears, for he ends by making a proposition and by implication asks that it be accepted. No real judge dare speak in this way. He states first that they have brought this man to him “as turning away the people” and uses “as” to designate the alleged crime (R. 966). He includes in the one clause all that was charged in v. 2; but διά in the participle that is used in v. 2 means only agitation whereas the ἀπό in Pilate’s participle means removal from the right course.

One would suppose that such a charge would have some ground, but “lo” ushers in a statement to the contrary. “I myself,” says Pilate, “after making due examination before you, found no crime in this man as to the things you are charging against him.” The pronoun ἐγώ is emphatic, and ἀνακρίνας is the legal term for making a judicial examination of a prisoner who is under indictment (note Paul’s use of this term in 1 Cor. 9:3). “Before you” means in open court. We see that Pilate’s questioning of Jesus was not secret (John 18:33) but according to due legal procedure, those who cared to hear were present.

Αἴτιον is used again as it was in v. 4; Pilate states once more that no crime or basis for a criminal charge “was found.” He adds the relative clause: “of what things you are charging against him,” i. e., keeping on with your accusations. Pilate speaks of all the charges that were made in v. 2. Is the genitive ᾧν due to the genitive τούτων which is involved in it, thus being an attraction from the accusative ἅ: “of those things which” you are charging; or is this genitive due to the verb itself in the clause? R. 511 is undecided; the latter seems better although the former is generally held.

Luke 23:15

15 Pilate has the strongest corroboration for his finding as a judge: “No, nor Herod.” The strong adversative ἀλλά: “but neither Herod,” is well rendered by “no.” The evidence for this is the fact that Herod “sent him up to us,” the majestic plural indicates Pilate’s court. “Sent up,” the legal term for remanding to trial, is the same as it was in v. 7 and 11. The surprise of this brings another “lo.” Herod, in whose domain Jesus had wrought so long and publicly, who was in the best position to know about any criminality, knew of nothing at all on which even to start a trial by probing in a judicial investigation such as Pilate had instituted. Jesus has perpetrated (πράσσω) nothing that is worthy of death. “Not guilty!” is the verdict of the two courts. The periphrastic perfect is intensive (R. 903) and reaches from the past to the present.

Luke 23:16

16 What ought to conclude this speech? “Therefore, I herewith release him! The court is dismissed.” Pilate could even now correct his mistakes for not having made this declaration at the end of v. 4 and for sending Jesus to Herod. But no; he says, “Therefore, after chastising, I will release him.” He offered a proposal, a compromise. He virtually asks that the Sanhedrin accept this in lieu of the demand for the death penalty.

Pilate alone has mentioned death; but this is done only because the original demand made of Pilate was to execute Jesus on the verdict of the Sanhedrin, and because the crimes that are charged in v. 2 were capital crimes. Pilate acquits Jesus of these crimes, acquits him completely: “nothing worthy of death.” But why, then, chastise the prisoner? Has Pilate or Herod found a lesser crime? No. No lesser crimes were even charged, and the prisoner has certainly not incriminated himself in some degree. This chastisement is a morsel that is offered these insistent accusers.

Pilate is asking whether they cannot be satisfied if he orders this. They will then not lose face by being turned down completely. They will have accomplished much, if not all. Pilate was again hopeful, but every play he made only made his defeat surer.

To yield an inch from his first verdict (v. 4) overthrew the entire verdict. That is why the Sanhedrists hung on. All they had to do was to hang on, and they did. He who yielded so much would yield also the rest. It was just as unjust to chastise Jesus for no crime that merited chastisement as to put him to death without proving a crime that was worthy of death. Pilate’s proposal is a self-indictment of criminal injustice. He shrank from the bloodguilt of executing Jesus; he did not shrink from chastising him. The fearful inconsistencies of worldly logic in moral matters are astounding. To hope to escape the devil by paying him a half price is the folly of making him certain that you will pay also the other half.

What does “chastise” mean? The consensus of opinion is to scourge, and all those who argue to the contrary have yet to specify what else it could or did mean. Luke does not narrate the scourging but abbreviates that part of the narrative. It meant to stretch the bent body over a low stone pillar and to lash the back with whips of three lashes which had pieces of bone or lead fastened to the tips. This cut and slashed the skin and the flesh, the loaded tips tore deep holes. The vitals were sometimes bared at the sides of the abdomen, and men at times died during the ordeal. This is what Pilate proposed.

Some texts add v. 17: “Now he must needs release unto them at the festival one”; but this sentence is an insertion from Mark 15:6 and Matt. 27:15. It supplies what the following account needs.

18, 19) We receive help from Mark 15:6–8 at this point. The crowds of people who had gathered before the Sanhedrin were constantly increasing. Among them, we may suppose, were many friends of Jesus, and some of them shouted to Pilate to follow the custom of releasing unto them a Jewish prisoner at the Passover festival. Pilate took this up at once. John 18:39 states how he did it by acknowledging the custom and proceeding to follow it right here and now. The custom seems to date as far back as the era of the Maccabees and was probably intended to symbolize the release of ancient Israel from its Egyptian bondage.

We may suppose that the usual method was followed: the governor nominated two candidates, the people by acclamation chose one (Matt. 27:17); no one knows whether more than two were ever offered for choice. Pilate not only made the nomination but also indicated the choice he wanted made. For this reason he nominated Jesus and the worst criminal who was at this time lying in his prison. A pause occurred which enabled the people to determine on their choice—Pilate was certain that, no matter how the Sanhedrists voted, the people would demand Jesus. So he again took his seat as the judge and demanded to know the choice. This is where Luke places us.

Now they raised the yell altogether, saying, Make away with this fellow but release to us Barabbas! who because of a riot made in the city and because of murder was one that had been thrown into the prison.

Matthew explains this unanimity of the crowds; the Sanhedrists and their Levites among the police got busy on the instant, circulated among the crowds, and stirred them up with inflammatory words to vote as they did. Ἀνέκραξαν = sie schrien auf, “they raised the yell.”

The name Barabbas is recorded by the evangelists only for the purpose of fully identifying the man whom the Jews preferred to Jesus. They do not play on the composition “son of Abba” and say that “Abba” denotes some prominent rabbi, and that this formed a kind of parallel to Jesus’ title “Son of God.” The textual evidence that this man was called “Jesus Barabbas” is so inferior as not to need discussion. Yet, in spite of the textual evidence, some would retain “Jesus” on the plea that no scribe would have inserted “Jesus” in any text and that it must, therefore, be original. But the very reverse seems to be true. Those who love to allegorize and play with names and words seem to have inserted Jesus in order to obtain: “Jesus, the Son of God,” and “Jesus Barabbas (the son of Abba).” We discard these fancies and the poor ground on which they rest.

This degenerate son of a respectable father lay “in the prison,” the prison of Pilate in Jerusalem, and was at this time charged with participating in a riot or insurrection and with committing murder. The impression is left that he was caught red-handed, and that he would beyond question be condemned to the cross. Luke’s ὅστις instead of the simple relative states that he was “such a one as,” etc. R. 860 calls ἦνβληθείς a periphrastic aorist verb, ἦν itself being aoristic. B.-D. 365 calls this construction “entirely incredible” since it is never found except rarely in the poets; but the failing of B.-D. is his willingness to change the readings of exceptional cases. The matter is cleared up grammatically by making the participle the predicate to ἦν which states what Barabbas “was,” namely, “one lodged in the prison.” The participle needs no article when it occurs in the predicate.

Pilate set Jesus and Barabbas up as the candidates. He aimed to secure the strongest possible contrast: here one who was alleged to be royal, “a Christ-king” (see v. 2), there the lowest and most vicious criminal. But Pilate’s intentions turn out unfortunately. By putting up these two he put Jesus into the same class with Barabbas—certainly not Barabbas into the same class with Jesus. This Jewish custom dealt with the pardoning of some criminal by the governor at the Passover. Jesus is thus really classified as a criminal together with this other criminal.

Did Pilate not see this? He never sees far enough. The injustice that is done Jesus is outrageous. The worse this criminal Barabbas is, the more terrible is the injustice that is done Jesus. The Sanhedrists saw what this proposition of Pilate’s really meant as far as Jesus was concerned and used it to the utmost. Although he wanted to save Jesus, by devious, not by straight and courageous means in honest Roman justice Pilate himself helps to destroy Jesus.

This thing of using questionable and wrong means to accomplish good ends has wrecked more men than Pilate.

The whole crowd does far more than to vote for Barabbas; and Pilate has his great share of guilt in what they do. They do not raise the yell: “Release Barabbas for us!” but first of all yell: “Make away with this fellow!” i. e., Jesus who is standing right there. Αἶρε = “make away with him,” i. e., put him to death; on this evident meaning compare John 19:15; Acts 21:36; 22:22. That was the very alternative Pilate had placed before the Jews by proposing Jesus as a candidate beside Barabbas. The choice was two-edged; it was not merely that one of the criminals should go free, but equally that the other should go to his death.

Pilate reckoned on two things: first, that nobody would want a criminal like Barabbas to live, and second, that the people would not want a man like Jesus to die. But natural justice is not so certain a motive among men in critical hours; one may appeal to it with safety only in calm days. The Sanhedrists had cunning arguments to defeat this sense of justice in the people at this critical moment. All saw that Pilate, the hated representative of Roman power and oppression, was trying to shield Jesus. Pilate had indicated that he wanted Jesus chosen; Pilate had put up this wretch Barabbas to attain this very end. Were the people going to let Pilate dictate thus?

Did they want a Messiah of Pilate’s choice? Did they think that a Messiah who would be under the thumb of Pilate was the true one? Nay, nay, never; make away with him!

Luke 23:20

20 But again Pilate called to them, wanting to release Jesus. They, however, continued calling at him, saying, Crucify, crucify him!

Luke does not state what Pilate said when he called to the people after the choice was made. Matt. 27:22, Mark 15:12 tell us: Pilate asked what he was to do with Jesus if they wanted Barabbas released. The pitiableness of Pilate is now evident. He had taken his chance on the choice and had lost out completely. And to haggle about it made the people’s insistence violent. Luke says that he called out because he wanted to release Jesus. Did he hope that the crowd would tell him that it wanted Jesus too? Pilate had maneuvered himself into the complete defeat of his desire to release Jesus. He had brought his case to the point where such a thing was no longer possible—except by the strong measure of calling to his commanders and ordering out the Roman troops.

