John 19

David Lipscomb Commentary On John 19 BEFORE PILATE John 19:1-16 (See also John 18:1-40) 1 Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him.—The scourging was a severe beating upon the naked flesh. It was a degrading punishment, one to which the Roman citizen could not be subjected. (Acts 22:25.) Paul claimed exemption from it because he was a Roman citizen. The citizen differed from the subject who belonged to some of the provinces subjected to the Roman government. It was customary to scourge those who were crucified. It is thought that Pilate scourged him, thinking that this would excite the sympathy of the Jews and that they would be satisfied without his crucifixion. 2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and arrayed him in a purple garment;—This was done in ridicule of his claims to be a king. The crown of thorns was not an instrument of torture, but of ridicule. The thorns were brambles, not thorns that would pierce. 3 and they came unto him, and said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they struck him with their hands.—They hailed him as King of the Jews, yet smite him with their hands, as much as to say, a poor king that may thus be smitten with impunity. A reed was placed in his hands to ridicule his claims to kingly power. (Matthew 27:29.) [The Jews had already demanded his death by crucifixion. (Luke 23:20-21.) If condemned to this death, scourging must necessarily precede it. The scourge was made of rods or thongs with pieces of bone or lead fas-tened to one end. The condemned person received the blows while fastened to a post so as to have the back bent and the skin stretched. With the blows the back became raw and the blood spurted out. The punishment was so cruel that the condemned person very often succumbed to it immediately.] 4 And Pilate went out again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him out to you,—Seeing Jesus thus mocked and ridiculed, when he knew he was innocent of crime, seemed to arouse his sense of justice, and the sympathy of Pilate for Jesus, and he brought him forth and showed him to the Jews and said: that ye may know that I find no crime in him.—In this Pilate shows that he had some sense of justice and right, and that he preferred to let him go free. He had an apprehension too that Jesus was more than human. The trouble with Pilate was that he was not willing to suffer for the truth. He saw justice, acknowledged it, but was lacking in the devotion and manhood that made him willing to suffer for the truth and do justice at all hazards. There was nothing of the true hero in Pilate. 5 Jesus therefore came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple garment.—Jesus was serious, solemn, earnest; bore the buffetings and the ridicule of the soldiers; and with the crown of thorns and the mock robe Pilate brought him out and showed him to the Jews. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold, the man!—He no doubt said this, thinking to appease their wrath, excite their sympathy, and induce them to be satisfied to let Jesus go free. Look at him in this pitiful condition! Does he look to be dangerous to you or to me, to your ecclesiastical or my secular power, thus to be treated, and no friends to speak for him?] 6 When therefore the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him!—Instead of appeasing or satisfying them, it seemed the more to infuriate them and with increased wrath. Pilate knew they had no right to crucify him, neither did Pilate, when he was innocent. So they demanded that he should be crucified without cause. Pilate saith unto them, Take him yourselves, and crucify him: for I find no crime in him.—His crucifixion on these testimonies is unlawful, you demand it, you do the deed. [ Pilate’ s patience was evidently giving out. As they were disregarding all law and justice in demanding that he should crucify him, they might just as well disregard law and crucify him themselves. Perhaps he meant to intimate that as governor he would not hold them responsible; but they were too wily to take such a risk.] 7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by that law he ought to die,—As justification for their course, they now bring forth their law that makes blasphemy against God ground for inflicting death on him. Pilate could not condemn them for respecting their own law, and the Roman government gave them the right to enforce their law on their sub¬jects, modified by the requirement that death could not be inflicted without the sanction of the Roman government. because he made himself the Son of God.—The statement that he claimed to be the Son of God and according to their law he should die possibly palliated their course in demanding his death, but it involved Pilate in a greater difficulty. He had been impressed by the hearing of Jesus that he was a superior being, and now if he claims to be the Son of God, it increases the importance of the case and greatly increases Pilate’ s responsibility. He may be dealing with God and not man. [They repudiate Pilate’ s intimation of illegality in their demand, and undertake to demonstrate that it is legal and just. Jesus was guilty of blasphemy, if a mere man, which by Jewish law (Leviticus 24:16) incurred the penalty of death. As Pilate had taken away from them the legal power of death, he was bound by general Roman policy to recognize their decision, and give the sentence that he only could give. This is the argument implied.

Here is the Jewish testimony to the fact that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and thus far it is true. Pilate was in close quarters.] 8 When Pilate therefore heard this saying, he was the more afraid;—The idea that he might be God made Pilate afraid. At this time came the message from Pilate’ s wife, “ saying, Have thou nothing to do with that righteous man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.” (Matthew 27:19.) By this Pilate’ s fears were more aroused. [Pilate had not heard this before. Up to this time the whole accusation before him was that claiming to be Messiah, he claimed to be a king, and was therefore a rival of Caesar, and, as such, ought to die by Roman law. They realize now that this plea has failed, and so enter another, that of verse 7. He realized that Jesus was something out of the common order of men, and these words aroused in his mind a weird questioning as to who or what he might be. The fear he had felt in con¬nection with him was now intensified.] 9 and he entered into the Praetorium again, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.— [All the interviews with the Jews had taken place outside, because these eminently religious ( ?) gentlemen feared to be defiled on this sacred day by entering a Gentile room. Pilate took Jesus with him for a private audience, but Jesus made no reply to his question, and why should he? His silence was answer enough— that, if he did not make this claim, he would certainly have denied it.] 10 Pilate therefore saith unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to release thee, and have power to crucify thee?—This was said half as a threat and half as a promise to him. Neither the fear nor the hope moved Jesus. The peace of God was his that no fear or prom¬ise could disturb. 11 Jesus answered him, Thou wouldest have no power against me, except it were given thee from above:—Jesus was perfectly composed, realizing that he was guarded and guided by God. Judas was chosen of God to betray Jesus into the hands of his enemies. He was chosen because he was suited in character to do the work. [In reply to Pilate’ s arrogant boast, Jesus asserts the supremacy of God, perhaps with a significant gesture pointing up. God allows him to exert this power.] therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath greater sin.—Judas and the Jews who accused and delivered him were greater sinners than Pilate. [Some think it no greater sin than Pilate, but greater sin on his own part on account of delivering him to Pilate.] 12 Upon this Pilate sought to release him:—Pilate showed a disposition to release him. He shows none of the marks of a bloodthirsty, vicious, or cruel man. He presents the character of a placable man, approving right and truth, but no strength of character to maintain right and enforce justice. Of the characters who dealt with Jesus in his personal ministry only Judas surpasses in turpitude and shame that of Pilate. Christendom has reechoed this judgment of God. To get the benefit of this judgment of God and man, we must recognize the sins for which they were condemned.

Judas for the love of money betrayed Jesus, the embodiment of truth, justice, and mercy of God into the hands of his enemies. Pilate, with the power to rescue and save Jesus in his hands, for fear of losing his place, incurring the ill will of the Jews, bearing testimony to his innocence, yet turned him over to his enemies to be crucified. The same truths and interests then embodied in the fleshly body of Christ are now embodied in his spiritual body. Why is it not as great sin to betray the spiritual body as it was the fleshly? Why is the man who knows the truth and for the sake of popularity refuses to maintain it as guilty as was Pilate for so treating the fleshly body? but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou release this man, thou art not Caesar’ s friend: every one that maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.—Pilate made a show still of de¬siring to release Jesus. The Jews seeing his hesitating, tem¬porizing spirit directly threatened him with Caesar’ s displea¬sure since Jesus claimed to be a king and the rival of Caesar. 13 When Pilate therefore heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment-seat at a place called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha.—Under this threat of the Jews, Pilate cowardly brought Jesus out and took his seat in the hall where he was accustomed to deliver his judg¬ments and decisions. 14 Now it was the Preparation of the passover: it was about the sixth hour.—There is disagreement between this statement and that of Mark (Mark 15:25), who says he delivered him to them the third hour of the day. Most critics think it should be the third hour or nine o’ clock. Some think it was six o’ clock in the morning, counting six hours from twelve o’ clock. Mark uses the Hebrew count and makes the crucifixion begin at nine o’ clock. Pilate yielded to them, released Barabbas, scourged Jesus, and delivered him to the Jews to be crucified. He did this against his judgment of what was right and just to appease the Jews.

He had made cowardly surrender to their demands for fear that he might be accused to Caesar as encouraging treason against him. [There is no contradiction between the statement of John and that of Mark regarding the time that Pilate gave sentence against Christ. The Jews divided the day into four quarters, which they called hours. The first was called the third hour, which answers to our ninth; the second, called the sixth hour, answering to our twelfth; the third, called the ninth hour, answering to our three in the afternoon; the fourth, called the twelfth hour, which was the time of their retirement from labor, and the beginning of the first watch. The whole time from the third hour to the sixth, that is, from nine to twelve, was called the third hour; and the whole intervening time from the sixth to the ninth, that is, from twelve to three, is called the sixth hour. John does not say it was the sixth hour, but about or near the sixth hour. So when he says about the sixth hour, and Mark the third hour, we are to understand that Mark takes in the whole time of the third hour, from nine to twelve, and that John puts it near twelve.

