Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 27:35

And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

35. they crucified him ] From the fact of the titulus or inscription being placed over the Saviour’s head, it is inferred that the cross on which He suffered was such as is usually shewn in pictures, the crux immissa () or Latin cross as distinguished from the crux commissa (T) or the crux decussata () the form of cross on which St Andrew is said to have suffered. The height was from 9 to 12 feet; at a short distance from the ground a projecting rest supported the sufferer’s feet, which, as well as the hands, were nailed to the cross.

According to St Mark (Mar 15:25) the Crucifixion took place at the third hour nine o’clock. St John (Joh 19:14) says it was about the sixth hour when Pilate delivered Jesus to be crucified.

This discrepancy has received no entirely satisfactory solution. It has however been suggested that St John, writing at a later period and in a different part of the world, may have followed a different mode of reckoning time.

parted his garments, casting lots ] St John describes the division more accurately; they divided His himatia, or outer garments, but cast lots for the seamless chiton, or tunic. The latter is said to have been a dress peculiar to Galilan peasants.

The Greek of the quotation from Psa 22:18 (see below) does not convey the same distinction.

They parted my garments among them, &c.] Psa 22:18. The same psalm is quoted Mat 27:39 ; Mat 27:43 ; Mat 27:46. It is not a psalm of David, but was probably “composed by one of the exiles during the Babylonish captivity who would cling to the thought that he suffered not only as an individual, but as one of the chosen of God. But it has more than an individual reference. It looks forward to Christ.” Canon Perowne on Psalms 22. The leading MSS. omit this quotation, which has probably been inserted from Mark.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

And they crucified him – To crucify means to put to death on a cross. The cross has been described at Mat 27:32. The usual manner of the crucifixion was as follows: After the criminal had carried the cross, attended with every possible gibe and insult, to the place of execution, a hole was dug in the earth to receive the foot of it. The cross was laid on the ground; the person condemned to suffer was stripped and was extended on it, and the soldiers fastened the hands and feet either by nails or thongs. After they had driven the nails deeply in the wood, they elevated the cross with the agonizing sufferer on it, and, in order to fix it more firmly in the earth, they let it fall violently into the hole which they had dug to receive it. This sudden fall gave to the person that was nailed to it a violent and convulsive shock, and greatly increased his sufferings. The crucified person was then suffered to hang, commonly, until pain, exhaustion, thirst, and hunger ended his life. Sometimes the sufferings continued for days; and when friendly death terminated the life, the body was often suffered to remain – a loathsome object, putrefying in the sun or devoured by birds.

This punishment was deemed the most disgraceful and ignominious that was practiced among the Romans. It was the way in which slaves, robbers, and the most notorious and abandoned wretches were commonly put to death. It was this, among other things, that exposed those who preached the gospel to so much shame and contempt among the Greeks and Romans. They despised everything that was connected with the death of one who had been put to death as a slave and an outlaw.

Since it was the most ignominious punishment known, so it was the most painful. The following circumstances made it a death of special pain:

1. The position of the arms and the body was unnatural, the arms being extended back and almost immovable. The least motion gave violent pain in the hands and feet, and in the back, which was lacerated with stripes.

2. The nails, being driven through the parts of the hands and feet which abound with nerves, created the most exquisite anguish.

3. The exposure of so many wounds to the air brought on a violent inflammation, which greatly increased the poignancy of the suffering.

4. The free circulation of the blood was prevented. More blood was carried out in the arteries than could be returned by the veins. The consequence was, that there was a great increase of blood in the veins of the head, producing an intense pressure and violent pain. The same was true of other parts of the body. This intense pressure in the blood-vessels was the source of inexpressible misery.

5. The pain gradually increased. There was no relaxation and no rest. There was no prospect but death. The sufferer was commonly able to endure it until the third, and sometimes even to the seventh day. The intense sufferings of the Saviour, however, were sooner terminated. This was caused, perhaps, in some measure, by his previous fatigue and exhaustion, but still more by the intense sufferings of his soul in bearing our griefs and carrying our sorrows in making an atonement for the sins of the world.

And parted his garments – It was customary to crucify a person naked. The clothes of the sufferer belonged to those who were executioners. John says (Joh 19:23) that they divided his garments into four parts, to each soldier a part, but for his coat they cast lots. See the notes at the place. When Matthew says, therefore, that they parted his garments, casting lots, it is to be understood that they divided one part of them, and for the other part of them they cast lots.

That it might be fulfilled … – The words here quoted are found in Psa 22:18. The whole psalm is usually referred to Christ, and is a most striking description of his sufferings and death.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 35. And they crucified him] Crucifixion properly means the act of nailing or tying to a cross. The cross was made of two beams, either crossing at the top at right angles, like a T, or in the middle of their length, like an X. There was, besides, a piece on the centre of the transverse beam, to which the accusation or statement of the crime of the culprit was attached, and a piece of wood which projected from the middle, on which the person sat, as on a sort of saddle; and by which the whole body was supported. Tertullian mentions this particularly: Nobis, says he, tota crux imputatur, cum antenna scilicet sua, et cum illo SEDILIS excessu. Advers. Nationes, lib. ii. Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, gives precisely the same description of the cross; and it is worthy of observation that both he and Tertullian flourished before the punishment of the cross had been abolished. The cross on which our Lord suffered was of the former kind; being thus represented in all old monuments, coins, and crosses. St. Jerome compares it to a bird flying, a man swimming, or praying with his arms extended. The punishment of the cross was inflicted among the ancient Hindoos from time immemorial for various species of theft; see Halhead’s Code of Gentoo Laws, p. 248, and was common among the Syrians, Egyptians, Persians, Africans, Greeks, and Romans: it is also still in use among the Chinese, who do not nail, but tie the criminal to it. It was probably the Romans who introduced it among the Jews. Before they became subject to the Romans, they used hanging or gibbeting, but not the cross. This punishment was the most dreadful of all others, both for the shame and pain of it: and so scandalous, that it was inflicted as the last mark of detestation upon the vilest of people. It was the punishment of robbers and murderers, provided they were slaves; but if they were free, it was thought too infamous a punishment for such, let their crimes be what they might.

The body of the criminal was fastened to the upright beam, by nailing or tying the feet to it, and on the transverse piece by nailing, and sometimes tying the hands to it. As the hands and feet are the grand instruments of motion, they are provided with a greater quantity of nerves; and the nerves in those places, especially the hands, are peculiarly sensible. Now, as the nerves are the instruments of all sensation or feeling, wounds in the parts where they abound must be peculiarly painful; especially when inflicted with such rude instruments as large nails, forced through the places by the violence of a hammer; thus tearing asunder the nervous fibrillae, delicate tendons, and small bones of those parts. This punishment will appear dreadful enough, when it is considered that the person was permitted to hang (the whole weight of his body being borne up by his nailed hands and the projecting piece which passed between the thighs) till he perished through agony and lack of food. Some, we are informed, have lived three whole days in this state. It is true that, in some cases, there was a kind of mercy shown to the sufferer, which will appear sufficiently horrid, when it is known that it consisted in breaking the bones of their legs and thighs to pieces with a large hammer, in order to put them the sooner out of pain! Such a coup de grace as this could only spring from those tender mercies of the wicked which God represents as cruelty itself. Some were permitted to hang on the cross till eaten up by birds of prey, which often began to tear them before life was extinct. Horace alludes to this punishment, and from what he says, it seems to have been inflicted on slaves, c., not on trifling occasions, but for the most horrible crimes.

Si quis eum servum, patinam qui tollere jussus

Semesos pisces tepidumque ligurrierit jus,

In CRUCE suffigat. HOR. Satyr. l. i. s. 3. v. 80.

If a poor slave who takes away your plate,

Lick the warm sauce, or half cold fragments eat,

Yet should you crucify the wretch! —- FRANCIS.

Non hominem occidi: non pasces in CRUCE corvos.

“I have not committed murder: Then thou shalt not be nailed to the cross, to feed the ravens.” HOR. Epist. l. i. s. 16. v. 48.

The anguish occasioned by crucifixion was so intense, that crucio, (a cruce,) among the Romans, was the common word by which they expressed suffering and torment in general.

And parted his garments, casting lots] These were the Roman soldiers, who had crucified him: and it appears from this circumstance, that in those ancient times the spoils of the criminal were claimed by the executioners, as they are to the present day. It appears that they divided a part, and cast lots for the rest: viz. for his seamless coat, Joh 19:23-24.

That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.] The whole of this quotation should be omitted, as making no part originally of the genuine text of this evangelist. It is omitted by almost every MS. of worth and importance, by almost all the versions, and the most reputable of the primitive fathers, who have written or commented on the place. The words are plainly an interpolation, borrowed from Joh 19:24, in which place they will be properly noticed.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Mark saith, Mar 15:24-28, When they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take. And it was the third hour, and they crucified him. And the superscription of his accusation was written over, The King of the Jews. And with him they crucified two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left. And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.

Luke saith, Luk 23:33,34, And when they were come to the place which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

John telleth us some further circumstances, Joh 19:18-24 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst. And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written. Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore among themselves, 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 raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did. And they crucified him; that is, four soldiers, as we learn from Johns narration of this matter of fact; it seemeth this business was assigned to four more especially.

This crucifying was a bitter and shameful kind of death, not in use amongst the Jews, but amongst the Romans. The manner of it is not particularly known to us: but, as it is described by writers, a piece of wood was erected which was crossed with a bar upon the top. The body of the person being fastened to the main piece of wood, his arms were extended, and nailed to the cross bar, or piece of timber, and his hands and feet were nailed. Mark saith, it was the third hour, which with us was about nine of the clock: so hasty they were in destroying this just person, that between midnight and nine of the clock in the morning, they apprehended him, tried and condemned him in the sanhedrim, or at least in a court of high priests and elders, and then before Pilate the Roman governor, and led him to be crucified, and nailed him to his cross. The evangelists tell us, he was crucified in the middle between two thieves, of whom we shall read more afterward. Several scriptures of the Old Testament were fulfilled in this crucifixion of Christ. They pierced my hands and my feet, Psa 22:16, was fulfilled in his nailing to the cross. In his being crucified betwixt two thieves was fulfilled that, Isa 53:12, He was numbered with the transgressors. That of the psalmist, Psa 22:18, They parted my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture, was fulfilled in the soldiers parting of our Saviours garments, as their fee. But how could they part them, and yet not rend them? Possibly they parted his other garments, and only did cast lots for his coat, or upper garment. Or, it may be, they valued it, and agreed each mans share, and then cast lots for the whole. I see no ground for their assertion, who say, that in such cases they only stripped the condemned person of his upper garment. Johns relation seemeth to oppose it; he saith, and also his coat. Matthew, Mark, and John all agree in the inscription which Pilate drew to be put upon his cross, signifying the crime for which he died; only John puts in those words, of Nazareth. Thus Christ died in the attestation of his kingly office. This inscription angered the Jews; they solicit Pilate to alter it, and that it might be, Who said he was the King of the Jews. But Pilate refused, saying, What I have written I have written. There was nothing more pleasing to Pilate than this, (as he thought), to deride the Jews, as having such a despicable person (as he judged him) their King. In the mean time the counsels of God have their effect; Christ in his death is declared to be the King of the Jews. Luke saith, that Christ said, Father, forgive them; for they know what they do. Whether these words were spoken when our Lord was first nailed to the cross, or afterward, is not much material. Luke relates them before the soldiers parting his garments. Our Saviour by them declares himself a true Pastor and Shepherd of souls, teaching his disciples no more than he himself did practise. Mat 5:44, he had taught his disciples to pray for them who despitefully used and persecuted them. Himself here practises it. The malice of men ought not to quench in Christians the grace of God. Let us now consider the passage that happened from the time he was nailed to the cross until the time of his expiration, which was more than three entire hours.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

