See the notes at Mat 27:1-2.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Luk 23:1-7

Then said Pilate

The conduct of Christ contrasted with the conduct of other public characters

I.

Amongst the philosophers of the heathen world not one can be named, who did not admit some favourite vice into his system of good morals; and who was not more than suspected of some criminal indulgence in his own practice; not one, whose public instructions were without error, and whose private conduct was without reproach. In the character of Jesus Christ no such imperfection can be traced. In His addresses to His followers, He taught virtue unpolluted by impurity: and in His practice He exemplified what He taught.

II. In the most distinguished of our contemporaries, we always find some weakness to pity or lament, or only some single and predominant excellence to admire. In each individual the learning or the activity, the counsel or the courage, only can be praised. We look in vain for consistency or perfection. The conduct of Christ betrays no such inequality. In Him no virtue is shaded by its correspondent infirmity. No pre-eminent quality obscures the rest. Every portion of His character is in harmony with every other. Every point in the picture shines with great and appropriate lustre.

III.
In the heroes, which our fables delight to pourtray, we are continually astonished by such exploits as nothing in real life can parallel; by the achievements of sagacity that cannot be deceived, and of courage that cannot be resisted.
We are either perplexed by the union of qualities and endowments incompatible with each other, or overpowered by the glare of such excellencies and powers, as nature with all her bounty never bestowed upon man.
Jesus Christ has surpassed the heroes of romance.
In contemplating His character we are not less surprised by the variety of His merits, than delighted by their consistency. They always preserve their proportion to each other. No duty falls below the occasion that demands it. No virtue is carried to excess.

IV. In the most exalted of our fellow-creatures, and even in the practice of their most distinguished virtues, we can always discover some concern for their personal advantage; some secret hope of fame, of profit, or of power; some prospect of an addition to their present enjoyments. In the conduct of Christ none of the weakness of self-love can be discovered. He went about doing good, which He did not appear to share, and from which He did not seem to expect either immediate or future advantage. His benevolence, and His alone, was without self-interest, without variation and without alloy.

V. It is a very general and a very just complaint, that every man occasionally neglects the duties of his place and station. The character of Christ is exposed to no such imputation. The great purpose of His mission indeed, appears to have taken, entire possession of his thoughts.

VI. The pretended prophet of Arabia made religion the sanction of his licentiousness, and the cloak of his ambition.

VII. An impostor, of whatever description, though he has but one character to support, seldom supports it with such uniformity as to procure ultimate success to his imposition. Jesus Christ had a great variety of characters to sustain; and He sustained them all without failure and without reproach.

VIII. Men in general are apt to deviate into extremes. The lover of pleasure often pursues it till he becomes its victim or its slave. The lover of God sometimes grow into an enthusiast, and imposes upon himself self-denial without virtue, and mortification without use or value. From such weakness and such censure the character of Christ must be completely exempted. He did not disdain the social intercourse of life, or reject its innocent enjoyments.

IX. While we are displaying the various merits which adorned the personal character of Christ, one excellence more must not be passed in silence; the rare union of active and passive fortitude; the union of courage with patience; of courage without rashness, and patience without insensibility.

X. Such, then, is the unrivalled excellence of the personal character of Jesus Christ. Such is the proof which it affords that He was a teacher sent from God; and such is the example which He has left us, that we should follow His steps. (W. Barrow.)

Pontius Pilate

I. PILATE WAS WEAK–MORALLY WEAK. He sinned in spite of his better self. He was thoroughly convinced of the innocence of his prisoner. His conscience forbad him to inflict punishment. He made strenuous efforts to save Him. And yet, after all, He gave Him up to death, and furnished the soldiers needed for carrying out the sentence. How many in our day resemble him! Are not some of you as weak as he was? Have you not had convictions of duty as strong as his, and maintained them for a while as stoutly as he did, and yet failed at last to carry them out? Remember that convictions of sin and duty do not keep men from sin; nor do they excuse sin. Beware of substituting religious knowledge or sentiment for religious principle.

II. PILATE WAS WORLDLY. This explains his weakness. His feelings were overpowered by a selfish regard to his own interest.

III. PILATE WAS IRRELIGIOUS. Here was the secret of that fatal power which the world exerted upon him. He was worldly because his life was not guided and governed by true religion. This is the victory that overcometh the world–even your faith. (R. P. Pratten, B. A.)

Pontius Pilate

Let us consider, then, the strange behaviour of Pontius Pilate after our Lords formal acquittal.

I. HE DECLARES THE SAVIOUR TO BE INNOCENT, BUT HE DOES NOT SET HIM FREE.

II. HE DOES NOT SET HIM FREE, BUT ENDEAVOURS TO BE FREE FROM HIM–to get rid of Him.

III. HE ENDEAVOURS TO GET FREE FROM HIM, BUT RECEIVES HIM AGAIN AND AGAIN.

1. I find no fault in this Man–Pilate has minutely and thoroughly investigated the case of Him who was so eagerly accused by the people, and the result of this examination was the Lords acquittal. Well done, Pilate! you have taken the right way; only one step more, and the case will be honourably concluded! As a just judge you are bound to follow up your verdict by release. The little bit of nobleness which Pilate showed on his first appearance was fast declining, as generally happens when it is not founded on the fear of God. When a man has gone as far as to question what truth is, he will soon follow up his questioning with, What is justice? what is faith? what is virtue? The inevitable result of a perverse state of heart is that it must daily beget new perversities. Because Pilate was not moved by love of truth, it was impossible for him to be moved for any length of time by a sense of justice. He declares the Saviour to be free from guilt, but he does not set Him free. Even since the times have become Christian, and since men have become members of the Church of Jesus Christ, it is an universal fact that Pilates conduct has been repeated. Men have declared the Saviour free, but have not set Him free. Pilate was a Roman, and a Roman maxim it has ever been in Christianity to pay every possible outward respect to the Saviour, but not to set Him free. The Romish Church especially bound what ought especially to be free–the Word of Jesus Christ–the Bible–the gospel. They declare the Word of the Saviour to be free, but do not set it free. In the Middle Ages, under plea of its preciousness, they bound it with iron chains. At present they bind it by the approval of bishops, by episcopal approbation. Even in these days this Church has dared to brand Bible Societies as plague sores. Pontius Pilate was a Roman to whom truth was nothing, justice little, his own interest everything; therefore he did not set the Saviour free, though he declared Him to be entitled to freedom. And a Roman maxim it bus been to this very day to declare the Saviour free, but not to free Him. It is to the glorious Reformation that the honour belongs of having broken the chains by which Rome bound the Saviour. In the Church of the Reformation, our dear evangelical Church, Jesus is not only declared to be free, but is free. Freely He governs our Church; freely He communicates with every believing soul. May we, therefore, say that Pilatism exists no longer in evangelical Christianity? Ah! no, dearly beloved, we must sorrowfully confess that Satan did not fail to find an entrance again through a back door. For, among the numerous Christians who glory in Protestant freedom, many do not allow the Saviour to speak except at church on Sunday. He is not allowed to raise His voice during the week, nor in their own homes. What is this but declaring the Saviour to be free, and keeping Him bound? They bind Him to altar and pulpit; they hear Him every week or fortnight, but further advance is denied their Saviour. He is not permitted to leave the church nor go with them to their home. Mere church attendance is Pilatism; the Saviour is declared to be free, but He is not set free. Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any man hear My voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me. But, my friends, tot us who have given up our heart to the Saviour, to occupy a place in His throne-room, would it not be a subtle Pilatism if we lock the Saviour within the heart, and not set Him free for the whole life? Not only in the heart is the Saviour to have free range, but in the home, in your nursery and drawing-rooms, in your workshop, in your society, in your dally life and conversation, He is to be free, and the free ruler of your life. Oh, my friends, strive against Pilatism! Do not lock your Saviour in your church, nor in your heart, but allow Him to dispose of you how He will and where He will. The more He is allowed to shape a mans life, the more freedom will that man enjoy. Therefore, once again, away with Pilatism! Do not only declare the Saviour to be free, but set Him free indeed!

II. PILATE DOES NOT SET THE SAVIOUR FREE, BUT ENDEAVOURS TO GET FREE FROM Him He does not give Jesus His liberty, for fear of the people. He endeavours to get free from Jesus because he fears Jesus. The quiet dignity of the King of Truth grows more and more painful to him. The whole matter, which at first he thought a great ado about nothing, is taking such a turn that he feels quite uneasy. Is He a Galilaean? he asks. The Saviour was no Galilaean. It is from Bethlehem of Judaea that the Messiah of Israel has come! but the people say He is a Galilaean. This is sufficient for Pilate. He had oftentimes trenched upon Galilee, and had thereby become the bitter enemy of Herod, the tetrarch of Galilee. But now it is most opportune to him, that Galilee is a province beyonds his jurisdiction. Let Herod burn his fingers in this affair. At least, he, Pilate, will be rid of a case which is getting more and more troublesome. Do you know those people that practise in our day the most contemptible kind of Pilatism? They cannot explain the powerful impression which the exalted personage of the God-man makes upon man. The pale beauty of His cross appears an unnatural rebuke to the frivolous ideal of life which they have entertained. His stretched-out pierced hands are quivering hints and points of interrogation, and signs of pain and sorrow. His humiliating crucifixion bears so loud an evidence against their pride of ancestry, pride of culture, and pride of riches, that they endeavour to get free from Him at any cost. He is a Galilaean: thus runs the old Jewish lie, which history confuted long ago. A Galilaean Rabbi could never–no, never–become so potent, that eighteen centuries would circle around him like planets round the sun. But those men who endeavour to get free from the God-man, will always grasp at this straw of a miserable fiction. He is a Galilaean! He is a Galilaean, and they think they have discovered the magic spell by which they can with some show of reason get rid of their belief in the God-man, who has given His life a ransom for a sinful world. He is a Galilaean, they say, and with that they send the Saviour away. They send Him to sceptical philosophers, urging, Natural philosophy has explained this, and teaches us that miracles are impossible. Philosophy is a competent judge of the person of Jesus Christ, and of His miracles; and philosophers, not we, have to decide. And we submit to their judgment. It makes them somewhat uneasy to know that there are likewise believing philosophers; that a Copernicus begged from the Crucified no other mercy than was received by yonder malefactor; that a Kepler, a Newton were true followers of Jesus, and believed in His miracles, and had faith in His words. On this point, therefore, they maintain a silence as deep as that of the tomb. Or they send the Saviour to sceptical historians, saying, It is by history that the authenticity of the Bible is to be tested, and this science has broken a staff over the Scriptures. It is nothing to their purpose that believing historians place a high value on the Bible, that one of them has pronounced Jesus Christ to be the very key of history. This testimony, however, they care fully overlook. Or they send the Lord Jesus to sceptical theologians, saying, There are so many theologians who deny the divinity of Jesus, and theologians ought certainly to be possessed of the true knowledge. They overlook the believing divines who exist too, and who ought to know at any rate as well as they. In short, fidelity and justice concerning the Lord Jesus are quite out of the question with those people. They will get free from the Lord Jesus at any hazard; therefore they seek for Herods wherever they may be found.

III. IMPOTENT STRUGGLING! Foolish prudence! After all, they will not get free from the Saviour. Having entered a mans life, Jesus comes again and again, this way or that way, whatever may have been the turnings and windings of that life. Pilate endeavours to get free from the Saviour, but gets Him again and again. Pilate gets Jesus again from Herod, and receives Herods friendship besides. Pilate, on his part, to be sure would fain have renounced his friendship for Herod, if by so doing he had only got rid of the Lord Jesus. But his new friend had sent back the Saviour, and thus Pilate was obliged, much against his will, to concern himself further with the Saviour, and bring to an end a case which to himself was becoming more and more painful. And in the same condition in which Pilate was will all those who think and act like him ever be. Having once met the Saviour, they never get entirely free from Him, however they may struggle and whatever cunning devices they may make to accomplish this end. In the end they will avail nothing. Jesus comes again. His form assumes a more and more sorrowful aspect. His face becomes more grave and clouded. Jesus comes again. Each sound of the church bell reminds them, each Sunday admonishes them of Him. Jesus comes again. They do not get free from Him. They anxiously debar their home, their family, from His influences. Nevertheless, since the Spirit bloweth where it listeth, they cannot prevent their wives, nor daughters, nor sons from being converted; and every converted one is a living reproach to the unconverted. They cover, as it were, their heart with a coat of mail; they palisade their conscience; they fall into the habit of smiling at holy things; they affect the utmost indifference towards the God-man. Thus they live, thus they die; and when they are dying, again Jesus Christ is there; and in their dying moments His word sounds: Son of man, how often would I have drawn thee unto Me, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldst not! (Emil Quandt.)

The character of Pilate

The estimate which history has put upon Pilate is fair. We talk of artistic combinations and poetical justice. But no art and no poetry can come up to that dramatic intensity of contrast in which history makes such a man as Pilate judge and executioner of Jesus Christ. It is as in another generation when such a man as Nero sits as judge of such a man as St. Paul. We know Pilate by ten years of his jurisdiction. A cruel Roman viceroy, he had created and had quelled more than one rebellion by his hard hand. He is one of a type of men such as you find in Napoleons history, who have their eye always on the Emperor, and always mean to win his favour. For the Pilates of the world this backward look to their chief supplies the place of law. Does Tiberius wish it? Then one answers Yes. Does Tiberius dislike it? Then one answers No. In the long run such a second hand conscience fails a man. It failed Pilate. Tiberius recalled him. But Tiberius died before Pilate could appear at court. And, then, neglected by everybody, scorned, I think, by those who knew him best, Pilate, who had no conscience now he had no Tiberius, killed himself. Was there, in that loathsome despair of the life of a favourite whose game is played through, was there always the memory of one face, of one prisoner, of one execution? Did he remember that day when he tried to wash off guilt with water: Did he remember how the sky blackened on that day, and men said nature itself testified against the wrong which that day saw? (E. E. Hall, D. D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

CHAPTER XXIII.

Christ is led to Pilate, and accused by the Jews, 1, 2.

Pilate examines, and pronounces him innocent, 3, 4.

The Jews virulently accuse him, 5.

Pilate, understanding that he was of Galilee, sends him to

Herod, by whom he is examined, 6-9.

The chief priests and scribes vehemently accuse him, and Herod

and his soldiers mock him, 10, 11.

Pilate and Herod become friends, 12.

Pilate, before the chief priests, rulers, and people, pronounces

Christ to be innocent, and offers to release him, 13-20.

The Jews clamour for his condemnation, and Pilate gives him up

to their will, 21-25.

Simon bears his cross, 26.

The people bewail him, and he foretells the destruction of the

Jewish state, 27-31.

He and two malefactors are brought to Calvary, and are crucified,

32, 33.

He prays for his crucifiers, 34.

He is derided, mocked, and insulted by the rulers, and by the

soldiers, 35-37.

The superscription on the cross, 38.

The conduct of the two malefactors, to one of whom he promises

paradise, 39-43.

The great darkness, 44, 45.

He gives up the ghost, 46.

The centurion and many others are greatly affected at his death,

47-49.

Joseph of Arimathea begs the body, and puts it in his own new

tomb, 50-53.

The women prepare spices and ointments to embalm him, 54-56.

NOTES ON CHAP. XXIII.

Verse 1. The whole multitude] It seems most probable that the chief priests, elders, scribes, and captains of the temple, together with their servants, dependents, and other persons hired for the purpose, made up the multitude mentioned here. The common people were generally favourers of Christ; and for this reason the Jewish rulers caused him to be apprehended in the night, and in the absence of the people, Lu 22:6, and it was now but just the break of day, Lu 22:66.

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

The history of our Saviours examination and trial before Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea, is recorded by all four evangelists, nor can it be distinctly and perfectly understood without the comparing together of what they all say, where our reader will find all such passages opened as occur in any of the evangelists about it, and stand in need of explication. The high priests, and the chief priests, and the elders had before determined our Saviour guilty of death, for blasphemy. They stoned Stephen in that case, Act 7:59, without carrying him before the Roman governor at all, that we read of in that history; how came it to pass that they did not so by our Saviour, but make a double work of it?

1. Some think that that was rather done in a tumult, though he was carried before the council, Act 6:12, than in a regular judicial way; for conquerors in those times, though they sometimes allowed the conquered nations courts of judicature, wherein they judged in ordinary matters according to their own laws, and had, judges of their own nations, yet ordinarily reserved capital causes to the cognizance of governors constituted by them; and this seemeth confirmed by Joh 18:31, where when Pilate said, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law, we read that the Jews replied, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.

2. Others think that they had a power to put to death, but it was not lawful for them to put any to death upon the feast day: it was now the first day of unleavened bread. But the former seemeth more probable.

3. Or was it because they had sedition and treason to lay to his charge, which were crimes cognoscible only before the Roman governor? And possibly they were willing enough (knowing the reputation our Saviour had with the people) to lay the odium of his death upon Pilate, rather than take it upon themselves.

4. Whatever were the causes, it is most certain that it could be no otherwise, that all righteousness might be fulfilled.

Not a word of what our Saviour said could pass away. He had foretold, Mat 20:18,19; Mr 10:33,34; Lu 18:32,33, that he should not only be betrayed to the chief priests and scribes, and by them be condemned to death, but that he should be delivered to the Gentiles, to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him; and indeed that way of putting to death by crucifying could only be done by the Gentiles, and that death he was to die. In the history of our Saviours examination before Pilate is observable…

1. How much more justice and equity our Saviour found from a heathen, than from the Jewish churchmen: the latter condemn him without any proof, after all attempts of subornation, and seek to destroy him right or wrong; Pilate useth all endeavours to deliver him and set him at liberty.

2. How desperate the hatred is that groweth upon the account of religion in the hearts of wicked men; they prefer a person guilty of the highest immoralities and debaucheries, viz. sedition and murder, before the most innocent person that ever lived, who differed only from them in some points of religion, and those chiefly relating to traditions and ceremonies; but indeed he interpreted the will of God more strictly than their lusts would suffer them to interpret it, and lived another kind of life than they lived. Strictness and holiness of doctrine and life is that which enrages the men of the world against the preachers and professors of the gospel.

See Poole on “Mat 27:1“, and following verses to Mat 27:66, more fully.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

And the whole multitude of them,…. Of the chief priests, Scribes, and elders; the whole of the sanhedrim, excepting Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathea, having in their court condemned Christ to death:

arose; from the council chamber, where they sat in judgment upon him:

and led him unto Pilate, the Roman governor, and into the praetorium, or judgment hall, where causes were tried by him; hither they brought Jesus, having bound him as a prisoner and a malefactor, that their sentence might be confirmed by civil authority, and that he might be put to the death of the cross, which was a Roman punishment.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

      1 And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.   2 And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Csar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.   3 And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.   4 Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.   5 And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place.   6 When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilan.   7 And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time.   8 And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him.   9 Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.   10 And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him.   11 And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.   12 And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.

      Our Lord Jesus was condemned as a blasphemer in the spiritual court, but it was the most impotent malice that could be that this court was actuated by; for, when they had condemned him, they knew they could not put him to death, and therefore took another course.

      I. They accused him before Pilate. The whole multitude of them arose, when they saw they could go no further with him in their court, and led him unto Pilate, though it was no judgment day, no assizes or sessions; and they demanded justice against him, not as a blasphemer (that was no crime that he took cognizance of), but as one disaffected to the Roman government, which they in their hearts did not look upon as any crime at all, or, if it was one, they themselves were much more chargeable with it than he was; only it would serve the turn and answer the purpose of their malice: and it is observable that that which was the pretended crime, for which they employed the Roman powers to destroy Christ, was the real crime for which the Roman powers not long after destroyed them.

      1. Here is the indictment drawn up against him (v. 2), in which they pretended a zeal for Csar, only to ingratiate themselves with Pilate, but it was all malice against Christ, and nothing else. They misrepresented him, (1.) As making the people rebel against Csar. It was true, and Pilate knew it, that there was a general uneasiness in the people under the Roman yoke, and they wanted nothing but an opportunity to shake it off; now they would have Pilate believe that this Jesus was active to foment that general discontent, which, if the truth was known, they themselves were the aiders and abettors of: We have found him perverting the nation; as if converting them to God’s government were perverting them from the civil government; whereas nothing tends more to make men good subjects than making them Christ’s faithful followers. Christ had particularly taught that they ought to give tribute to Csar, though he knew there were those that would be offended at him for it; and yet he is here falsely accused as forbidding to give tribute to Csar. Innocency is no fence against calumny. (2.) As making himself a rival with Csar, though the very reason why they rejected him, and would not own him to be the Messiah, was because he did not appear in worldly pomp and power, and did not set up for a temporal prince, nor offer to do any thing against Csar; yet this is what they charged him with, that he said, he himself is Christ a king. He did say that he was Christ, and, if so, then a king, but not such a king as was ever likely to give disturbance to Csar. When his followers would have made him a king (John vi. 15), he declined it, though by the many miracles he wrought he made it appear that if he would have set up in competition with Csar he would have been too hard for him.

      2. His pleading to the indictment: Pilate asked him, Art thou the king of the Jews? v. 3. To which he answered, Thou sayest it; that is, “It is as thou sayest, that I am entitled to the government of the Jewish nation; but in rivalship with the scribes and Pharisees, who tyrannize over them in matters of religion, not in rivalship with Csar, whose government relates only to their civil interests.” Christ’s kingdom is wholly spiritual, and will not interfere with Csar’s jurisdiction. Or, “Thou sayest it; but canst thou prove it? What evidence hast thou for it?” All that knew him knew the contrary, that he never pretended to be the king of the Jews, in opposition to Csar as supreme, or to the governors that were sent by him, but the contrary.

      3. Pilate’s declaration of his innocency (v. 4): He said to the chief priests, and the people that seemed to join with them in the prosecution, “I find no fault in this man. What breaches of your law he may have been guilty of I am not concerned to enquire, but I find nothing proved upon him that makes him obnoxious to our court.”

      4. The continued fury and outrage of the prosecutors, v. 5. Instead of being moderated by Pilate’s declaration of his innocency, and considering, as they ought to have done, whether they were not bringing the guilt of innocent blood upon themselves, they were the more exasperated, more exceedingly fierce. We do not find that they have any particular fact to produce, much less any evidence to prove it; but they resolve to carry it with noise and confidence, and say it, though they cannot prove it: He stirs up the people to rebel against Csar, teaching throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee to this place. He did stir up the people, but it was not to any thing factious or seditious, but to every thing that was virtuous and praiseworthy. He did teach, but they could not charge him with teaching any doctrine that tended to disturb the public peace, or make the government uneasy or jealous.

      II. They accused him before Herod. 1. Pilate removed him and his cause to Herod’s court. The accusers mentioned Galilee, the northern part of Canaan. “Why,” saith Pilate, “is he of that country? Is he a Galilean?” v. 6. “Yes,” said they, “that is his head-quarters; there he was spent most of his time.” “Let us send him to Herod then,” saith Pilate, “for Herod is now in town, and it is but fit he should have cognizance of his cause, since he belongs to Herod’s jurisdiction.” Pilate was already sick of the cause, and desirous to rid his hands of it, which seems to have been the true reason for sending him to Herod. But God ordered it so for the more evident fulfilling of the scripture, as appears Act 4:26; Act 4:27, where that of David (Ps. ii. 2), The kings of the earth and the rulers set themselves against the Lord and his Anointed, is expressly said to be fulfilled in Herod and Pontius Pilate. 2. Herod was very willing to have the examining of him (v. 8): When he saw Jesus he was exceedingly glad, and perhaps the more glad because he saw him a prisoner, saw him in bonds. He had heard many things of him in Galilee, where his miracles had for a great while been all the talk of the country; and he longed to see him, not for any affection he had for him or his doctrine, but purely out of curiosity; and it was only to gratify this that he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him, which would serve him to talk of as long as he lived. In order to this, he questioned with him in many things, that at length he might bring him to something in which he might show his power. Perhaps he pumped him concerning things secret, or things to come, or concerning his curing diseases. But Jesus answered him nothing; nor would he gratify him so much as with the performance of one miracle. The poorest beggar, that asked a miracle for the relief of his necessity, was never denied; but this proud prince, that asked a miracle merely for the gratifying of his curiosity, is denied. He might have seen Christ and his wondrous works many a time in Galilee, and would not, and therefore it is justly said, Now he would see them, and shall not; they are hidden from his eyes, because he knew not the day of his visitation. Herod thought, now that he had him in bonds, he might command a miracle, but miracles must not be made cheap, nor Omnipotence be at the beck of the greatest potentate. 3. His prosecutors appeared against him before Herod, for they were restless in the prosecution: They stood, and vehemently accused him (v. 10), impudently and boldly, so the word signifies. They would make Herod believe that he had poisoned Galilee too with his seditious notions. Note, It is no new thing for good men and good ministers, that are real and useful friends to the civil government, to be falsely accused as factious and seditious, and enemies to government. 4. Herod was very abusive to him: He, with his men of war, his attendants, and officers, and great men, set him at nought. They made nothing of him; so the word is. Horrid wickedness! To make nothing of him who made all things. They laughed at him as a fool; for they knew he had wrought many miracles to befriend others, and why would he not now work one to befriend himself? Or, they laughed at him as one that had lost his power, and was become weak as other men. Herod, who had been acquainted with John Baptist, and had more knowledge of Christ too than Pilate had, was more abusive to Christ than Pilate was; for knowledge without grace does but make men the more ingeniously wicked. Herod arrayed Christ in a gorgeous robe, some gaudy painted clothes, as a mock-king; and so he taught Pilate’s soldiers afterwards to do him the same indignity. He was ringleader in that abuse. 5. Herod sent him back to Pilate, and it proved an occasion of the making of them friends, they having been for some time before at variance. Herod could not get sight of a miracle, but would not condemn him neither as a malefactor, and therefore sent him again to Pilate (v. 11), and so returned Pilate’s civility and respect in sending the prisoner to him; and this mutual obligation, with the messages that passed between them on this occasion, brought them to a better understanding one of another than there had been of late between them, v. 12. They had been at enmity between themselves, probably upon Pilate’s killing of the Galileans, who were Herod’s subjects (Luke xiii. 1), or some other such matter of controversy as usually occurs among princes and great men. Observe how those that quarrelled with one another yet could unite against Christ; as Gebal, and Ammon, and Amalek, though divided among themselves, were confederate against the Israel of God, Ps. lxxxiii. 7. Christ is the great peace-maker; both Pilate and Herod owned his innocency, and their agreeing in this cured their disagreeing in other things.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

The whole company ( ). All but Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea who were probably not invited to this meeting.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

THE UNJUST STEWARD PARABLE V. 1-13

1) “And the whole multitude of them arose,” (kai anastan , hapan -to plethos auton) “And all the multitude of them,”‘ of the parties of collusion and entrapment against Jesus, (anastasan) “When they rose up,” referring especially to the company of the Sanhedrin.

2) “And led him unto Pilate.” (egagon auton epi ton Pilaton) “And they led him before Pilate,” known for numerous acts of cruelty in his reign. They dropped the charge of blasphemy at this point and decided to file charges of political nature against Him.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

CRITICAL NOTES

Luk. 23:1. Whole multitude.Rather, company (R.V.). The word is a different one from that so often used to denote the crowd, or the mob. It here simply means the members of the Sanhedrim. Pilate.His rule in Juda had been marked by many acts of harshness and cruelty. His hatred of the people rendered it necessary for considerable adroitness to be made use of by the Jewish rulers to get him to do as they wished. They drop the charge of blasphemy in claiming to be the Son of God, and concoct an accusation of a political character.

Luk. 23:2. We found.This a legal term, implying we have tried and convicted him of. This fellow.Rather, this man (R.V.). Perverting.Seducing, deceiving. The nation.Rather, our nation (R.V.). Forbidding to give tribute.This is a direct falsehood. See Luk. 20:20-26. Christ a King.This is a translation of the term Christ, or Anointed One, for Pilates benefit.

Luk. 23:3. And Pilate asked Him.The history in the fourth Gospel casts great light on Luk. 23:3-4 (see Joh. 18:33-38). Jesus had been brought into the Prtorium, while His accusers were without. Pilate examines Him, and finds that the kingdom spoken of is not one of this world. Then he returns to the accusers and declares Jesus to be innocent of the charge. Without the supplementary narrative of St. John, Pilates words in Luk. 23:4 would scarcely be intelligible. Pilate must have known well that one who had done the things laid to the charge of Jesus would be no such object of hatred to the Sanhedrim. He may have had some previous knowledge of the actual character of Christs public ministry.

Luk. 23:5. And they were the more fierce.Rather, but they were the more urgent (R.V.); or perhaps the words mean they strengthened or redoubled the charge. All Jewry.Rather, all Juda (R.V.). This is another indication of more prolonged labours in Juda than are recorded in detail in the synoptical Gospels. From Galilee.Perhaps this is mentioned to provoke Pilate against Jesus, because of his quarrel with the Galilans (Luk. 13:1) and enmity against their ruler (Luk. 23:12); it serves, however, only to give Pilate an apparent way out of the difficulty.

Luk. 23:7. Sent Him.The word is a technical one, and implies transference of a case to a court of competent jurisdiction. Also was at Jerusalem at that time.I.e., the Passover-time. Herod usually resided at Tiberias, but had come up to Jerusalem to the celebration of the Passover; Pilate, who usually resided at Csarea, had come up to see to the maintenance of order while the capital was crowded with pilgrims. The purpose of Pilate in sending Jesus to be tried by Herod was to remove the responsibility of condemning an innocent person from himself, and to conciliate the Jewish ruler At that time.Lit., in these days (R.V.).

Luk. 23:8. Desirous to see Him.Cf. Luk. 9:7-9. St. Luke shows himself specially well informed in matters concerning Herod Antipas. Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herods steward (Luk. 8:3), was in Jerusalem at this time (Luk. 24:10), and was a most faithful disciple of Jesus. She may have supplied information concerning Herods relations with our Lord. Heard many things of Him.Omit many things; omitted in R.V. Had heard concerning Him.

Luk. 23:9. Answered him nothing.The murderer of the Baptist, who was living in open incest, and who had no higher motive than curiosity, deserved no answer (Farrar).

Luk. 23:10. Vehemently accused Him.Probably this refers to accusations of blasphemy, added to those made before Pilate; the former, Herod, as a Jew, might be expected to treat as of grave importance.

Luk. 23:11. Men of war.I.e., the body-guard in attendance upon Herod. Set Him at nought.Treated as deserving of nothing but contempt. Gorgeous robe.The same word as in Act. 10:30shiningnot purple or scarlet (as in Mat. 27:28; Joh. 19:2), but white, in allusion to the claim to kingly dignity (Speakers Commentary).

Luk. 23:12. Were made friends together.Rather, became friends with each other (R.V.). At enmity.The cause is unknown; probably it was about some question of jurisdiction. Herod may have resented Pilates summary procedure in the case of the Galilans above mentioned.

Luk. 23:14. Ye have brought.Rather, ye brought (R.V.).

Luk. 23:15. For I sent you to him.A better supported reading gives, for he sent Him back unto us (R.V.). Is done unto Him.R.V. has done by Him. A much better rendering is suggested in The Thinker, September 1893: Nothing deserving death has been laid to His charge. The writer contends that the word is used as a technical term for taking proceedings against any one accused, and he points out that this view is substantiated by the rendering in the Vulgate, not factum ab eo, but actum ei, ago, meaning bringing a suit, raising an action, or taking proceedings, civil or criminalagainst any one.

Luk. 23:17. For of necessity, etc.This verse is omitted in the R.V., as insufficiently supported by MS. authority. It may be a gloss, but one phrase in it, translated of necessity, is highly idiomatic and characteristic of St. Lukes style. It is not a mere repetition of any of the parallel passages. In some MSS. it occurs after Luk. 23:19. The Gospels are our only authority for the existence of the custom of releasing a prisoner at this religious festival, but it is in accordance with Roman policy (Farrar).

Luk. 23:18. All at once.R.V. all together; lit. in full number. Barabbas.The name is not strictly a proper name, but means son of a [distinguished] father, or if the reading Barrabban, found, as Jerome says, in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, be preferred, son of a teacher. In Mat. 27:16 some MSS. of no great authority have Jesus Barabbas. As an insurgent against Roman rule, he probably enjoyed a certain measure of popularity in some sections of Jewish society.

Luk. 23:20. Willing to release Jesus.Rather, desiring to release Jesus (R.V.).

Luk. 23:21. But they cried.Rather, but they shouted (R.V.).

Luk. 23:22. Hath He done.Rather, hath this man done (R.V.).

Luk. 23:24. Gave sentence.The word is a technical one, and means gave final sentence.

Luk. 23:25. Him that for sedition, etc.This substitution of a description for the name Barabbas is an indication of the writers indignation. It is but seldom that the evangelists display personal feeling in their narratives. Whom they had desired.Rather, whom they had asked for.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Luk. 23:1-25

Various Forms of Antagonism to Christ.In the trial before the ecclesiastical court of His nation Jesus had been condemned to death on the charge of blasphemy in claiming to be the Son of God. He is now brought before the civil court, in order that the sentence of death may be ratified, and is subjected to examination both by the Roman judge and by Herod, to whom, as the ruler over Galilee, the case was referred. A court of justice is usually an impressive sight, and suggests to a thoughtful mind the Divine tribunal before which all men must appear. But in this case accusers and judges are seen to be animated by malign and unworthy motives, and the forms of justice are simply used to cloak the murder of an innocent man. We see enmity, frivolity, and injustice in those who co-operated together to put Jesus to death.

I. The enmity of the priests.The grounds of their hatred were their dislike of the teaching of Christ, their irritation at His correction of the abuses at which they had connived, and their jealousy at the popularity which He enjoyed in certain parts of the country and in certain sections of society. They felt forced into antagonism towards Himthat they must either submit humbly to Him or crush Him; for He did not merely ask for toleration, but required them to accept Him as the Messiah and the Son of God. And a like choice is now forced upon all to whom Christ is presented; they must either yield to Him or resist Him. He cannot be ignored. So resolute are they in their determination to secure His death, that they are unscrupulous in selecting means for their end. A heathen judge, they know, would probably refuse to sanction a sentence of death on a charge of blasphemy, and therefore they proceed to accuse Him of being a disturber of the public peace and of setting up claims to sovereignty which must necessarily lead to insurrection against the Roman power. And when these accusations break down, they use their influence with the people, to stir them up to demand the death of the prisoner, in spite of the judges repeated protests that he could find no fault in Him. Their conduct strikes us with the deeper horror when we reflect that they were men who served at Gods altar, and who should have been conspicuous examples of uprightness and compassion. The evil-doing of a minister of religion is all the more heinous because of the vows of consecration which rest upon him.

II. The frivolity of Herod.Jesus was sent to Herod because, as a Galilan, He belonged to Herods jurisdiction. Could there be a greater contrast between king and subject than was here presented? The record of Herods life is black with many a stain. He had been a debauchee and a murderer, and his guilt was enhanced by the fact that he sinned against the lighthe had stifled the voice of conscience, violated the precepts of the religion he professed, and resisted and slain the messenger from God who rebuked his evil life. He was the only man concerning whom Christ used an epithet of sheer contemptthat fox. He had once been susceptible to religious impressions, and for a time shown some signs of amendment of life, in obedience to the preaching of John the Baptist. But the sin he would not give up had seared his conscience and hardened his heart. He had once trembled at the report of Christs teaching and works, from the superstitious belief that this new prophet was the Baptist come to life again. But all this is now past. He has now no fears in the presence of Christ Himself, but is glad to see Him, as one of whom he has heard so much. He thinks of Christ as a wonder-worker, and hopes to induce Him, as the price of His acquittal, to perform some miracle. So frivolous and debased has he become that he looks upon Jesus as a kind of juggler or magician, who may provide some amusement for him by performing some wonderful feat. Then he questioned with Him in many words; but He answered him nothing. He had nothing to say to one of Herods temper and spirit. There were no formal judicial proceedings conducted by the Jewish king, or Christ might have opened His lips in defence or protest, as He had done in the presence of His other judges. The Saviour was silent because He would not gratify the cravings of an empty curiosity. Yet let us not imagine that mere indignation and contempt animated our Lord in thus dealing with Herod. The silence He maintained was the very thing most fitted to speak home to the conscience and heart of the Jewish king. Had there been a spark of conscience left in him, those Eyes, looking him through and through, and that Divine dignity, measuring and weighing him, would have caused his sins to rise up out of the grave and overwhelm him. Jesus was silent, that the voice of the dead Baptist might be heard. The profound significance of the silence of Jesus was evidently not understood by Herod, or he did not wish to understand it. He affected to treat Christ as a pretender whose claims had broken down and whose power had deserted Him; and with mockery and contempt he dismissed Him from his presence.

III. The injustice of Pilate.Had the Roman judge been called upon to deal with religious questions, his task would have been a difficult one, owing to his ignorance and inexperience, and we would sympathise with the perplexities of his position. As it was, the path of duty should have been very plain to him. He had found the Prisoner innocent of the charges brought against Himcharges which were of a kind easily dealt with, as they involved merely matters of fact and not of belief or opinion. All that he was required to do was to order the release of a man whom, after full examination, he had found innocent of the charges brought against Him; and his failure to do this has rendered his name infamous in history. He was fully aware of the evil motives that animated the enemies of Christ, and of their hypocrisy in pretending to be zealous for the maintenance of Roman authority and for the payment of tribute to Csar. Yet he allowed himself to be used as the tool of men whom he despised, for the gratification of an enmity in which he did not share. His sole motive was to acquire a little popularity with his subjects, and he did not consider the judicial murder of an innocent man too high a price to pay for it. Nor would he have hesitated to do as he was asked but for the strange impression produced upon him by the demeanour and words of Jesus. And so he tries one way after another to escape from the perpetration of the crime into which he was being forced; he seeks to impose the responsibility of dealing with the case upon another; he suggests scourging as a substitute for death; and he proposes to grant release as an act of favour. His miserable subterfuges only revealed his weakness and indecision to those who were resolute that their victim should not escape out of their hands. The case of Pilate shows us how dangerous it is to resist the voice of conscience, to what fatal errors indecision and infirmity of purpose may expose us, and how selfish aims may blind the soul to the beauty and majesty of Christ.

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Luk. 23:1-25

Luk. 23:1-12. Jesus before Pilate and Herod.

I. The Jews brought three charges against Jesus.All of these were carefully chosen to influence Pilate against Him. Two of them were falsethat He perverted the nation, and that He forbade to give tribute to Csar. The third was true in the letter, but thereby the more treacherously false in the spiritthat He claimed to be Christa king. Pilate took up the last only, and learned that Christs kingdom was not temporal, but spiritual.

II. The mob expected this.But Pilate can be moved by clamour and threats. And Pilate gladly evades responsibility by sending Jesus to Herod.

III. Herod is pleased to see Jesus.But his pleasure arises from vulgar curiosityhe hopes to see some miracle done by Him. But Jesus is silent before Herod. What a lesson in that! He conversed with the ignorant Roman, but to the well-taught Hebrews questions He has nothing to say. For Herod has thrown away exceptional opportunities, and now what is there but a fearful looking-for of judgment? Hastings.

Luk. 23:1. Led Him unto Pilate.The heathen world becomes partaker with the Jewish in the greatest wickedness that has ever been committed. In this it appears that the true light is hated as well by those who are under the Law as by those who are without the Law, and the judgment (Rom. 3:19-20), appears as a perfectly righteous one. But at the same time there is also revealed therein the grace of God, as having appeared to all who believe, without respect of persons (Rom. 3:21-31).Van Oosterzee.

Luk. 23:2. Began to accuse Him.Note

(1) the contemptuous descriptionthis fellow or man, without naming Him;

(2) the affected gravity of the accuserswe found;
(3) the pretence of consulting for the best interests of the peopleour nation (R.V.).

The Threefold Accusation.

1. His seeking to turn the people aside from the good road on which they and the Romans would have them to walk.
2. Forbidding payment of tribute to Csar.
3. Claiming to be a king.

Christ a King.The explanation of Christ as meaning a king is a stroke of malice. It was only by attributing a political meaning to the title of king that the accusation of forbidding to pay tribute could be brought against Him. If He were a king in the ordinary sense of the word He must necessarily forbid the payment of tribute to any other but Himself. They declare that He has done what, according to their theory, He was logically bound to do.

Luk. 23:3. The King of the Jews.

I. Jesus did not look much like a king.He stood there, with hands bound, and a cord round His neck. Pilates question sounds like ridicule. Yet Jesus answered, Yes, I am a King. Strange answer! Where were His throne, His crown, His sceptre, His royal robe? Who recognised His sway? Pilate probably looked at Him with mingled contempt and pity.

II. But to us to-day how different does it all appear!Christ is on the throne. In heaven He is honoured as King of kings. On His head are many crowns. All over the earth, as well, His sway is felt.

III. And He was really a king when He stood before Pilate.For His kingdom is spiritual, a kingdom of truth, righteousness, grace, holiness, love. He seemed the weakest of men; in reality He was the grandest, mightiest, kingliest. The real power of the world is Christs powerthe kingdom whose sway is over human hearts and lives.Miller.

Luk. 23:4. I find no fault.Though Jesus had confessed that He claimed to be a king (Luk. 23:3), the conversation which is recorded in Joh. 18:33-38 had clearly proved to Pilate that he had not to do with one who was a rival to Csar.

Luk. 23:5. He stirreth up the people.The false accusations are a testimony to Christs integrity. None of the things He had actually said and done could be brought forward as a charge against Him.

To this place.An allusion to the triumphal entry of Christ into the city a few days before.

Luk. 23:6. Whether the man were a Galilan.Those who gave the information to Pilate were ignorant of the fact that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Luk. 23:7. Sent Him to Herod.Not necessarily to relieve himself from responsibility, but perhaps either to obtain a favourable opinion from Herod concerning the accused or to elicit some further information in reference to the case, as well as to show courtesy to the Jewish king.

Luk. 23:8-12. Jesus and Herod.

I. Herods reception of Jesus was characteristic.He was not abashed or terrified. He once had been so, but all that was past. He was exceeding glad to see Jesus. It was a new excitement. And it was also a compliment from the Roman. And chiefly he hoped to see Jesus work a miracle. Now was his chance to gratify his curiosity and wonder. He put Christ on the level of a new singer or dancer. He expected entertainment from Him. He addresses Him in a friendly way. He talks of religion, and waits for no replies. No mouth is more voluble than that of a characterless man of feeling.

II. Christ has nothing to say to such a man.Herod grew angry at His silence, but Jesus held His peace. For one thing the entire proceedings were irrelevant. Jesus had been sent to Herod to be tried, not to be made a spectacle of. Religion to Herod was a mere diversion. So Christ will not stoop to please him. He has nothing to say to such a character. There are many to whom religion and its services are only a form of amusement or dissipation. Christ never speaks to the soul in such surroundings. Did Jesus miss an opportunity? Should He have spoken? His silence was in itself an eloquent appeal. Christs silence is the most eloquent of all appeals.

III. Did Herod understand the meaning of Christs silence?We cannot tell. It is impossible to say. Probably he did not wish to understand it. At all events, he acted as if he did not; he treated it as if it were stupidity. Jesus, he thought, was discredited, was an impostor, a mere pretender. So he thought, and so he said, and his satellites chimed in. And they would, doubtless, think it a great stroke of wit for Herod to send Jesus back to Pilate with a gorgeous robe cast over His shoulders, probably in imitation of the white robe worn at Rome by candidates for office. The suggestion was that Jesus was a candidate for the throne of his country, but one so ridiculous that it would be a mistake to treat Him with anything but contempt.Stalker.

Luk. 23:8. Hoped to have seen some miracle.No petitioner, however humble, ever had his hopes disappointed when he applied to Christ for relief; yet Christ defeats the hopes of this frivolous prince.

Luk. 23:9. Answered him nothing.Mark

(1) the wisdom,
(2) the dignity,
(3) the eloquence of this silence. The shade of John could have observed no more inviolable silence, if it had really appeared to his murderers (Van Oosterzee).

Luk. 23:10-11.

I. The hatred of the priests.

II. The contempt of the courtiers.How easily might Christ have overwhelmed both with confusion! Yet He refuses to work any miracle for His own advantage now, as in the temptation in the wilderness.

Luk. 23:10. Vehemently accused Him.From Luk. 23:15 we learn that Pilate had commanded His accusers to appear before Herod. Doubtless in any case they would have gone, in order to try to prevent their Victims escape from condemnation. The indifference manifested by Herod only increased their vehemence in accusing Him; yet, after all, it was Herods disappointment, and not their accusation, that led to fresh ignominy being heaped upon the Saviour.

Luk. 23:11. Set Him at nought.He is despised and rejected of men. He was despised and we esteemed Him not.Isa. 53:3.

Mocked Him.The priests accuse the Saviour, the courtiers mock Him. The former are animated by hatred, the latter by contempt.

A gorgeous robe.Unconsciously Herod did honour to Christ, as did Pilate afterwards in the title which he ordered to be affixed to the cross.

Luk. 23:12. Became friends together.Though the coalition of Herod and Pilate was not based upon any active enmity to Christ, yet by the indecision of the Roman judge and the indifference of the Jewish king, the way was prepared for the unjust sentence of death being passed upon the Saviour. And so their conduct was a virtual fulfilment of the prophecy in Psa. 2:2. Cf. Act. 4:27.

Luk. 23:13-25. Back to Pilate.Herods worldliness was of a frivolous type. Pilates was strenuousthe worldliness which makes self its aim and subordinates everything to success. The more common type. It reveals itself in Pilate under the search-light of Christs scrutiny.

I. Pilate should have released Jesus, on receiving Him back from Herod.But he most unjustly threatens to scourge Him, as a sop to the rage of the mob, and then set Him at liberty as a tribute to justice. A most unjust proceeding! but characteristic of the man. The spirit of compromise was characteristic of Rome. Manuvre and expediency were universal. It is not true that this spirit is always and everywhere displeasing to God?

II. He grasps at a way of escape.It was the custom to release a prisoner on the Passover morning. He welcomes the chance of releasing Christ. He offers Jesus to the crowdunjustlyfor Jesus was not a criminal; and worse, he was staking the life of an innocent man on a guess, which might be mistaken, as to the fancy of the mob. He, doubtless, considered it kind. And the offer he makesJesus or Barabbasis the essence of all the great choices of life. Every individual has to face this decision.

III. The mob chooses Barabbas.A surprise, a staggering blow, to Pilate. Jesus is left on His hands. What shall I do with Jesus? He tries to free himself of guilt. He washes His hands theatrically. He ought to have exerted them rather. Blood does not come off so easily. He could not thus abnegate responsibility and cast it upon others. He ought to have opposed the popular will at all risks. But this would have meant loss to himself. The mob gained their end. They clamoured for Christs blood, and the will of Pilate broke down before their well-directed persistency.Stalker.

Luk. 23:13. And the people.Pilate communicates his views both to the rulers and to the assembled people, for both were now associated together in seeking to have a sentence of condemnation passed upon Jesus.

Luk. 23:14. Three Good Points in Pilates Procedure

I. He had carefully investigated the case.

II. He had declared his conviction of the innocence of Jesus.

III. He had sought the opinion of one who was qualified to give a decision upon the questions at issue.

Perverteth the people.I.e., one who turns them from their allegiance to Csar.

Luk. 23:15. Nor yet Herod.The phrase implies that if even Herod, though well acquainted with the Jewish Law, and, as the sovereign of the accused, especially solicitous that He might not be allowed to stir up the people against the Romans, Herods patronsif even he could find no matter of complaint, the case might be looked upon as decided.

Luk. 23:16. Chastise Him and release Him.Pilate hoped, by this proposal, to effect two objects:

1. He would not burden his own conscience by imposing a heavier sentence.
2. He would do something towards satisfying the enmity of the Jews against the Saviour. A certain measure of mercy towards Jesus is implied in the suggestion; but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

Luk. 23:17. Must release one.And what does this signify but that at this great Feast, the true Passover, we, to whom death is due, are let go free? Christ is taken; we, who are guilty, like Barabbas, escape.Williams.

He must release.Perhaps this custom commemorated the great national deliverance from Egypt, and so was appropriate at the time of the Passover.

Luk. 23:18. Release unto us Barabbas.I.e., one who was actually a revolutionaryguilty of the same kind of crime as that of which they had accused Jesus.

Luk. 23:19. And for murder.In this and in Luk. 23:25 there is an undertone of indignation at the blindness and hardness of heart which impelled the Jews to make such a choice. Cf. Act. 3:14, But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you.

Luk. 23:20. Spake again to them.The substance of his speech or exclamation is not given, but may be guessed from the words desiring to release Jesus. The excited multitude interrupted him and did not allow him to give full expression to his desire.

Luk. 23:21. Crucify Him.For the first time the terrible cry is here heard, which, as the secret wish and thought of the chief priests, is now by these placed upon the peoples lips, and with fanatical rage raised by them.Van Oosterzee.

Luk. 23:22. What evil hath He done?It is very noteworthy that Pilate took step after step to secure the acquittal of Jesus.

1. He emphatically and publicly announced His perfect innocence.
2. He sent Him to Herod.
3. He made an offer to release Him as a boon.
4. He tried to make scourging take the place of crucifixion.
5. He appealed to compassion.Farrar.

Luk. 23:23. And of the chief priests.Even they, unmindful of decorum, join in the impetuous cry of the raging people for blood.

Luk. 23:24. It should be as they required.The weakness of Pilate led him to become the confederate of those whose hatred of Christ he did not partake in. His case is a striking illustration of the saying, He that is not with Me is against Me.

Luk. 23:25. Fatal Decision.

I. So ends Pilates weak struggle with his conscience and with his sense of right.He has tried every way to evade the issue; then he has temporised; at last he has yielded. His name is pilloried for ever as the man who delivered Jesus to the will of the mob. He is known by no other act. Better a thousand times to have remained in obscurity.

II. He took water to wash his hands.In symbol he declared that he was not responsible for Christs death. It was in vain. The water did not wash away one particle of his guilt. On him the final responsibility rested. No other could send Jesus to the cross. That others urge us to sin does not take away our guilt for that sin. No being in the universe can compel us to do wrong; if, then, we do wrong, the sin is our own.

III. The Jews took the responsibility of Christs death.His blood be on us, and on our children! The self-imprecation was awfully fulfilled. The story of the next forty years is the terrible record of its fulfilment. The crime was successful, but what came of the success in the end? Sin always brings woe. The worst of all sins is sin against the Lord Jesus Christ.Miller.

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

Appleburys Comments

The First Trial Before Pilate
Scripture

Luk. 23:1-7 And the whole company of them rose up and brought him before Pilate. 2 And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king. 3 And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest. 4 And Pilate said unto the chief priests and the multitudes, I find no fault in this man. 5 But they were the more urgent, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Judaea, and beginning from Galilee even unto this place. 6 But when Pilate heard it, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean. 7 And when he knew that he was of Herods jurisdiction, he sent him unto Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem in these days.

Comments

and brought Him before Pilate.In the three Jewish trials, the leaders had satisfied themselves that they had found an excuse to put Jesus to death. But what about the governor? Why should a Roman care if the God of the Jews had been blasphemed?

The Jews were well aware of this; they, therefore, brought an entirely different charge against Him when they appeared before Pilate. There were three counts against Him: (1) Perverting the nation, (2) Forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and (3) He said that Himself is Christ the King.

The most dangerous of the three, they seemed to think, was the firstperverting the nation. But it was the lastmaking Himself a kingthat finally caused the governor to give in. Against his better judgment, against the advice of his wife, and against the concurrence of Herod in his own opinion Pilate granted the Jews demand that He be crucified. See Joh. 19:12.

They may have thought that such evidence as the presence of large crowds following Him wherever He went, especially at the triumphal entry where they praised Him as king, would be sufficient evidence to sway Pilates judgment. Roman governors were responsible for keeping the peace and putting down any uprising that might challenge the authority of Caesar. The charge about forbidding to give tribute to Caesar was plainly a perversion of the facts in the case. See Luk. 20:20-26. The third charge was true but not in the sense in which they presented it, for His kingdom was not of this world (Joh. 18:26). Moreover, Pilate was well aware of the fact that they had delivered Him up out of envy (Mat. 27:18).

I find no fault in Him.Pilate pronounced Jesus innocent three times; yet in the end, he acceded to the demands of the Jews and ordered the innocent Christ to be crucified.

He asked whether the man were a Galilean.Jesus ministry, for the most part, had been carried on in Herods territory. Learning of this, Pilate eagerly sought to shift the responsibility of Jesus case to Herod. But Herod, after examining Him, sent Him back to Pilate who announced that Herod had found nothing worthy of death in Him (Luk. 23:15).

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

Butlers Comments

SECTION 1

Indicted (Luk. 23:1-25)

23 Then the whole company of them arose, and brought him before Pilate. 2And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king. 3And Pilate asked him, Are you the King of the Jews? And he answered him, You have said so. 4And Pilate said to the chief priests and the multitudes, I find no crime in this man. 5But they were urgent, saying, He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee even to this place.

6 When Pilate heard this, he asked whether the man was a Galilean. 7And when he learned that he belonged to Herods jurisdiction, he sent him over to Herod, who was himself in Jerusalem at that time. 8When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had long desired to see him, because he had heard about him, and he was hoping to see some sign done by him. 9So he questioned him at some length; but he made no answer. 10The chief priests and the scribes stood by vehemently accusing him. 11And Herod with his soldiers treated him with contempt and mocked him; then, arraying him in gorgeous apparel, he sent him back to Pilate.12And Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that very day, for before this they had been at enmity with each other.

13 Pilate then called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, 14and said to them, You brought me this man as one who was perverting the people; and after examining him before you, behold, I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges against him; 15neither did Herod, for he sent him back to us. Behold, nothing deserving death has been done by him; 16I will therefore chastise him and release him.

18 But they all cried out together, Away with this man and release to us Barabbas19a man who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection started in the city, and for murder.20Pilate addressed them once more, desiring to release Jesus; 2lbut they shouted out, Crucify, crucify him! 22A third time he said to them, Why, what evil has he done? I have found in him no crime deserving death; I will therefore chastise him and release him. 23But they were urgent, demanding with loud cries that he should be crucified. And their voices prevailed. 24So Pilate gave sentence that their demand should be granted. 25He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, whom they asked for; but Jesus he delivered up to their will.