So in either case our Lord was sentenced between the hours of nine and twelve.] And he saith unto the Jews, Behold, your King!—Like cow¬ardly spirits after yielding in the important matters, they show spite and tyranny in small ones, so he tantalizes them by calling Jesus their King. 15 They therefore cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him!—Aroused and excited by their success, with more bitterness they cry out thus. Pilate still taunts them with demanding the crucifixion of their King. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.—The Jews were anxious to be free from the dominion of the Ro¬mans, but to meet Pilate on grounds that condemn him, they claim Caesar as their only king. Men maddened with wicked fury profess anything to carry their ends. 16 Then therefore he delivered him unto them to be crucified.—Pilate yielded and gave Jesus to be crucified by the Roman soldiers at the behest of the priests and Pharisees and they took him away from the court of Pilate. [We should note how careful the Holy Spirit is to record the time when Pilate gave sentence against Christ. In general, it was on the day of the preparation for the Passover; that is, the day immediately before it, when they prepared everything needed for the solemnization; and, in particular, it was about the sixth hour of that day. We should also observe the great love and condescension of Christ in stooping so low to expiate our guilt, which deserveth eternal sufferings.] DEATH, BURIAL, AND OF JESUSJoh_19:17-42 Joh 20:1-25 JESUS BEARS THE CROSS John 19:17-24 17 They took Jesus therefore: and he went out, bearing the cross for himself,—They went forward in the work with all haste, wishing to get through with it before the Passover. Jesus started to the place of crucifixion without the gate, bearing his own cross. From some cause, supposed to be exhaustion on the part of Jesus, before he reached the place, Simon of Cyrene coming along was compelled to bear it for him. unto the place called The place of a skull, which is called in Hebrew Golgotha:—The location of this place is not known. Some think it was the common place for executing criminals. 18 where they crucified him,—The crucifixion consisted in nailing him to a cross. The hands were stretched out and a nail driven through the fleshly part of each hand into the crossbar nailed across the upper end of the post. The feet were then nailed to the post. A pin was put into the upright post between the legs to support the body. The person thus nailed to the cross frequently lingered four or five days before death relieved their sufferings. and with him two others, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.—[Matthew and Mark say they were “ robbers,” and Luke “ malefactors.” Probably they were accomplices of Bar- abbas, who had escaped occupying the place of Jesus through the determined malice of the chief priests. (See Isaiah 53:12.)] 19 And Pilate wrote a title also, and put it on the cross.— Over the head of the person the crime for which he was exe¬cuted was written that all that saw might know the crime. Pilate wrote this title as if resentful to the Jews for pressing on him to crucify him against his wishes. And there was written, JESUS OF , THE KING OF THE JEWS.—[It is impossible to resist the im¬pression that there was a grim humor in the writing of Pilate. The Jews had humiliated him in forcing him to assent to the crucifixion. He now gets even with them by conceding the al¬leged claim of Jesus, and crucifying thus their king. Had he been acquainted with the prophecies, he might have realized a still more profound significance in the inscription.] 20 This title therefore read many of the Jews, for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city;—The cross was erected in a public place that it might be seen. and it was written in Hebrew, and in Latin, and in Greek.—This was written in the three languages spoken by the people that all might be informed of the charge against him. It is rather singular that each of the evangelists records this and no two of them give it in exactly the same language. If there were only three variations, these might be explained as translations from the three languages in which it was written. As it is, the copying was not exact, although all the writings are substantially the same. [The biting taunt of Pilate was made as public and accessible as possible. It was felt too as shown by next verse.] 21 The chief priests of the Jews therefore said to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but, that he said, I am King of the Jews.—The priests were chagrined at his saying, “ The King of the Jews,” and suggested that he change it. [Pilate evidently had his revenge.] 22 Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.—Pilate, like many other cowardly men who allow themselves to be drawn into wrong, after he had committed the main crime, becomes courageous in some minor point so he refuses to accommodate them. [Pilate’ s natural stubbornness once again had sway now that he had deprived them of all ground of accusation in appeal to Caesar. So, to all time, Calvary proclaims the truth, the reality of the claims of Jesus and the same of the apostasy of the Jews.] 23 The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also the coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.—The garments of the victim were the prerequisites of the soldiers who executed him. There were four of these soldiers. They stripped Jesus of his clothing. There were four pieces of his inner garments. Each soldier took a piece. His coat or outer garment was seamless, woven throughout. To divide it would destroy its value so they cast lots for it. 24 They said therefore one to another, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be:—[Some see in this a symbol of the unity of the church and superintending provi¬dence that the symbol might be preserved.] that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.—These soldiers knew nothing of this prophecy, yet fulfilled it in following their own idle fancies. The Jews fulfilled the scriptures and proved him to be the Son of God while gratifying their bitterness toward him by crucifying him. [The quotation is from Psalms 22:18, according to the Septuagint. Luke records that the soldiers mocked him, offering him vinegar, and bidding him to save himself. Here we may mention the prayer of Jesus for his enemies, given only by Luke, the derision of chief priests, scribes, elders, people and robbers, and the episode of the penitent thief.] JESUS COMMITS HIS MOTHER TO JOHNJoh_19:25-27 25 These things therefore the soldiers did. But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother,—It had been fore¬told to his mother that a sword would pierce through her own soul. This was now fulfilled as she beholds her son and the Son of God nailed to the cross. and his mother’s sister,—[Named Salome (Mark 15:40), the mother of John and James. (Matthew 27:56.)] Mary the wife of Clopas,—She is supposed to have been a near kinswoman. and Mary Magdalene.—Out of Mary Magdalene he had cast seven demons. Her gratitude led her to follow him, minister to him, and led her to come near him while he is nailed to the cross. 26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold, thy son!—The disciple whom Jesus loved was John the writer of the book of John. He is supposed to have been a kinsman of Jesus and his mother. His love for his mother and his desire to provide for her wants during her remaining days on earth led him to forget his own sufferings on the cross in the home of one noted for his tenderness and love. [The relationship in the flesh between Jesus and his mother was about to close, hence he commends her to another who should care for and protect her during old age. A son, who will not provide for his mother, is not worthy to be called a son. The last time the mother of Jesus is mentioned she was with John in Jerusalem, which would indicate that John was true to his trust. This was as great a compliment as Jesus could have given John as pertaining to this world.] 27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold, thy mother! And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own home.—This expressive language shows his tender love and the will¬ingness of both his mother and John to comply with his wishes. This circumstance would seem to indicate that Mary at this time had no other children to whom she could look for kindness and support. This would indicate that Joseph her husband was dead. No mention of his life or death has been made after Jesus began his public ministry. HIS LAST John 19:28-30 28 After this Jesus, knowing that all things are now fin¬ished, that the scripture might be accomplished,—[All things preceding his death which were necessary to complete his work and to the fulfillment of prophecy were finished. He now realizes his intense physical suffering, which had been forgotten in the more awful mental anguish of abandonment by his Father as he bore the burden of the world’ s sin.] saith, I thirst.—Jesus had completed his work and the end was near. The suffering and bleeding he had undergone produced thirst. [The increasing inflammation of the wounds, the unnatural position, the forced immobility and the rigidity of the limbs which resulted from it, the local congestions, especially in the head, the inexpressible anguish resulting from the disturbance of the circulation, a burning fever and thirst tortured the condemned without killing him.] 29 There was set there a vessel full of vinegar:—[Sour wine, or vinegar and water, the common drink of the Roman soldiers, but probably a vessel of this specially placed for the use of those crucified.] so they put a sponge full of the vinegar upon hyssop, and brought it to his mouth.—Jesus was too high on the cross likely for them to reach his mouth with the hand so they dipped the sponge in vinegar and raised it to his mouth. [It is said that hyssop stalks grew to the height of eighteen inches. As the cross was not very high, this would be length sufficient to reach his lips with the sponge.] 30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished:—[The work of the suffering Savior is accomplished, all the prophecies embodying it are fulfilled, the price of redemption is paid, henceforth will be the work of the conquering, triumphant, and glorified Savior.] and he bowed his head, and gave up his spirit.—After drinking the vinegar all was completed and he let his head fall upon his breast and surrendered his spirit to God. Luke says (23: 46): “ And Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said this, he gave up the ghost." [Consult Matthew 27:51-56; Mark 15:38¬41; Luke 23:47-49; John 19:31-37 for the accomplishment of his death.] THE BODIES FOR REMOVALJoh_19:31-37 31 The Jews therefore, because it was the Preparation, that the bodies should not remain on the cross upon the sabbath (for the day of that sabbath was a high day), asked of Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.—The death of Jesus occurred on Friday, the day for preparing for the Sabbath. This Sabbath falling in the week of the Passover was a day of special sanctity, and is called a “ high day." The Jews did not wish the bodies to hang on the cross to mar the sanctity of this Sabbath. They besought Pilate that their legs might be broken. This was to hasten death, so they would be taken away and buried. [Not only did they prepare for the Sabbath, but it was also preparation of the Passover. (Verse 14.) Breaking the legs was a barbarous method to hasten death. Something like a sledge hammer was used crushing the legs and the shock would bring speedy death.] 32 The soldiers therefore came, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other that was crucified with him:—This was a cruel method of hastening death. It would have been much less cruel to pierce the heart and let them bleed to death. But the purpose of crucifying was to prolong torture and cruel methods were used when from any cause it was desired to hasten the death. 33 but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:—The speedy death of Jesus removed the occasion for breaking his legs. God’ s providence so overruled that the prophetic type of the passover lamb should be fulfilled in that not a bone of Jesus was broken. 34 howbeit one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, —Why the side was pierced by the soldiers is difficult to tell save God had so ordained and foretold, and the soldier did it to fulfill the prophecy unconscious to himself. and straightway there came out blood and water.—Many suggestions have been made as to the significance of the blood and water. As the scriptures give none, it is safe to follow their example, and conclude that it is the natural result of piercing the side at this state of a dying body. 35 And he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his wit¬ness is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye also may believe.—John the writer was an eyewitness of the occurrences and states them as he saw them. [It is conceded that John the apostle was this eyewitness and that modesty kept him from identifying himself plainly. What he saw establishes the death of Christ. His testimony kills the argument of modern skepticism that Jesus fainted and was taken from the cross and restored by his disciples.] 36 For these things came to pass, that the scripture might be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.—This prophecy was made in the passover lamb, a type and prophecy of the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world, repeated in Psalms 34:20. The fulfillment that a bone should not be broken was the more significant, as Pilate had commanded that they should be broken, and the legs of the others were broken. 37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.—The scriptures had not only foretold that a bone of him should not be broken, but that he should be pierced. (Psalms 22:16; Zechariah 12:10.) JESUS IS BURIED BY JOSEPH AND Joh_19:38-42 38 And after these things Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked of Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took away his body.—It is singular that one who had failed to confess him while alive and manifesting his power should now do it when he was dead and all seemed lost. It is pretty sure that it was a modesty and shyness that shrank from publicity rather than a cowardly fear of the opposition it would have incurred. Persons moved by personal timidity, rather than by cowardice, often when the issue can no longer be evaded, make the best and trusty friends of the truth. Joseph and Nicodemus both seem to be of this class. They shrank from prominence until all friends seemed to forsake, then they put themselves upon the side of truth and justice. So he took charge of the body so as to give it sepulture. 39 And there came also Nicodemus, he who at the first came to him by night bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds.—Nicodemus was of a similar tem¬perament, and now declared himself the friend of the dead Savior by bringing the mixture for embalming the body of Jesus. [This is the third time Nicodemus is mentioned. First in John 3:5, the second John 7:50 where he protested against the injustice of the Sanhedrin, and here he is assisting in the burial of Jesus. Joseph of Arimathea is not mentioned save in connection with the burial of the body of Jesus. The Sanhedrin condemned Jesus to death, but here we learn that two of its members were minority voters in the Sanhedrin’ s decision to crucify the Savior. This shows that the majority rule is not a safe rule.] 40 So they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury.— They wrapped the body in linen with the spices and laid the body away. [Here is fulfilled another prophecy that though Jesus was “ numbered with the transgressors,” he was “ with a rich man in his death.” (Isaiah 53:9 Isaiah 53:12.) ] 41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a gar¬den; and in the garden a new tomb wherein was never man yet laid.—Joseph of Arimathea owned a garden close by the place of crucifixion. He had hewn out of rock what we call a vault rather than a grave. This vault was large enough to contain a number of bodies and for persons to pass out and in. This sepulchre or vault had never been used. The body of Jesus was laid in this vault. It was a convenient place to deposit the body, as the Sabbath was now at hand and other arrangements for his sepulchre had not been made. It is not probable that it was intended that his body would permanently remain in this vault. 42 There then because of the Jews’ Preparation (for the tomb was nigh at hand) they laid Jesus.—It was a convenient place to deposit the body of Jesus until the Sabbath had passed when the women intended a more thorough embalming and sepulchre. [In the tomb of Jesus the Jews supposed his works to be buried forever. In it were buried the hopes of his disciples who had “ hoped that it was he who should redeem Israel.” In it, had he not risen, would have been buried the gospel, Christian civilization, and the hopes of the world. The future of the world was sleeping in this tomb.]