And they crucified him,…. That is, the soldiers: they laid the cross upon the ground, and stretched Christ upon it; they extended his two arms as far as they could, to the transverse part of it, and nailed his hands unto it: his two feet they fixed by each other on a basis, in the body of the cross, through which they also drove nails; and then raising it up, fixed it in the earth, and left him hanging on it till he expired. This death was not only painful and cruel, but exceedingly shameful and ignominious: it was what was inflicted on the meanest of persons, as servants, whose form Christ had taken; and upon the worst of men, as murderers, cut-throats, thieves, and the vilest of men r among whom Christ was now numbered:

and parted his garments, casting lots: for they stripped him of his clothes before they fixed him to the cross, and crucified him naked, as was the custom of the Romans s; as it was of the Jews to stone and hang persons naked: their canons run thus t;

“when he is four cubits off of the place of stoning, they strip off his garments; a man they cover before, a woman both behind and before; the words of Judah: but the wise men say, a man is stoned naked, and a woman is not stoned naked: a man, they hang him with his face to the people; a woman, with her face to the tree. R. Eliezer, and the wise men say, a man is hanged, but a woman is not hanged.”

On which the Gemara u says,

“what is the sense of the Rabbins? the Scripture says, “thou shalt hang him”; him, and not her: and, says R. Eliezer, him, , “without his clothes”.”

So our Lord was crucified; his clothes were a perquisite of the soldiers; there were four of them, as we learn from Joh 19:23, and they parted them into four parts, and then cast lots whose each part should be; or rather, they divided his garments into four parts, and each took his part; but his vesture, or coat, being seamless, and woven from top to bottom, they did not choose to tear it into pieces, but cast lots for it, who should have it:

that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, by David, in Ps 22:18,

they parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. All this, Beza says, is not in any of the ancient copies; nor is it in the Syriac, Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic versions, but stands in the Vulgate Latin, and in Munster’s Hebrew Gospel;

[See comments on Joh 19:24].

r Lipsius de Cruce, l. 1. c. 12. & 13. s Lipsius de Cruce, l. 2. c. 7. t Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 6. sect. 3, 4. u T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 46. 1.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

35. They parted his garments. It is certain that the soldiers did this also according to custom, in dividing among themselves the clothes of a man who had been condemned to die. One circumstance was perhaps peculiar, that they cast lots on a coat which was without seam, (Joh 19:23.) But though nothing happened to Christ in this respect but what was done to all who were condemned to die, still this narrative deserves the utmost attention. For the Evangelists exhibit to us the Son of God stripped of his garments, in order to inform us, that by this nakedness we have obtained those riches which make us honorable in the presence of God. God determined that his own Son should be stripped of his raiment, that we, clothed with his righteousness and with abundance of all good things, may appear with boldness in company with the angels, whereas formerly our loathsome and disgraceful aspect, in tattered garments, kept us back from approaching to heaven. Christ himself permitted his garments to be torn in pieces like a prey, that he might enrich us with the riches of his victory.

That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet. When Matthew says that thus was fulfilled the prediction of David,

they part my garments among them, and cast the lot upon my vesture, (Psa 22:18,)

we must understand his meaning to be, that what David complained of, as having been done to himself metaphorically and figuratively, was literally, (as the common phrase is,) and in reality, exhibited in Christ. For by the word garments David means his wealth and honors; as if he had said that, during his life, and under his own eyes, he was prey to enemies, who had robbed his house, and were so far from sparing the rest of his property, that they even carried off his wife. This cruelty is represented even more strikingly by the metaphor, when he says that his garments were divided by lot. Now as he was a shadow and image of Christ, he predicted, by the spirit of prophecy, what Christ was to suffer. In his person, therefore, this is worthy of observation, that the soldiers plundered his raiment, because in this pillage we discern the signs and marks by which he was formerly pointed out. It serves also to remove the offense with which the sense of the flesh might otherwise have regarded his nakedness, since he suffered nothing which the Holy Spirit does not declare to belong truly and properly to the person of the Redeemer.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

CRITICAL NOTES

Mat. 27:35. That it might be fulfilled, etc.Omitted in R.V. It ought not to be questioned that the words were interpolated by the copyists, from Joh. 19:24 (Scrivener).

Mat. 27:36. They watched Him there.See R.V. They remained on guard over Him.

Mat. 27:37. His accusationThis was what was technically known as the titulusthe bill, or placard, showing who the condemned person was, and why he was punished (Plumptre).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Mat. 27:35-44

On the cross.After a long approach to the cross, we stand, in this passage, as it were, at its foot. What is the real naturewhat was the supposed natureof the Sight we see there?

I. Its true nature and force.On the one side, this is almost too plain. The cross itself, for example, tells of nothing but shame. It was the death of the outlaw, the villain, the slave. No Roman citizen, do what he might, could be put to death in that way. Every one recognised it as involving a curse (Gal. 3:13). What was seen in front of the cross also testified the same thing. The garments belonging to a crucified man were the usual perquisites of those who put him to death. This mark of shame also was not omitted in the case of our Lord. As prophecy had noted of Him beforehand in this particular as in so many others, so it was done (Mat. 27:35). Nor was there wanting testimony of the same kind on each side of His cross. On either side of Him there hung those who were known to be guilty of crime (Mat. 27:38); and guilty of such crime, moreover, as made them fully worthy even of that infamous death (Luk. 23:41). So plain was it so far that He was being treated then as one of the worst of mankind. On the other side, however, there was that in this sight which was correspondingly dark and occult. What was the meaning, e.g., of that conspicuous title which stood over His head? The usual purport of such inscriptions was an affirmation of guilt. They set forth in plain language the particular enormity for which the culprit beneath them had been condemned to that death. In this case, however, there was in reality (Mat. 27:37) no accusation at all. The chief priests, we are told (Joh. 19:21), had noted this with no little concern. They had even besought Pilate in consequencebut besought him in vainto have that title changed in some way (ibid., Mat. 27:22). So significant did this peculiarity seem as well in his eyes as in theirs. It was simply repeating what he had said all along (Mat. 27:23-24). That is why he kept to it still. Nor does it seem to have been less important, it is to be noticed next, in the eyes of all who tell us the tale. The precise words objected to and yet retained, are put down as these: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. It is worthy of note that all the four Evangelists, comparatively brief as all their accounts are, tell us of this title. It is as worthy of note that no two of them do so in quite the same words. It is more worthy of note that, notwithstanding these obvious dissimilarities between them, they all agree in comprising in their descriptions of the title, the above-specified words. In all these ways, therefore, we are pointed to them as specially worthy of note. And we can see, also, for ourselves, that they are so in a kind of mysterious way, when we compare them with those other plain points which we noted before. Taken in combination with these, how surprising indeed is the language spoken by this virtual acquittal of Christ! How extraordinary and perplexing the announcement it makes! An acknowledged King numbered with malefactors! Perfect innocence dying as guilt! Gods Holy One in the position of the worst of mankind!

II. Its supposed nature, as seen at the time.What was thought of it, in the first place, by the ordinary observer? Such would be those mere passers-by of whom we read in Mat. 27:39men who had taken no special part in bringing about the crucifixion of Jesus, but had heard something of the particulars of the case from common report, and had connected these with what they now saw. To them the contrast would be so violent as to be even a matter of jest (see Mat. 27:40). That is all that they would see in that sight; a pretentious career, brought to an ignominiousnot to say a ridiculousend. Not unlike this were the thoughts of those who were most accountable for that sight. To them what they saw was only convincing proof of what they had all along said. A complete answer, e.g., to all the miracles which were said to have been wrought by His power. Even if such things were true, they were fully disposed of as proofs of His mission by this total absence of miraculous power at a time like the present, which clearly called for it most. So also of His recent pretension (ch. 21, etc.) to be King of the Jews. That was equally disposed of by His present inability to come down from the cross. And so, finally, even of the very piety that had been heard in His words. If that were a real thing, why did God now let Him remain on that cross (see Mat. 27:42-43)? All that they saw, in short, was, in their judgment, simply condemnation of Him! And even those, lastly, who were suffering with Him saw nothing more in that sight; nothing more, at first, although one of the two saw much more indeed in the end (Luk. 23:39-43). But, for the time present, in the eyes of both of them, there was nothing but despair in that sight. Even these miscreants only saw in it evidence that He was as bad as themselves! Did they not imply, indeed, by the reproaches they cast on Him, that He was even worse than themselves?

The story furnishes us with illustrations:

1. Of the utter blindness of sin.Two vivid truths, as we have seen, were inscribed on that cross: innocence, on the one hand; guilt, on the other. All the eyes of all the sinners who gazed on it, saw only the latter. The light of the former was but darkness to them.

2. Of the partial blindness, even of faith.How many Christians there are who do not see to this day the full guilt of the cross! The guilt implied in the fact that Christ ever came to that cross! And that, being there, He was allowed to remain there, both by God and Himself? Why else was it that He did not reply to His enemies by coming down from the cross? Surely it was sin, though not His own sin, which kept Him up there!

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Mat. 27:35. Christs sufferings unique.The unique character of Christs sufferings lies

1. In the contrast between His heavenly healthiness and sensibility and this hellish torture.
2. In the contrast between His holiness, innocence, philanthropy and Divine dignity, and this experiencing of human contempt, rejection, and of apparent abandonment by God. Above all,
3. In His sympathy with humanity, which changes this judgment to which the world was surrendered into His own, and so transforms it into a vicarious suffering.J. P. Lange, D.D.

Crucifixion.Dr. Christian F. G. Richter, a pious physician of the Orphan House in Halle, who died in 1711, thus describes the physical sufferings of the crucifixion:

1. On account of the unnatural and immovable position of the body and the violent extension of the arms, the least motion produced the most painful sensation all over the body, but especially on the lacerated back and the pierced members.
2. The nails caused constantly increasing pain on the most sensitive parts of the hands and feet.
3. Inflammation set in at the pierced members and wherever the circulation of the blood was obstructed by the violent tension of the body, and increased the agony and an intolerable thirst.
4. The blood rushed to the head and produced the most violent headache.
5. The blood in the lungs accumulated, pressing the heart, swelling all the veins, and caused nameless anguish. Loss of blood through the open wounds would have shortened the pain; but the blood clotted and ceased flowing. Death generally set in slowly, the muscles, veins, and nerves gradually growing stiff, and the vital powers shrinking from exhaustion.