Luk. 23:1-5 Pronounced an Insurrectionist: Matthew records the remorse of Judas (Mat. 27:3-10) in advance of its chronological order apparently so as not to interrupt his subsequent narrative of the trial before Pilate. Judas regret (Gr. metameletheis, not metanao which means repentsee 2Co. 7:8-10 where these two words are shown in contrast) must have taken place after Pilates ratification of the Sanhedrins sentence because they had returned to their Hall of Hewn Stones (cf. Mat. 27:3). Most harmonies of the gospel accounts place Matthews account of what Judas did before the Sanhedrins trip to Pilates judgment hall. There is a sorrow of the world that produces deathit is a remorse or regret without the decision to change. Repentance, on the other hand, is a sorrow that is climaxed by change. It is significant that the complete innocence of Jesus could have such impact on one who was so devoted to crass materialism. Certainly if the one who betrayed Him testifies to His innocence in such a manner, he was innocent.

Pilates judgment seat was in the Tower of Antonia, the Roman army barracks just north of and attached to the Temple courts. Pilates permanent residence was at Caesarea on the sea coast of Palestine. Pontius Pilate, it is alleged, was the son of Marcus Pontius, a general of the Roman army in Spain during Agrippas war against the Cantabri. He was a friend of the famous royal prince Germanicus and married to Claudia Procula, granddaughter of Augustus the emperor (see our comments on Pilate at Luk. 3:1-6). To understand Pilates behavior at the trial of Jesus, one must be aware of his former dealings with the Jews and the pressures he felt from the terrifying political inquisitions perpetrated by Tiberius Caesar in his later years. Pilate had a relatively free hand in ruling Judea responsible directly to Tiberius. In Pilate was vested the power of life and death for all Roman provincials. He was both final judge and governor. The territory of Judea, being under the direct rule of a Roman procurator, was not allowed to execute capital punishment even on a Jewish citizen (cf. Josephus, Antiquities IX: Luk. 1:1; Joh. 18:31). Pilate was in continual conflict with the Jews. Most procurators were. The Jews would not let them be otherwise. When Pilate first came to Palestine he wanted to abolish all Jewish laws and customs, but found this politically impossible. He brought effigies of Caesar to Jerusalem and set them up at night. When the Jews heard, they came by the hundreds and camped around his palace at Caesarea imploring him to remove them. He refused, called them to his judgment seat, surrounded them with an army in ambush, and threatened to kill them. They refused and threw themselves down on the pavement baring their necks to the sword. Pilate had to retreat. Another time he ordered an aqueduct to be built to improve Jerusalems water supply and attempted to pay for it with Temple treasure. The Jews rioted, Pilate ordered them slain, but had to face continued hatred of the Jewish populace for having used sacred funds. Later, he ordered some Galileans slain as they were in the act of offering sacrifice (cf. Luk. 13:1) for some reason known only to him. This may have been the reason he and Herod Antipas were at odds with one another. Finally, about A.D. 36, a self-appointed prophet asserted that Moses tabernacle and holy vessels were buried on Mt. Gerizim (in Samaria). A multitude of Jews, attempting to climb the hill and dig these alleged vessels up was slain by order of Pilate. Pilate was then called to Rome, banished, and, tradition says, he committed suicide near Vienne (Gaul). The relations between the Jews and Pilate were very strained. He detested them, and they hated him. The Jews were on the lookout for some cause to petition Tiberius Caesar for the removal of Pilateand Pilate knew it. Only by yielding to the clamor of the Jews for the death of Jesus (30 A.D.) did he last until 36 A.D.

The whole company (Gr. plethos) of the Jewish council (not the multitudes) rose as an official body and took Jesus before Pilate. The Sanhedrin began to accuse Jesus (Gr. kategorein, from which categorize originates) charging Him officially with a capital crimeinsurrection. They said they had found (Gr. heuromen, to find by investigation) this fellow (Gr. touton) perverting the Jewish nation. The Greek word diastrephonta is translated perverting and means literally, turning through. The accusation is that Jesus has been going throughout the nation subverting, twisting, distorting and corrupting people by the thousands, teaching them to resist Caesars taxes and claiming himself to be a king. Pilate later uses the word, apostrephonta, (Luk. 23:14) which literally means, Turning away the people. Of course, Jesus was not guilty of the charge of forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar. In fact, He had advocated just the opposite (cf. Luk. 20:21-26). And, He was not guilty of the charge of claiming to be king in the way the Jews intended Pilate to understand it.

Pilate did not observe the full legal procedure carried out in the courts at Romehe was not required to. But he did imitate it to a certain extent. He had full discretion in judgment. No Jew had the right of appeal to Caesar unless he was also a Roman citizen. Roman procurators were usually content for the provincials to govern themselves provided they did nothing to impinge upon the authority of Rome. Any conviction on a capital charge had to be referred to the Roman procurator for ratification or reversal. The Jewish council could condemn but not execute (cf. Josephus, Ant. IX:1:1; Joh. 18:31).

When Pilate accepted Jesus as a prisoner he did not do so as a court of appeal. Jesus made no appeal. Pilate was bound to review the proceedings themselves by which Jesus had already been tried and brought before him. And that was all Pilate was bound to do. The Jews would not enter the Praetorium (Gr. praitorion, lit. generals tent but later, residence or judgment hall of the provincial governor) because they believed they would be defiled (Joh. 18:28). It appears Pilate, by his question about accusation (Joh. 18:29) was going to try the case in due form of law and for some undisclosed reason the Jews had not expected him to adopt this attitude (Joh. 18:30). They act as if they had reason to suppose Pilate knew quite well why they had brought Jesus before him. They apparently thought Pilate would just do what they wanted him to do with the prisoner, assuming they had already found Him guilty! Pilate either guessed, or had advanced information, that Jesus Jewish trial was a farce. We are told later that Pilate knew the Jews had delivered Jesus for envy (Mat. 27:16). Pilate evidently saw an opportunity to agitate, belittle and get back at these Jewish hypocrites. Realizing Pilate was going to insist on a formal trial, the Jewish rulers began to accuse Jesus of perverting their nation in a tax revolt against Rome and making Himself a king. These accusations were lies. These rulers knew Jesus had never done any of them. They are accusing Him of what was the desire of their own hearts. The Jewish refusal to pay tribute to Caesar a few years after Jesus death is what precipitated the conflict ending in the destruction of Judaism (70 A.D.).

The charge of sedition made, Pilates next step was to interrogate the prisoner (Mat. 27:11; Mar. 15:2; Luk. 23:3; Joh. 18:33). He began by asking, Are you king of the Jews? John tells us Jesus first answered by asking Pilate, Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me? (Joh. 18:34). In other words, In what sense do you use the word king?as a Roman official trying to decide whether I claim to be an earthly king in opposition to Caesar? Or, are you merely repeating a question put into your mouth by my Jewish countrymen who know quite well that I do no claim to be that sort of king? Pilate replies: I am repeating the charge of your country-men (Joh. 18:35). You and they are Jews. You must know in what sense they use the term king and you will know what they mean better than Iwhat then have you done, exactly?

Jesus did not back away. He said, My kingship is not of this world. . . . He asserted that He did have a kingship in the sense in which He had often made the claim to Messiahship. But He would have Pilate understand that His kingship was not of this world (cf. Joh. 18:36). He made no claim to any worldly throne as the Jewish council had accused Him. Jesus said, in effect, I am not guilty of sedition against Romes political sovereignty.

Pilate again said, So you are a king? Luke and the other Synoptics record Jesus second answer, You have said so. Modern speech would translate that into, You have it correct, I am the Messiah of the Jews. John records the additional statement of Jesus here, For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice, (Joh. 18:37). Pilates soliloquy, What is truth? was not said flippantlyhe was wrestling with his conscience. He had a premonition where this would eventually come to a head. Eventually he would have to decide either to release this idealistic, but innocent, Jewish rabbi and incur the wrath of these detestable rulers, or give in and execute Him. Truth is justice in action. Pilate knew that. Everyone knows that by instinct or conscience. Pilate also knew he had better make no political blunders with Tiberius on the throne in Rome. So, while he was being pressed by his conscience to act justly and truthfully, and with the desire to get one up on these antagonists of his, the Jews, and considering the practical consequences of what he would do, he philosophized on, What is truth? He probably asked the question to himself as much as to anyone else. The more he reflected on this question and the more he thought about Jesus, the more he was convinced that Jesus was not guilty of sedition or political rebellion against Rome.

Pilate said to the chief priests and the multitudes (Luk. 23:4), I find no crime in this man. The Greek word aition is strictly a legal term meaning, a crime, a legal ground for punishment. It was clearly a verdict in the judicial sense of not guilty. Here, the trial should have been over. The highest tribunal in the land at that point had spoken. The prisoner should have been freed.

The verdict of Pilate sent the Jews into a fit of rage. Luke uses the Greek verb epischuo which means literally, intensely strong to describe their reaction. Mark says at that point the chief priests accused him of many things (Mar. 15:3) and Pilate asked him, Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you? But Jesus said nothing more to Pilate not even answering one of the charges. Pilate was amazed.

Luk. 23:6-12 Perverse Interrogation: Amid the shouting and tumult of the accusations of the Jews against Jesus, Pilate overheard the cry that the prisoner had been teaching in Galilee. This gave Pilate an idea. He inquired whether Jesus were a Galilean. Pilate and Herod (tetrarch of Galilee) had been political enemies for some time. Each had probably tried to court the favor of Rome by slandering the other concerning their administration of assigned portions of Palestine. Pilate did not want to intensify the estrangement and saw at once an opportunity, since this prisoner was a Galilean, to appease Herod and express his contempt for the Jewish rulers in one stroke. He would send the prisoner to Herod as a gesture of political courtesy. Herod was in Jerusalem at that moment having come to observe the Passover.

Herod had been wanting to see Jesus to make sure He was not John the Baptist returned from the dead (cf. Luk. 9:7-9). Herod knew he had blundered in the execution of John the Baptistthe deed had intensified the hatred of the populace against him; it alerted Rome to his ineffectiveness; it bothered his conscience. Rome would depose him, and he knew it, if he should blunder in public favor again like he had with John the Baptist. So Herod intended to play this one close to his vest. He would not plunge into this without thinking. Herod besought Jesus to do some sign for him, Apparently Herod, too, recognized that Jesus posed no real political threat or he would have found some way to condemn Jesus to execution. Since Jesus presented no political problem, Herod decided he would not make trouble for himself where there was none. All he intended was to amuse himself with some signs from the Galilean prophet, talk with Him about His teachings, and send Him back to Pilate. But Jesus would do no signs nor would He talk. Herod was the pig and dog of Mat. 7:6. He wanted to see the power of the miraculous and hear about Jesus teachings only for carnal reasons. He wanted to be amused. He wanted to exploit Jesus, not learn from Him for any righteous reasons.

Luke alone records the details of Herods interrogation. Jesus refusal to speak to Herod shocks our sensibilities at first. It seems too out of character for Jesus to pass up an opportunity to speak to the worst of sinners about his soul. Apparently Jesus was manifesting for the record that Herod had evidence enough and teaching enough to which he might respond to Gods will should he choose to do so. Jesus silence is saying that any further discussion with Herod about spiritual matters would be to no avail until Herod should repent in accordance with the truth he already had. Those who have no love for the truth, but take pleasure in unrighteousness will be allowed to continue in their self-chosen delusion (2Th. 2:10-12, etc.). Herod is the one person in all the New Testament Jesus refused to talk with. He talked with Pilate and Judas, but not with Herod.

All the time Herod was trying to get Jesus to answer his questions, the chief priests and the scribes stood by, vehemently (Gr. eutonos, lit. well-stretched or extending) accusing Jesus. They were raging beyond all boundaries of propriety for spiritual leaders and judges of the nation. Herod would not allow himself to be trapped into another faux pas. He refused to be swayed by the Jewish priests and pronounced no sentence. Herod was the craftier of the two governors. He ridiculed Jesus as a nobody and sent Him back to Pilateperhaps with a written note of conciliation. But Herod did display his perverse and wicked mentality. When Jesus would not satisfy his curiosity with a sign or a word, Herod had Him mocked and physically abused. Herod and Pilate became friends (Gr. philoi, sometimes translated lovers) from that very day.

Luk. 23:13-25 Proclaimed Innocent: Pilate did initially what his conscience told him was right. He called together the chief priests and the rulers of the Jews and the people. He told them he had examined (Gr. anakrinas, a legal term denoting the preliminary investigation for gathering evidence for the information of the judges) Jesus and indeed (Gr. kai idou, lit. and behold) had found Him not guilty of any of the charges they had brought against Him. Eight times Pilate would insist Jesus was innocent:

a.

Joh. 18:38, before He sent Jesus to Herod.

b.

Luk. 23:15, immediately after Jesus return from Herod.

c.

Luk. 23:20, again he tried to release Jesus.

d.

Luk. 23:22, Pilate said again he found no crime in Jesus, and offered to chastise Jesus and release Him.

e.

Joh. 19:4, after Pilate had scourged Jesus.

f.

Joh. 19:6, when Pilate said, Take Him yourselves and crucify him, I find no crime in him.

g.

Joh. 19:12, after Jesus warned Pilate of his sin, Pilate again sought to release Him.

h.

Mat. 27:24, Pilate tried to convince himself he had released Jesus and was free of the criminal actions of the Jews.

Pilate also insisted to the Jews that Herod found Jesus innocent of their charges against Him.

No matter how much Pilate implored, the Jewish rulers were implacable. They would not listen to reason; they threw caution to the wind and shouted down the Roman procurator. Pilate had to find an alternative. Suddenly he thought of the Roman custom of releasing a prisoner (cf. Mat. 27:15; Mar. 15:6; Joh. 18:39) (probably a political prisoner) on festival days in the provinces. Some say Pilate was following the normal practice by offering the Jews the choice between Jesus and Bar-Abbas; not really! Matthew (Mat. 27:15) says the usual custom was to let the provincials choose whom they wanted. Pilate offered them only one alternativeJesus or Bar-Abbas. Pilate capitulated! All jurisprudence has been abrogated. Pilate did not insist on law. He found a way to compromise, but it was a capitulation of principle. He hoped the Jews had rather have the harmless Jesus loosed than a murdering, thieving insurrectionist and troublemaker like Bar-Abbas. About that time Pilates attention was diverted by a note from his wife. This gave the Jewish rulers an opportunity to stir up the crowd to cry out for Bar-Abbas, (see Mat. 27:19-20). After reading his wifes note he asked again for their choicethey cried again, Bar-Abbas! As for the one who called himself, Christ, they cried, Crucify him! Pilate insisted a third time that Jesus was innocent (Luk. 23:18-22). He then compounded his compromise and offered to chastise Jesus.

The name Bar-Abbas means, son of the father. That may be, as G. Campbell Morgan notes, a title rather than a name. Peters name was Simon, but he was titled, Bar-Jonah, son of Jonah. Matthew and Mark say the insurrectionist the Jews asked to be released in place of Jesus was simply a man called Bar-Abbas. This man may have given himself the title, son of the father, claiming to be the Messiah. From the time of the Hasmonean family until long past the time of Jesus many false Messiahs arose seducing some of the Jews to follow them. Bar-Abbas was not a common criminalhe was a political radical, a terrorist, who had attempted to overthrow the Roman rule of Palestine. He had been captured and imprisoned and awaited execution. Pilate, cagily, left them with only a choice between a man who had tried, by force, to set up an earthly Jewish kingdom (Bar-Abbas) or a man who claimed to be the only true Messiah but who maintained the kingdom was a spiritual relationship to God by faith and that it could exist in this world even under Roman political rule. The Jews, in demanding the release of Bar-Abbas and the crucifixion of Jesus, manifested their carnal expectations concerning Gods kingdom.
Once he compromised justice by not releasing the innocent prisoner, Pilate feels like he must continue in the course at all costs. Actually, Pilate could have freed Jesus at any time. All he had to do was say the wordand suffer the consequences. When his first compromise did not work, he tried another. He offers to chastise Jesus and then let him go. He hoped scourging Jesus would placate the emotions of the mob. The Greek word for chastise is paideusas from the root word which means child. The word means literally, instruct, correct, discipline. Sometimes the chastising was used to cross-examine a defendant to see if he was telling the truth or not. Sometimes it was used as a form of punishment for one found guilty of a crime to correct the wrongdoer. Pilate wanted to subject Jesus to this last-resort form of cross-examination hoping it would convince the Jews once for all that He was innocent.

The Roman scourge was a whip with several thongs, each loaded with acorn shaped balls of lead, or sharp pieces of bone or spikes. Stripped of his clothes, his hands tied to a column or a stake, with his back bent, the victim was lashed with these whips by six soldiers. Each stroke cut into the flesh until the veins and sometimes the intestines were laid bare. Often the whips struck the victims face knocking out eyes and teeth. It sometimes ended in death.

Johns gospel tells us that at this moment Pilate took Jesus (into the procurators judgment hall) and scourged him (Joh. 19:1-12). Pilate then brought Jesus out before the Jews and made his famous statement, Ecce homo (Behold, the man). Three more times here he tried to proclaim Jesus innocent and release Him. The third time the Jews cried out, If you release this man, you are not Caesars friend; everyone who makes himself a king sets himself against Caesar (Joh. 19:12). Luke simply says, And their voices prevailed (Luk. 23:23). Indeed, their implied threat to represent Pilate as an enemy of Caesar prevailed over the voice of conscience in Pilates heart. Up to this point he kept trying every way he knew to release Jesus and placate the Jews at the same time. But now it is Pilates neck or Jesus! So at 6 a.m. Friday morning, Nisan 15, 30 A.D., Pilate said to the Jews, Here is your king (Joh. 19:14). But the Jews shouted all the more, that he should be crucified. Pilate said, Shall I crucify your king? But the chief priests, not being altogether truthful, said, We have no king but Caesar (Joh. 19:14). Pilate saw that he was not going to get by without ordering Jesus crucifiedthe Jewish mob looked like it was about to riot. He took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, I am innocent of this mans blood; see to it yourselves (Mat. 27:24-25). The mob shouted back, His blood be on us and on our children (Mat. 27:25). Pilate gave official (Gr. epekrine) sentence that their demand (crucifixion) should be granted. He released Bar-Abbas and gave Jesus up to their will (Gr. thelemat). Crucifixion was exclusively a Roman method of executing criminals. The Jewish method of execution was death by stoning. Jews considered any one crucified (hanged on a tree) to be cursed (Gal. 3:13). They specifically wanted Jesus to be crucified. Such an execution would imply innocence on their part in His death and it would infer that Jesus was cursed. Little did they know that this was Gods plan for Jesusto become a curse for the whole world (Gal. 3:13; 2Co. 5:21).

We would expect Jesus to be the central figure at the trials. But the more we look at the narrative, the more we are impressed with the fact that Pilate and the Jewish rulers are the focusat least on the surface. That is because it is not really Jesus who is on trialit is mankind represented in Pilate and the Jews. Men are in the docks, not the Son of man. He is innocent. What they do with Absolute Innocence incriminates them!

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

XXIII.

(1-5) And the whole multitude of them arose.See Notes on Mat. 27:11-14; Mar. 15:2-5.

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

Chapter 23

TRIAL BEFORE PILATE AND SILENCE BEFORE HEROD ( Luk 23:1-12 )

23:1-12 The whole assembly rose up and brought Jesus to Pilate. They began to accuse him. “We found this man,” they said, “perverting our nation and trying to stop men paying taxes to Caesar, and saying that he himself is the anointed one, a king.” Pilate asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” He answered, “You say so.” Pilate said to the chief priests and to the crowds, “I find nothing to condemn in this man.” They were the more urgent. “He is setting the people in turmoil,” they said, “throughout all Judaea, beginning from Galilee to this place.” When Pilate heard this, he asked if the man was a Galilaean. When he realised that he was under Herod’s jurisdiction, he referred him to Herod, who was himself in Jerusalem in these days. When Herod saw Jesus he was very glad, because for a long time he had been wishing to see him, because he had heard about him; and he was hoping to see some sign done by him. He questioned him in many words; but he answered him nothing. The chief priests and the scribes stood by vehemently hurling their accusations against him. Herod with his soldiers treated Jesus contemptuously, and after he had mocked him and arrayed him in a gorgeous dress, he referred him back again to Pilate. And Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that same day, for previously they had been at enmity with each other.

The Jews in the time of Jesus had no power to carry out the death sentence. Such sentence had to be passed by the Roman governor and carried out by the Roman authorities. It was for that reason that the Jews brought Jesus before Pilate. Nothing better shows their conscienceless malignity than the crime with which they charged him. In the Sanhedrin the charge had been one of blasphemy, that he had dared to call himself the Son of God. Before Pilate that charge was never even mentioned. They knew well that it would have carried no weight with him, and that he would never have proceeded on a charge which would have seemed to him a matter of Jewish religion and superstition. The charge they levelled against Jesus was entirely political, and it has all the marks of the minds and ingenuity of the Sadducees. It was really the aristocratic, collaborationist Sadducees who achieved the crucifixion of Jesus, in their terror lest he should prove a disturbing clement and produce a situation in which they would lose their wealth, their comfort and their power.

Their charge before Pilate was really threefold. They charged Jesus (a) with seditious agitation; (b) with encouraging men not to pay tribute to Caesar; (c) with assuming the title king. Every single item of the charge was a lie, and they knew it. They resorted to the most calculated and malicious lies in their well-nigh insane desire to eliminate Jesus.

Pilate was not an experienced Roman official for nothing; he saw through them; and he had no desire to gratify their wishes. But neither did he wish to offend them. They had dropped the information that Jesus came from Galilee; this they had intended as further fuel for their accusations, for Galilee was notoriously “the nurse of seditious men.” But to Pilate it seemed a way out. Galilee was under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas, who at that very time was in Jerusalem to keep the Passover. So to Herod Pilate referred the case. Herod was one of the very few people to whom Jesus had absolutely nothing to say. Why did he believe there was nothing to be said to Herod?

(i) Herod regarded Jesus as a sight to be gazed at. To Herod, he was simply a spectacle. But Jesus was not a sight to be stared at; he was a king to be submitted to. Epictetus, the famous Greek Stoic teacher, used to complain that people came from all over the world to his lectures to stare at him, as if he had been a famous statue, but not to accept and to obey his teaching. Jesus is not a figure to be gazed at but a master to be obeyed.

(ii) Herod regarded Jesus as a joke. He jested at him; he clothed him in a king’s robe as an imitation king. To put it in another way–he refused to take Jesus seriously. He would show him off to his court as an amusing curiosity but there his interest stopped. The plain fact is that the vast majority of men still refuse to take Jesus seriously. If they did, they would pay more attention than they do to his words and his claims.

(iii) There is another possible translation of Luk 23:11. “Herod with his soldiers treated Jesus contemptuously.” That could be translated, “Herod, with his soldiers behind him, thought that Jesus was of no importance.” Herod, secure in his position as king, strong with the power of his bodyguard behind him, believed that this Galilaean carpenter did not matter. There are still those who, consciously or unconsciously, have come to the conclusion that Jesus does not matter, that he is a factor which can well be omitted from life. They gave him no room in their hearts and no influence in their lives and believe they can easily do without him. To the Christian, so far from being of no importance, Jesus is the most important person in all the universe.

THE JEWS’ BLACKMAIL OF PILATE ( Luk 23:13-25 )

23:13-25 Pilate summoned the chief priests and the rulers and the people, and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was seducing the people from their allegiance; and–look you–I have examined him in your presence, and of the accusations with which you charge him, I have found nothing in this man to condemn; and neither has Herod; for he sent him back to us. Look you–nothing deserving death has been done by him. I will therefore scourge him and release him.” All together they shouted out, “Take this man away! And release Barabbas for us.” Barabbas had been thrown into prison because a certain disorder had arisen in the city, and because of murder. Again Pilate addressed them, because he wished to release Jesus. But they kept shouting, “Crucify, crucify him!” The third time he said to them, “Why? What evil has he done? I have found nothing in him which merits sentence of death. I will chastise him and release him.” But they insisted with shouts, demanding that he should be crucified; and their voices prevailed. So Pilate gave sentence that their demand should be granted. He released the man who had been thrown into prison for disorder and murder, the man they asked for, and Jesus he delivered to their will.

This is an amazing passage. One thing is crystal clear–Pilate did not want to condemn Jesus. He was well aware that to do so would be to betray that impartial justice which was the glory of Rome. He made no fewer than four attempts to avoid passing sentence of condemnation. He told the Jews to settle the matter themselves ( Joh 19:6-7). He tried to refer the whole case to Herod. He tried to persuade the Jews to receive Jesus as the prisoner granted release at Passover time ( Mar 15:6). He tried to effect a compromise, saying he would scourge Jesus and then release him. It is plain that Pilate was coerced into sentencing Jesus to death.

How could a Jewish mob coerce an experienced Roman governor into sentencing Jesus to death? It is literally true that the Jews blackmailed Pilate into sentencing Jesus to death. The basic fact is that, under impartial Roman justice, any province had the right to report a governor to Rome for misgovernment, and such a governor would be severely dealt with. Pilate had made two grave mistakes in his government of Palestine.

In Judaea the Roman headquarters were not at Jerusalem but at Caesarea. But in Jerusalem a certain number of troops were quartered. Roman troops carried standards which were topped by a little bust of the reigning emperor. The emperor was at this time officially a god. The Jewish law forbade any graven image and, in deference to Jewish principles, previous governors had always removed the imperial images before they marched their troops into Jerusalem. Pilate refused to do so; he marched his soldiers in by night with the imperial image on their standards. The Jews came in crowds to Caesarea to request Pilate to remove the images. He refused. They persisted in their entreaties for days. On the sixth day he agreed to meet them in an open space surrounded by his troops. He informed them that unless they stopped disturbing him with their continuous requests the penalty would be immediate death. “They threw themselves on the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take death very willingly rather than that the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed.” Not even Pilate could slaughter men in cold blood like that, and he had to yield. Josephus tens the whole story in The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, chapter 3. Pilate followed this up by bringing into the city a new water supply and financing the scheme with money taken from the Temple treasury, a story which we have already told in the commentary on Luk 13:1-4.

The one thing the Roman government could not afford to tolerate in their far-flung empire was civil disorder. Had the Jews officially reported either of these incidents there is little doubt that Pilate would have been summarily dismissed. It is John who tells us of the ominous hint the Jewish officials gave Pilate when they said, “If you release this man you are not Caesar’s friend.” ( Joh 19:12.) They compelled Pilate to sentence Jesus to death by holding the threat of an official report to Rome over his head.

Here we have the grim truth that a man’s past can rise up and confront him and paralyse him. If a man has been guilty of certain actions there are certain things which he has no longer the right to say, otherwise his past will be flung in his face. We must have a care not to allow ourselves any conduct which will some day despoil us of the right to take the stand we know we ought to take and will entitle people to say, “You of all men have no right to speak like that.”

But if such a situation should arise, there is only one thing to do–to have the courage to face it and its consequences. That is precisely what Pilate did not possess. He sacrificed justice rather than lose his post; he sentenced Jesus to death in order that he might remain the governor of Palestine. Had he been a man of real courage he would have done the right and taken the consequences, but his past made him a coward.

THE ROAD TO CALVARY ( Luk 23:26-31 )

23:26-31 As they led Jesus away, they took Simon, a Cyrenian, who was coming in from the country, and on him they laid the cross to carry it behind Jesus.

There followed him a great crowd of the people and of women who bewailed and lamented him. Jesus turned to them. “Daughters of Jerusalem,” he said, “do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children, because–look you–days are on the way in which they will say, ‘Happy are those who are barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts which never fed a child.’ Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall upon us!’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us!’ For if they do these things when the sap is in the wood, what will they do when the tree is dry?”

When a criminal was condemned to be crucified, he was taken from the judgment hall and set in the middle of a hollow square of four Roman soldiers. His own cross was then laid upon his shoulders. And he was marched to the place of crucifixion by the longest possible route, while before him marched another soldier bearing a placard with his crime inscribed upon it, so that he might be a terrible warning to anyone else who was contemplating such a crime. That is what they did with Jesus.

He began by carrying his own Cross ( Joh 19:17); but under its weight his strength gave out and he could carry it no farther. Palestine was an occupied country and any citizen could be immediately impressed into the service of the Roman government. The sign of such impressment was a tap on the shoulder with the flat of the blade of a Roman spear. When Jesus sank beneath the weight of his Cross, the Roman centurion in charge looked round for someone to carry it. Out of the country into the city there came Simon from far off Cyrene, which is modern Tripoli. No doubt he was a Jew who all his life had scraped and saved so that he might be able to eat one Passover at Jerusalem. The flat of the Roman spear touched him on the shoulder and he found himself, willy-nilly, carrying a criminal’s cross.

Try to imagine the feelings of Simon. He had come to Jerusalem to realise the cherished ambition of a lifetime, and he found himself walking to Calvary carrying a cross. His heart was filled with bitterness towards the Romans and towards this criminal who had involved him in his crime.

But if we can read between the lines the story does not end there. J. A. Robertson saw in it one of the hidden romances of the New Testament. Mark describes Simon as the father of Alexander and Rufus. ( Mar 15:21.) Now you do not identify a man by the name of his sons unless these sons are well-known people in the community to which you write. There is general agreement that Mark wrote his gospel to the Church at Rome. Turn to Paul’s letter to the Church at Rome. Amongst the greetings at the end he writes, “Greet Rufus, eminent in the Lord, also his mother and mine.” ( Rom 16:13.) So in the Roman church there was Rufus, so choice a Christian that he could be called one of God’s chosen ones, with a mother so dear to Paul that he could call her his mother in the faith. It may well be that this was the same Rufus who was the son of Simon of Cyrene, and his mother was Simon’s wife.

It may well be that as he looked on Jesus Simon’s bitterness turned to wondering amazement and finally to faith; that he became a Christian; and that his family became some of the choicest souls in the Roman church. It may well be that Simon from Tripoli thought he was going to realize a life’s ambition, to celebrate the Passover in Jerusalem at last; that he found himself sorely against his will carrying a criminal’s cross; that, as he looked, his bitterness turned to wonder and to faith; and that in the thing that seemed to be his shame he found a Saviour.

Behind Jesus there came a band of women weeping for him. He turned and bade them weep, not for him, but for themselves. Days of terror were coming. In Judaea there was no tragedy like a childless marriage; in fact childlessness was a valid ground for divorce. But the day would come when the woman who had no child would be glad that it was so. Once again Jesus was seeing ahead the destruction of that city which had so often before, and which had now so finally, refused the invitation of God. Luk 23:31 is a proverbial phrase which could be used in many connections. Here it means, if they do this to one who is innocent, what will they some day do to those who are guilty?

THERE THEY CRUCIFIED HIM ( Luk 23:32-38 )

23:32-38 Two others who were criminals were brought to be put to death with Jesus. When they came to the place which is caned the place of a skull, there they crucified him, and the two criminals, one on his right hand, and one on his left. And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And, as they divided his garments, they cast lots for them. The people stood watching, and the rulers gibed at him. “He saved others,” they said. “Let him save himself if he really is the anointed one of God, the chosen one.” The soldiers also mocked him, coming and offering vinegar to him, and saying, “If you are the King of the Jews save yourself.” There was also an inscription over him, “This is the King of the Jews.”

When a criminal reached the place of crucifixion, his cross was laid flat upon the ground. Usually it was a cross shaped like a T with no top piece against which the head could rest. It was quite low, so that the criminal’s feet were only two or three feet above the ground. There was a company of pious women in Jerusalem who made it their practice always to go to crucifixions and to give the victim a drink of drugged wine which would deaden the terrible pain. That drink was offered to Jesus and he refused it. ( Mat 27:34.) He was determined to face death at its worst, with a clear mind and senses unclouded. The victim’s arms were stretched out upon the cross bar, and the nails were driven through his hands. The feet were not nailed, but only loosely bound to the cross. Half way up the cross there was a projecting piece of wood, called the saddle, which took the weight of the criminal, for otherwise the nails would have torn through his hands. Then the cross was lifted and set upright in its socket. The terror of crucifixion was this–the pain of that process was terrible but it was not enough to kill, and the victim was left to die of hunger and thirst beneath the blazing noontide sun and the frosts of the night. Many a criminal was known to have hung for a week upon his cross until he died raving mad.

The clothes of the criminal were the perquisites of the four soldiers among whom he marched to the cross. Every Jew wore five articles of apparel–the inner tunic, the outer robe, the girdle, the sandals and the turban. Four were divided among the four soldiers. There remained the great outer robe. It was woven in one piece without a seam. ( Joh 19:23-24.) To have cut it up and divided it would have ruined it; and so the soldiers gambled for it in the shadow of the cross. It was nothing to them that another criminal was slowly dying in agony.

The inscription set upon the cross was the same placard as was carried before a man as he marched through the streets to the place of crucifixion.

Jesus said many wonderful things, but rarely anything more wonderful than, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Christian forgiveness is an amazing thing. When Stephen was being stoned to death he too prayed, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” ( Act 7:60.) There is nothing so lovely and nothing so rare as Christian forgiveness. When the unforgiving spirit is threatening to turn our hearts to bitterness, let us hear again our Lord asking forgiveness for those who crucified him and his servant Paul saying to his friends, “Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.” ( Eph 4:32.)

The idea that this terrible thing was done in ignorance runs through the New Testament. Peter said to the people in after days, “I know that you acted in ignorance.” ( Act 3:17.) Paul said that they crucified Jesus because they did not know him. ( Act 13:27.) Marcus Aurelius, the great Roman Emperor and Stoic saint, used to say to himself every morning, “Today you will meet all kinds of unpleasant people; they will hurt you, and injure you, and insult you; but you cannot live like that; you know better, for you are a man in whom the spirit of God dwells.” Others may have in their hearts the unforgiving spirit, others may sin in ignorance; but we know better. We are Christ’s men and women; and we must forgive as he forgave.

THE PROMISE OF PARADISE ( Luk 23:39-43 )

23:39-43 One of the criminals who were hanged kept hurling insults at Jesus. “Are you not the anointed one?” he said. “Save yourself and us.” The other rebuked him. “Do you not even fear God?” he said. “For we too are under the same sentence and justly so, for we have done things which deserve the reward that we are reaping; but this man has done nothing unseemly.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” He said to him, “This is the truth–I tell you–today you will be with me in Paradise.”

It was of set and deliberate purpose that the authorities crucified Jesus between two known criminals. It was deliberately so staged to humiliate Jesus in front of the crowd and to rank him with robbers.

Legend has been busy with the penitent thief. He is called variously Dismas, Demas and Dumachus. One legend makes him a Judaean Robin Hood who robbed the rich to give to the poor. The loveliest legend tells how the holy family were attacked by robbers when they fled with the child Jesus from Bethlehem to Egypt. Jesus was saved by the son of the captain of the robber band. The baby was so lovely that the young brigand could not bear to lay hands on him but set him free, saying, “O most blessed of children, if ever there come a time for having mercy on me, then remember me and forget not this hour.” That robber youth who had saved Jesus as a baby met him again on Calvary; and this time Jesus saved him.

The word Paradise is a Persian word meaning a walled garden. When a Persian king wished to do one of his subjects a very special honour he made him a companion of the garden which meant he was chosen to walk in the garden with the king. It was more than immortality that Jesus promised the penitent thief. He promised him the honoured place of a companion of the garden in the courts of heaven.

Surely this story tells us above all that it is never too late to turn to Christ. There are other things of which we must say, “The time for that is past. I am grown too old now.” But we can never say that of turning to Jesus Christ. So long as a man’s heart beats, the invitation of Christ still stands. As the poet wrote of the man who was killed as he was thrown from his galloping horse,

“Betwixt the stirrup and the ground,

Mercy I asked, mercy I found.”

It is literally true that while there is life there is hope.

THE LONG DAY CLOSES ( Luk 23:44-49 )

23:44-49 By this time it was about midday, and there was darkness over the whole land until 3 o’clock in the afternoon, and the light of the sun failed. And the veil of the Temple was rent in the midst. When Jesus had cried with a great voice, he said, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.” When he had said this he breathed his last. When the centurion saw what had happened, he glorified God. “Truly,” he said, “this was a good man.” All the crowds, who had come together to see the spectacle, when they saw the things that had happened, went home beating their breasts. And all his acquaintances, and the women who had accompanied him from Galilee, stood far off and saw these things.

Every sentence of this passage is rich in meaning.

(i) There was a great darkness as Jesus died. It was as if the sun itself could not bear to look upon the deed men’s hands had done. The world is ever dark in the day when men seek to banish Christ.

(ii) The Temple veil was rent in two. This was the veil which hid the Holy of Holies, the place where dwelt the very presence of God, the place where no man might ever enter except the High Priest, and he only once a year, on the great day of Atonement. It was as if the way to God’s presence, hitherto barred to man, was thrown open to all. It was as if the heart of God, hitherto hidden, was laid bare. The birth, life and death of Jesus tore apart the veil which had concealed God from man. “He who has seen me,” said Jesus, “has seen the Father.” ( Joh 14:9.) On the cross, as never before and never again, men saw the love of God.

(iii) Jesus cried with a great voice. Three of the gospels tell us of this great cry. (compare Mat 27:50; Mar 15:37.) John, on the other hand, does not mention the great cry but tells us that Jesus died saying, “It is finished.” ( Joh 19:30.) In Greek and Aramaic “It is finished” is one word. It is finished and the great cry are, in fact, one and the same thing. Jesus died with a shout of triumph on his lips. He did not whisper, “It is finished,” as one who is battered to his knees and forced to admit defeat. He shouted it like a victor who has won his last engagement with the enemy and brought a tremendous task to triumphant conclusion. “Finished!” was the cry of the Christ, crucified yet victorious.

(iv) Jesus died with a prayer on his lips. “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” That is Psa 31:5 with one word added–Father. That verse was the prayer every Jewish mother taught her child to say last thing at night. Just as we were taught, maybe, to say, “This night I lay me down to sleep,” so the Jewish mother taught her child to say, before the threatening dark came down, “Into thy hands I commit my spirit.” Jesus made it even more lovely for he began it with the word Father. Even on a cross Jesus died like a child falling asleep in his father’s arms.

(v) The centurion and the crowd were deeply moved as Jesus died. His death did what even his life could not do; it broke the hard hearts of men. Already Jesus’ saying was coming true–“I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw an men to myself.” The magnet of the cross had begun its work, even as he breathed his last.

THE MAN WHO GAVE JESUS A TOMB ( Luk 23:50-56 )

23:50-56 Look you–there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Sanhedrin, a good and a just man. He had not consented to their counsel and their action. He came from Arimathaea, a town of the Jews, and he lived in expectation of the kingdom of God. He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. He took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a rockhewn tomb where no one had ever yet been laid. It was the day of preparation, and the Sabbath was beginning. The women, who had accompanied Jesus from Galilee, followed and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it. Then they went back home and prepared spices and ointments. And they rested on the Sabbath day according to the commandment.

It was the custom that the bodies of criminals were not buried at all but left to the dogs and the vultures to dispose of; but Joseph of Arimathaea saved the body of Jesus from that indignity. There was not much time left that day. Jesus was crucified on the Friday; the Jewish Sabbath is our Saturday. But the Jewish day begins at 6 p.m. That is to say by Friday at 6 p.m. the Sabbath had begun. That is why the women had only time to see where the body was laid and go home and prepare their spices and ointments for it and do no more, for after 6 p.m. all work became illegal.

Joseph of Arimathaea is a figure of the greatest interest.

(i) Legend has it that in the year A.D. 61 he was sent by Philip to Britain. He came to Glastonbury. With him he brought the chalice that had been used at the Last Supper, and in it the blood of Christ. That chalice became the Holy Grail, which it was the dream of King Arthur’s knights to find and see. When Joseph arrived in Glastonbury they say that he drove his staff into the ground to rest on it in his weariness and the staff budded and became a bush which blooms every Christmas Day. St. Joseph’s thorn still blooms at Glastonbury and to this day slips of it are sent all over the world. The first church in all England was built at Glastonbury, and that church which legend links with the name of Joseph is still a mecca of Christian pilgrims.

(ii) There is a certain tragedy about Joseph of Arimathaea. He is the man who gave Jesus a tomb. He was a member of the Sanhedrin; we are told that he did not agree with the verdict and the sentence of that court. But there is no word that he raised his voice in disagreement. Maybe he kept silent; maybe he absented himself when he saw that he was powerless to stop a course of action with which he disagreed. What a difference it would have made if he had spoken! How it would have lifted up Jesus’ heart if, in that grim assembly of bleak hatred, even one lone voice had spoken for him! But Joseph waited until Jesus was dead, and then he gave him a tomb. It is one of the tragedies of life that we place on people’s graves the flowers we might have given them when they were alive. We keep for their obituary notices and for the tributes paid to them at memorial services and in committee minutes, the praise and thanks we should have given them when they lived. Often, often we are haunted because we never spoke. A word to the living is worth a cataract of tributes to the dead.

-Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)

Fuente: Barclay Daily Study Bible

135. JESUS BEFORE PILATE, Luk 23:1-5 .

See notes on Mat 27:1-14; Mar 15:1-5; Joh 18:28-38.

1. The whole multitude Not of the people, who were not as yet turned against Jesus, but of the parties mentioned in Luk 22:66 of the last chapter , namely, the ruling classes.

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

‘And the whole company of them rose up, and brought him before Pilate.’

The Sanhedrin as a whole then brought Him to Pilate. ‘Whole company’ is probably not to be taken literally. It may not have included dissenters, and Pilate would certainly not have been happy to see them all at once. Luke’s point is rather to involve ‘the whole Sanhedrin’ as a group (although in Luk 23:51 he mentions at least one member who did not agree with the verdict. There may well have been others). All were responsible for Him being brought to Pilate.

The chief priests remembered how He had hit at the Temple revenues by casting the traders from it, were angry at what they had heard of His suggestions that the Temple would be destroyed, and possibly feared that He might disturb the equilibrium with the Romans which was so much to their advantage (Joh 11:48-50). The Scribes and Pharisees were bitter because He showed up their teaching and refused to side with them and accept their complete authority on religious matters. The rich laymen were probably concerned lest anything be done that might disturb the maintenance of the status quo, securing their wealth and position. They would not feel that they could get involved in religious matters when the recognised religious experts, the ‘scholars’, were all seemingly against Jesus. Thus all for their own reasons were agreed that it was a good idea that He should be got rid of.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jesus Is Brought before Pilate (23:1-7).

Having convinced themselves of His blasphemy the majority of the court now acted and brought Him to Pilate. But once again their perfidy is revealed. For they did not bring against Him the charge of blasphemy, or of claiming to be the Son of God, rather they twisted what He had said and turned it into a political charge. And in doing this they also twisted other evidence. They probably hoped that Pilate would give in to their request without taking too much trouble over it. After all, they were the recognised Jewish authorities, and Pilate had no reason for doubting their word. But for some reason Pilate was not compliant. One reason was probably because he was not on the best of terms with these Jewish leaders, and rather despised them, and was delighted to have the opportunity to annoy them. And secondly he appears to have sensed that there was something that was not quite right about the whole affair. For we do have to take into account the impression that Jesus would make on him.

Pilate would not seem a very good candidate to act as one who would defend Jesus. Philo describes him as unbending and callous in nature and speaks of him as, ‘a man of inflexible disposition, harsh and obdurate’. He makes clear that in his view he totally failed in the fulfilment of his official duties. But even such men occasionally come face to face with something that for a moment pierces their hard shell, and that was what, unknown to him, was about to happen to Pilate.

Analysis.

a And the whole company of them rose up, and brought Him before Pilate (Luk 23:1).

b And they began to accuse Him, saying, “We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that He Himself is Christ (the Messiah) a king (Luk 23:2).

c And Pilate asked Him, saying, “Are you the King of the Jews?” (Luk 23:3 a).

d And He answered him and said, “You say so” (Luk 23:3).

c And Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, “I find no fault in this man” (Luk 23:4).

b But they were the more urgent, saying, “He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judaea, and beginning from Galilee even to this place” (Luk 23:5).

a But when Pilate heard it, he asked whether the man were a Galilean. And when he knew that He was of Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent Him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem in these days (Luk 23:6-7).

Note that in ‘a’ He is brought before Pilate, and in the parallel He is brought to Herod. In ‘b’ an accusation is made against Him, and in the parallel a further accusation is made against Him. In ‘c’ Pilate questions Jesus and in the parallel says that he finds no fault in Him. While centrally in ‘d’ Jesus agrees that He is the King of the Jews.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jesus Is Crucified And Rises Again (22:1-24:53).

We now come to the final Section of Luke which is also in the form of a chiasmus (see analysis below). Central in this final chiasmus is the crucifixion of Jesus. This brings out how central the crucifixion is in the thinking of Luke. As the Servant of the Lord He is to be numbered among the transgressors for their sakes (Luk 22:37). This is indeed what the Gospel has been leading up to, something that is further demonstrated by the space given to Jesus’ final hours. He has come to give His life in order to redeem men (Luk 21:28; Luk 22:20; Luk 24:46-47; Act 20:28; Mar 10:45), after which He will rise again, with the result that His disciples are to receive power from on high (Luk 24:49) ready for their future work of spreading the word, so that through His death repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in His name to all nations beginning from Jerusalem (Luk 24:46-47). Note especially how closely the forgiveness of sins is connected with His suffering, death and resurrection. This belies the argument that Luke does not teach atonement, for without atonement there can be no forgiveness, and why else is it so closely connected with His suffering and death?

But another emphasis raises its head here. Right from the commencement of Jesus’ ministry Satan, the hidden but powerful cosmic adversary, had sought to destroy His ministry (Luk 4:1-13), and having failed in that he will now seek to destroy both Jesus Himself, and the band of twelve whom He has gathered around Him. Luke wants us to see that there are more than earthly considerations in view. To him this is a cosmic battle.

This final section may be analysed as follows:

a Satan enters into Jesus’ betrayer who plots His betrayal in return for silver (Luk 22:1-6).

b Jesus feasts with His disciples (Luk 22:7-22).

c They discuss who is the greatest, but learn that they are rather to be servants, for which reason they will sit at His table with responsibility for His people (Luk 22:23-28).

d Jesus comes to the Garden of Gethsemane where He shuns what He has to face but submits to His Father’s will. In contrast Peter is revealed to be empty and as lacking the power that will later come in fulfilment of Christ’ words (Luk 22:29-62).

e Jesus is exposed to the mockery of the soldiers and the verdicts of the chief priests and then of Pilate and Herod (Luk 22:63 to Luk 23:25).

f Jesus is crucified (as the King of the Jews, the Messiah) and judgement is forecast on Jerusalem (Luk 23:26-33).

e Jesus is exposed to the mockery of the chief priests (the rulers) and to the verdicts of the two thieves and the Roman centurion ( Luk 23:34-49).

d Jesus is brought to the Garden where He is buried, but defeats death, the tomb when opened proving to be empty in fulfilment of Christ’s words (Luk 23:50 to Luk 24:10).

c The risen Jesus sits at table with two of His disciples a prelude to their future (Luk 24:11-35).

b The risen Jesus feasts with His disciples (Luk 24:36-47).

a God’s Power will enter into His faithful disciples and they are to be His witnesses to His glory and triumph (in contrast with Satan entering His betrayer who sought His downfall) (Luk 24:48-53).

‘And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy and were continually in the Temple, blessing God’ (Luk 24:53).

Note how in ‘a’ Satan enters into Judas to empower him to betray Jesus, and in the parallel the Holy Spirit will enter the other Apostles to empower them to be witnesses to Jesus. Judas is His betrayer, the others are His witness. In ‘b’ Jesus feasts with His disciples before He dies and shows them the bread and the wine, in the parallel He feasts with His disciples after the resurrection and shows them His hands and His feet. In ‘c’ they are to sit at His table, and in the parable two of His disciples sit with Him at table, symbolic of their future. In ‘d’ Jesus enters a Garden which will lead to His death, in the parallel He is brought into a Garden which will lead to His resurrection. In ‘e’ Jesus is exposed to the verdicts of the chief priests and rulers, and in the parallel He is exposed to the mockery of the chief priests and the thieves. But central to all in ‘f’ is His crucifixion as King of the Jews and Messiah.

The drama is in three stages:

The time of preparation of His disciples for the future before His trial and crucifixion.

The trial and crucifixion itself.

The resurrection and preparation for the sending forth of His disciples to all nations.

This will be followed in Acts by a description of this outreach until it reached Rome itself. We would surely therefore expect that in this first part His words will include words of preparation for that future. That should be kept in mind in all our interpretation.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jesus’ Prophecy to Pontus Pilate In Luk 23:1-25 Jesus confirms the opening words of Pilate to Him as a prophetic utterance.

Outline Here is a proposed outline:

1. Jesus Before Pilate the First Time (Luk 23:1-5)

2. Jesus Before Herod (Luk 23:6-12)

3. Jesus Before Pilate the Second Time (Luk 23:13-25)

Luk 23:1-5 Jesus Before Pilate the First Time ( Mat 27:1-2 ; Mat 27:11-14 , Mar 15:1-5 , Joh 18:28-38 ) In Luk 23:1-5 we have the account of Jesus standing before Pontus Pilate for the first time before being sent to Herod. It was the destiny of Jesus Christ to stand before Pilate in order that Paul the apostle could one day stand before Caesar. Within three hundred years, the Roman Empire would bow before the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Emperor Constantine is converted to the faith.

Luk 23:6-12 Jesus Before Herod In Luk 23:6-12 we have the unique account of Jesus being sent to Herod before returning to Pilate. This trial plays an important role in Luke-Acts as many scholars believe these two books were written as a legal brief prior to Paul’s first trial before Nero during his first Roman imprisonment.

Luk 23:7 Comments – Pilate attempted to escape the burden of condemning an innocent man. Since Jesus was from Galilee, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, Pilate rolled the burden upon him. But Herod appears as smart as Pilate in diplomacy and sends him back to Pilate in order to avoid the danger of tarnishing his public image with the Jews.

Luk 3:1, “Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee , and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,”

Luk 23:11 Comments – The amazing story of Jesus, King of All. Herod’s father had sought Jesus’ life as a baby. But Joseph fled to Egypt until his death. Now thirty years later, Herod’s son is crowning Jesus as King.

Luk 23:13-25 Jesus Before Pilate the Second Time ( Mat 27:15-26 , Mar 15:6-15 , Joh 18:39 to Joh 19:16 ) In Luk 23:13-25 we have the account of Jesus standing before Pilate the second time and being sentenced to death.

Luk 23:21 Comments – Note these insightful words from Sadhu Sundar Singh regarding the how men of the world will praise us one day and hate us the next day.

“If in this world men persecute and slander you do not let this surprise or distress you, for this is for you no place of rest, but a battlefield. Woe to you when men of the world praise you (Luke vi.26), for this proves that you have taken on their perverse ways and habits. It is against their very nature and temper to praise My children, for light and darkness cannot exist together. If for the sake of appearances evil men act contrary to their nature and cease to persecute you, yours is the greater injury, for their influence enters into your spiritual life, and your spiritual progress is hindered. Further, to put your trust in the world or in worldly men is to build your house upon the sand, for today they will raise you aloft and tomorrow will so cast you down that there will be no trace left of you, for they are in all things unstable. When I went up to Jerusalem at the Passover, they all with one voice began to cry out, ‘Hosanna! Hosanna!’ (Matt. xxi.9), and only three days after, when they saw that what I said was against their life of sin and self-seeking, they at once changed over and began to cry, ‘Crucify Him! Crucify Him!’ (Luke xxiii.21).” [276]

[276] Sadhu Sundar Singh, At the Master’s Feet, translated by Arthur Parker (London: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1922) [on-line], accessed 26 October 2008, available from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/singh/feet.html; Internet, “V The Cross and the Mystery of Suffering,” section 2, part 3.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Witnesses of Jesus’ Glorification: His Passion and Resurrection – Luk 22:1 to Luk 24:53 organizes narrative material that testifies to Jesus’ rejection by the Jews, His death and His resurrection. This collection of material is organized in a way that gives three witnesses to each of these four events surrounding His Passion; His betrayal and arrest, His trial, His crucifixion and His resurrection. This section begins with His rejection by the Jewish leaders and culminates with His resurrection and commission to His disciples to preach the Gospel to all the world. While Act 1:1 reflects the two-fold emphasis of Jesus’ ministry of doing and teaching, Act 1:2-5 makes a clear reference to the rest of Luke’s Gospel beginning from His Passion until His ascension (Luk 22:1 to Luk 24:53).

Act 1:2-5, “Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.”

Outline – Note the proposed outline:

A. Witnesses of His Betrayal & Arrest Luk 22:1-54

1. Prophecy of His Betrayal Luk 22:1-23

2. Prophecy of the Disciples’ Denial Luk 22:24-38

3. Prophecy of His Arrest Luk 22:39-54

B. Witnesses of His Trial Luk 22:55 to Luk 23:25

1. Jesus’ Prophecy to Peter Fulfilled Luk 22:55-62

2. Jesus’ Prophecy to Jewish Leaders Luk 22:63-71

3. Jesus’ Prophecy to Pontus Pilate Luk 23:1-25

C. Witnesses of His Crucifixion Luk 23:26-56

1. Prophecy to the Multitude Luk 23:26-38

2. Prophecy to Criminal on the Cross Luk 23:39-43

3. Witness of the Centurion (a Roman) Luk 23:44-49

4. Witness of Joseph of Arimathea (a Palestinian Jew) Luk 23:50-56

D. Witnesses of His Resurrection Luk 24:1-53

1. Witness of His Resurrection by Women Luk 24:1-12

2. Witness of His Resurrection on Road to Emmaus Luk 24:13-35

3. Witness of His Resurrection by the Disciples Luk 24:36-49

E. Witness of His Ascension Luk 24:50-53

Witnesses of His Passion and Resurrection (The Trials of Jesus and His Apostles) – Luk 22:1 to Luk 24:53 records the lengthiest account within the four Gospels of Jesus’ arrest and trials leading up to His crucifixion. The trials recorded in Luke-Acts are numerous: of Jesus before the Sanhedrin (Luk 22:66-71), before Pontus Pilate (Luk 23:1-5; Luk 23:13-25), before King Herod (Luk 23:6-12), and Peter’s two trials before the Sanhedrin (Act 4:1-22; Act 5:17-42), and Stephen’s unjust trial and stoning (Act 6:8 to Act 7:60), and Peter’s imprisonment by King Herod Agrippa I (Act 12:1-19), and Paul’s arrest in the Temple and address to the Jewish mob (Act 21:26 to Act 22:29), his hearings before the Sanhedrin (Luk 22:30 to Luk 23:10), the chief captain sending Paul to Felix the governor with a letter (Act 23:11-35), his defense before Felix (Act 24:1-27), his defense before Festus (Act 25:1-12), his defense before King Herod Agrippa II (Act 25:13 to Act 26:32), and his voyage to Rome to await his trial before Nero (Act 27:1 to Act 28:31). All of these trials and events surrounding them serve as testimonies to prove the innocence of Jesus and His apostles.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Witness of His Trial In Luk 22:55 to Luk 23:25 the author records three witnesses of Jesus’ trial.