Verse 1 This chapter continues the narrative of the trials and the ultimate triumph of the Jewish leaders over the stubborn will of Pilate, who under the duress of political blackmail and mob violence at last gave in to their will. It details the actual crucifixion, the affairs regarding the inscription, the disposition of the Lord’s clothes, his provision for his mother, some of the last words, and the burial. Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him. (John 19:1) This was actually an effort by Pilate to substitute a lighter penalty for that of death (Luke 23:22), although there was nothing light about the type of scourging inflicted. Men were known to die under the lash; and one shudders to think of such punishment being inflicted on any human being, especially upon a man the governor had just declared to be innocent. The horrible injustice of it was sickening. In post-apostolic times, there was a tendency to romanticize the role of Pilate in the crucifixion, viewing him as a helpless victim of circumstances imposed upon him by the Jews; but the glaring facts do not support any romantic view of this spineless procurator who ordered the scourging of a man he knew to be innocent, and followed that by condemning him to death. The kind of man that Pilate was, based solely upon what is in this chapter, is enough to declare him worthy of the odium that fell upon his name. Philo mentioned his corruption, outrage, robbery, insult, contumely, his indiscriminate and continuous murders, and his unceasing and vexatious cruelty."[1]The synoptics leave an impression (but do not state it) that the scourging was part of the sentence of crucifixion; but John sets it in a different light, causing some to suppose there were two scourgings; but Westcott is doubtless correct in seeing only one. He said: It is not to be supposed that the scourging was repeated … the passing references (in the synoptics) do not necessarily bear that meaning. There is no real discrepancy between the accounts.[2]Pilate’s tactic failed. A taste of blood only intensified the sadistic hatred of Jesus’ enemies. Pilate had arbitrarily imposed the scourging on Jesus, supposing that such brutality might awaken a sense of humanity in his foes; but it failed. Thus it came to pass that this pagan procurator fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, “By his stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5). Excavations in the old tower of Antonio, Pilate’s Praetorium, have uncovered a truncated column in a vaulted room, having no architectural connection with the building, and being exactly the kind of device to which criminals were tied for scourging.[3]For an account of scourging in this present century, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:26. [1] B. F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971), p. 275. [2] Ibid., p. 268. [3] Ibid.

Verse 2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and arrayed him in a purple garment.This conduct on the part of the Roman military, brutalized from experience on many a bloody field, nevertheless seems atypical, even in such men as themselves. It seems out of character that they could have been sufficiently motivated to perform the repulsive actions of this mockery. The crooked hand of Satan appears in these events, as in the equally repugnant mockery in the very palace of the high priest of Israel, where they “spat in his face, buffeted him, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee” (Matthew 26:67-68). Purple garment … This was a three-color fabric of sufficient extravagance of design to suggest royalty, being, in all probability, red and blue on opposite edges, blended into purple in the middle, thus accounting for the variable descriptions of it as “crimson,” “scarlet,” or “purple.” These were the colors of the veil of the temple; and, in view of the extensive symbolism of that veil, standing in one figure for Christ himself (Hebrews 10:20), it was most appropriate that he should have borne the colors of it in his sufferings. See full treatment of this subject in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:51. A crown of thorns … See my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:29.

Verse 3 And they came unto him, and said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they struck him with their hands.For an entire article on the mockery, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:28. There is a spiritual mockery of Jesus more damnable even than this which appears in the text. We dare not judge our fellow mortals; but, time and again, we have discovered upon our own lips words of loyalty and devotion not fully consonant with our deeds.

Verse 4 And Pilate went out again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him out to you, that ye may know that I find no crime in him.John kept the principal actors of this dark drama perpetually on stage. The very fact of Pilate’s again confronting the Jewish leaders exhibits his determination to release Jesus, his view apparently having been that his brutal punishment of Jesus, if it could satisfy the leaders, was far better than crucifying him; but he reckoned without consideration of the satanic hatred of Israel’s leaders.

Verse 5 Jesus therefore came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple garment. And Pilate said unto them, Behold the man!Barnes ascribed the following meaning to Pilate’s actions here: “In all this suffering, he is meek and patient. Behold … this man that you accuse! He is brought forth that you may see that he is not guilty."[4] Hendriksen interpreted Pilate’s meaning thus: “Look! The Man! Has he not suffered enough already? Is it really necessary to inflict any more punishment upon him?"[5][4] Albert Barnes. Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1954), p. 368. [5] William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1961), II, p. 416.

Verse 6 When therefore the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him! Pilate saith unto them, Take him yourselves and crucify him: for I find no crime in him.This might be taken in two ways. It looks like a suggestion by Pilate that the Jews go ahead and crucify Jesus without a legal sentence, with the implied promise of the governor to look the other way. Had not Pilate himself just imposed a merciless scourging upon an innocent, and without any legal sentence? Perhaps he was saying, “Look, I have just shown you how I handle things like this. Why don’t you do likewise? Why all this bother about trying to get a legal condemnation from me?” However, Reynolds, Hendriksen, Hovey, and others view Pilate’s remark differently. Take him yourselves and crucify him; that is, if you dare. Go do your deed of blood by your own hands and take the responsibility for it; for I find no fault in him. He thus derides their powerlessness and repeats his verdict of acquittal.[6]That Reynolds’ view is the better one seems proved by what immediately happened. Those evil men, so intent on Jesus’ death, were extremely reluctant to reveal their true reason for demanding Jesus’ death; and, if there had been any way by which they could have accomplished it without revealing it, they would have done so. But, at this point the governor balked at doing what they wished. No legal reason for Jesus’ death had appeared; in fact, his innocence had been established; and, in that situation, those hypocrites had the choice of losing their quarry or producing a capital charge.

They chose the latter and, in the next verse, gave the real reason why they condemned him. All kinds of excuses have been offered on behalf of those religious murderers to explain their so long concealment of their actual charge against Jesus; but the best explanation of it is that, in their hearts, they knew Christ’s testimony under oath that he was “the Christ, the Son of the Blessed” was the truth of God, and that they dreaded swearing in open court that it was false. That element of self-condemnation within themselves alone explains their reluctance to bring out their charge publicly. Moreover, Satan, so visibly active in the whole drama, was determined, if possible, to murder Jesus upon any other charge than the real one. ENDNOTE: [6] H. R. Reynolds, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962), Vol. 17, II, p. 418.

Verse 7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.Well, there it was. All of Satan’s efforts to get Jesus crucified for sedition, or as a trouble-maker, failed. The solemn fact that Jesus had sworn under oath that he was the divine Messiah came squarely into focus in those events, and it would remain forever visible in the heavenly light shining upon the cross. Christ had, in this, at last accomplished the enlightenment of all men for all ages, who would thenceforth have his testimony under oath, and sealed with his blood, to the effect that he was the only begotten Son of God, the divine Messiah, the Saviour of the world, and the world’s only Redeemer. No wonder his enemies so stubbornly resisted letting the word out. They instinctively knew that the myriads of the human race would believe Jesus’ testimony. This verse gives the technical charge upon which Jesus was crucified. His sworn testimony was the truth, for he was indeed the Son of God; but the Jewish law to which the priests appealed made it a capital offense for one to claim to be the divine Messiah, UNLESS IN TRUTH HE WAS SO (Leviticus 24:16). Thus the technical charge that Jesus had violated that law by falsely swearing that he was the divine Messiah was itself fraudulent, untruthful, and damnable. In speaking of the “true” grounds for Jesus’ death, it should be remembered that the “true grounds” was their lie! What Jesus swore was God’s truth; their calling his testimony false was Satan’s lie. Son of God … as Jesus used this title, and as the Pharisees understood it, meant the same unique, divine Sonship believed in by Christians of all ages. There is a lesser sense in which all believers are “sons of God,” but the meaning here is that of the unique, supernatural Sonship of God’s only begotten. The action of the Jewish hierarchy in demanding the crucifixion of Jesus for claiming to be the Son of God shows that they fully understood all of the majestic overtones inherent in that precious title, SON OF GOD. Strangely, if Jesus had falsely made such a claim, they would have been correct in demanding his death. Thus, from that moment, and ever afterward, people are confronted with the dilemma in Christ Jesus, there being no middle ground. He either was, or was not, what he claimed to be; and the way every soul answers that question determines the soul’s destiny.