Gambling.Look upon the picture presented in this verse, and endeavour to realise its frightful significance. There is nothing that can subdue the passion of the hardened gambler. Never, perhaps, did the hideousness of the gambling mania receive a more tragic illustration. We are apt to think that the more frantic forms of gambling are past incidents in the worlds history. Whenever we wish to glorify the nineteenth century we choose the eighteenth as a convenient preface. The picture of gambling in the eighteenth century is as bad as it is possible to conceive. It was the century in which Charles James Fox ruined himself with gambling debts, the century in which family after family with historic names were dishonoured, broken up, destroyed, by gambling follies. Gambling, no doubt, at the present day is more decorously conducted, but it is even more universally practised now than in the eighteenth century. But what is gambling? Here is the definition of it which is given us by the first philosopher of our time; and you who do not respect the Bible will at least respect, perhaps, the intellectual thoughts of Herbert Spencer. Gambling is a kind of action by which pleasure is obtained at the cost of pain to another. It affords no equivalent to the general good; the happiness of the winner implies the misery of the loser. The desire to possess money is a natural and not necessarily a pernicious desire. But two things must be remembered: first, to get money by honourable means; and second, that any possession of money which does not contribute to the common social good is infamous and evil. This is the indictment that I would bring against gambling:

I. It renders men morally callous.hardens them as no other vice does; it shuts their eyes to almost all the things that are beautiful in life; it fills them with a frantic passion for gain.

II. It destroys the very radical principles of honour and honesty.There is a form of businessif it may be called by that honoured nameon the Stock Exchange, which is nothing but gambling.

III. It excites the fatal passion of cupidity.

Conclusion.To get money without work is always a perilous thing. You see it in the spendthrift who inherits money from a penurious father, and who gets rid of it with all the rapidity he can. There is a proverb in Lancashire that From shirt-sleeves to shirt-sleeves is only three generations, and it is a proverb which applies to many places besides Lancashire. But it is far worse to get money by gambling. All sense of pleasure or value in the possession of money is lost when it is got by gambling, when a man finds by a little craft and cunning it is possible for him to float like scum on the surface of society and to have no root down in anything. It unsettles the mind, it destroys intellectual taste. I defy any youth who has once acquired a passion for gambling to apply his mind to any study, any hard task that will better him in mind and which will raise him in society. It destroys self-respect. It renders you, sooner or later, morally callous, spiritually deaf. And it is not surprising that it does all this when we recollect that in the light of the teaching of Jesus Christ it is a profoundly immoral act; for the teaching of Jesus Christ is that money is a stewardship.W. J. Dawson.

The degradation of gambling.Charles Dickens was not a Puritanical or Pharisaical writer, was he? Read what he has to say upon Doncaster races as he saw them. George Eliot was not a Puritanical or a Pharisaical writer. Read her description of the gambling tables which you will find in Daniel Deronda. Robert Louis Stevenson and Thomas Hardy are novelists who have not yet been accused of being Puritanical or Pharisaical. Two of the most extraordinary chapters in the greatest books of these artists are chapters which describe what Stevenson calls the disgusting vice of gambling. And the daily papers are not over Puritanical or Pharisaical; they simply chronicle the time. But even the Press has become frightened at last with the horrible growth of cupidity which is being fostered at the present hour by those who ought to know better, for they profess to provide journals which elevate and instruct and amuse. Or, if you do not care to take evidence of this kind, go and see for yourselves. Look at the sort of faces that one sees on the racecoursethe bestial, the foxy, the degraded. Travel in the same railway-carriage with habitual gamblers and hear what their talk is like. I stayed, some time ago, in one of the fairest of English cathedral cities. My friend, who is certainly not a Puritan, looking at the broad stretch beyond the city wall, said, In a few weeks that green turf will be covered with the scum of the earth, with faces which haunt you afterwards like a dream of hell. Is that strong language? No stronger than the language which Charles Dickens used about Doncaster racecourse. I have known such mad debauches after races, such diabolical impurities, that they are unnameable; they are all but unutterable. The gambling passion is the most insensate of all passions; it does more to render the heart callous than any other; it does not end with itself, but incites into diabolical activity every lust and passion of depravity; and the soldiers gambling at the feet of the dying Christ afford us just the type of moral deformity to which the lust of unearned gain reduces men.Ibid.

Mat. 27:34-35. The inhumanity of man.The Roman soldiers sat down at the foot of the cross. Some one of them took the dice out of his pocket, which was carried commonly by all Romans of that class. Another produced a bottle of cheap sour wine. There, beneath the shadow of the cross, with the blood trickling down from the burning arms and feet of the Crucified, they drank and gambled for the garments of the One that died to save them. I know not where you will find in history a more striking illustration of the inhumanity of man than in that scenethe drinking and the gambling at the foot of Christs cross.L. Abbott, D.D.

Mat. 27:36. The Roman soldiers on guard.They were a little tired with their march and their work, and they had to stop there on guard for an indefinite time, with nothing to do but two more prisoners to crucify; so they take a rest, and idly keep watch over Him till He shall die. How possible it is to look at Christs sufferings, and see nothing! These rude legionaries gazed for hours on what has touched the world ever since, and what angels desired to look into, and saw nothing but a dying Jew. They thought about the worth of the clothes, or about how long they would have to stop there, and, in the presence of the most stupendous fact in the worlds history, were all unmoved. We, too, may gaze on the cross, and see nothing.A. Maclaren, D.D.

Mat. 27:37. The inscription on the cross.A better inscription for the cross the Apostles themselves could not have devised. This is Jesus, the Saviourthe Name above every name. How it must have cheered the Saviours heart to know that it was there! This is Jesus, the King, never more truly King than when this writing was His only crown. This is Jesus, the King of the Jews, despised and rejected of them now, but Son of David none the less, and yet to be claimed and crowned and rejoiced in, when at last all Israel shall be saved.J. M. Gibson, D.D.

Mat. 27:39-43. The scoffing wayfarers.The passers-by were representative men.

I. Reason of their conduct.

1. Christ was unpopularthey went with the stream.
2. It gratified their vanitywe are wise, open-eyed men.
3. They felt the bitterest hatredpractical Christianity always repulsive.

II. The heinousness of their conduct.

1. They misrepresented His words.
2. They derided His claims.
3. They jested at His agonies.

III. The folly of their conduct.

1. Thought there was force in their argument.
2. Imagined themselves secure.
3. What did they gain?

IV. Treatment their conduct received.Silence.

1. The disciples did not denounce them.
2. Nor did the crowd protest.

3. Nor did Jesus speakHis public sayings were ended; He is silent, but observant (see Mat. 12:36.)Stems and Twigs.

Mat. 27:39. Running with the stream!How many of these scoffers, to whom death cast no shield round the Object of their poor taunts, had shouted themselves hoarse on the Monday, and waved palm branches that were not withered yet! What had made the change? There was no change. They were running with the stream in both their hosannas and their jeers, and the one were worth as much as the other. They had been tutored to cry, Blessed is He that cometh! and now they were tutored to repeat what had been said at the trial about destroying the temple. The worshippers of success are true to themselves when they mock at failure.A. Maclaren, D.D.

Mat. 27:40. The first prayer to the Crucified One.I. Think of the speech as spoken by those who were passing by.Their complete phrase was, If Thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. It was no easy thing for these men to believe that Christ was the Son of God.

II. Think of this challenge as spoken by the leaders of the people.It is plain that their minds were not easy. The mental questions would arise: Have we gone too far? Is it possible that we have made a tremendous mistake? What if, after all, this should be the Christ of God, the King of Israel? To keep down their doubts, to keep up their courage, they drew together in close conference, and talked one to another in answer to unspoken language of horrible misgiving and surmise. Is that the Saviour? He cannot save Himselfthat the King! He is not even King over that cross.

III. Think of the cry as spoken by the soldiers.For them the word Christ was jargon; the word Israel had no meaning; but the word King roused them to a rough and terrible play. To them it was rare sport to make believe that this was a coronation day, and grimly ridiculous to speak of a king crowned with thorns, and nailed upon his throne; and they, therefore, caught up the banter, and joined in the chorus of infamy.

IV. Think of this cry as joined in by one, if not both, of the malefactors.It is at least certain that one of the dying men struck in with the cruel cry.

A storm of voices rang out the call, Come down from the cross. The only answer to this exasperating demand was a kingly, expressive silence.

1. It was the silence of power.
2. The silence of intensity in resistance of temptation.
3. He was silent because it was a moral impossibility that He should have come down from the cross.
4. It was the silence of One who was doing a great work, and who would not stop to answer trivial words about it.C. Stanford, D.D.

Mat. 27:42. Christs enemies condemned out of their own mouth.

I. Their affirmation.Sublimely true, and it condemns them. He saved others. This testimony condemns them:

1. For their base ingratitude.

2. For their daring impiety.

II. Their denial.Gloriously true, and it condemns them. Himself He cannot save. In the Divinest sense He could not save Himself. His moral weakness here is His glory. He could not, because He had undertaken to die, and He could not break His word. He could not, because the salvation of the world depended upon His death. The greatest man on earth is the man who cannot be unkind, etc. The glory of the omnipotent God is that He cannot lie. Learn:

1. The worst men may give utterance to the greatest truths. These murderers of Christ here proclaim
(1) Christ as a Saviour: He saved others ;
(2) Christ as a Sacrifice: Himself He cannot save. Not a coerced sacrifice, but a voluntary one.
2. The best men are often most glorious in their weakness. Himself He cannot save. Godly tradesmen are too weak to make fortunes at the expense of honesty, etc. The grandest man on earth is the man who is too weak to be untrue, ungenerous, and self-seeking.Homilist.

The cross a throne.O blind leaders of the blind! that death which seemed to them to shatter His royalty really established it. His cross is His throne of saving power, by which He sways hearts and wills, and because of it He receives from the Father universal dominion, and every knee shall bow to Him. It is just because He did not come down from it that we believe on Him. On His head are many crowns; but, however many they be, they all grow out of the crown of thorns. The true kingship is absolute command over willingly submitted spirits; and it is His death which bows us before Him in raptures of glad love; which counts submission, liberty, and sacrifice blessed. He has the right to command because He has given Himself for us, and His death wakes all-surrendering and all-expecting faith.A. Maclaren, D.D.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

THE DEATH OF CHRIST
Crucifixion and accusation

TEXT: 27:3537

35 And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments among them, casting lots; 36 and they sat and watched him there. 37 And they set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

Why remove Jesus clothes? Only to leave Him naked on the cross?

b.

Why would soldiers even want the second-hand clothing of a condemned man? Are not these pretty meager spoils?

c.

Do you think the soldiers were deliberately crass to roll dice for Jesus clothes?

d.