Luke 23:21

21 The crowd promptly calls back to Pilate and keeps it up in a mighty chorus and tells him what to do since it seems he must depend on them: “Crucify, crucify him!” That was how they wanted Pilate to make away with him. Some of the Sanhedrists probably first raised this shout, the rest of the crowd then took it up. Pilate had conducted the case in such a manner that not he but this crowd and the accusers, their leaders, were acting as the judge, rendering the verdict, and pronouncing sentence.

The question is asked as to how these Jews, whose death penalty was stoning, came to demand crucifixion for Jesus. The fact that Barabbas was to have been crucified, and that Jesus was now in a way taking his place seems a doubtful answer. The Jews had turned Jesus completely over to Pilate; they had washed their hands of Jesus. Deprived of the right of inflicting the death penalty themselves, they hold Pilate to its infliction, and that meant crucifixion for Jesus. Stoning would have had to be done by their own hands; let this pagan do the bloody work for them. Nor would Pilate have beheaded Jesus, the common Jew; only Roman citizens (Paul was one) received that mode of death.

Luke 23:22

22 He, however, for the third time said to them: Why, what base thing did this man do? No capital crime did I find in him. I will, therefore, after chastising, release him. But they went on insisting with great voices, asking as their due that he be crucified. And their voices began to prevail.

Luke’s record is the clearest in regard to this third appeal of Pilate’s, compare Matt. 27:23; Mark 15:14. It has come to this point that Pilate has entirely forgotten that he is the judge, even the governor and highest judicial authority in the land. He actually pleads with this crowd and the implacable Sanhedrists. In questions γάρ is little more than an intensive particle, R. 1149; it is like the denn in a question, B.-D. 452, 1 And κακόν is no longer a capital crime but any “base thing.” “Show me even that much,” Pilate pleads.

As far as “a crime of death” (qualitative genitive), a capital crime, is concerned, he repeats vainly that he found nothing like this in Jesus. But it is no longer the judge that pronounces this verdict from his judge’s seat; the judicial tone and bearing are completely gone. So he reverts to his former compromise (v. 16), to chastise Jesus and to let it go at that. But his very tone must have betrayed the fact that he had no hope of its acceptance. This verse is highly illuminating for an understanding of the character of Pilate. The Jews had taken his measure.

Luke 23:23

23 They merely continue their insistence and shout the louder at the sight of his complete weakening. And they are right—one more shove, and over he goes. The verb means “to lie upon” and thus to insist. It is used figuratively only with regard to tempests and the press of wind, which cannot be brought in here as R., W. P., desires, as if the shouting were a tempest. The middle of αἰτέω is used to express business demands, “to ask what is due,” what one has a right to ask, R. 805. It was thus that Pilate was now asked to crucify Jesus. The crowd is not begging a favor but demanding its rights. Rights on what grounds? Grounds—they needed none with regard to a judge like this.

Luke records that “the voices of them began to prevail,” and good texts add: all of them “and of the high priests” (A. V.). The latter was probably stricken because it placed the high priests together with “them,” namely the common people. But Luke’s imperfect “began to prevail” intimates that the battle against Pilate was even now not entirely won. The aorist used in v. 24 reports that it was won when Pilate finally pronounced sentence. This did not, however, happen until John 19:1–15 had occurred, the scourging and the mockery plus the presentation with, “Behold the man!” All this is not the preparation for crucifixion but the final, desperate effort on the part of Pilate to save Jesus by making him so pitiable a figure that nobody could possibly any longer think of him as being a king.

Luke 23:24

24 All this, too, failed, more than failed, it brought on the climax. And Pilate gave sentence that their demand be done. And he released him who because of riot and murder had been thrown into prison, whom they were asking as their due; but Jesus he delivered to their will.

Luke is the only evangelist who states that Pilate passed sentence on Jesus in due form. But the sentence was not death because of some crime even though it was only an alleged crime; it was “that their demand occur,” that the Jews get what they had asked as being rightly due them. The αἴτημα plainly continues the idea of αἰτούμενοι and carries it over to ἠτοῦντο, all speak of what the Jews demanded as their right. This is, indeed, a strange form of sentencing.

Luke 23:25

25 The execution of the sentence follows, and we now see that the sentence included two parts. The first was the release of Barabbas. “He released him” by an order to the commanding officer who passed the order on to a subaltern. The enormity of this act is brought to the reader’s mind by a repetition of the contents of v. 19 concerning the man’s criminality and the addition that this was he “whom they were asking for all the time (durative, imperfect) as their rightful due.” Not a pagan or a pagan mob asks thus but the great Sanhedrin of the Jewish nation, their supreme religious court, which is backed by a great crowd of their people. Think of it—this they asked! And they got what they asked—deserved to get their request.

The other part of the sentence was also executed. Note the chiasm: the two verbs outside, the two objects abutted between them. We have only the simple name “Jesus” in plain contrast to the full description of the other man. “He delivered to their will” does not mean that Jesus was turned over to the Jews; it is useless to argue for that idea, for this contradicts all that follows. Pilate’s soldiers executed Jesus, and that was “their will,” the will of the Jews. John 19:16.

Luke 23:26

26 Immediately after the sentence had been pronounced Jesus was led away to the place of execution. No law required a delay. No such law existed in the provinces. The imperial laws regarding this point applied only to Roman citizens, and these were not crucified.

And as they led him away, taking hold of Simon, a Cyrenian coming from the country, they placed on him the cross to carry it behind Jesus.

The synoptists only imply that Jesus bore his cross on the way to execution, John 19:17 tells us that he did so. The prisoner was generally led through the most populous streets; the place of execution would generally be near a highway where many people would congregate. The traditional via dolorosa, which is now shown in Jerusalem as being the street over which Jesus passed, is of late construction. The city was destroyed several times, and many of its levels were greatly changed. In places the declivities were filled with debris so that some streets are as high as 60 or 80 feet above their original levels.

All the evangelists only imply that after the procession had gone some distance for some reason a man had to be provided to carry the cross for Jesus. From Matthew we gather that this occurred after the procession passed out of the city gate. We are certainly correct in thinking that Jesus broke down under the load, broke down so completely that even his executioners saw that no blows and cursings of theirs could make him stagger on. The effect of all the abuse that had been heaped on Jesus since his arrest became apparent.

The cross was no light load. Much has been written about its form, whether it was an × or a T or had a crossbeam †, and whether the beams were fastened together from the start. All the evidence points to the form which the church everywhere accepts, but it is often pictured as being much too high. Jesus bore his cross and not merely the crosspiece or patibulum. By literally bearing his cross Jesus lends a powerful effect to his figurative words about our taking up our cross and bearing it after him.

The evangelists say little about Simon. He hailed from Cyrene but was now a resident of Jerusalem, one of the many Cyrenians who were dwelling there (Acts 2:10). Mark names his two sons, who, it is agreed, later held prominent positions in the church. From these data the general conclusion is drawn that Simon’s strange contact with Jesus led to his conversion and thus to the prominence of his sons in the church.

Luke and Mark know that he had been out in the country that morning (ἀπʼ ἀγροῦ, one of the many phrases that need no article) and was just coming in at this hour (shortly before 9 A. M.). No Jew would, of course, work out in a field on a festival day such as this, and to assume this in the case of Simon in order to build up other hypotheses regarding him is a proceeding that is quite futile. The executioners of Jesus simply took this Jew and forced him to carry Jesus’ cross. They pounced on the first man that came along, perhaps caught Simon right at the city gate, where he could not escape. No Roman soldier would lower himself by carrying a cross for a criminal. So the soldiers caught a Jew and probably thought it a good joke on this unsuspecting Jew that had to carry another Jew’s cross.

Luke 23:27

27 Now there was following him a great crowd of people, also of women who were beating their breasts and bewailing him.

As we have learned to know Luke, this incident may have preceded that which is mentioned in v. 26; but even then we have no reason to suppose that the account about the women is not true, that Jesus was too weak to utter the words that are attributed to him. The great crowd that was following Jesus was the one that had insisted on his death at the Praetorium, and was, no doubt, augmented as the procession passed through the narrow streets of the city.

“Also of women” means that there were many of these, and since Jesus turns and addresses them, they must have walked together and been able to get close to him. Beating themselves (their breasts) and bewailing him means that they were raising the Jewish death wail for him as being one who was as good as dead, compare 8:52 (Jairus’ daughter). “To bewail” is used in this sense in 7:32; Matt. 11:17, and from θρηνεῖν we have ὁθρῆνος, Totenklage, lament for the dead. One thing is certain, the temper of the crowd that helped to cry “crucify, crucify” is not the temper which all the inhabitants of Jerusalem harbored toward Jesus.

Luke 23:28

28 But having turned to them, Jesus said: Daughters of Jerusalem, stop sobbing over me, but be sobbing over your own selves and over your children. Because, lo, there are coming days in which they shall say, Blessed the barren and the wombs which did not bear and breasts which did not suckle! Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us! and to the hills, Cover us! Because if they do these things in the green wood, what will be in the dry?

It is not so certain, as some assume, that Jesus could not have turned while the cross was on his shoulders. These were women from the city, for “daughters of Jerusalem” cannot mean only “Jewish women” and thus also include women disciples of Jesus from Galilee. What Jesus says to them also fits only inhabitants of the doomed city. These women sobbed for Jesus as being one who was dead. They were moved by sentiment and gave rein to their emotions. Their lamenting is one of excessive pity for Jesus, and as a lament for the dead is filled with hopelessness. They see him helplessly carried to his death, unable to escape his doom.

Such tears for Jesus are utterly wasted, such sentimentality is wholly fruitless. Hence the bidding: “Stop weeping over me!” In negative commands the present imperative often means as it does here to stop an action already begun, R. 851, etc. These women were not weeping for the sins of their rulers in sending Jesus to the cross, for the sins of the crowd that did Jesus to death, for the sins of their nation which could reject David’s son, for their own sins as daughters of this wicked Jerusalem. These women may have helped to acclaim Jesus, but they were not his disciples. “Not over me,” says Jesus, for these women knew nothing of what he was doing this day: dying for their sins and for those of all sinners.

Πλήν, “nevertheless,” tells them that others need their tears, need them very badly. They themselves and their children are these others. Jesus had already wept his tears over them (19:41). He has in mind heart-breaking tears over themselves and their children because of the doom of judgment that is awaiting them. These women are representative. Hence we have this record of their weeping. The sufferings of Jesus still arouse the emotions of especially the softhearted. But all sentimentality regarding Jesus is useless even when it brings tears to the eyes. Let sinners weep for themselves and for their sins, let them sob like Peter (22:62), their tears may then lead to something that is worth while.