Verse 8 When Pilate therefore heard this saying, he was the more afraid.Pilate had many fears, fearing for his relations with Herod, his reputation with the emperor, the outbreak of violence in his city, the implications of his wife’s dream; and now, typical pagan that he was, this injection of Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God thoroughly moved him, but not toward any good conclusion. Skepticism and fear go hand in hand. Herod, it will be recalled, who would have scoffed at the doctrine of the resurrection, nevertheless feared that Jesus was John the Baptist (whom he had beheaded) risen from the dead! Therefore, Pilate may have believed that “the wondrous Being before him was enshrouded in a mystery of supernatural portent that he could not fathom, and before whom he trembled."[7]ENDNOTE: [7] H. R. Reynolds, op. cit., II, p. 419.

Verse 9 And he entered into the Praetorium again, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.Jesus did not reply because: (1) he knew that Pilate would not stand against the hierarchy, and (2) his silence allowed the Pharisees’ testimony concerning his claim to be the Son of God to stand unchallenged. As Lipscomb noted, “His silence was answer enough - that if he did not make that claim, he certainly would have denied it."[8]ENDNOTE: [8] David Lipscomb, A Commentary on the Gospel of John (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1960), p. 293.

Verse 10 Pilate therefore saith unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to release thee, and have power to crucify thee?Pilate was astounded at Jesus’ silence. His words indicate near belief that any man could so behave in his presence. His words show how unspiritual, selfish, proud, and arrogant was the heart within him. Such a misjudgment of his “power” by Pilate deserved a reply from the Master; and Jesus promptly delivered it.

Verse 11 Jesus answered him, Thou wouldest have no power against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath greater sin.Jesus here pointed to that doctrine which was elaborated at a later time by Paul (Romans 13:1 ff), regarding the state and authority as God-ordained. (See my Commentary on Romans 13:1 ff.) Jesus’ application of this to Pilate reveals the hand of God in the affairs of state. Pilate’s being the Procurator that year[9] was not Pilate’s sole achievement, despite his arrogant assumption that it was; but God had raised him up, no less than Esther at another time, “for such a time as this.” The greater sin … The high priest of Israel was the person guilty of greater sin, a greater sin shared by all who had aided and abetted that crime of the centuries; but, in what way was their sin greater than Pilate’s? Westcott thus explained it: Pilate was guilty of using wrongfully the power. The high priest was doubly guilty in using a higher (spiritual) power and in transgressing his legitimate rules of action … By appealing to a heathen power to execute an unjust sentence on Christ, he had sinned against God by unfaithfulness, and by unrighteousness.[10]Except it were given thee from above … Pilate’s power of continuation in office was directly from God and was exercised only under God’s permission. Jesus might have called for legions of angels; he even had the power to have changed Pilate’s mind, or to prostrate the entire garrison of Antonio on their faces, as had happened to some of them the previous night. The tiniest display of Jesus’ supernatural power could have turned Pilate into putty in Jesus’ hands.

The procurator was already frightened, and the silence of Jesus recorded in the previous verse was probably for the purpose of permitting him to act in character, rather than as a judge frightened out of his wits. It was here that Satan played out his last tactic in the strategy of inducing Jesus to abandon the purpose of redemption by refusing to die on the cross. Pilate, in this scene, actually seemed to plead with Jesus to do something that would enable him to deny the religious leaders the sentence they wanted. The Lord was silent. He would not resort to any miracle to avoid crucifixion. Regarding the satanic strategy here referred to, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:39 ff. [9] Note to critics: This writer is aware that they did not change the procurator every year! [10] B. F. Westcott, op. cit., p. 270.

Verse 12 Upon this Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou release this man, thou art not Caesar’s friend: everyone that maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.This was vicious political blackmail. If Pilate would not do their will, they would prefer charges against him before Caesar, charges which both Pilate and themselves knew to be false; but also known to both was the fact that such charges, whether true or false, could blast the procurator out of office. Such was the political climate of the times; and, alas, it must be hailed as the usual political climate of all times. This did it. Pilate moved at once to crucify the Lord, caving in completely before the unscrupulous scoundrels before him.

Verse 13 When Pilate therefore heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha.The seat mentioned here was a stone platform in the courtyard of the Praetorium, or near the adjacent tower of Antonio. From its name, it appears to have been made of stones ingeniously joined in the manner of Roman stone masons, to form a throne-like platform with steps and ornaments for the purpose of adding dignity to the decisions announced by the procurator therefrom. Upon that judgment-seat, Pilate, the all-powerful deputy of Caesar, seated himself and ordered the innocent Christ before him for sentencing.

Verse 14 Now it was the Preparation of the passover: it was about the sixth hour. And he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!The Preparation … This was the day before the passover which began that night at sunset. The sixth hour … Since this was an official Roman event, the time was Roman time, making this 6:00 A.M. Behold your King! … Very well, Pilate seems to have concluded; if the Jews would blackmail him as an enemy of Caesar, he would prove his loyalty by crucifying the Jews’ King! In forcing the procurator’s hand, the Jews got far more than they intended. Having exhausted every means of avoiding it, except, of course, incurring any personal political risk, Pilate ordered the crucifixion.

Verse 15 They therefore cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him! Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.Pilate here maneuvered the chief priests in a manner that enraged them and drove them to a blind fury. “Shall I crucify your King?” was his mocking taunt; but their blindness to the consequences of what they were doing was so complete that in their irrational rage they even renounced God himself. We have no king but Caesar … It was just as well that they said this, for in crucifying Christ they had indeed renounced the Father; but it is one of the ironies of their hardening that they were goaded into this public renunciation for the records of all subsequent sacred history. We have no king but Caesar … Where was all the professed devotion of those people for God as their only King? That they hated Caesar was known to all. That they claimed God as their true king was the major thesis of the whole history of Israel; but here they were shouting before the pagan governor: We have no king but Caesar … Caesar would crucify 30,900 of their young men on the walls of ruined Jerusalem within a generation (at the siege in 70 A.D.). Caesar would expel them from Rome; Caesar would perpetrate countless injustices and atrocities upon them; God had never done anything except love them, bear with them, and protect them throughout their wretched history; but now hear them: We have no king but Caesar …! What an avalanche of woe this unhappy people loosed upon themselves by their rejection of the Lord! As Hovey said, however: We are thankful that it was not the whole multitude that made this profession, but only the chief priests. …They who gloried in the Theocracy and boasted that whey were never in bondage to any man” (John 8:33) - THEY confess that Caesar is their only king.[11]ENDNOTE: [11] Alvah Hovey, Commentary on John (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1885), p. 379.

Verse 16 Then therefore he delivered him unto them to be crucified.Them … has reference to the chief priests. Yes, Pilate provided the soldiers and a centurion to command the detail; but he put those evil priests squarely in charge of the crucifixion. The decision was then final, and the further deeds of that dark day would unfold on schedule. Pilate had vainly tried to avoid what he knew was an injustice; but there was no way that such a man as he could avoid doing what, in the last analysis, he held to be expedient to the maintenance of his political power. He hated the whole Jewish nation; and what matter to him was it, if an innocent was put to death? The chief priests too must have thought the whole business was finished. God was out of it, as far as they were concerned; they had shouted their allegiance to Caesar only; but history held some surprises for them also. As Hendriksen put it: They forgot, however, that God as king of the universe was not through with them. In a certain terrible sense, he was still their King. Indescribable punishments were not far away. In winning this battle, they had lost the war.[12]There is no evidence that the chief priests actually supervised the crucifixion, but, in a sense, it was their act. They demanded it and were present for the gory execution of the sentence, even adding insulting taunts of the holy Saviour on the cross itself! ENDNOTE: [12] William Hendriksen, op. cit., p. 422.

Verse 17 They took Jesus therefore: and he went out, bearing the cross for himself, unto the place called the place of a skull, which is called in Hebrew Golgotha.John omitted many details found in the synoptics. This verse is all that John related of the Via Dolorosa. For an account of the events associated with that title, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:32. Golgotha … The place of the skull was near the city but outside the walls, but any certainty as to the exact location is precarious. The favored location for many is the hill which strikingly resembles a deaths-head, and which is always pointed out to visitors in the Holy City.

Verse 18 Where they crucified him, and with him two others, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.For discussion of the malefactors and the words of Jesus with one of them, and for other particulars, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:32.

Verse 19 And Pilate wrote a title also, and put it on the cross. And there was written, JESUS OF ; THE KING OF THE JEWS.The full inscription actually had ten words, thus: THIS IS JESUS OF ; THE KING OF THE JEWS, as indicated by a composite of all four Gospel accounts. Matthew recorded eight of the ten, omitting “of Nazareth.” Mark gave the last five words, which appear in all four Gospels. Luke omitted “Jesus of Nazareth,” giving the other seven; and John gives us eight of the ten words, omitting only the words “this is.” This is a perfect example of the type of reporting found in the sacred Gospels. Not one of them gave a word that was not in the inscription; not one of them omitted the final five words; each writer gave it as he remembered it; and no two are exactly the same. A composite of what they all said gives the perfect and complete inscription. In the light of the above, one can only be astounded and disgusted at the allegations of scholars pontificating about “discrepancies,” “contradictions,” etc., in the Gospel accounts of the inscription. Even Alfred Plummer complained that “No two Gospels agree as to the wording of the title on the cross."[13] Against such a view, we would present the undeniable truth that all four accounts are in perfect harmony. For full discussion of this, see my Commentary on Matthew (Matthew 27:37). ENDNOTE: [13] Alfred Plummer, Commentary on Matthew (London: Elliot Stock, 1909), p. 396.

Verse 20 This title therefore read many of the Jews, for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city; and it was written in Hebrew, and in Latin, and in Greek.The roads to the city were choked with thousands traveling to the Holy City for Passover; and it must have been a matter of widespread consternation when the entire city was filled with buzzing conversation about the “King of the Jews” being crucified just outside the city. Intended by Pilate as a sadistic joke and as a final slap in the face of the priests, the inscription was nevertheless the truth of God! As so frequently in history, the “wrath of man” praised the Lord (Psalms 76:10).