Do you think David intended to prophesy the sufferings and death of Jesus in Psalms 22 or was he merely describing his own sufferings caused by his own enemies? On what basis do you answer as you do?

e.

What do the prophecies about Jesus death tell us about its meaning?

f.

Why would Matthew, who cited so many fulfillments of prophecy in the life and ministry of Christ, suddenly abandon this method during the crucifixion scenes, when so many noteworthy fulfillments were available? Would not his readers appreciate his bringing them up?

g.

Why do you think Pilate formulated the accusation on the cross in precisely those words? Was he expressing his personal contempt toward Jesus or toward the Jews or both?

h.

How do you account for the differences between the Gospels as to the correct reading of the inscription on Jesus cross? Did the sign say different things? Or did it say only one thing? Decide!

i.

Matthew hardly describes the act of crucifixion itself: the nails, the size and configuration of the cross, the ropes, the raising, etc. What does this suggest about his purpose or view of the matter?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

At Golgotha the soldiers crucified Jesus and, along with Him, the two criminals, one on His right hand and the other on His left. Jesus was in the center. He prayed, Father, forgive these people, because they do not know what they are doing.
Pilate also prepared the written notice, indicating the charge against Him and had it put on the cross over His head. The title read: THIS IS JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. Many Jews read this sign, since the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city of Jerusalem, and the sign was written in Hebrew, Latin and Greek. This is why the chief priests protested to Pilate, You should not write, The King of the Jews, but, This guy said, I am the King of the Jews.
What I have written, Pilate answered, is going to remain that way.
After nailing Jesus to the cross, the soldiers distributed His clothes in four parts, a share for each soldier, rolling dice for them to determine who should receive what. However, His tunic was seamless, woven all the way from the neck down. So they talked it over, Rather than tear it, let us roll the dice for it to decide who will get it. This resulted in the fulfillment of Scripture, which says, They divided my garments among them, and rolled dice for my clothes. This is exactly what the soldiers did.
It was about nine in the morning when they crucified Jesus. Then they sat down to guard Him there.

SUMMARY

On the central cross between two criminals they crucified Jesus who prayed for the forgiveness of His tormentors. Pilates statement of the charge irritated Jewish sentiment but remained the unchanged declaration of Jesus Kingship. The platoon in charge of Jesus divided His personal clothing by rolling dice for it, then relaxed on the ground as they guarded Him.

NOTES
. . . THEY HAVE PIERCED MY HANDS AND MY FEET. I CAN COUNT ALL MY BONES: PEOPLE STARE AND GLOAT OVER ME THEY DIVIDE MY GARMENTS AMONG THEM

AND CAST LOTS FOR MY CLOTHING. (Psa. 22:16 b Psa. 22:18)

Mat. 27:35 And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments among them, casting lots. With great simplicity Matthew omits the ugly details of the crucifixion. But an understanding of his hideous form of capital punishment will explain the contempt and aversion early Christians faced as they preached Christ crucified. (Cf. 1Co. 1:18 ff.; Gal. 5:11.) Study these texts of Jesus contemporary:

Illustrations of crucifixion: Ant. XI, 1, 3; 4, 6; XX.6, 2; Wars II, 5, 2;

Mat. 12:6; Mat. 13:2 Crucifixions brutality: Ant. XII, 5, 4; Wars I, 4, 6; V.11, 1; II, 14, 9; VII, 6, 4

Crucifixion perpetrated by Jew against Jews: Wars I, 4, 6

Release from crucifixion: Josephus Life, 75

Interest in the painful details is not totally dwarfed into insignificance by the moral issues that were resolved at Calvary, because (1) other Gospels record more of these details, and (2) the details themselves render far more vivid the cost of our salvation. This hideous death involved painful wounds, forced immobility, difficult breathing, exposure to the elements, insects, taunting by enemies, all contributing to a slow, agonizing death. However, in contrast to the commentaries, the spartan brevity of the Gospel writers turns the attention away from these physical tortures to the spiritual issues at stake here. Jesus suffering was unique in that He who had known the closest possible comradeship with God must submit to the torments of the damned.

First they stripped Jesus of His clothes. Next came the actual nailing Him to the cross. This was done while it was yet lying on the ground. The belief that Jesus carried only the horizontal cross-member while the vertical pole awaited Him on Golgotha raises other questions: would Jews permit the upright poles of crosses, normally a Roman method of execution, to remain permanently erected so near the Holy City, near a public road? If so, how many? It is simpler to see that His entire cross was brought from the Praetorium. (See on Mat. 27:32; Joh. 19:17.) Some anatomists believe that the nails were driven through His wrists rather than through the palms, because the body weight would have pulled against the nails and torn out away before long. But was the nailing of the hands to keep them in place or to support the body? A wooden support on which the crucified could sit seems to have been the only other relief (Alford, I, 293; Farrar, Life, 639). Apparently Jesus feet were not merely bound to the cross, but also nailed (Luk. 24:39).

Then the cross was raised and dropped into a hole dug to receive the lower end of the upright timber. The height of the erected cross needed to be only slightly taller than a man. Disputes about the form of the cross are futile, as the Romans would probably spend little effort to build this rude wooden device not intended for beauty or comfort but for disgrace and death. However, its form permitted the affixing of the accusation above His head (Mat. 27:37). The fine, polished-wood beams of crosses today represent the reality about as unconvincingly as our lives reflect that of Him who died there.

He made intercession for the transgressors (Isa. 53:12)

No sooner had Jesus been nailed to the tree than He prayed His unforgettable Intercessory Prayer: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do (Luk. 23:34; cf. Isa. 53:12). Here the soldiers first experience a direct, personal contact with Jesus magnanimity. Not an outburst of fury against them but a pained prayer of pardon for them! His spirit found an excuse for this outrage perpetrated against God, not only by the soldiers who were simply following orders, but especially by those who turned Him over to them (Joh. 19:11), and generally everyone whose sins put Him there. They did not dream that they were crucifying the Lord of Glory (1Co. 2:8), killing the Author of Life (Act. 3:15-17) and fulfilling the prophets (Act. 13:27). Because the Sons suffering was a crime against the majesty of God, He begged the Father to hold back His wrath, lest the divine purpose be compromised by an untimely rescue. If God were ever tempted to stomp the world out of existence and rescue His dear Son, this was the day! (Cf. Stephens expression: Act. 7:60.) By His own readiness to forgive, He cleared His own heart of all vindictiveness. This was no blanket pardon that ignores each mans attitude toward God. Rather, because individual pardon is not given without personal repentance, His prayer is tantamount to asking God to give men a merciful opportunity to repent.

They parted his garments among them, casting lots. That Jesus was stripped completely is a shamefully real possibility. Nakedness would disgrace Him in His suffering. (Cf. Rev. 16:15.) However, Edersheim (Life, II, 584), believed that every concession would be made to Jewish custom, and we may thankfully believe that on the Cross He was spared the indignity of exposure. Such would have been truly un-Jewish.

The garments of the condemned became the meager spoils of the four soldiers ordered out on this crucifixion detail. In Jesus case the royal garment and the crown of thorns were now gone (Mat. 27:31). He had only His own five articles of clothing to divide among four soldiers. After His belt, sandals, cloak and head-gear, all of approximately the same value, had been distributed, one valuable article remained: Jesus one-piece, continuously woven tunic (chitn: tunic, shirt). Since this could not easily be divided without ruining it, the men decided that a decision of chance would determine its new owner. Casting lots is the normal way of obtaining something by a means completely out of human control (Luk. 1:9; Act. 1:17, cf. Mat. 27:26; 2Pe. 1:1). By turning Jesus garments over to new owners, they treat Him as a criminal as good as dead. However, shocking to the Psalmist or us, these soldiers deed was but their normal practice, hence not intentionally malicious toward Jesus personally. In fact, the clothes of the two robbers were not unlikely distributed in the same manner. But even this crude bit of official business attended to by dice-rolling military men was foreseen in the divine purpose (Psa. 22:18). The prophecys literal fulfillment is the more remarkable because it was executed by men totally unaware of its existence. Unintentionally, they too point to Jesus as the Man intended by the prophet.

Mark notes the hour of crucifixion as the third hour when they crucified Him (Mar. 15:25), or nine oclock a.m. as the Jews reckoned time.

Mat. 27:36 And they sat and watched him there. Although this squad of soldiers can now relax somewhat, their purpose for being there was not only to attest to the death of the crucified but also to guard against any last-minute attempts to rescue any of the crucified (watched guarded, etroun). Perhaps even at this point when the physical exertion of the crucifixion was completed, they took a break for a drink and, as a crude joke, toasted the health of the King of the Jews, deriding Him (Luk. 23:36 f.).

Pilates revenge

Mat. 27:37 And they set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. Because the crucifixion was a public affair, its purpose was to discourage the spectators from crimes against the state. The crudely lettered accusation was borne to the cross either as a placard around the neck of the condemned or carried by one of the soldiers. Specifying the crime for which the condemned is executed, it drove home a grim warning to others who might be tempted to make the mistake of committing a similar crime. This argues that accusations were probably nailed to the thieves crosses too. To give the inscription the widest publicity possible, it was written in the common languages of the era, Greek, the universal tongue, Latin, the official language, and Aramaic, the local dialect.

There is no contradiction between the Gospels over the exact reading of the titles inscription, because

1.

The basis of each version may be a free rendering by each author as he translated it out of Hebrew, Greek or Latin. Perhaps the title varied somewhat in each of the three languages. Should the Gospel writers be blamed for these variations?

2.

Matthew calls it his accusation written; Luke, an inscription and John, a title. Pilates wording may have expressed the accusation even more fully than the composite of all the Gospel writers summaries.

3.

Even if each language repeated all the elements verbatim, our authors preserved the essential message unchanged in meaning. There is no contradiction where no author denies the wording of the others, and when each seeks only to quote the substance of the accusation without quarrelling over details given or omitted by the others. They simply do not tell all they know. Even with minor variations, the central message can correctly be recovered: This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.

Since this ambiguously expressed title was dictated by Pilate himself, some see it as the ironic expression of the haughty prefects cynicism. Certainly an accusation per se was no mere second thought by the wily Roman, especially if such titles were common practice. Pilate may have ordered it nailed to His cross to clear his record with Caesar, since the basic charge of blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God would not interest Roman jurisprudence. In theory, it named Jesus crime. In reality, its wording gave Him a title. No crime whatsoever is indicated. Admittedly, Pilate was crucifying the Nazarene, but he nonetheless ennobled Him to the rank of king! He had cleverly transformed the accusation into a vindictive insult to those who had forced him to authorize the execution of this innocent man.

Because Jesus had interpreted for Pilate the true meaning of His claim, the latter comprehended the unpolitical nature of Jesus Kingdom. Against this spiritual King of the Jews the charge of political insurrection remained unproven. So, the governors inscription, which unconditionally affirms His kingship, becomes Jesus definitive clearing of the political charges. This accusation was Pilates final protest of Jesus innocence and, by reflection, his public exposure of the rulers bitter jealousy. For Pilate to crucify Him with two malefactors does not negate this view, because this guilt by association is not intended by Pilate to humiliate Jesus, for He must die anyway, but to embitter the Jews in their moment of victory.

