Scourge; Scourging

SCOURGE, SCOURGING.—In the Gospels the vb. ‘scourge’ is translation of two Gr. terms, μαστιγόω (fr. μάστιξ, found in Gospels only in a metaphorical sense [Authorized and Revised Versions ‘plague,’ (Revised Version margin) ‘Gr. scourge’], but used in its literal meaning in Act 22:24, Heb 11:36); and φραγελλόω (fr. φραγέλλιον, Lat. flagellum, which occurs in Joh 2:15). φραγέλλιον denotes the scourge proper as an instrument of punishment, while μάστιξ in class. Gr. is often used of an ordinary whip for driving, etc. In NT, however, μαστιγόω is a synonym for φραγελλόω (cf. Mar 10:34; Mar 15:15, Mat 27:26 and Joh 19:1). The subject of scourging comes before us in three connexions.

(1) In Joh 2:15 Jesus makes a scourge (φραγέλλιον) of cords (ἐκ σχοινίων) and drives the desecrating crowd of traders, as well as their sheep and oxen, out of the Temple. Farrar and others have represented this scourge of Jesus as nothing more than a whip twisted hastily out of the rushes with which the floor would be littered—a pure symbol of authority, therefore, not a weapon of offence. In this case, however, we should have had σχοίνων, not σχοινίων. σχοινίον is a rope, not a rush, and though originally applied to a rope made from rushes, is used in class. Gr. in a general sense. On the only other occasion of its employment in the NT it means a rope strong enough to tow a ship’s boat in a gale (Act 27:32). To drive a herd of oxen out of the Temple courts, moreover, something more than a symbol of authority would be required. But we need not suppose that Jesus, even in His indignation, struck the merchants themselves. For them the sign of His authority would be sufficient (cf. Joh 18:6), and, as Bengel says, ‘terrore rem perfecit.’

(2) In Mat 10:17 Jesus forewarns the Apostles of a time when men would scourge them in their synagogues; and in Mat 23:34 He predicts that the scribes and Pharisees will thus treat those whom He sends unto them. The later history gives ample evidence of the fulfilment of these words (see Act 5:40; Act 22:19, 2Co 6:5; 2Co 11:23-24).

(3) But, above all, we must think of the scourging endured by Jesus Himself. According to all the Synoptics, Jesus foresaw this as part of the suffering that lay before Him (Mat 20:19, Mar 10:34, Luk 18:33). It was, indeed, almost inseparable from His vision of the Cross, for scourging formed the ordinary accompaniment of a Roman crucifixion (cf. Josephus BJ v. xi. 1). Sometimes it was employed in criminal cases as a means of extracting confession, but regularly as the brutal preliminary to the still more brutal death of the cross. Because of the apparent inconsistency between Mat 27:26, Mar 15:15, on the one hand, and Joh 19:1, on the other, as to the particular stage of the trial at which Jesus was scourged, some have thought that the torture was twice inflicted. A careful comparison of the four Gospels, however, does not support this idea. The statements of Mt. and Mk., though they convey, when taken alone, the impression of a scourging immediately before the crucifixion, do not necessarily bear this meaning, but may quite well be understood retrospectively, and as implying simply that Jesus had to endure the scourge before going to the cross. Probably the key to the difficulty is to be found in Lk.’s narrative, where Pilate says, ‘Why, what evil hath this man done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him and release him’ (Luk 23:22). These words show that Pilate meant the scourging to be a compromise between the death which the Jews demanded and the verdict of absolute innocence which was called for by his own sense of justice. And this is confirmed by Jn.’s narrative, which shows Pilate scourging Jesus (Luk 19:1) and holding Him up to mockery (Luk 19:2-3) in the evident hope of satisfying the multitude, still insisting that he found no crime in Him (Luk 19:4), and yielding at last, only with reluctance, to the demand for His crucifixion (Luk 19:6 ff.). See art. Trial of Jesus Christ.