Verse 21 The chief priests of the Jews therefore said to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am the King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.The King of the Jews … Thus the chief priests also gave an abbreviated summary of the inscription. The diabolical murder of Jesus backfired upon the perpetrators of it. Events were not turning out at all as they had planned. Pilate’s inscription was being painted in blood upon every conscience; and the shocking truth of the inscription was a double-barreled blast against everything the priests wanted.

The inscription shouted two overwhelming facts to the crowds entering the city: (1) Jesus of Nazareth was the King of the Jews, and (2) the Romans had crucified him. No matter how one read it, it was bad news for Israel, and one can easily understand the chagrin and anxiety of the priests who sought to get it changed. The chief priests … This indicates that the hierarchy attached a great deal of importance to the inscription, indicating also a much greater perception on their part in this matter than they had exhibited in so many other things. The great hour of their influence, however, had slipped away. No longer would a frightened and vacillating governor bend to their desires; the tables were turned. From that hour, history hardened around the deeds of the day, and there could be no alteration of them. Forever etched into the conscience of the human race was the crucifixion of the Lord and Saviour of men. What I have written I have written … What’s done is done. A proverb was born in this reply of Pilate; and the pagan palace of the procurator must have resounded that day with many a ribald laugh - for a while, that is; because the day was not over; and before it ended, the sun would stop shining; the veil of the temple would fall asunder; an explosive earthquake would occur; and a dreadful apprehension would fall upon the city of the great King (Matthew 5:35). Pilate’s words, if spoken in Latin, were “Quod scripsi scripsi!”

Verse 23 The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also the coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore one to another, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the Scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my garments among them, And upon my vesture did they, cast lots.The soldiers … There were four of them, a quaternion. A centurion was in charge. They did not wait for Jesus to die but went about, dividing up his clothes as if he were already dead. The coat … may be rendered tunic” (English Revised Version margin). This was the vesture, or undergarment, which formed a usual part of the clothing of that day. Here John described the manner of its manufacture. This is one of the most astounding things in the Bible. The clothes of Jesus! Can anyone tell what Napoleon was wearing when he died, or what Franklin D.

Roosevelt had on when he was stricken, and how the garments were made and what became of them? The record of Jesus is itself supernatural. Concerning that seamless vesture, Saunders said: “It was the type of garment worn by the high priest (Leviticus 16:4). Christ is the true high priest whose death is the perfect sacrifice for the sins of the world."[14]That the Scriptures might be fulfilled … The soldiers did not consciously fulfill prophecy in their disposal of the clothing; but this was a case of the all-powerful Providence accomplishing through evil or indifferent men the fulfillment of divine prophecy. The Scripture fulfilled is Psalms 22:18.

For an extensive examination of twenty prophecies of the crucifixion contained in that Psalm, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:66. ENDNOTE: [14] Ernest W. Saunders, John Celebrates the Gospel (New York: Abingdon, 1966), p. 149.

Verse 25 These things therefore the soldiers did. But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.His mother’s sister … was Salome, the wife of Zebedee, and the mother of James and John, according to Westcott, thus making James and John cousins of Jesus. He wrote: This connection of St. John with the mother of the Lord helps explain the incident which follows …. The omission of the name of Salome, on this supposition, falls in with John’s usage as to his brother and to himself.[15]Any so-called “problem” concerning the mention by one Gospel of different women, or different numbers of women at the cross, or of different distances from which they viewed it - all such differences derive from eyewitness observance of the scene at different times throughout the day. Where is the critic who will affirm that exactly the same number of women, and exactly the same women, stood in exactly the same place throughout the whole day? ENDNOTE: [15] B. F. Westcott, op. cit., p. 276.

Verse 26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by whom he loved, he said unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy, mother! And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.This is one of the seven utterances from the cross; and, as Westcott observed, the seven make an entire sequence in their own right and deserve treatment together. For a detailed discussion of all seven, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:66. This is the third in the chronological sequence of the seven utterances. From that hour … is not a statement that within sixty minutes John took Mary to his own home, but means rather that from the authority conveyed in that hour the future residence of the blessed Mary was with the beloved John. Significantly, Jesus did not here address his mother as “Mother of God,” a title which developed long afterward; and regardless of the intentions of the people using it, it is unscriptural: inappropriate, and, in a sense, even idolatrous.

Verse 28 After this Jesus, knowing that all things are now finished, that the Scriptures might be accomplished, saith, I thirst.This does not mean that Jesus said, “I thirst” in order to fulfill prophecy. As Westcott said, “The fulfillment of scripture was not the object which the Lord had in view, but there was a necessary correspondence between his acts and the divine foreshadowing of them.” [16] Old Testament passages prophesying the Lord’s thirst are Psalms 22:15 and Psalms 69:21. See under John 19:27. ENDNOTE: [16] Ibid., p. 277.

Verse 29 There was set there a vessel full of vinegar; so they put a sponge full of vinegar upon hyssop, and brought it to his mouth.There is no way that any person, except an eyewitness, would have filled this account with so many specific details. The words before us are clearly the result of a vivid menial picture in the mind of the narrator of what he had seen. The vessel full of vinegar, the sponge, the very kind of stick used to lift it to the Lord’s mouth. No forger would have dared to piece together such a narrative as this; and, besides that, there could not possibly have been any motive for doing such a thing. Matthew and Mark mention the “reed” that bore the sponge, but there are many kinds of reeds; John here spontaneously described it as “hyssop,” identified with the caper plant, and usually some three or four feet long. These are the words of an eyewitness.

Verse 30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up his spirit.For detailed comment on the seven words, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:66. The vessel of vinegar was probably the property of the soldiers in charge of the crucifixion, something they had probably brought along for refreshment during the long watch. It was not the product marketed under that label today, but the thin sour wine provided by the Roman army as the soldiers’ daily rations (Luke 23:36). It is reasonable to infer that one of the soldiers, near the end, performed this act of mercy for our Lord. It is not necessary to infer that Jesus drank the proffered vinegar. He had promised not to drink of the fruit of the vine until the day when he would drink it new with them in the kingdom of God (Matthew 26:29).

The sour wine offered by the soldier was not new; the kingdom had not begun; and it was not a disciple who offered it. “And when he had tasted it, he would not drink” (Matthew 27:34). Although Matthew referred to the earlier offering of vinegar, it is the key to what happened later. John’s statement that Jesus “received” it refers only to its having been brought to his mouth.

Verse 31 The Jews therefore, because it was the Preparation, that the bodies should not remain on the cross upon the sabbath (for the day of that sabbath was a high day), asked of Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.This verse, beyond all others in the New Testament, casts doubt on the widely accepted view that Christ was crucified on Friday. True, he was crucified on the day of Preparation, the day before the sabbath; but John was careful to point out that the ordinary sabbath was not meant, but rather the high day (also a sabbath, whatever day of the week it was) which always initiated the Passover celebration. A detailed discussion of this is in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 12:40. It is the conviction of this writer that Jesus was crucified on Thursday, April 6,30 A.D. See CMK under Mark 15:42. That their legs might be broken … The hierarchy had hastily contrived the crucifixion without regard to the approaching high sabbath, and they were suddenly embarrassed by the prospect of the victims still remaining upon the crosses on the holy day, which in their view would have desecrated it. This brutal coup de grace was given by smashing the leg bones with a massive hammer and had the effect of hastening death. One suspects, also, that there was another motive in the minds of the priests who were so determined that the Lord should not be their Messiah. The well-known prophecy of Psa 34:20 declared flatly that “He (the Messiah) keepeth all his bones; not one of them is broken”; and there is far more than a possibility that it was their purpose to thwart the fulfillment of that divine prophecy. If they could have succeeded, they might well have urged, afterward, that Jesus could not have been the Messiah, because his legs had been broken. Whether the Jewish leaders had that in mind is not known; but we may be sure that Satan had such a thing in view. Christ was the great antitype of the paschal lamb, fulfilling the type in every conceivable manner. He died at the very moment the lambs were being slain for the Passover; and no bone of him was broken, despite the governor’s specific orders, which were disobeyed. His innocence, submissiveness, and vicarious suffering also fulfilled the type.

Verse 32 The soldiers therefore came, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other that was crucified with him: but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: howbeit one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and straightway there came out blood and water.Two prophecies regarding Jesus were fulfilled in this: (1) that no bone of him should be broken (Psalms 34:20), and (2) that “They shall look upon me whom they have pierced” (Zechariah 12:10). The soldiers disobeyed one set of orders to fulfill the first, and instituted actions without any orders to fulfill the second. Soldiers in a disciplined army would not have followed such a pattern of behavior once in a million events. Who but God was commanding that detail of soldiers? One cannot resist the thought that there was not enough power in the Roman army to have broken the little finger of Jesus. And where was Satan when this happened? Maybe he was still talking to the Sanhedrin and gloating over the fact that they had contravened the prophecies! There came out blood and water … There has to be some element of the miraculous in this. Naturalistic explanations have some plausibility, as for example that of Dr. Stroud quoted by Westcott, who supposed that “the blood rapidly separated into its more solid and liquid parts, which flowed forth in a mingled stream."[17] But the trouble with that explanation is that blood serum is not water; and there is also the time factor, there having been insufficient time for such a separation to have taken place. In addition, as Westcott pointed out, “the separation of the blood into its constituent parts is a process of corruption."[18] The Father did not permit the Holy One to see corruption (Psalms 16:10). John attached the greatest importance to this phenomenon, and also wrote, “This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood” (1 John 5:6). The Ante-Nicene writers elaborated all kinds of fanciful teachings based on this occurrence, most of them finding a suggestion of the two baptisms (as they viewed it) of blood for the martyrs and water for all Christians. The most reasonable interpretations, as viewed here, are those of Augustine and Leo, as follows: The sleep of the man (Adam) was the death of Christ; for when he hung lifeless on the cross, his side was pierced by the spear, and thence flowed forth blood and water, which we know to be the sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s Supper), by which the church, the antitype of Eve, is built up.[19]When the side of the Crucified was opened by the soldier’s spear let the impugner of Christ’s person understand whence flowed the blood and the water, that the church of God might be refreshed both by the laver (baptism) and the cup (the Lord’s supper).[20]Sacraments … The so-called seven sacraments exhibit only two with Greek names (baptism and the Lord’s supper), indicating that the other five are not mentioned in the Greek New Testament and are therefore excluded from apostolic Christianity. I am poured out like water … from Psalms 22:14 was also fulfilled by the event mentioned in this verse. As noted above, the great ordinances of the faith, baptism and the Lord’s supper, typified by this issue from the side of Jesus, made it appropriate to observe that, in a sense, the church itself thus came forth from Jesus’ side, as Eve, the type of the church, came from Adam’s side; and, as the guilt (through the woman) came out of Adam’s side, so salvation came out of the side of the Second Adam (Christ). [17] Ibid., p. 279. [18] Ibid. [19] Ibid., p. 286. [20] Ibid.