Luke 23:29

29 What moves Jesus to utter these imperatives? Ὅτι tells these women, and “lo” brings out its astonishing nature. What they see and what they bemoan with fruitless sentiment are the beginnings of the calamites that will overwhelm them and their children. “There are coming days” such as they would not think possible—yet they are already on the way. The plural ἐροῦσι has an indefinite subject, it is like the German man wird sagen, anybody and everybody will say. They will call the barren blessed, an unheard-of thing among Jews, among whom children were esteemed to be the greatest of blessings, and childlessness, especially barrenness, a sign of God’s displeasure and even a curse.

The sentence is misunderstood when it is thought to consist of three members. We have two, first the general statement: “Blessed the barren,” and next the exposition: “and the wombs … and breasts.” The fact that this expository clause is but one the absence of the article with “breasts” indicates even as wombs that give birth and breasts that give nourishment (this is the sense of the verbs) belong together. A glance at 19:43, 44 which tells of the calamities that are on the way for Jerusalem makes this abnormal beatitude plain. When those horrors arrive, blessed is the woman that has no children to multiply her agonies. Read Josephus, Wars, 6, 34, the most horrible thing in human history that has ever been set down in writing.

Luke 23:30

30 The distress will be so terrible that “they will begin to say (again the indefinite subject which refers to those who are in the distress of these days) to the mountains,” etc. Jesus appropriates the prophecy of Hos. 10:8 which was spoken against Samaria about her destruction by the Assyrians, but the two clauses are transposed. The sense is the same; what Hosea said of the Samaritans in their evil days the Jews will say equally in their evil days when Jerusalem is besieged. They will prefer a sudden, cataclysmic death by mountains falling upon them and by hills covering them to the daily, continued terrors and horrors of the siege. The word βουνός is a rare Cyrenaic term that is found also in 3:5 and means “hill.”

Luke 23:31

31 Jesus explains with ὅτι why such cries will, indeed, be justified. The explanation is stated in the form of a self-answering question: “If they do this in the green wood, what will occur in the dry?” ἐν = in the case of, R. 587. Something far worse will surely occur in the dry wood. The green wood is Jesus in his sinlessness, the dry wood the Jews of Jerusalem in their sinfulness which had reached a state where it was ripe for judgment. The subject is again an indefinite plural: “if they do,” which is shown to be such by the following “what shall be or occur.” If Jesus must suffer as he does, sinless as he is and bearing only the sins of others, what will they have to suffer who sin until the judgment? On the green wood see Ps. 1:3; on the dry Jer. 5:14; Jude 12.

The entire expression which is taken from Hosea is used again in Rev. 6:16 in connection with the final judgment. The subjunctive γένηται is deliberative, R. 934.

Luke 23:32

32 Moreover, there were led also other two, malefactors, to be made away with together with him.

Δέ adds this fact, and the imperfect describes the act. “Other two” or “two others” means in addition to Jesus. These were “malefactors” or criminals, “robbers,” according to Matthew and Mark. The point of note is that they were to be made away with “together with him” and fulfill, as Mark notes, the prophecy that Jesus was reckoned among transgressors, Isa. 53:12, even as Jesus himself had foretold in 22:37. We do not know why these two condemned men had not been crucified before this time. The reason Pilate ordered them to be crucified with Jesus is plain. It was intended as a slap against the Jews and should be combined with the superscription that was placed over the head of Jesus.

Pilate intended that everybody should see the kind of king the Jews had brought to him, one that belonged among criminals by their own demand. He takes his vengeance out on these Jews by stigmatizing their king, stigmatizing him by means of their own finding. Pilate disregarded what this did to Jesus himself. We note the same thing in his having Jesus scourged and mocked to show the Jews what a helpless, abject, pitiful figure they were calling a dangerous king. At that time it was his object to save Jesus; saving him is now past, and the weak, defeated Pilate can take only this vengeance on his successful opponents.

Luke 23:33

33 And when they came to the place called Cranium, there they crucified him; also the malefactors, the one at the right, the other at the left.

The place was called Golgotha, and Matthew translates this Aramaic term Κρανίουτόπος, “Cranium place”; Luke says simply that the place was called “Cranium.” It bore this name because the hill was shaped like a cranium, the top of a skull. The name was merely “Cranium” or “Calvary” (from the Latin), not “The Skull” (R. V., no article accompanies the name), and certainly not “The Place of a Skull.”

The site is in dispute, but it has been certain for many years that the site which is now shown in Jerusalem in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is spurious in toto. Far more acceptable is the cranium-like hill outside the walls which is now occupied by a Mohammedan cemetery, a hill that rises above the recently discovered “Garden Tomb” (also called “Gorden’s Tomb” after its discoverer). This place bears many marks of being the place of crucifixion, namely the peculiarly shaped hill, and of the entombment in the garden beneath and away from the hill.

Among the astounding things of Scripture are the records of the supreme events—one word to describe the crucifixion of God’s Son, one word his resurrection. Events so tremendous, words so restrained! Who guided these writers to write in such an astonishing manner? This is one of the plain marks of divine inspiration in the very product itself. The intention is evidently, and that on the part of all the evangelists, not to describe the awful act of crucifixion. The fact, not the details, is to fill the reader’s mind.

From the great mass of evidence that has been collected we gather that the cross was first of all planted firmly in the ground. Only under very exceptional circumstances were the crosses high. That of Jesus raised his feet no more than a yard above the ground, for the short stalk of hyssop which was 18 inches long was able to reach Jesus’ mouth. A block or a heavy peg was fastened to the beam, and the victim sat on this. He either mounted it himself and was perhaps assisted by the executioners, or they lifted him up to the seat and then fastened his body, arms, and legs with ropes. Then the great nails, of which the ancient writers speak especially, were driven through the hands and the feet.

A hundred years ago about everybody was certain that the feet of Jesus were not nailed to the cross—in spite of 24:39: “Behold my hands and my feet!” Exhaustive investigation has convinced all who have seen the evidence that also the feet were nailed, and each foot with a separate nail. The central seat or peg kept the body from settling to one side after the ropes were removed. None of the old writers ever mentions a loincloth. The agony of crucifixion needs no description. We mention only the hot sun, the raging thirst, the slow approach of death which was sometimes delayed for four days. It was a great relief to the malefactor to learn that he was to die on the very day on which he was crucified.

“Also the malefactors” means that they were crucified in the same way that Jesus had been crucified. Painters follow their fancies when they depict the malefactors as being only tied to their crosses with ropes. All the evangelists state that Jesus was placed between the two malefactors, probably by order of Pilate, although the soldiers, too, would naturally have arranged the crosses in this manner, Jesus being the one important victim. The Greek writes ἐκ and measures out from Jesus to the right and to the left and uses the plural without the article.

Luke 23:34

34 But Jesus went on to say, Father, dismiss it for them; for they do not know what they are doing! Moreover, in dividing his garments they threw lots.

See 3:7 on the imperfect ἔλεγε; it describes the act of speaking and thus asks us to dwell on it. This is surely the first word that Jesus uttered while he was on the cross. The question of the text need not detain us; the attestation for its retention is strong, and the absence of this verse in some texts was most likely due to inability to grasp the meaning. A conflict with the word that was spoken to the daughters of Jerusalem is untenable; and demands to know how it could be known that Jesus spoke this word are easily answered. The view that Jesus spoke thus only in his heart contradicts the verb that he “said” this. Luke alone records this prayer. It was uttered while the crucifixion was in progress or immediately thereafter.

This simple prayer is astounding; all interpretation will leave much to be added. The climax of suffering is now being reached, but the heart of Jesus is not submerged by this rising tide—he thinks of his enemies and of all those who have brought this flood of suffering upon him. In this connection one should dwell on the whole Passion history and on the fact that it meant agony for Jesus. He might have prayed for justice and just retribution; but his love rises above his suffering, he prays for pardon for his enemies. Such love exceeds comprehension and yet reveals the source whence our redemption and our pardon flow. “Father,” Jesus addressed God and even now spoke as the Son, as one who accepted filially all that his Father is permitting to come upon him. His Father is with him and hears his Son say, “Father,” and what this Son now utters will meet a full response in the Father’s heart, for he so loved the world that he sent his own Son to die for the world, and this dying is now at hand.

The verb ἀφίημι, of which we here have the second aorist imperative, belongs under the explanation of the noun ἄφεσις which is given in 1:77. “Forgive” is not expressive enough: “remit,” “dismiss,” “send away” render the true sense. The object is not stated but is plain from the added clause: dismiss “what they are doing.” The αὐτοῖς, “to them,” is also discussed. Who are these for whom Jesus is interceding? The answer is very readily given that the grammatical connection makes the Roman soldiers the antecedent of the pronoun. There is then discussion about the guilt of the soldiers, as to how much they knew, and to what degree they were responsible for the execution of their orders, also whether they had helped to mock Jesus in the Praetorium, and even whether they were abusive in nailing Jesus to the cross.

But such discussion is rather confusing. We have the antecedent in Jesus’ own words: he is praying for those who do not know what they are doing in bringing him to his death. Acts 3:17 tells us that this included the people; Acts 13:27 adds those dwelling in Jerusalem and their rulers, and 1 Cor. 2:8 corroborates the inclusion of the latter. Were Caiaphas and Pilate included? We prefer not to pass judgment on individuals, for God alone knows the hearts and to what degree they sin against better knowledge. Nor do we bring in the distinction between vincible and invincible ignorance, such as can be and such as cannot be helped by the person concerned. To be sure, the former involves greater guilt, but who of us can say to another person: “This you could and should have known”?

Nor was this prayer absolute, i. e., that ignorance removed all guilt or made it so slight that the Father could dismiss it without further ado. No; the very first word “dismiss it” states that these are terrible sins, something grave and serious to dismiss. This is not a case of brushing away a few feathers. This is also true with regard to the ignorance. The sinning that is connected with the Passion of Jesus is so open, flagrant, deliberate, and so multiplied that everybody who was involved knew it. It is unwarranted to claim ignorance for these outrageous sins, or to think that Jesus supposed that ignorance was back of them. “What they are doing” is defined in 1 Cor. 2:8, namely this that they were crucifying the Lord of glory, or Acts 13:27, that they were fulfilling the prophets, or Acts 3:15–17, that they were killing the Prince of Life.