Although Pilate could not have intended it this way, the official title, the King of the Jews, when considered as a phrase in Matthews Gospel, even if unexpectedly and subtly yet truly and profoundly reflects the divine purpose. How little they knew: He was not merely King of the Jews, but the Lord of the universe and King over all men (Mat. 28:18; Rev. 17:14). Even so, He arose out of Israel and rules over all who become part of the true Israel of God (Rom. 9:5; Gal. 6:16). It is not improbable that Jewish readers of Matthew would notice the not insignificant coincidence that the Gentile wise-men asked, Where is He that is born king of the Jews! and the Gentile governor proclaimed: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. These two astonishing facts with which the amazing life of the Nazarene begin and conclude become unexpected signposts leading one to take the evidence for His identity seriously. Was Israel blind to its true King? (Cf. Mat. 27:54.)

FACT QUESTIONS

1.

Describe the crucifixion, using all the facts available in the Gospels. How was Jesus crucified? Who actually did it? Who was with Him? Who were the spectators? Where did they stand or sit?

2.

Describe the division of Jesus garments among the soldiers.

3.

What prophecy was fulfilled in the peculiar disposition made of Jesus clothes?

4.

Why did the soldiers sit down and watch Jesus? In what sense watch Him?

5.

For what purpose was the sign attached to the cross?

6.

Quote the inscription Pilate ordered attached to the cross above Jesus.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(35) They crucified him.The cross employed in capital punishment varied in its form, being sometimes simply a stake on which the sufferer was impaled, sometimes consisting of two pieces of timber put together in the form of a T or an X (as in what we know as the St. Andrews cross); sometimes in that familiar to us in Christian art as the Latin cross. In this instance, the fact that the title or superscription was placed over our Lords head, implies that the last was the kind of cross employed. In carrying the sentence of crucifixion into effect, the cross was laid on the ground, the condemned man stripped and laid upon it. Sometimes he was simply tied; sometimes, as here, nails driven through the hands and feet; sometimes a projecting ledge was put for the feet to rest on; sometimes the whole weight of the body hung upon the limbs that were thus secured. The clothes of the criminal were the usual perquisites of the executioners, and in this case included (as we find from Joh. 19:23) the tunic worn next the body as well as the outer garment. It was as the soldiers were thus nailing Him to the cross that He prayed, Father, forgive them (Luk. 23:34).

They parted my garments among them.St. John (Joh. 19:24) emphatically records a yet more literal fulfilment of the words than that noted by St. Matthew. The thoughts of both disciples, we may believe, were turned to Psa. 22:18 by our Lords utterance of its opening words (Mat. 27:46), and thus led to dwell on the manifold coincidences of its language with the facts of the Passion.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

141. TRANSACTIONS WHILE ON THE CROSS, Mat 27:35-50 .

35. And they crucified him The victim was nailed to the wooden post, with his arms extended upon the cross beam, his four limbs being pierced by the spikes. The post sunk into the ground with a sudden shock, producing an agonizing torture. By pain, by loss of blood, and by mental suffering, death slowly and wearily would come. The cross was a Roman mode of execution, reserved for slaves and the vilest of the race, and therefore selected by the Jews, although not a Jewish punishment, as a proof of their contempt. The halter among us is scarce so ignominious a term of shameful suffering. Thence the cross became in the apostolic writings a symbol, not only of the atonement, but of the offence and contempt with which the Jews and Pagans viewed Christianity. At the same time it was the symbol of the suffering fidelity with which Christians adhered to their religion. It is now the ensign of Christian nations, and is a badge of Christian honour. It floats upon commercial banners and hangs upon the neck of beauty. The Romanists have carried their reverence for the material and formal cross too far; but as a visible symbol of Christianity it is worthy of Christian use, nor should there be a superstitious extreme in the very act of rejecting the superstitious use of the symbol.

The order of facts in the crucifixion of Jesus may be stated as follows: The two thieves are elevated on crosses by his side. Pilate fixes upon the cross of Jesus the superscription. The soldiers divide his garments. The passers-by and others revile him; while his mother and John and the women survey the scene at a distance with sorrow.

As the criminal was usually crucified naked, as far as decency permitted, the executioners divided his garments among themselves. It seems by John that there were four soldiers; and when they came to the coat of Jesus, inasmuch as it was seamless, they would not rend it, but cast lots for its possession. Casting lots Each man’s name was written upon a ballot and cast into a vessel or receiver of some kind; the vessel was shaken, and he whose name leaped out was the winner.

Parted his garments Of the parting of his garments, the fullest account is given by John.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And when they had crucified him, they parted his clothes among them, casting lots, and they sat and watched him there.

‘And having crucified Him.’ How quickly the actual crucifixion is passed over, how deep was its significance. In many cases it indicated the beginning of hours and days of suffering, as the stretched but distorted body of the victim fought to survive the paroxysms that constantly seized it, first as the victim relaxed his pain torn arms, and then as he relaxed his pain torn legs. But in this case it involved more. It indicated the bearing of a curse for the sins of mankind. ‘He was made sin for us, He Who knew no sin –’ (2Co 5:21). ‘He bore our sins in His own body on the tree’ (1Pe 2:24). His person was being offered as a guilt offering for sin (Isa 53:10). That was why He was here.

‘They parted His clothes among them, casting lots, and they sat and watched Him there.’ The idea here is to bring out the callousness of the soldiers, and of the world, as they gazed on what they had done to Him, and the resultant increase in His suffering because of the shame of it all. Here, having stripped Him, they would share out His robe, His inner garment, His belt, His shoes and His turban. By this they would render Him naked, and then, regardless of His shame, they would in front of Him divide up his clothing, that is, all that He possessed, casting lots for who received what, and gambling for the robe which could not be divided. (The sharing out of the clothing of the executed man was a perquisite of the soldiers). After this they then sat there and continually but casually gazed at Him in His nakedness and shame. To a sensitive Jew public nakedness was a disgrace, and Jesus would never have been gazed on by others in a such a state. It must have added to the horror which was possessing His soul.

This would also bring to mind the words of Psa 22:18, ‘they look and stare on me, they part my clothing among them, and for my vesture they cast lots’. This includes the ‘watching Him’ in His shame, the ‘parting of His clothes’ among them, and the ‘casting of lots’. Matthew is constantly indicating by inferences that all that is happening to Jesus is making full all that the Scriptures have spoken of, and that Jesus is therefore suffering as a righteous man like the men in the Psalms, and more. And there is the further thought in the Psalms as to, ‘why is God allowing this?’ That must also have been the question on many lips that day.

‘And they sat and watched him there.’ Note how it is personalised and therefore goes beyond just guard duty (they were guarding all three. but only Jesus is mentioned). All the attention as far as Matthew is concerned is on Him. They are gazing at His shame, they are shrugging their shoulders at His suffering, and all the while they are intending to ensure that no one tries to rescue Him. (They had not, of course, reckoned with God). They and the world were determined that Jesus would suffer to the end.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Mat 27:35. And they crucified him, and parted his garments, &c. This was the custom of the Romans; the soldiers performing the office of executioners, divided among them the spoils of the criminals. There was only Christ’stunick which they did not divide, but cast lots to see whose it should be. See Joh 19:23-24. They also used to appoint a guard, to watch by the crucified persons, that nobody might come and take them away, Mat 27:36. Respecting the inscription Mat 27:37 which was also a Roman custom, we shall speak, when we come to Joh 19:19., &c.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Mat 27:35 ] The cross consisted of the upright post and the horizontal beam (called by Justin and Tertullian: antenna ), the former usually projecting some distance beyond the latter (as was also the case, according to the tradition of the early church, with the cross of Jesus, see Friedlieb, p. 130 ff.; Langen, p. 321 ff.). As a rule, it was first of all set up, and then the person to be crucified was hoisted on to it with his body resting upon a peg ( ) that passed between his legs ( , Justin, c. Tryph . 91; Iren. Haer . ii. 24. 4), after which the hands were nailed to the cross-beam. Paulus (see his Komment., exeg. Handb ., and Skizzen aus m. Bildungsgesch . 1839, p. 146 ff.), following Clericus on Joh 20:27 and Dathe on Psa 22:7 , firmly maintains that the feet were not nailed as well ; [37] an opinion which is likewise held more or less decidedly by Lcke, Fritzsche, Ammon, Baumgarten-Crusius, Winer, de pedum in cruce affixione , 1845; Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 447. In answer to Paulus, see Hug in the Freib. Zeitschr . III. p. 167 ff., and V. p. 102 ff., VII. p. 153 ff.; Gutacht . II. p. 174; and especially Bhr in Heydenreich and Hffell’s Zeitschr . 1830, 2, p. 308 ff., and in Tholuck’s liter. Anz . 1835, Nos. 1 6. For the history of this dispute, see Tholuck’s liter. Anz. 1834, Nos. 53 55, and Langen, p. 312 ff. That the feet were usually nailed, and that the case of Jesus was no exception to the general rule , may be regarded as beyond doubt, and that for the following reasons: (1) Because nothing can be more evident than that Plautus, Mostell . ii. 1. 13 (“ego dabo ei talentum, primus qui in crucem excucurrerit, sed ea lege, ut offigantur bis pedes, bis brachia ”), presupposes that to nail the feet as well as the hands was the ordinary practice , and that he intends the bis to point to something of an exceptional character; (2) because Justin, c. Tryph . 97, expressly maintains (comp. Apol. I. 35), and that in a polemical treatise, at a time when crucifixion was still in vogue, that the feet of Jesus were pierced with nails, and treats the circumstance as a fulfilment of Psa 22:17 , without the slightest hint that in this there was any departure from the usual custom; (3) because Tertullian ( c. Marc . iii. 19), in whose day also crucifixion was universally practised (Constantine having been the first to abolish it), agrees with Justin in seeing Psa 22:17 verified in Christ, and would hardly have said, with reference to the piercing of our Lord’s hands and feet: “ quae proprie atrocitas crucis est ” unless it had been generally understood that the feet were nailed as well; (4) because Lucian, Prometh . 2 (where, moreover, it is not crucifying in the proper sense of the word that is alluded to), and Lucan, Phars . vi. 547 (“insertum manibus chalybem”), furnish nothing but arguments a silentio , which have the less weight that these passages do not pretend to give a full account of the matter; (5) because we nowhere find in ancient literature any distinct mention of a case in which the feet hung loose or were merely tied to the cross, for Xen. Eph 4:2 merely informs us that the binding of the hands and the feet was a practice peculiar to the Egyptians ; (6) and lastly, because in Luk 24:39 f. itself the piercing of the feet is taken for granted, for only by means of the pierced hands and feet was Christ to be identified (His corporeality was also to be proved, but that was to be done by the handling which followed). It is probable that each foot was nailed separately. [38] The most plausible arguments in addition to the above against the view that the feet were nailed are: (1) what is said in Joh 20:25 (see Lcke, II. p. 798), where, however, the absence of any mention of the feet on the part of Thomas entirely accord with is natural sense of propriety. He assumes the Lord, who had been seen by his fellow-disciples, to be standing before him ; and so, with a view to identification, he wishes to feel the prints of the nails in his hands and the wound in His side, those being the marks that could then be most conveniently got at ; and that is enough. To have stooped down to examine the feet as well would have been going rather far , would have seemed somewhat indecent , somewhat undignified , nay, we should say that the introduction of such a feature into the narrative would have had an apocryphal air; (2) the fact that while Socrates, H. E. i. 17, speaks of the Empress Helena, who found the cross, as having also discovered , he makes no mention of the nails for the feet . But, according to the context, the nails for the hands are to be understood as forming merely a part of what was discovered along with the cross, as forming a portion, that is, of what the empress gave as a present to her son . This passage, however, has all the less force as an argument against the supposition that the feet were nailed, that Ambrose, Or. de obitu Theodos . 47, while also stating that two nails belonging to the cross that was discovered were presented to Constantine, clearly indicates at the same time that they were the nails for the feet (“ferro pedum”). It would appear, then, that two nails were presented to Constantine, but opinion was divided as to whether they were those for the feet or those for the hands, there being also a third view, to the effect that the two pairs were presented together (Rufinus, H. E. ii. 8; Theodoret, H. E. i. 17). This diversity of opinion bears, however, a united testimony, not against , but in favour of the practice of nailing the feet, and that a testimony belonging to a time when there were many still living who had a vivid recollection of the days when crucifixion was quite common.