Verse 35 And he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye also may believe. For these things come to pass that the Scripture might be fulfilled. A bone of him shall not be broken. And again another Scripture saith, They shall look upon him whom they pierced.He that hath seen hath borne witness … John here refers to himself. As many of the most capable scholars have affirmed, if John had had in mind some other witness than himself, he could not possibly have used the words here rendered “hath borne witness.” Westcott, in his masterful discussion of this place, declared that John’s use of the perfect tense makes it certain that the reference is to himself. The use of the third person also harmonizes with John’s earlier use of it in this same chapter (John 19:26-27), both references speaking unequivocally of himself. For discussion of the two prophecies mentioned here, see under John 19:34, above.

Verse 38 And after these things Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked of Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore and took away his body.For discussion of Joseph of Arimathea, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:57. John seems to have introduced Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, a moment later, to demonstrate that weak and timid faith on their part had come dramatically out into the open on this occasion. Also, there may have been a special reason for mentioning Joseph. Alan Richardson said, “The apostolic church saw in the action of Joseph the fulfillment of an Old Testament type. Joseph had begged permission of Pharaoh to bury the body of the old Israel (Jacob) ( Genesis 50:4-6)."[21]ENDNOTE: [21] Alan Richardson, The Gospel according to St. John (London: SCM Press, 1959), p. 204.

Verse 39 And there came also Nicodemus, he who at the first came to him by night, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds.Richardson also supposed that the purpose of citing the participation of Nicodemus was that of introducing “independent evidence - that, perhaps, of a Sanhedrin member - of the fact that Jesus REALLY died, as against Gnostic theories of resuscitation and Jewish accusations of fraud on the part of the disciples."[22]For more on Nicodemus, see under John 3:1. ENDNOTE: [22] Ibid., p. 205.

Verse 40 So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury.Throughout John, there appears the most exact and intimate knowledge of Jewish customs, proving that the author could have been none other than a Jew. Linen cloths … The word “cloths” does not mean “clothes,” nor “a linen cloth,” such as was mentioned by all three synoptics, according to Westcott. This is the type of “discrepancy” seized upon with such glee by skeptics, there being several other examples in the sacred Gospels. There ARE discrepancies, of a sort; but they are far more effective in establishing the truth and dependability of the Gospels than any narratives could have been. Even the points of apparent disagreement, when carefully studied, reveal deeper insights into the facts. THE CLOTHSAs Westcott noted, “The exact word for CLOTHS is the diminutive form which is used in Greek medical writings for . This distinguishes these SWATHES in which the body was bound from the linen cloth mentioned by the other evangelists."[23]Observe this total record of all four Gospels: Joseph took the body, and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth (Matthew 27:59). Joseph bought a linen cloth, and taking him down, wound him in the linen cloth (Mark 15:46). Joseph took the body down and wrapped it in a linen cloth (Luke 23:53). Joseph and Nicodemus took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices (John 19:40). Thus, Joseph in the lead, and joined by Nicodemus a little later, after the latter had bought the spices, received Pilate’s permission to take the body. Did they wrap, wind, or bind the body with that linen cloth? They did all three. Did they keep that linen cloth in one piece while that was done? Certainly not. They first cut it into SWATHES, as John said, making medical bandages of the type one can still see on the body of the old Israel himself in the Cave of Macpelah!

As John tells us, “as the custom of the Jews is to bury.” If such is not what happened, the synoptics would merely have said, “They rolled him up in a sheet.” On the contrary, they used three different verbs: wrapped, wound, and bound. Any fair interpretation requires the inference of what John here declared as fact, namely, that the linen cloth was first reduced to medical type bandages used in winding up the bodies of the dead. Those who seek a contradiction in God’s word must seek it elsewhere. But there is a great deal more to this. The astounding miracle of the grave clothes was about to be related, the validity and impact of which depended utterly upon an exact understanding of what the grave clothes were and how they were applied. That is WHY John gave more exact details than the synoptics who did not record that miracle. ENDNOTE: [23] B. F. Westcott, op. cit., p. 281.

Verse 41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new tomb wherein was never man yet laid.Thus the Second Adam slept in a garden, associating the redemption of the race with a garden, even as the fall of the first Adam had occurred in a garden. Matthew identified the tomb as Joseph’s, noted that it was new, hewn out of rock, and that it was closed by a great stone. Luke recorded that it was hewn out of rock and that no man had ever lain in it. John supplied the details that it was in a garden and that no one had ever lain in it. This composite description is fully harmonious. THE TWO GRAVES OF JESUS1. It was prophesied of Messiah that “THEY made his grave with the wicked (plural) and with the rich (singular) in his death” (Isaiah 53:9). Matthew’s identification of Joseph as a rich man, together with the description of the garden tomb itself, makes it clear that the second clause of the prophecy was fulfilled by the burial in Joseph’s tomb. But what about the grave with the wicked? Here is another example of prophecy supplying details regarding Jesus which are not given in the Gospels (such as the piercing of Jesus’ feet mentioned in Psalms 22:16). In the same manner, this prophecy mentions the two graves: (1) one with a rich man (singular), (2) the other with the wicked (plural). Remember that the prophecy speaks of “grave” with the wicked, not merely “death” with the wicked. The soldiers who carried out the execution certainly provided the graves for all three men who were crucified, that being a part of their duty. Not knowing of the efforts and intentions of Joseph and Nicodemus, and having had all day in which to do it, they had without any doubt at all provided three graves for the condemned, including, of course, a grave for Jesus.

That grave was with the wicked (plural), fulfilling the prophecy exactly. Authority for this conclusion is the prophecy itself. The “they” of the prophecy (RSV) would have been “he” if only Joseph had been meant. It therefore includes prophetic mention of the soldiers. That Jesus never slept in the grave made by the soldiers did not keep it from being the one “they” made for him. 2. “Wherein was never man yet laid …” is important for two considerations: (1) Jesus’ body never came in contact with corruption; and (2) it removed any possibility that his resurrection might have been attributed to his body’s having come in contact with the bones of a prophet. The Old Testament records such a miracle, thus: It came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet (2 Kings 13:21). Jesus’ being buried in a new tomb (mentioned in three Gospels) prevented any false ascription of his resurrection to such an occurrence as that of the Old Testament. There is no evidence that Jesus’ enemies ever admitted his resurrection, choosing to deny it rather than to explain it as a miracle like that involving the bones of Elisha; but the infinite Wisdom guarded the sacred event of our Lord’s resurrection against every possible deprecation of it, even against eventualities that never materialized. 3. This detailed description of the grave where Jesus was buried is important also as a refutation of the satanically inspired slander of the priests to the effect that his disciples had stolen the body. The “great stone” was so large that several women freely admitted that all of them together would never have been able to roll it away (Mark 16:3). Also, the particular type of rock-hewn sepulchre described in the Gospels facilitated the official sealing of the grave which was ordered by the governor (Matthew 27:62). The sealing of another type of grave, such as that provided by the soldiers, would have been far more difficult and less secure.

Verse 42 There then because of the Jews’ Preparation (for the tomb was nigh at hand) they laid Jesus.Preparation … See under John 19:31. The Preparation had almost expired, and with sunset the high sabbath would begin, leaving no time to bury the Lord in a distant tomb, which might have required travel after sunset; and such a desecration of the sabbath would have precipitated ugly action by the hierarchy. God, however, had providentially arranged a tomb near at hand, the priceless sepulchre of Joseph who gave it to the Lord. Speculation as to whether this was intended as a permanent burial place of Jesus is preempted by the fact that he needed it only three days and three nights. The thought recurs that no one ever gave anything to the Lord without receiving it again, multiplied and enriched. When the time came to bury Joseph, the tomb was still his, enriched and made holy by the knowledge that from it the Christ had risen from the dead. Similarly, the little lad who gave his basket of loaves and fishes was certainly the legal owner of the twelve baskets of fragments left over. What is given to Christ is saved; all else is lost. There they laid Jesus …How much pathos in the words, “There they laid Jesus.” In the tomb of Jesus the Jews supposed his works to be buried forever …. In it, had he not risen, would have been buried the gospel, Christian civilization, and the hope of the world. The future of the world was sleeping in the tomb.[24]The pressure of the approaching high day did not thwart observance of the last appropriate detail in the Lord’s burial. Even the wrapping of the body had been done after the manner associated with the burial of the most distinguished leaders of the Jews. “After the manner of the Jews to bury …” indicates that the sacred body was not mutilated, as in Egyptian burial customs. As Gaebelein observed, “What true believer need fear the grave now? Solemn as is the thought of our last narrow bed, we must never forget that it is the place where the Lord lay."[25] As Paul exclaimed, “Thanks be to God who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 15:56). [24] B. W. Johnson, The New Testament Commentary (Cincinnati, Ohio: The Christian Publishing Company, 1886), p. 291. [25] Arno C. Gaebelein, The Gospel of John (Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1965), p. 379.