Outline Here is a propose outline:

1. Jesus’ Prophecy to Peter Fulfilled Luk 22:55-62

2. Jesus’ Prophecy to Jewish Leaders Luk 22:63-71

3. Jesus’ Prophecy to Pontus Pilate Luk 23:1-25

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Trial before Pilate.

The accusation:

v. 1. And the whole multitude of them arose, and led Him unto Pilate.

v. 2. And they began to accuse Him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that He Himself is Christ, a king.

v. 3. And Pilate asked Him, saying, Art Thou the king of the Jews? And He answered him and said, Thou sayest it.

v. 4. Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this Man.

v. 5. And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place.

The whole multitude of them arose; though it was so early in the morning, the members of the Sanhedrin had appeared practically in a body, most of them being pleased to a point where they could not have rested quietly. “At the morning meeting of the Sanhedrin it had doubtless been resolved to put the confession of Jesus that He was the Christ into a shape fit to be laid before Pilate, that is, to give it a political character, and charge Him with aspiring to be king. ” Now they led Him to Pilate. Down through the courts of the Temple they took Him, out through one of the southern or western gates and to the other side of the Tyropeon Valley, where, according to the opinion of modern investigators, the Praetorium of Pilate was situated. And no sooner did Pilate appeal before them on the elevated pavement before the palace than they began to bring their accusations. By a skillful manipulation of the Lord’s confession they attempted to put into it a political significance. They charged Him with perverting the nation, with stirring up the people to disaffection and rebellion, with doing His best to hinder them from paying tribute to Caesar, with saying that He was the Christ, a king. These charges were the foulest and basest slanders that could have been invented by them, telling in each case what the Jewish leaders had attempted to make Jesus do, what they had desired Him to do, in order that they might have reasons to bring Him before the procurator. The entire conduct of the Lord disproved the charges as malicious and unfounded accusations. Jesus had expressly taught and commanded that the constitutional taxes and obedience to a lawful prince must be paid; He had escaped when the people had planned to make Him a king, an earthly ruler. Pilate knew the accusations to be nothing but trumped-up charges, but now that he had Jesus before him, he determined to find out wherein His kingship consisted, what His kingdom really was. Upon the governor’s question whether He was the king of the Jews, Jesus gave an affirmative answer. And, as John relates, He made some attempt to explain the matter to the heathen, but without avail. However, a mere glance at the accused had convinced Pilate that this was not a rebel or seditionist, and that His kingship certainly offered no dangers to the existence of the Roman Empire. He therefore told the high priests and the crowds outside, since by this time the rabble had gathered from every part of the city, that he found no kind of fault in this man. But the Jewish leaders had, in the meantime, not been idle, but had been busily engaged in stirring up the mob to lust for blood. In the face of the governor’s finding, therefore, the chief priests kept insisting and contending most bitterly that they were right, that Jesus had stirred up the people to sedition, exciting them with His teaching, that He had done so in the entire country of Judea, having begun in Galilee and continued His rebellious work, spread His mischievous doctrine over the whole province even to this holy city. The chief priests were determined to have their will carried into execution at any cost, by fair means or foul, and one misrepresentation more or less did not seriously burden their consciences.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

Luk 23:1-4

The trial before Pilate: First examination.

Luk 23:1

And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate. The Sanhedrin had now formally condemned Jesus to death. They were, however, precluded by the Roman regulations then in force from carrying out their judgment. A capital sentence in Judaea could only be inflicted as the result of a decision by the Roman court. The Sanhedrin supposed, and as we shall see rightly, that the judgment they had pronounced would speedily be confirmed by the Roman judge. The Sanhedrin condemnation to death was, however, from the Jewish standpoint, illegal. In capital cases judgment could not be legally pronounced on the day of trial. But in the case of Jesus, the Accused was condemned without the legal interval which should have been left between the trial and the sentence. The Prisoner was then at once hurried before the Roman tribunal, in order that the Jewish sentence might be confirmed and carried out with all the additional horrors which accompanied Gentile public executions in such cases of treason. Derenbourg attributes the undue illegal precipitancy of the whole proceeding to the overwhelming influence exercised in the supreme council by Annas and Caiaphas with their friends who were Sadducees, a party notorious for their cruelty as well as for their unbelief. Had the Pharisees borne sway in the Sanhedrin at that juncture, such an illegality could never have taken place. This apology possesses certain weight, as it is based upon known historical facts; yet when the general bearing of the Pharisee party towards our Lord during the greater part of his public ministry is remembered, it can scarcely be supposed that the action of the Sadducee majority in the Sanhedrin was repugnant to, or even opposed by, the Pharisee element in the great assembly. Pilate, Pontius Pilate, a Roman knight, owed his high position as Procurator of Judea to his friendship with Sejanus, the powerful minister of the Emperor Tiberius, He probably belonged by birth or adoption to the gens of the Pontii. When Judaea became formally subject to the empire on the deposition of Archelaus, Pontius Pilate, of whose previous career nothing is known, through the interest of Sejanus, was appointed to govern it, with the title of procurator, or collector of the revenue, invested with judicial power. This was in a.d. 26, and he held the post for ten years, when he was deposed from his office in disgrace. His government of Judaea seems to have been singularly unhappy. His great patron Sejanus hated the Jews, and Pilate seems faithfully to have imitated his powerful friend. Constantly the Roman governor appears to have wounded the susceptibilities of the strange, unhappy people he was placed over. Fierce disputes, mutual insults arising out of apparently purposeless acts of arbitrary power on his side, characterized the period of his rule. His behaviour in the one great event of his life, when Jesus was brought before his tribunal, will illustrate his character. He was superstitious and yet cruel; afraid of the people he affected to despise; faithless to the spirit of the authority with which he was lawfully invested. In the great crisis of his history, flora the miserably selfish motive of securing his own petty interests, we watch him deliberately giving up a Man, whom he knew to be innocent, and felt to be noble and pure, to torture, shame, and death.

Luk 23:2

And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself Christ a King. To understand this scene perfectly we must read St. John’s account in his eighteenth chapter. From the place of meeting of the Sanhedrin, Jesus was led to the palace of Pilate, the Prsetorium. The Roman governor was evidently prepared for the case; for application must have been made to him the evening before for the guard which arrested Jesus in Gethsemane. St. John tells us that the delegates of the Sanhedrin entered not into the hall of judgment, “lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the Passover.” Pilate, who knew well from his past experience how fiercely these fanatics resented any slight offered to their religious feelings, wishing for his own purposes to conciliate them, went outside. These Jews, prior to eating the Passover, would not enter any dwelling from which all leaven had not been carefully removed; of course, this had not been the case in the palace of Pilate. The governor asks them, in St. John’s account, what was their accusation against the Man. They replied that they had three charges:

(1) he had perverted the nation;

(2) he had forbidden that tribute should be given to Caesar;

(3) he had asserted that he was Christ a King.

Luk 23:3

And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? Pilate then went again into his judgment-hall, where he had left Jesus, but before going back he could not resist addressing an ironical word to the accusing Jews: “Take ye him, and judge him according to your Law” (Joh 18:31), to which the Sanhedrists replied that they were not allowed to put any man to death, thus publicly confessing the state of comparative impotence to which they were now reduced, and also revealing their deadly purpose in the case of Jesus. Pilate, having gone into the judgment-hall again, proceeds to interrogate Jesus. The first two accusations he passes over, seeing clearly that they were baseless. The third, however, struck him. Art thou, poor, friendless, powerless Man, the King I have been hearing about? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it. St. Luke gives only this bare summary of the examination, in which the prisoner Jesus simply replies “Yes,” he was the King. St. John (Joh 18:33-38) gives us a more full and detailed account. It is more than probable that John was present during the interrogatory. In the sublime answers of the Lord, his words explanatory of the nature of his kingdom, which “is not of this world,” struck Pilate and decided him to give the reply we find in the next verse.

Luk 23:4

Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this Man. The Roman was interested in the poor Prisoner; perhaps he grudgingly admired him. He was so different to the members of that hated nation he had been brought into such familar contact with; utterly unselfish, noble with a strange nobility, which was quite unknown to officials and politicians of the school of Pilate; but as regards Rome and its views quite harm. less. The Roman evidently was strongly opposed to harsh measures being dealt out to this dreamy, unpractical, generous Enthusiast, as he deemed him.

Luk 23:5-12

Pilate sends Jesus to be tried by Herod.

Luk 23:5

And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place. On hearing the Roman governor’s declaration that in his opinion the Prisoner was innocent, the Sanhedrists became more vehement, repeating with increased violence their accusation that Jesus had been for a long time past a persistent stirrer-up of sedition, not only here in the city, but in the northern districts of Galilee.

Luk 23:6, Luk 23:7

When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the Man were a Galilaean. And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time. Now, Pilate dreaded lest these Jews should make his clemency towards the Prisoner a ground of accusation against him at Rome. Pilate had enemies in the capital. His once powerful patron Sejanus had just fallen. His own past, too, he was well aware, would not bear examination; so, moved by his cowardly fears, he refrained from releasing Jesus in accordance with what his heart told him was just and right; and yet he could not bring himself to condemn One to whom he was drawn by an unknown feeling of reverence and respect. But hearing that Jesus was accused among other things of stirring up sedition in Galilee, he thought he would shift the responsibility of acquitting or condemning, on to the shoulders of Herod, in whose jurisdiction Galilee lay. Herod was in Jerusalem just then, because of the Passover Feast. His usual residence was Capernaum.

Luk 23:8

And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him. This was Herod Antipas, the slayer of John the Baptist. He was at that time living in open incest with that princess Herodias concerning whom the Baptist had administered the public rebuke which had led to his arrest and subsequent execution. Godet graphically sums up the situation: “Jesus was to Herod Antipas what a juggler is to a sated courtan object of curiosity. But Jesus did not lend himself to such a part; he had neither words nor miracles for a man so disposed, in whom, besides, he saw with horror the murderer of John the Baptist. Before this personage, a monstrous mixture of bloody levity and sombre superstition, he maintained a silence which even the accusation of the Sanhedrin (Luk 23:10) could not lead him to break. Herod, wounded and humiliated, took vengeance on this conduct by contempt.”

Luk 23:11

And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate. He treated him, not as a criminal, but as a mischievous religious Enthusiast, worthy only of contempt and scorn. The “gorgeous robe,” more accurately, “bright raiment,” was a white festal mantle such as Jewish kings and Roman nobles wore on great occasions. It was probably an old robe of white tissue of some kind, embroidered with silver. Dean Plumptre suggests that we might venture to trace in this outrage a vindictive retaliation for the words which the Teacher had once spokenwith evident allusion to Herod’s courtof those who were gorgeously apparelled (Luk 7:25). It was this Herod of whom the Lord had spoken so recently with for him a rare bitterness, “Go ye, and tell that fox [literally, ‘she-fox’] Herod” (Luk 13:32).

Luk 23:12

And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together. This union of two such bitter enemies in their enmity against Jesus evidently struck the early Church with sad wonderment. It is referred to in the first recorded hymn of the Church of Christ (Act 4:27). How often has the strange sad scene been reproduced in the world’s story since! Worldly men apparently irreconcilable meet together in friendship when opportunity offers itself for wounding Christ!

Luk 23:13-25

The Lord is tried again before Pilate, who wishes to release him, but, over-persuaded by the Jews, delivers him to be crucified.

Luk 23:13-16

And Pilate said unto them.., behold I have found no fault in this Man No, nor yet Herod: lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him; more accurately rendered, is done by him. This was the Roman’s deliberate judgment publicly delivered. The decision then announced, that he would scourge him (Luk 23:16), was singularly unjust and cruel. Pilate positively subjected a Man whom he had pronounced innocent to the horrible punishment of scourging, just to satisfy the clamour of the Sanhedrists, because he dreaded what they might accuse him of at Rome, where he knew he had enemies! He thought, wrongly as it turned out, that the sight of Jesus after he had undergone this dreadful and disgraceful punishment would satisfy, perhaps melt to pity, the hearts of these restless enemies of his.

Luk 23:17

(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.) Probably, however, before the scourging was inflicted, the attempt to liberate Jesus in accordance with a custom belonging to that feast was made by Pilate. We know it failed, and a condemned robber called Barabbas was preferred by the people. The more ancient authorities omit this verse (17). It probably was introduced at an early period into many manuscripts of St. Luke as a marginal. gloss, as an explanatory statement based on the words of Mat 27:15 or of Mar 15:6. As a Hebrew custom, it is never mentioned save in this place. Such a release was a common incident of a Latin Lectisternium, or feast in honour of the gods. The Greeks had a similar custom at the Thesmophoria. It was probably introduced at Jerusalem by the Roman power.

Luk 23:18, Luk 23:19

And they cried out all atones, saying, Away with this Man! and release unto us Barabbas: (who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was east into prison). Barabbas, whose release the people demanded at the instigation of the influential men of the Sanhedrin, was a notable leader in one of the late insurrectionary movements so common at this time. St. John styles him a robber; this well describes the character of the man; a bandit chief who carried on his lawless career under the veil of patriotism, and was supported and protected in consequence by many of the people. The meaning of his name Bar-Abbas is “Son of a (famous) father,” or possibly Bar-Rabbas, “Son of a (famous) rabbi.” A curious reading is alluded to by Origen, which inserts before Barabbas the word “Jesus.” It does not, however, appear in any of the older or more trustworthy authorities. Jesus was a common name at that period, and it is possible that “when Barabbas was led out, the Roman, with some scorn, asked the populace whom they preferredJesus BarAbbas or Jesus who is called Christ!” (Farrar.). That this reading existed in very early times is indisputable, and Origen, who specially notices it, approves of its omission, not on critical, but on dogmatic grounds.

Luk 23:23

And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. The Roman governor now found that all his devices to liberate Jesus with the consent and approval of the Jews were fruitless. After the clamour which resulted in the release of Barabbas had ceased, the terrible cry, “Crucify him!” was raised among that fickle crowd. Pilate was determined to carry out his threat of scourging the Innocent. That might satisfy them, perhaps excite their pity. Something whispered to him that he would be wise if he refrained from staining his life with the blood of that strange quiet Prisoner.

St. Luke omits here the “scourging;” the mock-homage of the soldiers; the scarlet robe and the crown of thorns; the last appeal to pity when Pilate produced the pale, bleeding Sufferer with the words, “Ecce Homo!” the last solemn interview of Pilate and Jesus, related by St. John; the sustained clamour of the people for the blood of the Sinless. “Then he delivered Jesus to their will“ (verse 25).

Of the omitted details, the most important piece in connection with the “last things” is the recital by St. John of the examination of Jesus by Pilate in the Praetorium. None of the Sanhedrists or strict Jews, we have noticed, were present at these interrogatories. They, we read, entered not into the judgment-hall of Pilate, lest they might be defiled, and so be precluded from eating the Passover Feast.
St. John, however, who appears to have been the most fearless of the “eleven,” and who besides evidently had friends among the Sanhedrin officials, was clearly present at these examinations. He too, we are aware, had eaten his Passover the evening before, and therefore had no defilement to fear.
The first interrogatories have been already alluded to, in the course of which the question, “Art thou a King, then?” was put by Pilate, and the famous reflection by the Roman, “What is truth?” was made. Then followed the “sending to Herod;” the return of the Prisoner from Herod; the offer of release, which ended in the choice by the people of Barabbas. The scourging of the prisoner Jesus followed.
This was a horrible punishment. The condemned person was usually stripped and fastened to a pillar or stake, and then scourged with leather throngs tipped with leaden balls or sharp spikes.
The effects, described by Romans, and Christians in the ‘Martyrdoms,’ were terrible. Not only the muscles of the back, but the breast, the face, the eyes, were torn; the very entrails were laid bare, the anatomy was exposed, and the sufferer, convulsed with torture, was often thrown down a bloody heap at the feet of the judge. In our Lord’s case this punishment, though not proceeding to the awful consequences described in some of the ‘Martyrologies,’ must have been very severe: this is evident from his sinking under the cross, and from the short time which elapsed before his death upon it. “Recent investigations at Jerusalem have disclosed what may have been the scene of the punishment. In a subterranean chamber, discovered by Captain Warren, on what Mr. Fergusson holds to be the site of AntoniaPilate’s Praetoriumstands a truncated column, no part of the construction, for the chamber is vaulted above the pillar, but just such a pillar as criminals would be tied to to be scourged” (Dr. Westcott).
After the cruel scourging came the mocking by the Roman soldiers. They threw across the torn and mangled shoulders one of those scarlet cloaks worn by the soldiers themselvesa coarse mockery of the royal mantle worn by a victorious general. They pressed down on his temples a crown or wreath, imitating what they had probably seen the emperor wear in the form of laurel wreathTiberius’s wreath of laurel was seen upon his arms (Suetonius, ‘Tiberius,’ c. 17). The crown was made, as an old tradition represents it, of the Zizyphus Christi, the nubk of the Arabs, a plant which is found in all the warmer parts of Palestine and about Jerusalem. The thorns are numerous and sharp, and the flexible twigs well adapted for the purpose. “The representations in the great pictures of the Italian painters probably come very near the truth” (‘Speaker’s Commentary’).

In his right hand they placed a reed to simulate a sceptre, and before this sad, woebegone Figure “they bowed the knee, saying, Hail, King ,of the Jews!”
Hase is even moved to say, “There is some comfort in the fact that, even in the midst of the mockery, the truth made itself felt. Herod recognizes his innocence by a white robe; the Roman soldiery his royalty by the sceptre and the crown of thorns, and that has become the highest of all crowns, as was fitting, being the most meritorious.”
It was then and thus that Pilate led Jesus out before the Sanhedrists and the people, as they shouted in their unreasoning fury, “Crucify him!” while the Roman, partly sadly, partly scornfully, partly pitifully, as he pointed to the silent Sufferer by his side, pronounced “Ecce Homo!“

But the enemies of Jesus were pitiless. They kept on crying, “Crucify him!” and when Pilate still demurred carrying out their bloody purpose, they added that “by their Law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.“

All through that morning’s exciting scenes had Pilate seen that something strange and mysterious belonged to that solitary Man accused before him. His demeanour, his words, his very look, had impressed the Roman with a singular awe. Then came his wife’s message, telling him of her dream, warning her husband to have nothing to do with that just Man. Everything seemed to whisper to him,” Do not let that strange, innocent Prisoner be done to death: he is not what he seems.” And now the fact, openly published by the furious Jews, that the poor Accused claimed a Divine origin, deepened the awe. Who, then, had he been scourging?

Once more Pilate returns to his judgment-hall, and he says to Jesus, again standing before him, “Whence art thou?”

The result of this last interrogatory St. John (Joh 19:12)briefly summarizes in the words, “From thenceforth Pilate sought to release him.”

The Sanhedrists, and their blind instruments, the fickle, wavering multitude, when they perceived the Roman governor’s intention to release their Victim, changed their tactics. They forbore any longer to press the old charges of blasphemy and of indefinite wrong-doing, and they appealed only to Pilate’s own dastardly fears. The Prisoner claimed to be a King. If the lieutenant of the emperor let such a traitor go free, why, that lieutenant emphatically was not Caesar’s friend!

Such a plea for the Sanhedrin to use before a Roman tribunal, to ask for death to be inflicted on a Jew because he had injured the majesty of Rome, was a deep degradation; but the Sanhedrin well knew the temper of the Roman judge with whom they had to deal, and they rightly calculated that his fears for himself, if properly aroused, would turn the scale and secure the condemnation of Jesus. They were right.

Luk 23:24

And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required. This sums up the result of the last charge of the Sanhedrin. Pilate’s selfish fears for himself overpowered all sense of reverence, awe, and justice. There was no further discussion. Bar-Abbas was released, and Jesus was delivered up to the will of his enemies.

Luk 23:26-32

On the way to Calvary. Simon the Cyrenian. The daughters of Jerusalem.

Luk 23:26

And as they led him away. Plutarch tells us that every criminal condemned to crucifixion carried his own cross. There was borne in front of him, or else hung round his own neck, a white tablet, on which the crime for which he suffered was inscribed. Possibly this was what was afterwards affixed to the cross itself. Simon, a Cyrenian. Cyrene was an important city in North Africa, with a large colony of resident Jews. These Cyrenian Jews had a synagogue of their own in Jerusalem. It is probable that Simon was a Passover pilgrim. St. Mark tells us he was the father of “Alexander and Rufus;” evidently, from his mention of them, these were notable persons in the early Christian Church. Very likely their connection with the followers of Jesus dated from this incident on the road to Calvary. Coming out of the country. He was probably one of the pilgrims lodged in a village near Jerusalem, and met the sad procession as he was entering the city on his way to the temple. On him they laid the cross. Our Lord was weakened by the trouble and agitation of the past sleepless night, and was, of course, faint and utterly exhausted from the effects of the terrible scourging. The cross used for this mode of execution was

(1) either the Cruz decussata X, what is usually known as St. Andrew’s cross; or

(2) the Cruz commissa T, St. Anthony’s cross; or

(3) the ordinary Roman cross , Cruz immissa.

Our Lord suffered on the third description, the Roman cross. This consisted of two pieces, the one perpendicular (staticulum), the other horizontal (antenna). About the middle of the first was fastened a piece of wood (sedile), on which the condemned rested. This was necessary, else, during the long torture, the weight of the body would have torn the hands, and the body would have fallen. The cross was not very high, scarcely twice the height of an ordinary man. Strong nails were driven through the hands and feet. The victim usually lived about twelve hours, sometimes much longer. The agonies endured by the crucified have been thus summarized: “The fever which soon set in produced a burning thirst. The increasing inflammation of the wounds in the back, hands, and feet; the congestion of the blood in the head, lungs, and heart; the swelling of every vein, an indescribable oppression, racking pains in the head; the stiffness of the limbs, caused by the unnatural position of the body;these all united to make the punishment, in the language of Cicero (‘In Verr.,’ 5.64), crudelissimum teterrimumque supplicium. From the beginning Jesus had foreseen that such would be the end of his life.”

Luk 23:27

And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him. The great company was made up of the usual concourse of curious lookers-on, of disciples, and others who had heard him in past days, and now came, with much horror, to see the end. The women specially noticed consisted mostly, no doubt, of holy women of his own company, such as the “Maries,” together with some of those kindly Jerusalem ladies who were in the habit of soothing the last hours of these condemned onesunhappily in those sad days so numerouswith narcotics and anodynes. These kindly offices were apparently not forbidden by the Roman authorities. This recital respecting the women is peculiar to St. Luke.

Luk 23:28

But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem. This address to them by the Lord indicates that the majority at least of this company of sympathizing women belonged to the holy city. Weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. Again here, as on the cross, the utter unselfishness of the dying Master comes out. His thoughts in his darkest hour were never of himself. Here, apparently, for the first time since his last interrogation before Pilate does our Lord break silence. Stier beautifully calls this the first part of the Passion sermon of Christ. The second part consisted of the “seven words on the cross.” “Weep,” said our Lord here It is noticeable that it is the only time in his public teaching that he is reported to have told his listeners to weep. “The same lips whose gracious breath had dried so many tears now cry on the way to the cross, ‘Weep for yourselves, and for your children.'”

Luk 23:29

Blessed are the barren. A strange beatitude to be spoken to the women of Israel, who, through all their checkered history, so passionately longed that this barrenness might not be their portion!

Luk 23:30

Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us. The allusion, in the first place, was to the awful siege of Jerusalem and to the undreamed-of woes which would accompany it; and in the second place, to the centuries of misery and persecution to which the children of these “daughters of Jerusalem” would, as Jews, be subjected in all lands.

Luk 23:31

For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry? Bleek and others interpret this saying here thus: The green wood represents Jesus condemned to crucifixion as a traitor in spite of his unvarying loyalty to Rome and all lawful Gentile power. The dry wood pictures the Jews, who, ever disloyal to Rome and all Genesis tile authority, will bring on themselves with much stronger reason the terrible vengeance of the great conquering empire. Theophylact, however, better explains the saying in his paraphrase, “If they do these things in me, fruitful, always green, undying through the Divinity, what will they do to you, fruitless, and deprived of all life-giving righteousness?” So Farrar, who well summarizes, “If they act thus to me, the Innocent and the Holy, what shall be the fate of these, the guilty and false?”

Luk 23:32

And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death. Many commentators suppose that these, were companions of that Bar-Abbas the robber who had just been released. They were not ordinary thieves, but belonged to those companies of brigands, or revolted Jews, which in those troublous times were so numerous in Palestine.

Luk 23:33-49

The Crucifixion.

Luk 23:33

And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary; literally, unto the place which is called the skull. The familiar name “Calvary” has its origin in the Vulgate translation, Calvarium, a skull. The name “Place of a skull,” Golgotha (properly Gulgoltha, an Aramaic word , corresponding to the Hebrew Gulgoleth, , which in Jdg 9:53 and 2Ki 9:35 is translated “skull”), does not come from the fact that the skulls of condemned persons remained lying there, but it is so called from being a bare rounded mound like a skull in form. Dean Plumptre suggests that the spot in question was chosen by the Jewish rulers as a deliberate insult to one of their own order, Joseph of Arima-thaea, whose garden, with its rock-sepulchre, lay hard by. A later legend derives the name from its being the burying-place of Adam, and that as the blood flowed from the sacred wounds on his skull, his soul was translated to Paradise. A tradition traceable to the fourth century has identified this spot with the building known as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. St. Cyril of Jerusalem alludes to the spot repeatedly. In the time of Eusebius there was no doubt as to the site. The Bordeaux Pilgrim writes thus: “On the left side is the hillock (monticulus) Golgotha, where the Lord was crucified. Thence about a stone-throw distance is the crypt where his body was deposited.” Recent research confirms this very ancient tradition, and scholars are generally now agreeing that the evidence in support of the traditional site is strong and seemingly conclusive. And the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. St. John adds, “and Jesus in the midst,” as holding the position of preeminence in that scene of uttermost shame. Even in suffering Christ appears as a King. Westcott thus comments on the next detail recorded by St. John (Joh 19:19), where the accurate rendering is, “And Pilate wrote a title also.“ This title (see further, verse 38) was drawn up by Pilate, who caused it to be placed on the cross. The words, “wrote a title also,” perhaps imply that the placing of the Lord in the midst was done by Pilate’s direction.

Luk 23:34

Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. These words are missing in some of the oldest authorities. They are found, however, in the majority of the most ancient manuscripts and in the most trustworthy of the old versions, and are undoubtedly genuine. These first of the seven words from the cross seem, from their position in the record, to have been spoken very early in the awful scene, probably while the nails were being driven into the hands and feet. Different from other holy dying men, he had no need to say, “Forgive me.” Then, as always, thinking of others, he utters this prayer, uttering it, too, as Stier well observes, with the same consciousness which had been formerly expressed, “Father, I know that thou hearest me always.” “His intercession has this for its ground, though in meekness it is not expressed: ‘Father, I will that thou forgive them.” In the same sublime consciousness who he was, he speaks shortly after to the penitent thief hanging by his side. These words of the crucified Jesus were heard by the poor sufferer close to him; theywith other things he had noticed in the One crucified in the midstmoved him to that piteous prayer which was answered at once so quickly and so royally. St. Bernard comments thus on this first word from the cross: “Judaei clamant, ‘Crucifige! ‘Christus clamat,’ Ignosce!’ Magna illorum iniquitas. seal major tun, O Domine, pietas!” And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. The rough soldiers were treating the Master as already dead, and were disposing of his raiment, of which they had stripped him before fastening him to the cross. He was hanging there naked, exposed to sun and wind. Part of this raiment was torn asunder, part they drew lots for to see who was to wear it. The garments of the crucified became the property of the soldiers who carried out the sentence. Every cross was guarded by a guard of four soldiers. The coat, for which they cast lots, was, St. John tells us, without seam. “Chrysostom,” who may have written from personal knowledge, thinks that the detail is added to show “the poorness of the Lord’s garments, and that in dress, as in all other things, he followed a simple fashion.”

Luk 23:35

And the people stood beholding. A hush seems to have fallen over the scene. The crowd of by-standers were awed as they at first silently gazed on the dying form of the great Teacher. What memories must have surged up in the hearts of many of the gazersmemories of his parables, his mighty miracles, his words of love; memories of the raising of Lazarus, and of the day of palms! Such a silent awe-struck contemplation was dangerous, the rulers felt, so they hastened to commence their mockery”to clear,” as Stier remarks, “the stifling air, and deafen the voice which was stirring even in themselves.” “Look now,” they would cry, “at the end of the Man who said he could do, and pretended to do, such strange, unheard-of things!” They seem soon to have induced many to join in their mocking cries and gestures, and so to break the awful silence.

Luk 23:36

And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar. Three times in the Crucifixion scene we find a mention of this vinegar, or the sour wine of the country, the common drink of the soldiers and others, being offered to the Sufferer.

(1) Mat 27:34. This was evidently a draught prepared with narcotics and stupefying drugs, no doubt by some of those compassionate women addressed by him on his way to the cross as “daughters of Jerusalem,” a common work of mercy at that time, and one apparently permitted by the guards. This, St. Matthew tells us, “he tasted of,” no doubt in courteous recognition of the kindly purpose of the act, but he refused to do more than taste of it. He would not dull the sense of pain, or cloud the clearness of his communion with his Father in that last awful hour.

(2) The second, mentioned here by St. Luke, seems to imply that the soldiers mocked his agony of thirstone of the tortures induced by crucifixionby lifting up to his parched, fevered lips, vessels containing their sour wine, and then snatching them hastily away.

(3) The third (Joh 19:28-30) relates that here the Lord, utterly exhausted, asked for and received this last refreshment, which revived, for a very brief space, his fast failing powers, and gave him strength for his last utterances. The soldiers, perhaps acting under the orders of the compassionate centurion in command, perhaps touched with awe by the brave patience and strange dignity of the dying Lord, did him this last kindly office.

Luk 23:38

And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. The older authorities omit “in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew,” but the fact is indisputable, for we read the same statement in Joh 19:20, where in the older authorities the order of the titles is, “in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek.” Such multilingual inscriptions were common in the great provincial cities of the empire, where so many nationalities were wont to congregate. The four reports of the inscriptions slightly differ verbally, not substantially. Pilate probably (see note on Joh 19:33, on effect of accurate rendering of Joh 19:19, “and Pilate wrote a title also”) wrote a rough draft with his own hand, “Rex Ju-daeorum hic est.” One of the officials translated freely into Hebrew and Greek the Roman governor’s Latin memorandum of what he desired to have written in black on the white gypsum-smeared board to be affixed to the upper arm of the cross.

(John).

(Mark).

Rex Judaeorum hic est (Luke).

Dr. Farrar suggests that the title over the cross was as above. St. Matthew’s is an accurate combination of the three, and was not improbably, as a combination of the three inscriptions, the common form reproduced in the first oral Gospel.

Luk 23:39, Luk 23:40

And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God? In the first two synoptists we read how, shortly after they were nailed to their crosses, both thieves “reviled” Jesus. The Greek word, however, used by SS. Matthew and Mark is (reproached). The word used by St, Luke in this place of the impenitent one is , “began to use injurious and insulting language”a much stronger term. Farrar suggests that at first, during the early hours of the Crucifixion, in the madness of anguish and despair, they both probably joined in the reproaches levelled by all classes alike at One who might seem to them to have thrown away a great opportunity. They, no doubt, knew something, possibly much, of Jesus’ career, and how he had deliberately prevented more than once the multitude from proclaiming him King. Watching him as he hung bravely patient on his cross, only breaking the dread silence with a low-muttered prayer for his murderers to his Father, one of these misguided men changed his opinion of his fellow-Sufferer, changed his opinion, too, of his own past career. There, dying with a prayer for others on his lips, was the Example of true heroism, of real patriotism. If thou be Christ. The more ancient authorities read, Art thou not the Christ? But the other. In the Apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus the names of the two are given as Dysmas and Gysmas, and these names appear still in Calvaries and stations in Roman Catholic lands. Seeing thou art in the same condemnation. His words might be paraphrased, “How canst thou, a dying man, join these mere lookers-on at our execution and agony? we are undergoing it ourselves. Dost thou net fear God? In a few hours we shall be before him. We have at all events deserved our doom; but not this Sufferer whom you revile. What has he done?”

Luk 23:42

And he said unto Jesus. Lord, remember me when thou oomest into thy kingdom. The majority of the older authorities omit “Lord.” The translation should run thus: And he said, Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdomin, not into. The penitent looked forward to the dying Jesus coming again in (arrayed in) his kingly dignity, surrounded with his power and glory. Very touching is this confidence of the dying in the Dying One who was hanging by his side, his last garment taken from him; very striking is this trust of the poor penitent, that the forsaken Lord will one day appear again as King in his glory. He, and he alone, on that dread day read aright the superscription which mocking Pilate had fixed above the cross, “This is the King of the Jews.“ He read “with Divine clearsightedness in this deepest night” (Krummacher). He asks for no special place in that kingdom whose advent he sees clearly approaching; he only asks the King not to forget him then. On this knowledge of the thief concerning the second advent of Christ, Meyer well writes, “The thief must have become acquainted with the predictions of Jesus concerning his coming, which may very easily have been the case at Jerusalem, and does not directly presuppose any instructions on the part of Jesus; although he may also have heard him himself, and still remembered what he heard. The extraordinary character of his painful position in the very face of death produced as a consequence an extraordinary action of firm faith in those predictions.”

Luk 23:43

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise. No strengthening angel could have been more welcome to the dying Redeemer than these words of intense penitence and strong faith. Very beautifully Stier suggests that the crucified King “cannot see these two criminals, cannot direct his glance to this last without adding to his own agony by movement upon the cross. But that he forgets, and turns with an impulse of joy as well as he can to the soul that speaks to him, thus making the nails more firm.” With those solemn words, “Verily I say unto thee,” with which he had so often in old days begun his sacred sayings, he replied to the sufferer by his side. One at least, St. John, of his disciples would have heard the well-known words from the well-known voice. What memories must they not have recalled to that disciple whom Jesus loved, as he stood hard by the cross with the Mother of sorrows! The Lord’s answer was very striking, Remember him, who could call on him with such reverent faith at the moment of his deepest humiliation! Remember him! yes; but not in the far-off “coming,” but on that very day, before the sun then scorching their tortured bodies set; he would not be remembered by him only, but would be in closest companionship with him, not, as he prayed, in some far-off time in the midst of the awful tumult of the bloody and fiery dawn of the judgment advent, but almost directly in the fair garden, the quiet home of the blessed, the object of all Jewish hopes. There would he be remembered, and there, in company with his Lord, would the tortured condemned find himself in a few short hours. Are we right in thinking that there was no fulfilment of the words till death had released the spirit from its thraldom? May there not even then have been an ineffable joy, such as made the flames of the fiery furnace to be as a “moist, whistling wind” (Song of the Three Children, verse 27), such as martyrs have in a thousand cases known, acting almost as a physical anaesthetic acts? (Dean Plumptre).

“Non parem Paulo veniam require,
Gratiam Petri neque posco, sed quam
In crucis ligno dederis latroni

Sedulus oro.”

This striking verse is engraved on the tomb of the great Copernicus, and alludes to this prayer and its answer. Paradise. This is the only instance we have of our Lord’s using this well-known word. In the ordinary language used by the Jews, of the unseen world, it signifies the” Garden of Eden,” or “Abraham’s bosom;” it represented the locality where the souls of the righteous would find a home, after death separated soul and body. The New Testament writers, Luke and Paul and John, use it (Act 2:31; 1Co 15:5; 2Co 12:4; Rev 2:7). To Luke and Paul, probably, this was a memory of the word spoken on the cross, which they alone record in their Gospel. It may have been told Luke by the Mother of sorrows herself. John, who uses it in his Revelation, doubtless heard it himself as he stood at the foot of the cross. Paradeisos is derived from the Persian word pardes, which signifies a park or garden.

Luk 23:44

The time of the Crucifixion. And it was about the sixth hour. We have before given (see note on Luk 22:47) the approximate hours of the several acts of the last night and day. This verse gives us the time of the duration of the “darkness”from the sixth to the ninth hour; that is in our reckoning, from 12 noon to 3 p.m. With this date the other two synoptists agree. Our Lord had then been on the cross three hours. But while the three synoptists are in perfect harmony, we are met with a grave difficulty in St. John’s account, for in Joh 19:14 : of his Gospel we read how the final condemnation of our Lord by Pilate took place about the sixth hour. At first sight, to attempt here to harmonize St. John with the three synoptists would seem a hopeless task, as St. John apparently gives the hour of the final condemnation by Pilate, which the three give as the hour when the darkness began, i.e. when the Sufferer had already hung on the cross for three hours. Various explanations have been suggested; among these the most satisfying and probable is the supposition that, while the three synop-tists followed the usual Jewish mode of reckoning time, St. John, writing some half a century later in quite another country, possibly twenty years after Jerusalem and the temple had been destroyed, and the Jewish polity had disappeared, adopted another mode of reckoning the hours, thus following, probably, a practice of the province in which he was living, and for which he was especially writing. Dr. Westcott, in an additional note on Joh 19:14, examines the four occasions on which St. John mentions a definite hour of the day; and comes to the conclusion that the fourth evangelist generally reckoned his hours from midnight. The Romans reckoned their civil days from midnight, and there are also traces of reckoning the hours from midnight in Asia Minor. “About the sixth hour” would then be about six a.m. Before touching upon the strange darkness which at the sixth hour seems to have hung over the land like a black pall, we note that somewhere in the first three hours, possibly after the words spoken to the dying penitent, must be placed the incident of the entrusting the virgin-mother to St. John (Joh 19:25, etc.). There is no doubt that on the surface of this, his third word from the cross, lay a loving desire to spare his mother the sight of his last awful suffering. Hence his command to John to watch over from henceforth the mother of his Lord. We may assume, then, that, in obedience to his Master’s word, John led Mary away before the sixth hour. So Bengel, who comments here, “Great is the faith of Mary to be present at the cross; great was her submission to go away before his death.” And there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. St. Matthew gives us additional particulars respecting this phenomenon. He says that besides this darkness there was also an earthquake, and that several graves were opened, and the dead during those hours of solemn gloom appeared to many in the holy city. Early Christian writers of high authority, such as Tertullian (‘Apol.,’ ch. 21) and Origen (‘Contra Cels.,’ 2.33), appeal to this strange phenomenon as if attested by heathen writers. It was evidently no slight or imaginary portent, but one that was well known in the early Christian years. The narrative does not oblige us to think of anything more than an indescribable and oppressive darkness, which like a vast black pall hung over earth and sea. The effect on the scoffing multitude was quickly perceptible. We hear of no more cries of mocking and derision; only just at the end of the three dark hours is the silence broken by the mysterious and awful cry of the Sinless One related by SS. Matthew and Mark, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Godet’s comment is remarkable: “The darkness, the rending of the veil of the temple, the earthquake, and the opening of several graves, are explained by the profound connection existing on the one side between Christ and humanity, on the other between humanity and nature. Christ is the Soul of humanity, as humanity is the soul of the external world.” The darkness, he suggests, was perhaps connected with the earthquake with which it was accompanied, or it may have resulted from an atmospherical or cosmical cause. The phenomenon need not necessarily have extended over all the earth: it probably was confined to Palestine and the adjacent countries.

Luk 23:45

And the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. This was the inner veil, which hung between the holy place and the holy of holies. It was rich with costly embroidery, and very heavy. Before the willing surrender of life told of in the next versa (46), our Lord spoke twice more. These fifth and sixth words from the cross are preserved by St. John (Joh 19:28, Joh 19:30). The first of these, “I thirst “an expression of bodily exhaustion, of physical sufferingwas predicted as part of the agony of tile Servant of God (Psa 69:21). The second, “It is finished!” tells that “the earthly life had been carried to its issue. That every essential point in the prophetic portraiture of Messiah had been realized. The last suffering for sin had been endured. The end of all had been gained. Nothing was left undone or unborne” (Westcott).

Luk 23:46

And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said. This is better rendered, and Jesus cried with a loud voice and said. The cry with the loud voice is the solemn dismissal of his spirit when he commended it to his Father. The object of the receiving the refreshment of the vinegarthe sour wine (Joh 19:30)was that his natural forces, weakened by the long suffering, should be restored sufficiently for him to render audible the last two sayingsthe “It is finished!” of St. John, and the commending his soul to his Father, of St. Luke. Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. St. John (Joh 19:30) has related now already Jesus had uttered the triumphal cry, ! “It is finished!” This was his farewell to earth. St. Luke records the words which seem almost immediately to have followed the “It is finished!” This commending his spirit to his Father has been accurately termed his entrance.greeting to heaven. This placing his spirit as a trust in the Father’s hands is, as Stier phrases it, an expression of the profoundest and most blessed repose after toil. “It is finished!” has already told us that the struggling and combat were sealed and closed for ever. Doctrinally it is a saying of vast importance; for it emphatically asserts that the soul will exist apart from the body in the hands of God. This at least is its proper home. The saying has been echoed on many a saintly death-bed. Stephen, full of the Holy Ghost, in his great agony shows us the form of this blessed prayer we should properly use for ourselves at that supreme hour, when he asked the Lord Jesus to receive his spirit, and then fell asleep. Thus coming to the Son, we come through him to the Father. Huss, on his way to the stake, when his enemies were triumphantly giving over his soul to devils, said with no less theological accuracy than with sure, calm faith, “But I commit my spirit into thy hand, O Lord Jesus Christ, who hast redeemed it.” And having said thus, he gave up the ghost. This setting his spirit free was his own voluntary act. He already told his disciples of his own independent power to lay down and take up his life (Joh 10:17, Joh 10:18). The great teachers of the early Church evidently lay stress on; his (see Tertullian, ‘Apol.,’ Luk 21:1-38). Augustine’s words are striking: “Quis ita dormit quando voluerit, sicut Jesus mortuus est quando voluit? Quis ita vestem ponit quando voluerit, sieur se came exuit quando writ? Quis ita cum voluerit abit, quomodo tile cure voluit obiit?” and he ends with this practical conclusion: “Quanta speranda vel timenda potestas est judicantis, si apparuit tanta morientis?” “Under these circumstances,” writes Dr. Westeott, “it may not be fitting to speculate on the physical cause of the Lord’s death, but it h,s been argued that the symptoms agree with a rupture of the heart, such as might i.e. produced by intense mental agony.”

Luk 23:47

Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous Man. This was the Roman officer who was in command of the detachment on guard at the three crosses. St. Paulwho, if he did not absolutely put together the Third Gospel and the Acts, had much to do with the compilation and arrangement of these writingson his many journeys and frequent changes of residence in different parts of the empire, had many opportunities of judging the temper and spirit of the Roman army, and on several occasions speaks favourably of these officers (Luk 7:2; Luk 23:1-56. 47; Act 10:1; Act 22:26; Act 27:43). Certainly this was a righteous Man. The noble generosity, the brave patience, and the strange majesty of the Sufferer; the awful portents which for three hours had accompanied this sceneportents which the centurion and many of the bystanders could not help associating with the crucifixion of him men called “the King of the Jews;” then the death, in which appeared no terror;all this drew forth the exclamation of the Roman. In St. Matthew, the words of the centurion which are reported are “the Son of God.” Twice in those solemn hours had the centurion heard the Crucified pray to his Father. This may have suggested the words, “Son of God;” but this change in the later Gospel of St. Luke to “a righteous Man” seems to point to the sense in which the Roman used the lofty appellation.

Luk 23:48

And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts, and returned. We must remember that the condemnation of the Christ was no spontaneous deed of the multitude. Their miserable share in the act was suggested to them by their rulers. In the multitude very quickly revulsion of feeling sets in, and they often regret the past with a bitter, useless regret. The wave of sorrow which seems to have swept across those wavering, unstable hearts, which induced them to smite their breasts in idle regret, was a dim and shadowy rehearsal of the mighty sorrow and true penitence which will one day, as their prophet told them, be the blessed lot of the once-loved people when “they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son” (Zec 12:10).

Luk 23:49

Stood afar off. Disciples open and secret, friends and acquaintances among the Jerusalem citizens and Galihaean pil-trims, all alike lacked courage and devotion, all feared to stand by their Master and Friend at that awful season. He trod the winepress alone (see Isa 63:3). None possessed the heroic faith which through the sombre cloud of seeming failure could see the true glory of the Sun of Righteousness, which so soon was to arise and shine.

Luk 23:50-56

The entombment. The sequence of events which immediately followed the death of Christ appears to have been as follows.

Our Lord expired apparently soon after 3 p.m. The “even” alluded to by St. Matthew and St. Mark began at 3 p.m. and lasted till sunset, about 6 p.m., when the sabbath commenced. Some time, then, between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. Joseph of Arima-thaea went to Pilate to ask for the body of Jesus. The governor was surprised, not at the request, but at hearing that Jesus was dead already (Mar 15:44), and, to assure himself of the fact, sent to inquire of the centurion on duty at the crosses. Some. where about the same time, probably a little later in the “evening,” but still before 6 p.m., the Jews, i.e. the Sanhedrin leaders, came to Pilate with a request that the death of the three crucified might be hastened by their legs being broken, in order that their bodies hanging on the crosses might not pollute the very sacred day which followed. (It would be the sabbath, and the day of the Passover.)

This terrible, but perhaps merciful, end to the tortures of the cross seems not to have been uncommon in Jewish crucifixion inflicted by the Roman authority.
Crucifixion with this and all its attendant hinters was abolished by the first Christian emperor Constantine in the fourth century.

The two thieves apparently expired under this treatment. The soldiers, however, when they looked on the form hanging on the central cross, found the Crucified, as we know, dead already. To make sure of this, one of the executioners thrust his spear deeply into the side of the motionless body of Jesus, “and forthwith came there out blood and water” (Joh 19:33, Joh 19:35). Upon this, in accordance with the permission of the governor already obtained, the body of the Lord was delivered to Joseph of Arimathaea and his friends.

Luk 23:50, Luk 23:51

And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just: (the same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them; ) he was of Arimathaea. This Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin, a personage of high distinction in Jerusalem, and evidently of great wealth. It is especially mentioned that his vote in the supreme council was not given when the death of Jesus was determined on. Nicodemus and his costly offering of spices for the entombment is only mentioned by St. John (Joh 19:39). Arimathaea, the place whence this Joseph came, is famous in Jewish history, being identical with Ramathaim Zophim, the “Ramah of the watchers,” the native town of Samuel. Each evangelist speaks of Joseph in high terms, and each in his own way. “Luke styles him ‘a counsellor, good and just;’ he is the , the Greek ideal. Marl; calls him ‘an honourable counsellor,’ the Roman ideal. Matthew writes of him as ‘a rich man:’ is not this the Jewish ideal?” (Godet). And St. John, we might add, chooses another title for this loved man, “being a disciple of Jesus:” this was St. John’s ideal. In Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus we have specimens of a class of earnest and devout Jews, perhaps not uncommon at that timemen who respected and admired our Lord as a Teacher, and half believed in him as the Messiah (the Christ), arid yet from many mixed and various motives shrank from confessing him before men till after the cross had been endured. It was not only the Resurrection which so enormously increased the number and raised the character of the followers of Jesus. When he was gone, men reflected on the inimitable life, on the deep, heart-searching teaching, on the confirmatory works of power; and when the news of the Resurrection came, the little wavering, half-hearted band of follower’s and hearers became in a few months a great host, and in a few years they had spread over the then civilized world. There is a strange but interesting tradition which tells how this Joseph of Arimathaea came to Great Britain about a.d. 63, and settled in Glastonbury, and there erected a humble Christian oratory, the first in England. The miraculous thorn of Glastonbury, long supposed to bud and blossom every Christmas Day, was reported to have sprung from the staff which Joseph stuck in the groined as he stopped to rest himself on the hill-top.

Luk 23:53

And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen. The last sad rites of love seem all to have been performed by friendly hands. Joseph and Nicodemus, and those with them, reverently took down the pierced and bleeding body; then, after the usual ablution, the sacred head was covered with the napkin, the soudarion (St. John), and the holy body was wrapped tenderly and carefully in broad bands of the finest linen, covered with thick layers of the costly aromatic preparation of which Nicodemus had laid up such ample store (St. John). This was to preserve the loved remains of the Master from any corruption which might set in before they could proceed with the process of embalming, which was delayed necessarily until after the sabbath and Passover day were passed. St. John adds, “as the manner of the Jews is to bury,” probably marking the Jewish custom of embalming and thus preserving the body, as contrasted with burning, which was the Roman usage. And laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone. St. John tells us the sepulchre was in a garden. This seems not to have been an unusual practice with “the great” among the Jews. Josephus relates of Kings Uzziah and Manasseh that they were buried in their gardens (‘Ant.,’ 9.10 and 10.3. 2). “He made his grave with the rich” (Isa 53:9). Wherein never man before was laid. St. John styles it “a new sepulchre.” These details are given to show that the Lord’s sacred body was not brought into contact with corruption.

Luk 23:54

And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on. It was the preparation for the sabbath, but more especially for the great Passover Feast. St. John, for this reason, calls the coming sabbath “a high day.” Drew on; literally began to dawn; although the sabbath began at sunset, the whole time of darkness was regarded as anticipatory of the dawn. The evening of Friday was sometimes even called “the daybreak.”

Luk 23:55, Luk 23:56

And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments. The real process of embalming, the women who were of the company of Jesusthe Maries, Salome, and othersproposed to undertake as soon as the sabbath was passed, that is, on the first day of the coming weekthe Sunday. How little even his nearest and dearest friends dreamed of a resurrection of the body! It seems probable that they expected, at least some of them, a glorious reappearance of Jesus, but when, but how, they had evidently formed no definite conception. None, however, seemed to have thought of the bodily resurrection which took place on the first day of the week- on that Sunday morning. St. Matthew (Mat 27:62-66) relates how, after the entombment, the chief priests and Pharisees went to Pilate and asked that the sepulchre might, “until the third day,” be made sure; and how the Roman governor bade them take such precautions as seemed good to them. Thesehis bitter opponentswere more clearsighted than his friends. They had some dim fears of something which might still follow, while his disciples, in their hopeless sorrow, thought nil was over. And rested the sabbath day according to the commandment. “It was the last sabbath of the old covenant. It was scrupulously respected” (Godet).

HOMILETICS

Luk 23:47-56

Friday night until Sunday morning.

“It is finished!” But there are witnesses to the solemnity of the moment and the significance of the word, whose testimony gives weight to the voice of conscience. The rumble and reel of the earth-quake are felt. When “the loud voice” is uttered, the veil which separates the most holy from the holy place is torn in two; an ominous darkness covers the city; there is a crash as of rending rocks and opening tombs, and strange forms, as of those who were dead, flit before the vision. Three hours are marked by portents (Luk 23:44, Luk 23:45), beneath whose impression even the officer in charge of the Roman soldiery exclaims (Luk 23:47), “Certainly this was a righteous Man. He must have been a Son of God.” And when, besides, the multitude, hushed and solemnized, gazes on the countenance now calm and still in the repose of death, and the recollection of the life so pure and noble becomes vivid in the mind, the reaction from intense excitement sets in, and (Luk 23:48) smiting on their breasts in unavailing sorrow, they steal away from the scene of death. Only two groups remainthe soldiers, who must watch until the crucified are dead, and their bodies are removed; and “the acquaintance of Jesus, and the women who had followed him from Galilee, far off, in speechless amazement beholding these things” (Luk 23:49). All that remains is the burial. He whose cross was erected between the malefactors is dead. The priests and scribes had begged that the closing act of the death by crucifixion, that called the crucifragiumthe smiting or breaking of the legsmight be hastened and the corpses removed, so that no offence to decency might be felt on the high day, “the double sabbath,” at hand. Pilate had acceded to the request; and the forms of the two malefactors had been smitten. Not the form of Jesus. No spark of life, it was said, remained. Only, to make assurance sure, a spear is thrust into the side; the spear, it may be, pierced the pericardium of the heart, or that had already been ruptured; anyhow, a mixture of blood and water flows out. St. John is emphatic as to this, no doubt to silence the suggestion that Jesus had only seemed to die, or that the seeming death had been only a swoon. [No, says the evangelist (Joh 19:35), “I saw it myself.” It is the symbolic meaning of that effusion which we set before us when we sing

“Let the water and the blood,
From thy riven side which flowed,
Be of sin the double cure
Cleanse me from its guilt and power.”

Is the Lord buried in the sepulchre reserved for those who had been doomed to capital punishment? No. Here there comes into view the beautiful and striking incident recorded in verses 50-53. And, in connection with it, we light on a word which is used at the hour when we should least have expected to find it. One of the Sanhedristsa man universally esteemed for piety and prudenceJoseph of Arimathaeahad not consented to the counsel and deed of his colleagues. Hitherto he had never dared to avow the attraction which he felt. Why should he now risk his reputation, it may be his life, by an acknowledgment which he had withheld in his eat liar days? Every dictate of worldly wisdom bade him be wholly silent. What do we read in Mar 15:43? It is the death of Christ that dispels the fear, that at last prompts to decision. He goes in boldly to Pilate, and craves the body of Jesus. And the demand of the senator is granted. And as he bears away the sacred frame, he is joined by another (Joh 19:39), the Nicodemus of whom we read at the beginning of the ministry (Joh 3:1-36.), who brings with him a princely offering of myrrh and aloes. The reverent and loving hands thus joined together wrap the body (verse 53) in linen, and hastily and partially embalm it, laying it in the tomb which Joseph had scooped out for himself as his own last resting-place. What happened between this time and the third, the appointed day? Let us ask, first, What, as it concerns our Lord? secondly, What, as it concerns the disciples? and, thirdly, What, as it concerns the world which crucified him?