A Roman scourging might be carried out either with rods (virgae, ῥάβδοι)—the weapons of lictors, or with the scourge proper (flagellum, φραγέλλιον), in which leather thongs weighted with rough pieces of lead or iron were attached to a stout wooden handle. St. Paul’s three Roman scourgings, as distinguished from his five Jewish ones, were inflicted by means of rods (ῥαβδίζω, 2Co 11:25, Act 16:22-23). But Jerusalem was not a Roman town, like Philippi (Act 16:12 Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ), and Pilate had no lictors. Jesus was scourged by soldiers, and the implement they used, as the vb. φραγελλόω (Mat 27:26, Mar 15:15) almost implies, would be the dreadful Roman flagellum. St. Peter may have witnessed it all; and what a world of meaning then lies in his words, ‘by whose stripes [Gr. ‘bruise’ or ‘weal’] ye were healed’ (1Pe 2:24, cf. Is 53:5).

Literature.—The Comm. on the passages quoted, esp. Westcott, Gosp. of St. John, and Bruce and Dods in EGT [Note: GT Expositor’s Greek Testanent.] ; Taylor Innes, The Trial of Jesus Christ: A Legal Monograph (1899); Rosadi, The Trial of Jesus (1905); Farrar, Christ in Art, p. 378ff., St. Paul, i. Excurs. xi.

J. C. Lambert.

skûrj, skûr´jing (μάστιξ, mástix, μαστιγόω, mastigóō; in Act 22:25 μαστίζω, mastı́zō, in Mar 15:15 parallel Mat 27:26 φραγελλόω, phragellóō): A Roman implement for severe bodily punishment. Horace calls it horribile flagellum. It consisted of a handle, to which several cords or leather thongs were affixed, which were weighted with jagged pieces of bone or metal, to make the blow more painful and effective. It is comparable, in its horrid effects, only with the Russian knout. The victim was tied to a post (Act 22:25) and the blows were applied to the back and loins, sometimes even, in the wanton cruelty of the executioner, to the face and the bowels. In the tense position of the body, the effect can easily be imagined. So hideous was the punishment that the victim usually fainted and not rarely died under it. Eusebius draws a horribly realistic picture of the torture of scourging (Historia Ecclesiastica, IV, 15). By its application secrets and confessions were wrung from the victim (Act 22:24). It usually preceded capital punishment (Livy xxxiii. 36). It was illegal to apply the flagallum to a Roman citizen (Act 22:25), since the Porcian and Sempronian laws, 248 and 123 BC, although these laws were not rarely broken in the provinces (Tac. Hist. iv. 27; Cic. Verr. v. 6, 62; Josephus, BJ, II, xiv, 9). As among the Russians today, the number of blows was not usually fixed, the severity of the punishment depending entirely on the commanding officer. In the punishment of Jesus, we are reminded of the words of Psa 129:3. Among the Jews the punishment of flagellation was well known since the Egyptian days, as the monuments abundantly testify. The word “scourge” is used in Lev 19:20, but the American Standard Revised Version translates “punished,” the original word biḳḳōreth expressing the idea of investigation. Deu 25:3 fixed the mode of a Jewish flogging and limits the number of blows to 40. Apparently the flogging was administered by a rod. The Syrians reintroduced true scourging into Jewish life, when Antiochus Epiphanes forced them by means of it to eat swine’s flesh (2 Macc 6:30; 7:1). Later it was legalized by Jewish law and became customary (Mat 10:17; Mat 23:34; Act 22:19; Act 26:11), but the traditional limitation of the number of blows was still preserved. Says Paul in his “foolish boasting”: “in stripes above measure,” “of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one,” distinguishing it from the “beatings with rods,” thrice repeated (2Co 11:23-25).

The other Old Testament references (Job 5:21; Job 9:23; Isa 10:26; Isa 28:15, Isa 28:18 שׁוט, shōṭ; Jos 23:13 שׁטט, shōṭēṭ) are figurative for “affliction.” Notice the curious mixture of metaphors in the phrase “over-flowing scourge” (Isa 28:15-18).