Questions by E.M. Zerr For John 191. What did Pilate do to Jesus? 2. What did the soldiers put on his head ? 3. State what they put on his body. . 4. What did they say to him ? 5. Tell what they did next? 6. State Pilate’ s estimate of Jesus. 7. With what words did he present him? 8. This brought what cry from the mob? 9. What did Pilate bid them do ? 10. Tell the acknowledgment he made. 11. To what document did the Jews refer? 12. What did they say it demanded ? 13. On what ground ? 14. What roused the fear of Pilate ? 15. Where did he then go? 16. Repeat his question. 17. And the answer. 18. What claim did Pilate then make? 19. Repeat Jesus’ explanation of his power. 20. Who was the more responsible? 21. How did this impress Pilate? 22. What did it cause him to do? 23. To whom did the Jews refer in reply? 24. What connection between him and Pilate ? 25. Upon this what did Pilate do to Jesus? 26. Before what holy day is it? 27. What are such preceding days called? 28. At what hour is it ? 29. Repeat the announcement of Pilate. 30. What was the response? 31. And Pilate’ s question ? 32. To this what did the chief priests say? 33. What did Pilate finally do? 34. And what happened then? 35. What was Jesus made to bear? 36. To what place did they come? 37. What was done to Jesus here? 38. Was he the only victim ? 39. What was written on the cross? 40. Who were said to have read the writing? 41. Tell why so many readers. 42. In what languages was it written? 43. Who protested to Pilate? 44. State the correction they wished made. 45. And the reply of Pilate. 46. How many soldiers crucified Jesus? 47. What did they do with his garments? 48. How did they dispose of his coat? 49. This fulfilled what? 50. Who were standing by the cross? 51. Which did Jesus notice? 52. Tell whom else he saw. 53. What did he say to his mother? 54. Who was the son that was meant? 55. How did this request result ? 56. What request did Jesus make next? 57. This was after what accomplishment? 58. How was this request gratified? 59. After this what did Jesus say? 60. What occurred then? 61. Tell what is said of the next day? 62. What was desired about the bodies ? 63. To whom did they appeal for permission? 64. Why break the legs ? 65. Why not the legs of Jesus? 66. Instead, what was done ? 67. How did the recorder learn this? 68. This fulfilled what prophecy? 69. What other scripture was fulfilled? 70. What man came after this? 71. Why was he interested? 72. And why come at night? 73. Tell his request. 74. What did he do? 75. Who else came? 76. Tell what these men did with his body. 77. In what kind of place was the body laid ? 78. Why the hasty burial?

John 19:1

1 Pilate failed in his effort to get Jesus released under the custom of the times in connection with the passover. He then tried to hope that he could work on the sympathy of the Jews, after they saw the appearance of Jesus as the regular procedure was followed. That began by scourging him, which was usually done to victims about to be executed. It was a cruel ordeal which is described by Smith’s Bible Dictionary as follows: “Under the Roman method the culprit was stripped, stretched with cords or thongs on a frame and beaten with rods. (Another form of scourge consisted of a handle with three lashes or thongs of leather or cord, sometimes with pieces of metal fastened to them. Romans citizens were exempt by their law from scourging.)”

John 19:2

2 Mat 27:27 should be read in connection with this verse. The scourging had been done in the court, then Jesus was led into the common hall, where the whole band of soldiers was gathered to see the indignities to be imposed on him. He had said he was a king, and in mockery they put a crown of thorns upon his head. The thorns were those of a brier or bramble bush. Purple was one of the royal colors, so they put such a robe on Jesus which was also in mockery of his claim to being a king.

John 19:3

3 These derisive words were said in mockery with the same motive that prompted their actions in the preceding verse. Smote him. See the comments on John 18:22 for the description and significance of this shameful act.

John 19:4

4 Having put Jesus through these cruel indignities, Pilate announced to the Jews in waiting that he was bringing their prisoner out to them. That ye may know was said with the meaning, “Although your prisoner has been treated with such indignities as you can see, yet no final sentence has been pronounced upon him. I am therefore offering him to you because I still find no fault in him.”

John 19:5

5 With this “introduction,” Jesus appeared on the scene, wearing the crown of thorns with its thousands of prickles having been pressed down pon his head, and robed in the colors that only belonged to Roman kings. His appearance was plainly visible to all the mob, yet Pilate thought to arouse their pity by a pointed phrase, behold the man. The first word is from IDE, and Thayer defines it, “see! behold! lo!” He then explains it, “as the utterance of one who wishes that something should not be negelected by another.” Robinson gives the same definition as Thayer, then follows with the comment, “As calling attention to something present.”

John 19:6

6 When the chief priests had their attention especially directed to Jesus, it had the opposite effect upon them to what Pilate expected. They were enraged and caused to repeat their demand that Jesus be crucified. Take ye him and crucify him. This was not a judicial sentence; that came later. But it was another effort of Pilate to evade responsibility for punishing a man in whom he still found no fault.

John 19:7

7 Made himself the Son of God. This was a new charge as far as Pilate had heard. Up to the present he could get only the idea of a rival against the government, but which was not in any of the evidence so far produced. Pilate was a heathen in religion, and could not realize fully what it would mean to be called by such a title as the Jews named. Yet he was not entirely unacquainted with Jewish history as was indicated by washing his hands (Matthew 27:24), an act based on Deuteronomy 21:1-6.

John 19:8

8 From his knowledge of Jewish history, referred to in the preceding verse, Pilate had some idea of the importance attached to their God. Now here was a man in his court who claimed to be the Son of that God. If such claim was true, then it might be dangerous to mistreat him. All of this in connection with his wife’s dream (Matthew 27:19), filled him with uneasiness so that the record says he was the more afraid.

John 19:9

9 Pilate was still unwilling to let the matter drop, but made another effort to get Jesus to commit himself. The question whence art thou was related to the claim just made that he was the Son of God. Jesus made no answer to the question, but that was not because he could not do so, neither was it from pure contempt of the court, for he did speak presently. In the appearances of Jesus be fore the rulers, he was silent when his personal comfort or safety was all that was involved, and that fulfilled the predictions in Isaiah 53:7. But when an important issue was called up, he would speak out and give the teaching upon it, as we shall see very soon.

John 19:10

0 Pilate thought Jesus was maintaining silence in contempt. He thought he would goad him into speaking by a sort of “threat of the law.” The self-importance which he felt he possessed was expressed in the words, I have power.

John 19:11

1 Jesus considered it was the proper time for him to speak. He did not deny the power (or authority) that Pilate claimed to have, but informed him that this power was not his directly, but that it had been given him from above. It meant that Pilate was acting as the instrument of a Higher Power, and hence that his part in the solemn drama was not purely upon his own motive; he personally did not wish it to be so. But the Jewish leaders, though also acting in fulfillment of the prophecies, were yet carrying out their personal desires. That is why Jesus told Pilate that he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

John 19:12

2 It seems that every turn of the conversation and events only confirmed Pilate in his belief that Jesus was an innocent man. But his political interests outweighed his conscience, so that he made only such attempts at releasing the prisoner as would not endanger his standing with the government of Caesar. The Jews realized this situation, and used it with telling effect in this verse.

John 19:13

3 Pilate yielded to the political pressure which the Jews brought to bear upon him in the preceding verse, and concluded he would pass the sentence of death against Jesus. Judgment seat is from BEMA, which Thayer defines, “A raised place mounted by steps; a platform, tribune.” He further says it was used as the official seat of a judge. This was the spot where Pilate brought Jesus for the final act in the tragedy.

John 19:14

4 The meaning of preparation will be fully explained at verse 31. The present verse puts the time of the crucifixion about the sixth hour, which seems to disagree with the account in Mark 15:25 which puts it at the third hour. There is no contradiction in thought when the various kinds of calendars that were used are considered. One method of dividing the day was by the single hours, starting in the morning at what corresponds with our six o’clock, which was the first hour in New Testament times. The hours were then numbered from one to twelve, and a reference to any certain hour (such as 3rd or 6th) meant a period of one hour only. Another form of calendar divided the twelve hours into four periods of three hours each and each period was named by the last hour of that period.

By that method, the sixth hour would mean the period that really began with the hour that was called the third in the single hour method. John’s statement is based on this calendar. As the source of my information, I will quote from Owen C. Whitehouse, Professor of Hebrew, Chesnut College, near London, on the Hebrew Calendar: “The later division of the day was: Third hour, 6 to 9 A. M.; Sixth ‘hour, 9 to 12 A. M.; Ninth hour, 12 to 3 P.

M.; Twelfth hour, 3 to 6 P. M.” This same information is given by The Oxford Cyclopedic Concordance, under article “Day.”

John 19:15

5 When Pilate asked the Jews to behold their king (in preceding verse), it enraged them still more and made them want the execution performed at once. Pilate gave them one last chance just before giving Jesus over to the executioners, to change their minds and snatch him as it were from the cross. He made the appeal as pointed as possible by asking, “Shall I crucify your King?” This desperate move of his reminds us of the language of Peter in Acts 3:13, where he says of Pilate’s attitude toward Jesus, “he was determined to let him go.” The chief priests rejected all of Pilate’s suggestions. Their statement, We have no king but Caesar, was not made except as a retort to Pilate’s question, and not in the spirit of patriotic loyalty.

John 19:16

6 Pilate regarded the remark in the close of the preceding verse as final, and at once delivered Jesus unto the soldiers, who led him away to be crucified.

John 19:17

7 Bearing his cross. According to Luke 23:26, Simon was compelled to help Jesus bear the cross. There was a rule that if a victim condemned to the cross was unable physically to carry it alone, someone would be made to take up the rear part and help carry it, walking after the other to the place of execution. Place of a skull. There is a long note on this phrase at Matthew 27:33, containing information gleaned from the lexicons and other authentic works of reference.

John 19:18

8 The two other were thieves according to Matthew 27:38.

John 19:19

9 The title also means an inscription, in the form of a placard or poster, placed on the cross in full view of the passers-by. The wording on this poster was, Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews. The inscription was to inform the public of the charge on which the victim had been crucified. This one showed that Jesus was nailed to the cross for the “crime” of being king of the Jews.

John 19:20

0 The inscription was written in the three languages named, because people of those tongues were present at Jerusalem at that time and thus they could read it.

John 19:21

1 The title on the cross was such a flimsy reason for having Jesus slain, that the chief priests were ashamed as they saw the crowds reading it. They thought it could be made to seem more fitting if the charge would read so as to represent Jesus as an arch impostor; they requested Pilate to change the wording to that effect.