It was this ignorance that Jesus referred to. All these men who did Jesus to death were an ungodly, unregenerate lot who were living in all kinds of sins besides those they perpetrated on Jesus. What good would it do them to have only the latter canceled? This prayer of Jesus involves the thought that these men may and will yet learn just what they have done, that it was God’s own Son, the Prince of Life, the Lord of Glory, and not just a man, whom their ungodliness killed.

This shows us the fulfillment of this prayer which Jesus had in mind. By no means a pardon without repentance—that would run counter to all Scripture and to the very redemption Jesus was now effecting. But a pardon through repentance when the truth would be brought home to them as the Acts passages brought it home. The knowledge that was thus wrought, which consisted of the light that would operate upon them as law and as gospel, as revealing their horrible sin and also the redemption that Jesus effected when they killed him, that knowledge was the means Jesus had in mind for causing their repentance and thus their remission, and not of one sin only but of all their sins. In other words, Jesus prays that the Father may give these murderers of his time, grace, and the knowledge that may bring them the Father’s pardon.

It is remarked that Jesus does not say: “I myself dismiss it for them; for,” etc. Why not? Because he is the Intercessor with the Father. He is acting as our High Priest. But did he not pardon others, even the malefactor (v. 43)? Ah, but all these repented. His intercession cannot take the place of absolution. Intercession is made for those who are still impenitent, absolution is intended only for the repentant.

John 19:23, 24 describes the division of the garments in detail. Luke states only that it was made, and in this case by casting lots. A common way was to place lots in a helmet and to shake them until one flew out; another way was to reach in and to draw out lot by lot. If the former way was used, one man was designated, and the first lot that flew out was his, the lot being marked for a certain portion of the four that had been arranged; John tells us that there were four. In the case of the valuable tunic of Jesus three lots would be blank, the other would win. The clothes of the victim were the perquisites of the executioners, the victim being treated as one that was already dead.

The soldiers were great gamblers. It was nothing exceptional for them to gamble for the clothes of Jesus. The clothes of the malefactors were probably divided in the same way.

Luke 23:35

35 And the people were standing beholding. Moreover, also the rulers were turning up the nose, saying, Others he saved; let him save himself if this fellow is the Christ of God, the elect.

Recall the crowd of people and of women that followed the procession out to Calvary (v. 27). All that Luke says about the people is that they were standing while looking on. This spectacle fascinated them; the past perfect of this verb is always used as an imperfect. A great circle of spectators surrounded the central scene. Instead of saying that καί implies that the people, too, were turning up the nose like the rulers, the statement should be reversed: the rulers, too, were standing like the people. Others besides the rulers did, indeed, mock Jesus while he hung on the cross as Matthew and as Mark report, but their very language shows that these were men of the city who knew what had occurred at the night trial and threw this into Jesus’ teeth.

In addition we see “also the rulers,” Matthew naming all three classes of the Sanhedrin, which is exceptional for him since the naming of two classes generally suffices. It is unwarranted, then, to think that only a few Sanhedrists persisted to the end, and that the rest were detained by duties at the Temple or elsewhere. No; so fascinated were they and so determined to see the end with their own eyes that they were out here on Calvary as a body.

Even here in public they throw their dignity to the winds, forget who they are, and, like the common herd, give way to their basest passions. What they are capable of we saw in 22:63-65. They cannot now spit on Jesus, but they certainly stab him as deeply as possible with their cowardly and vicious tongues. They go on turning up their noses at Jesus, a gesture of insulting disdain (Ps. 22:7), the imperfect tense is descriptive of what they did for some time. Luke records only their chief slanderous contribution. “Others he saved” is by no means an admission that he did save others but the very opposite. The denial that he really ever saved anybody is based on his inability to save himself.

For this is a sneer. It is plainer in Matthew where they go on: “King of Israel is he!” and mean that he is anything but that. All his miracles are derided—they must be spurious or he would help himself.

“Let him save himself,” they taunt him, “if this fellow (οὗτος, derogatory) is the Christ of God, the elect,” i. e., if he is really this as he claims. Compare 22:67, 70 in the second Jewish trial, and Matt. 26:63 the first. The Sanhedrists challenge Jesus to save himself by his Messiahship and thus to prove that he is God’s veritable Messiah. Many texts read: if he is “the Christ, the elect of God”; but the sense is unchanged because the verbal ἐκλεκτός is passive and implies that God made Jesus his elect. Luke alone has this addition, which recalls 9:35, but certainly not as being the source of this sneer. It is a problem as to how the Sanhedrists came to add “the elect.” Did they draw it from Isa. 42:1?

The claim that it means the same as “only-begotten” in John 1:14 is only turning the other claim around that “only-begotten” means no more than beloved. All we are able to say is that “the elect” goes with “the Christ,” God had appointed and chosen him for his office. The fact that Jesus was dying on the cross was plain evidence to these Jews that God had not elected but had rejected Jesus. Luke’s “elect” seems to equal Matthew’s (27:43) “if he will have him.”

36, 37) And the soldiers also began to mock him by coming up, offering him sour wine, and saying, If thou art the king of the Jews, save thyself!

It is not probable that the soldiers would have joined in the mockery if the example of the noble Sanhedrists had not stirred them up to do so. Matthew and Mark report that the Sanhedrists mocked Jesus as being “the king of Israel.” That certainly recalled to the soldiers their own mockery of Jesus in the Praetorium upon Pilate’s own order when they fixed up Jesus as “the king of the Jews” with a crown, purple robe, scepter, and ribald obeisance, etc., as they picked up the idea from Pilate himself who kept calling Jesus king of the Jews, in fact, sent out an inscription with this title on it to be fastened to Jesus’ cross. So these soldiers renew their mockery. But they pick up the new idea from these Sanhedrists to shout at this king of the Jews to save himself if he is this king.

But they put action into their mockery. They do their mocking by coming forward and by offering Jesus sour wine, ὄξος. All three participles denote mode and manner, all three modify “they were mocking” and show how this was done. It will not do to confine the mockery only to the words the soldiers spoke. This oxos was the common, cheap sour wine that was provided for the soldiers, with which they refreshed themselves during their long wait. It was their ordinary drink, and no other was available here. Coming up to the cross of Jesus, the soldiers offer him a drink, hold out their wine to him, and tell him just to step down and to reach out and to take it. It was a cruel way to mock the sufferer who had had nothing touch his lips since the night before.

This mockery on the part of the soldiers is recorded by Luke alone. It took place before the darkness fell at noon. It has nothing to do with Matt. 27:46–49; Mark 15:34–36; John 19:28–30, which occurred after the darkness, just before Jesus died. Yet some would weld Luke’s brief account together with these other accounts—a task that is fruitless.

Luke 23:38

38 Now there was also an inscription over him, The King of the Jews this.

This is the parenthetical δέ which inserts a statement that is helpful for understanding what precedes. The mocking soldiers used only what Pilate had put into this inscription. John amplifies the synoptists’ accounts on this subject by telling us that Pilate wrote and placed the inscription (by his agents, of course); that when the Jews saw it on Calvary they went and objected, but that Pilate would not change a word of it.

It is quite certain that the inscription was placed on the cross over the head of Jesus at the time of his crucifixion, and there is only a bare possibility that the inscription was an afterthought on the part of Pilate and was a bit later brought by a messenger to the centurion who was to have it put up. Inscriptions that stated why a man was crucified were common. These were also carried and displayed on the way out to the place of execution although they were not hung from the culprit’s neck, for which view no evidence has been found. We read nothing about inscriptions in the case of the malefactors—the mind of Pilate seems to have been taken up chiefly with Jesus. Not, however, until Jesus was crucified did the inscription appear and were the Jews aware of it and of the writing it bore.

It was written in three languages, which fact explains the slight variation of the wording as this is recorded by the four evangelists. All four have “The King of the Jews.” Read the accounts of the trial before Pilate and see that it started with the charge of Jesus’ being the king of the Jews, and that Pilate constantly and to the very last kept repeating “king of the Jews.” Forced to crucify Jesus by these vicious Jews, he will do so, but only as “the king of the Jews” as they have charged. This is Pilate’s revenge. He writes their own charge over the head of Jesus. But was it a crime to be “the king of the Jews”? Strange crime that would be.

This title proclaims that Jesus is innocent of any crime. Pilate sets it down as a simple fact that Jesus is “the king of the Jews”; he had examined Jesus and found it even so and had also learned what kind of king Jesus was. So he writes it for all to read, and the title is a vindication of Jesus. But it galled the Jews—their king crucified as a malefactor! They tried vainly to change this accurate caption. God’s hand was back of this; just as they could condemn Jesus only for being what he really was, God’s Son, so they are able to bring him to the cross only as what he really was, “the King, the one and only King of the Jews.” All their own and all the soldiers’ mockery of Jesus as the king must take place under this silent title, which speaks so loudly to the ends of the world in three languages by proclaiming that he is, indeed, “the King of the Jews.”

Luke 23:39

39 Moreover, one of the suspended malefactors began to blaspheme him, saying: Art thou not the Christ? Save thyself and us!

Both Matthew and Mark state positively that both robbers reviled Jesus. Any effort to change their testimony casts reflection on their veracity. To assume that they use a plural of the category and have only one malefactor in mind is unfair to their direct statement. After hearing the Jews shout about saving others these malefactors are carried away; they want to be saved from their excruciating pain and so join the chorus. Luke shows the sequence: Sanhedrists, soldiers, malefactors. But Luke speaks only of one and shows us the other as doing the very opposite. This is not a contradiction but only an addition, and a mighty important one, to the records of Matthew and Mark.

At first both malefactors reproached Jesus, but before very long one of them came to repentance, and it is this fact that Luke records. He grew silent, and then, when the other again broke out in reviling, he revealed the fact that he had changed. Is this so impossible? Both were hardened rascals when they were led out with Jesus. But they came to see and to hear mighty things regarding him from that moment onward. They were facing a slow death.

The human judgment that had been visited upon them presaged the divine judgment that awaited them so shortly. It took until this time to produce a salutary effect in the one. The denial that it could take place is met by the fact that it did take place. The only difficult matter is to explain why the same effect was not accomplished also in the other, but the fact is again that it was not accomplished.