I. WHAT HAPPENED AS IT CONCERNS OUR LORD? Two or three words give us some hints concerning our Lord after his death and before the Resurrection. First, his own assurance given to Mary on the resurrection-day (Joh 20:17), “I am not yet ascended to my Father.” The place and condition into which he passed, in dying, were intermediate between the life on earth and the life in glory. He was not then, as the Man Jesus, in the glory of the Father. And, as bearing on this, we further recall the promise to the dying malefactor (Mar 15:43). “Lord, remember me,” he had said, “when thou comest into thy kingdom.” “To-day,” was the reply, “shall thou be with me in Paradise. Paradise, then, received the soul of Christ. Thither he bore with him the one who, in penitence and faith, had cast himself on his mercy. And Paradise meant the region in the under-world of the dead set apart for the faithful as their rest until the resurrectiona blessedness real, though incomplete; a garden with the tree of life in it, but not the full enjoyment of the beatific vision. This is the meaning of the clause in the Apostles’ Creed, “He descended into hell,” i.e. into Hades, the state of the dead. It is true that this clause has not the antiquity which may be claimed for other clauses; but it expresses the belief of all times that our Lord submitted to the conditions of the holy deadthat he was truly and verily numbered among them. The soul was actually in Hades, or Sheol. What part in the great redemptive work was fulfilled by this descent? Had he a ministry in this short but significant period? There is a passage in 1 Peter too obscure to allow of being pressed as an answer to this question, but suggestive of interesting lines of thought (1Pe 3:18-20). To many it has seemed that the preaching to the spirits in prison mentioned there was the work of the Hades-state; that he proclaimed his gospel to those who were kept in wardnot the righteous only, but those who were disobedient, e.g. the antediluvian generations to which Noah had preached in vain. And the inference drawn from this view of the passage has appeared “to throw light on one of the darkest enigmas of Divine justicethe cases where the final doom seems infinitely out of proportion to the lapse which has incurred it.” No argument can be built on a passage whose interpretation is doubtful; but the exposition hinted at falls in with convictions which have been cherished from the time of the apostles. We are, at all events, on solid Scripture ground when we suppose that, in the world of the dead, the triumph over him that had the power of death, i.e. the devil, was completed. The descent was the following of the enemy into his innermost citadel; it was the spoiling of the principalities and power of darkness; it was the opening of the way through death into life by him who has the keys of Hades. Is not Paradise all the sweeter that Christ has been there? Is not the inheritance all the surer that through death he went to the Father? Is not this the symbol of our faith and hopethat “the Lord has set his cross in the midst of Hades, which is the sign of victory that will remain to eternity “?

II. WHAT HAPPENED AS IT CONCERNS THE DISCIPLES. But what of those who weep and lament whilst the world is rejoicingthe sorrow-stricken, orphaned company of disciples? The last to leave the place where the body of Jesus was laid, as the first to hasten to the tomb when the sabbath is past, are the holy women (verses 55, 56). We see them on Friday evening watching the tomb, and observing how the lifeless form was attended to, end then hastening into the city, that they may make ready the spices and ointments for embalming before the sabbath began. Their love is stronger than their faith. The heart’s yearning is sometimes more than the heart’s believing. A very dreary sabbath that was to all the disciples. “They rested according to the commandment” (verse 56). A commandmentrest, and nothing more. What conflicts of thought and affection! What desolation of spirit! Peterwhat a strange sabbath it must have been to him! Only one thing for all. The sense of relation to the crucified Jesus can never be effaced; but it has no glow of hope, it has only the darkness of a memory, the gloom of a despair. “They rested on the sabbath; but“ (the first word of the twenty-fourth chapter should be “but” rather than “now”); but the running of the spirit, the movement of the love, is only towards the garden and its sepulchre. Is it not the type of Church, of Christian, wanting the power of the Holy Ghost? Work for Christ, loyal but cheerless, without sight of his glory, or waiting for his adventthis is suggested by the preparation of the spices and ointments, and the sabbath-keeping but without the true spiritual sabbath, the joy of the Lord; ordinances observed, but with no inner alacrity, only because of the commandment. This is suggested by the unrestful resting on that seventh day. Not yet is there the anointing of the Holy Ghost, the power of the Resurrection.

III. WHAT HAPPENED AS IT CONCERNS THE WORLD WHICH CRUCIFIED HIM. Is it not strange that what was absent from faith as a hope was present to unbelief as a fear? Those who had crucified the Lord have their memory wonderfully quickened. They recall (Mat 27:62-64) some words which he uttered nearly three years before, about a temple which he would raise in three days, and their dread gives a force to these words. Sabbath though it be, the chief priests and Pharisees seek an audience of Pilate, and beg him to “make the sepulchre sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say to the people, He is risen from the dead: and so the last error be worse than the first.” They are told to go their way and do as they choose; and hence the sealing of the great stone and the setting of the watch. Is not all now secure? Have they not for ever dispelled the illusions as to the Deceiver? So thought the Jewish authorities; so men think still. They are always crying out that the Christian religion is effete, that the Christian’s Christ has been slain. “Are there any Christians still?” asked a notable sceptic some years ago. O purblind souls! What avail your watch and seal? He whom you call Deceiver is yet alive; and there are compunctions of heart, convictions of guilt and wrong-doing. and needs of spiritual restoration and inward rectitude, which will assert themselves against all your philosophies! Pentecost days are never far distant days when a mighty remorse rolls over the minds of men, and the cry which never can be silenced, because it is the cry of the human soul in its most solemn hours, and with reference to its deepest wants, bursts through lips which are quivering with a genuine earnestness, “What shall we do to be saved?” On that sabbath the world religious and irreligious holds its rest. It cannot altogether forget; but it holds its Paschal feasts, and complies with all the etiquette of these feasts, as if there were no Calvary, as if no Jesus had lived and died. And is not this the feature of all times? Do not men push their ambitious projects, scheme and toil, spend their strength, and hold their sabbaths without the living consciousness of the Christ who died for their sins? May not we ourselves say

“I sin; and heaven and earth go round

As if no dreadful deed were done,

As if Christ’s blood had never flowed

To hinder sin or to atone”?

There is no word more solemn than that (Heb 6:4-6) in which the sacred writer reminds us that if those who have tasted the Word of God. and the powers of the world to come fall away, they pass from the fold of the Church into the ranks of Christ’s enemies, seeing “they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”

HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON

Luk 23:1-3

The Divine kingdom.

Deeply interesting is this interview between the Nazarene and the Roman, the Jewish Prisoner and the Roman judge; the one then brought forth as a malefactor and now seated on the throne of the world, the other then exalted on the seat of power and now sunk to the depth of universal pity if not of universal scorn. “Art thou a King?” asks the latter, in the tone of lofty superiority. “I am,” replies the former, in the tone of calm and profound assurance. W hat, then, was this kingdom of which he spoke? What was that kingdom of God, that kingdom of heaven, that “kingdom of the truth” (Joh 18:37) which he foretold, which he came to this world and which he laid down his life to establish? It was the sovereignty of God over all human souls. God’s claimwhich is not founded on prescription, nor upon force, but upon righteousnessis his claim on the reverence, the affection, the obedience, of those whom he has created, preserved, enriched, who owe to him all that he demands of them. With us, who have revolted from his rule, this means nothing less than the restoration of our loyalty, and thus our return to his likeness and to his favor as well as to his sway. We look at

I. THE ORIGINALITY OF THE CONCEPTION. We plume ourselves upon the originality of our ideas, upon our “creations.” But when did the mind of man launch on the sea of human thought such a conception as this kingdom of God? Men had entertained the idea of founding by force a widely extended empire which should command the outward homage and tribute of hundreds of thousands of men, and should last for many generations. But who ever designed a creation like this glorious “kingdom of heaven”a world-wide sway embracing all living souls whatsoever, exercised by an unseen King, in which the service of the lip, and even that of the life, would be of no account at all without the homage of the heart and the willing subjection of the spirit, characterized by universal righteousness, and crowned by abounding peace and lasting joy?

II. THE IMMENSITY OF THE WORK TO BE ACCOMPLISHED. For what would be involved in the establishment of such a kingdom as this? Not only the formation and maintenance of a new religion that should hold up its head and keep its course amid surrounding faiths, but the utter intolerance and complete subversion of every other creed and cultus; the emptying of all the temples and all the synagogues in every laud; the dissolution of all the venerable religious institutions which were rooted in the prejudice, fixed in the affections, wrought into the habits and the lives of men; it meant the establishment in the convictions and in the conscience of mankind of a faith which came into direct collision with all its intellectual pride, with all its social selfishness, with all its powerful passions.

III. ITS SUBLIMITY AS A PURPOSE AND A HOPE. Not merely to ameliorate the circumstances and conditions of a country, or of the world at large. That would have been a noble purpose; but that would have been slight and small in comparison with the aim of Jesus Christ. His view was to put away the source of all poverty and sorrow and death; to “put away sin by the sacrifice of himself;” to found in the hearts and therefore in the lives of men a kingdom of holiness, and therefore of true and lasting blessedness; to restore to God his rightful heritage in the love of his children, and, at the same time, to restore to men everywhere their high and glorious portion in the favor and friendship, in the likeness and glory, of God. Was ever scheme, was ever hope like thisso divinely new, so magnificently great, so unapproachably sublime? 1. The way into this kingdom is by a humble, living faith. 2. The way on to its higher places is the service of sacrificial love. The path which takes us to the cross is the way to the throne.C.

Luk 23:4-12

The majesty of meekness, etc.

Beautiful in the last degree, as a moral spectacle, is the sight of the meek but mighty Savior in the presence of the scornful human sovereign. But there are many lessons which we may gather on our way to that striking scene.

I. HOW PITIFUL HUMAN AUTHORITY MAY PROVE TO BE! Poor Pilate, occupying his high seat of authority and power, is “driven with the wind and tossed,” as if he were a leaf upon the ground. He “finds no fault in Jesus” (Luk 23:4), but he dares not acquit him; he is afraid of the men he is there to govern. He casts about for a way of escape; he at lasts hits upon the poor expedient of shifting the difficulty to other shoulders. He presents to us a very pitiable object as a man who sits in the chair of office, and dares not do his duty there. Authority divested of a manly courage and shaking with fear of consequences is a deplorable thing.

II. HOW FEEBLE IS MERE PASSIONATE VEHEMENCE! The people, led by the priests, were “the more fierce” (Luk 23:5), insisting that Pilate should not release the Prisoner of whose innocence he was convinced. We see them, with hatred flashing from their eyes, indulging in frantic gestures of deprecation and incitement, loudly clamouring for the condemnation of the Holy One. Their urgency did, indeed, prevail for the moment, as vehemence frequently does. But into what a dire and terrible mistake it led them! to what a crime were they hastening! what awful issues were to spring from their success! How truly were they sowing the wind of which they would reap the whirlwind! Earnestness is always admirable; enthusiasm is often a great power for good; but passionate vehemence is nothing better than a noisy feebleness. It is not the presence of real power; it is the absence of intelligence and self-control. It leads men to actions which have a momentary success, but which end in a lasting failure and in sad disgrace.

III. HOW UNFRUITFUL IS IDLE CURIOSITY. (Luk 23:8, Luk 23:9.) Herod congratulated himself too soon. He reckoned on having a keen curiosity fully gratified; he thought he had this Prophet in his power, and could command an exhibition of his peculiar faculty, whatever that might prove to be. But he did not want to arrive at truth, or to be better able to do his duty or serve his generation; and Jesus Christ declined to minister to his royal fancy. He was silent and passive, though urged to speech and action. Christ will speak to our hearts, and will work for our benefit and blessing when we approach him in a reverent and earnest spirit; but to a worldly and irreverent curiosity he has nothing to say. It must retire ungratified, and come again in another mood.

IV. HOW INCONSTANT IS UNSPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP! Herod had very little to thank Pilate for, on this occasion; he appears to have mistaken a cowardly attempt to evade duty for a mark of personal respect or a desire to effect a reconciliation (Luk 23:12). A friendship that had to be renewed, and that was patched up in so slight a way and on such mistaken ground, would not last long and was worth very little. Friendship that is not built on thorough knowledge and on mutual esteem is exceedingly fragile and of small account. It is only common attachment to the same great principles and to the one Divine Lord that binds together in indissoluble bonds. Sameness of occupation, similarity of taste, exposure to a common peril, or the possession of a common hope,this is not the rock on which friendship will stand long; it rests on character, and on the character that is formed by close, personal intimacy with the one true Friend of man.

V. HOW WRONG AND EVEN WICKED IS UNENLIGHTENED SCORN! (Luk 23:11.) Quite unimaginable is the uproarious laughter and the keen, low enjoyment with which the actors went through this wretched ribaldry, this (to us) most painful mockery. How little did they think that he whom they were so mercilessly insulting was the King he claimed to be, and was immeasurably higher than the highest of them all! Wrong and wicked is human scorn. Often since then has it mocked at truth and wisdom, and poured its poor ridicule on the head of holiness and true nobility! It is not only the “stranger” who may prove to be the “angel unawares entertained;” it is also the man whom we do not understand, whom we may think entirely in the wrong, whom we are tempted to despise. Many are the mockers who will be fain, one day, to receive a gracious pardon from the object of their derision.

VI. HOW MAJESTIC IS SPIRITUAL MEEKNESS! (Luk 23:11.) We know well how our Lord bore this cruel trial. “A silent Man before his foes” was he. Able at any moment to bring them into utmost humiliation, to turn the mocking glance of triumph into the countenance blanched with unspeakable fear, and the brutal laugh of mockery into a cry for mercy, he stood without a blow, without a word on his own behalf, enduring as one that saw the invisible and the eternal. There is nothing more majestic than a calm endurance of wrong. To accept without return the strong buffeting of cruelty, to take without reply the more keen and piercing utterance of falsehood, because stillness or silence will advance the cause of truth and the kingdom of God,this is to be very “near the throne” on which it is our highest ambition to be placed; it is to be carrying out, most acceptably, the commandment of the meek, majestic Savior as he says to us, “Follow me!”C.

Luk 23:16

Guilty compromise.

Twice (see Luk 23:22) Pilate made this offer to the Jews. He would chastise Jesus and release him; he would thus gratify them by putting the Object of their hatred to pain and humiliation, and he would satisfy his own conscience by saving an innocent man from the last extremity. It was a poor and a guilty compromise he proposed as a solution. If Jesus were as guilty as they claimed that he was, he deserved to die, and Pilate was in duty bound to condemn him to death; if he were innocent, he certainly ought not to have been subjected to the exposure and agony of scourging. It was a cowardly and ignoble endeavor to save himself at the expense either of public or of individual justice. Compromises are of very different character. There are compromises which are

I. JUST, AND THEREFORE HONOURABLE. Two men in business have claims one against the other, and one cannot convince the other by argument; the proposal is made to adjust their respective claims by a compromise, each man consenting to forego something, the concession of the one being taken as a fair equivalent to that of the other: this is honorable to both. It very probably results in each man getting what is his due, and it saves both from the misery and expense of Litigation, and preserves good will and even friendship.

II. WISE, AND THEREFORE COMMENDABLE. A societyit may be of a distinctly religious characteris divided by its members holding opposite opinions. Some advocate one course, the others urge a different one. The idea is suggested that a third course be adopted, which includes some features of the two; there is no serious principle involved, it is only a matter of procedure, a question of expediency. Then it will probably be found to be the wisdom of that society to accept the proposed compromise. Every one present has the double advantage of securing something which he approves, and (what is really better, if it could but be realized) that of yielding something to the wishes or the convictions of other people.

III. GUILTY, AND THEREFORE CONDEMNABLE. Such was that of the text. Such have been innumerable others since then. All are guilty that are effected:

1. At the expense of truth. The teacher of Divine truth may bring his doctrine down to the level of his hearers’ understanding; he may make known the great verities of the faith “in many portions” (); but he may not, in order to “please men,” distort or withhold the living truth of God. If he does that he shows himself unworthy of his office, and he exposes himself to the severe condemnation of his Divine Master.

2. At the expense of justice. However anxious we may be to preserve outward harmony, we may not, for the sake of peace, do any one man a wrong; may not asperse his character, injure his prospects, wound his spirit. Rather than do that, we must face the storm, and guide our bark as best we can.

3. At the expense of self-respect. If Pilate had been less hardened than he probably was, less accustomed to the infliction of human pain and shame, he would have gone back to the interior of his house ashamed of himself, as he thought of the lacerating scene that immediately followed that mockery of a trial. If we cannot yield without inflicting on our own soul a real spiritual injury, without doing (or leaving undone) an action the remembrance of which will not only shame but weaken us, then we must not compromise the matter in dispute. We must tell our tale, whatever it may be; we must make our motion, whomsoever it may offend; we must walk straight on in the road of rectitude, in the path of humanity.C.

Luk 23:24

The character of Pilate.

It is true that Pilate’s opinion concerning Jesus of Nazareth was very different indeed from that of his accusers; but he little imagined chat it would be to that poor suffering Prisoner that he would owe such immortality as he is to enjoy. Yet so it is; it is only because we are disciples of Jesus Christ that we care to ask who and what was Pilate. He is nothing but the gold upon the altar. In considering the elements of his character, we note

I. THAT HE WAS POSSESSED OF ENERGY AND ENTERPRISE. He would hardly have reached the station he occupied, or held it as long as he did, if he had not had these two qualities in his character.

II. THAT HE WAS NOT DEVOID OF SPIRITUAL DISCERNMENT. It is clear that he was much impressed by all that he saw of Jesus. The calmness, patience, and nobility of our Lord called forth from Pilate a sincere respect. There was genuine admiration in his heart as he led forth the Divine Sufferer and exclaimed, “Behold the Man!” He was affected, and even awed, by the moral greatness he was witnessing, he may also have been moved to pity.

III. THAT HIS WORLDLINESS HAD WORN OUT HIS FAITH. He had probably had his visions, in earlier days, of the sacredness and supremacy of truth; he had indulged his idea of what was morally good and sound, more to be desired than riches, more to be pursued than honor or authority. But a life of worldliness bad done for him what it will do for any of its votariesit had eaten away his early faith; it had caused his fairest views and noblest purposes to melt and to disappear; it had left his spirit “naked to his enemies,” without any assured belief in any one or in anything. “To bear witness to the truth.” “What’s truth?” asks the poor sceptic, whose soul was empty of all sustaining trust, of all ennobling hope.

IV. THAT HE HAD COME TO SUBORDINATE RIGHTEOUSNESS TO POLICY. That Prisoner on his hands was innocent: of that he was well assured. He would not condemn him to a cruel death unless he was obliged to do so. But he must not push his preference for righteousness too far. He must not seriously endanger his own position; he must not put a handle into the power of his enemies. No; rather than that, this pure and holy One must be scourged, must even die the death. As the trial proceeds, it appears that he is exciting a very strong hostility to himself. Let the poor Man go, then, to his doom; one more act of injustice, however regrettable in itself, will not make much difference. “And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.”

APPLICATION.

1. Outward circumstances prove very little. It is the judge whom we pity now; it is the bound and buffeted, the maltreated and maligned Prisoner whom we now honor and emulate.

2. Real strength is in righteousness and in love. Unrighteousness and selfishness, in the person of Pilate, resorted to shifts and expedients, and vacillated again and again between obligation and self-interest. Flawless integrity and abounding love for man, in the person of Jesus Christ, wavered not for an instant, but pursued its holy and gracious purpose through pain and shame. Policy prevails for a very little while; it goes back to its palace, but its end is exile and suicide. Poverty and love go through the deep darkness of earth to the unshadowed glory of the skies.C.

Luk 23:26

Compulsion and invitation; the human and the Divine methods.

Here we have an illustration of

I. HUMAN VIOLENCE. “They laid hold upon” one Simon, and “him they compelled” (Mat 27:32) to bear his cross. What right had these Roman soldiers to impress this stranger into their service? What claim had they upon him? By what law of rectitude did they arrest him as he was entering the city, and insist on his bearing a burden, and going whither he would not? What justified them in laying hands upon him and violently enforcing this service? None whatever; nothing whatsoeverse It was only another instance of the unscrupulousness of human power. Thus has it been everywhere and always. Let men but feel that they have the mastery, that theirs is the more powerful mind, the firmer will, the stronger hand, and they will ask no leave, consult no law, be restrained by no consideration of conscience. The history of man, where not under special Divine direction, has been the history of the assertion of strength over weakness; that has been the course of national, of tribal, of family, of individual life. The strong man, well armed, has “laid hold upon” the weak man, and laid some burden upon him to carry. He has virtually said, “I can command your labor, serve me; if you refuse to do so, you shall pay some penalty of my own choosing.” Human violence

(1) is essentially unrighteous, for it is based on no claim that can be properly so called;

(2) has been found to be shamelessly unmerciful;

(3) has been gradually, though slowly, subjected to the great rule of Christ (Mat 7:12);

(4) is destined in time to make way for the rule of righteousness.

II. DIVINE PERSUASIVENESS. God does not compel us to serve him. He may, indeed, so wisely overrule all things as to make the life deliberately withheld from him or the action directed against him (e.g. the act of betrayal by Judas) contribute to the final issue; but he does not force the individual soul to serve him. Jesus Christ does not compel us to his service. It is true that his invitations have the authority of a command; but his commands have the sweetness of invitations.

1. He invites us to approach him and seek his favor. “Come unto me all ye that labor” is not a severe command; it is a most gracious invitation. “Whosoever believeth on me hath everlasting life” is not a peremptory injunction; it is a welcome and generous announcement. And while it is indeed true that Christ says, imperatively “Follow me!” it is also true that he does not force any one into his company; he makes his appeal to our conscience and conviction; he will not have any in his service who do not freely and whole-heartedly consent to come.

2. He graciously influences us, that we may see and follow the true light. Paul, indeed, does speak of Christ as “apprehending,” or laying hold of, him (Php 3:12). But this referred to the very exceptional manifestation of his Divine power, and the language is strongly figurative. The Spirit of God does illumine our understanding and affect our heart; but he does not compel us to decide without the consent of our own will. In the last resort we have to “choose life” or death.

3. He summons us to a full discipleship by following him as one that bore a cross (Luk 9:23; Mat 16:24). He lets us know that we shall not meet with iris full approval if we do not bear the cross after him, if we do not follow him in the path of sacrificial love. But there is truest kindness, both of substance and manner, in this his urgent challenge.

4. He promises us inward rest here, and a large reward hereafter, if we do hear his voice and do thus follow him. Between human compulsion and Divine invitation or Divine constraint, there is exceeding breadth: the one is an intolerable tyranny; the other is essential righteousness, and introduces to true liberty, to spiritual rest, to abiding joy.C.

Luk 23:27-31

Sympathy and solicitude.

Before reaching Calvary an interesting and instructive incident occurred. Among the tumultuous crowd that surged round the soldiers and their victims were many women. These were better away, we are disposed to think, from a scene so brutal and so harrowing as this. But we will believe that something better than curiosity, that gratitude, that affection, that womanly pity, drew them, spite of their natural shrinking, to this last sad ending. By whatever motives impelled, they were certainly moved to strong compassion as they saw the Prophet of Nazareth, the great Healer and Teacher, led forth to die. Their loud laments did not fall on the ear of One too occupied with his own impending doom to hear and heed them. Our Lord made to these weeping women the reply which is here recorded, longer and fuller than we should have supposed the circumstances would allow. It suggests to us

I. THAT HUMAN DISTRESS NEVER FAILS TO REACH AND TOUCH HIM. If there were any moments in his life when he might have been preoccupied, and might not have noticed the sounds of sorrow, it was this hour of his agony, this hour when the weight of the world’s sin rested on his soul, when the great sacrifice was in the very act of being offered. Yet even then he heard and stopped to console the troubled. An appeal to Jesus Christ in circumstances of sorrow is never ill-timed.

II. THAT SUCH SYMPATHY WITH JESUS CHRIST IS ENTIRELY OUT OF PLACE. “Weep not for me.” Some men speak and act as if it were appropriate to express sympathy with the Savior on account of his sufferings. It is, indeed, impossible to read the story of his last hours, and realize what it all meant, without having our sympathetic feeling very keenly quickened; but Jesus Christ does not ask that we should express to him, or to one another, our sympathy with him as One that then suffered. These sufferings are past; they have placed him upon the throne of the world; they have made brighter than ever his celestial crown, deeper than ever his heavenly joy. So far as we are concerned, and so far as they speak of our sin, they may well humble us; in so far as he is concerned, we rejoice with him that he “was perfected through suffering.'”

III. THAT A HOLY SOLICITUDE FOR OURSELVES AND OURS IS OFTEN THE MOST APPROPRIATE SENTIMENT. “Weep for yourselves, and for your children.” We know well what reason these Jewish women had, both as patriots and as mothers, to be concerned for the fate that threatened their country and their homes. Our Lord certainly would not condemn, would not disparage, an unselfish sympathy. He who wept at Bethany, and whose law of love was the law that covered and inspired a gracious burden-bearing (Gal 6:2), could not possibly do that. Indeed, we seldom stand nearer to his side than when we “weep with them that weep.” But there are many times when we are tempted to be troubled by our brother’s smaller difficulty instead of being concerned about our own much greater one. Do not be blind to the bodily pains or the circumstantial struggles of your neighbor; but look eagerly and earnestly to the rent which is opening in your own reputation, to the gap that is increasingly visible in your own consistency, to the fact that you are palpably descending the slope which leads down to spiritual ruin.

IV. THAT THERE ARE SAD EXTREMITIES OF EVIL WHEN NOTHING IS LEFT BUT A HOPELESS CRY. (Luk 23:30.)

V. THAT SIN AND PUNISHMENT BECOME DEEPER AND NEARER AS TIME GOES ON. The green tree is exposed to the consuming fire; but the green tree in time becomes the dry, and how much more certain and more fierce then will be the devouring flame! The nation goes from bad to worse, from the worse to the worst; from dark to darker guilt, from condemnation to calamity. So does a human soul, unguided by heavenly truth and unguarded by holy principle. At any and every time in danger, its peril becomes continually greater as its guilt becomes constantly deeper. Go not one step further in the course of sin, in the way of worldliness, into the “far country” of forgetfullness. Each step is an approach to a precipice. Return on thy way without a moment’s lingering.C.

Luk 23:34

Magnanimity an attainment.

“Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” Whenat what particular point did he say that? It is commonly believed that he uttered this most gracious prayer just at the time of the actual crucifixion. Just when the nails were driven into those hands, the hands that had constantly been employed in some ministry of mercy; into those feet that had been continually carrying him on some errand of kindness; or just when the heavy cross, with its suffering Victim fastened upon it, had been driven into the ground with unpitying violence;just then, at the moment of most excruciating pain and of intolerable shame, he opened his lips to pray for mercy on his executioners. We have here

I. A RARE INSTANCE OF HUMAN MAGNANIMITY.

1. Conscious, not only of perfect innocence, but of the purest and even the loftiest aims, Jesus Christ found himself not only unrewarded and unappreciated, but misunderstood, ill treated, condemned on a totally false charge, sentenced to the most cruel and shameful death a man could die. What wonder if, under those conditions, all the kindliness of his nature had turned to sourness of spirit!

2. At this very moment he was the object of the most heartless cruelty man could inflict, and must have been suffering pain of body and of mind that was literally agonizing.

3. At such a time, and under such treatment, he forgets himself to remember the guilt of those who were so shamefully wronging him.

4. Instead of entertaining any feeling of resentment, he desired that they might be forgiven their wrong-doing.

5. He did not haughtily and contemptuously decline to condemn them; he did not hardly and reluctantly forgive them; he found for them a generous extenuation; he sincerely prayed his heavenly Father to forgive them. Human magnanimity could hardly go further than that.

II. A BEAUTIFUL EXAMPLE OF HIS OWN LOFTY DOCTRINE. When in his great sermon, (Matthew 5-7.) he said, “Love your enemies pray for them which despitefully use and persecute you, that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven,” he urged upon us to cherish and to illustrate the loftiest virtue on the highest grounds. This he now beautifully, perfectly exemplified. He was literally and truly praying for those who were using him despitefully, As the greatest generals and captains have proudly and honourably claimed that they “never bade men do that which they were not willing to do themselves,” so this our glorious Leader, he who came to be the “Leader and Perfecter of the faith” (Heb 12:2 : Alford), never desired of us any virtue or grace which he did not possess and did not himself adorn. He could and did say to his disciples, not only,” Go thither in the way of righteousness,” but also, “Follow me in every path of purity and love.” We may well love our enemies, and pray for those who despitefully use us, that we may be the children of our Father in heaven, and that we may be followers of our patient, magnanimous Master. And it is here, truly, that we have

III. A CHALLENGE TO A GREAT ATTAINMENT.

1. To pray sincerely for those who do us wrong is one of the very highest points, if not actually the very loftiest, of human magnanimity. To dismiss all vindictive purpose, all resentful thought; to look at our enemy’s procedure in a kindly light, and to take, as Christ did here, a generous view of it; to cherish a positive wish for his good; to put this wish into action, into prayer;by these stages we reach the summit of nobility.

2. This is an attainment we should sedulously and devoutly pursue. There are those of noble nature, men and women whom God endows with a most “excellent spirit,” to whom this may be plain and easy; to them it is not a steep ascent to be laboriously climbed, but a gentle slope along which they can walk without difficulty. But to most men it is an attainment and not an endowment. It is an attainment which ban only be secured by earnest and continued cultivation. But we have for this great end the most effectual means:

(1) the realization of the near presence of God, and the knowledge of his Divine approval;

(2) the sense that when we succeed we win the greatest of all victories;

(3) the efficacy of prayerits subjective influence, and the aid which it brings us from above;

(4) the inspiration of our Lord’s example, and that of his most faithful followers (Act 7:60; 2Ti 4:16).C.

Luk 23:34

Sin greater than it seems.

“They know not what they do.” There is more in our actions, and therefore in our life, than there seems to be to ourselves (see “The largeness of Our life,” homily on Luk 10:16). There is more of good; more also of evil. These soldiers imagined that they were doing nothing more than executing a malefactor. They were murdering a Messiah; they were putting to death the Son of Man, the Savior of mankind. They knew not what they did; they did not recognize the extreme seriousness, the actual awfulness, of the crime they were committing. Thus is it constantly. We suppose ourselves to be doing something of very little consequence; but he who knows the realities and the issues of all things sees in our action something far more serious than we see. We know not what we do when we err from the straight line of moral and spiritual rectitude. We do not know

I. HOW WE HURT A HUMAN SPIRIT WHEN WE WOUND IT. Whether this be by something said or done, by a glance of the eye, by the withholding of the expected word or action, we often wound more deeply than we think. We suppose we have caused a momentary irritation. If we knew all, we should know that we have produced a soreness of feeling, a keenness of disappointment, or a depth of distress, which it will take weeks or months to heal.

II. HOW WE WRONG OURSELVES WHEN WE SIN AGAINST OUR CONSCIENCE, It is, we assure ourselves, a very slight deviation from rectitude; it is a negligence for which we can easily make up a little further on. But, in truth, we have begun a slow, steady, spiritual descent, which will take us to the bottom. We know not what we do when we take the first step in moral laxity. We have started our soul on an evil course; we have done ourselves a wrong which we quite fail to measure.

III. HOW WE DAMAGE ANOTHER‘S CHARACTER WHEN‘ WE INJURE IT. We have only induced our neighbor to take a step which will open his eyes to that which he ought to know. So we say, and perhaps think. But, in fact, we have done much more than that. We have led him to do that which has injured his conscience, which has weakened his self respect, which has enfeebled his character. He will be less strong, henceforth, in the evil hour of temptation; he will be more open to attack, less likely to resist and to conquer his adversary. When we lead into temptation and sin, we “know not what we do.”

IV. HOW WE GRIEVE OUR SAVIOUR WHEN WE DISOBEY OR DISHONOUR HIM, We do not know how much he expects of his disciples, especially of those who have such opportunities as we have of knowing and doing his willhow much attachment, how strong an affection, how quick an obedience, how full and patient a submission, he has a right to look for, and does wait to receive. And we do not know the fullness and intensity of his feeling of disappointment and sorrow when we fail him. The disciples did not know what they did, how grievously they failed, when they slept in that hour through which they should have watched. What depth of touching, tenderest pathos we hear in these words of gentle remonstrance: “Could ye not watch with me one hour?”

V. HOW WE HINDER THE CAUSE OF CHRIST when we discredit it. We think, perhaps, that the evil impression we have conveyed by our inconsistency will soon be forgotten, lost entirely in the current of human affairs. But more harm is done than we know or think. Some souls are shocked, scandalized, injured; their faith is lessened, perhaps pierced; they will not count for Christ what they would have counted. Springs of anti-Christian influence are started: who shall say whither they will flow?

VI. HOW WE SIN AGAINST GOD WHEN WE WITHHOLD FROM HIM OURSELVES AND OUR SERVICE. We may imagine that we are only delaying till a more suitable or convenient time the duty we intend to discharge. But we are really disobeying a Divine command; we are refusing a Divine invitation; we are continuing in open rebellion, in unfilial estrangement. We are seriously sinning against our heavenly Father, our merciful Savior, our rightful and righteous Sovereign.

1. Our ignorance of “what we do” is. in part a necessity of our finite nature; for we cannot possibly look down into the depth of things; nor can we look on to the final issues. This is beyond the compass of our powers.

2. But it is in part also the fault of our character. We do not think, we do “not consider” (Isa 1:3), we do not inquire. We do not use as we might our spiritual faculties. More patient, prayerful consideration of “what we do” would save us from many errors, many wrongs, and also from many painful memories and much self-reproach.C.

Luk 23:35

A sad spectacle and the supreme vision.

“And the people stood beholding.” “Sitting down they watched him there” (Mat 27:36). Shall we envy those spectators the scene they then witnessed? Shall we wish that we had lived when, with our mortal eyes, we could have seen the Savior crucified on our behalf? I think not. With this distance of time and space between us, we have a better, truer standpoint where we are. No doubt we lose much by that distance; but we gain at least as much as we lose. To those who “stood beholding,” or who “sat and watched,” there was

I. AN EXCEEDINGLY SAD SPECTACLE. They saw:

1. A human being suffering the last extremity of pain and shame. Some among that company could look upon that scene with positive enjoyment, some with stolid indifference; but those of whom we think, the disciples, would witness it with intense, heart-piercing sympathy, with utmost agitation of spirit. His suffering must, in a large degree, have been theirs alsotheirs in proportion to the love they bore him.

2. A Prophet who had failed to be appreciated, and was now a martyr nobly dying in attestation of the truth.

3. A sacred cause losing its Chief and Champion; a cause being wounded and almost certainly slain in the person of its Founder and Exponent. For who could hope that there would be found amongst his disciples any that would take the standard from his hands, and bear it on to victory? For Christ to die was for Christianity to perish. Such was the spectacle on which his disciples looked as they gathered about his cross. The scene was more vivid, more impressive, more powerfully affecting, as thus enacted before their eyes; but we see in reality more than they did. We have before us

II. THE SUPREME VISION on which we can gaze on earth. We see:

1. One who once suffered and died, but whose agony is over; whose pain and sorrow are not now to him sources of evil, but, on the other hand, the ground and the occasion of purest joy and highest honor (see homily on Luk 23:27-31). Had we been present then, we must have shrunk teem the spectacle before us as too painful for sensitiveness to endure. Now we can bear to dwell on his dying and his death, because the element of overwhelming and blinding sympathy is happily withdrawn.

2. A grand spiritual victory. We do not see in the crucified prophet One that was defeated; we see One that told us all that he came to tell, communicating to us all the knowledge we need in order to live our higher life on earth, and to prepare for the heavenly life beyond; that was not prevented from delivering any part of his Divine message; that completed all he came to do; that was amply entitled to say, as he did before he died, “It is finished.“

3. A Divine Redeemer ensuring, by his death, the triumph of his cause. Had he not died as he did, had he saved himself as he was taunted and challenged to do, had he not gone on to that bitter end and drunk that bitter cup even to the dregs, then he would have failed. But because he suffered unto death, he triumphed gloriously, and became “the Author of eternal salvation to all them that believe.” This is the supreme vision of human souls. We do well to gaze on nobility as we see it illustrated in human lives around us. We do well to look long and lovingly on human virtue as manifested in the lives and deaths of the glorious army of martyrs. But there is no vision so well worthy of our view; of our frequent, our constant, our protracted and intense beholding, as that of the merciful and mighty Savior dying for our sins, dying in wondrous love that he might draw us to himself and restore us to our Father and our home. Before our eyes Christ crucified is conspicuously set forth (Gal 3:1); and if we would have forgiveness of sin, rest of soul, worthiness of spirit, nobility of life, hope in death, a blessed immortality, we must direct our eyes unto him who was once “lifted up” that he might be the Refuge, the Friend, the Lord, the Savior of the world to the end of time. Better than the saddest spectacle man ever saw is that supreme vision which is the hope and the life of each looking and trusting human heart.C.

Luk 23:35-37

Self-saving and self-sacrifice.

We have two things here of which the latter is much the more worth looking at.

I. INHUMANITY AT ITS LOWEST. There are many degrees of inhumanity.

1. It is bad for men or women deliberately to shut themselves out of the society of the wrong and miserable, in order that, without distraction, they may minister to their own comfort or consult their own well-being..

2. It is worse to look on the wounded traveler as he lies within sight and reach of us, and to pass him coldly by “on the other side.”

3. It is worse still to regard the overthrow of human greatness or prosperity with positive satisfaction of spirit, to find a guilty enjoyment in the humiliation of another.

4. It is worst of all to do as did these men at the crossto mock at human misery, to taunt it in the hour of its agony, to add another pang to the keen sufferings that already lacerate the soul. Alas! what may not men become! what positively awful possibilities of evil are wrapt up in every human soul! that tiny hand, so soft and delicate, so beautiful, so harmless, what blow may it not possibly strike, some day, against all that is most sacred and most precious! It makes all the difference whether, under Christian principles, we are steadily climbing up toward that which is holy and Divine; or whether, under the dominion of evil forces, we are slowly sliding down toward all that is wrong and base. What an argument for ranging ourselves, while yet young, under the guidance of Jesus Christ, the Righteous and the Gracious One!

II. MAGNANIMITY AT ITS HIGHEST.

1. The extremity of evil to which our Lord was then submitting; the most excruciating bodily pain; the most terrible and almost intolerable mental distress; the apprehension of approaching death.

2. The powerful temptation presented to him to deliver himself from it all. By one volition of his will he could have descended from the cross, thus releasing himself and confounding his enemies. He had

(1) the strongest possible inducement to do this from the instincts of the nature he had assumed;

(2) the strongest possible provocation to do this in the bitter and cruel taunts of his enemies.

3. His most magnanimous refusal to exert his power in his own favor. He heard those derisive cries, but he heeded them not. He let those revilers think that he was unable to save himself; he knew that if he did save himself he could not save others (Mat 27:42). So he voluntarily continued to endure all that torture of body, to bear all that burden of shame and agony of spirit, to go on and down into the deepening shadow of death. Surely spiritual nobility could never strike a higher note than that, could never reach a loftier summit than that. How far can we follow our Lord along this upward path? There have been men who, at a certain point in their career, have clearly foreseen a dark and deathful ending, who have been entreated by their friends to go no further, to stand aside, to “save themselves” and think no more about the salvation of others (see Act 21:12). And it is quite possible that, though we shall never be placed in a position just like that of our Master, we may have the choice offered us which was then offered himwe may have to choose between saving ourselves and leaving others to their fate on the one hand, or sacrificing ourselves and saving our fellows on the other hand. It’ that choice should be presented to us, what should we do? The answer depends very much on the measure of the spirit of unselfishness we are cherishing and practising continually.

(1) Before us is a noble opportunitythat of teaching, enlightening, (instrumentally) redeeming men; but

(2) we cannot use this opportunity to any extent without self-sacrifice. If we are determined to “save ourselves,” we shall do but very little in the work of saving others.

(3) We must choose between the two: either we must resolve to spare ourselves expenditure and endurance, and let the work of human elevation go on without our help; or we must resolve not to spare ourselves, not to save time or money, or trouble, or health, not to spare ourselves uncongenial acts or unpleasant endurances, that men may learn what they know not, may see that to which they are yet blind, that they may be led out of exile into the kingdom of God. If we are keeping our Master well in view, especially if we are beholding him on the cross refusing to save himself though challenged with utmost bitterness to do so, we also shall make the nobler choice.C.

Luk 23:39-43

True penitence.

These verses narrate what we may call a standard fact of the gospel of Christina fact to which appeal will always be made, as it has always been made, in reference to a late repentance. We have to consider

I. THE BREVITY WITH WHICH A GREAT‘ SPIRITUAL REVOLUTION MAY BE WROUGHT IN A HUMAN MIND. Twelve hours before, this man was a hardened criminal, habituated to a life of rapacious and murderous violence; his counterpart is to be found to-day in the cells of a penal establishment. And now, after a short companionship with Jesus, after hearing him speak and seeing him suffer, his heart is purged and cleansed of its iniquity, he is another man, he is a child of God, an heir of heaven. There are great capacities in these human souls of ours, which do not come often into exercise, but which are actually within us. Powerful speech, imminent peril, great emergencies, sudden inspiration from God,these and other things will call them forth; there is a brilliant flash of remembrance, or of emotion, or of realization, or of conviction and resolution. And then that which is ordinarily wrought in many days or months is accomplished in an hour. The movements of our mind are not subject to any time-table calculations whatsoever. No man can define the limit of possibility here. Great revolutions can be and have been wrought almost momentarily. Not slowly toiling upward step by step, but more swiftly than the uprising of the strongest bird upon fleetest wing, may the human soul ascend from the darkness of death into the radiant sunshine of hope and life.

II. THE THOROUGHNESS OF THIS MAN‘S CHANGE AS EVIDENCED BY HIS WORDS.

1. He recognizes the existence and the power and the providence of God (Luk 23:40).

2. He has a sense of the turpitude of his own conduct, a due sense of sin (Luk 23:41).

3. He recognizes the innocence and excellence of Jesus Christ (Luk 23:41).

4. He believes in his real royalty, though it is so hidden from sight, and though circumstances are so terribly against it (Luk 23:42).

5. He believes in the pitifulness as well as the power of this kingly Sufferer, and he makes his humble but not unhopeful appeal to his remembrance.

6. He does the one thing for Christ he can do as he is dying on the crosshe remonstrates with his companion in crime, and seeks to silence his cruel taunts. Here is penitence, faith, service, all springing up and in earnest exercise in this brief hour.

III. A SUDDEN TRANSITION FROM THE LOWEST TO THE HIGHEST ESTATE. (Luk 23:43.) “What a day to that dying man! How strange a contrast between its opening and its close, its morning and its night! Its morning saw him a culprit condemned before the bar of earthly judgment; before evening shadowed the hill of Zion he stood accepted at the bar of heaven. The morning saw him led out through an earthly city’s gates in company with One who was hooted at by the crowd that gathered round him; before night fell upon Jerusalem the gates of another city, even the heavenly, were lifted up, and he went through them in company with One around whom all the hosts of heaven were bowing down as he passed to take his place beside the Father on his everlasting throne” (Hanna). In view of this most interesting fact we gather two lessons.

1. One of hopefulness. It is never too late to repent; in other words, repentance, when real, is never ineffectual. None could be more undeniably impenitent until within a few hours of his death than this malefactor, and no man’s penitence could be more decisively availing than his. It was real and thorough, and therefore it was accepted. It is a great thing for those who speak for Christ to be warranted, as they are, in going to the dying and despairing, and telling these departing ones, that true penitence, however late, avails with God; that his ear is not closed against the sigh of the contrite, even at the last hour of the day; that up to the last there is mercy to be had by them who truly seek it. But there is another lesson to be learnt.

2. One of warning and of fear. There is every reason to hope that true though late repentance is always accepted; but there is grave reason to fear that late repentance is seldom real and true. How often does experience prove that men in apparently dying hours have believed themselves to be penitent when they have only been apprehensive of coming doom! The dread of approaching judgment is far from being the same thing as repentance unto life. Not the last hour, when a selfish dread may be so easily mistaken for spiritual conviction, but the day of health and strength, when conviction can pass into action and honest shame into faithful service, is the time to turn from sin and to seek the face and the favor of the living God. Let none despair, but let none presume.C.

Luk 23:44

The shelter of the darkness.

The darkness which fell upon Jerusalem at midday and enshrouded the scene of the Crucifixion was a phenomenon for which it is impossible to account physically, and which it is not easy to explain morally. It is a matter for reverent conjecture, for thoughtful and devout inference, for sacred and solemn imagination. We are on sure ground when we say that it came from the Divine Father, and came on behalf of his beloved Son. We do not venture much when we suggest that it came in response to that Son’s appeal in this dark “day of his flesh” (Heb 5:7). We may do well to consider what was the probable impression it made on those who were concerned in that sad and sacred scene.

I. ON THE LEADERS OF THE PEOPLE. Surely they were smitten with consternation. One would suppose that, as these men witnessed the wonderful works of Christ, some doubts as to the rightness of their antagonism to him must have darted into their minds, and that beneath their confident and defiant attitude of enmity there must have lain some secret misgivings as to the course they were taking. Probably they were not without their fears that something would happen at the last to disappoint them. But as the day wore on, and Jesus actually hung upon the cross, and his strength was certainly going, and the people quietly acquiesced if they did not possibly “assist,” all seemed to be satisfactory, to be indeed triumphant. When, lo! a strange, unaccountable darkness, an impenetrable obscurity! The sun refuses to shine at midday. No man sees his fellow, or sees him only in the faintest light. The Crucified One is screened from view. The scoffs and shouts are silenced, and there is a terrible stillness and solemnity. What can that mean? God is speaking in his own chosen way, and is rebuking their guilty deed. There is a quaking at the proud Pharisee’s heart, a trembling in the soul of the scribe; there are no more taunts from their bitter lips; an unspeakable terror invades even their closed hearts which no casuistry can bar. Is it, then, the blood of their Messiah that they have been shedding?

II. ON THE MULTITUDE. How must they have been subdued with awe, if not agitated with wild alarm! How overwhelming to their less cultured minds must so astounding an event have been! “Whither,” we hear them say, “have our rulers led us? Surely there is something sacred and Divine in this Galilaean Prophet! Heaven is pronouncing in his favor. Have we crucified our King? Will his blood be upon us?” and the daughters of Jerusalem already begin to weep for themselves and for their children, as they think that some great calamity impends.

III. ON THE ROMAN SOLDIER. Trained to face peril and to be calm even in the presence of overshadowing death, he probably remained quiet and firm, the least moved of all the throng. Nothing could be done, and he would lean on his spear, waiting the centurion’s command when light should break; though exceedingly astonished and awe-struck, he would stand to his post with unmoved purpose and well-mastered fear.

IV. ON THE DISCIPLES. To them it must have come as a relief, if not a promise. Believing in their Lord, wondering with great amazement at his capture and crucifixion, they would feel that any miraculous interposition was not unlikely, was quite probable. It raised their hopes a few degrees above despair; possibly many degrees. If God interposed thus far, he might restore everything. At the least, this welcome darkness screened themselves, who were too near the cross for security, though too far from their Master for service; perhaps it quieted their fear while it comforted their conscience.

V. ON THE SAVIOUR HIMSELF. TO him we may be well assured that it was a most welcome succor.

1. It was a verdict from heaven attesting his innocency. It brought confusion to his enemies and confirmation to himself It was “a sign from heaven” distinctly in his favor. The sun refused to shine on so guilty a crime as that then perpetrated; the darkness that wrapped them round was God’s attestation of the darkness of the deed then being enacted.

2. It effectually shut the mouth of ribaldry and reproach. “it stopped each wagging head, it silenced each gibing tongue.” We cannot tell how painful and how piercing to his sensitive spirit those cruel mockings were; nor can we, therefore, tell how much of a relief was the stillness that came with the darkness.

3. It screened him from shame. “Men would leave the Crucified exposed in shame and nakedness to die, but an unseen hand was stretched forth to draw the drapery of darkness round him and hide him from vulgar gaze.”

4. It gave him a desired privacy for sorrow and for prayer. Sorrow and prayer always seek solitude; they desire to be alone with God. We do not like any others, except it be one that is most beloved, to witness the deeper griefs, or the sadder and sterner wrestlings of our soul. We seek the shade of some Gethsemane for such sacred experiences as these. What awful sorrow now rested upon Christ, now agitated his soul to its very depths, we may never understand. But we know that the burden he bore for us was at its very heaviest, that the sorrow he endured for us was at its extremest point just at this time, for it culminated in that terrible cry of desolation (Mat 27:45, Mat 27:46) which we do not try to fathom, which silences all speech and subdues every spirit. Such sacred sorrow, accompanied, as it certainly was, with the most close communion and fervent prayer, was not for the curiosity of that heartless crowd. It needed the most perfect privacy. And so the Divine Father, in this supreme hour of his Son’s great work and of the redemption of mankind, “made darkness, and it was night;” shut the Savior round with the merciful folds of thick darkness, that he might be alone with that Father in whose sole presence the great sacrifice was to be completed.C.

Luk 23:45

The rent veil.

At the time when Jesus died it is exceedingly probable that there would be priests in the “holy place.” It was now afternoon, it was drawing toward the time of evening sacrifice; they would be in attendance rendering the service of the sanctuary; they would certainly be aware of what was happening just outside Jerusalem, and would be powerfully affected by the fact. Suddenly, as if grasped and rent by unseen hands, that most sacred veil interposing between the antechamber and the reception-room of God himself, was torn in twain, “from the top to the bottom.” The incident was undeniably miraculous. No Jew would have dreamed of daring to do an act that would have been so impious in a man. A Divine hand must have been there, and when they entered into the mysterious darkness and felt the earthquake, must not these priests have asked themselves whether the rending of the veil did not signify a new epoch in the kingdom of God? May not the conversion of a “great company of the priests’ (Act 6:7) be partly accounted for by this striking and significant event? But what did it symbolize?

I. THAT GOD HAD ADOPTED A NEW METHOD OF ASSERTING HIS HOLINESS AND IMPRESSING IT ON THE MIND AND HEART OF THE WORLD. That veil was an essential part of a system of carefully graduated approach to God. It divided the “holy” from the “most holy” place, and beyond it none might pass but the high priest, and he only once a year. It was intended to teach the absolute holiness of Godthat it was only as men were prepared, and as they were separated from sin that they could be admitted to his presence. It was not without effect on the Jewish mind; that nation had thus grasped the idea of the purity and perfection of God. But now his character was so revealed that all such symbolism was no longer needed. The death of Jesus Christ his Son, as the Sacrifice for the sin of the world, was an expression of Divine holiness incomparably superior to the symbolism of the temple and for ever superseding it. Henceforth, when men wanted to know what God felt about sinhow he hated it, what he thought it worth while to do and to suffer in order to expel itthey would look to that cross at Calvary, and there read his mind and know his will. Holy places were no longer needed.

II. THAT GOD HAD NOW PROVIDED ANOTHER AND BETTER WAY OF MERCY FOR MANKIND. Behind the veil was the innermost chamber; and of this chamber the furniture was the ark with the two tables of the Law, and the mercy-seat above it; we read of this compartment thus: “within the veil before the mercy-seat.” Mercy was thus resting on Law. Mercy always must be founded on holiness; lot without holiness there can be no mercy worthy of the name. And on the great Day of Atonement the high priest entered this “holy of holies,” and sprinkled blood upon the mercy-seat for the cleansing of the sins of the nation. But the cross of Jesus Christ spoke of the Divine mercy as no temple furniture could do; there needed nothing to teach the supremacy of mercy above Law after the dying love of the Redeemer of mankind, and there needed no more sprinkling of blood upon a mercy-seat after this great Day of Atonement, when “by one sacrifice of himself for ever” the spotless Lamb of God presented “a Propitiation for the sins of the world.” The temple rites then became obsolete; its services were past; there need be no more guarding of one sacred place from another; let the sacred curtain be taken down or rent in twain.

III. THAT THE WAY TO THE HOLY ONE HIMSELF IS NOW OPEN TO ALL MANKIND. ‘That veil was an instrument that not only secluded, but excluded; through it no eye might venture to glance, no intruding hand might reach, no presumptuous feet might step. To pass that limit was to incur the heaviest penalty; “the Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest.” But now “the good High Priest is come, supplying Aaron’s place” and having offered up the one all-sufficient sacrifice, having obtained thereby “eternal redemption,” that excluding veil is rent in twain, that barrier is broken down; there are no more limitations, no more distinctions; there is access for every child of man to the mercy-seat of Godto the Holy One himself, to seek his grace and find his favor. Are we drawing nigh? Are we entering in? Are we availing ourselves of this priceless privilege, this glorious provision for our spirit’s need? In many words and ways God invites us to draw nigh to himself: he did so when his invisible hand rent in twain that separating veil. “Having therefore boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith.”C.

Luk 23:46

How to die and to live.

Our text treats of the dying of our Lord. We may distinguish between death and dying. All men die, but all men have not a dying experience. Those who are killed instantaneously in war or by accident, those who are attacked by fatal apoplexy, those who die in their sleep, have no such experience. It is probable that we shall have to face the fact that we are passing away from life, that when a few more hours have come and gone we shall have entered the unseen world. It is therefore of no small value to us that our great Exemplar underwent not only death, but the conscious act of dying, and that in this respect also he “left us an example that we should follow his steps.” We look at

I. THE DYING OF OUR LORD IN THE LIGHT OF THESE WORDS. The words he uttered just as his end drew near indicate:

1. Deep serenity of spirit. They show nothing of agitation or anxiety; they breathe a calm stillness of soul; they are fragrant of peace and tranquillity. They begin with that word, “Father,” which all along had been a name of strength and peace; he was evidently resting in the assurance of parental love. And the words that follow are in a strain of entire spiritual composure.

2. True and living faith. Jesus was resigning his spirit to God’s gracious charge, knowing that in his holy and mighty keeping it would be safe and blessed. Here was fullest confidence in God and in immortality.

3. Holy resignation. As a Son of man, Jesus felt still subject to the Divine Father of all; and as he came to do and bear his will, and had done and had borne it perfectly in every hour and act of life, so now in this last volition he yielded himself to God. Thus with a soul tranquil to its profoundest depths, realizing the unseen and eternal world, resigning his spirit to the Divine Father, he bowed his head in death.