John 19:22

2 What I have written I have written, was a brief way of saying, “I have written the inscription as I wanted it, and I will not let it be changed.”

John 19:23

3 We may learn from Smith’s Bible Dictionary (article–“crucifixion”), that the victim to be crucified was stripped of his clothing before crucifixion. It was a custom that the soldiers performing the execution should have the victim’s raiment as an extra pay in addition to their wages as soldiers. According to the present verse there were four of the soldiers, corresponding to the four parts of the body to be nailed; the two hands and two feet. This would call for four divisions to be made of the garments so each soldier could have a share But the coat was woven in one piece in such a way that it could not be divided without ruining it.

John 19:24

4 In the case of the one-piece garment, the soldiers agreed to decide the question by casting lots for it. That the scripture might be fulfilled means, “and in so doing the scripture was fulfilled,” etc.; the prediction is in Psalms 22:18.

John 19:25

5 This verse corresponds with Matthew 27:56, with some variation in the names of some of the women. Mary the mother of Jesus was the same as the mother of James and Joses (Mark 6:3).

John 19:26

6 The disciple whom he loved was John, the writer of this book (chapter 21:20, 24). Behold thy son. The term son comes from HUIOS, which has a great many shades of meaning besides the one commonly used. Thayer says it is sometimes used “of one who depends on another.” Jesus used it in that sense as may be seen in the following verse. When he told his mother to behold John as her son, he meant for her to depend on him for support.

John 19:27

7 By the same token as set forth in the preceding verse, when Jesus told John to behold his mother, he meant for him to let Mary depend on him for support. John also understood it that way, for he began at once to take her as a member of his own household. And the arrangement was exactly on the same principle that was taught by Paul in 1 Timothy 5:4; 1 Timothy 5:16. In that place the apostle was writing about dependent widows, and the obligation of nephews to care for them. The same idea would hold good in the case of others who are able to care for worthy disciples who are dependent.

John 19:28

8 Not until after all things were accomplished did Jesus give expression to his dying desires. In the throes of his feverish last hours, he complained of being thirsty. That the scripture might be fulfilled denotes that in his thirst and its quenching he would fulfill the scripture.

John 19:29

9 The scripture prediction that was fulfilled by this is in Psalms 69:21. When Jesus expressed his wants by stating the condition of thirst, someone dipped a sponge in vinegar (sour wine) and placed it upon hyssop so as to reach it up to the parched lips of the dying Saviour. This was the most convenient way either of serving or receiving it under the circumstances. It was done merely to quench his thirst and not as an opiate, since it did not have the gall mixed with it which he had refused (Matthew 27:34). Some confusion might occur over this word hyssop, since both Matthew and Mark say it was put on a reed. I shall quote from Smith’s Bible Dictionary on the article in question. “Besides being thus lit for sprinkling, having cleansing properties, and growing on walls, the true hyssop should be a plant common to Egypt, Sinai and Palestine, and capable of producing a stick three or four feet long.”

John 19:30

0 It is finished. In John 17:4 as Jesus was praying he said, “I have finished the work which thou gayest me to do.” That was said prospectively, because his work on earth was virtually completed then. In the present instance it was said literally, because it was among the last words Jesus uttered before death. Gave up the ghost (spirit), indicates that when a man dies, something in his body leaves it, which proves that the human being is not wholly material.

John 19:31

1 Preparation. Funk and Wagnalls New Standard Bible Dictionary says of this day, “This term signifies in general any day which preceded a great feast. The usage is somewhat analogous [similar] to that of the English ’eve’ (Christmas eve, New-year’s eve, etc.).” The call for such a day lay in the restrictions of the law of Moses regarding holy days. On them it was unlawful to perform any manual labor, even to the gathering of sticks for fuel (Numbers 15:32-36). It was therefore directed that all their baking and boiling be done the day before by way of preparation for the sabbath or holy day to come (Exodus 16:23).

The law of Moses forbade letting a body on a tree (or cross) over night (Deuteronomy 21:22-23). The Jews were attentive to such items as this, and especially as it would have caused a dead body to be thus exposed on a sabbath day. What was still more important in this case was that it would have been on a high day. The word is from MEGAS, which Thayer defines at this place, “Of great moment, of great weight, important; solemn, sacred.” Even without the definition from the lexicon, the way it is used indicates that the sabbath day referred to was not the ordinary or weekly one.

The explanation is in the fact that the day following the crucifixion was the Jewish Passover. Leviticus 23:1-7 clearly shows that day was a holy one which made it a sabbath day. The regular sabbath came each week, while this other came only once a year, and was commemorative of the deliverance of Israel from Egyptian bondage. No wonder, then, that John called it a ‘high day. Crucifixion caused a slow death as a rule, so that the victims might linger on into the night and even up till the following day before dying. It was not lawful to permit them thus to remain there, neither could they take them down from the cross while alive.

Hence it was a rule to hasten death before night by breaking the legs with clubs, the shock on top of what they had already endured being the final cause of death. That is why the Jews requested Pilate to have the legs of the three broken.

John 19:32

2 We are not told why the soldiers came to the thieves before Jesus. It was not because of their order on the crosses, for verse 18 says they were on the sides of Jesus. We might speculate and suggest that a humane feeling prompted them to put off the brutal performance as long as possible, but that would be a guess only, and I merely offer it for what it is worth. But the custom of the occasion was carried out under the authority of Pilate.

John 19:33

3 Jesus had suffered so much physical shock in addition to his intense nervous strain (Luke 22:44), that he anticipated the soldiers and died before they arrived at the cross. The fact was unusual, and hence Pilate was surprised when he heard that Jesus was dead (Mark 15:44). The only reason the soldiers had for not breaking the legs of Jesus was that the purpose for the act (to hasten death) was not present. But their refraining from doing it fulfilled another prediction, that his bones were not to be broken (Psalms 34:20). The same fact was also typified by the restrictions on observing the first pass-over in Egypt, “neither shall ye break a bone thereof” (Exodus 12:46).

John 19:34

4 The scripture does not tell us the motive of the soldier in piercing the body of Jesus with his spear. Doubtless the hand of God was in the act, using the heathen servant as the instrument in producing the greatest event in all history. Blood and water. In the very nature of the cue, the source of the water had to be the circulatory system. The word is from HUDOR, and Robinson defines it, “A watery fluid, serum,” and explains it at this place, “which flowed from the wound in Jesus’ side.” This critical authority will justify another note, in the form of a medical comment, by Henry H. Halley, as follows: ‘.

‘Some medical authorities have said that in the case of heart rupture, and in that case only, the blood collects in the pericardium (the lining around the wall of the heart), and divides into a sort of bloody clot and a watery serum. If this is a fact, then the actual physical cause of Jesus’ death was heart rupture. Under intense pain, and the pressure of his wildly raging blood, his heart burst open.” Thus the spear of the Roman soldier started the flowing of the most precious stream that ever existed in the universe. In it was fulfilled the prophetic words, “In that day there shall be a fountain opened in the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness” (Zechariah 13:1). And with that amazing circumstance in our minds, we sing these beautifully solemn words: “There is a fountain filled with blood, Drawn from Emman-uel’s veins; And sinners plunged beneath that flood, Lose all their guilty stains.”

John 19:35

5 This verse is virtually the same as John 21:24, which lets us know that it means John. He knew that his record was true, not only because he was an eye witness (John 19:26), but was one of the inspired apostles and wrote by the Holy Spirit.

John 19:36

6 This is commented upon at verse 33.

John 19:37

7 This prediction is in Zechariah 12:10. The mere act of looking on Jesus might seem as an unimportant item. But Matthew 27:36 says, “And sitting down they watched him there.” This was not from mere morbid curiosity, but it was a part of their duty. Smith’s Bible Dictionary says, “The crucified was watched, according to custom, by a party of four soldiers, John 19:23, with their centurion, Matthew 27:66, whose express office was to prevent the stealing of the body. This was necessary from the lingering character of the death, which sometimes did not supervene even for three days, and was at last the result of gradual benumbing and starvation. But for this guard, the persons might have been taken down and recovered as was actually done in the case of a friend of Josephus.”

John 19:38

8 secretly for fear of the Jews means that his being a disciple had been kept secret up to this time. But he maintained that secrecy no longer, which he could not do if he performed the act he planned on doing in taking charge of the body of Jesus. The soldiers would not have permitted him to take the body, had he not been authorized to do so by Pilate, hence the record says that he “commanded the body to be delivered” (Matthew 27:58).” And the open manner of Joseph’s actions is expressed in Mark 15:43, that he “went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.”

John 19:39

9 The visit of Nicodemus with Jesus is recorded in chapter 3 of this book. Nothing is said at that place as to the impression made on the ruler, nor of what his attitude was afterward; but the present verse indicates that it left him with a favorable feeling. Also the protest he made against the unfair treatment accorded to Jesus by the Jews (chapter 7:50, 51) agrees with that attitude. Hence he joined with Joseph in giving the body of Jesus this honorable burial. Thayer says that myrrh is, “a bitter gum and costly perfume which exudes from a certain tree or shrub in Arabia and Ethiopia, or is obtained by incisions made in the bark; as an antiseptic it was used in embalming.” Of aloes he says it is “the name of an aromatic tree which grows in eastern India and Cochin China, and whose soft bitter wood the Orientals used in fumigation and in embalming the dead.” The immense weight of these materials that Nicodemus brought would indicate his respect for Jesus.

John 19:40

0 The products mentioned in the preceding verse were bound to the body of Jesus with the linen cloth, after which it was prepared for burial according to the Jewish custom in, practice at that time and in that coun-try.

John 19:41

1 A new sepulchre. This place had become the property of Joseph according to Matthew 27:60. We are not informed when nor why Joseph had acquired this tomb, but having done so evidently for his own use whenever the occasion came that it would be needed, it was at this time unoccupied. That gave the occasion for the body of Jesus to be placed “wherein was never man yet laid” (stated here and in Luke 23:53).

John 19:42

2 Because of the Jews’ preparation day. Luke 23:54 says it was the day of the preparation, “and the sabbath drew on.” The preparation day was a busy time for the Jews (see notes at verse 31), hence it was convenient from that standpoint to bury Jesus at this place, for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.