“Art thou not the Christ?” with its interrogative word οὐχί (the strong οὐ) which implies that the question must be strongly affirmed shows how this impenitent malefactor wanted Jesus to be the Christ, wanted it for his purpose. He will let this Christ save himself, but he must then certainly save also him and his companion. That is all he wants a mighty Christ for, to escape the cross and death, to go on living his wicked life, to cheat justice. There is no shadow of repentance, no trace of faith in Christ. The question and the demand sound like one more effort on the part of the man to prod Jesus, to make him act by taunting him with the statement that he is perhaps not the Christ after all and cannot save anybody as the Sanhedrists implied.

Luke 23:40

40 But answering, the other, rebuking him, said: Dost thou not even fear God, seeing thou art in the same judgment? And we for our part justly, for we are duly receiving things worthy of what we did. But this man did nothing out of place.

Why does this malefactor answer when the other had addressed Jesus and not him? Because the other had presumed to speak for both: “Save thyself and us!” He rightly and most emphatically disavows that presumption. Jesus is silent amid all the mockery and reviling; “as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth,” Isa. 53:7. He simply endures it all. The answer was a rebuke, it was calm but straight and true. If we list the good works of this man that were done after his inward conversion, this is the first: a godly rebuke to a blatant mocker that recalls the fear of God to him and defends the Christ he mocks.

This is a necessary work, one that Christians often shrink from performing for fear of men. And this malefactor speaks out before all these other mockers, retracts what he has previously uttered to the same effect, and takes his place beside Jesus. Already by rebuking the other he confesses his own true faith in Jesus.

We combine the negative with the verb: “dost thou not even fear,” the present tense expresses the enduring fear; not with the pronoun: “not even thou,” or with the object: “not even God,” as has been done. At least the fear of God ought to have shut the other’s mocking mouth. The fear had entered the speaker’s heart. It is the dread of a holy and righteous God. Ὅτι is consecutive (R. 1001), “seeing that,” etc., and points to the consideration which the fear should have followed, which is “that thou art in the same judgment.” Note that κρίμα is a neutral term, “judgment,” not “condemnation” (our versions and others). All three had received “the same judgment,” one that remanded them to the cross and to a terrible death.

Luke 23:41

41 This malefactor at once states the great difference fully and clearly. Note the balance of μέν and δέ, which the English is unable to reproduce; also the emphatic contrast ἡμεῖς, “we for our part,” and οὗτος, “this man” (purely deictic). “And we for our part justly” is an open acknowledgment that the judgment which had been pronounced upon the two malefactors was fully deserved. And γάρ proves it: “for we are duly (ἀπό in the verb) receiving things worthy of what we did,” ᾧν is the genitive after ἄξια and is attracted from ἅ, the accusative after the verb.

That is this malefactor’s open confession of sin. How does he come to it at this late moment in his life? We have only one answer: it was wrought in him by his contact with Jesus. They know little about great sinners who reduce this man’s sins, who regard him as a kind of patriot, one whose zeal was misdirected, or as a man who had already met Jesus in his wanderings and had been touched by him. He was “a robber” (Matthew and Mark), and the plainer a man’s sins are, the more readily he may yield to the divine law in contrition for them. Many a black sinner has turned thus from his past life with unexpected suddenness.

Jesus was “in the same judgment” with them, was, like them, hanging on the cross; but, lo, the vast difference: “This man did nothing out of place.” Ἄτοπον is by no means a mere euphemism for “criminal”; the words that were spoken to Jesus put that fact beyond question. Not even an unseemly, merely improper thing, this malefactor declares, has Jesus done. Yet where is there a man in all the world who has not done something “out of place”? We need not even know a man in order to be justified in charging him with the blanket charge of having done any number of things that are improper and even worse. Yet, after seeing Jesus only for an hour or two and under such frightful circumstances, this malefactor knows that he is stainless? Let us not forget that these very circumstances were media in revealing the real nature of Jesus’ person.

If never man spoke like this man (John 7:46), and the Sanhedrin’s own police confessed it and were ready to take the severe consequences, neither did any man ever suffer like this man, and this malefactor confessed it. It is his first confession of faith. Do not ask to know all that transpired in his heart, do not dissect his knowledge and weigh it on your scales. Accept the testimony of his own confession as we accept yours.

Luke 23:42

42 And he continued to say, Jesus, remember me when thou comest in connection with thy kingdom! And he said to him, Amen, I say to thee, today in company with me shalt thou be in the Paradise!

The text which is here translated is so assured that any change that is based on textual grounds must be rejected. As far as σήμερον, “today,” and the punctuation are concerned, see the text-critical survey in Zahn. We leave textual questions to expert text critics and discuss them only in necessary cases; here all is clear in that regard. See 3:7 on ἔλεγεν and note that it means: “he continued to say.” However exceptional the lone word “Jesus” (here a vocative) may be as an address, it was used here. Since the malefactor now speaks to Jesus directly after speaking to the other malefactor, some form of address was needed. The change to “Lord” lacks support, and also the change to a dative: “he continued to say to Jesus.”

The more one contemplates this malefactor’s prayer, the more one is moved by it and grateful to Luke for its preservation. Jesus is dying on the cross, he is in a worse condition than either of the malefactors, is hounded to his death by all those about his cross, and yet this malefactor sees in him the One who will come in connection with his kingdom. This is the old Messianic verb “come,” and Jesus is the One that comes. We leave ἐν as meaning “in” and do not turn it into εἰς, “into” (A. V.). Εἰς may, indeed, crowd out ἐν and follow a static verb or a verb of being, but ἐν never = εἰς. This fact is highly important here.

“When thou comest into thy kingdom,” i. e., at thy death, is not what the malefactor either says or means. “When thou comest in thy kingdom,” i. e., in connection with it, means at the end of the world. The ἐν is here used in its original sense, “in connection with.” Jesus will come for the consummation of his kingdom and in that way “in connection with it.” And it is then that this malefactor wants to be remembered, the aorist imperative to denote one act only. This man does not see only the divine Messianic King in this dying Jesus, he sees him “in connection with” his Messianic kingdom in the day when that kingdom is to be consummated fully.

We now see what lies in the humble petition “remember me.” It is the opposite of being forgotten, which means excluded from that kingdom. “Remember me”=O heavenly King, include me, do not bar me out because of my sins and crimes! But why does he speak of that final day of the world and not of the fast-approaching hour of his death? Either includes the other. We think too much only of the latter, too little of the former.

The old conception of the Messiah placed him in connection with his glory-kingdom. In the case of the malefactor the fact deserves attention that he did not think of a political, earthly kingdom as the Jews did who debased and falsified the glory-kingdom. Jesus was indeed entering death, was not “saving himself” as his mockers cried who thought that his dying would prove that he was never the Messiah. The faith of this malefactor had risen above these vain Jewish dreams. Furthermore, this malefactor speaks of the great coming at the last day also because it is resurrection day. Why would there be a glorious coming at all, why should the great God stand at the latter day upon the earth, unless, as Job says in 19:25–27, “yet in my flesh shall I see God,” with “mine eyes” (see the author’s Eisenach Old Testament Selections, 1054, etc.)?

All this means that this malefactor was a Jew. Bengel tried to show the opposite; he argued that kingdom, Paradise (not the fathers, Abraham, etc.) pointed to a Gentile. But the Jews understood both terms, and the Gentiles had to learn the meanings that the Jews knew. So the view cannot be maintained that the impenitent malefactor represented impenitent Judaism and the penitent malefactor the believing Gentiles.

Luke 23:43

43 If the malefactor’s word was an exquisitissima oratio, what shall we say of the reply of Jesus? It certainly exceeds the oratio of the malefactor. We once more meet the seal of verity, “amen,” coupled with that of authority, “I say to thee” (compare 4:24). It should no longer be necessary to explain that “today” cannot be construed with “I say to thee.” To be sure, Jesus is saying this today—when else would he be saying it? The adverb “today” is a necessary part of Jesus’ promise to the malefactor. In fact, it has the emphasis.

It would usually take three or four days until a man would die on the cross, so lingering was death by crucifixion. But Jesus assures this malefactor that his sufferings will cease “today.” This is plain prophecy and at the same time blessed news to this sufferer. But Jesus says vastly more: “Today in company with me shalt thou be in Paradise!” This is an absolution. By this word Jesus acquits this criminal of sin and guilt. He accepts him as one of his own. By this word he here and now unlocks heaven for him.

Jesus knows that he himself will die today. It is not yet noon. If we may hazard a guess, it is between ten and eleven o’clock, and Jesus died at three. He and the malefactor will be together in Paradise before night sets in, μετά states only that they will both be there. Paradise is heaven, the abode of God, of the angels, and of the blessed. The view that it must be distinguished from the Paradise that is mentioned in 12:4 and in Rev. 2:7 is untenable.

How many Paradises are there? The LXX translate the Gan-Eden in Gen. 2:8, etc., with this Persian word “Paradise” and name heaven after the blessed Garden of Eden just as the Jews named it Abraham’s bosom. Jesus himself made this certain when he commended his spirit into his Father’s hands, v. 46. If there be a difference of opinion about the Father’s hands, see Stephen as he tells Jesus to receive his spirit and practically repeats Jesus’ words about his own spirit. The spirit of Jesus went to his Father in heaven, and the spirit of the malefactor together with it.

On what is the contention, which is so prevalent, based that the souls of Jesus and the malefactor went into the so-called intermediate place, the Totenreich, the realm of the dead, which is not heaven or hell but a place between the two, and is yet itself divided into an upper part and a lower, the upper being called “Paradise” while there is no special name for the lower? On the ground that Jesus is speaking “after the manner of the rabbis of his time.” Since when does Jesus adopt any belief of the rabbis of his time? And the proof that the rabbis taught thus has yet to be furnished.

The question is sometimes asked as to what the malefactor thought Paradise to mean. But Jesus, who knows the entire supernatural world, uttered this word and not the malefactor. So we are also told that Jesus did not enter heaven until the time of his ascension, and that his soul and the malefactor’s went elsewhere at the time of death. But Jesus ascended to heaven in his human nature and bodily, an act that was totally different from his death and the repose of his soul in his father’s hands. Jesus also did not say: “Today thou shalt be in purgatory!” Yet if a sinner ever deserved a long term in purgatory, this malefactor was such a one. His immediate transfer into heaven is proof that is fatal to the idea of a purgatory or of an intermediate place.