II. OUR OWN DEPARTURE. Having found in the death of Jesus Christ that which is the ground of our pardon, our peace, our life before God; having lived in the love and in the service of a once crucified and now ever-living Savior;there is no reason to doubt that we shall die as he died, breathing the spirit he breathed, if we do not use the very language that was upon his lips.

1. Our departure will be tranquil. We shall not be terrified, alarmed, agitated; our spirit will look calmly forward to the moment of departure from this world and of entrance into another. We shall face the very near future with a smile.

2. For we shall be sustained by a living faith.

(1) We shall feel that we are only going into the nearer presence of our own Fatherof him before whom we have been living and in whom we have been rejoicing; only passing from one room to another in our Father’s house.

(2) We shall have faith in Jesus Christ himself. That death upon the cross constitutes him a Divine Savior, in whom we hide; and we shall die in the calm assurance that we shall be “found in him,” and accepted through him. We shall say, with deeper and fuller meaning than the psalmist could, “Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O Lord God of truth“ (Psa 31:5).

(3) We shall yield ourselves to God in the spirit of consecration, assured that in that new and unknown realm which we are entering we may spend our time and our powers, liberated and enlarged, in his holy and blessed service: and the spirit of consecration is the spirit of confidence and hope. And while these words are particularly appropriate to dying lips, and very probably suggested the last utterance of the first Christian martyr (Act 7:59), they need not be held in reserve for that occasion; they admirably express our true attitude in

III. OUR DAILY LIFE. SO David evidently felt (Psa 31:5), and so we may feel. In faith and in self-surrender we should be continually commending our spirit to Our heavenly Father’s charge:

1. When the day is done and we enter the nightly darkness and unconsciousness, during which we can take no charge of ourselves.

2. As we go forth each morning to duties, trials, temptations, opportunities, to which our own unaided strength is quite unequal.

3. If we feel that we are entering some dark cloud of adversity and trial in which we shall have peculiar need of Divine support.

4. When we are called to new spheres and weightier responsibilities, wherein other graces will be required than any that have yet been demanded of us. At all such times should we, in faith and consecration, commit the keeping of our souls to our heavenly Father, to be sheltered in his faithfulness, to be enriched by his love and his power.C.

Luk 23:48

Sacred impressions.

There was a considerable company of spectators at the Crucifixion. They were attracted not only by the spectacle of a triple execution, but, far more, by the fact that the Prophet whose fame had filled the land was to be led forth to die. It was not the riffraff of Jerusalem merely that “beheld the things that were done.” The sense of impropriety in attendance at such sanguinary and harrowing scenes is quite modern. It did not prevail there and then. Probably the leading citizens were presentthe well-to-do, the educated, the refinedmale and female. All classes and all characters were therethe devout and the profane, the rough and the gentle, the selfish and the sympathetic. And of that large company of people there would be present men and women very variously affected toward Jesus Christ. We may say, without hesitation, that the eleven were there; though it is more than likely that, for a time at any rate, they stood afar off, we cannot doubt that they were there, waiting and wondering; hoping with a faint hope, fearing with a terrible and mastering dread. Many true and loyal disciples were there, among whom, truest among the true, were the women who had followed him and “ministered to him” (Mat 27:55). Besides these were the fickle, doubled-minded multitude, who cried, “Hosannah!” one day, and a few days later shouted, “Crucify him!” And beyond these in spiritual distance were his implacable and bitter enemies. What may we suppose to have been the effect of the Crucifixion on the minds of “the people that came together to that sight”?

I. IMMEDIATE EFFECTS PROBABLY PRODUCED.

1. There were physical elements sure to excite their wondering imagination. When an unnatural darkness brooded over the entire scene for three long dread hours, when the earth trembled, when the loud death-cry of the suffering Savior pierced the air, there was a combination of strange marvels and unusual experiences which must have shaken their souls and filled them with a great awe.

2. And there were moral elements there fitted to touch their hearts. There was the presence of deathdeath, “the great reconciler,” that quenches strong animosities, that awakens an unwonted pity, that subdues the hardened soul to a surprising softness. There was the death of a Man still young, of a Man who had rendered undeniably great services to many hearts in many homes. There was death met with heroic fortitude, undergone with a calmness, a magnanimity, a moral greatness, such as their eyes had never seen before. These two elements together powerfully affected the people that drew to that sight; and with whatsoever thought in their mind they “came together,” it is certain that a very great majority of them went home astonished, if not ashamed and alarmed; they returned “smiting their breasts.” But what were

II. THE ULTIMATE EFFECTS PRODUCED?

1. Some effects were permanently good. Surely it was partly, if not largely, the remembrance of what they had seen and done and felt on this great day that led to the “pricking of heart” they experienced when Peter spoke so faithfully, and led them to Christian baptism (Act 2:22, Act 2:23, Act 2:37 11). Was not the “smiting of the breast” more than an antecedent in time to that being smitten in heart when they listened and responded?

2. Others, we may be sure, were evanescent and unfruitful. It would have been a very singular case if there were not many who felt much agitation that day, and the next, and, perhaps, the day after; but who soon allowed pressing cares or passing pleasures to drive convictions from the soul. They “smote their breasts, and returned;” but, instead of returning to God, they went back to the old routine and the old formalism and unspirituality. It is well to be affected by the facts of God’s providence, whether these be simple and ordinary, or whether unusual and startling. It is well indeed to be affected by the view of a Savior’s death, however that death may be presented to our souls. But let no man rest contented with such emotion as was in the breast of the people who “came together to that sight.” It is wholly undecisive; if it lead not to something better than itself, it will bring forth no fruit of life. It must pass, and should pass quickly, into an intelligent conviction of sin, into a real and living faith in him who was then the Crucified One, and so into newness of life in him and unto him.C.

HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR

Luk 23:1-25

Jesus vindicated by his enemies.

We pass now from the ecclesiastical to the secular sphere. The charge brought forward in the Sanhedrin is blasphemy; before Pilate and Herod the charge must be sedition and treason. Yet amid his unscrupulous enemies unimpeachable testimony is forthcoming of his innocence.

I. THE TESTIMONY ELICITED BY PILATE. (Luk 23:1-7,) The accusation made against Christ was twofold:

(1) forbidding to pay tribute;

(2) assuming royalty.

Now, the first part of the accusation was totally false. Jesus, when asked about the tribute, had expressly advised the people to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” There could be no conflict of interests between the emperor and Christ so far as tribute was concerned. Doubtless upon this first point Pilate received ample assurance that it was groundless, When, again, he inquired about Christ’s royalty, he was told that his kingship was not earthly, but spiritual. Although Pilate could not grasp its exact meaning, he saw sufficient to assure him that it was on a different plane from that of Caesar’s. Hence Pilate declared his innocence before his accusers. Upon this the chief priests and scribes were reduced to the complaint that he was stirring up the people from Galilee to Judaea. Strange complaint, that Jesus was rousing up his fellows! He was troubling Israel very much as Elias had done. Men are in desperate need of an accusation when they resort to this one, which merely means that the accused one is in downright earnest! As soon as Pilate hears of Christ’s earnestness in Galilee, he inquires if he belongs to Herod’s jurisdiction, and is happy to hand him over for trial to the Idumean.

II. THE TESTIMONY BORNE BY HEROD. (Luk 23:8-12.) We have next to notice how Herod has unconsciously to testify to Christ’s innocence. The murderer of the Baptist thinks, now that Jesus is brought before him, that he has only to express a wish for a miracle, and it will be gratified. To his great surprise and humiliation he receives no answer to his numerous questions; nor do the fierce calumnies of the Jews elicit from the meek Messiah a single word in mitigation or defense. The treatment of Herod was that of silent contempt. The wicked king deserved no other fate. And his only revenge was to mock Christ and set him at naught. So they array him in a robe such as the high priests wore, white and brilliant, indicating at once what he pretended to be and how innocent he really was. Herod, in sending him back in this scornful fashion, conveyed to Pilate’s mind clearly that he had no more fault to find with him than the Roman governor had. This was the second testimony to the innocency of Jesus.

III. THE TESTIMONY IMPLIED BY THE DEMAND FOR BARABBAS. (Luk 23:13-19.) In no clearer way could the chief priests have shown the utter groundlessness of their first charge than in demanding Barabbas in preference to Jesus. Here was a real rebel, who had committed murder in the insurrection, and he is made the idol of the Jewish populace. They show in this their sympathy with sedition. They show clearly to Pilate that Jesus must be thwarting in some way their seditious designs, else they would not clamor so eagerly for his blood. Instead of substantiating their accusation against Jesus, therefore, they really formulate an accusation of treason against themselves. They were guilty; he was innocent. They were the dangerous class; Jesus occupied a region altogether outside the interests of Caesar.

IV. JESUS SACRIFICED TO POPULAR CLAMOUR. (Luk 23:20-25.) There is no show of justice in condemning Christ. All accusation against him fails, and all which can be done is to shout him down. If Jesus be not crucified, Jerusalem will go into revolt. Will not an emeute be worse than the death of an individual? And so the worldly governor, charged by Rome to keep the peace in the province at all hazards, prefers to deliver the innocent to the will of the guilty than to brave their wrath. It is clamor that secures his condemnation. The judge, who should be the protector of the innocent, unites with the populace in doing him to death. Alas! that men should be so bent on peace as to be ready to sacrifice the innocent to secure it! And yet our Lord’s character never shone with so bright a lustre as when he submitted to such wrongs as these. He was truly meek and lowly in heart when he bore so quietly the wrath of the Jews and the time-serving policies of Pilate and Herod. This friendship of Herod and of Pilate, resting on a common indifference to Jesus, is the emblem of those worldly truces which men make who wish to enjoy immunity from trouble; but they do not wear well.R.M.E.

Luk 23:26-46

The merciful Savior on the cross.

Delivered unto the will of the Jews by the indecision of Pilate, Jesus accepts the cross, and proceeds under its crushing weight towards Calvary. But seeing him fainting under it, they press Simon the Cyrenian into service, and he has the everlasting honor of carrying the end of the beam after Jesus. Thus is it in all life’s burdensthe weighty end of them is carried by the sympathetic Master, while the lighter end he allows his people to carry after him. And here we must notice

I. HIS CONSIDERATION FOR JERUSALEM‘S WEEPING DAUGHTERS. (Luk 23:27-31.) The victim of ‘Rome’s cruelty, he has enlisted the sympathy of many weeping women. They see in his death the departure of their best earthly Friend. It is the moment of their deepest sorrow. But Jesus tells them to reserve their tears for themselves. This death of his will lead inevitably to the destruction of Jerusalem and to the dire calamities of the nation. These will be much more lamentable than any sorrows through which he is now to pass. Why, then, does he call upon them to weep? Manifestly that their timely repentance may ensure their escaping the troubles which are so surely coming upon the earth. But the self-forgetful attitude of Jesus is surely most instructive. He thinks not of himself, but of their hard case, even though on his journey to the cross. It is the most perfect consideration for others’ welfare, and the most beautiful forgetfulness of one’s own, that he here exhibits.

II. HE WAS NUMBERED WITH THE TRANSGRESSORS. (Luk 23:32, Luk 23:33.) There was something peculiarly contemptuous in the arrangement of Jesus between two notable criminals. They were robbersperhaps had been associates of Barabbas. They had committed, most probably, murder in the insurrection, so that the cross was the rightful end of such careers. But to number Jesus, the innocent, with them, to make him one with the greatest criminals then available, was diabolical! And yet he does not protest. Nay, he is willing to be thus identified that he may save even one of his associates. And yet, is not this arrangement, which numbered him with the transgressors, simply the outward expression of the great fact which is the foundation of our salvation? ]f Jesus had not voluntarily taken up the position of substitute, and identified himself with sinners, we should never have been redeemed.

III. INTERCESSION FROM THE CROSS. (Luk 23:34.) It was ignorance on the part of many which led to this great crime, but culpable ignorance. They should have known better. They needed forgiveness for it. They are the subjects of his intercession. He prays. “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” There never had been such a forgiving spirit manifested since the world began. No wonder that the dying scenes took on ever after a new halo, and that martyrs were able, in spite of suffering, to forgive their murderers and intercede for their salvation! It was the glory of patience which was manifested upon the cross.

IV. THE CHARGE OF SELF–NEGLECT. (Luk 23:35-38.) As they walk round the cross in their selfishness, the Jews charge Jesus with self-neglect. He had saved others, but now he does not try to save himself. If he would only show that he can take care of “number one,” they would believe on him. Assuredly we have here the self-revelation of the world. The world believes in the selfish, self-seeking leaders of men. A Napoleon or Caesar, who is willing to sacrifice millions of men to gratify his ambition, is believed inat all events for a time! But Jesus, who sacrifices himself, is derided. Yet in the end the kingship of the self-sacrificing Savior is acknowledged. The true King of the Jews is he who could lay down his life for his subjects, and so redeem them.

V. THE FIRST RECOGNIZER OF CHRIST‘S KINGSHIP. (Luk 23:39-43.) One in the vast assemblage, however, sees below the surface, and recognizes the sovereignty of self sacrifice. At first reviling Christ, he had come to see, beneath the meek exterior of the Savior, the real regal spirit. Hence he changes sides, begins to rebuke the other malefactor who continues his unholy maledictions, and then quietly implores the Lord to remember him when he comes in his kingdom. The poor robber, who had perhaps fought under some false Messiah, and knew what Jewish hopes were, believes that this meek and suffering One upon the cross beside him will yet come to his kingdom. When that advent is to be he knows not. But even in the far-off time it will be well for him to be remembered by him. Thus he prays, and is answered. But “To. day shalt thou be with me in Paradise,” is the blessed hope set before him. Paradise is part of his kingdom, and the dying robber will be with Jesus in its peaceful bowers that very day. What a hope to be opened up to the dying man! What comfort it gave him, and should give to us!

VI. THE CONSUMMATION. (Luk 23:44-46.) After these preliminaries are settled, the dealing of Jesus with the Father himself comes on. It was meet that a veil of darkness should surround the suffering Son and the righteous Father. The Priest and the Victim, who offered himself without spot to God, should in deep darkness pass through the act of unexampled worship. No wonder also that the veil of the temple was rent in the midst; for it was exactly this which his death secureda way into the holiest through the rent veil of his flesh. And then, when the cry of desolation, that loud and bitter cry, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” had given place to quiet assurance, and amid returning light the last cry from the cross went up to heaven, “Father, into thy hands! commend my spirit!” it was meet that he should quietly surrender his life and give up the ghost. There is much to encourage and strengthen us in this consummation on the cross.R.M.E.

Luk 23:47-56

The consequences of our Savior’s death.

Our Lord died in the light. The disappearance of the darkness before his decease was an outward symbol of the light and serenity which came across his spirit. His departure exercised a powerful influence upon all around the cross. Let us notice the consequences of the death, as detailed by Luke.

I. THE ROMAN CENTURION WAS CONVINCED OF CHRIST‘S RIGHTEOUSNESS AND DIVINE SONSHIP.

The smiting on the breast was a sign of perplexity and penitence. They were evidently humiliated that they had so treated One who could so nobly die. If the conviction of the centurion was an earnest of the conversion of the pagan world, this was an earnest of the conversion of the Jewish (cf. Godet, in loc.). The meek and quiet spirit with which Christ died broke down their hard-heartedness more than any other course could have done; so that its effect was a manifest preparation for the triumphs of the Pentecost. And should not a Christian’s death strike alarm into the heart of unbelievers, suggesting to them the possibility of their being unable to meet death with becoming courage?

III. His ACQUAINTANCE AND THE WOMEN FROM GALILEE ARE PETRIFIED WITH ASTONISHMENT. (Verse 49.) “They stood,” we are told, “afar off.“ They were so unmanned that they could not venture nigh. To them the death was inexplicable. It was apparently the defeat of all their hopes. It was a crushing blow. No mystery in providence had ever appeared to them exactly like this. They were ready to say, with Jacob, “All these things are against us.” Is this not the position of God’s people often? They have entertained bright hopes about the Master and his cause, but have found them fading away like summer flowers, so that they stand perplexed and afar off before God’s providences. Is it not the dark hour before the dawn? Is it not the travail-hour before the jubilance of birth? The disciples experienced this, and so may we. Before apparent defeat, let us always exclaim by faith, “It is real victory.”

IV. JOSEPH OF ARIMATHAEA IS LED BY CHRIST‘S DEATH TO REAL DECISION. (Verses 50-52.) Joseph, a good and just man, had been for some time, we know not how long, a “secret disciple” of Jesus. Nicodemus and he seemed to be in the same category, and perhaps they were led into faith about the same time. In the Sanhedrin they had done all that timid men could to prevent the crime of the Crucifixion; but popular feeling was always too strong for them. They had not as yet taken the bold step of professing to belong to Christ. But, strange to say, the death of Jesus, the apparent defeat of his cause, determined them both to be professors. Joseph accordingly goes and boldly begs the body from Pilate, that he may lay it in his own new tomb, while Nicodemus goes off to procure the needful spices. And here have we what seems a law in God’s kingdom. Successors always appear to carry on his work. Christ’s death induces two at least to join his cause at once. As the apparently important pass away, it is only to be succeeded by others, and perhaps a larger number, to take up the fallen banner and prove their faithfulness. Apparent calamities are splendid tests of characterthey call forth the brave!

V. CHRIST‘S FUNERAL COULD ONLY BE A TEMPORARY INTERMENT. (Verses 53-56.) It was necessary that the body should be put away before the sabbath began. Now, if he died a little after three o’clock, there were less than three hours to complete the interment. There could not be the customary embalmment. All that was possible was to wrap the dear remains in linen with spices, and then, if nothing prevented, to complete the embalmment on the first day of the week. It was a hurried burial, therefore, and by compulsion a temporary one. Yet “with the rich was his tomb.” It was in a virgin sepulcher, so to speak, he lay for a season, just as he had lain in the Virgin’s womb. It was so far private also that none apparently but the immediate friends and acquaintances followed the funeral. All the circumstances combined to make the funeral and interment most singular. It was well known where they laid him; it was known that they intended completing the embalmment on the first day of the week; his enemies had every opportunity, therefore, to prevent any imposture about a resurrection. All was above-board, like everything in our Lord’s life. Consequently there was in the burial of Jesus a noble foundation laid for that crowning hope of resurrection. We shall see that there was every advantage offered to those who wished to expose duplicity about his rising again. It was the most important burial and most hopeless, so far as the mourners were concerned. They above all others seemed oblivious of all promise of resurrection,R.M.E.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Luk 23:1-2. And the whole multitudearose, &c. At break of day Christ was brought before Pilate, and charged with three capital crimes,perverting the nation,forbidding to give tribute to Caesar,and saying that he himself was Christ, a king.They did not chargehim with calling himself the Son of God, knowing very well that Pilate would not have concerned himself with such an accusation, which no way affected the state. All the three crimes with which the Jews charge him, were only inferences of theirs from the saying that he was the Son of God; (Ch. Luk 22:70.) They themselves drew imaginary consequences from his doctrine, which he had expresslydenied; nay, and taught the contrary: they who oppose his followers, still use the same method. Pontius Pilate finding this, (for it is most probable that he examined them as to the precise words which Christ had spoken,) their accusation had no weight with him.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Luk 23:1-3 . Comp. on Mat 27:2 ; Mat 27:11 ; Mar 15:1-2 . Luke relates the special charge, Luk 23:2 , very precisely. [260] The preliminary investigation of the case before the Sanhedrim, Luk 22:66 ff., had yielded the result, that Jesus asserted that He was the Messiah. This they now apply in presence of the political power to the political (anti-Roman) side.

] Beginning of the accusation scene.

.] perverting, misleading . Comp. Polyb. 5:41. 1 : ; Sir 11:34 .

. .] our nation , Joh 11:50 .

] mediately, to wit, by representing Himself, etc. [261]

] a King-Messiah . is added in connection with the political turn which they gave to the charge.

[260] Marcion, as quoted by Epiph., has enriched the accusation with two points more, namely, after : . , and after . : . .

[261] Thus, according to the Recepta , . Still the reading (B L T , vss.) is, with Tischendorf, to be preferred, in which the two points . . . and . . . are put forward independently. How easily the might drop out after !

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

3. Pilate and Herod

a. JESUS LED TO PILATE, INTERROGATED BY HIM, AND FOUND INNOCENT (Luk 23:1-4)

1And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate. 2And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the1 nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cesar, saying that he himself is Christ a king. 3And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it. 4Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people [crowds, ], I find no fault in this man.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Luk 23:1. And led Him.The solemn leading away of our Lord to Pilate, and His delivery to him, is one of the particulars of the history of the Passion which all the Evangelists visibly emphasize. No wonder, for the process herewith enters upon an entirely new stadium, and passes now from the spiritual to the secular sphere. As to the time and manner of the leading away, as to the sequence of events and the character of the judge, see Lange on Mat 27:1. As respects this whole trial, compare, moreover, besides the writers whom inter alios, Hase, Leben Jesu, 3, gives, the Dissertatio, by the Dutch divine, P. J. J. Mounier, De Pilati in causa servatoris agendi ratione, L. B. 1825. As respects the source from which we draw our knowledge of what here took place, the gospel of Nicodemus, it is true, contains some traits, which, on internal grounds, appear credible, but, on the whole, it has only this value, that we know from it how, in the fifth and sixth century, they represented to themselves this process. In the Acts, and in the epistles also, there are not wanting descriptive allusions to that which took place under the Roman Procurator (Act 3:13-14; Act 4:27; 1Ti 6:13). But here, also, the four gospels remain the chief source, belying here in no way their respective peculiarities. While the Synoptics, namely, delineate to us especially the public side of the trial, John alone makes known to us what passed between our Lord and the Procurator in private. Matthew, who more than the others, even in the beginning of his gospel, speaks of dreams and visions, is the only one who gives account of the remarkable dream of Pilates wife, as well, too, as of the genuinely Israelitish ceremony of the washing of Pilates hands. Mark describes, in his way, briefly, vigorously, rapidly, how the Lion of the tribe of Judah hurries over the field of conflict to His complete triumph. Luke has enriched the delineation of this trial with a new particular, with the appearance before Herod, but at the same time condenses the occurrences more closely, takes more account of arranging the facts than of the sequence of time, and even passes over in almost entire silence the scourging and mocking by the Roman soldiers. The actual commencement of the trial John alone describes, Luk 18:28-32. On the other hand, we owe to Luke, Luk 23:2, the very precise statement of the actual ground of accusation with which the chief priests open the series of their charges.

Unto Pilate.The question whether we, by the , have to understand the well-known tower Antonia, or the palace of Herod, we believe that we must answer in the former sense; for it was in the tower Antonia that the Roman garrison lay, and the Procurator, therefore, during his temporary abode in the capital, might best lodge there. Tradition does not permit us to identify the places named, and it is entirely arbitrary to consider the palace of Herod as the established and ordinary residence of the Procurators in their visits to Jerusalem. Josephus, De Bell. Jdg 2:14; Jdg 2:8; Philo, De Legatione Judorum, p. 1034, to whom appeal is commonly made in favor of Herods palace, leave it entirely undecided whether this palace was always, and also at the time of Jesus, the residence of the governor. The above tower Antonia we are to look for on the northeast side of the temple mountain, while the place Gabbatha, according to Josephus, also lay between the tower Antonia and the western corner of the temple, immediately before the judgment-hall.

Luk 23:2. And they began.It is not easy for them so to introduce the case as to make from the very beginning a favorable impression upon Pilate. The substance as well as the tone of their address betrays plainly enough that they intend this. , first, , without statement of name, with visible contempt: , with affected gravity, with which the subsequent declaration of Pilate that he had found no fault in Him, he, as little as Herod, Luk 23:14, singularly contrasts: , with the full warmth of genuine friends of the people, who cannot endure that their true interests should be set at stake. Comp. Joh 7:49. The accusation itself is threefold. First, He perverts the people, . Properly, He gives them a false direction, He brings them from the good way on which they themselves and the Romans with them would be so glad to see them walk. Moreover, He forbids to give tribute to the Emperor, since Heand this is the ground as well of the one as of the other offencefinally declares concerning Himself that He is Christ a King. Not without ground do they as yet intentionally avoid speaking of a king of the Jews, although it at once appears that Pilate interprets their indefinite expression in no less significance. With noticeable tact they place first not the religious but the political side of their imputations, and then, before making the attempt to prove, at least in some measure, their false accusation, they wait until Pilate himself shall inquire for the grounds of their assertion. He, however, already knows the Jews well enough, and therefore appeals as quickly as possible from the accusers to the Accused.

Luk 23:3. Art thou the King of the Jews?Pilate, not unacquainted with the prevailing Messianic hope, formulates his question very precisely, and seeks to find out whether Jesus is really the promised and long-sighed-for King of Israel. To this question our Lord cannot possibly answer otherwise than, without delay and without the least equivocalness, with Yes. By denial or silence He would have come into contradiction with Himself. And if it is alleged that our Lord would have had to define more particularly the sense in which He called Himself so, since otherwise a misunderstanding on the part of the heathen ruler would have been possible, we may confidently assume that the tone as well as the manner in which He uttered His answer was fully calculated to excite the Procurator to a more particular investigation. And indeed He attains this purpose, inasmuch as Pilate takes Him apart with himself, that He may now more particularly explain and give the reason for His affirmative answer.

Luk 23:4. I find no fault in this man.According to Meyer, Pilate finds in the confession itself the token of innocence.It is, in his view, the expression of the fixed idea of an enthusiast. Possible, certainly, although for this opinion not a single proof can be given, but the question would still remain whether such an instantaneous and merely subjective impression would have entitled the Procurator, without further investigation, to declare the Accused at once innocent, and, secondly, if his declaration had been accepted, to relieve him immediately of any further prosecution. We are much more disposed to assume that Pilate, after the first public audience, which all the Synoptics give, ordered then the private hearing, which John alone has preserved, and only in consequence of this uttered the declaration of innocence which Luke, Luk 23:4; Joh 18:38, relate. In the private interview of Pilate with Jesus, the charge preferred Luk 23:2, it is manifest, is tacitly presupposed. Here, also, Luke remains really unintelligible if he is not complemented from John.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The leading away of Jesus is one of the most remarkable turning points in the history of the Passion. It serves not only to fulfil our Lords declaration that He should be delivered over to the Gentiles, Luk 18:32, but it also brings the Passion of our Lord into direct connection with the history of the world, the reins of which, at that time, God had, as it were, placed in the hands of the Romans. It becomes the means of bringing to Him, again according to His own declaration, the death on the cross, but previously prepares, through the declaration of Pilate which it elicits, the revelation of His innocence and majesty. The Jews rejection of the Messiah is here already, in principle, decided, and with it, at the same time, also, the destruction of the City and of the Temple. While the Sanhedrim, therefore, is leading Him away, it declares therewith that it will not have this Messiah, and gives the promised salvation out of its own hands into the impure hands of heathens. From this hour Israels Passover becomes an empty echo, and Israel itself, like an impure leaven, is purged out of the house of God, the church of Christ. But thus do they, at the same time, help to fulfil Gods everlasting counsel, that all things should be comprehended under one head in Christ, Eph 1:10. From the moment when the Great Sufferer trod the threshold of the heathen dwelling, the wall of partition which was between is broken down, Eph 2:14-16, and the heathen world invited in to a nobler feast of freedom than Israel was able to celebrate in the paschal night. As the night, Act 16:9-10, was for the spiritual weal of Europe a decisive one, so was this morning for the salvation of the whole heathen world.

2. It is one of the most adorable ways of the providence of God, that at the very time at which Christ must die, a man stood at the head of the government in Judea, who in every respect was most peculiarly fitted to be, in his ignorance, a minister of the counsel of God for the salvation of the world,on the one hand, receptive enough to recognize the truth, courageous enough to declare it and to confess several times the innocence of our Lord, conscientious enough to omit no effort to deliver Him; but, on the other hand, moreover, so weak that he loved honor among men rather than honor from God, and so selfish that his own honor lay more at heart with him than the cause of the innocent.We feel that just such a man must the secular judge have been, under whom the Deliverer of the world should suffer death.

3. By the delivery of our Lord to Pilate, the heathen world now becomes partaker with the Jewish world in the greatest wickedness that has ever been committed. In this it appears that the true light is hated as well by those who are under the law as by those who are without the law, and the judgment Rom 3:19-20, appears as a perfectly righteous one. But, at the same time, there is also revealed therein the grace of God, as having appeared to all who believe, without respect of persons, Rom 3:21-31.

4. The very manner in which the chief priests here introduce the secular process reveals from the very beginning the part which they are now resolved to play. No means, even slander, is too base for them; for we can only call it thoroughly conscious slander when they, after what had taken place three days before, Luk 20:20-25, yet venture with bold brow to assert that our Lord had forbidden the payment of taxes. Sometimes they come creeping, sometimes they spitefully erect themselves, and prove therewith that they do homage to the principle: the end sanctifies the means. And scarcely have they failed in one attempt when they proceed immediately with desperate stubbornness to another. So much more gloriously beams over against this night of wickedness the glory of the immaculate innocence of the Lord, to which Pilate must repeatedly bear witness. In union with other voices which were audible in honor of the moral purity of Jesus In the last hours of His life, from different sides, the testimony of Pilate also serves to strengthen us in our most holy faith, that the Lamb of God is indeed an . The connection in which this sinlessness of our Lord stands with the atoning virtue of His death, is something which it is the business of Dogmatics to bring to view.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The early morning hour of the most remarkable day of the worlds history.The most terrible injustice practised under the forms of law.The King of the Jews delivered into the hands of the Gentiles.Christ the centre of the union of the Jewish and the heathen world: 1. The sins of both He, a. reveals, b. bears, c. covers; 2. both He reconciles in one body, a. with God, b. with one another, c. with heaven, Col 1:19-20.Slander against our Lord and His people: 1. Inexhaustible in its weapons; 2. impotent for victory.Jesus the Faithful Witness, Rev 1:5.Thou sayest it: 1. The truth; 2. the dignity; 3. the requirement, of this utterance.The first favorable impression which the Accused makes upon His yet impartial judge.The immaculate innocence of the Suffering One: 1. Slandered; 2. vindicated; 3. crowned.The praiseworthy manner in which Pilate opens the trial of Jesus, in contrast with the lamentable way in which he ends it.Pilate the image of the natural man in his relation to Christ.

Starke:They who would otherwise have no communion with one another easily become one when one must help the other to carry out his evil schemes.Quesnel:There is no course of life so righteous and innocent that it cannot be accused and persecuted.Brentius:Judge not at once, but hear also the other side.Nova Bibl. Tub.:One finds often even more uprightness in a heathen than in a Christian judge.Osiander:Christ has suffered not for His sin but for ours, 2Co 5:21.Heubner:The preacher of obedience is charged with insurrection.Jesus, it is true, has caused the greatest imaginable commotions.Arndt:The first hearing of Jesus before the Procurator; how Pilate has to do: 1. With the Jews; 2. with our Lord.Krummacher:Christ before Pilate: 1. The leading away of Jesus to Pilate; 2. His entry into the judgment-hall; 3. the beginning of the judicial proceeding.The accusations.Christ a King.The Lamb of God.Tholuck:The history of the Passion makes evident in Pilate to what degree the human heart is capable of becoming shallow and frivolous.J. B. Hasebroeck, Preacher in Amsterdam:Pilate: 1. As man: 2. as Judges 3. as witness to us.

Footnotes:

[1]Luk 23:2.With Lachmann, Tischendorf, [Meyer, Tregelles,] we read on the authority of B., D., [Cod. Sin., H.,] K., L., M., [R.,] Cursives, &c., . [Alford omits it, regarding it as a probable reminiscence of Luk 7:5.C. C. S.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

DISCOURSE: 1581
CHRISTS ACCUSATION BEFORE PILATE

Luk 23:1-3. And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Csar, saying that he himself is Christ a King. And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.

UNANIMITY in any cause is no proof that the cause is good: nothing is requisite but to raise an outcry, and the passions of the multitude are soon heated; and, if there be a few artful and designing men to head them, they will concur in measures the most violent, and in acts the most atrocious. Never was this more awfully exemplified than in the conduct of the Jews towards our blessed Lord. Of all the Benefactors that nation ever beheld, Jesus was by far the greatest: yet there we find the whole multitude of the Jews, with the priests and elders at their head, leading Jesus before the Roman governor, in order to obtain against him the sentence of death.
We would call your attention to,

I.

The transaction itself

Here are three things to be noticed;

1.

The virulence of the accusation

[How contemptuously, how maliciously, how falsely, do they speak against him! He pervert the nation! Had they called him the Instructor of the nation, the Healer of the nation, the Saviour of the nation, they had done well: but to call him the Perverter of the nation, was a calumny, which one would have thought his bitterest enemies would not have dared to utter. It was not long since the very question had been publicly submitted to him; and his express answer was, Render unto Csar the things that are Csars, and unto God the things that are Gods [Note: Luk 20:25.]. What he thus enjoined on his followers, he had before sanctioned by his example, having actually wrought a miracle on purpose to pay his tribute [Note: Mat 17:25-27.]. And when the people would have taken him to make him a king, he by a miracle rendered himself invisible, and withdrew himself from them [Note: Joh 6:15.].]

2.

The subtlety of his accusers

[They formed their accusation so as to influence the person whose decision they desired. Before the High Priest, they accused him of blasphemy; but before Pilate, of sedition; that so they might interest the feelings of each, and procure from both a sentence of condemnation against him. Their pretended zeal for the honour of the Roman emperor, was especially calculated to make a favourable impression on him, who, as Csars deputy, now governed Juda as a province of the Roman empire.

Their accusation too was founded upon assertions made by our Lord himself. He doubtless had frequently declared that he was the Christ, the King of Israel. His triumphant entry into Jerusalem but four days before, and his approbation of the Hosannas of his followers, amounted to a declaration, that he was the person spoken of by the prophet, Behold thy King cometh unto thee, riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass [Note: Zec 9:9.].

But did he therefore pervert the people, or claim for himself the tribute that was due to Csar? No: their premises in a certain sense, were true; but their conclusions from them were utter falsehood. They knew, however, that logical precision was not wanted in such a cause: when passion and prejudice guide the judgment, a specious plea will pass for substantial reason, and the semblance of truth will operate as forcibly as truth itself; especially where the accuser espouses the cause of the judge, and the accused is represented as his enemy.]

3.

The dignity of the accused

[He preserved silence in the midst of all the accusations which were brought against him; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly [Note: Mat 27:12-14.]. And well he might marvel, that not a word of anger, or complaint, or self-vindication, should escape him. But Jesus was mute and passive, like a sheep led to the slaughter [Note: Isa 53:7.], and committed himself to him that judgeth righteously.

Nevertheless, when interrogated by his judge, he did answer, Yea, and witnessed a good confession. Art thou the king of the Jews? saith Pilate. Thou sayest right, replied our Lord; I am. He would not dissemble, nor for a moment hide such an important truth. He was prepared to endure all consequences, and to yield up his life in the very way that his enemies desired. And, as the Jewish Sanhedrim had already condemned him on his own confession [Note: Luk 22:71.], so he was willing that the Roman governor should follow their example. He was alike unmoved by impatience or revenge, by hopes or fears.]

II.

The improvement that should be made of it

The followers of Christ are called to tread in his steps. Would we then approve ourselves worthy of that high calling? let us,

1.

Expect all manner of evil to be spoken of us falsely for his sake

[He has warned us plainly to expect it [Note: Mat 5:11.]: and experience proves that we ought to be prepared for it Our enemies will not only take advantage of any thing we say or do, to build malignant reports upon it; but will be sure to impute our conduct to false principles, and to load our principles with consequences not at all deducible from them. We preach salvation by faith only i therefore we are enemies to morality: We are instant in season and out of season; and therefore we are irregular, and enemies to the established Church If they would inquire, they would soon find that the very reverse of what they affirm is true: but they desire our condemnation; and therefore they make up by confidence and clamour, what they want in truth and equity Thus was our Lord himself treated; and if they called the Master of the house Beelzebub, much more will they those of his household [Note: See 1Ki 18:17. Jer 38:4. Est 3:8-9. Act 17:6-7; Act 24:5.].]

2.

Submit with meekness to whatever evils we may be called to suffer

[Our blessed Lord has suffered, leaving us an example, that we should follow his steps. It is true, it is not easy to preserve meekness and resignation amidst all the treatment which we experience from unreasonable and wicked men: but we should endeavour to walk as Christ walked: and be willing to be made perfect through sufferings, even as he was. Let patience then have its perfect work; and, when led to indulge an impatient spirit, beg of God to strengthen you with all might by his Spirit in your inward man ]

3.

Be steadfast and immoveable in the maintenance of our principles

[Many occasions may arise wherein we may be tempted to conceal our principles: but it is better to confess them openly, and suffer for them, than to violate our conscience and offend our God. We are expressly commanded not to fear man, who can only kill the body; but to fear God, who can destroy both body and soul in hell. We do not recommend it to any one to court persecution by a voluntary declaration of his principles to those who will only make them grounds of offence; (for that were to cast pearls before swine;) but whenever called to give an account of our faith, let us follow the example of our Lord, and at the risk of our lives witness a good confession.]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

CONTENTS

The Lord Jesus is hurried away before Pilate, and accused. He sends Christ to Herod; where he is mocked, and sent back to Pilate. The unjust Governor condemns him to Death; and Christ is led away to Execution. The Lord’s Death and Burial.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

“And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate. (2) And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King. (3) And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it. (4) Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man. (5) And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place. (6) When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean. (7) And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time. (8) And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him. (9) Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing. (10) And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him. (11) And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate. (12) And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.”

It forms a very interesting part, in my view of those solemn scenes, to observe how the Lamb of God is worried before his death, in those many wearisome journies he is compelled to make, in walking from one place to another to gratify the malice of his enemies. And I beg the Reader to observe with me, that, as in all those places Christ received the same contempt and mockery, at the house of the High Priest, and at the palaces of Pilate and Herod, whether the whole was not intended for the greater humiliation of the Son of God, because, in that humiliation, the vast merit of his redemption-work consisted. It was the Son of God, as God, vacating, or emptying himself of his own personal glory, as God-Man-Mediator, which constituted the infinite preciousness of his undertaking, as our Surety, and which gave such an infinite, and never to be fully recompensed value, both to his active and passive righteousness, both to his doing and dying. I would entreat the Reader, methinks, to pass over, in this sublime subject, every other consideration, to attend wholly to this one. The part which those wretched characters, Pilate and Herod, with the whole Jewish crew, wreaking their malice upon the person of Christ, is a matter of no moment to regard, compared to this one. This forms the blessedness of the whole subject. This renders the whole so inexpressibly great and glorious. For the more the child of God is enabled by the Holy Ghost to enter into a suitable apprehension of this distinguishing feature of character in our Lord, as Redeemer, the infinitely higher will the merit of his sacrifice rise in his esteem.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

With Me in Paradise

Luk 23:3

We have heard the first word of peace: the priestly intercession for the transgressors. Now we listen to the comfortable word that the Son of man addresses to one who truly turns to Him. There is a natural sequence: first the sinner, then the penitent The prayer of Christ is no sooner uttered than it begins to be answered. The firstfruits of the cross is the malefactor who hangs by Jesus’ side.

And the robber receives a message of peace. Christ’s gift to him is the entire absolution of the penitent, the assurance of a speedy entrance into the Paradise of God, the pledge of fellowship in the joy of his Lord.

The answer is the saving utterance of royal favour, of priestly power, of Divine peace: ‘Verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise’. It is absolution certain, immediate, complete.

I. It is certain. ‘Verily I say unto thee,’ ‘Amen, I say’. The words are familiar, to all readers of the Gospels, as Christ’s accustomed phrase in declaring a truth of peculiar significance. The promise made to the dying thief is a revelation of the state of the blessed dead, for whose absolute reality Christ pledges His honour, His character, His truth. It is no statement of opinion, no expression of probability, no protestation of moral certainty that is here involved. ‘Amen, I say,’ is the ipse dixit of one who claims to know. In the awful moments, when amid the agonies of the cross the sands of life were fast running out, is it possible to account for the calm assurance of the meek, the gentle, the patient Son of man, as He not only accepts the homage of His fellow-sufferer, but accords to him a place of light and refreshment in the unseen world, if this word be not spoken out of that serene life of the Eternal, where there are no shadows? Let us thank God for the Amen of Calvary. ‘Verily, verily I say unto you,’ is not the teacher’s trick of phrase, the unconscious exaggeration of the controversialist, the eager emphasis with which the preacher’s enthusiasm marks his words. Such eloquence deserts the sufferer in the day of agony and the hour of death. It is the peace of an eternal certainty that breathes in the unfaltering pledge. ‘Amen, I say unto thee.’

II. The absolution is immediate. The robber had recognised the Messiah in the dying Jesus. But it was a far, indefinite future to which he looked forward. His was not the ‘sure and certain hope’ of the Christian. For the present all is over: a few hours and the curtain of night will cover up this earthly scene. And then ah, what? The terrors of death and judgment and, it may be far, far off, the coming of the kingdom. If only then, whensoever that kingdom come, the Messiah will not forget him! ‘Remember me when thou comest in Thy kingdom.’ ‘And Jesus said unto him, Verily 1 say unto thee, Today.’ Life is not the possibility of the remote future; forgiveness is an actual fact; salvation is a present power. ‘He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life.’ That is the law of absolution. ‘Thy sins are forgiven.’ ‘To-day shalt thou be with Me.’

III. The absolution is complete. ‘With Me’ full communion; ‘in Paradise’ eternal rest.

J. G. Simpson, C hristus Crucifixus, p. 256.

References. XXIII. 4. F. B. Cowl, Preacher’s Magazine, vol. xvii. p. 571. XXIII. 6-12. W. C. Wheeler, Sermons and Addresses, p. 108.

Herod the Tetrarch

Luk 23:7-8

The student of the artless and strangely passionless story of the cross notices many marvellous things which escape the less observant reader. One of them is this. All the actors in the drama of the Gospel history seem to be compelled, as by an inexorable fate, to appear on the stage in the last scene of all. Sadducees and Pharisees, governors and priests, disciples who were loyal to Him and disciples who were base, men who loved Him secretly, and women whom nothing daunted all pass into His light, and in the passing receive their judgment. Here is Herod, who belonged to Galilee, who scorned Juda, and detested the Jews, who was at enmity with Pilate, and yet ‘he also was at Jerusalem at that time’. And here is Herod who had never seen Jesus, though with a vulgar curiosity he had often desired to see Him, who has had little to do with Jesus, though he had played his part in the Gospel story, and yet because Pilate, with the astuteness of the trained lawyer, saw his way of escape from being the judge of Jesus, under the plea that He ‘belonged to Herod’s jurisdiction,’ Herod also is brought face to face with Jesus. He stands for only one half-hour in Christ’s presence, but as he stands we see into his very soul. It is not the deaf conjunction of the writer of fiction not the artifice of discerning literature. It is the finger of God.

I. Herod Antipas was one of the many sons of Herod the Great. That Herod was the man who murdered his wife who had sacrificed everything for him, and his two sons, who faithfully served him, and in his closing days lived in an atmosphere of jealous and vengeful blood-thirstiness. The massacre of the few innocents at Bethlehem was only a detail in a career of ruthless butchery. He was a man who could pretend to any religion, or make the more truthful profession of having none, as it best suited his purpose. But he professed the Jewish faith, and his children were trained in Hebrew learning. The Herodians were the party in the State who were willing to accept him as the promised King of Israel. Without committing ourselves to any confident conclusions as to the complex laws of heredity, we may allow that young Herod was not born in a saintly succession. Certainly he was weighted by tendencies in his blood, which would have made a holy life a sore struggle through all his years. Yet he reached manhood devoid of the tiger cruelty of his father; perhaps, by a natural reaction, revolting from it; open to suggestions of better things; at times moved by a dim vision of good. He was a type of young manhood very common among us.

The hour of determination came to this young worldling as it comes to all. He had to accept his poor share of his father’s dominions with unconcealed chagrin, as such a youth among us accepts the scanty provision of his father’s will, but he had administered the affairs of Galilee with only the usual Oriental oppression. He married most suitably, and began to court the favour of Rome, building Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee as his capital. But in an evil hour his eyes fell upon his brother Philip’s wife, Herodias. It was because this man had a burdened conscience that the religious revival, which was beating in so many young hearts in Galilee, became a thing of deep interest to him. It was because he had his uneasy spirit that he sought the companionship of so unlikely a court preacher as John. It was because he had his wounded spirit that he observed him, and did many things gladly, that he might get an anodyne for his pain.

II. From a story like this, not only lessons of arresting import, but great spiritual truths shine in upon mind and heart. One truth and its lesson would I urge. It is this: that the moment of decision for Christ may be one in which no word of Him, no thought of Him, and not even His name shall be consciously in your mind. Herod Antipas never saw the face of Jesus until that last fruitless half-hour. Herod Antipas never heard His voice. Herod Antipas never had Christ preached to Him. No! but in the hour when he trifled with his convictions, in the hour when he chose to keep his braggart oath to Salome, the dancing-girl, in the hour when he made the decision which had its awful consequences he decided against Christ. He made that decision which ranked him with the men of pride and lust and murder, and when he comes into Christ’s presence, the hall-mark of hell is on his face. The decision which determined his fate was made years before he saw the face of Jesus. It was too late then, Christ had no word for him.

W. M. Clow, The Day of the Gross, p. 43.

References. XXIII. 7. Expositor (6th Series), vol. vii. p. 133. XXIII. 7-11. Ibid. vol. ii. p. 119. XXIII. 8. Bishop Winnington-Ingram, The Men who Crucify Christ, p. 29. XXIII. 8, 9. Bishop Alexander, The Great Question, p. 171. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxviii. No. 1645.

Looking for the Wrong Thing

Luk 23:8-11

Man is always fond of conjuring and frivolity and entertainment. He divides the word into many different meanings, parts of meanings and applications, but it all comes to the same thing, that man likes to see something, or kill something, or be amused by something, or be entertained in any way, the less costly the better.

I. The case before us is that of Herod. When Pilate knew that Jesus Christ belonged to Herod’s jurisdiction he was right glad of it, an immense burden of responsibility was taken off his shoulders. Pilate sent Jesus to Herod, who happened to be at Jerusalem at that time. Never was weary man more glad of unexpected rest than Pilate was when he heard that this illustrious but mysterious Prisoner belonged to some other man’s jurisdiction. When Herod saw Jesus he was exceeding glad; it was in very deed the thing he had been waiting for day after day. Kings and rulers cannot rush into the streets to see all the irregular and eccentric characters which perplex the mind of the general populace; so they must have shows by command, and opportunities created by sovereign fiat or by personal charge. When Herod heard that Jesus Christ was actually in the house, he was not only glad, he was exceeding glad; for he was desirous to see Him of a long time, because he had heard many things of Him; he hoped to have seen some miracle done by Him. A miracle all to oneself, a miracle at home, a domestic festival, an opportunity of seeing the Conjurer close at hand, and watching the cunning manipulation, tracing the action of every finger and marking well the expression of the eyes. This was Herod’s opportunity. We all have that opportunity according to our varying conception of the term. When Herod saw Jesus he was exceeding glad. It is awful to think that a man may be interested in religion, and yet may be irreligious. There is an irreligious religion; there is an interest in piety which is impious.

II. Jesus does not accept the glittering opportunity, He declines it; He walks on higher levels, He breathes a purer air. But surely Herod was a man worth placating? No. A man? an insect, a worm. In relation to the eternal God there is no man worth placating in the common vulgar sense of that term. The only man with whom Jesus Christ will speak is the man of a broken heart; a broken and a contrite spirit He will not despise. He who thinks he can do Christ a favour, in the sense of conferring a patronage, has not begun to understand even the outline of the infinite character of the Son of God.

III. We get from Christ just what we bring to Him. If we bring a humble heart to Christ we receive a blessing; if we come behind Him and touch Him with the fingers of faith, then the wound is stanched and our youth is renewed. If we come saying, Lord, I am blind and poor and ignorant, what wouldst Thou have me do? teach me Thy will, O God, and give me grace and strength to obey it all; then Jesus Christ will hold the sun standing still, and the moon shall not depart from Ajalon till the great largess of His heart be poured out upon such suppliant penitence and sincerity. The proud He sendeth empty away. He has no message to pride. The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost; this Man receiveth sinners and eateth with them. He that is whole needeth not a physician, but he that is sick. Jesus Christ cured the sick, but He never cured a painted wound. The Son of man came to the sick, the afflicted, the sore of heart, but the proud, the respectable, the self-sufficing He sendeth empty away, and after them a wind of contempt.

Joseph Parker, City Temple Pulpit, vol. ii. p. 61.

References. XXIII. 9. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Luke, p. 286. XXIII. 11. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxiv. No. 2051. W. H. Evans, Short Sermons for the Seasons, p. 67. J. Watson, The Inspiration of our Faith, p. 108. XXIII. 13-26. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Luke, p. 296.

Luk 23:18

A passionate mob, with its unearthly admixture of laughter with fury, of vacancy with deadly concentration, is as terrible as some uncouth antediluvian, or the unfamiliar monsters of the sea, or one of the giant plants that make men shudder with mysterious fear.

John Morley, Miscellanies, vol. i. p. 22.

Thou shalt honour the right man, and not honour the wrong, under penalties of an alarming nature. Honour Barabbas, the Robber, thou shalt sell old clothes through the cities of the world: shalt accumulate sordid moneys, with a curse on every coin of them, and be spit upon for eighteen centuries.

Carlyle.

References. XXIII. 20, 21. T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. iii. p. 70. XXIII. 20-25. C. Stanford, The Evening of our Lord’s Ministry, p. 289. XXIII. 21. H. Bonar, Short Sermons for Family Beading, p. 157.

The Prevailing Voice

Luk 23:23

Every man is, like Pilate, consciously or unconsciously shaping life and quality and destiny by obedience to some voice or other, and the far-reaching test to which each honest soul must apply himself is as to which voice really prevails in his life. To which does he give most diligent heed, and of which is he most afraid when the call to resistance is upon him?

I. For there are clamant voices all round about us, keyed to many notes and loud in their call. Passion, pride, imagination, ambition are all appealed to in turn with varying degrees of strength, and it is a fact of experience that the voice to which obedience is given grows stronger, while simultaneously the remonstrating voice of conscience grows weaker and feebler.

There is the voice of sin, too, that voice which speaks in solitariness, and appeals for that which conscience as instantly condemns. Its call is to a reckless disregard of consequence, and its influence is like that of some sensuous music which hypnotises the senses and makes the hearer an unresisting victim. Like the tiger which has tasted blood and is never again satisfied without it, so sin is relentless in its demands. It constantly cries out concerning Christ, ‘Let Him be crucified,’ and the man who yields, and allows its voice to prevail over his judgment, his conscience, and his heart, is lost indeed.

II. In contest with all these voices seeking the attention and obedience of our hearts there ever sounds the voice of God, speaking in gentle insistence by Jesus Christ, ‘Come’ ‘Follow’ ‘Abide’. His voice comes in differing ways and by various media, but is seldom unrecognised by the heart or unattested by the conscience. It sounds in sorrow’s muffled peal as in the clash of joy-bells, and rings out in the darkness and in the sunlight alike. The fact that it has so often been unheeded, and that other voices have prevailed over it, never serves to change its entreaty or weaken its emphasis. And blessed is the man of whom it may be said with truth that ‘His voice prevailed’. For this is indeed the record of eternal life, when one can say with the conviction borne of an indubitable experience, ‘I heard the voice, I came to Jesus.’

J. Stuart Holden, The Pre-Eminent Lord, p. 11.

Reference. XXIII. 24. W. H. Simcox, The Cessation of Prophecy, p. 287.

Luk 23:26

Canon Carus tells how this verse proved a finger of light once to Simeon of Cambridge. ‘At an early period of his ministry, and when he was suffering severe opposition, he was in much doubt whether it was his duty to remain in Cambridge…. He opened his little Greek Testament, as he thought and intended, in the Epistles, and, finding the book upside down, he discovered he was in the Gospels, and his finger on Luke xxiii. 26, “They laid hold on one Simon (Simeon), and on him they laid the cross,” etc. “Then,” said Mr. Simeon, “lay it on me, Lord, and I will bear it for Thy sake to the end of my life; and henceforth I bound persecution as a wreath of glory round my brow.”‘ The incident is used also by Mr. Shorthouse in the second chapter of Sir Percival.

References. XXIII. 26. W. H. Hutchings, Sermon-Sketches, p. 145. H. R. Mackintosh, Life on God’s Plan, p. 242.

The Women of Jerusalem

Luk 23:27

The evangelist feels that these women are typical of universal womanhood, and that the act and words of Jesus reveal His mind. And so we find three things impressed upon us as we ponder the story. First, the moral and spiritual appeal Jesus makes to womanhood; second, His compassion for womanhood; and third, His message to womanhood. Let us take these in order.

I. The Moral and Spiritual Appeal Jesus makes to Womanhood. It is a commonplace we should never be weary in repeating and rejoicing over, that between Jesus and women there was an instant and elective sympathy. Thrice only did any word of strong chiding fall from His lips upon a woman’s ears. He hushed Mary’s too eager prompting at the marriage feast; He reproached Martha for her needless worry for His comfort; and He rebuked the woman who was guilty of indelicate word and offensive cant when she cried, ‘Blessed is the womb that bare Thee, and the paps which Thou hast sucked’. But for the women who crowd the Gospel story He has, as a rule, no words but words of peace, and no deed but deeds of grace. The Gospel of Luke the Gospel of the human and domestic affections is more apt and eager to mark this innate sympathy than any other.

As long as Jesus walks among the golden candlesticks, as long as He sits down among His worshipping people and makes the place of His feet glorious, as long as He is to be seen, in the visions of the sanctuary, walking in His ineffable holiness and speaking with His voice of pity as He passes to His cross, so long will women respond to His moral and spiritual appeal, and, wiser than the learned, proclaim Him Lord.

II. His Compassion for Womanhood. Jesus did not disdain these women’s tears. They were a solace in His loneliness and sorrow. But He could not suffer them to misinterpret His mind to the dull-minded mob. He was going to His cross in the high elation of His sinlessness, of His unfaltering faith, of His consecration, and of His spiritual desire for men. It is a needless sorrow to overmuch lament the wounds by which the hero wins his triumph, or to mark the way of victorious sacrifice by tears. ‘Weep not for Me,’ He calls, as He hushes the outburst of wailing.