] The criminal when affixed to the cross was absolutely naked (Artemid. ii. 58; Lipsius, de cruce , ii. 7), and his clothes fell, as a perquisite, to the executioners (Wetstein on our passage). The supposition that there was a cloth for covering the loins has at least no early testimony to support it. See Thilo, ad Evang. Nicod . x. p. 582 f.

] more precisely in Joh 19:23 f. Whether this was done by means of dice or by putting the lots into something or other (a helmet) and then shaking them out (comp. on Act 1:26 ), it is impossible to say.

[37] This question possesses an interest not merely antiquarian; it is of essential importance in enabling us to judge of the view held by Dr. Paulus, that the death of Jesus was only apparent and not real.

[38] This view is borne out not only by the simple fact that it would be somewhat impracticable to pierce both the feet when lying one above the other (as they usually appear in pictures, and as they are already represented by Nonnus, Joh 20:19 ), because in order to secure the necessary firmness, the nail would require to be so long and thick that there would be a danger of dislocating, if not of shattering the feet, but it is still further confirmed by the ancient tradition respecting the two pairs of nails that were used to fasten Jesus to the cross. See below under No. 2. And how is it possible to understand aright what Plautus says about feet twice -nailed, if we are to conceive of them as lying one upon the other! Probably they were placed alongside of each other, and then nailed with the soles flat upon the upright beam of the cross. A board for the feet ( suppedaneum ) was not used, being unnecessary.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

Ver. 35. Parted his garments ] Let us likewise suffer with joy the spoiling of our goods, &c., Heb 10:34 ; yea, the spoiling of our persons, to have our clothes also taken and torn from off our backs: Christ will say, “Bring forth the best robe, ring,” &c. If a heathen could say, when he saw a sudden shipwreck of all his wealth, Well, fortune, I see thy intent, thou wouldst have me be a philosopher: should not a Christian conclude, Surely Christ would have me look after heavenly, that thus strips me of all earthly comforts?

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

35 38. ] HE IS CRUCIFIED. Mar 15:24-28 . Luk 23:32-34 ; Luk 23:38 . Joh 19:18-24 . The four accounts are distinct from one another, and independent of any one source in common.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

35. ] The cross was an upright pale or beam, intersected by a transverse one at right angles, generally in the shape of a . In this case, from the ‘title’ being placed over the Head , the upright beam probably projected above the horizontal one, as usually represented . To this cross the criminal, being stripped of his clothes, was fixed by nails driven through the hands and (not always, nor perhaps generally, though certainly not seldom see note at Luk 24:39 ) through the feet, separate or united. The body was not supported by the nails, but by a piece of wood which passed between the legs , Justin Mart. dial. c. Tryph. 91, p. 188. On the rest of the verse, see notes on John. The words omitted in the text are clearly interpolated from Joh 19:24 , with just the phrase (or ) assimilated to Matthew’s usual form of citation.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Mat 27:35 . (from , to drive stakes; in later Greek, and in N. T., to impale on a stake, ). All the evangelists touch lightly the fact of crucifixion, hurrying over the painful subject as quickly as possible; Mt., most of all, disposing of it in a participial clause. Many questions on which there has been much discussion suggest themselves, e.g. , as to the structure and form of the cross: did it consist of an upright beam ( palus, stipes ) and a cross beam ( patibulum, antenna ), or of the former only, the hands being nailed to the beam above the head? (so Fulda, Das Kreuz und die Kreuzigung , 1878). Was Christ’s cross a crux commissa (T) or a crux immissa ()? Or is this distinction a purely imaginary one, as Fulda (p. 126) maintains against Justus Lipsius, till Fulda the great authority on the subject of crucifixion? The work of the more recent writer should certainly be consulted before coming to a final decision on the form of the cross or the method of crucifixion. Another question is, what did Jesus carry to the place of execution: the upright post or the cross beam? (the latter according to Marquhardt, Rm. Alter. vii. 1, 1). And how was His body fixed to the cross: were the feet, e.g. , nailed as well as the hands, or only tied to the beam with a rope or with wands or left free? The passages cited from ancient authors bearing on the subject, Artemidorus, Plautus, Seneca, are diversely interpreted, and the practice does not seem to have been invariable. Crucifixion was at best a rude mode of executing justice, and, especially in time of war, seems to have been performed by soldiers in diverse fashions, according to their whim ( , Joseph., Mat 27:11 ; Mat 27:1 ; plates showing various forms in Fulda). Still there would be a normal mode, and in the case of Jesus, when only one or two were put to death, it would probably be followed. His cross has generally been supposed to have been a crux immissa , with the accusation on the point of the upright post above the cross beam, with a peg whereon to sit. Whether His feet were pierced with nails cannot be certainly determined. Paulus took the negative side in the interest of the hypothesis that Jesus did not really die on the cross; Meyer strongly maintains the contrary, vide ad loc . The fragment of the Gospel of Peter speaks of nails in the hands only: “then they drew the nails from the hands of the Lord”. Fulda takes the same view, representing the hands as nailed, the feet as tied to the beam. : the probability is that Jesus had been stript absolutely naked ( , Artemid., Oneirocritica , ii. 58). On the dividing of the garments vide Joh 19:23 f. The prophetic reference in T. R. has little authority, and seems inserted from Joh 19:24 , by a scribe who thought it what the first evangelist should say. This is a second instance where a chance of prophetic citation is not taken advantage of.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 27:35-37

35And when they had crucified Him, they divided up His garments among themselves by casting lots. 36And sitting down, they began to keep watch over Him there. 37And above His head they put up the charge against Him which read, “THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.”

Mat 27:35 “they crucified Him” The Gospels do not dwell on the physical aspect of Jesus’ death (cf. Psa 22:16). This form of death was developed in Mesopotamia and was taken over by the Greeks and Romans. It was meant to be an extended, excruciating death taking several days. Its purpose was to humiliate and cause fear as a deterrent to rebellion against Rome. A thorough article is in the Zondervan Pictorial Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, pp. 1040-42.

“they divided up His garments among themselves by casting lots” This is an allusion to Psa 22:18. Jesus was possibly naked or, more probably, clothed in just His loin cloth.

The Textus Receptus manuscripts add to the text several phrases that come from Joh 19:24, which quoted Psa 22:18; these however are not original in Matthew. These additions are not in the Greek uncial manuscripts , A, B, D, L, or W, nor in the Latin or Syriac translations.

“Casting lots” is used in the NT both as a game of chance, as here, and a way of knowing God’s will as in Act 1:26. This followed the OT precedent of the Urim and Thummim. This mechanical means of knowing God’s will has passed away. This shows that the Bible records things that it does not necessarily advocate. Another good example of this same idea would be Gideon’s fleece (cf. Jdg 6:36-40).

Mat 27:37 “the charge against Him” From Joh 19:20 we learn the charge was written in three languages (Aramaic, Latin and Greek). Pilate worded it on purpose in such a way so as to anger the Jewish leaders. The charge is given differently in the four Gospels:

Matthew: “This is Jesus the King of the Jews”

Mark: “The King of the Jews” (cf. Mar 15:26)

Luke: “This is the King of the Jews” (cf. Luk 23:38)

John: “Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews” (cf. Joh 19:19)

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

ported His garments. This fulfilled Psa 22:18; and marks a fixed point in the series of events, which determines the time of others.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

35-38.] HE IS CRUCIFIED. Mar 15:24-28. Luk 23:32-34; Luk 23:38. Joh 19:18-24. The four accounts are distinct from one another, and independent of any one source in common.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

they crucified: Psa 22:16, Joh 20:20, Joh 20:25, Joh 20:27, Act 4:10

parted: Mar 15:24-32, Luk 23:34, Joh 19:23, Joh 19:24

that it: Psa 22:18

Reciprocal: Jos 18:10 – cast lots Est 3:7 – they cast Pur Psa 109:16 – persecuted Jon 1:7 – and let Mat 2:15 – that Joh 10:35 – the scripture Joh 12:38 – That Joh 19:18 – General Act 2:30 – being

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

7:35

The crucifixion of Jesus forms so important a part of the plan of human salvation, that I believe the reader should have some information on the manner of performing the act itself. I shall quote a description of it as may be found in Smith’s Bible Dictionary. “The one to be crucified was stripped naked of all his clothes, and then followed the most awful moment of all. He was laid down upon the implement of torture. His arms were stretched along the cross-beams, and at the center of the open palms the point of a huge nail was placed, which, by the blow of a mallet, was driven home into the wood. Then through either foot separately, or possibly through both together, as they were placed one over the other, another huge nail tore its way through the quivering flesh. Whether the suf-ferer was also bound to the cross we a not know; but, to prevent the hands and feet being torn away by the weight of the body, which could ‘rest upon nothing but four great wounds,’ there was, about the centre of the cross, a wooden projection strong enough to support, at least in part, a human body, which soon became a weight of Agony. Then the ‘accursed tree’ with its living human burden was slowly heaved up and the end fixed firmly in a hole in the ground. The feet were but a little raised above the earth. The victim was in full reach of every hand that might choose to strike. A death by crucifixion seems to include all that pain and death can have of the horrible and ghastly,–dizziness, cramp, thirst, starvation, sleeplessness, traumatic [shock from a wound] fever, tetanus, publicity of shame, long continuance of torment, horror of anticipation, mortification of unattended wounds, all intensified just up to the point at which they can be endured at all, but all stopping just short of the point which would give to the sufferer the relief of unconsciousness. The unnatural position made every movement painful; the lacerated veins and crushed tendons throbbed with incessant anguish; the wounds, inflamed by exposure, gradually gangrened; the arteries, especially of the head and stomach, became swollen and oppressed with surcharged blood; and, while each variety of misery went on gradually increasing, there was added to them the intolerable pang of burning and raging thirst. Such was the death to which Christ was doomed. The crucified was watched, according to custom, by a party of four soldiers, Joh 19:23, with their centurion, Mat 27:54, 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. Fracture of the legs was especially adopted by the Jews to hasten death, Joh 19:31. In most cases the body was suffered to rot on the cross by the action of sun and rain, or to be devoured by birds and beasts. Sepulture [burial] was generally therefore forbidden; but in consequence of Deu 21:22-23, au express national exception was made in favor of the Jews. Mat 27:58. This accursed and awful mode of punishment was happily abolished by Constantine.”