The malefactor had thought only of the far day of the Messiah’s return and of blessedness that was awaiting him there. Jesus assures him that this blessedness will begin in a few hours. “Together with me” tells him that he will, indeed, be remembered. Where did the malefactor think his soul would be until that distant day? Why ask when he is dead? Whatever he thought, Jesus told him where it would be, told him, too, with authority and not as the scribes did, Matt. 7:29. Think how many sinners have echoed this malefactor’s prayer! “Remember me!”—faith has always found that prayer enough. On the cross the Father hands his dying Son a trophy of victory in the repentance of this malefactor. This was refreshing to the soul of him who had come to seek and to save the lost.

Luke 23:44

44 Luke hastens with strong strides to report how Jesus died. And it was already about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole earth until the ninth hour, the sun failing. Moreover, the curtain of the Sanctuary was rent in the middle. And crying with a great cry, Jesus said, Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit! And having said this, he expired.

The first great sign in connection with the crucifixion of Jesus is this strange darkness that occurred (ἐγένετο) from the sixth Jewish hour, our noon, until the ninth, our three o’clock. This darkness came when the sun was at its zenith and was shining with its strongest light and lasted for three hours into the afternoon. All astronomical learning excludes the explanation that this was due to a natural eclipse of the sun. This cannot take place when the moon is about full. Skirmishing through all the ancient records also produces no satisfactory results. There is only one conclusion: this darkness was wholly miraculous as were also the following signs. God darkened the sun’s light by means of his own.

The fact that this darkness covered exactly what all the synoptists say it did, “the whole earth,” ought not to be questioned. Yet many contend that ἐφʼ ὅληντὴνγῆν means only “over the whole Jewish land” or even over only Jerusalem and the vicinity. These understand γῆ in the sense of “land, region, country.” But it then seems strange that “whole” should be added, and that the expression “that” land is not used. Those who translate “over the whole earth” sometimes spoil their correct view by saying that this is only “a popular way” of writing, and that, since the darkness extended over a good deal of territory, the evangelists simply wrote “over the whole earth” although they did not really mean that.

Luke 23:45

45 But Luke adds: τοῦἡλίουἐκλείποντος, “the sun failing,” and thus states that the cause of this strange phenomenon lay in the sun. When the sun itself “fails,” the entire dayside of the earth is in darkness. Some think that the darkness set in gradually, grew intenser, and then receded. The evangelists offer no support for this supposition. We are not told why the darkness lasted just three hours.

Various explanations for this darkness are offered. One is that nature suffered together with Jesus; another, which is offered frequently, that the sun could not endure to look upon Jesus’ sufferings—yet it looked upon the first three hours of those sufferings; and the sun cannot be personified in the way that is thus attempted. Closer to reality is the explanation that this darkening was a moral reaction against the killing of Jesus. It was more. This darkness signified judgment. It was not a mere reaction of the sun but a sign that was wrought in the sun by God.

Darkness and judgment go together, Joel 2:31; 3:14, 15; Isa. 5:30; 13:9, etc., and other passages that deal with the judgment such as Matt. 24:29; Mark 13:24, etc.; Luke 21:25. But this judgment was not one that would occur at a distant day but one which took place during the darkness itself, on the cross itself, in the person of the dying Savior himself. For just before the darkness lifted at the ninth hour Jesus uttered his agonizing cry: “My God, my God,” etc. At this climax of the darkness there occurred also the climax of the agony of Jesus who was under God’s judgment for the world’s sin. He endured it for the world, hence it was fitting that the whole earth should be darkened at this time. Most excellent texts read: “and the sun was darkened,” in fact, this reading should be preferred.

Matthew and Mark record the death first and then the rending of the curtain in the Sanctuary; Luke does the reverse. This is not a discrepancy. Both acts occurred practically simultaneously, and in narrating them either could be placed first. Luke loves to combine similar things; so he follows the account of the darkness with that of the rent curtain. The καταπέτασματοῦναοῦ is the inner curtain or veil that hung between the Holy and the Holy of Holies. In the Herodian Sanctuary a second curtain hung in front of the Holy Place.

This, too, was at times called katapetasma, and the plural is used to designate both curtains. But the regular term to designate the outer curtain is κάλυμμα, and the other term was used only occasionally. Yet this has led some to think that the evangelists referred to the outer curtain, but this is done without good reason.

The inner curtain is described in Exod. 26:31; 36:35; 2 Chron. 3:14. Josephus, Wars, 5, 5, 4 has the following: “This house, as it was divided into two parts, the inner part was lower than the appearance of the outer, and had golden doors of 55 cubits altitude, and 16 in breadth. But before these doors there was a veil of equal size as the doors. It was a Babylonian curtain; embroidered with blue, and fine linen, and scarlet, and purple, and of texture that was truly wonderful. Nor was this mixture of colors without its mystical interpretation. For by the scarlet there seemed to be enigmatically signified fire, by the fine flax the earth, by the blue the air, and by the purple the sea; two of them having their colors the foundation of this resemblance; but the fine flax and the purple have their own origin for that foundation, the earth producing the one, and the sea the other. This curtain had also embroidered upon it all that was mystical in the heavens, excepting that of the (twelve) signs (of the zodiac) representing living creatures.” The thickness of the curtain corresponded with its great size, and its strength was according.

This mighty curtain was all at once rent or split in the middle, ἐσχίσθημέσον, or we may translate μέσον (an accusative used as an adverb) down the middle. Matthew says “from above to below,” he starts at the top. The two pieces fell apart and thus exposed the Holy of Holies. Consternation must have struck those who saw this sight. Jesus died at three o’clock, the curtain must thus have been rent at the time the priests were busy with the evening sacrifice. Many eyes saw what happened. Even the sound of the rending perhaps attracted general attention. We have not the least reason to think that only one or two priests, who were for the moment busy in the Holy, saw the curtain rent or found it rent.

This rending was miraculous as were the other signs. We have no intimation that it was caused by the earthquake, that the curtain was stretched so tightly that it split in two when the earth shook. It would then not have split from the top down to the very bottom but would have been torn in several directions. The idea that it was fastened to a great beam at the top, and that this beam broke in two and thus tore the curtain is only conjecture.

The significance of this torn curtain is easily understood. Only once a year the high priest alone dared to pass inside this curtain, on the great Day of Atonement, as he bore blood to sprinkle on the ark for the cleansing of the nation. In Herod’s Sanctuary the Holy of Holies was empty, for the ark of the covenant that stood there in Solomon’s Temple had been removed. When this curtain was rent, God proclaimed that the ministration of the Jewish high priest was at an end. What this high priest and his annual function typified was at an end because the divine high priest, Jesus, had come and had entered into the Holy of Holies of heaven itself with his own all-atoning blood. Heb. 9:3–15; Heb. 6:19, etc.; 10:19, etc. When chiliasts say that the Jewish Sanctuary and its services will be restored in the millennium they would restore what God abrogated with the rending of this curtain and thus place themselves in contradiction to God on this matter of the final atonement.

Luke 23:46

46 Luke alone reports what must be considered the last word that was spoken on the cross. All the synoptists speak of the mighty shout with which Jesus died. He rallied all his powers in order to speak his two words: “It is finished!” which are reported by John, and: “Father, into thy hands,” etc. In his agony on the cross he could cry only: “My God, my God!” Now, as he did in his first word (v. 34), he is able once more to say, “Father.” Jesus returns to the Father as his Son after having executed the Father’s saving will. It is the Son incarnate who had given his life into all this agony and death. Spent to the utmost, weary unto death, yet knowing that the mighty task was finished, finished forever, and that all its glorious fruits would follow—so this Son calls out “Father” and lays his human spirit into his Father’s hands.

See v. 43 and the view that “the Father’s hands” must be placed in heaven. Those hands—the plural is most noteworthy because it is exceptional—are mighty indeed, omnipotent, and they are true. It is a terrible thing to fall into these hands (Heb. 10:31) but ever the height of blessedness to commend oneself into these hands.

The aorist participle expresses action that is simultaneous with that of the aorist verb. This last word was uttered with a mighty voice. Jesus did not sink slowly into death and grow weaker and weaker until he could do no more than whisper. Although he was dying of wounds and intense suffering he could within a brief period rally his final strength and die with a victorious shout. This has been denied, but in considering all that pertains to the human side of Jesus the only safe course to follow is to abide by the recorded facts and not to generalize from the experiences of men, because the body, mind, and soul of Jesus were unhurt by sin as ours are.

Why it should be denied that the loudness of voice was intended for men seems strange—for whom was it intended? To say that it expressed the intensity of the feeling of Jesus’ soul is well enough, but even we do not shout when we are intense in our feeling toward God. But all the world was to know: “It is finished!” and all the world to know: “Father, into thy hands,” etc. The intense satisfaction and joy in Jesus’ soul were not to be a secret between him and the Father but were to be fully revealed. He had been mocked again and again: “Save thyself!” Here was the answer: after the Father’s will had been done, the Son goes home!

Ps. 31:5 is referred to, and Jesus is said to utter his cry just as David uttered his. But the difference between David and Jesus is sometimes overlooked. First of all, this is the Son’s “Father,” which reduces David to a small type of the eternal Antitype. David, too, was not dying, hence the LXX translate “shall commit”; Jesus dies and says, “I commit.” The difference is still greater when we note that David is beset by enemies, from whom God is to deliver him, and when this deliverance of David’s is made to rest on the fact that God has redeemed him. All this is far removed from Jesus who is himself the Redeemer and whose enemies are removed. To argue that Jesus, like David, cries out in his distress, is to forget that all the distress is past, that Jesus has shouted in victory: “It is finished!” and that he now lays his spirit into his Father’s hands in peace and joy.

The appropriation of David’s words on the part of Jesus is thus to be understood only in a limited sense and should not be stressed beyond this narrow limitation. The force of the middle voice should be noted, παρατίθεμαι, “I deposit.” We misunderstand this word when we think that it refers to complete submission, a placing in God’s hands, so that he may do as he desires with the spirit of Jesus; no, this is a committing for the space of only three days. Jesus lays down his life and takes it up again, John 10:17, 18. Jesus makes this deposit for himself (middle), and the Father keeps his spirit in this way.

All the evangelists use choice words when they report Jesus’ death. None is content to say that “he died.” They all refer to the spirit or πνεῦμα, none only to the ψυχή although dying is also expressed by a use of the latter. As being a true man Jesus had both ψυχή and πνεῦμα; see 1:46 on the important distinction. Like Mark, Luke writes ἐξέπνευσε, “he expired,” breathed his last; but this follows hard upon the word about “my spirit” so that we may say that “he breathed out his spirit”; John says that “he gave up his spirit,” and Matthew that “he let go the spirit.”