‘Behold the days are coming,’ said Jesus to these daughters of Jerusalem. It may be they could as little understand His prophecy as could any of the blind Sadducees who chafed at this interruption in the progress to the cross. But He spoke through them to all generations, and proclaimed His Divine compassion for womanhood in all days that are to come. When a complex civilisation has gathered men and women into its overgrown cities, and compelled its toilers to work in close and dusty factories, at unwholesome trades, and among poisonous materials, has housed them in long lines of mean streets, and set them to eke out existence on a scanty wage, it is the women and children who faint and die under the travail. Who can walk the streets, who can listen to the sad histories of family life, who can witness the stern and losing battle with adverse circumstances, with its haunting fear of miserable poverty; who has ever had revealed to him vexed and disappointed hearts of loving women, who must both work and weep, and not catch the sob in the words of Jesus as He saw these sights down all the centuries, and cries, ‘Weep not for Me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children’.

III. His Message to Womanhood. Jesus had more than this sad prophecy of compassion for these daughters of Jerusalem. He had a message to give to their terrified and trembling hearts. With His unfailing grace He sets it in a familiar proverb, dear as all proverbs are to simple, untutored minds, and so easily remembered, that in the days to come it echoed in their ears: ‘For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?’ It is the last message of Jesus, for with these words He ceased His public ministry, and it is a message to womanhood.

The message here is an appeal for prayerfulness, for loyalty to righteousness, for a large-minded and patient charity. Nothing could save Jerusalem now, but if its women will abide in prayer, if they will be loyal to truth and to purity, if they will busy their hands in the holy service of the sick and the poor, they and theirs shall be remembered when the anger of the Lord is kindled against Jerusalem.

That is the ruling note of Christ’s message to womanhood. It is not her part to determine the policy of the State, or to sit in the councils of the Church, or to take service in the field, or to join the ranks of the captains of industry. Some few may fill high posts in public life, but they must ever remain few. But it is the woman’s part to do something higher, holier, more potent still. It is given to her to see the vision of the green tree and the dry, and by her devoutness and faith, her unflinching allegiance to holiness, and her loving service in home and hospital, and school and street, to redeem the cities from their sin, and turn the thoughts of men to God.

W. M. Clow, The Day of the Gross, p. 171.

The Revealing Cross

Luk 23:27-31

I. The cross is not to excite mere compassion for Him.

II. Let the cross of Christ prophesy judgment.

1. As a human act dragging after it retribution.

2. As a Divine procedure exhibiting God’s displeasure against sin. Learn at the cross the goodness and severity of God.

III. Let the cross reveal sin.

3. As revealing judgment, so making the evil more conspicuous.

4. As an act which is the measure of what sin may arrive at.

5. As an act the guilt of which belongs to us all.

IV. Let the cross preach repentance.

A. Maclaren.

Reference. XXIII. 27-31. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxii. No. 1320.

Luk 23:28

Ruskin, in the second of his Lectures on Art (secs. 56-58), takes this as the text of a vehement warning against the morbid instinct, fostered by some phases of art, which leads people to lament Christ’s past sufferings instead of preventing the present woes of men.

‘Try to conceive,’ he cries, ‘the quantity of time and of excited and thrilling emotion, which have been wasted by the tender and delicate women of Christendom during these last six hundred years, in thus picturing to themselves, under the influence of such imagery, the bodily pain, long since passed, of One Person…. And then try to estimate what might have been the better result, for the righteousness and felicity of mankind, if these same women had been taught the deep meaning of the last words that were ever spoken by their Master to those who had ministered to Him of their substance: “Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for Me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children”. If they had been but taught to measure with their pitiful thoughts, the tortures of battlefields the slowly consuming plagues of death in the starving children, and wasted age, of the innumerable desolate those battles left; nay, in our own life of peace, the agony of unnurtured, untaught, unhelped creatures, awaking at the grave’s edge to know how they should have lived; and the worse pain of those whose existence, not the ceasing of it, is death.’ Such, he adds, is one fatal effect of the ministry of mediaeval art to religion, promoting, as it does, the tendency to serve with the best of our hearts and minds, some dear or sad fantasy which we have made for ourselves, while we disobey the present call of the Master, who is not dead, and who is not now fainting under His cross, but requires us to take up ours.

References. XXIII. 28. J. Martineau, Endeavours after the Christian Life, p. 25. XXIII. 28-31. C. Bosanquet, The Consoler and the Sufferer, p. 253. Expositor (5th Series), vol. v. p. 27. XXIII. 30. T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. iv. p. 214. Expositor (6th Series), vol. v. p. 87. XXIII. 31. D. Fraser, Metaphors in the Gospels, p. 370. XXIII. 31. A. T. Robertson, Epochs in the Life of Jesus, p. 145. XXIII. 32. Expositor (6th Series), vol. i. p. 163. XXIII. 33, 34. Bishop Gore, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxxvii. p. 209. XXIII. 33. F. W. Farrar, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlv. p. 209. C. D. Bell, Hills that Bring Peace, p. 313. R. J. Wardell, Preacher’s Magazine, vol. xix. p. 317. XXIII. 33-46. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Luke, p. 301.

Father, Forgive Them; for They Know Not What They Do

Luk 23:34

Let us consider our Divine Master. He carried His Cross unselfishly for others, and thinking of others; but this word is more than unselfish; it is a word of active love. ‘Father, forgive them.’ This is certainly a first lesson, and we should learn a lesson of love. It is the first, and it is indeed the last; it runs through all.

When the thorns pierced His brow, when the nails pierced His hands and His feet, when the spear pierced His side these were but so many openings through which the one fountain of His Love might flow.

I. ‘Father, forgive them.’ Have you any grudge against anybody? If so today forgive. Do you think that you have been over-reached in business, and feel altogether that you have had a hard life of it, that people have not treated you well? Think today: have you been treated as badly as your Lord? It should be enough for the servant to be as His Master, but look up at Him today, look at His life, and see the end, and meditate on His words of unselfish, loving forgiveness.

II. To this prayer of unselfish pardoning love He added a most powerful but awfully suggestive reason ‘for they know not what they do’.

What words are these! What a true confession of our ignorance of the injury of sin! They tell us, nay, He tells us by them, that we do not know what harm we are doing when we sin. He tells us this, seeing the full view of sin from the Tree of the Cross.

When the Jews nailed Jesus to the cross they were crucifying the Lord of Glory; when we sin we grieve the Spirit we persecute Jesus, we deal with His members, we sin against God: this is what the Crucifixion brings out.

Just as when you have been throwing with a stick at apples, and the stick is caught and hangs in the branches, and you cannot get it down, it must remain as a witness against you of your sin. So when we sin on earth we do not see the limit of our sins they pass beyond our reach, they go higher than we meant, we cannot get them back they make, as it were, a mark in heaven too high for us to rub out.

But today, children, Jesus Christ has climbed the tree for us: He knows the mystery of sin; He can reach to heaven from the cross; He can and will throw down all the witnesses of our early faults; He can and will rub out the writing against us, though it were written too high for us to reach.

Bishop Edward King, Meditations on the Last Seven Words.

Father, Forgive Them

Luk 23:34

‘Father.’ In that word, uttered with the entire surrender of a perfect correspondence of understanding, affection, will, between the mind of Jesus and the heart of Him from whom He came forth and to whom He goes, lies the secret of the peace of Calvary. It is the first thought of the Redeemer when He is lifted upon the cross; it is the last thought with which He bows His head. Within its large embrace are gathered all the activities of the Crucified the intercession for sinners, the absolution of the penitent, the ministry to the faithful, the spiritual combat, the bodily pains, the finished work. That dear Name thus twice repeated is the great bracket which holds together the series of the seven words. When the eye rests upon the Almighty Father sitting upon the circle of the earth, upholding the whole sum of existence within the everlasting arms, complete beyond all incompleteness, perfect above all imperfection, then for us love is the abiding background of the universe, and ours is God’s peace. ‘For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor princedoms, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God.’ ‘Who shall separate? ‘It was the consciousness of a union which no power could break, of a bond which no force could sever, that breathed in the first word that fell from the lips of the Divine Sufferer.

I. Father, forgive. The prayer implies forgiveness on the part of Him who prayed. He works, He dies, He forgives. Surely it needs a clearer faith than the vague perception of a possible brotherhood of men to justify this uttermost surrender! Great sacrifices of time, of opportunity, of life, may be made in the promotion of a high ideal. But the love which forgives the malice that has brought ruin upon the highest ideal, and shattered the noblest work the world has ever seen, witnesses to the presence of a peace of mind which knows that failure only seems to be defeat. Cease to believe in the final triumph of goodness, justice, and truth, and you have ceased to love. Cease to hope in the possibility of repentance in the lives of men, and you leave no place for the spirit that forgives. But Christ can say, ‘Father, forgive’. There is the unbroken fellowship with God, which is the one true end of human life.

When a man feels that he cannot forgive, his peace is gone; but it is not the malice of his enemies that has robbed him, it is the loss of the vision of the Divine Fatherhood.

II. Father, forgive them. The intercession of God’s Priest was offered for His enemies not those only, or chiefly, who drove in the nails, but all. ‘When we were enemies, we were reconciled.’ That cross has no meaning as a universal atonement, if the words of St. Paul are not true. ‘We were enemies.’ Our position in the Church implies this fact; each sacrament whereof we are partakers is the witness to it. We have been ‘brought nigh by the blood of Christ’. The cross is first the intercession of the Son of man on behalf of all. ‘Father, forgive them.’

J. G. Simpson, Christus Crucfixus, p. 269.

The Seven Words From the Cross

Luk 23:34

I. If ever God’s cause seemed lost in this world, it was at the moment when the cross of Jesus was uplifted; and yet that is the very moment when the Eternal Son lifts up His voice in prayer to God prayer trustful, prayer persevering, prayer selfless.

(1) A trustful prayer; though God seemed to be so far distant, yet Jesus names the dear Name of Father ‘Father, forgive them’.

(2) A prayer persevering, for we might have thought that at such a moment as that the very power of prayer was lost in agonising pain, with no sort of privacy but the hard bed of the cross, with the noise of blasphemies and insults in His ears. How ashamed we ought to be of the excuses that we make for ourselves when we do not feel inclined to pray! We say that we have not privacy enough. But Jesus, in spite of every difficulty, perseveres in prayer.

(3) And then it is prayer selfless; it is a prayer for His enemies.

II. By this wondrous prayer, uttered at such a moment, Jesus is the helper of them that doubt You find it hard to believe in the Providence, in the overruling care of God. You see the failure of good causes, you think of the unassuaged wrongs and miseries of the poor and suffering, and you think that God has forsaken the world. But Jesus would have us in the first instance not confuse imagination with knowledge. We know from the Holy Gospel that God does care for every one of His creatures, but we cannot imagine the way in which His Providence acts over so vast a surface. Just as in science we know many things which we cannot imagine, chemical transformations which we cannot picture to ourselves, so it is with the doctrine of the Providence of God, which, though we cannot imagine, we know, we believe.

And then, we must remember not to attempt a generalisation of God’s children. This world in which we live is not wholly given over to the powers of the enemy. Everywhere God has His own children. We must never give way to that faithless thought that God has forsaken the world or that He has left Himself without witness.

And then, again, we should always remember that much of the apparent forgetfulness of God which distresses, much of the sin and neglect that vexes our souls, is, after all, due to ignorance. ‘They know not what they do.’ We can put ourselves by the side of Jesus Christ, and thank and bless His gracious Name that He has brought us relief in one of the most painful and fundamental doubts that can shake the soul.

References. XXIII. 34. W. Robertson Nicoll, The Seven Words from the Gross, p. 3. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xv. No. 897, and vol. xxxviii. No. 2263. W. Butterworth, A Book of Lay Sermons, p. 59. A. G. Mortimer, The Chief Virtues of Man, p. 15. J. Keble, Sermons for the Holy Week, p. 247. F. B. Cowl, Preacher’s Magazine, vol. xvii. p. 571. Bishop Alexander, Verbum Crucis, p. 31. R. W. Hiley, A Year’s Sermons, vol. iii. p. 187. G. W. Brameld, Practical Sermons (2nd Series), p. 137. G. S. Barrett, The Seven Words from the Cross, p. 7. W. H. Simcox, The Cessation of Prophecy, p. 303. R. W. Church, Village Sermons (2nd Series), p. 100. Len. G. Broughton, The Prayers of Jesus, p. 169. Expositor (4th Series), vol. ix. p. 106; ibid. (6th Series), vol. ii. p. 332. A. G. Mortimer, In the Light of the Cross, p. 13. XXIII. 35. T. Arnold, Christian Life: Its Hopes, p. 279.

Luk 23:36

‘I implore you,’ F. W. Robertson writes to a friend, ‘do not try morphine, ever; no, not once…. Remember what Maria Theresa said when she began to dose in dying, “I want to meet my God awake”; remember that He refused the medicated opiate on the cross. Meet misery awake.’

References. XXIII. 39-43. J. Iverach, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlix. p. 396. E. Bersier, Sermons in Paris, p. 1. J. M. Bleckley, The Christian Armour, p. 57. G. Body, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lix. p. 174. C. Perren, Revival Sermons in Outline, p. 132. Expositor, 5 th Series, vol. iii. p. 215. XXIII. 39-44. S. H. Fleming, Fifteen Minute Sermons for the People, p. 18. XXIII. 39, 45. Bishop Gore, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxxvii. p. 210. XXIII. 40, 41. E. A. Stuart, His Dear Son, and other Sermons, vol. v. p. 185. XXIII. 40-42. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxii. No. 1881. XXIII. 41. C. S. Home, The Soul’s Awakening, p. 107. J. Keble, Sermons for Septuagesima to Ash Wednesday, p. 31. R. W. Church, Village Sermons (3rd Series), p. 125. M. G. Glazebrook, Prospice, p. 1.

Christ Remembering Penitents

Luk 23:42

Of all our Lord’s seven last words, none is fuller of comfort than that which He spake to the penitent thief. And certainly the faith of this thief was greater than any other faith of which we read, either in the Bible or in the history of the Church, to this time. The faith which enabled the martyrs to triumph over agony, to yield themselves to wild beasts, to stand without shrinking in the flames, to be filled with joy on the rack, to be stoned, sawn asunder, destitute, afflicted, tormented, that faith I may say it boldly, cannot be compared to the wonderful power of the grace of God then shown in the dying thief.

He speaks of a kingdom, and a kingdom into which the seeming malefactor at His side was about to enter, and in which He Himself hoped to be remembered, was there ever so it must have seemed to the Jews such madness? ‘Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom.’ When Thou comest. Why, there is not one of us who, to an earthly eye, has not a better hope of a kingdom than our Lord then had. When Thou comest? Surely to have said, If Thou comest, If Thou be the Son of God, would have been astonishing faith. But now, to make no doubt, to take the thing for granted, to have no kind of reasoning about it, but to make a prayer upon it, this truly is the greatest miracle of grace that ever was, and probably that ever will be.

David says, ‘Thy Word is tried to the uttermost, and Thy servant loveth it’. Now our Lord’s Word had been, ‘Him that cometh unto Me, I will in no wise cast out’. This prayer of the thief was indeed a trial of its truth to the uttermost. He came to our Lord, and he was not cast out.

I. He prays to be remembered. That were much. Many who promise in misery forget their promise in happiness. ‘Think of me,’ says Joseph in prison to the butler, ‘when it shall be well with thee; and make mention of me unto Pharaoh, and bring me out of this house.’ And what follows? ‘Yet did not the chief butler remember Joseph but forgat him.’ But our Lord, of whom this chief butler was but a type (for He trod the wine-press alone, He giveth that wine that truly maketh glad the heart of man, His own precious blood), our Lord promises far more than this. ‘Remember me,’ is the prayer of the thief; ‘thou shalt be with Me in Paradise,’ is the answer of the Saviour. He that has pronounced a blessing on them who shall take in the stranger, took in this stranger into no worse a house than His own.

II. And then as to the time. All that was asked was, ‘When Thou comest into Thy Kingdom’: whenever that might be: years to come, perhaps hundreds of years to come; and Christ answers him ‘To-day’.

III. ‘Thou shalt be with Me in Paradise.’ It is the first faint view of ‘the land that is very far off’. It is like a distant sight of a lovely country. We are not there yet; we hardly know whether we may ever hope to be there at all; but we know that there is such a land. I was once in a ship voyaging to an island not far from the west of Africa. We had been out many days, we had been exceedingly tossed with a tempest; and at the beginning of a stormy evening, in one gleam of sunshine, the man at the masthead made out the land. Night came down and shut it out from us; but we knew it was there, and rejoiced in the hope of reaching it.

So as to the thief. Our Lord goes forth as a champion to meet the prince of the powers of this world. He had not conquered him then, but yet He speaks certainly of victory. If the thief is to be with him in Paradise, He must needs be there Himself; if there Himself, He must have overcome Satan; for He could not reign till He had conquered.

O happy malefactor, that thus, at the last hour, was heard, and like a most blessed thief, stole the kingdom of heaven!

J. M. Neale, Sermons in Sackville College Chapel, vol. i. p. 206.

The Penitent Malefactor

Luk 23:42

The one absorbing thought in the mind of this man who is moved by the Holy Ghost, is to show us a soul passing from darkness into marvellous light, from death unto life, from the power of Satan unto God.

I. ‘Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.’ There is a way to heaven from the very gate of hell. There is no soul so sunken in sin and given over by the shallow heart of man but one glimpse of the mercy of God may restore him. Listen to the way in which Browning puts this truth, as he tells the story of a man of whom the best despaired, a man whom fox-like cunning and wolf-like ferocity had possessed:

For the main criminal I have no hope

Except in such a suddenness of Fate.

I stood at Naples once, a night so dark

I could have scarce conjectured there was earth

Anywhere, sky or sea, or world at all;

But the night’s black was burst through by a blaze

Thunder struck blow on blow, earth groaned and bore,

Through her whole length of mountains visible;

There lay the city thick and plain with spires,

And, like a ghost dis-shrouded, white the sea.

So may the truth be flashed out by one blow

And Guido see, one instant, and be saved.

( The Ring and the Book, Pope, III. 147.)

That sets this great experience for us. This malefactor saw one instant, and was saved. He hung upon the cross, at first in torpor, for the wine mingled with myrrh had done its stupefying work. But as his awful agony asserted itself, he fixed his eyes upon his fellow-sufferer. He marked His grace. He saw a sight he never saw before. There, in loneliness, hung One on whose face was imprinted the ineffaceable beauty of holiness. There He hung, and heard the taunts and derision of priest and ruler and passer-by, yet He reviled not again. And as he looks, lo! like a soft, sweet music that rises and hushes every coarse and clamouring sound, His voice is heard in prayer: ‘Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do’. The great, long bound heart of this man stirred within him. Like the Arctic world, after the dreary winter, when the summer sun has come, a new life began to leap within him. You can trace in his words the very birth of his soul.

II. Now this story is teeming with spiritual truth beating directly on the rise and progress of religion in the soul. Let me ask you to think first of the suddenness of a spiritual change. This malefactor was led to his cross at some hour before noon. He walked to Golgotha with cursing in his heart, in the defiance of despair, looking out to the darkness of death. He hung upon the cross with the second death that awful shadow beyond death itself casting its chill upon him, yet in an instant the great spiritual change passed upon him, and in three hours after he is living in the light of God, with penitent confession, lowly ascription of honour, imploring prayers upon his lips, and the grace of God, like a well of cleansing water, springing up in his heart.

Mark, in the second place, the swiftness of spiritual growth. This malefactor, as we have seen, was a noble theologian, the only discerning Christian thinker of his day, a man who knew with more than Peter’s knowledge, and saw with more than John’s vision. But we can make an even greater claim for him. He was justified by faith alone. He was snatched as a brand from the burning, and yet it can be made clear that in those few hours he hung beside Jesus, he grew into the ripest saint, the man on earth meetest for heaven. For what makes a man a saint? A tender conscience, a deep reverence for God, a devout submission to His will, a heart lifted above the power of the world, scorning its gifts and advantages, a complete dependence on God, a vivid sense of the world unseen, a humble trust in Christ, relinquishing all personal merit, a whole-hearted zeal for His honour, and an absorbing craving for His fellowship. These things make a saint wherever they are found, and all these grew to strength and beauty in the soul of this malefactor in that short afternoon, while his life-blood ebbed away.

But the truth which engrosses all our hearts, as we read this amazing story, is that there is hope for the worst of sinners. Here is the most unlikely man, under the most unlikely circumstances, saved by the grace of God in Christ. After a youth of waywardness, and a manhood of crime, he is seized and held when on the very edge of his doom.

W. M. Clow, The Day of the Cross, p. 227.

References. XXIII. 42. J. Edwards, Preacher’s Magazine, vol. x. p. 128. S. Baring-Gould, Village Preaching for a Year, vol. ii. p. 213. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Luke, p. 306.

A Saved Soul and a Lost Life

Luk 23:42-43

This story brings to us a twofold message. I see in it the beckoning finger of encouragement; I see in it also the uplifted finger of warning. His soul was saved but his life was lost; Christ seeks to save both our soul and our life. Let us look at these two points in turn for a moment.

I. The encouragement Exactly what this penitent robber knew of Christ we do not know: at most it could be but little. And yet, though he knew not even what he said, and though his prayer dropped from lips already white with death, Christ heard and saved him: ‘To-day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise’. To all God offers to forgive the sin of the past and to give strength for the future; and He offers to do it now. Christ never spurns a true cry for pardon. What I fear is not lest a day should come when Christ will be deaf, but a day when you will be dumb; not that He will say ‘No’ to your prayer, but that you will not care to pray. Now, now, though it be the eleventh hour, though the candle of life have burnt to the socket, though you have nothing to offer God but the fragments that remain from a misspent life, yet even now if you will He will receive you, and whatsoever of good His love can bring to sinful men, He will give to you.

II. We turn from the encouragement to the warning. ‘One was saved upon the cross,’ says an old divine, ‘that none might despair; and only one that none might presume.’ The robber’s soul was saved, but his life was lost. But God seeks to save not only our soul but our life our days, our years, our strength for service. I want to tell you why you should come to Christ now. (1) It will save you from vain and bitter regrets in after life. (2) And further, I want you to come to Christ now because, coming to Him, you will be saved for earnest service. I have no greater quarrel with sin than this, that it unfits men for this high service. In some churchyard in Germany two tombstones stand side by side; on the one it is written Vergeben , ‘Forgiven,’ on the other Vergebens , ‘In vain’. If I had to write an epitaph for some, I think I would write both Vergeben and Vergebens .

God asks your life while the bloom is on it; will you wait to give it Him till it is a poor, withered, shrivelled thing?

G. Jackson, First Things First, p. 237.

References. XXIII. 42, 43. C. Kingsley, The Good News of God, p. 291. J. Bunting, Sermons, vol. ii. pp. 190 and 205. Bishop Alexander, Verbum Crucis, p. 39. A. Bradley, Se r mons Chiefly on Character, p. 114. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxv. No. 2078. W. M. Clow, The Day of the Cross, p. 311.

Today Shalt Thou Be with Me in Paradise

Luk 23:43

The more one studies our Lord’s life, the more one is able to see that He did all things well, and the more, also, one finds out that, in gentleness and quietness, He was doing all things in due order and in due time. So we may venture perhaps to trace even in the midst of this most terrible battle on the battlefield of the cross, a calmness and an order and a gentle taking up of events.

We saw in the first word our Lord spoke of those who were still His enemies, those who were persecuting Him and crucifying Him: He prayed for them. Now, in the second word, He comes as it were a little nearer to Himself, and He addresses His words to one who had been a great enemy, but who now had turned. It is the word, you know, to the penitent thief ‘This day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise’. It is addressed to one not now His enemy, but to one who had been His enemy. And it is a word of comfort, of assurance, and of love.

I. This man, whose penitence was, like St. Peter’s, complete, threw his heart at the feet of our Lord, and challenged His Omniscient Love to unravel and explain the circumstances which were so dead against him. St. Peter said, ‘Lord, Thou knowest all things; Thou knowest that I love Thee’. Circumstances and appearances are against me, the penitent thief must have felt; but he was brave and trustful, and exclaimed:’Lord, remember me; remember all my life; do not forget a bit of it; for if any other should take it up and bring it forward, if it is brought before the judgment-seat by any hand but Thine, I am lost. Remember every act, word, thought, remember it all; “Remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom”.’

He would have all known, and all remembered; because he had no doubt at all of the measurement of the Cross of Christ the length, and breadth, and height, and depth, was the measure of His infinite love, which went beyond the robber’s life. He wished it to be remembered, and he was not afraid of it. ‘I have no fear to tell you what I was, being what I am,’ is one of the brave utterances of an English poet. And this penitent thief could take it up: ‘I have no fear to remember what I was, being what I am a penitent believer in Jesus. That is all in all to me. I care not for the rest,’ and you know the answer so quick the love flows ‘Verily I say unto you, To-day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise’.

II. I cannot leave the word ‘Remember’ without giving one more thought of hope. What a proof it is that the soul after death still lives. Our Lord must have been a mere mocker if He did not mean that the penitent thief though dead would live. And surely it means more than that when He said, ‘ To-day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise’. He meant not that his soul should be with Him in sleep; when He said, ‘To-day shalt thou be with Me,’ He expressed the conscious presence of two awakened personalities. ‘To-day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise’ was deceitful language unless it meant that the soul of the penitent thief should be conscious of the presence of Jesus.

Yes, this word ‘To-day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise ‘gives us a firm, strong hope that those who have gone before in the faith of Christ are happy in His presence. Oh, let none despair then. Here was a robber up to the end of his life; he threw himself without any reservation on the heart of Jesus; He accepted him at once, and pledged His word that that day they should be together in Paradise.

Bishop Edward King, Meditations on the Seven Last Words.

The Penitent Thief

Luk 23:43

Below the cross the soldiers are dicing and shouting and quarrelling. The priests jeer and scoff. The women stand afar off and watch. The crowd are scanning with curious eyes the sufferers upon the crosses, and above what strange things are happening! What words are passing between one and the other? What is it which God looks down upon with so much pleasure, which the angels rejoice to see?

I. A Soul Come Back. It is a soul come home, come back. I would ask you to see for a moment that here we have a wonderful illustration of how God seeks and wins. This man was not penitent; he was a robber, going about in those bands which haunted the mountains of Judea, just as years and years ago there were bands of robbers infesting the forests in this country. Often young men, who were wild and got themselves into trouble, would join these bands of robbers for the sake of adventure. It may be that this man was one like that, and God had been seeking him, seeking him all his life, through his home life, through the prayers of his mother, through all the many ways in which God pleads for the soul, and yet he had remained hardened, he had still been untouched. What shall win him back, what shall bring him back to his God? Then he was to suffer death as a criminal; he was to be hanged upon a cross as a felon. Was it too late, then? Was there no chance that this man might yet be touched? There was only one way that God should place His own Son on the cross next to him. So God sent His Son to the cross for that robber. It was the last appeal that could be made, and it was the last appeal which won. Is it not something like that in our own lives? God is seeking each one of us; He has sought us all our lives. God makes a last appeal to us. He brings His own Blessed Son to die on the cross next to us that we may witness His suffering; and we humbly pray, ‘Lord, remember me!’ and the blessing comes back swift and sure, ‘To-day, today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise’.

II. The Cross as the Divider of Men. Again, there is another thought which is suggested, How the cross divides men! Is it not strange that the only man who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ at that moment in the world, the only one who really believed in Christ, was the dying robber upon the cross! All the others had gone. The Disciples had fled. A few women in their tenderness and love stood at a distance from the cross. They had lost all hope; only the robber could say, ‘I believe’. There was the cross a dividing power amongst men. These two men, the two malefactors, crucified one on one side and the other on the other, had witnessed the same suffering, had had the same appeal made to each of them. They had heard the same prayer; and yet what was the effect? The one was made penitent and the other was hardened. And the same spectacle is going on all through the ages.

III. The Appeal to the Individual. Let us remember that the greatest obstacle to our coming to God is not sin in its outward form, but sin and self-righteousness. ‘Lord, remember me!’ How the cry rings out! ‘I am suffering and deserve it’ Was there ever a greater confession of sin than that? ‘Lord, remember me!’ Was not that a great, stirring appeal of faith? And the answer was as sure and certain, ‘To-day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise’.

The Penitent Thief

Luk 23:43

I. We have here a wondrous revelation of the unseen world.

II. We have here the utterance of kingly conscious ness of power.

III. We have also a royal and loving answer to penitence and faith.

A. Maclaren.

References. XXIII. 43. W. Robertson Nicoll, The Seven Words from the Cross, p. 21. A. G. Mortimer, The Chief Virtues of Man, p. 31. J. Keble, Sermons for the Holy Week, p. 268. F. Harper, Preacher’s Magazine, vol. v. p. 30. G. Body, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlv. p. 113. T. F. Crosse, Sermons, p. 88. J. J. Blunt, Plain Sermons (3rd Series), p. 35. G. S. Barrett, The Seven Words from the Cross, p. 23. S. H. Fleming, Fifteen Minute Sermons for the People, p. 22. J. M. Neale, Sermons for Some Feast Days in the Christian Year, p. 369. F. E. Paget, Helps and Hindrances to the Christian Life, vol. i. p. 160. Expositor (4th Series), vol. iii. p. 254; ibid. vol. x. p. 447; ibid. (5th Series), vol. vii. p. 222. A. G. Mortimer, In the Light of the Cross, p. 20. XXIII. 44. Expositor (4th Series), vol. vii. p. 216. XXIII. 44-46. Bishop Gore, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxxvii. p. 214. XXIII. 46. Expositor (5th Series), vol. ii. p. 313.

Into Thy Hands

Luk 23:46

The first word from the cross breathed the calm of an unbroken communion between the Father and the Son, which made the sufferings of the wounded body of Jesus an act of intercession for the transgressors. And the last expresses the sweet surrender of the loyal spirit into the hands of its faithful guardian. The peace of a perfect love and the peace of a finished work blend in the peace of a perfect trust, as the life ‘which drew from out the boundless deep turns again home’.

The first thought that springs out of this last word is a very obvious one. Jesus came forth from God and goeth to God. That is the explanation of His whole career; it is the interpretation alike of His loving ministry and of His perfect life.

The last words of Jesus convey ‘no sadness of farewell’. In the old Greek tragedy Aias, the warrior king, passes out in the night of self-destruction, with a pathetic lament for ‘the light of golden day,’ and the ‘sacred land that was my home’: ‘To you that fed my life I bid farewell’.

What a contrast is this hopeless misery to the quiet confidence of the Son of man. When the sun is going down toward the west, beyond the roofs and towers of Jerusalem, and the evening shadows creep gently up over the braes of Olivet, the dying Saviour greets the dawn of the endless day and commits Himself to the guardianship of His eternal home: ‘Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit’.

Two facts account for the striking contrast: (1) the revelation of Fatherhood, (2) the unique character of Christ’s surrender of life.

I. If the ultimate fact of all existence be neither force nor fate but fatherhood, then there can be no death except separation from the living will that loves. Dr. Newman has a sermon, the title of which is The Thought of God the Stay of the Soul. That surely is the truth. ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die,’ is a philosophy that brings no satisfaction. From the bodily life men turn to the society of their fellows; the intercourse of friendship, the affections of the family, the love of home. But these too pass away, for ‘man that is born of a woman hath but a short time to live’. But to call Him Father who exists behind all change, is to find rest.

II. The unique character of Jesus’ death.

When we speak of a man’s exit from the world, we say ‘he died’ or ‘he breathed his last’. If it be a person of more than ordinary piety whose death we record, we say ‘he entered into rest,’ or ‘he fell asleep’. None of these expressions are used by the evangelists to describe the death of Jesus. St. Matthew says, ‘He let go His spirit,’ St John, ‘He bowed His head and yielded up His spirit’. And it is clear that much more is implied in the words of commendation which Christ borrows from the thirty-first Psalm than they originally meant or have been employed by others to mean. Some men have cheerfully acquiesced in the necessity of dying. Others have chosen the manner, method, or time of death. But the death of the Son of man, as the Gospel writers present it to us, is as willing, as self-determined, as free as the acceptance or refusal of any of the ordinary duties of life. It is the obedience of a glad mind to a Divine call. ‘I lay it down of Myself.’ ‘No man taketh it from Me.’ In committing His spirit as a deposit to the hands of His Father, Christ exercises the free right of disposition which is His. His confidence is the peace of an unflinching loyalty. His own implicit faithfulness is the measure of His implicit trust in the utter faithfulness of God.

J. G. Simpson, Christus Crucifixus, p. 295.

Luk 23:46

Once more ere the end the Son’s heart turned to the Father. He had commenced with the appeal to the Father; He closed His life with His Father in His mind. None of us can read the story of His life in the Gospels without realising how often that word ‘Father’ was on His lips. It was that word ‘Father’ which summed up the whole purpose of His life.

I. The Removal of Sin. And it suggests, first of all, that here is the result of the removal of sin. Through the darkness He was bearing the curse of sin as He had borne it at no other time. Then, having made atonement, having borne the curse, having taken it away, having made a living new way by which men might approach and come back to God, it is not ‘My God,’ but it is ‘Father’. So it is with us. You and I will never know the depths of love there is in the word ‘Father’ as applied to God until we know what it is to partake in the atonement which Christ has made; you and I will never know the depths of love which the Father can lavish upon His children until we know something of our Lord’s blessed redemption and atonement.

II. The Purpose of Life. And yet, again, that word ‘Father’ seems to sum up the whole purpose of our Blessed Lord’s life. You remember how constantly He was saying ‘I go to My Father’. Now the time has come when he is going to His Father. If you and I could have that same thought in our minds, do you not think that as we look upon our lives it would unravel many of the mysteries? We are faced with so many problems, but our Lord saw no mystery in them. He saw no mystery in suffering and pain as He shared it It was quite plain. Why? Because of this great fact of Fatherhood, because He could appeal to God as His father; therefore He understood it. If you and I could understand in our daily lives the meaning of these words, ‘I go to My Father,’ what a help it would be to us! If our faith were only large enough, these words would be a help to us, would supply us with a purpose in our lives if we understood them. The small vexations of our daily life are but part of the discipline of the child on the journey. We know that the end of all things is the Father. That is the summary of life, that is its final climax. So these words come to us as supplying a rich purpose in our lives.

III. The Source of Comfort. Not only that, but they also come to us in words of comfort The death of Jesus has been called a magnificent and royal procession, and yet how He shuddered and shrank from it! You and I need not think that we are faithless because we have a fear of death. Most of us have that, and, believe me, the more we realise what life is, the more we realise what life can be, the more we realise that our bodies are the temples of the living God, the more, perhaps, will that fear of death come to us. Yet, when that time comes, when all is done, if we have lived with the conscious presence of God, we can look back and say, ‘It is finished’. And Christ, because He has been before us, will give us strength to have the same prayer upon our lips, ‘Father, Thou with Whom I have lived my life, Thou with Whom I have had such joy, Thou Who hast been my Father here on earth, I commend my spirit into Thy hands’.

Jesus, the Helper of the Dying

Luk 23:46

Jesus, the Helper of the dying. Let us try to remember those who are dying, who axe appointed to death, who are nigh unto death. Let us pray our Blessed Saviour that He will speak the word of comfort, of light, of assurance, to those who are drawing nigh to the dark shadow of death. For there is a question which we ask with trembling breath, the question which now and then arises and seems to shake our souls Is there hope in death? Do those we have lost still live? The last words of Jesus give us the answer, an answer which we cannot mistake. Yes; the soul lives. ‘Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit.’

I think our Saviour helps us very simply by dwelling on two fundamental truths of religion which we are very apt in the strain and stress of life to forget or overlook.

I. First of all there is the true Fatherhood of God. If God seems other to us than a Father, if He seems a hard taskmaster or tyrant, if He seems to us a relentless force that carries us we know not where, we have yet to learn the chief lesson which Jesus came to teach; and if that great truth is to sustain us at death, as it has sustained so many, we must learn to grasp it and make it our own now. If you once begin honestly and whole-heartedly to believe in the Fatherhood of God, you are on the way to become one of those who adore the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and who find their freedom and their joy and their blessedness in the ancient faith of the sons of God from the beginning. Hold fast, then, to the Fatherhood of God. There you shall find a secret that shall transfigure life.

II. And the other great truth that Jesus would have us remember to hold fast throughout life is the reality of spiritual things. You have only got to look within you, and there you find the presence of your Lord Jesus Christ. If you have only got a longing to serve God better, that longing is His gift, whereas if you know that you have the spirit of your Father within you, you need no other evidence that He is at work in the world, and that God Himself is your God, your Father, your ‘Guide, even unto death’. Every Christian man and woman lives in two worlds. There is this world that surrounds us and hems us in so closely that it seems, as it were, to shut out the sight and the thought of God. And yet there is another world. The Christian is in London, just as of old he was in Galilee, in Philippi, in Rome, in Ephesus; but he is also in Christ. There is his true Home.

And here is our comfort, our last word of comfort, as we think of the dead. We and they are alike in Christ one in Christ as our Home, as the atmosphere in which we walk and move, and they also are in Christ.

So we think of the Blessed Saviour dying and going to make a home for us. He died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto Him that died, and rose again.

Into the Hands of God

Luk 23:46

I. We here listen to the voice of a Son.

II. The voice of perfect trust and perfect obedience We do not sufficiently think of Christ’s life as a life of faith. His life was a true human life and His death a true human death; hence He is our pattern and example here as well as our sacrifice. We, too, may share in His clear consciousness of falling into God’s hands.

III. Here speaks the Lord of Life and Death. The words must be taken in their fullest sense as expressive of His voluntary act.

A. Maclaren.

Luk 23:46

This verse was often upon Luther’s lips as he lay dying. ‘I shall yield up my spirit,’ he said, as the last agony seized him. Then he cried aloud to God, ‘Take my poor soul into Thy hands,’ and almost his last effort was to repeat quickly in Latin three times the words, Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit, for Thou hast redeemed me, O Lord God, of truth.

References. XXIII. 46. A. G. Mortimer, In the Light of the Cross, p. 57. Len. G. Broughton, The Prayers of Jesus, p. 191. Bishop Alexander, Verbum Crucis, p. 101. A. G. Mortimer, The Chief Virtues of Man, p. 101. G. Body, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lix. p. 225. G. S. Barrett, The Seven Words from the Cross, p. 111. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxix. No. 2311, and vol. xlv. No. 2644. Expositor (5th Series), vol. iii. p. 223; ibid. vol. vii. p. 270; ibid. (6th Series), vol. ii. p. 74; ibid. vol. iv. p. 376. XXIII. 48. F. E. Paget, Helps and Hindrances to the Christian Life, vol. i. p. 151. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xv. No. 860. XXIII. 50. Expositor (5th Series), vol. iv. p. 167. XXIII. 50, 51. T. F. Crosse, Sermons, p. 1. XXIII. 54. J. M. Whiton, Summer Sermons, p. 3. XXIII. 55. J. Keble, Sermons for the Holy Week, p. 215. XXIII. 55, 56. Ibid. p. 205.

Sunday Observance

Luk 23:56

In such simple and beautiful words does the evangelist record the action of the devout women. He tells you how these faithful followers of Christ had come after that awful Friday evening when His body was taken from the Cross of Shame to perform their last tribute, as they thought, to His sacred memory. And even in this loving act of anointing His sacred body with precious spices, they were heedful to keep holy the Sabbath Day, and were careful to get this, their work of devotion, done so that they might spend the day in rest and devotion.

The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, but this cannot be considered to read that man can do anything he likes on the Sabbath, otherwise you might say, ‘Speech was made for man, and therefore a man can say what he likes, good or bad; he is at liberty to praise or to blaspheme’. He has the power, truly, and he has the power to reverence or to profane the Sabbath, but he is responsible for the way he uses that power, and he will one day have to render up an account of his deeds.

I. A Few Facts about the Sabbath. It is part of a God-given moral law for all time that cannot be set aside without grave danger to the individual and the community. Remember, too, that it was given for a certain purpose, and if it is spent in accordance with the will of God, it will most certainly bring the blessing of God in its train. Even as the old teaching has it, ‘A Sabbath well spent brings a week of content’. It should be a sign-post in the journey of life that tells us something of our start and destination. It is our duty and our privilege to keep holy the Sabbath Day as did the faithful women and the Holy Apostles of the Lord. It should be a haven of rest from the storm and stress of our week of toil and care. The great William Wilberforce once said: ‘Oh, what a blessing is Sunday, interposed between the world of business. There is nothing about which I can advise you to be more strictly conscientious than keeping the Sabbath Day holy. I can truly declare that to me the Sabbath has been invaluable.’ There were few men who had to pass through more stress and worry than William Wilberforce. When he set himself the task of freeing the slaves he had all the world against him.

II. The Sabbath is Meant to be a Day of Rest. We all know that man’s nature is threefold body, mind, and spirit. When God gave us the Sabbath, he gave it to bo a rest for each part of our nature.

(a) Rest for the body. There is a cessation of all toil and labour. Thank God for that! How beautiful it is to go into the country on a summer evening where, on all hands, you see the evidence of blessed, peaceful rest! Lord Macaulay says: ‘We are not poorer but richer because, through many ages, we have rested one day in seven. That day is not lost while industry is suspended, while the plough lies idle in the furrow. A process is going on quite as important as is performed on more busy days.’ Man returns to his labours on the Monday with a clearer intellect and livelier spirits.

(b) Rest for the mind. Some people will say, ‘When I have been busy all the week, I like to go out on Sunday and play cricket or golf. It does me so much more good than going to church.’ I quite agree that there is more physical exercise, and bodily exercise certainly profiteth for a little time, but ‘Godliness is profitable unto all things, having the promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come’. If you mean to tell me, honestly and sincerely, that Sunday exercise benefits not only your body, but your mind and spirit, then go and take it, but how about those other people whose rest and worship is destroyed by your selfish pleasure? How about the example you are setting to weaker brethren? When do you worship God in prayer? When do you study His Word? When do you work in His service? Think!

(c) Rest for the soul. How many aching voids there are in the lives of all of us! That is why Jesus said so divinely, ‘Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest’. And He says, ‘Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in their midst’. Do you go to God’s house to seek rest? ‘Seek and ye shall find.’ I would like to close with a little anecdote. A gentleman was inspecting a house in Newcastle with a view to occupying it as a residence. The landlord took him to the principal window and expatiated on the beautiful prospect. ‘You can see Durham Cathedral from this window on Sunday,’ he said. ‘Why on Sunday above any other day? ‘The reply was conclusive: ‘Because on that day there is no smoke from those tall chimneys’. Blessed is the Sabbath to us, when the earth’s smoke of care and turmoil no longer beclouds our view.

References. XXIV. 1. Expositor (6th Series), vol. viii. p. 348. XXIV. 1, 2. A. P. Stanley, Sermons on Special Occasions, p. 43. XXIV. 1-12. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Luke, p. 318.

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

Divine Reserve

Luk 23:8-11

All subjects reveal themselves according to the mental mood in which they are examined. This is true in every ramification of life. Men’s decisions are influenced by the state of mind in which they receive either evidence or sensations. With regard to the external universe, for example, if it is surveyed when the heart is agitated with sorrow, it fails to produce those impressions which majesty and beauty naturally convey. When the landscape is gazed upon by a mind free from anxiety it elicits feelings and utterances accordant with its own gaiety or grandeur; whereas, when the spirit is “wounded,” or crushed with care, the landscape is to it but a cemetery, and the brightest star but a torchlight to the tomb. The same principle is illustrated in the diversified estimation of personal character: urge one man to suspect another, and in all probability the party so urged will imagine that he sees reason to justify the advice. Words will be twisted actions will be misconstrued and the very glance of the eye will be made to confirm the impression that the man is a decidedly suspicious character. Instruct another that the very same man is a trustworthy friend, and, in all likelihood, his words, actions, and glances will be made to concur in verifying the commendation. Such is the immense influence which mental moods exert on human reasonings and judgments. That which is looked for is found, or thought to be found. The same person or principle examined through the respective media of sympathy and antipathy, will reveal aspects the most different. It is of vital importance to remember this fact in all our investigations of creeds, or balancings of contradictory evidence, so that we may escape both the traductions of prejudice and the blindings of partiality. The non-recognition of this truth has induced the grossest misrepresentations of social life, of individual belief, and of denominational doctrine. Each man is apt to consider his own mental mood right, and to be deficient in charity towards the contrary mood of his fellow-student, or fellow-labourer. Seeing, therefore, that our mental conditions act so powerfully on all the developments of life and thought, it becomes us to watch them with a jealous eye, and to bring our minds into continual contact with the divine Purifier and Teacher. Thus much, however, is general, and simply introductory to the sublime particular truths which this remarkable passage is so eminently fitted to teach.

The divine being discriminates our mental moods. Apparently, Herod was in a pleasing state of mind. Superficial observers would have been delighted with his animated and cordial bearing. What could be more gratifying to Christ than that Herod was “exceeding glad” to see him? There was no royal hauteur no cold rebuff no vengeful triumph. Why then that awful silence? Why those sealed lips? Could Herod have done more to conciliate the favour of his renowned prisoner? Was it not an act of incomparable condescension for Herod to wear a smile in the presence of a reputed blasphemer and seditionist? For Christ’s significant reserve there must be some peculiar but satisfactory reason. It was not fear of the judge, for he was the judge’s Creator and Sovereign; it was not contempt, for he entertains a just regard for all the creatures of his hand; it was not constitutional sullenness, for none could be more open and engaging than he; it was not consciousness of guilt, for his most rancorous foes failed in their attempts at crimination. Why, then, did Christ thus treat a man who was “exceeding glad” to “see him “? The only satisfactory answer which we can suggest, is that Herod’s gladness did not arise from a proper cause; or, in other words, was no true index to his mental mood. Christ looked deeper than the smile which lighted Herod’s countenance, or the mere blandishment of his manner; he discriminated the mood of mind, and acted accordingly. Christ was not misled by external appearances, “The Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.” “For thou, even thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men.” “The Lord searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts.” Christ here displayed his divinity; his all-searching eye penetrated the recesses of the monarch’s heart, and noted every passion which surged there; there was no escape from that glance to which the “darkness and the light are both alike”! There is something in this thought calculated to awaken most earnest solicitude regarding our mental moods: the smile does not necessarily reveal the true intellectual condition; nor does “exceeding gladness” always indicate genuine sincerity, or a lofty intelligence. Consider this well: your earnest gaze your profound attention your sparkling eye, may not convey a correct impression of your moral or mental state! We cannot infallibly decide by exterior manifestations, however pleasing or hopeful: but know this for an eternal certainty, that the divine Being discriminates your mental moods, analyses your conduct, and understands your motives! Every thought that flashes across the intellect, every vision that enchants the fancy, every emotion that swells the heart, is most surely known in heaven! God knoweth your thought “afar off”; ere it is fully matured in your mind, it is transparent to his! Sublime, yet overpowering, is the fact that “all things are naked and open to the eyes of him with whom you have to do”! That there is a dread Being in the universe who watches all the evolutions of life, all the processes of thought, and all the executions of will, is a truth less terrible in its abstract grandeur than momentous in its moral suggestiveness. Ever to be overlooked, ever to have an eye resting on the springs and outworkings of existence, never to have a moment perfectly to one’s self, is surely sufficient to prove that man is no trifle that life is a stupendous and glorious reality that human deeds are not mere bubbles on the wave that human responsibility is a fact, and that retribution is an unalterable certainty!

Certain mental moods deprive men of the richest blessings of Christianity. Of this proposition the text supplies a striking proof and illustration. Had ever man a better opportunity of hearing words of eternal life than Herod had? The divine Teacher was before him the Man who could have opened his eyes to the grandest scenes, and poured into his ear the sublimest strains the Man who could command the resources of infinite intelligence, and thrill the heart with the gladdest tidings: and yet that opportunity was unimproved that memorable meeting a blank! But why so? Why that solemn silence on the part of Christ? Because of Herod’s mental mood. The judge wished his curiosity gratified; he had heard of the great wonder-worker, and longed to behold his feats of skill, or his displays of power. Christ knew the treatment proper for the oblique-minded judge, and acted accordingly: he would not work miracles to gratify a king; he would smile on a child, or dry the tear of misery, but he would not court the applause, or solicit the patronage, of royalty. To whom, then, will the Lord Jesus deign to reveal himself in tender speech or loving vision? Is there any intellect on whose conflicts with scepticism he will bestow his attention? Is there any heart on whose smugglings with sin he will lift up the light of his countenance? Since he was silent before Herod, will he be communicative to any of his creatures? He shall answer for himself: “To this man will I look.” Suppose the divine Speaker had paused here; what inquisitiveness and suspense would have been occasioned! “To this man”; to which man, blessed Lord, wilt thou look? To the man who has slain kings, and wandered to the throne of power through the blood of the warrior and the tears of the widow? To the man who has enrolled his name among the proudest of conquerors? To the man who boasts attachment to the cold exactitudes of a heartless theology? To the man arrayed in purple, and enshrined in the splendour of a palace? Is this the man to whom thou wilt look? Nay! ‘Tis a grander spectacle which attracts the divine eye: to the man “that is poor, and of a contrite spirit, and that trembleth at my word.” Here then we have two conditions of divine communion, viz., contrition and reverence: apart from these there can be no spiritual fellowship. In Herod these conditions were not found; hence Christ was dumb. So with us: if we would truly worship God we must fulfil the conditions herein demanded. Would ye commune with the eternal spirit of the universe? Be contrite and reverent! Would ye walk in the light of the divine eye? Be contrite and reverent! Would ye understand the meaning of the divine will? Be contrite and reverent! Would ye find in the Bible words of hope and joy and love? Be contrite and reverent! “For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.”

Here is presented a truth of solemn importance; viz., we may be self-deprived of the richest blessings of Christianity. Certain men leave the house of worship as they enter it: they carry no heavenly spoil to their homes: they have no expanding of heart, no illumination of mind: and why this leanness? It is true they reproach the minister for want of energy or skill they rail against the arrangements of the sanctuary they complain that there is “no food for the soul,” but they forget the fact that spiritual improvement is contingent on the conditions of reverence and contrition. I would ask such whether they are sure, beyond all misgiving, that their spiritual dwarfishness is attributable solely to the inefficiency of the pulpit? I would adjure them by the living God to pause ere they accuse any of his ministers of the stunting or starvation of their souls. I would charge them by the solemnities of an eternal destiny to beware lest they seek to remove their guilt to the account of the innocent! Is it likely that such men can be profited in sanctuary service? All the week long they toil for earthly possessions their energies are engrossed in “buying and selling, and getting gain ” on the morning of the Lord’s day they hurriedly wash the gold-dust from their busy fingers, and, while yet the din of commercial life rings in their ears, they hasten to the gates of Zion! They have had no secret preparation of heart they have not in the calm of solitude invoked the pardon or the guidance of the Lord they trust all to the excitement of the occasion and if their animal impulses are not aroused, they complain of the feebleness of the ministry! Can we wonder that God is dumb before such men? Can we wonder that they have no relish for simple and quiet devotion? Can we wonder that to them there is no music in the supplication of saints, and no beauty in the tear of penitence? Can we wonder that the heaven is as brass to their heartless formalities of worship? Nay! God is ever silent before such men: he meets them on their own ground: he judges them by their own spirit. If men would carefully prepare their minds ere entering on the exercises of the temple, instead of panting for displays of human genius, they would feast on the devotional part of the service God would deign to speak to their waiting hearts, and they would leave the sanctuary fertilised and refreshed by a baptism of blessing!

I may enumerate a few classes of hearers, whose mental moods deprive them of spiritual enjoyment:

(1) Men of violent personal antipathies. Such persons confound the minister with his message; so that if any whim has been assaulted, or any favourite dogma contravened, they forthwith resort to misinterpretation they turn every appeal into a personality and that which was intended as a blessing they pervert into a curse! God will not commune with them: they fulfil not the condition of fellowship they are neither contrite nor reverent and Christ answers them nothing! All our paltry and miserable prejudices must be renounced ere we can rise into the loftier regions of spiritual manifestation. It is beneath our dignity as immortal beings to suffer our minds to be warped or poisoned by antipathy; let us rather cultivate such a reverence for truth as shall bear our souls far beyond the polluting touch of prejudice or bigotry.

(2) Men of large speculative curiosity. Herod belonged to this class. They wish to pry into the secrets of the Infinite: not content with the ample disclosures which the divine Being has graciously granted, they would penetrate into the deepest recesses of his nature, and scale the loftiest altitudes of his universe. They conceive a philosophic dislike for the commonplace truths of Christianity; and regard with patronising pity the minister who lingers on the melancholy hill of Calvary. Such men would understand all mystery: they would break the silence of the stars, or detain the whirlwind in converse: they would summon angels from their high abode and extort the secrets of heaven they would even dare to cross-examine the Deity himself on the propriety of his moral government! God will answer them nothing. He will meet them with a reserve more terrible than an utterance of thunder, and cause their souls to quake, in a silence which was never broken but by their own presumptuous voice! Were men content to approach the volume of Inspiration with a simple desire to know the truth in relation to themselves, God would shine upon the page, and make it radiant with the most glorious manifestations of his goodness and mercy; but when they open the Bible for purposes of mere speculation and debate, the music of his voice is not heard, nor the majesty of his presence revealed! Wouldst thou behold the King in his beauty? Let thine heart be contrite. Wouldst thou hear his paternal utterances? Be reverent and humble! While curiosity amuses itself with propounding questions, Faith revels in the green pastures of positive blessing; while the carnal mind seeks after the sensuous, Hope regales itself on the anticipation of future and endless felicity! Let ours be the wisdom of attending to the revealed, and waiting with patience the sublime development of infinite purpose and power.

(3) Men who accept rationalism as their highest guide. They reject all that reason cannot comprehend. Their own intellect must see through every subject, otherwise they consider it as worthy only of repudiation. They read the New Testament as they would read a work on mathematics, or a treatise on physical science, expecting demonstration of every point. Such men leave the Bible with dissatisfaction. Christ treats them with silence: their flippant questions elicit no response: their feeble reason plunges in hopeless confusion; Infinitude refuses to be grasped in a human span, and Eternity disdains to crowd into one little intellect its stupendous and magnificent treasures. The mere rationalist is denied fellowship with God: so long as he defies reason, God will be dumb before him: he may utter the most pretentious claims, and make the most philosophic professions of attachment to truth, but he who reads the darkest secrets of all hearts is not to be deluded by lingual protestations or exterior show. Reason has its own peculiar province which it may cultivate to the utmost; but when it would seek to trespass its appointed boundary God awards it the terrible rebuke of divine silence! He answers it “nothing.”