Parted his garments. We learn from the aforesaid quotation that the victim to be crucified was stripped of his clothing before the crucifixion. It was a custom that the soldiers performing the execution should have this raiment as extra pay in addition to their wages as soldiers. According to Joh 19:23 there were four of them, corresponding to the four parts to be nailed, the two hands and two feet, and hence there would be four parts to be shared by them. Casting lots. Most of the garments were so made that they could be divided into parts without any damage to them. But Joh 19:23-24 says the coat was made by weaving into one piece without any seams, and therefore it could not be divided without ruining it. Accordingly, the soldiers agreed to decide the question by casting lots for the garment. This action fulfilled the prediction in Psa 22:18. That it might be fulfilled. The bearing on this kind of phrase is explained in the comments on Mat 4:14.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

[Parted my garments.] Of stoning, we have this account; “When he is now four cubits from the place of stoning, they strip him of his clothes; and if it be a man, they hang a cloth before him; if a woman, both before and behind. These are the words of R. Juda: but the wise say, A man is stoned naked, a woman not naked.” So that it is plain enough he was crucified naked.

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

Mat 27:35. And when they had crucified him. Here occurs His touching prayer for the soldiers (Luk 23:34). To all the physical torture described in the note on the cross, we must in this case add the result of these upon a soul sensitive and capable of suffering beyond all human comparison: the effect of ingratitude, of loneliness, of taunts from those who represented His own chosen people, and above all His state of soul as He consciously bore the sins of men. Men may honestly differ in their statements of the doctrine of the Atonement, but that our Lord then and there so suffered for men, that by virtue of His death we may be at peace with God, who hates our sins, is the only view that accounts for the facts. Hence the cross, the instrument of such torture, the sign of such shame, and on that account in itself a hindrance to the gospel among those who saw in it only this, has become the symbol of honor, blessing, and redemption. Our forgetfulness of its original significance is an evidence of this charge. Even the superstition that bows to it, however to be deprecated, witnesses that the cross is the centre of the Christian scheme.

They parted his garments, casting lots. Those crucified were probably entirely naked, at least their clothes were given to the executioners. John tells why it was necessary to gamble for the coat. There were four soldiers (Joh 19:23). The rest of the verse is not found here in the oldest manuscripts, but was probably inserted from Joh 19:24.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Mat 27:35-36. And they crucified him The person crucified was nailed to the cross as it lay on the ground, through each hand, extended to the utmost stretch, and through both the feet together. Then the cross was raised up, and the foot of it thrust with a violent shock into a hole in the ground prepared for it. This shock disjointed the body, whose whole weight hung upon the nails, till the person expired through mere dint of pain. This kind of death was used only by the Romans, and by them inflicted only on slaves and the vilest criminals. With regard to Jesus, therefore, as soon as he refused the liquor offered him, the soldiers, according to custom, stripped him quite naked, and in that condition began to fasten him to the tree. But while they were piercing his hands and his feet with the nails, instead of crying out through the acuteness of his pain according to Luk 23:34, he calmly, though fervently prayed for them, and for all who had any hand in his death, beseeching God to forgive them, and excusing them by the only circumstance that could alleviate their guilt their ignorance. Saying, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. This was infinite meekness and goodness, truly worthy of Gods only-begotten Son; an example of forgiveness which, though it never can be equalled by any, is fit to be imitated by all. Dr. Heylin (Theolog. Lect, p. 103) has well described our Lords passion, as follows: The appointed soldiers dig the hole in which the cross was to be erected. The nails and the hammer are ready. The cross is placed on the ground, and Jesus lies down upon the bed of sorrows. They nail him to it. They erect it. His nerves crack. His blood distils. He hangs upon his wounds, naked, a spectacle to heaven and earth. Thus was the only-begotten Son of God, who came down to save the world, crucified by his own creatures! Hear, O heavens!

O earth, earth, earth, hear! The Lord hath nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against him!

And parted his garments, casting lots When the soldiers had nailed his naked body to the cross, and raised him up upon it, they divided his garments into four parts, Joh 19:23, and cast lots for the shares. This was according to the Roman custom; among whom soldiers performed the office of executioners, and divided among them the spoils of the criminals. His coat was excepted out of this division, because, as it was without seam, they agreed to cast lots for it by itself. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, &c. This clause, though wanting in many valuable copies of this gospel, and in several early versions, is, however, found in the parallel place of Johns gospel, to the text of which it unquestionably belongs, not being omitted by one MS. or version, or ancient commentator. As it was a practice with some transcribers to correct, and, as they imagined, improve one gospel by another, Dr. Campbell thinks it probable, that it was at first copied by some one out of Johns gospel, and inserted in this. The prophet here referred to is David, who, Psalms 22., foretold this, and several other circumstances of the Messiahs sufferings, upward of a thousand years before they took place. And sitting down, they watched him The Romans used also to appoint a guard to stay by the crucified persons, that none might come and take them away. And the chief priests, doubtless, would take care that this guard was set, lest any of the people, of whom they were still jealous, should rise and rescue Jesus. But Providence so ordered it, that those who were appointed to watch him, became thereby unexceptionable witnesses for him; having the opportunity to see and hear those things which extorted from them that noble confession, Mat 27:54, Truly this was the Son of God.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

CXXXIII.

THE CRUCIFIXION.

Subdivision B.

JESUS CRUCIFIED AND REVILED. HIS THREE

SAYINGS DURING FIRST THREE HOURS.

(Friday morning from 9 o’clock till noon.)

aMATT. XXVII. 35-44; bMARK XV. 24-32; cLUKE XXIII. 33-43; dJOHN XIX. 18-27.

b25 And it was the third hour, and cthere {d18 where} cthey crucified him. b27 And a38 Then are there crucified {bthey crucify} awith him dtwo others, cthe malefactors, arobbers, one on the right hand, and one {cthe other} on the {bhis} left. don either side one, and Jesus in the midst. [These were doubtless robbers of the class of Barabbas. They were those who, led on by fanatical patriotism, had become insurrectionists and then outlaws. Large numbers of them were crucified during the Jewish wars (Jos. Wars, xiii. 2. 3). These two may have been crucified at this time for convenience’ sake, but the fact that Jesus was placed between them suggests that they were crucified with him to heighten his shame and indignity. For, though Pilate had no personal ill will toward Jesus, he wished to show contempt for Judah’s King.] c34 And Jesus said, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. [Our Lord’s prayer here reminds us of the word at Isa 53:12. It accords with his own teachings ( Mat 5:44), and it was echoed by Stephen ( Act 7:59, Act 7:60). Peter and Paul both speak of the Jewish ignorance ( Act 3:17, 1Co 2:8). Ignorance mitigates, but does not excuse, crime.] b24 And they crucify him, d23 The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments and made four parts, to every soldier a part [A quaternion or band of four soldiers did the work of the actual crucifixion. The Roman law awarded them the garments of the condemned as their perquisites]; band part {aparted cparting} bhis garments among them, casting {cthey cast} lots. [725] bupon them, what each should take. [The sandals, girdle, outer robe, head-dress, etc., of Jesus were divided into four parts and lots were cast of the parts.] dand also the coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. [This was the tunic or undergarment. It reached from the shoulders to the knees. Ordinarily it was in two pieces, which were fastened at the shoulders by clasps; but Josephus tells us that the tunic of the high priest was an exception to this rule, being woven without seam (Ant. iii. 7. 4). Thus in dividing the Lord’s garments, they found a suggestion of his high priesthood.] 24 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. [See Psa 22:18.] 25 These things therefore the soldiers did. [Even their small part was the subject of minute prophecy.] a36 and they sat and watched him there. [They were on guard to prevent any attempt at rescue.] d19 And Pilate wrote a title also, and put it on the cross. cover him, a37 And they set up over his head bthe {ca} superscription bof his accusation written, aAnd there was written, cTHIS IS aJESUS dOF NAZARETH, bTHE KING OF THE JEWS. [It was a well-established Roman custom to thus place a writing above the heads of the crucified to indicate the cause for which they died. Pilate writes the accusation so as to clear his own skirts before Csar and so as to show his contempt for the Jewish people. They had forced him to crucify an innocent man, and he retaliates by giving to that man the title which his enemies accused him of professing.] d20 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. [These three languages were respectively those of religion, law and philosophy; but Pilate made use of them because all three were spoken by people then in Jerusalem.] 21 The chief priests of the Jews therefore said to [726] Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. 22 Pilate answered, What I have written I have written. [The rulers smarted under this title which Pilate had tauntingly written. They had insisted that Jesus’ kingship was dangerous enough to justify his crucifixion; but now (if politically and temporally interpreted) they admit that his kingship was an idle claim, a mere matter of words.] c35 And the people stood beholding. [The scene had an awful fascination which they could not resist.] a39 And they that passed by [Jesus was evidently crucified near the highway] railed on him, wagging their heads, 40 and saying, bHa! Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, 30 save thyself, aif thou art the Son of God, band come down from the cross. 31 In like manner also the chief priests cAnd the rulers also scoffed at him, bmocking him among themselves with the scribes aand elders, said, {csaying,} He saved others; bhimself he cannot save. clet him save himself, if this is the Christ of God, his chosen. aHe is the King of Israel; let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe on him. b32 Let the Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the cross, that we may see and believe. a43 He trusteth on God; let him deliver him now, if he desireth him: for he said, I am the Son of God. c36 And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, offering him vinegar, 37 and saying, If thou art the King of the Jews, save thyself. [Thus one and all unite in mocking Jesus, using both word and gesture. They bring forth echoes from the trial of Jesus and take other incidents from his life, little dreaming the deep significance of what they utter. They reminded Jesus of his words about destroying the temple, when they were committing that very act. They speak of his building it again when Jesus was about to die that he might rise. They taunt him with saving others, yet being unable to save himself, which is the great truth of the atonement which the Lord [727] was then making. They promised to believe if he will come down from the cross, yet his being lifted upon the cross was the very act which would convince them– Joh 8:28.] a44 And the robbers also that were crucified with him breproached him. acast upon him the same reproach. c39 And one of the malefactors that were hanged railed on him, saying, Art not thou the Christ? save thyself and us. 40 But the other answered, and rebuking him said, Dost thou not even fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said, Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom. 43 And he said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. [It seems that at first both robbers reviled Christ, but one repenting spoke in his favor and prayed to him. It is not likely that this robber had any conception of the spiritual kingdom of Jesus, but he somehow arrived at the conclusion that Jesus was the Messiah, and would come into his kingdom despite his crucifixion. Jesus answered his prayer by a solemn promise that they would, that day, be together in that portion of the invisible world where those who are accepted of God await the resurrection. Many thoughtlessly make this dying robber the model of death-bed repentance, arguing that others may also be saved in this irregular manner. But Christ had not yet died, and the new testament or covenant was not sealed. Jesus then could change its terms to suit the occasion. It is therefore no evidence whatever that after his death and in his present glorified state our Lord will in any way change the covenant so as to do away with a single one of the terms required for obtaining remission of sins ( Heb 9:15-18). Moreover, the example of the penitent robber is a difficult one to follow; he professed faith in Christ and his kingdom when there was no other voice in the whole wide world willing to do such a thing. Any one having such a faith in Christ will not put off his confession until the hour of [728] death.] dBut there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. [For comment on these four women, see note on Joh 2:4). Thus he cut her off from all parental authority over him. In this last hour our Lord bestows upon his helpless mother the disciple whom he loved, who was then in the flower of his manhood. All of Christ’s disciples are thus appointed by him protectors of the helpless, but few recognize the behest as John did.]