While it is true that when he died the psyche of Jesus ceased to animate his body, which then hung lifeless on the cross, it was yet eminently proper for the evangelists to describe his dying by no reference to the psyche but by reference only to his pneuma; for never did the body of Jesus rule his person through his psyche, it was always his pneuma or “spirit” that exercised complete control. So it is true enough that when he died Jesus breathed out his psyche, and his body became inanimate; but much more is said when it is stated that his pneuma and all its exalted powers left his body.

Yet the exalted expressions that are used by the evangelists should not lead us to think that Jesus’ death differed from our own. The separation of his soul and spirit from the body was the same as ours is. Nor was the Logos separated from the human nature of Jesus when he died. Body, soul, and spirit constitute the human nature of Jesus just as they do ours, but in him the ἐγώ or personality was the Logos. The death of Jesus affected in no way the union of the Logos with the human nature. This death affected only the human nature, for by it alone was the Son able to die. God’s Son died in his human nature, and in that alone. Compare Delitzsch, Biblische Psychologie, 400, etc., on the whole subject.

The πνεῦμα of Jesus left his body, and thus he died. It is unwarranted to refer to John 10:17, 18 to prove that Jesus died, not from physical causes, but by a mere volition of his will. That passage deals with the entire action of Jesus in giving himself into death for us. He laid down his life when, as he said in advance, he voluntarily entered his Passion, the end of which would be death by crucifixion. It was the physical suffering that killed Jesus, the Scriptures assign no other cause. But we conceive of his death as being one of peace and joy, a triumphant return to his Father after the hard and bitter work of redeeming the world.

Certain older medical authorities have held that the actual death was induced by a rupture of the walls of his heart so that we might satisfy our sentimental feelings by saying that Jesus “died of a broken heart” although breaking one’s heart is not physical at all, Acts 21:13. Our latest and best authorities inform us that a heart lesion could result only from a degeneration of the heart, and this occurs only in older persons upon whom disease has left its effects. This answers also the tentative suggestion that some artery perhaps burst and caused his death.

Luke 23:47

47 Now the centurion, on seeing what occurred, began to glorify God, saying, Certainly this man was righteous!

“What occurred” includes the earthquake and the rending of the rocks (Matthew). Mark states: “That he expired thus.” We now learn that no less an officer than a centurion commanded the detail that crucified Jesus. We cannot say how many soldiers were ordered out for the execution; some think of only twelve, four for each person who was crucified, yet an additional guard for the sake of safety may well have been added. Matthew combines the centurion with his men and says that they were all affected alike. He adds that they were frightened, and the nature of this fright is religious.

When Matthew and Mark record the exclamation that Jesus was the Son of God whereas Luke writes that he was righteous, the two exclamations were combined. Both exclamations were uttered. Considering the centurion alone, of whom Luke writes, he had seen how Jesus was brought to the cross, had witnessed his conduct throughout the ordeal, had heard the mockery by which Jesus was reviled as claiming to be the Son of God. Then came his death with the cry “Father,” the earthquake, and the rending of the rocks. Taking it all together, we see why the centurion exclaimed as he did.

“God’s Son” was directed against the mocking taunts. “Righteous” is directed against the whole treatment that was accorded Jesus, the effort to make him a criminal and executing him as being one. Ὄντως, “actually,” “certainly,” sets this declaration over against all that the Jews might think and claim. The centurion agrees with the malefactor in regard to who and to what Jesus was. Why reduce these confessions to the lowest possible level? If they amounted to next to nothing, why were the inspired writers allowed to set them down for all time? The Christian view is to let these confessions stand in their full weight. Legend reports that this centurion, (his name being reported as Longinus) became a believer; evidence points also to the fact that the legionaries who were at this time stationed in Jerusalem were Gauls, i. e., Germans.

The imperfect is ingressive: “began to glorify”; and since Jesus is dead, the centurion says that he “was” righteous, i. e., that there was nothing against him. So Jesus won other victories in his death.

Luke 23:48

48 And all the multitudes that had come along together for this spectacle, after viewing the things that occurred, striking their breasts, began to return. But all those known to him continued standing far off, also women, those who together used to follow him from Galilee, looking on at these things.

The plural “multitudes” is correct, for the city was filled, not with thousands, but with tens of thousands. Thus great crowds “came along together for the spectacle,” θεωρία is found only here in the New Testament but is otherwise used to designate a theatrical show. Yet when these crowds saw the show, viewed the spectacle of what occurred, even they were struck in their hearts. Luke says nothing about the earthquake, etc., but includes its occurrence in “the things that occurred.” Now that is, was all over, they began to stream back to the city, the imperfect pictures them as being on the way; but they were beating their breasts, and Luke names this involuntary gesture to indicate with what feelings they were leaving. They came to witness a show, they left with feelings of woe. God’s sign language that crowned the six hours that Jesus was on the cross and the manner of his death made even these crowds realize that something terrible had been done when Jesus was sent to the cross.

Oh, oh, what had their rulers done! Luke reports only the general impression that was made, for the thoughts and the feelings varied greatly among so many.

Did this feeling pass away and leave no fruit? Some think so. But, surely, with this feeling we may combine Peter’s sermon at Pentecost, Acts 2:22–24, which drove at the consciences with the direct charge: “Him ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain,” and produced the effect that they were pricked in their hearts and cried: “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” The pilgrims scattered, but the people of Jerusalem, who were the very ones who had sanctioned the death of Jesus, remained, and many heard Peter’s sermon.

Luke 23:49

49 Luke distinguishes sharply from the crowds “all those known to him” and uses the adversative δέ, and “all” suggests that they were a goodly company. “Also women” (no article) names these especially and then describes them as being “they who together used to follow him (present participle) from Galilee,” which recalls 8:2, 3. Matthew and Mark name some of them and add the detail that they had ministered to Jesus just as Luke 8 reports. Matthew’s “many” shows that the women, too, were quite a number. Luke paints the scene with his imperfect tenses and present participles: the crowds were returning and striking their breasts, and the friends and the women were standing and looking on at these things. But he abuts the two imperfect verbs and draws more attention to the tenses; he also arranges them in the form of a chiasm with the subjects outside and the verbs inside.

Alas, only one of the eleven was there: John. Here would have been the place for Peter, but he had to crowd in where the devil could make him fall. The present participle ὁρῶσαι is feminine and gets its gender from γυναῖκες but belongs also to γνωστοί; all were seeing. Luke purposely changes the participle in both meaning and tense from the θεωρήσαντες that was used in v. 48. The crowds viewed a spectacle, these friends were seeing what was taking place with breaking hearts.

The crowds left, everything was over as far as they were concerned. These friends were still standing, could not leave, all was not over for them by any means. Love for the dead Jesus held them. What would become of his body? They were torn with grief, and a new dread wrings their hearts. The fact that they stood afar off (the Greek idiom is “from afar” and measures from Jesus) ought not to be attributed to their fear.

John and Jesus’ mother and Mary Magdalene had found an opportunity to go right up to the cross. This standing far off was due to necessity. The soldiers guarded the crosses, kept a wide space free about them, and would certainly not let a large company of friends of Jesus approach. Though Jesus was already dead, he might still hang on the cross for a long time. The others were not dead; so the guard remained. We know that later the order came to dispatch the victims, and Jesus was found to be already dead.

Luke’s imperfect tenses are more than descriptive, they hold the reader in suspense as to what will follow. And something most unexpected and remarkable did follow as Luke now tells with an exclamation.

Luke 23:50

50 And lo, a man by name Joseph, being a councillor, a man good and righteous (this one had not voted for their counsel and action) from Arimathaea, a city of the Jews, who was waiting for the kingdom of God: this one, having gone to Pilate, asked in due order for the body of Jesus.

Jesus was dead; there stood his friends and the women, utterly helpless, utterly unprepared. No one had thought that matters would progress this far. Nor was there a leader who could take charge of things and know what to do. It seemed as if the sacred body would be dragged away by the soldiers and put out of sight in some pit together with the bodies of the malefactors. What else could be done? God took care of his Son’s body in death. It is laid away in a most astonishing manner in fulfillment of Isa. 53:9: “And he made his grave … with the rich in his death.” Help appeared suddenly, help such as no man would have dreamed possible. Joseph of Arimathaea came forward, took full charge, and attended to the proper burial.

Luke describes Joseph at length and yet leaves out the fact that he was rich and for this reason also a man of standing and influence. The dative ὀνόματι, “with name,” is one of the common ways of introducing a person’s name. It is astonishing to learn that he was a “councillor,” one of the seventy that constituted the Council or Sanhedrin. But after all that Luke’s Gospel has told us about this body it was quite necessary to say that Joseph was unlike the body to which he belonged, that he was “a man good and righteous.” Δίκαιος is explained in 1:6, and “upright” is not an accurate translation.

23:51) Joseph’s membership in the Sanhedrin necessitates a further explanation, which Luke places in parentheses: he had not voted for their counsel and action. The middle voice of the periphrastic past perfect means “to deposit a vote with.” The counsel and the action to which Luke refers were the first, when the Sanhedrin voted to have Jesus put out of the way. Luke states only that Joseph did not vote for these measures. Did he vote against them? We do not know. Matthew and John tell us that he was a disciple of Jesus, but John adds that he kept this fact secret for fear of his colleagues.

This body had officially threatened to expel from the synagogue any man who dared to confess Jesus (John 9:22), and this meant complete cutting off from the Jewish religion and ostracism from official, social, and commercial intercourse. It was fear that sealed Joseph’s lips. So it is no wonder that he remained away from the Sanhedrin or was not even summoned the night when it was voted to put Jesus to death.

“From Arimathaea” names his home town and not his present home, which was Jerusalem, for there he had his tomb made, one that was not yet quite finished. The mention of his home town serves to distinguish him from other Josephs. Arimathaea is the town of Rama, which was originally a part of Samaria but was later transferred to Judea so that Luke identifies it as “a city of the Jews.” Instead of calling Joseph a disciple, Luke says that he was one of those who were “waiting for the kingdom of God” (Mark 15:43), in this respect he was like Simeon and Anna who are mentioned in 2:25, 38. He felt that the time was near for the coming of the Messiah and his royal rule, but he considered it a spiritual rule. He had turned to Jesus in this expectation.