(4) Men who delight in moral darkness. Such men have no objection to theological discussion; they may even delight in an exhibition of their controversial powers, and, at the same time, hate the moral nature and spiritual requirements of the gospel. So long as attention is confined to an analysis of abstract doctrines they listen with interest, but the moment the gospel tears away the veil from their moral condition reveals their depravity upbraids their ingratitude smites their pride and shakes their soul with the assurance of judgment and eternity, they sink back into sullenness, they take refuge in infidelity, or they curse and blaspheme! Your Herods care not for moral betterance; they wish their fancies gratified they desire their questions answered, but they persist in following the devices of their imagination, and imprisoning themselves in the bond-house of bestial passion.

Men so deprived resort to opposition. “And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.” This is a striking illustration of the manner in which the truth has been treated in all ages. Men have approached the Bible with foregone conclusions, and because those conclusions have not been verified they have revolted, and assumed an antagonistic attitude. The course of reasoning has been this: Here is a book professing to have come from God; if it is truly divine it will contain such and such doctrines, but if it is an imposition those doctrines will not be represented. Against such reasoning we must carefully guard; the argument would stand more correctly thus; God has presented this book to the human race; whatever it contains must be founded in wisdom and goodness, whether we comprehend it or not. Man has no right to assume anything in reference to a divine revelation: such is our intellectual and moral constitution that it is utterly impossible for us, priori , to determine what kind of revelation God should grant. It is a matter about which we can have no conception; but now that we are in actual possession of the book we presume to dictate what it should have been! Amazing presumption! Merciful indeed is the divine Being, or he would blast with death the miserable quibblers who audaciously question his wisdom! Shall we suggest improvements in the constitution of suns and their attendant orbs? Shall we remould the great fabric of the universe? Shall we impose nobler laws on the organism of nature? Shall we accelerate the majestic march of the seasons? Why not? If men are wiser than God if men know better than their Maker the kind of revelation needed if men can criticise the moral government of the Eternal if they challenge the Infinite to debate the spiritual economy he has developed why should they not intermeddle with the minor arrangements of the physical creation? It were easier to add splendour to the sun to increase the universe to extend infinitude to prolong eternity, than for the unaided intellect of man to have determined the nature and limits of a divine revelation!

As Herod expected to have his curiosity gratified by the disclosures and miracles of Christ, and resorted to opposition because his expectations were disappointed, so in modern times men have formed certain notions of what a divine record should be; and because these notions are not recognised by the Bible they complacently decide that their judgment is correct, and that the Bible is an error. This is the secret of much of the infidelity which has prevailed in all ages the out-growth of pride which God has mortified. Infidels seek to destroy the Book which does not contain what they have imagined was necessary: when they open the Bible they cannot discover the cause of the Christian’s gratitude and exultation; no voice of gladness appeals to their ear; no solution of the problems which perplex the ingenious is given; to them the prophets and apostles are dumb, or, if they speak, it is in tones of reprehension and warning! How so? Because it is written, “With the merciful thou wilt show thyself merciful, and with the upright man thou wilt show thyself upright. With the pure thou wilt show thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt show thyself unsavoury.” Thus, God reveals himself according to the mental mood of the party desiring a revelation. To the penitent thief in the agonies of crucifixion he addressed the promise of eternal life, but in the presence of the marvel-loving tetrarch, though arrayed in robes of judicial authority, he embodied a silence more appalling than the solemn stillness of the untrodden desert! What was the consequence? Opposition, mockery, torture! The disappointed and chagrined Antipas resorted to the lowest form of vengeance; he yielded to the petulance of his temper, and sought relief in the display of bitter and malignant scorn.

Ample illustration of the proposition might be adduced from the history of infidelity, bigotry, and persecution; but instead of lingering on that, we hasten to indicate the practical bearing of the thesis on the matter more immediately in hand. As men responsible in some degree for the dissemination of Christian truth, it is important to understand how we can best fulfil our mission. In prosecuting this inquiry let me remind you of two things:

(1) That the Bible is God’s appointed representative. What Christ was to Herod, the Scriptures are to us, viz., the embodiment of divine truth and love. We have this representative in our dwelling-places we have it in our native tongue it is a great national fact. We can retire from the din of secular life into the calm of our secret chamber, and there commune with this divine guide. Though we have not the personal presence of Christ, we have what is only one degree less valuable the intelligible record of his life and will. His Spirit is there embodied, and that Spirit will reveal himself according to our mood of mind: two men representing contrary states of feeling may find in the same chapter thoughts the most different: the contrite and reverent Christian will find instruction, comfort, hope while the wonder-seeking Herod will find, as it were, words of fire, or a blank heart-dismaying silence! Let me adjure the teachers of the young to make this record their constant study; other books may be read as subsidiaries, but the Bible must ever remain supreme as a volume for study. Borrow light from every quarter roam in every realm in quest of illustrations make every incident useful as an encouragement or a warning from history, poetry, travel, and biography, bring fact and metaphor, but I charge you in the name of Christ, and in the prospect of eternity, to regard the Volume of Inspiration as the “chief among ten thousand, and altogether lovely.” Imagine not that you have sounded all the depths or grasped all the amplitudes of this great Book the greater your genius the more prolific of thought it will appear; and in proportion to the vigour of your piety will it flow with the water of life! The very fact of our having the Bible involves a tremendous responsibility. Christ is in our house: he will speak to us if we properly address him. The man who neglects the Bible, neglects Christ, and deprives himself of the countless and inestimable advantages attendant on fellowship with God!

(2) That the Bible must be approached in a sympathetic spirit. Would you gather from its pages “thoughts that breathe”? Come with an earnest mind, humbly seeking divine illumination, and your desire will become reality! God will approve your aim, and angels may be missioned to quiet your quivering hearts and thrill you with immortal thoughts. Blessed is the reverent student of this Holy Book; he never opens it without being charmed with its beauty, fired with its ardour, soothed by its tenderness, and transported by its visions of glory! In his eye the light of other literature is but the dimness of a rushlight compared with the overpowering splendour of the sun in his might! To his ear other words are harsh and discordant contrasted with the melodious flow of supernal song. Do you complain that to your investigations the Bible yields but poor returns? I blame your spirit. Do you allege that general literature is more enchanting to your mind? I blame your spirit. When the spirit is put of sympathy with God and truth, no book is so difficult as the Bible to understand; it is all mystery, dark as starless midnight voiceless as the silent grave. But when the heart is contrite, the vision is quickened to behold a lustre dazzling as the purity of God.

“Wondrous things” may we behold in God’s law if we study it in the right mental mood. In fact, all nature is vocal to the ear of the true student; there is a voice in the opening year, in the budding spring, in the glorious dawn, the pensive twilight, the star-lit firmament, and the spreading sea there is a suggestive beauty and an impressive grandeur everywhere; and could we but walk through this material temple with unclouded intellect and pure heart, we should find a lesson in every breeze, a thought in every atom! But some men find no joy in communing with nature to them there is no poesy in a flower, and no music in a tempest; the mountain, the landscape, and the sea “answer them nothing,” all is vacant to their unappreciative eye. So with the great Volume of Revelation, some readers feel not the force of its appeals to them it is but a common book, which fails to captivate their genius, or entrance their imagination, or subdue their heart. In the plaintive Psalms of Israel’s sweet singer no note affects their being in the fiery majesty of Ezekiel they behold no glory; in the mystic prognostications of Daniel nothing arouses their wonder; in the genial, tender, propitiatory life of Jesus no incident breaks open the fount of their sympathy. Can such men feel any interest in the moral culture of the young? Can such men be expected to support the benevolent institutions of their age? No, is the only answer. Our leaders, ministers, teachers, and supporters must be found in the ranks of the lowly-minded, the contrite, and the reverent The Herods of society applaud us so long as we can amuse their fancy or gratify their curiosity; but so soon as this power fails they exchange compliment for mockery, and “exceeding gladness” for determined persecution.

Let our prayer be, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me,” that so our minds may ever be open to the reception of divine light. It is a glorious and a hallowed thing to commune with God. We know the conditions on which this privilege can be realised. Let us tremble lest we forfeit it: for Saul, after he had been deposed from the throne of Israel, and found himself weak in the presence of a mightier foe exclaimed, in an agony we cannot describe, “I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more neither by prophets nor dreams.” Time was when God held fellowship with the illustrious potentate; of this he was reminded by the faithful Samuel in this burning question, “When thou wast little in thine own sight wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel, and the Lord anointed thee king over Israel?” And what is this question but another form of the proposition that contrition and reverence are the necessary conditions of fellowship with the Infinite? Let us then be lowly, if we would be wise let us be humble if we would be great let us worship at the footstool if we would be raised to a throne let us pray in filial trust if we would awake the responsive sympathy of God. Would we be mighty teachers and preachers of the gospel? Let us commune with Jesus. Would we break the mountains in pieces and turn our enemies to confusion? Let us commune with Jesus. Would we elevate the truth, and drive error from her ramparts? Let us commune with Jesus. Would we silence the miserable reproaches of infidelity? Let us commune with Jesus. Would we make life a joy, death a friend, and the tomb an avenue to glory? Let us commune with Jesus. ‘Twill make us strong in battle, swift in race, patient in suffering, and triumphant in death. His thrilling words will awaken our courage his genial smile will develop our powers his gracious promises will inspire our hope. We may be rich in grace, valiant in fight, strong in confidence, and successful in labour, if we commune with Jesus.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

XXVI

JESUS BETRAYED, ARRESTED, FORSAKEN; TRIED BY ANNAS, BY CAIAPHAS, AND BY THE SANHEDRIN

Harmony, pages 186-196 and Mat 26:47-75 ; Mat 26:59-75 ; Mat 27:1-2 ; Mar 14:48-15:1 ; Luk 22:47-23:1 ; Joh 18:2-28 .

In the last chapter we considered the sorrow of Christ in Gethsemane, and dipped somewhat into the account of the betrayal of our Lord. Just here we call attention particularly to the supplemental testimony of John’s Gospel that the Roman band or cohort, under its own prefect or miltary tribune, or chiliarch, was present when Jesus was arrested, and participated therein, indeed, themselves arresting, binding, and conducting Jesus to the Jewish authorities. This is a little difficult to understand, but we find no difficulty in the presence of the Temple guard, under the leadership of the Sanhedrin, and the mixed multitude irregularly armed, that came out for the purpose of arresting Jesus. Our trouble is to account for so strong a Roman force, under a high Roman officer, and the part they played in the matter, inasmuch as it was not an arrest for violating a Roman law, nor did they deliver the prisoner to Pilate, but to Annas and Caiaphas. From this supplemental story of John (Joh 18:2-14 ), certain facts are evidenced:

Judas, the betrayer of Christ, and who guided the arresting party, “received the Roman cohort,” usually about 600 men, under its own commanding officers. This could not have been without the consent of Pilate.

They evidently did not go out to make an ordinary arrest under Roman law, else would the prisoner have been delivered to Pilate. Yet the facts show that they did seize and bind Jesus and deliver him to Annas, one of the acting high priests, and thence to Caiaphas. As it was not customary for Roman legionaries in conquered states to act as a constabulary force for local municipal authorities in making an arrest touching matters not concerning the Empire, and as it is evident there were present an ample force of the Jewish Temple guard, besides an irregularly armed Jewish multitude subordinate to the Sanhedrin, then why the presence of this Roman force at all, and more particularly, why their participation in the arrest? The answer is as follows:

First, both the Sanhedrin and Pilate feared tumults at the crowded feasts when the city swarmed with fiery, turbulent Jews gathered from all the lands of the dispersion. Doubtless the Sanhedrin had represented to Pilate the presence in the city of a dangerous character, as they would charge, yet one so popular with the masses they dare not attempt to arrest him in the daytime, and even feared a mob rising in the night.

Second, their presence and intervention was necessary to protect the prisoner himself from assassination or lynch law. When they came to the garden and found Jesus there with a following of at least eleven men disposed to resist the arrest, and when they saw the whole Jewish guard fall before the outshining majesty of the face of Jesus as if stricken by lightning, and when they saw at least one swordstroke delivered in behalf of Jesus, then only, it became proper for the Roman guard to intervene. This necessity might arise from the fact that they could not trust the turbulent Jews with the management of this case. “We will arrest this man and protect him from their violence until delivered to their authorities to be tried for whatever offense with which he may be charged under their laws.” Indeed, humanly speaking, if that Roman cohort had not been present, he would have been mobbed before he reached any kind of a trial. The case of Paul (Act 21:30 ), and the intervention of Lysias, the chiliarch, illustrates the grounds of Roman intervention. It must be borne in mind that the Romans were silent, and did nothing until they saw the Temple guard unable to face the dignity of Jesus, and that a commencement, at least, of the struggle had been made by Peter to resist arrest.

As we are now coming to the climax of our Lord’s earth life, his betrayal, his trials, condemnation, execution, and resurrection, the literature becomes the richest in the world, and the bibliography most important. Particularly do we here find a unique and most powerful literature from the viewpoint of lawyers. They do not intrude into the theological realm to discuss the trial of Jesus as the sinner’s substitute before the court of God on the charge of sin, with the penalty of spiritual death, nor the trial of Jesus as the sinner’s substitute before the court of Satan on the charge of sin, with the penalty of physical death, but they discuss the legal aspects of his trial before the Jewish supreme court, the Sanhedrin, on the charge of blasphemy) with the penalty of stoning, and the trials of Jesus before the Roman courts of Pilate and Herod on the charges of treason and sedition. They answer the question: Under the Jewish law, which was not only civil and criminal, but ecclesiastical, was Jesus legally arrested, legally prosecuted, and fairly condemned, or was the whole case, as tried by the Sanhedrin, a case of malice, violating all the rights of the accused, and culminating in legal murder? In the same way these great lawyers and jurists expound the case before the Roman courts of Pilate and Herod, and from a lawyer’s viewpoint pronounce upon the Judgment of these cases under a judicial construction of the Roman law.

Under this first head of bibliography I give a list of these books by the great lawyers, every one of which ought to be in every preacher’s library. Do not waste money on inconsequential and misleading books. Do not fill your libraries with rubbish. Have fewer and greater books, and study them profoundly.

The Testimony of the Evangelists, by Dr. Simon Greenleaf. He was a law partner of Chief Justice Story, was for quite a while professor of law in Harvard University, and the author of that noted book, The Law of Evidence, which has been accepted in two continents as the highest and safest authority OD this great theme. Indeed, when we consider this splendid contribution by Dr. Greenleaf, we may almost forgive Harvard for its erratic infidel president emeritus, Dr. Charles v. Eliot, and many of its radical critic professors. This book of Greenleaf’s, over 600 pages, is divided into the following distinct parts:

The legal credibility of the history of the facts of the case, as given by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, of which there are no known existing autographs, but only copies. The question he raises is from the lawyer’s standpoint: “Before a human court, could these confessed copies be accepted as legal evidence of the history of the case?” That part of the case he demonstrates affirmatively in the first fifty-four pages.

Then he gives a harmony of these histories, pages 55-503, in order to compare the several histories on each fact given, not only of our Lord’s life and death, but of his resurrection and appearances. The point of this section is to show that the books, having been accepted as legal evidence, then these are a legal harmony of the testimony of the books.

He gives on pages 504-549 Tischendorf’s discussion of the various versions or translations of these histories, with notes of variations from the King James Version, to show that the legal harmony is not disturbed.

Having thus shown the legal credibility of the histories, and their legal harmony as witnesses, he applies the case by giving his account of the trial of Jesus before these three earthly courts, demonstrating that it was a case of legal murder, pages 550-566.

Then on pages 567-574 he gives an account of the trial of Jesus from a Jewish viewpoint. Mr. Joseph Salvador, a physician and a learned Jew, published at Paris a work entitled A History of the Institutions of Moses and of the Jewish People, in which, among other things, he gives an account of the course of criminal procedure in a chapter on the administration of justice, which he illustrates in a succeeding chapter by an account of the trial of Jesus, which he declares to be the most memorable trial in history. This last is the chapter Mr. Greenleaf publishes. Mr. Salvador ventures to say that he shall draw all of his facts from the evangelists themselves, without inquiring whether their history was developed after the event, to serve as a form of new doctrine, or an old one which had received fresh impulse. This was a daring venture on the part of Mr. Salvador. Relying upon these historians Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John for the facts, he contends that Jesus was legally arrested, legally tried, according to all the forms of Jewish law, and legally condemned.

The rest of Mr. Greenleaf’s book, pages 575-603, he gives to a reply to Salvador by the very distinguished French advocate and doctor of laws, M. Dupin, which is a most overwhelming demonstration of the fallacy of Mr. Salvador’s argument. This sixth section of Mr. Greenleaf’s Kook makes it invaluable to a biblical student.

The late Judge Gaynor, a jurist, and who later became mayor of New York City, delivered a legal exposition on the trial of Jesus Christ, purely from a lawyer’s standpoint. His conclusions are in harmony with Dr. Greenleaf and Dr. Dupin.

In two octavo volumes Walter M. Chandler, of the New York bar, has written perhaps the most critical examination of the whole subject from a lawyer’s standpoint. He devotes his first volume to the Jewish trial, and his second volume to the trials before the courts of Herod and Pilate. On all substantial points, and after a most exhaustive investigation of the legal points involved, he agrees substantially with Dr. Greenleaf, Dr. Dupin, and Judge Gaynor.

In only one point would the author think it necessary to criticize this great book by Mr. Chandler, and that does not touch the merits of the law of the case he discusses. I refer to that part of his second volume where, after bearing his most generous testimony to the many excellencies of the Jewish character and its many illustrious men and women in history, whether as prime ministers, financiers, philanthropists, or as contributors to special forms of literature, and after denouncing the persecution to which the Jewish people have been subjected by all nations, except the United States, he then seems to deny national responsibility to God and, particularly, any connection of the worldwide sufferings of the Jews with their national sin of rejecting the Messiah.

All my life shows my abhorrence of the persecutions of Jews and my admiration for their great men and women who have conferred lasting benefits on the race. The only point upon which I would raise a criticism is that he does not write as a lawyer when he seems to deny that nations, like individuals, are under responsibility to God for what is done by them, and through their acknowledged leaders. That part of his book cannot be sustained in either nature, law, or revelation. To sustain his contention on this point he must repudiate the univocal testimony of the entire Jewish Bible, whether law, prophets, or psalms, as well as the entire New Testament, Christ and the apostles, universal history, and nature as interpreted by true science.

Among the general works on the trial of Jesus (i.e., not confined to the legal phases of the case), I commend Edersheim’s Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah , a part of Farrar’s Story of a Beautiful Life, with Broadus’ Commentary on Matthew. It would cover the limits of a whole chapter to even name the books on the cross.

It was a strange episode of the young man in the linen garment: “And a certain young man followed with him, having a linen cloth cast about him, over his naked body: and they lay hold on him; but he left the linen cloth and fled naked” (Mar 14:51-52 ). Commentators have supposed that this young man was John Mark, who alone recounts the fact. They account for his presence and state thus: The upper room in which the Lord’s Supper was established was the house of his mother. When Judas gathered his arresting force he could not yet know that Jesus had left that room, and so first, he led his armed force to that house. This aroused the house, and Mark, himself a Christian, threw a linen robe about him and followed to Gethesame and so was present at the arrest of Jesus.

It is at least worthy of notice, that Melville, a great Scotch preacher, preached a sermon on the passage (Mar 14:51 f), contending that the young man in the linen robe was the antitype of the scapegoat (Lev 16 ). The sermon is a classical model in diction and homiletics, but is absolutely visionary. There is not a hint anywhere in the New Testament that his conjecture is at all tenable. I cite this fact to show you that preachers, in their anxiety to select texts that have the suggestion of novelty in them, will sometimes preach a sermon that will be sensational in its novelty, and yet altogether unscriptural in its matter, and to warn you against the selection of texts of that kind.

The next thought is the manner in which Judas identified the person of Christ, that he might be arrested. They were sure that some of the disciples would be with him, and they wanted to get the right man. So Judas gave this sign: “When we get to them I will step out and kiss the One that we want to arrest: that will be the sign to you. When you see me step out from you and kiss a certain Man in the group, that is the Man you want.” Christ submitted passively to the kissing of Judas, but said to Judas, “Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?” And that has gone down into history. Traitors betray with a kiss. It is to that incident Patrick Henry refers in his famous speech before the House of Burgesses in Virginia, when he said to them, “Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss,” that the English government would furnish bouquets in compliments, while mobilizing armies and fleets for conquest.

The incident of the sword. Some-find, it difficult to reconcile Luk 22:22 with Mat 26:51-55 ; Luk 22:51 ; Joh 18:10-11 ; Joh 18:24 . The explanation seems to be simple. In his charge (Mat 10 ), while he was alive and they were in his service, they must depend upon him for defense and support. But while he was dead they must defend and support themselves. This, of course, could apply only after his death and until his resurrection. Peter was both too soon to fight, for he was not yet dead, and too late to go back to his fishing, for Christ was then risen.

Only those preachers whose Christ is dead should use the sword or resume self-support.

When Christ was arrested, all the disciples, without any exception (and there were eleven of them), forsook him and fled, and now at midnight he is led through the silent streets of Jerusalem, hemmed in by a cohort of Roman soldiers, who are attended by officers of the Sanhedrin and their servants. They bring him, strange to say, first to the house of Annas. This man Annas is one of the most remarkable men in Jewish history. He had himself been high priest; his son-in-law, Caiaphas, is high priest at this time; six of his sons became high priests. It made no difference to him who was official priest, he, through sons and sons-in-law, was the power behind the throne. He was very wealthy, lived in a palatial home, and was a Sadducee, like Dr. Eliot, and believed in neither angel, spirit, nor resurrection of the dead. He believed also in turning everything over to the Romans. That is, he aligned himself with what is called the “Herod party,” or “Roman party.” The patriot Jews hated him. Josephus draws an awful picture of him.

Mr. Salvador, in alleging that Christ was tried according to the forms of Jewish law, forgets that the Jewish law forbade the employment of spies in their criminal trials, and yet they brought Judas. He forgets that Jewish law forbade a man’s being arrested at night that it forbade any trial of the accused person at night. He forgets that an accused person should be tried only before a regular court. And yet the first thing they did was to bring Jesus to the house of Annas for a private examination, while the guard waited outside at the door till Annas got through with him. On page 190 of the Harmony we have an account of what took place in the house of Annas. The high priest catechised Jesus. Annas is called the high priest as well as Caiaphas. He asked Jesus about his disciples and about his doctrines. Jesus said, “I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in synagogues, and in the Temple, where all of the Jews came together; and in secret spake I nothing. Why asketh thou me? Ask them that have heard me.” So to conduct an examination of that kind at all; to conduct it at night; to conduct it not in the presence of a full court; to allow the prisoner to be struck, were all violations of the Jewish law concerning the administration of justice.

Notice what the Jewish trial is. Dr. Broadus shows the preliminary examination before Annas; second, the trial before the Sanhedrin that night, in the house of Caiaphas; third, the meeting of the Sanhedrin the next morning. It was not proper that a man should be tried except in the place of meeting, the Sanhedrin, and in this they violated the law. It was not proper that he should be tried at night, as Jesus is tried this night in the house of Caiaphas.

Let us now see what were the developments that night at the house of Caiaphas. “Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together” (Joh 18:24 ; Mat 26:57 ). That constituted the Sanhedrin chief priests, elders, and scribes. The chief priests were Sadducees; the scribes were Pharisees. The Sanhedrin, according to a Jewish account, consisted of seventy-two twenty-four chief priests, twenty-four elders, and twenty-four scribes. The Sanhedrin was the supreme court in matters ecclesiastical and criminal. They had some lower courts that were appointed by the Sanhedrin. Any town of just 100 or 200 population had a court of three. If it was a larger population it had a court of twenty-three, but the Sanhedrin was the high or supreme court in all matters ecclesiastical and criminal. When the Romans conquered Judea, as was usual with the Romans, they took away from the people the right of putting anybody to death by a sentence of their own courts. They refer to this, saying, “We are not allowed by the Romans to put a man to death under sentence of our law.” That is, when Pilate had said to them, “Why do you not try him before your own law?” they said, “We are not permitted to put a man to death under our law.” That night there were assembled the Sanhedrin, as the record says: “Now the Sanhedrin was seeking [imperfect tense, denoting continued action, not only sought, but were seeking] false witnesses against Jesus.” They were seeking these witnesses with a view to putting him to death. They had previously decreed his death; and now they were simply trying to find somebody that would swear enough to justify them. Not even that Sanhedrin, when they heard the multitude of these false witnesses, could find two of them agreed upon any one point. And the Mosaic law solemnly declared that there must be two witnesses to every fact. But at last there came two false witnesses, and here is what they testified: “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’ “

That is the sum of the evidence, and all the other testimony was thrown out as incompetent. Both these men lied. He never said that, but away back in his early ministry, when he first cleansed the Temple, and when he first came into conflict with these people, he had said these words: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it again.” He was speaking of the temple of his body, but he never said that he would destroy that Temple (of Jerusalem) and in three days build another.

But they were not satisfied with that, so the high priest violated the law by asking Jesus to speak. It was a principle of the Jewish law that one should not be forced to testify against himself. A man might testify for himself) but he is protected by the judge who sits on the bench from giving evidence against himself. Jesus knew all that, so he paid no attention. So the chief priest had to get at that matter in another way He did have a right in certain cases, to put a man on oath before God, and this is what he did: “I adjure thee [which means to swear by the living God, the highest and most solemn form of the judicial oath put thee on thy oath] before the living God that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.” To that Jesus responded.

Under the solemn oath before God he swore that he was the Messiah, and that hereafter that very crowd of people would see him sitting at the right hand of the throne of God in heaven.

I preached a sermon once from this text: “I adjure thee by the living God.” A young lawyer was present. He had never heard such a thing before. In the sermon I presented the character of Christ, against whom no man could prove an accusation; the devil himself found nothing in him; all the enemies of the great doctrines of the New Testament admitted the spotless character of Jesus of Nazareth. And yet this Man swore by the living God that he was the Messiah. All of the latent infidelity in the lawyer disappeared under that sermon. To this day he will testify that there got on his mind in the discussion of that single fact that Jesus was the Son of God. Would such a man swear to a false-hood? Is it credible that he would? He knew what “Messiah” meant that it meant he was the God-anointed One, to be the Prophet, the Sacrifice, the Priest, and the King, and he swore that he was. After his oath they should have tried his claims by the law, the prophets, and the facts of his life.

When he had given that testimony under oath the high priest rent his robe. The law required that whenever they heard a blasphemy they were to rend their clothes, and unless Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God; unless God was his Father, while Mary was his mother; unless he was the God-anointed Prophet, Sacrifice, Priest, and King, then it was blasphemy. And therefore Mr. Greenleaf, who is the author of The Law of Evidence, a law book which passes current in all the law books on this continent and in Europe, in mentioning the trial of Jesus Christ, says, No lawyer of any reputation, with the facts set forth in the Gospels, would have attempted to defend Jesus Christ, except on the assumption that he was the Messiah and divine, because all through the Book that is his claim. If he was not divine, he did blaspheme. Therefore when he took that oath, that court should have investigated the character of his claim as the Messiah, but instead of that they assumed the thing that they should have investigated and called it blasphemy.

Another great violation of the law takes place: “What further need of witnesses have we? We have heard the blasphemy; what think ye?” And now they vote that he is worthy of death; they condemned him to be worthy of death. Their law declared that a vote of condemnation should never be taken the day of the trial. There had to be at least three intervening days, and here at night they pass sentence on no evidence but the oath of Jesus Christ, and that without investigating the matter involved. Then they allowed the following indignities: They spat in his face and buffeted him; they smote him with the palms of their hands after they had blindfolded him. Then one would slip up and slap him, saying, “Prophesy who hit you.”

I shall omit in my discussion here all this testimony concerning the denial of Peter, because I want to bring all of the history of Peter together. I pass that point for the present. I merely remark that the case of Judas and the case of Peter, connected with the arrest and the trial of Jesus Christ, have an immensity of pathos in the tragedy of the twelve the first one and the last one on the list.

That is the Jewish trial except this one additional fact: When it was morning, or as soon as it was day, they held their final meeting, and confirmed their night decision. They had a law that the Sanhedrin must come together for a final meeting in a case of this kind, and that if anybody had voted to acquit in the first meeting he could not change his vote, but if anybody had voted to condemn in this meeting he might ratify or he might change his vote and acquit. There were to be three days between these meetings. Having thus finished the Jewish trial, which was in violation of all the forms of the law, as soon as daylight comes they carry Jesus to Pilate.

The first trial of Jesus, then, was before the Jewish Sanhedrin; the accusation against him was blasphemy; the penalty under that law was to be put to death by stoning, but they had not the power to put to death. So now they must bring the case before the court of Pilate. And here Mr. Salvador says that the Jewish Sanhedrin’s condemnation of Jesus Christ on the charge of blasphemy was confirmed by Pilate. There never was a statement more untrue. Pilate declined to take into consideration anything that touched that Jewish law. When he tried him he tried him ab initio, that is, “from the beginning,” and he did not consider any charge that did not come under the Roman law. Therefore, we see this people, when they bring the case before Pilate, present three new charges. The other case was not touched on at all, but the new charges presented were as follows: First, “he says that he himself is King”; the second is, “he teaches that Jews should not pay tribute to Caesar”; and third, “he stirreth up the people,” which was one of the things that the Roman was always quick to put down anywhere in the wide realm of the Roman world. A man who stirred up the people should be dealt with in a speedy manner. Treason was a capital offense. So they come before Pilate and try him in this court on the threefold charge, viz.: “He says he is King; he forbids this people to pay tribute to Caesar,” interrupting the revenue coming into Rome, which was false, for he taught to the contrary; and “he stirreth up the people.” We have had, then, the history of his case, so far as his trial before the Jewish Sanhedrin is concerned. In the next chapter we will take up his first trial before the court of Pilate.

QUESTIONS 1. What two facts concerning the arrest of Christ are evident from John’s supplemental story?

2. Why the presence of the Roman legionaries and their participation in the arrest of Jesus?

3. What illustration in Acts of the intervention of the chiliarch to protect a prisoner?

4. What unique and powerful literature on the trials of Jesus is mentioned?

5. What question do they answer?

6. What three books from the viewpoint of the lawyer commended?

7. What are the six distinct parts of Greenleaf’s Testimony of the Evangelists?

8. On what one point does the author dissent from Mr. Chandler?

9. What general works on the trials of Jesus commended?

10. Who was the young man spoken of in Mar 14:51-52 , and how do the commentators account for his presence and state on this occasion?

11. What noted Scotch preacher preached a sermon on this incident, what was his interpretation of this young man and what the lesson here for the preacher?

12. How did Judas identify Christ as the one to be arrested, what saying originated from this incident and what reference to it in the early history of our country?

13. How do you reconcile Luk 22:22 with Mat 26:51-55 ; Luk 22:51 ; Joh 18:10-11 ; Joh 18:24 ?

14. Upon Christ’s arrest what prophecy of his was fulfilled?

15. After his arrest where did they lead him, why to him, and what were the characteristics of this man?

16. Of what did the Jewish trial consist?

17. Give an account of what took place at the house of Annas.

18. Where did they take Jesus when they left the house of Annas, by what body was he tried there, of what was that body composed, and what were the limitations of its power under the Roman government?

19. Describe the trial of Jesus before this court.

20. What was the testimony of Jesus under oath, what should have been their course after his oath, what charge did they bring instead, and under what circumstances would their charge have been sustained?

21. What indignities did Jesus suffer in this trial?

22. What two pathetic cases connected with the arrest and trial of Jesus?

23. What the last act of the Jewish trial?

24. After the Jewish trial where did they lead Jesus, how did Pilate try him, what the threefold charge brought by the Jews against Jesus, and what the legal name of these offenses?

25. In what great particulars did the Jews violate their own law in the arrest and trial of Jesus as defined by Mr. Salvador?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

1 And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.

Ver. 1. See Mat 27:2 ; Joh 18:28 .

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

1 5. ] HE IS ACCUSED BEFORE PILATE. Mat 27:2 ; Mat 27:11-14 .Mar 15:1-5Mar 15:1-5 .Joh 18:28-38Joh 18:28-38 . Our account, not entering at length into the words said, gives a particular and original narrative of the things transacted at this interview.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Luk 23:1-5 . Before Pilate (Mat 27:1-2 ; Mat 27:11-14 , Mar 15:1-5 ). At the morning meeting of the Sanhedrim (in Mt. and Mk.) it had doubtless been resolved to put the confession of Jesus that He was the Christ into a shape fit to be laid before Pilate, i.e. , to give it a political character, and charge Him with aspiring to be a king. To this charge Lk. adds other two, meant to give this aspiration a sinister character.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Luk 23:1 . , the whole number. The Jewish authorities go to Pilate in full strength to make as imposing an appearance as possible and create the impression that something serious was on hand. : nothing is said about leading Jesus bound , as in Mt. and Mk.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Luke Chapter 23

Luk 23:1-25

Mat 27:2 , Mat 27:11-31 ; Mar 15:1-20 ; Joh 18:28-19:16 .

We have next the scene before the Roman governor. Heartless as he was and with little conscience, still wilfulness characterized the Jews. “And the whole multitude of them rose up and led him to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this [man] perverting our* nation and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ, a king.” Thus they who were really impatient under the Roman yoke, breaking out from time to time into turbulent opposition, were here forward in the pretence of loyalty. But this was a little thing compared with the blindness of unbelief – which denied their own Messiah. Nor could any charge be more false. He had departed from them when they wished to make Him a king. He had only just before expressly enjoined that they should render to Caesar the things that were Caesar’s, no less than to God the things of God.

*”Our”: so Edd. after BDH, etc., 69, Syrr. Old Lat. Memph. Sah. Aeth. Blass, with AEG, etc., and most cursives, adheres to “the.”

It will be observed that when “Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? he answering said to him, Thou sayest.” The Lord acknowledged the authority that was ordained of God, however He might suffer it. This is the true safeguard of faith, let the authority be ever so faithless. We are called to walk in His steps. We are not of the world even as He is not of the world. By and by we shall reign with Him and shall judge the world; we shall judge even angels. The more are we called above the world in spirit to be subject to God’s authority in it: only we must obey God rather than man and therefore suffer where His will and the world’s authority come into collision. So the Lord here witnesses a good confession,tid=68#bkm566- and submits to all the consequences.

But it is striking to observe that the Lord’s confession of the truth (for indeed He was the King of the Jews) did not damage His cause before the Roman governor, but with His own people, blinded against the truth. On the contrary, “Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, I find tid=68#bkm567-tid=68#bkm567- no fault in this man. But they insisted, saying, He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, beginning from Galileetid=68#bkm568- as far as this.” Satan was pushing the incredulity of Israel to the last extremity. It is always so finally with his victims. Christ, in the fulness of His grace and truth, thoroughly brings out what is in man, because He brings in God.

“But Pilate having heard of Galilee,* demanded if the man were a Galilean. And having learnt that he was of Herod’s jurisdiction, he remitted him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem in those days. And when Herod saw Jesus he rejoiced exceedingly, for he was wishing for a long time to see him, because of hearing [much] of him. And he hoped to see some sign done by him, and questioned him in many words. but he answered him nothing.”tid=68#bkm569- The silence of the Lord was a very solemn condemnation of Herod, while it gave the fullest opportunity for the rude insolence of his followers as well as of the accusers. “And the chief priests and the scribes stood and vehemently accused him. And Herod with his troops set him at nought and mocked him, and having arrayed [him] with a splendidtid=68#bkm570- robe, sent him back to Pilate.”tid=68#bkm571- The Spirit of God does not fail to notice here the moral peculiarity of the transaction. There had been a feud between the Governor and the King, but “Pilate and Herod became friends with one another that very day, for they had been previously at enmity with each other.”tid=68#bkm572- Thus it is against Christ that Satan contrives to make his union in the world, as the grace of God does by Him and for Him.

*”of Galilee”: so ADRX, later uncials, in cursives, Syrr. Old Lat. Sah. Edd. omit, as BLT, Memph.

[“Much”]: so ARX, later uncials, most minuscules, Syrr. Old Lat. Edd. omit, following BDKLM, 1, Syrrcu sin Sah. Memph. The word is in AERX, etc., 13, 69, other Syrr. Old Lat.

The closing hour approaches, “And Pilate having called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people said to them, Ye have brought to me this man as turning away the people, and behold I, having made examination in your presence, have found no fault in this man, as to the things of which ye accuse him; nay, nor yet Herod, for I remitted you to him,* and behold, nothing deserving of death is done by him. Having chastised him therefore, I will release him.” Such was the boasted equity of the Roman empire, of man. There was no doubt of the innocence of Jesus. The charges of the people had been proved to be fictitious. The hardened judge could. not condemn, but acquit as a matter of justice. He was willing to concede something to please the people, but he was anxious to release the Prisoner. Whether the 17th verse be genuine or not, there can be no doubt from what follows that it was the custom to release a prisoner at this time. Several excellent authorities omit the verse, as the Alexandrian, the Vatican, the Parisian uncials (62 and 63), with several very ancient versions, whilst others change its position. Nevertheless the Sinai, with the mass of MSS. and some of the best versions, contains it. On the whole the balance seems in its favour, as it also would be harsh to act upon an unexplained custom. “Now he was obliged to release one for them at [the] feast. But they cried in full crowd, saying, Away with this [man] and release Barabbas for us; one who for a certain tumult made in the city and murder had been cast into prison.” Such was the choice of man, such the value of their loyalty to Caesar, such their care for God’s respect for the life of a fellow-creature made in His image. A rebel and a murderer preferred to Jesus!

*”I remitted () you to him”: so Lachm., Treg., Meyer, Alford, etc., with ADXM, later uncials, nearly all cursives, Syrhcl (txt), most Old Lat. (Cf. verse 10.) Most Syrr. (including sin.) have “I sent him to him.” Tisch., W. H. (Revv.), Blass and Weiss adopt “He sent him back () to us,” following BKLM, etc., the Egyptians and Aeth.

The versions omitting are the Egyptians and one copy of Old Lat. The uncials containing it, besides , are XM, etc.; all the cursives show it, besides several copies of Old Lat., with Amiat. of Vulg. The Syrr. have it, only that Cureton’s and the Sinaitic, as Cod. D., place it after verse 19. Treg., Tisch., Meyer, W. H., Weiss (as from Matthew or Mark) discredit, but Blass (as Wordsworth and Milligan) retains the verse; this critic being of opinion that the omission arose from confusion of the two initial and (verse 18) , and he observed that is Lucan (xi v. 18).

“Again therefore* Pilate addressed them, wishing to release Jesus. But they kept calling in reply, Crucify, crucify him! And he said the third time tid=68#bkm573- to them, Why, what evil has this [man] done? I have found no cause of death in him. Having chastised him therefore, I will release [him]. But they were urgent with loud voices begging that he might be crucified; and their voices [and those of the high priests] prevailed.tid=68#bkm574- And Pilate gave sentence that what they begged should take place, and released him who, for tumult and murder, had been cast into prison, for whom they begged, and Jesus he delivered up to their will.”tid=68#bkm575-

*”Again therefore”: so X, etc. Edd. read “and () again,” as ABDLT, Syrsin Latt. Memph.

“And of the high priests”: so ADTX, later uncials, all cursives, Syrr. (including sin.). Blass brackets. Other Edd. omit, as BL, most Old Lat., Amiat., Sah.

After “released,” KM, 1, 69, Syrr. Amiat., add “to them.” Edd. omit, with ABD, etc.

Thus all the world was proved guilty before God, but none were so deeply involved as those whom it least became. The people who had the law fell under its curse, not merely because they were disobedient to its requirements, but, worst of all, because they were resolutely bent on the rejection of their own Messiah to death, and this when the heathen sought to let Him go. Such was what the world was proved to be, where the reality came out through Him who alone was real, the Holy and the True. No room for boasting more: there never was, in truth, but now it is evident and impossible to be denied by him who rightly reads the Word of God.*

*Dean Alford remarks that Luke omits the scourging and mocking of Jesus. It is just _possible that he might have omitted the mocking, because he had related a similar incident before Herod; but how shall we say this of the scourging, if he had seen any narrative which contained it? The break between verses 25 and 26 is harsh in the extreme, and if Luke had any materials wherewith to fill it up, I have no doubt he would have done so. Truly, unbelief is not confined to unbelievers, and is to my mind more grievous, as it is less consistent, in the believer. The reasoning is as feeble as the presumption is inexcusable, even if verses 16 and 23 did not prove that scourging is distinctly implied on the part of Pilate. Inspiration does not give all that was known, but the Holy Spirit selects facts and words according to the Divine design in each writer. We know expressly from the last of the Evangelists that much more was known than was recorded (Joh 20:30 , Joh 20:31 ). The nature of the design in Luke excludes the detail of Gentile iniquity,tid=68#bkm575- and accounts by moral purpose of the Spirit for that omission which was so unworthily, and I will add unintelligently, imputed to the writer’s ignorance. To call a break “harsh in the extreme” which is due to the Holy Spirit I must leave every pious reader to characterise. (B.T.)

Luk 23:26-32 .

Mat 27:52 ; Mar 15:21 .

Nevertheless the Spirit of God gives us more. “And as they led him away, they laid hold of a certain Simon, a Cyrenian, tid=68#bkm576- coming from [the] country, and put on him the cross to bear [it] after Jesus.” There was no restraint now, but if man were lawless, God remembered Simon another day, and his sons are not forgotten in the record of life. (Compare Mar 15:21 and Rom 16:13 .) It may be a terrible truth that God looks down from heaven and beholds the children of men, and sees none so worthy of reprobation as those who misuse selfishly the highest privileges of His mercy; but when we know Him, or rather, are known of Him, it is not the least of our comforts that God takes account of everything, and knows how to reply in His grace to those who have power and not on the side of the oppressor.

It is not that man lacks feeling: but feeling without faith comes to nothing, no less than mind, or authority, or position, were it the highest in the religious world. The affections of nature may be sweet, but never can be trusted to stand firm to Christ, however moved for a season. “And there followed him a great multitude of the people and of women who* wailed and lamented him. And Jesus turning to them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not over me, but weep over yourselves and over your children; for behold, clays are coming in which they will say, Blessed the barren and wombs which bear not and breasts which suckled not. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall upon us, and to the hills, Cover us.tid=68#bkm577- For if they do these things in the green tree, what shall take place in the dry? “Jesus knew what was in man, despised not the feelings of the women, but trusted Himself to none. Tenderly He warns them of that which man believes not till it comes, for it is a part of man’s wisdom to suppose the future uncertain in the words of God, because it is uncertain to man. Fools and slow of heart to believe what the Lord said no less than their own prophets! Had they believed them, they had not refused Him. Had they received Him, days of heaven had dawned upon the earth, on Israel especially, and all the glorious visions of His reign had been accomplished. But Israel was ruined and guilty, man fallen and lost, and all in such a state reject Jesus. Therefore God works out deeper counsels by the Cross of Jesus in heaven and for heaven, now testified by the Holy Ghost sent down here below. These are the counsels and the ways of His grace, but His warnings stand equally, and His Word must be accomplished to the letter. Soon had they an accomplishment, though I do not say that there may not be more in store at the end of the age, when those who refused the true Christ that came in His Father’s name shall receive the Antichrist coming in his own. And the overflowing scourge shall pass through and the apostate Jews be trodden down by it. The Messiah was the green tree, the Jews the dry.tid=68#bkm578- If He because of their wickedness came into such sorrow, what was not reserved to them for their own? For, whatever His grace, God judges righteously.

*After “who,” Ccorr EP, etc., 1, add “also,” which Edd. reject, after ABCpm DEX, 33, Old Lat. Memph.

Luk 23:33-49 .

Mat 27:33-56 ; Mar 15:22-41 ; Joh 19:17-30 .

“And two others, malefactors, were led with him to be put to death.”tid=68#bkm579- Jesus was spared no insult. As He was the song of the drunkard, so He made His grave with the wicked. “And when they came* to the place called Skull,tid=68#bkm580- there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand and the other on the left. And Jesus said, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”tid=68#bkm581- It is not here, as in Matthew and Mark, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” It is the expression of His grace towards sinners, not of His abandonment by God in accomplishing the work of atonement; and it is of the deepest interest to see that, as the answer to the one came in resurrection-power and heavenly glory, so of the other in the proclamation of forgiveness by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven.tid=68#bkm582- Therefore Peter could preach (Act 3:17 ff.), “And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as also your rulers. But those things which God had showed by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. Repent therefore and be converted for the blotting out of your sins, so that times of refreshing way come from the presence of the Lord,” etc. But here again we have to wait. The message of forgiveness was refused. A remnant, indeed, believed, received forgiveness, and rose into better blessings; but the mass have pursued their heedless unbelief to this day, and will sink into deeper darkness. Yet assuredly light shall spring up in the darkest hour, and the remnant of that day shall be brought out of their sins and ignorance alike to be made the strong nation when He appears to reign in glory.

*”Came”: so most Edd., after BCDLQ, 33, 69, Syrrcu sin pesch old Lat. Tisch.: “Had gone,” as T.R., from AEX, etc.

After Lachm. W. H. (see their App. p. 67f.) and Weiss discredit this verse as far as “do,” on the strength of corr BDpm and Akhmim MS., three cursives, Syrrsin and the Coptic versions. The words are attested by pm ACDcorr QX, etc., nearly all cursives, including 1, 33, 69, Syrrcu pesch hcl hier, several Old Lat., Arm. Aeth., and are accepted by Blass, following Tisch. Treg. Alford, etc.

The horrors of the crucifixion in its detail come before us. “And, parting his garments, they cast lots. And the people stood beholding, and the rulers also* [with them] sneered, saying, He saved others, let him save himself if this is the Christ, the chosen of God. And the soldiers also were mocking him, coming up offering him vinegar, and saying, If thou art the king of the Jews, save thyself. And there was also an inscription over him,|| This is the king of the Jews.”tid=68#bkm583- In every respect the Word of God was accomplished, and the ways of men laid bare. It was no question of a class and its peculiar habits. High and low, the governed and the governors, civil and military, all played their part; and the part of all was enmity against God revealing His love and goodness in His Christ. The folly, too, of man was apparent no less than grace in presence of his wickedness. It was because He was the King of the Jews, as none other had been or can be besides, that He saved not Himself, and can therefore send out the message of salvation now and bring salvation by and by. Little did man, in that day, weigh the import of that which was written over Him in Greek and Roman and Hebrew letters, “This is the king of the Jews.” If man wrote it in scorn, God will give it all its own force – God Who overrules the will and the wrath of man to praise Him. Through the Crucified, God will bless the world by and by, Jew and Gentile, high and low, even as His grace gathers out from it now.

*”Also”: as ABC, with all other uncials and the mass of cursives. The word is omitted by Tisch., after D and five minuscules.

“With them”: so A, all later uncials, and most cursives, Syrrcu sin hcl. Edd. omit, as BCDL, etc., 33,69, several Old Lat. Memph.

Influenced by W. H., the revisers have taken as preceding “chosen,” and so “God” with a comma after it. Syrsin, however, sustains the earlier punctuation.

The “and” of T.R. after “coming up,” which is in Ccorr EQX, etc., 1, 33, 69, most Syrr. Amiat., Edd. omit, following ABCpm L, etc.

||Between “inscription” and “the king,” Lachm., with pm ACcorr DXM, etc., all cursives, Syrrpesch hcl, most Old Lat. Arm. Aeth., reads “in Greek and Roman and Hebrew letters.” (Cf. Joh 19:20 .) All later Edd. omit these words, after corr BCpm L, Syrrcu sin and Egyptian versions. Syrsin has “And an inscription was written and placed over him, This is the king of the Jews.”

Here God would give a testimony of His grace to man, suited to His Son and suited to the Cross. Hence He was pleased to choose the most hopeless circumstances in the view of nature, and even while delivering a soul, up to this steeped in guilt and degradation, in the agonies of death, and with the forebodings of a judgment incomparably more solemn, even as it is eternal, to secure in the fullest way His own immutable character, and to manifest in practical righteousness the ungodly one whom His grace had justified by faith. All this and much more may be seen in the history which our Evangelist alone gives of the converted robber.

“Now one of the hanged malefactors reviled him.* Art not thou the Christ? Save thyself and us. But the other in answer rebuking him said, Dost not even thou fear God, because thou art in the same judgment? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due requital for what we have done, but this [man] has done nothing amiss. And he said to Jesus, Remember me when thou shalt come in thy kingdom.tid=68#bkm584- And he said to him, Verily, I say unto thee,|| Todaytid=68#bkm585- shalt thou be with me in paradise.”

*”Saying” is here added by ACQR, etc. Edd. omit, as BDL. Most Edd. reproduce as above the reading of BCpm L, etc., Syrrcu sin Sah. Memph. Arm. Aeth. Blass follows D in omission of all after “him.” The T.R. has, “If thou art,” etc., from ACcorr and all later uncials, all cursives, the other Syrr. and Amiat. The Old Lat. copies are divided.

Here corr ACcorr, all the later uncials and the minuscules, Syrrcu sin Old Lat. Aeth. add “Lord.” Some few, ‘but of the highest authority (BCL, the Sahidic and Coptic versions and Origen sometimes) read, “Jesus, remember me,” etc. (B.T.). So W. H. and Weiss.

“In” before “thy kingdom” is the reading of ACM, for which BL, Syrsin have “into”: so W. H., Treg. and Revv. in marg. and Weiss. Blass, after D, reads the verse thus: “And turning to the Lord, he said to him, Remember me in the day of thy coming ().” See notes in Part II.

“He”: so Edd., as BL, Sah. “Jesus” is read in ACEQRX, etc., Syrr (including sin.).

||Before “today,” Blass introduces “Take courage (),” as D.

There is no sufficient reason to suppose that the robber was converted before he was crucified, or even before he had joined his fellow in reviling the Lord. The earlier Gospels give us ground to believe that both were thus guilty, that the rejected Jesus was exposed to this as well as to every other draught of the bitter cup. I am aware that general phrases may be used, but I see no sufficient ground to doubt that each of the robbers did thus join in insulting the Lord of glory. Why should we hesitate? Is it because the conversion of one of them might seem too sudden? – a reason in my judgment wholly insufficient. Conversion is usually, if not always, sudden, though the manifestation of it may not be. The entrance of the soul into enjoyed peace may be lone, delayed and may demand the removal of many hindrances. This is rarely done in a very short time; but it is wholly distinct from conversion, and the two things should not be confounded as they too often are. Conversion is the soul’s turning to God through a believing reception of the Lord Jesus; the enjoyment of peace depends on the soul’s submission to the righteousness of God when the redemption-work of the Lord Jesus is seen by faith. Hence there are many souls who are truly converted because they have bowed to Jesus, who nevertheless are often cast down and unhappy and burdened, because they do not equally see peace made by the blood of His Cross. Where there is the simple reception of the Gospel the converted soul passes so soon into peace that one can well understand how the two things get confounded in the minds of many; as many others, on the contrary, confound them, because, unconsciously slighting conversion, which frequently plunges the soul in deep exercise and trouble of conscience before God, they only take into account that complete relief and peace which the Gospel ministers.

Certain it is that the malefactor was now converted who rebuked the sin of him, who persisted in reviling the Lord. On the other hand, there may be the surest reviling of the Saviour without one word which man as such would consider blasphemous. In this very instance the impenitent robber simply said, “Art not thou the Christ? Save thyself and us.” It was a thought, it was language not unnatural to man’s mind under such circumstances. It was blasphemy to the mind of the Spirit. That the promised centre and medium of every blessedness for the earth, for man, and for God here below, should die upon a cross did seem beyond measure strange; that He Who had all power to save others, not to speak of Himself, should be pleased so to die, was naturally incredible. Man does not understand the depth of the humiliation of Jesus any more than the grace of God, or of his own utter need as measured and met by both.

But it is deeply interesting to see that a new-born soul discerns according to God, and this instinctively in virtue of the new nature where no formal teaching had been given or received. The converted robber at once warns his impenitent fellow of his sin, sets before him his danger, confesses his own natural state, his own life, his own ways no less evil than the other’s, and in the most serious and feeling way vindicates the glory of the Lord Jesus. “Dost not even thou,” said he in a reply of rebuke, “fear God?” The death which was before his spirit gave the gravest tone to it and made him speak out with evident anxiety, and this not so much for himself personally as in compassion for the reviler, however he might feel his sin. There they were, “in the same judgment,” as a fact, but how different in God’s eyes!

And faith gave him to estimate this aright – the crucifixion of a malefactor unrepentant, of another repentant, and of Him Whose grace drew out the repentance of the latter and hardened the former to the uttermost because he believed not. There is no true fear of God apart from faith; but faith produces not only hope and confidence in God, but also the only genuine sense of what it is to be a sinful man in His sight, and hence the only real humility. Such was the present state of this converted robber. Nothing shows it better than that he should so forget himself as practically to preach to the reviler, to set before him his sin and his danger, to hold up Jesus Christ the righteous. He does not stop to think of the singularity of such words from his own mouth, that be, a wretched, guilty, degraded malefactor, should appear to presume to speak of God to man, to rebuke a fellow-sinner, to maintain unsullied the name of Him Whom the highest authorities had just condemned to die on the cross. This in truth is the humility of faith, not the mere human lowliness of trying to think as ill of ourselves as we can, but the Divinely given sense that we are too bad to think of ourselves at all, because of the perfection we have seen in the Saviour, the Son of God, the man Christ Jesus.