[FFG 725-729]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

THE CRUCIFIXION

Mat 27:35-38; Luk 23:33-38; Joh 19:18-24; Mar 15:24-28. And it was the third hour, and they crucified Him. Here you see the bloody work of death began at 9 A.M., and they remained on the cross till 3 P.M. And they crucify along with Him two thieves; the one on His fight, and the one on His left. And the Scripture was fulfilled, saying, He was numbered with the transgressors. Thus the high priests maneuvered to do their utmost to cover Him with ineffaceable disgrace, having Him crucified between two robbers. N.B. If you would follow Him up to heaven, you must go with Him to Gethsemane, and there give up all the world, your will sinking away into the Divine. Then you must go with Him to Calvary, and be crucified between two robbers; i. e., if you would get sanctified, you may expect the people to pronounce you a thief robber, or some other vile reprobate. They will so misunderstand and misjudge you as to identify you with the worst people. All this you must bear patiently and unmurmuringly, like Jesus, if you are going up to live with Him in heaven.

Luk 23:34. And Jesus said, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they are doing. How true! If those preachers had known that they were killing their own Christ, they would not have done it for a million of worlds. They were so blinded by the devil that they did not know what they were doing. So have the people claiming to be Gods elect slaughtered about two hundred millions of Gods people. They killed them all under criminal charges, believing them to be bad people. What is the solution of this wonderful mystery? Satan, as in the case of the Jews when they crucified Jesus, had so deluded them as to make them follow him, thinking he is God. Amid these delusions, are the people inculpatory? Certainly they are. Having rejected the light and believed Satans lies, they have drifted into the awful dilemma where they call evil good, and good evil.

Joh 19:23-24. Then the soldiers, when they crucified Jesus, took His garments, and divided them into four parts, a part for each soldier; also His tunic. For the tunic was seamless, woven from the top throughout. Then they said to one another, Let us not tear it, but gamble for it, whose it shall be; in order that the Scriptures may be fulfilled, saying, They parted My garments among themselves, and upon My vesture they did cast the lot. Indeed, then, the soldiers did these things. Roman law gave the garments of the crucified to the quaternion, consisting of four soldiers, who took charge of each criminal and executed the bloody work. In that day, when there were no factories, clothing was not only very valuable, but quite scarce. The vesture or tunic was the inner garment, and, as you see here, it was seamless throughout, beautifully illustrating the absolute unity of the true Church, the body of Christ, the divisions all having been made by Satan, and, so far as they go, represent the Satanic phase of the true Church. The soldiers having divided all of His other garments, now recognized this seamless vesture, and concluded that it will spoil it to tear it into pieces; consequently they agreed to settle the ownership by a game of dice. O that all religious people could only have the gumption of these heathen barbarians, and see that they can not divide up the Church of Christ without serious detriment! Luk 23:38 : And the superscription was written over Him in Greek, Roman, and Hebrew letters, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. Roman law claimed pre-eminent justice in all things. Consequently the crime for which every culprit was crucified was written on the cross over his head, so the multitudes could all read it and know the reason why he suffered this awful death. Though the Jews had condemned Him for blasphemy, they could not use that charge against Him under Roman administration, as their law knew no such a crime. Though both Pilate and Herod had positively vetoed the charge of treason against Caesar which the Jews tried so hard to get them to recognize, yet in the finale, Pilate had it written over Him simply to fill a vacancy, as he had nothing else. As you pass by Roman Catholic cemeteries and churches, you frequently see a cross, superscribed I.N.R.I. This is an abbreviation of Jesus Nasarenus Rex Judaeorum, Jesus of Nazereth, King of the Jews.

These are the very words which were superscribed on the cross above the head of Jesus, in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, the language of religion, learning, and law, for the convenience of all the multitudes, as they could all find it out from these three languages.

Joh 19:20-21. Then many of the Jews read this title; because the place was near the city where Jesus was crucified. Calvary overlooks the city, the prominence rising only about one hundred yards from the north wall, the Jericho road running between, and then the hill about one hundred yards more to its summit, which is somewhat level on top, uniformly and gradually descending, actually resembling a human, skull, for which it is named, and is the most conspicuous place about Jerusalem, lying in the angle of the two most important roads i. e., those leading to Damascus and Jericho in harmony with the Roman policy of crucifying criminals in the most conspicuous places. I emphasize these, specifications because the Greek, Roman, and all other Oriental Churches, locate Calvary some distance within the present wall of the city, where there is no mountain, but rather a subsidence, between Zion and Akra, within the great Church of the Holy Sepulcher, which has stood there since the days of Constantine, the most magnetic pilgrim-resort in all the Holy Land, as they believe that Jesus there laid down His life to save a guilty world. I believe they are mistaken as to the location of Calvary; and this lonely hill, outside of the wall, for more than a thousand years a Moslem cemetery, is, beyond doubt, the true Calvary. You remember that the Romans utterly destroyed the city, A. D. 73, verifying the prophecy of Jesus, leaving it utterly desolate fifty years. Then the Emperor Adrian went there, and founded a Roman colony, using the ruins to rebuild the city, calling it Elia Capitolina, thus even burying the name Jerusalem in (as they supposed). hopeless oblivion. So two hundred years rolled away during the nonexistence of Jerusalem, this Roman city occupying the site. When the Emperor Constantine was converted to Christianity, A. D. 325, he and his royal mother, Queen Helena, came to this sacred spot, revived and rebuilt the city, and restored the heaven-born name, Jerusalem. During these three hundred years there were no people there who knew the sacred places. Hence the confusion with reference to the locations. For an exhaustive elucidation of this matter, see Footprints of Jesus.

Then the high priest of the Jews said to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that He said, I am the King of the Jews. Pilate responded, What I have written, I have written. In Oriental dialect, this is the very strongest negative, bluntly and stubbornly muttered out by the impatient proconsul. The truth of the matter is, they had browbeaten Pilate from the beginning, and run over him like a dog. Fearful of official depreciation, deposition, arraignment before the emperor, and untold humiliation, with which the high priests and elders threatened him, despite all his protestation of the innocence of Jesus, and the diversity of stratagems to which he resorted for His release, they treated all his efforts with utter contempt; having yielded to their imperious clamors again and again, and finally, though with the utmost reluctance, signed His death-warrant, and, pursuant to the Roman custom, superscribed the only accusation they had brought against Him on the cross above His head, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, and still they are dissatisfied and clamored for a change, his patience broke down, and he positively and abruptly refused. No wonder Pilate refused to change that writing. He could not change it; Jesus is King of tile Jews, and will be forever. In coming eternity, as well as through the bright millennial centuries, when God will honor the patriarch and prophets, the elect custodians of His Revealed Oracles, amid a world of darkness and sin, Jesus will be King of the Jews forever, encumbering and honoring the Theocratic throne of David.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

27:35 {8} And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

(8) He is made a curse, so that in him we may be blessed: his garments are taken from him so that we might be enriched by his nakedness.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

The Roman’s normally tied or nailed the victim to the crossbeam of his cross. In Jesus’ case they did the latter. They would then hoist the crossbeam and the prisoner up onto the upright member of the cross. Next they would fasten the crucified person’s feet to the upright by tying or nailing them. The Romans constructed crosses in various shapes: an X, a T, or, as in Jesus’ case, the traditional T with the upright extending above the crossbeam (Mat 27:37). Sometimes the victim was only a few inches off the ground, but Jesus appears to have been a few feet higher (Mat 27:48; Joh 19:29). Normally the Romans crucified their victims naked. The executioners took the criminal’s clothes for themselves. In Jesus’ case they cast lots for his robe fulfilling Psa 22:18 (cf. Joh 19:23-24). This happened in the late morning on Friday (Mar 15:25; Joh 19:14).

"In the case of Jesus we have reason to think that, while the mode of punishment to which He was subjected was un-Jewish [i.e., crucifixion], every concession would be made to Jewish custom, and hence we thankfully believe that on the Cross He was spared the indignity of exposure. Such would have been truly un-Jewish." [Note: Edersheim, 2:584.]

 

Muslims believe that God took Jesus to heaven before He died and that He will come back to earth to finish His work. They believe that it was Judas who died on the cross.

"Crucifixion was unspeakably painful and degrading. Whether tied or nailed to the cross, the victim endured countless paroxysms as he pulled with his arms and pushed with his legs to keep his chest cavity open for breathing and then collapsed in exhaustion until the demand for oxygen demanded renewed paroxysms. The scourging, the loss of blood, the shock from the pain, all produced agony that could go on for days, ending at last by suffocation, cardiac arrest, or loss of blood. When there was reason to hasten death, the execution squad would smash the victim’s legs. Death followed almost immediately, either from shock or from collapse that cut off breathing." [Note: Carson, "Matthew," p. 574. Cf. M. Hengel, Crucifixion; J. A. Fitzmyer, "Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and the New Testament," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978):493-513; and Edwin A. Blum, "Jesus and JAMA," Christian Medical Society Journal 17:4 (Fall 1986):4-11, which contains drawings of a Roman scourging, a Roman cross, the placement of the nails in Jesus’ hands and feet, how Jesus would have hung on the cross, and the piercing of His side.]

The Romans reserved crucifixion for the worst criminals from the lowest classes of society. Roman citizens were exempt from crucifixion unless Caesar himself ordered it. For the Jews crucifixion was even more horrible because it symbolized a person dying under God’s curse (Deu 21:23). Israel’s leaders hung up those who had died under God’s curse for others to see and learn from. Jesus bore God’s curse for the sins of humankind so we would not have to experience that curse.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)