Luke 23:52

52 This man, who has thus far been fearful and cowardly, does an astonishing thing. He casts his fears to the winds and boldly takes charge now that the great need has arisen. He must have stood among the spectators for a long while. Then, after his resolve had been made, he most likely first spoke to the centurion about going to Pilate and asked him to wait with the disposal of the body of Jesus. The centurion gladly assented to the proposal of a man who was as important as this one was. So Joseph hurries to Pilate, and προσελθών means that he went right into the Prætorium to the governor himself.

But we should not suppose that he broke with the entire Jewish religion by thus entering a Gentile abode. All that he did was to incur ceremonial pollution for that day. The Sanhedrists had avoided this when they came to Pilate with Jesus, but only because they wanted to eat the chagiga in the afternoon. Joseph was not concerned about eating this sacrificial meal, he intended to bury Jesus and would be unclean anyway because of his handling Jesus’ dead body.

Luke’s aorist states only that he asked and obtained the body, he omits the fact that Pilate first made sure that Jesus was already dead. When R., W. P., says that the middle voice means that Joseph asked the grant of the body as a personal favor he contradicts his grammar, cf., R. 805. The middle of this verb is used in business transactions. The Romans quite generally allowed the relatives and the friends of men who had been executed to bury their bodies if they so desired. It was on this ground that Joseph based his request, which Pilate granted readily. Hence also Matthew writes ἀποδοθῆναι; Pilate commanded the body “to be duly given” even as Joseph had “asked in due order.”

Luke 23:53

53 Joseph did not at once hurry from Pilate to Calvary. Mark tells us that he first bought fine linen for the body. He could easily buy this on his way back to the hill of crucifixion; linen for burial purposes Was always available. But the great point to be noted is the fact that he bought only the linen and no spices. The synoptists say nothing whatever about Nicodemus, but John reports that he bought only the spices and no linen. We are compelled to conclude that these two men, both of whom were Sanhedrists, met early enough somewhere, somehow to confer with each other, to join in this task and thus to divide their purchases. Nicodemus bought a hundred pounds of spices, a lavish amount; he must have engaged a couple of carriers to bring the load, being too old to manage it himself.

And having taken it down, he wrapped it in fine linen and placed him in a tomb, rock-hewn, where no one ever yet had been laid.

It is Joseph who “took down” the body, καθαιρέω, the regular verb to indicate this act. He is the actor throughout. This means that he took full charge, the others who helped permitted him to lead. That, too, may be the reason the synoptists say nothing about Nicodemus.

Joseph must have been a masterful man. He certainly had help, and we may think of Nicodemus, John, the centurion, and a number of women. It is possible that some of his men helped at the centurion’s direction. It seems most probable that the body was lowered from the cross after the nails had been drawn out of it. Means to reach the crosspiece were at hand, they were the same that had been used in crucifying Jesus.

Like Matthew and Mark, Luke says only that the body was wrapped in σινδών, cloth of fine linen which was torn into long strips for the purpose of wrapping it around the limbs and the body. John speaks of these ὀθόνια or bands, between which the aromatic spices were sprinkled as they were being wrapped. Only the head was left free to be covered with a special cloth after the body had been deposited in the tomb. The bloodstains must have been removed from the body before this was done; perhaps the sour wine of the soldiers was used for this purpose with the centurion’s permission. No anointing of the body was possible on Calvary; Mary of Bethany had attended to that in advance, John 12:7.

But where could the body of Jesus be taken now that a tomb so suddenly became a vital necessity? It is Joseph who meets also this need. All the evangelists tell about the tomb, and Matthew says “his own new tomb” and informs us that it belonged to Joseph. It was “rock-hewn,” cut out of the solid rock of a cliffside. It was new, and Luke and John add the detail that it was so new that no one had as yet been laid in it.

Note the three negatives in the clause, each strengthens the other in Greek fashion. The form of the verb is the periphrastic imperfect, but it is regularly used as a past perfect and as a passive for τίθημι, “had been laid.” “Was laid” (A. V.) is wrong in voice. Luke could have written ἦντιθειμένος. R. 375, 906. John adds the note that this fine, new tomb was near Calvary, which made it especially available when the friends of Jesus were pressed for time—the Sabbath began with the setting of the sun. The body could hardly be carried away to any great distance. Here Joseph laid “him,” Luke writes, αὐτόν, “him,” whereas he just before wrote αὐτό, “it,” the body. Joseph did not dissociate Jesus’ person and his body.

A tomb “where no one ever yet had been laid,” new and sweet, where no decay or odor of death had as yet entered, was a fitting place for the body of Jesus which no corruption or decomposition dared ever to touch (Acts 2:27). Here his holy body would have peaceful rest, all its dreadful, painful work being done. Yet Jesus was not intended for a tomb. He needed one only on our account and only until the third day. Luther writes: “As he has no tomb for the reason that he will not remain in death and the tomb; so we, too, are to be raised up from the tomb at the last day through his resurrection and are to live with him in eternity.”

Quite recently, in a quiet spot just outside the walls of the present Jerusalem, at the foot of a skull-shaped hill (Golgotha, most likely), the so-called “Garden Tomb” has been discovered, which corresponds in every detail with the data that are furnished by the Gospels regarding Joseph’s tomb. It must have belonged to a rich man, for it is an ample chamber, hewn out of the solid cliff, the face of which is smooth and perpendicular. The floor is not sunken, does not need to be. It has a vestibule and in the main chamber along the three sides only three places for bodies, the center being left unused. It is a new tomb, for only one place for a body is finished, the other two are not quite completed. The place toward the cliff has its floor hewn out a little in the shape of a human body.

The three places for bodies along the sides of the three walls are cut out boxlike, the bottom of each being level with the floor. At the foot-end of the place that is finished for a body and likewise at the head-end, between this and the next place for a body, the stone is left thick enough to afford a seat so that an angel could sit, “one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain,” John 20:12, and the angel at the feet would also be “sitting on the right side,” Mark 16:5, as one enters the vestibule. These heavier rock sections across the foot-end and on the left of the head-end are still intact whereas the thinner wall along the side where the body lay has mostly broken down. When the author viewed this tomb he was deeply impressed and compelled to say, “If this is not the actual tomb into which Jesus was laid it duplicates it in every respect.” So many fake sites are shown in the Holy Land that to view a site like this leaves an unforgettable impression.

The great stone that was rolled before the door of the tomb was a flat, upright slab, circular like a great wheel. This moved in a groove that was next to the cliff and was wheeled back to the left to expose the door, forward to close it. The groove slanted upward from the door so that, when the stone was wheeled to the left, it had to be blocked to hold it in place. The bottom of the slant was just in front of the door, where the stone would come to rest on a level. After the body was duly placed into the tomb, the circular slab closed the entrance as indicated. This stone should not be called a “boulder.” It is no boulder and is never called πέτρος but always λίθος; and no one can imagine how a rough boulder could do anything but merely block a rectangular door.

Luke 23:54

54 And it was Preparation Day, and Sabbath was dawning.

Mark calls this day the pro-Sabbath, the others “the Preparation,” Luke “Preparation Day.” This was, of course, Friday, but not in the sense that every Friday was “Preparation Day”; only one Sabbath had such a Friday, and that was the Sabbath of the Passover week. “Preparation” means that all things had to be prepared and arranged in such a way that this high and exceptional Sabbath could be spent in perfect quiet in the most solemn manner. Such was the day, and it was now almost over, for “Sabbath was dawning.” The imperfect shows that it was coming gradually.

What sounds strange to us is the fact that it should “be dawning” when it began when the first star appeared in the sky in the late evening. A variety of explanations are given by the commentators, and the most probable seems to be that the verb is taken from the dawning of the natural day in the morning and was transferred to the evening with its first starlight. Luke describes the time and its character to show why the burial had to be hurried; yet he does not wish to say that it was finished a little before starlight, it had to be finished before that in order to leave time for other very important work that had to be done before the Sabbath actually set in.

Luke 23:55

55 Now after following behind, the women, those who had come together with him from Galilee, viewed the tomb and how his body was laid. Moreover, having returned, they prepared aromatic spices and perfumes. And for the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment.

The men of the little company carried the body—such was the funeral procession. The clause about the women who had followed him out of Galilee does more here than does the same reference in v. 49; αἵτινες = “since they were such as” and in addition to identifying the women again states the reason they were here. What had drawn them to follow Jesus from Galilee held them now even though he was dead. They could not tear themselves away. The men could have attended to the burial alone since all that was to be done was to lay the body gently down in the place that had been hewn out in the rock chamber and was ready to have a body placed there. Only the linen cloth needed to be placed around the head.

The women rendered no service at all. Yet they had business here. They viewed the tomb, also how the body was placed. They did all this, of course, because of their love and for themselves; but also because they intended to return on Sunday morning in order to anoint the body and thereby to complete what could not be attended to late on this Friday afternoon for lack of material, time, and facilities. It was the first time they had seen this tomb, its construction and its facilities, and so they viewed it all. The view that they did this from a distance is not tenable. They went in and saw just how the body was placed in its rock chamber. Sad, sad sight for their torn hearts!

Luke 23:56

56 Some of the women lingered after the tomb had been closed by the wheeling of the great round slab in place, which closes the door, and after the men and the other woman had returned to the city. But Luke speaks only of the return and that the women prepared the aromata, aromatic, costly spices in powdered form, and the myra, perfume liquids or extracts, which were to be used as early as possible on Sunday for making the burial as perfect as possible. This could not be put off for fear decay might make it impossible to handle the body. Even hours counted because they had to wait two whole nights and a day before they could possibly come to the body again, and corruption starts quickly in that climate. So the women got everything ready on Friday so they could hasten out very early on Sunday.

Yes, some time was still left on Friday; we need not suppose, as some do, that this Preparation Day was extended into the early hours of the Sabbath after starlight, which made it possible to do work that needed to be done in preparation for the Sabbath. The main thing was to buy the materials and to arrange them in readiness for Sunday. On Saturday the Sanhedrists succeeded in having a Roman guard placed before the tomb after placing a seal on the stone and the rock wall, the breaking of which would betray any attempt to move the stone. Luke is careful to tell us that, despite all their need of preparing materials, the women strictly obeyed the Jewish commandment of complete rest on the Sabbath (the accusative to indicate the extent of time).

The holy body rested quietly in Joseph’s tomb. Little had Joseph thought that he would use it so soon and for such a purpose. That body would presently arise, arise in a glorified state. The light of Easter would soon illumine Calvary.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.