Not that this self-forgetfulness produces the smallest unwillingness to confess our own sins, but on the contrary makes us free to acknowledge them fully, as we see in the words “And we indeed justly, for we receive the just requital for what we have done, but this [man] has done nothing amiss.” The converted man owns himself as bad and as justly condemned as the unconverted one, but he takes all care to exempt Jesus from the common character of fallen man. “this [man] has done nothing amiss.” How had he learnt it? We know not that he had ever listened to or ever seen Him before; but we may be certain that never before had he such a knowledge as would warrant such language. Was he rash, then? He was taught of God, he had beheld the Lamb of God. On the cross he had seen enough, heard enough, to be certain that there was hanged beside him the long-expected Messiah Who should save His people from their sins and blot out their iniquities as a thick cloud, Who should make reconciliation for iniquity, and bring in everlasting righteousness. As for himself, his wicked life was ending, the forfeit of his crimes, due to the outraged majesty of the laws he had broken. But if there was a just sentence of man in his case, there was forgiveness with God that He might be feared; and the spotless dying Lamb had given him to realise both his own sins and God’s holiness as never before.

Without a particle of highmindedness, he felt that the opinion, yea the solemn judgment of man was nothing in Divine things. The high priest had treated the claim of Jesus as blasphemy; the Roman governor had given him up, knowing he was innocent, but afraid of displeasing Caesar, to the murderous will of the Jews. But grace had made single the eye of the converted robber; and his whole body was full of light. He could answer for Jesus as one who was known thoroughly. “This [man] has done nothing amiss.” It was contrary to all man’s experience, not only to what he knew of himself and of others known to him, but to all ever reported since the world began. Yet it was not more sure that others were sinners than that Jesus was not. It was faith, and exactly such a confession of Jesus as glorified Him at that moment when in the eyes of the world at the lowest point, despised and rejected of men. No angel was here to comfort, no apostle to confess Who He the Son of man was. If all else had forsaken Jesus and fled, the converted robber from the cross was there to confess the crucified Lord, in terms hardly heard before but truly adapted in the wisdom of God to give the lie to unbelief. The God Who opened the lips of babes and sucklings a few days before to set forth His praise wrought in the hanged robber with yet greater power now.

“And he said to Jesus, Remember me when thou shalt come in thy kingdom.” An admirable prayer and in beautiful keeping with the whole truth of the position. It is not what we might have thought at first sight suitable to such a case. The Lord described a poor publican as saying acceptably to God, Have mercy upon me, the sinner that I am. The converted robber here has no doubt of the Lord’s mercy. He does not ask for a part in His kingdom, but to be remembered by Jesus then. What! He, a robber, to be remembered by the King of kings and Lord of lords? Even so. He was right, and those who would judge him as wrong are so themselves. They enter not, as he did, into the glory of Jesus, Who, as He calls His own sheep by name now, will not forget the last any more than the first then in the perfection of His love. He prays to be remembered when Jesus should come in His kingdom, for he at least believes in the kingdom of the Son of man. Others might set up the inscription without faith over the Crucified, but the name and kingdom of the Crucified were, inscribed on the converted robber’s heart.

Remark also how he was guided of the Spirit, not more concerning Christ and His ways and character than about His kingdom. Truly he was taught of God. Some looked only for the kingdom of Messiah here, others since conceive that Jesus is gone into a kingdom far away. He prays to be remembered when Jesus shall come in His kingdom; for, as our Evangelist shows in the parable (Luk 19:11 , etc.), He is gone to a far country to receive for Himself a kingdom and to return. He will be invested with the kingdom on high, as also is shown by the prophet Daniel; but He will surely come in His kingdom instead of merely closing all things here below. Not so will He come in His kingdom. He shall reign over all peoples and tribes and tongues. Yet it is no mere earthly realm, but the kingdom of God, consisting of heavenly things as well as of earthly (Joh 3:12 ); nor is it a kingdom of the Spirit, though the Spirit makes it good now in those who believe, but a real personal kingdom of Jesus; and the converted robber, with all saints, will be remembered when He shall come in His kingdom. The once robber will surely have his place in that. day. He knew Whom he had believed and was persuaded that He is able to keep what he had committed to Him against that day.

But the prayer of, faith, while it surely has its answer according to the measure of our soul’s confidence in Divine love according to the Word, has its answer also according to the depths of Divine grace and truth far beyond our measure. So it was now. “And he said to him, Verily, I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” If the prayer of the robber was admirable, much more was the reply of Jesus, a reply ushered in with special emphasis, not for him only to whom it was said, but for us also who believe in Him Who died and rose again for us. The blessings of accomplished redemption are not deferred till that day. They are true now, whether we live or die. We are the Lord’s, and we know it; we are bought with a price; we are washed from our sins in His blood. By Him the Father has made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light. Such is the position, such the standing, such the assured, known privilege of the believer by virtue of redemption. The converted robber was the first soul to taste of this rich and fresh mercy. The Lord assures him, not merely of His remembrance in the kingdom, but of being that very day with Himself in paradise. What a testimony to the all-overcoming and immediate power of His redemption! A robber so purged by His blood as to be that very day with the Son of God, and this, not in heaven only, but in its brightest, highest seats! For such is paradise.

Believer, heed not those who may say that the Lord, separate from the body, abode in gloom till His resurrection. Not so. His spirit was shut up in no prison, but commended by Himself to the Father; and where He is, there too are His saints. Doubtless He had not yet ascended; for ascension, like, resurrection, is predicated of the body; but His spirit went to paradise, and as Adam’s paradise of old was the choicest spot of an unfallen earth where all was very good, so is the paradise of God the choicest of heaven. Hence St. Paul, in 2Co 12 , connects it with the third heaven; and St: John holds it out as the promised scene of glory where the overcomer shall by and by eat of the tree of life. No believer can conceive that this will be a place of dimness and doubt and restraint, but of Divine and everlasting glory through the Second man, the last Adam.

In this paradise, then, the Lord declares that the converted malefactor should be with Him “today,” so completely were his sins blotted out by blood, so rendered capable himself, by and in that new nature which grace gives the believer. Instruction most weighty for us, and a hope full of glory, for it is the present fruit of redemption and the gift of grace to every believer. It was not assuredly his own act of dying which had this virtue for the malefactor, but the death of the Lord; and this is as free and full for every Christian as for him to whose faith it was then made known. To us now it is proclaimed in the Gospel. Shame on those who profess to believe the Gospel, but deny its most precious and eternal blessings. Nor is it merely the dark and queen-like Circe who cheats her victims and destroys them with poisoned cup, and will surely find her plagues from God in one day. How few among those who have cast off her thraldom enjoy the liberty wherewith Christ has set us free! How many with an open Bible overlook the plainest lessons where there is no veil, but man stands immediately confronted with the light of God’s glory in the face of Jesus Christ! Anything short of this is not the true grace of God, is not the Gospel of the glory of Christ, but the darkening effect of that unbelief, so prevalent in Christendom, which has, is it were, sewn up the veil again with God at a distance within, and man without, wistfully looking for a deliverance as if the Deliverer had not already come and finished the work of redemption. For the soul salvation is come: for the body, no doubt, it waits till Jesus come again. But this is another matter on which we need not inquire more now.

Nor did God permit that so stupendous an event as the death of His Son should leave unaffected that world which He had made, or that legal system which He had set up by Moses In the midst of His earthly people. “And it was now* about [the] sixth hour, and there came darkness over the whole land till [the] ninth hour. And the sun was darkened,tid=68#bkm586- and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. And Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit; and, having said this, he expired.”tid=68#bkm587- And the testimony was not without immediate effect on the officer in command at the crucifixion. “Now the centurion, seeing what took place, glorified God, saying, Certainly this [man] was righteous.” But the mass were filled with the sense of having committed themselves to they knew not what. “And all the crowds that came together for that sight, having beheld the things done, returned beating [their] breasts.” Not that some were not there who prized His ministry and were attached to His person, but far off in that day of man’s shame and guilt and of Satan’s power. “And all those who knew him stood afar off, and women who had accompanied him from Galilee, seeing these things.”

*”Now”: so BCpm L, Memph., followed by most Edd. Blass omits, as ACcorr DQRX, all later uncials, all cursives, Syrr. Old Latt. Sah. Arm.

“And the sun was darkened”: so Lachm., Treg., Meyer, and Blass after Acorr DQRXM, all later uncials, most cursives, all Syrr. Tisch., W. H. have “the sun being eclipsed” (Revv. “the sun’s light failing”), (Weiss, Nestle: ), as in BCpm L and Egyptians.

“Commend”: so Edd., following ABCKM, etc., 33, Syrrcu sin T.R. “will commend” is the reading of EL, etc.

“Having beheld”: so Edd. with BCDL, etc., 33, Syrr. EPQ, etc., 69, read “beholding.”

Luk 23:50-56 .

Mat 27:57-61 ; Mar 15:42-47 ; Joh 19:38-42 .

But God used that very day and His grace who was thus put to death to bring out to distinct association with His name a good and righteous man. If Jesus in His life of rejection had not Joseph openly in His train, the death of the cross made him bold while others fled or stood aloof. “And behold, a man named Joseph, being a councillor and a good and righteous man (he had not consented to their counsel and deed), from Arimathea a city of the Jews, who waited for the kingdom of God, himself went to Pilate and begged the body of Jesus; and, having taken down, wrapped in fine linen and placed him* in a rock-hewn tomb where no one had ever been laid. And it was preparation day, and sabbath dusk was drawing on.”tid=68#bkm588- ; On their affection, not without darkness, a brighter day was soon to dawn.

*”Him”: so Edd., following BCD and most Old Lat. “It” is the reading of AELPXGDLP, all later uncials, and most cursives (33).

It was evening, not morning, though learned men have forgotten Jewish modes of expressing the day no less than the ignorant. Any one who takes the trouble may soon see how this mistake has embroiled the harmonies, especially as to the details of the death and the resurrection of Christ in point of time. (B.T.: Cf. Wellhausen ad loc.)

NOTES ON THE TWENTY-THIRD CHAPTER.

566 Luk 23:3 . – See 1Ti 6:13 .

567 Luk 23:4 . – “Find.” For this forensic use, still preserved, cf. 2Co 5:3 , Phi 3:9 , 2Pe 3:14 . For the examination before Pilate in extenso, see Joh 18:33 ff. For the travesty of justice by which it was throughout marked, see Rosadi, “The Trial of Jesus” (E. T. from third Italian edition).

568 Luk 23:5 . – “All Judea, etc.” See note on Luk 4:44 .

569 Luk 23:6 ff. – Against the impeachment of this section by critics (e.g. O. Holtzmann, p. 482, Schmiedel, 108, col. 1840), Burkitt’s defence, “attested by Gospel of Peter,” may well qualify by quantum valeat (p. 138).

A difficulty has been raised as to the Crucifixion being as early as 9 A.M. (Mar 15:25 ), in the light of Luke’s statement here. But cf. Joh 18:28 : “it was early,” when the Lord was led into the Praetorium (palace), which may quite well have been by 6 A.M. The distance traversed and retraversed between the residences of Pilate and Herod would be short. The historicity of this section needs for its support no such assumptions as those of Verrall (The Journal of Theological Studies, April, 1909, pp. 321-353).

As to Luke’s source of information, cf. note 4F. He is as familiar with the doings of Agrippa in Act 12:20 , Act 13:1 , as here with those of Antipas.

For the technical term rendered here and in verse 17, “remitted,” cf. Act 25:21 , where it is used again.

570 Luk 23:11 . – The word is strictly “white”; and to this incident is attributed the use of the vestment called “alb.”

571 Luk 23:12 . – With regard to the treatment by textual critics of verses 10-12, it may be said that, what with Tischendorf’s fondness for , Hort’s partiality to “B,” and Wellhausen’s being wedded to Syrsin, something further is needed as determinative beyond “diplomatic” evidence, reinforced as that may be by “historical” or “critical acumen” enlisted in the service of irreconcilable views.

572 Cf. Act 4:27 .

573 Luk 23:22 .- Cf. veres 4 and 15. By Roman Law the Procurator ought not to have entertained the second, to say nothing of the third, trial.

574 Luk 23:23 . – “Urgent”: so American Revv. Cf. Psa 12:4 .

575 Luk 23:25 . – Wellhausen can but speak of “indiscoverable reasons.” J. Weiss, however, notes Luke’s also forbearing to record the soldier’s completion of the crucifixion: the Evangelist clearly meant to attach the blame to the Jews.

“Pilate” is included in Whyte’s “Bible Characters,” LXXXIV.

576 Luk 23:26 . – “Cyrene,” the modern Tripoli. Cf. Act 6:9 . Observe how Luke’s account brings together John’s statement and that of Matthew and Mark. The Lord must alone have borne the cross until relieved of some portion of it by Simon.

577 Luk 23:28-30 . – Cf. Rev 6:12 , Rev 6:15 f. Stier calls this the first part of the Lord’s Passion Sermon; the remainder is, of course, the seven words from the Cross, beginning with that in verse 34, where see note.

578 Luk 23:31 . – Cf. Psa 1:4 . The explanation of “green” and “dry” is that long ago given by Theophylact (cf. Farrar).

See Tholuck’s Sermon on verses 26-31 (“Light from the Cross,” p. 100), and Dr. Arnold’s from verse 30.

579 Luk 23:32 . – Some copies alter the order, but the punctuation of A.V. is right from every point of view.

580 “Skull,” i.e., Golgotha a name avoided, as Gethsemane, etc., in view of Gentile readers. “Calvary” of A.V. is from the Latin Vulgate.

581 Luk 23:34 . – This saying of course fulfils the last clause of Isa 53:12 . Cf. 1Ti 1:13 . The other utterances from the Cross are: (2) in verse 43 here; (3) in Joh 19:26 ; (4) in Mar 15:34 ; (5) in Joh 19:28 ; (6) in Joh 19:30 ; and (7) in verse 46 here.

On the reading, see Blass, “Philology of the Gospels,” p. 71.

582 The suggestion of O. Holtzmann and others that the words in Mat 27:46 , as in Mar 15:34 , had by the time Luke wrote come to be regarded as derogatory to the Son of God, is in the usual strain of “critical” nescience.

One has but to compare Luk 20:17 with the scope of quotation from Psa 118 in Matthew and Mark, to see, as often elsewhere in this Gospel, how Luke condenses his record. That which is of chief importance is that it was to God as such, and not from the standpoint of Joh 3:14 ff., that the cry “with a loud voice” (verse 46) went up. Cf. note 587.

Tholuck has preached on verses 33-35 (p. 203).

583 Luk 23:38 . – “The King of the Jews, this!” For the tone of contempt, which finds suited expression in Luke, cf. Isa 53:3 .

As to the various forms of inscription recorded by the Evangelists, see Stuart, pp. 283-285, comparing note 349 on John. The Lord here acts as King; before as Prophet (verse 28), and then as Priest (verse 34). Cf. Maclaren, ii., p. 307.

584 Luk 23:42 f. – As to this robber’s probable acquaintance with the Lord’s predictions, see Meyer in loc. “The Penitent Thief” is one of Whyte’s “Bible Characters,” No. LXXXVII.

Wellhausen treats the in “B” (R.V. margin, “into”) as “a very bad correction.”

585 Luk 23:43 . – “Verily.” For this form of emphatic announcement, cf. Luk 2:24 , Luk 12:37 , Luk 18:17 , Luk 18:29 , Luk 21:32 .

“Today shalt thou be, etc.” Or, “I say to thee today, thou shalt be, etc.” (Whately and others). This alternative is rejected by Alford, but favoured, it would seem, by B. W. Newton, in his note on the Locality of Hades (“Remarks on Mosaic Cosmogony,” p. 85), who points out the advantage such punctuation affords in meeting the difficulty which some feel in respect of the present passage, and refers to the bearing of Joh 3:13 on the Paradise question (infra).

Syrsin has an interesting addition: the impenitent robber had here said, “Save thyself alive today and us.”

“With Me”: Plummer, “Not merely in My company ( ), but sharing with Me ( ). The promise implies continuance of consciousness after death.”

“PARADISE” (cf. note on Luk 16:22 ). Or, as Continental versions, “the Paradise.”

The Expositor’s view, that by this is meant the heavenly Paradise, is taken also by B. W. Newton, B. Weiss, and others. It will be observed that W. Kelly (as Delitzsch, “Biblical Psychology,” p. 497, and Beck of Tbingen, “The Logic of Christian Doctrine,” p. 526) held that our Lord’s human spirit did not pass, as say the Apostles’ and Athanasian Creeds, into Hades (“Hell”); and this notwithstanding Act 2:27 , where the Revv. have preserved “in.” His conviction was that there should have been rendered “to,” as the corresponding Hebrew preposition in Psa 16:10 , the Apostle’s citation. It is fair, however, to note that the same Hebrew occurs in Job 39:14 , and is there rendered “on,” in parallelism with “in.” Others regard “to” in the Psalm as equivalent to “in.”

The usual belief is founded on such passages as Mat 12:40 (the Lord’s soul), Rom 10:7 and Eph 4:9 .

The Expositor, as B. W. Newton, has taken sides against the early “Fathers,” according to whose view, the separate state of all the blessed dead is referable to Hades; and has thus agreed with the Westminster Divines (note 417).

At the Reformation there was a recoil, emphasized by the Puritans of the next century, from mediaeval ideas in general; and so, not only from such conceptions as Gregory’s purgatorial suffering, but from the interpretation of passages like Phi 1:6 , considered by many still to indicate continued sanctification after death for the perfect state of Heaven (cf. Heb 12:23 ), right on “to the day of Christ!” This does not, however, seem to be the Apostle’s real meaning.

Such words as Paul’s in Eph 2:6 dispose some to the view taken in the Exposition; whilst others emphasize the difference between the “Sheol” of the Old Testament, regarded as a “prison,” a scene of “gloom,” and the condition of comfort presented in Luk 16:25 , – the “unseen” world as brightened by the enjoyment, in rest, of Christ’s presence as Divine Redeemer (Psa 139:8 , Eph 4:10 , 2Co 5:8 , Phi 1:23 ). They likewise experience difficulty in conceiving that any could be set before the of Christ (2Co 5:10 ) – yet all are to be “manifested” there – if the “Catholic” interpretation be really correct of the opening verses of the chapter concerned (see Explanatory Catechism, No. 102), as of Rev 2:7 , according to which a select company of believers go straight to heaven on death; or the view of Weymouth, that those do so “who resemble in character and watchfulness the Wise Virgins.”

That the “Beatific Vision” (“Explan. Catech.” 132) will be finally realized by all the redeemed, is common ground (Rev 22:4 ). Holy Scripture, however, nowhere speaks, as do the Roman Catechism (No. 104) and some Protestant hymns, of any disembodied spirits as already “glorified.” For that, resumption of the body will be needed (Phi 3:21 ).

By “dead in Christ” (1Th 4:16 ) must be meant the whole person of each (1Th 5:23 ). Resurrection, not death, is the hope of the Christian (2Co 5:4 : cf. Mat 16:18 and 1Co 15:55 , which are future).

Tholuck and Newman Hall have preached on verses 39-43.

586 Luk 23:44 ff. – Under normal conditions there could be no eclipse of the sun at the season of full moon: hence the solemnity of the darkness. Cf. Jer 23:20 ff., Psa 89:36 ff.

Montefiore (after others, see note 582) observes that “the cry of forsakenness was inconceivable to” Luke (verse 46). But – as he himself says elsewhere of a remark of J. Weiss – how does he know that? No one pretends that the quotation from Psa 31 is a “substitute” for the earlier quotation from Psa 22 . Luke’s is added detail: recovery of sense of Divine Sonship when, according to the last of the records, from the remembrance of an eye-witness, JESUS could exclaim, “It is finished” (Joh 19:30 ).

587 The Lord’s death, according to the view of Wieseler, Schrer, and Salmon, was on the 7th April, A.D. 30. “Christ our Passover was sacrificed” (1Co 5:7 ). at the hour of the evening sacrifice, “between the two evenings” (Exo 12:6 ), which may mean between the beginning of Friday (our Thursday) evening and the beginning of Saturday (our Friday) evening. See next note.

See Tholuck’s Sermon on verses 46-48.

588 Luk 23:54 . – The “Preparation” () is synonymous with the “eve” of the Passover, “by which the time from the evening of the 14th to that of the 15th Nisan is always described in Jewish writings” (Edersheim, “The Temple,” etc.: p. 220 f.). It came to designate the Christian’s Friday.

The word . Montefiore connects with the kindling of the “Sabbath lights” at the Jewish opening of that day.

Cf. note 531, and see Mar 15:42 , Joh 19:31 , Joh 19:42 , with notes thereon.

Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)

Luke

‘THE RULERS TAKE COUNSEL TOGETHER’

Luk 23:1 – Luk 23:12 .

Luke’s canvas is all but filled by the persecutors, and gives only glimpses of the silent Sufferer. But the silence of Jesus is eloquent, and the prominence of the accusers and judges heightens the impression of His passive endurance. We have in this passage the Jewish rulers with their murderous hate; Pilate contemptuously indifferent, but perplexed and wishing to shirk responsibility; and Herod with his frivolous curiosity. They present three types of unworthy relations to Jesus Christ.

I. We see first the haters of Jesus.

So fierce is their hatred that they swallow the bitter pill of going to Pilate for the execution of their sentence. John tells us that they began by trying to get Pilate to decree the crucifixion without knowing Jesus’ crime; but that was too flagrant injustice, and too blind confidence in them, for Pilate to grant. So they have to manufacture a capital charge on the spot, and they are equal to the occasion. By the help of two lies, and one truth so twisted as to be a lie, they get up an indictment, which they think will be grave enough to compel the procurator to do as they wish.

Their accusation, if it had been ever so true, would have been ludicrous on their lips; and we may be sure that, if it had been true, they would have been Jesus’ partisans, not His denouncers.’ The Gracchi complaining of sedition’ are nothing to the Sanhedrim accusing a Jew of rebellion against Rome. Every man in that crowd was a rebel at heart, and would have liked nothing better than to see the standard of revolt lifted in a strong hand. Pilate was not so simple as to be taken in by such an accusation from such accusers, and it fails. They return to the charge, and the ‘more urgent’ character of the second attempt is found in its statement of the widespread extent of Christ’s teaching, but chiefly in the cunning introduction of Galilee, notoriously a disaffected and troublesome district.

What a hideous and tragic picture we have here of the ferocity of the hatred, which turned the very fountains of justice and guardians of a nation into lying plotters against innocence, and sent these Jewish rulers cringing before Pilate, pretending loyalty and acknowledging his authority! They were ready for any falsehood and any humiliation, if only they could get Jesus crucified. And what had excited their hatred? Chiefly His teachings, which brushed aside the rubbish both of ceremonial observance and of Rabbinical casuistry, and placed religion in love to God and consequent love to man; then His attitude of opposition to them as an order; and finally His claim, which they never deigned to examine, to be the Son of God. That, they said, was blasphemy, as it was, unless it were true,-an alternative which they did not look at. So blinded may men be by prejudice, and so mastered by causeless hatred of Him who loves them all!

These Jewish rulers were men like ourselves. Instead of shuddering at their crime, as if it were something far outside of anything possible for us, we do better if we learn from it the terrible depths of hostility to Jesus, the tragic blindness to His character and love, and the degradation of submission to usurpers, which must accompany denial of His right to rule over us. ‘They hated Me without a cause,’ said Christ; but He pointed to that hatred as sure to be continued towards Him and His servants as long as ‘the world’ continues the world.

II. We have Pilate, indifferent and perplexed.

Luke’s very brief account should be supplemented by John’s, which shows us how important the conversation, so much abbreviated by Luke, was. Of course Pilate knew the priests and rulers too well to believe for a moment that the reason they gave for bringing Jesus to him was the real one, and his taking Jesus apart to speak with Him shows a wish to get at the bottom of the case. So far he was doing his duty, but then come the faults. These may easily be exaggerated, and we should remember that Pilate was the most ignorant, and therefore the least guilty, of all the persons mentioned in this passage. He had probably never heard the name of Jesus till that day, and saw nothing but an ordinary Jewish peasant, whom his countrymen, like the incomprehensible and troublesome people they were, wished, for some fantastic reason, to get killed.

But that dialogue with his Prisoner should have sunk deeper into his mind and heart. He was in long and close enough contact with Jesus to have seen glimpses of the light, which, if followed, would have led to clear recognition. His first sin was indifference, not unmingled with scorn, and it blinded him. Christ’s lofty and wonderful explanation of the nature of His kingdom and His mission to bear witness to the truth fell on entirely preoccupied ears, which were quick enough to catch the faintest whispers of treason, but dull towards ‘truth.’ When Jesus tried to reach his conscience by telling him that every lover of truth would listen to His voice, he only answered by the question, to which he waited not for an answer, ‘What is truth?’

That was not the question of a theoretical sceptic, but simply of a man who prided himself on being ‘practical,’ and left all talk about such abstractions to dreamers. The limitations of the Roman intellect and its characteristic over-estimate of deeds and contempt for pure thought, as well as the spirit of the governor, who would let men think what they chose, as long as they did not rebel, spoke in the question. Pilate is an instance of a man blinded to all lofty truth and to the beauty and solemn significance of Christ’s words, by his absorption in outward life. He thinks of Jesus as a harmless fanatic. Little did he know that the truth, which he thought moonshine, would shatter the Empire, which he thought the one solid reality. So called practical men commit the same mistake in every generation. ‘All flesh is as grass;. . . the word of the Lord endureth for ever.’

Further, Pilate sinned in prostituting his office by not setting free the prisoner when he was convinced of His innocence. ‘I find no fault in this man,’ should have been followed by immediate release. Every moment afterwards, in which He was kept captive, was the condemnation of the unjust judge. He was clearly anxious to keep his troublesome subjects in good humour, and thought that the judicial murder of one Jew was a small price to pay for popularity. Still he would have been glad to have escaped from what his official training had taught him to recoil from, and what some faint impression, made by his patient prisoner, gave him a strange dread of. So he grasps at the mention of Galilee, and tries to gain two good ends at once by handing Jesus over to Herod.

The relations between Antipas and him were necessarily delicate, like those between the English officials and the rajahs of native states in India; and there had been some friction, perhaps about ‘the Galileans, whose blood’ he ‘had mingled with their sacrifices.’ If there had been difficulties in connection with such a question of jurisdiction, the despatch of Jesus to Herod would be a graceful way of making the amende honorable , and would also shift an unpleasant decision on to Herod’s shoulders. Pilate would not be displeased to get rid of embarrassment, and to let Herod be the tool of the priests’ hate.

How awful the thought is of the contrast between Pilate’s conceptions of what he was doing and the reality! How blind to Christ’s beauty it is possible to be, when engrossed with selfish aims and outward things! How near a soul may be to the light, and yet turn away from it and plunge into darkness! How patient that silent prisoner, who lets Himself be bandied about from one tyrant to another, not because they had power, but because He loved the world, and would bear the sins of every one of us! How terrible the change when these unjust judges and He will change places, and Pilate and Herod stand at His judgment-seat!

III. We have the wretched, frivolous Herod.

This is the murderer of John Baptist-’that fox,’ a debauchee, a coward, and as cruel as sensuous. He had all the vices of his worthless race, and none of the energy of its founder. He is by far the most contemptible of the figures in this passage. Note his notion of, and his feeling to, Jesus. He thought of our Lord as of a magician or juggler, who might do some wonders to amuse the vacuous ennui of his sated nature. Time was when he had felt some twinge of conscience in listening to the Baptist, and had almost been lifted to nobleness by that strong arm. Time was, too, when he had trembled at hearing of Jesus, and taken Him for his victim risen from a bloody grave. But all that is past now. The sure way to stifle conscience is to neglect it. Do that long and resolutely enough, and it will cease to utter unheeded warnings. There will be a silence which may look like peace, but is really death. Herod’s gladness was more awful and really sad than Herod’s fear. Better to tremble at God’s word than to treat it as an occasion for mirth. He who hates a prophet because he knows him to be a prophet and himself to be a sinner, is not so hopeless as he who only expects to get sport out of the messenger of God.

Then note the Lord’s silence. Herod plies Jesus with a battery of questions, and gets no answer. If there had been a grain of earnestness in them all, Christ would have spoken. He never is silent to a true seeker after truth. But it is fitting that frivolous curiosity should be unanswered, and there is small likelihood of truth being found at the goal when there is nothing more noble than that temper at the starting-point. Christ’s silence is the penalty of previous neglect of Christ’s and His forerunner’s words. Jesus guides His conduct by His own precept, ‘Give not that which is holy unto the dogs’; and He knows, as we never can, who come into that terrible list of men to whom it would only add condemnation to speak of even His love. The eager hatred of the priests followed Jesus to Herod’s palace, but no judicial action is recorded as taking place there. Their fierce earnestness of hate seems out of place in the frivolous atmosphere. The mockery, in which Herod is not too dignified to join his soldiers, is more in keeping. But how ghastly it sounds to us, knowing whom they ignorantly mocked! Cruelty, inane laughter, hideous pleasure in an innocent man’s pain, disregard of law and justice-all these they were guilty of; and Herod, at any rate, knew enough of Jesus to give a yet darker colouring to his share in the coarse jest.

But how the loud laugh would have fallen silent if some flash had told who Jesus was! Is there any of our mirth, perhaps at some of His servants, or at some phase of His gospel, which would in like manner stick in our throats if His judgment throne blazed above us? Ridicule is a dangerous weapon. It does more harm to those who use it than to those against whom it is directed. Herod thought it an exquisite jest to dress up his prisoner as a king; but Herod has found out, by this time, whether he or the Nazarene was the sham monarch, and who is the real one. Christ was as silent under mockery as to His questioner. He bears all, and He takes account of all. He bears it because He is the world’s Sacrifice and Saviour. He takes account of it, and will one day recompense it, because He is the world’s King, and will be its Judge. Where shall we stand then-among the silenced mockers, or among the happy trusters in His Passion and subjects of His dominion?

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Luk 23:1-5

1Then the whole body of them got up and brought Him before Pilate. 2And they began to accuse Him, saying, “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that He Himself is Christ, a King.” 3So Pilate asked Him, saying, “Are You the King of the Jews?” And He answered him and said, “It is as you say.” 4Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, “I find no guilt in this man.” 5But they kept on insisting, saying, “He stirs up the people, teaching all over Judea, starting from Galilee even as far as this place.”

Luk 23:1 The NJB puts this verse as the conclusion of the paragraph beginning in Luk 22:66. This is because “the whole body” refers to the Sanhedrin (cf. Mat 26:59), who met early in the morning in an attempt to legitimatize their judicial proceedings of the night before.

Luk 23:2 “they began to accuse Him, saying” Although Jesus was condemned by the Sanhedrin for blasphemy, the charges they brought before Pilate relate to sedition:

1. corrupting the nation

2. forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar

3. claiming to be a king himself (the Jewish Messiah, see Special Topic at Luk 2:11)

Luk 23:3 “Pilate asked Him, saying ‘Are You the King of the Jews?’ And He answered him and said, ‘It is as you say” Jesus answered in the affirmative, but with qualifications (in a sense similar to His answer to the High Priests in Luk 22:70). Pilate (see Special Topic at Luk 3:1) would have understood this as a “no” to the political charge of sedition. One of the main purposes of Luke and John is to show that Jesus and His followers are no threat to Roman authority (cf. Mat 26:25; Joh 18:36-37).

Luk 23:4

NASB”I find no guilt in this man”

NKJV”I find no fault in this Man”

NRSV”I find no basis for an accusation against this man”

TEV”I find no reason to condemn this man”

NJB”I find no case against this man”

Luke emphasizes this truth over and over, as does John, that Jesus was not treasonous and that Pilate understood this (cf. Luk 23:14-15; Luk 23:22; Joh 18:38; Joh 19:4; Joh 19:6).

Luk 23:5

NASB”but they kept on insisting”

NKJV”but they were the more fierce”

NRSV”but they were insistent”

TEV”but they insisted even more strongly”

NJB”but they persisted”

This is an imperfect active indicative. The Greek term epischu appears only here in the NT, but is used twice in the Septuagint (cf. 1Ma 6:6; Sir 29:1) in the same sense. The other Gospel writers use the term katgore (cf. Mat 27:12; Mar 15:3; Joh 18:29; even Luke in Luk 23:10). Luke often uses his own vocabulary even when following Mark’s Gospel. The doctrine of inspiration must include the Holy Spirit’s using the vocabulary of the individual NT authors. Their words are directed by God, but not dictated. The NT authors were not typewriters.

NASB, NKJV,

NRSV”He stirs up the people”

TEV”he is starting a riot among the people”

NJB”He is inflaming the people”

Here Luke uses the same verb as Mark (Luk 15:11). This word is not found in the Septuagint.

“starting from Galilee” The Jewish authorities added this to further condemn Jesus as a traitor to Rome. Galilee was a hotbed of seditious activity. However, Pilate used this as an opportunity to pass the judicial responsibility to Herod (cf. Luk 23:6-7).

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

multitude. Greek. plethos = number (not ochlos = crowd). In the usage of the Papyri it denotes an assembly.

unto. Greek. epi. App-104.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

1-5.] HE IS ACCUSED BEFORE PILATE. Mat 27:2; Mat 27:11-14. Mar 15:1-5. Joh 18:28-38. Our account, not entering at length into the words said, gives a particular and original narrative of the things transacted at this interview.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

And the whole multitude of them arose, and they led him unto Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ [or the Messiah,] a king ( Luk 23:1-2 )

Now notice, their accusation against Him was blasphemy, “You’re saying You’re the Son of God.” When they brought Him to Pilate to accuse Him before Pilate, they didn’t make that charge at all before Pilate. Why? Because they knew that Pilate would throw it out. You say, “It’s just your own problem if your own religious superstitions don’t come to the Roman court with that.” So when they came to the Roman court, they came with a whole different set of charges. The charges before the Roman court was that of perverting the nation, seditious. “He is a man who said you shouldn’t pay taxes to Caesar.” That’s not true. He said, “Give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s.” And then they also accused Him of declaring Himself to be the King.

And Pilate asked him, saying, Are you the King of the Jews? And he answered and said, [You said it] Thou sayest it ( Luk 23:3 ).

Equivalent today of saying, “Hey, you said it!”

And then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this Man. And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all of Judea, beginning from Galilee to this place ( Luk 23:4-5 ).

Now Galilee was the place where all the rebellions against Rome started. So by placing Him in Galilee, they were seeking to place Him at the heart of rebellion against Rome. “This man is stirring up people everywhere, up there in Galilee.” And it was one of those buzzwords by which they intended to get Pilate excited.

But when Pilate heard Galilee, he asked whether the man was a Galilean. And as soon as he knew that [he was a Galilean,] he belonged to Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself was also was at Jerusalem at this time ( Luk 23:6-7 ).

This is Herod Antipas.

And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desiring to see him for a long time, because he had heard so many things about him; and he had hoped that he might see some kind of a miracle done by him. Then when he questioned him in many words; but Jesus answered him nothing ( Luk 23:8-9 ).

This is the Herod, of course, who had beheaded the cousin of Jesus, John the Baptist. And Jesus had nothing to say to him at all.

And so then Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate. And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: because there had been enmity between them for quite some time. And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers of the people, he said unto them, You’ve brought this man unto me, as one that is perverting the people: and, behold, I have examined him before you, and I find no fault in this man touching those things whereof you accuse him: no, nor did Herod: for I sent you to him; and lo, nothing worthy of death has been done by him. I therefore am going to chastise him, and release him (for of necessity it was a custom that he would release unto them one prisoner at the feast). And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas: (who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.) ( Luk 23:11-19 )

Now Barabbas was guilty of these very charges which they were making against Jesus. False charges against Jesus; they were true against Barabbas.

Pilate, therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them. But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil has he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I therefore will chastise him, and let him go. And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified ( Luk 23:20-23 ):

And the tragic scripture…

and the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed ( Luk 23:23 ).

How sad when the voices of the mob prevail.

And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required. And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will. And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus ( Luk 23:24-26 ).

Now the procession, typical Roman procession, was, they had four Roman soldiers; two going slightly ahead and two slightly behind, and the prisoner in the middle. And then, one soldier would lead the procession. And the soldier leading the procession had a sign with the accusation against the person to be crucified. In this case, the sign said, “The King of the Jews.” And when they came to the place of crucifixion, this sign was then nailed to the top of the cross so that the people would all know the reason why this man was being put to death by the Roman government. As they would go through the streets of the city, they would usually take the longest route. And, of course, there was always a lot of noise and a lot of clamor, and this was intended to draw the people out to see what was happening. And they would see this man walking in the midst of the Roman soldiers, pulling his cross along, and they knew that he was going to be crucified and the accusation against him was in front. And it was like terror in the hearts of the people against trying to rebel against Rome.

Jesus, weakened by the chastening, was probably physically unable to bear the cross any further. And so they compelled this man Simon, who was a Cyrenian, to bear the cross. What the Roman soldier did was just take his sword and lay it flat on your shoulder, and he could order you to carry his bags for a mile. And that was Roman authority; you couldn’t say no. You couldn’t say, “Well, I’m busy. I have to get this quart of milk home to my wife. She’s baking cookies and expecting me to come home with milk.” You couldn’t do that. He laid that sword flat on your shoulder and if he’d tell you to do something, no arguments. You had to do it. And so they laid the sword flat on Simon’s shoulder and said, “Carry this man’s cross,” and Simon began to carry the cross.

Now, according to Josephus, the Roman government, the Jews would not allow a census to be taken since the time of David, when the judgment of God came against Israel because David numbered the people. And so, the Roman government wanted to know approximately how many people there were. And so they counted the number of sheep that were killed for the Passover at the time of Christ. And according to Josephus, there were 26,572 sheep killed for this one Passover. And there was, according to the law, a minimum of ten people to eat the one lamb. You had to have at least ten people. So the number of people at that particular Passover was over 2,700,000. Of course, it was the longing desire of every Jew to go to Jerusalem for the Passover some time in his life. If you lived within fifteen miles of Jerusalem, an adult male, you were required to be there. Further away it was always your dream. And so, when they would partake of the Passover, they would say, “This year here; next year Jerusalem.” Even to the present day, it’s a traditional part of the Passover feast. “This year here; next year Jerusalem.” Simon had, no doubt, come from Tripoli, for that is a Cyrenian who was from Tripoli, for this Passover. It could be that he was very upset when that Roman sword was laid on his shoulder and he was compelled to bear the cross. We do not know, but we are told that this Simon was the father of Rufus and Alexandria. The fact that his sons are named, I believe it’s in Mark’s gospel, it means that his sons were well known by the Christians. So there is a very good likelihood that this Simon, as a result of his encounter with Jesus and bearing the cross of Jesus, was converted. And his sons became well known in the early church, Rufus and Alexandria. As Paul is writing to the church in Rome, he said, “And greet Rufus, who is as my brother, and his beloved mother, who is as my own mother.” It could be the very Rufus, the son of Simon who was compelled to bear the cross of Jesus.

And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also were bewailing and lamenting him. And Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, don’t weep for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they will say, Blessed are the barren ( Luk 23:27-29 ),

To be barren was a curse. They’d always say, “Cursed are the barren.” If a woman could not bear a child, that was cause for divorce, legal cause for divorce, an acceptable cause for divorce. If you could not bear a son for your husband, that was an acceptable cause for divorce in those days. And they would say, “Oh, she’s cursed; she can’t bear children.” But Jesus said, “The day is going to come when they’re going to say, ‘Blessed are the barren.'”

and the womb which has never born, or the breasts which have never nursed. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and the hills, Cover us. For if they do these things in a green tree ( Luk 23:29-31 ),

That is, while I am here, the light of the world . . .

what are they going to do in the dry? ( Luk 23:31 )

These days did come. In less than forty years, the Roman troops came and ravaged the land of Palestine. And the vast majority of the Jews were killed. In the final assault upon Jerusalem, according to the account of Josephus, over a million Jews were killed. And 96,000 were carried captive back to Rome to be slaves for life.

There were also two other, malefactors, who were led with him to be put to death. And 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 ( Luk 23:32-34 ).

This statement of Jesus, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do,” according to Luke’s gospel here, was made as they were preparing them for the cross. That is, they would lay the cross down on the ground, which was in a shape sort of a “T.” And they would stretch out the prisoner’s hands on the crossbars and they would drive these spikes through his hands.

Last year when I was in Jerusalem, I was visiting in a house of a Theo Sidonboom, who had excavated under his house and had come back to the Roman period. And had found there this large spike, which looks like a railroad spike. And he said to me, “These are the spikes that it is believed the Romans used in crucifixion.” I said, “Theo, I’ve got to have one of the spikes. I don’t care what it costs; I want one.” I hope that he has one for me when I go back. I’m going to call and see. He said he thought he could get me one. I want to show you what the Roman spikes look like that they have uncovered there in Jerusalem. But they would drive these spikes through the hands on the crossbars. And in the case of Jesus, they drove the spikes also through his feet, as they nailed Him to the cross. And then they would implant the cross in the ground. Now, while they were nailing Him, Jesus said, “Father, forgive them. They know not what they do.”

Here we find that Jesus, having been brought to the place physically, where He could no longer go around touching the blind eyes, touching the deaf ears, because His hands are now held fast to that cross. Though He cannot minister in an active way, walking around their villages any more, still there’s one avenue of ministry left. And He exercises it; the ministry of prayer. And He prays for them. And the prayer of Jesus was answered. On the day of Pentecost some fifty days later, when they were again gathered in Jerusalem for that celebration, when the Holy Spirit descended upon the early church and the people gathered to observe the phenomena that accompanied the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Peter stood up and he said, “You men of Israel, harken unto me. For these men are not drunken as you suppose. It’s only nine o’clock in the morning. But this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel, when he said, ‘In the last days,’ saith the Lord, ‘I’m going to pour out My Spirit upon all flesh and your sons and daughters are going to prophesy, and your young men are going to see visions and your old men will dream dreams. And upon My servants and handmaidens will I pour out of My Spirit in that day,’ saith the Lord. And there shall be blood and fire and vapor and smoke, and the moon shall be turned to blood and the sun into darkness before the great and notable day of the Lord comes. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.'” And Peter said, “Jesus of Nazareth, a man who proved Himself to be of God among you by the marvelous works that He did, whom you, according to the predetermined accounts and foreknowledge of God, with your wicked hands have crucified and slain. But God raised Him from the dead because it was not possible that He could be held by death. For David, by the Holy Spirit, said, ‘Thou will not leave my soul in hell, neither will You allow the Holy One to see corruption.'” And Peter said, “This was fulfilled, for His soul was not left in hell. Neither did the Holy One see corruption, but the same Jesus hath God raised from the dead, Who ascended on high and is now given this which you see…the outpouring of the Holy Spirit” ( Act 2:14-33 ). And they were convicted in their hearts. And they said unto them, “Men and brethren, what shall we do since we’ve crucified the Lord of Glory?” And Peter said, “I realize that in ignorance you did it. But repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” ( Act 2:37-38 ).

Now, “Father, forgive them. They know not what they do.” Peter said, “You did it in ignorance.” And 2,000 souls were added to the church. The prayer of Jesus was answered. Those who had ignorantly put Him on the cross had found forgiveness and were now a part of the body of Christ.

And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Messiah, the chosen of God. And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar, and saying, If thou be the King of the Jews, save thyself. And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS ( Luk 23:35-38 ).

Now this was the cry, the taunt, the jeer of the people: “Save Yourself!” You know where the inspiration for that cry came? From the pit of hell. For had Jesus saved Himself, He would not be able to save you. That cry was coming from the pit of hell. It was a taunt, it was a jeer. The high priest said, “He saved others. Himself He cannot save. Let Him come down now if He is the Son of God. Let God save Him, if God will have anything to do with Him, because He said He’s the Son of God.” And this was the mockery, this was the cry. The soldiers, “Hey, if you’re the King of the Jews, save Yourself, man.” The people, they picked up this chant, this cry, “Save Yourself!” “Let Him come down now from the cross and we will believe Him,” the priests said.

And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be the Christ, save thyself and us ( Luk 23:39 ).

So, the same taunt that was coming from the crowd, this thief picked up. During the time of great psychic experiences, emotional experiences, emotions are close to the surface and there’s this mob psychology and people begin to act like something other than people when they get into crowds many times. Even in football games. You know, people put on chicken suits and do all kinds of weird things. And everybody accepts it, everybody laughs. And you watch some of these people, you know, the weird get-ups and people do weird things in a crowd. There’s sort of an anonymity in a crowd that people like. “Nobody knows me so I can act like a freak,” and everybody laughs and has a good time. And there is that thing with the crowd of wisecracking. Have you ever been in a crowd when things were going on and people begin to make their smart remarks, and then it gets a little competition of who can make the smartest or cutest remark? And of course, you measure them on the laugh scale. You know, “You got an eight.” “Well, you got a five.” “Well, I got a ten.” And these things to play on the emotions of the people, especially if it’s a very shocking thing.

I can imagine that to watch a man dying on a cross would be an extremely shocking thing to your psyche. I would think that that would be extremely difficult to just watch a man hanging there, watching him as he is fighting for breath, watching him as his body heaves, knowing the pain and just seeing him as he is gradually being worn down by the pain and the suffering and know that he is dying. That must be a tremendously shocking thing for the psyche. And so, I imagine that because you can’t really think on that too long without really getting bugged by it, that there would be those that would make these off-handed remarks to divert the attention for awhile and to bring laughter, because just the shock of this thing settling in would be too hard to take.

And because it was the cry of the crowd and the common mockery and jeering against Christ, the thief, probably just to get a rise out of the crowd and maybe some sympathy towards himself by joining with them, reviled Jesus and said, “Hey, why don’t You save Yourself and us?” Ho-ho-ho! Funny! And there probably went the ripple of laughter through the crowd.

But the other thief turned to him, and he said, Don’t you fear God, seeing that you’re in the same condemnation? ( Luk 23:40 )

Hey, you’re in the same boat, man, you’re dying. Don’t you fear God? It’s the hour of death. Don’t you realize that we’re going to be facing the judgment of God soon? Don’t you fear God?

We indeed are here justly [justice is being served]; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds: but this man has done nothing amiss ( Luk 23:41 ).

Pilate said, “I find no fault in Him.” The thief testified, “He has done nothing amiss.” Judas said, “I have betrayed innocent blood.”

And he said to Jesus, Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom ( Luk 23:42 ).

How did he know that Jesus was a King? Because above the cross there was written the word, “The King of the Jews.” But this shows us that for salvation, faith has to come from God. For somehow his faith transcended even that of the disciples. And somehow, by God, he knew that though this Man was dying, He was yet to come into His kingdom. He had a faith greater than the disciples, because at this point the disciples had been wiped out; they had forsaken Him and they had fled, they had given up hope. “We had trusted in Him for the salvation of Israel, but He now is crucified. It’s all over.” But somehow, God planted faith in the heart of this man. For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves. It is a gift of God and not of works, lest any man should boast. God planted faith, saving faith in the heart of this man. And he somehow realized that even though he was dying, there was a message, just a short message, “This is the King of the Jews.” And he believed it. It had to be the faith of God planted in his heart. And so he said, “Lord, when You come into Your kingdom, would You remember me?” Not, “Would You honor me?” Not, “Would You exalt me?” Just, “Remember me, Lord.” The disciples were the ones that were saying, “Lord, when You come into the kingdom, exalt me. Let me sit at Your right hand, let me sit at Your left hand, let me be prime minister. Let me have Hawaii!” This man was just saying, “Lord, would You just remember me when You come into Your kingdom?” Oh, what a simple prayer! But it brought him salvation. Oh, how close each of us are to salvation! It’s just a simple prayer; “God, be merciful to me, a sinner. Lord, remember me.” We read, “Wherefore He is able to save to the uttermost all who come unto God by Him.” Where Jesus said, “And whosoever cometh unto Me, I will in no wise cast out.” Even a dying thief in his last hour who says, “Lord, remember me,” can find salvation.” And Jesus said,

Today you will be with me in paradise ( Luk 23:43 ).

This word paradise is a word that was used for the garden of the king, where he would invite his special guest to come and walk with him. Jesus said, “Today you will be with Me in paradise.”

It was about the sixth hour ( Luk 23:44 ),

That is noon. It’s interesting that this all transpired before the miracles of the day. Before the earthquake, before the sun became dark, God had planted the faith in the heart of this thief to bring him salvation. “It was about the sixth hour,”

and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour ( Luk 23:44 ).

Three o’clock in the afternoon.

And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst ( Luk 23:45 ).

“The sun was darkened,” that is, nature refused to look at this horrible sight. Nature revolted against man. There was a great earthquake, the rocks were torn, nature revolting against man. Had God not restrained it, I’m sure that nature would have destroyed man at that point for his heinous crime.

“The veil of the temple was rent in the midst.” We are told in another gospel, “from the top to the bottom.” Oh, how significant! The veil of the temple was the testimony of how unapproachable God was to man. No man dared to enter in beyond that veil, except the high priest, and that only one day in the year. And that only after many sacrifices and washings. And that only with great reverence and fear, having these bells tied on the bottom of his coat and a rope tied around his foot, so that those outside of the veil would listen for these bells to be tinkling inside. And if they would stop, then they would pull the guy out by his foot, knowing that he went into the presence of God with some blemish and God smote him dead. And so the rope, so they could pull him out and wouldn’t even have to go in to get him. God was unapproachable by man. Man’s sin had alienated from God. God’s hand was not short, His ear was not heavy, but sins had separated people and the veil represented that separation of the unrighteous man from God. But at the death of Christ the way was made by which man might come to God, and God ripped that veil from the top to the bottom, saying, “Come, come, it’s open.” The way is now made through Jesus Christ for you, for me, to be able to come directly to God.

And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice ( Luk 23:46 ),

Luke doesn’t tell us what He said, but the other gospels do. He cried, “It is finished!”

he then said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he dismissed his spirit. Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man. And all of the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts, and they returned. And all of his acquaintances, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things. And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counselor; and he was a good man, and a just: (And the same had not consented to the counsel and the deed of them;) he was of Arimathea, a city of the Jews: and who also himself was waiting for the kingdom of God. And this man went unto Pilate, and he begged for the body of Jesus. And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never before a man was laid. That day was the preparation, and the sabbath was drawing on. And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after him, beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared the spices and the ointments; and they rested the sabbath day according to the commandment ( Luk 23:46-56 ).

“

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

Luk 23:1. And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.

Our Lord had been taken to the tribunal of Annas and of Caiaphas, and sow the whole multitude of them arose and led him unto Pilate. The first two tribunals were ecclesiastical and religious. There they charged him with crimes against the law. Now they take him to Pilate, and bring accusations against him, concerning Caesar and the Roman Government. The whole multitude of them arose and led him unto Pilate.

Luk 23:2. And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.

A wily charge. It was the duty of the ruler of the province to protect the province from any rebellion against Caesar; so they put in the, He perverts the nation, forbids to give tribute to Caesar.

Luk 23:3. And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews?

It must have seemed a strange question to himself, as he saw the poor emaciated form of Jesus of Nazareth standing before him. Art thou the King of the Jews?

Luk 23:3. And he angered him and said, Thou sayest

It is even so.

Luk 23:4. Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.

He took him aside and conversed with him, and perceived that his kingdom was not of a kind that would interfere with Caesar. As he looked at him, he found that it was not a matter which really could concern the great Roman Empire. It was in no danger from him. Pilate said to the chief priests and the people, I find no fault in this man.

Luk 23:5. And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place.

He caught at that.

Luk 23:6-7. When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean. And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herods jurisdiction,

For Herod was ruler of Galilee.

Luk 23:7. He sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time.

By which he answered two purposes. First, he would get out of the scrape himself; and secondly, he would compliment Herod by acknowledging that, as the man was a Galilean, he was under Herods jurisdiction. What devices men have to escape from responsibility! This vacillating Pilate knew the right, and did it not. He would be very glad to avoid coming to any decision about it at all.

Luk 23:8-9. And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him. Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.

Now was Christ the Lamb the sheep before her shearers who is dumb. He did answer Pilate a little, There was a little that was good about Pirate, vacillating as he was; but Herod had not a trace of anything upon him upon which the good seed could possibly take root; so he answered him nothing.

Luk 23:10-11. And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him. And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.

This robe was probably white, sparkling, splendid. It tended to mock him. It set the example to Pilate and his men to clothe him in a scarlet robe, and mock him yet again. There is a contagiousness about an evil example.

Luk 23:12. And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.

Behold how sinners will agree when Christ is to be slaughtered. They shake hands together when he is to die.

Luk 23:13-16. And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people. Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him: No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise him, and release him.

But what duplicity! If he is innocent, release him, but do not scourge him. If he is guilty, crucify him, but do not balk about releasing him. When men are wrong at heart, when they come to a resolution, it is self-contradictory. There is nothing more inconsistent than sin. It is an image whose head may be of gold, but the feet are always of clay. You cannot make sin hang together, and the verdict of one who is undecided and has two minds is always a very vicious one. I will chastise him and release him.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible

[1. , the whole multitude) One may compare this to a conflagration sweeping away everything before it on every side.-V. g.]

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Luk 23:1-25

10. JESUS BEFORE PILATE AND HEROD

Luk 23:1-25

1 And the whole company of them rose up,-Parallel accounts of this event are found in Mat 27:2; Mat 27:11-14; Mar 15:1-5; Joh 18:28-38. Jesus had been subjected to a threefold trial before the Jews-first, before Annas, next before Caiaphas with a few members of the Sanhedrin present, and last before the entire Sanhedrin after daylight. They condemned Jesus as a blasphemer, but as they could not put him to death without the permission of the Roman authorities, they brought him before Pilate. The Roman trial also comprised three stages: (1) the first appearance before the Roman governor, Pilate; (2) the appearance before Herod Antipas, the native ruler of Galilee appointed by the Romans; and (3) the final appearance before Pilate. “The whole company” means “the assembly of the elders of the people” which composed “their council.” (Luk 22:66.) The Sanhedrin had held its session “as soon as it was day” that morning in order to ratify the previous decision; it was probably held at the palace of Caiaphas as John says: “They lead Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the Praetorium: and it was early; and they themselves entered not into the Praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover.” (Joh 18:28.) Pilate was the Roman procurator, or governor. Matthew speaks of him as “the governor.” (Mat 27:2.) Matthew often speaks of him simply as the governor, but Mark never so speaks of him; Luke speaks of him only once as the governor. (Luk 3:1.) It is very probable that Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea, members of the Sanhedrin, were not present. When Pilate became governor his first act was to bring the silver eagles of the Roman legion to Jerusalem, and to use money from the temple treasury for secular purposes; this greatly enraged the Jews.

2 And they began to accuse him,-The account of the charges against Jesus is recorded by Matthew, Mark, and John as well as by Luke. Matthew and Mark record about the same facts that are given by Luke, while John gives a much fuller record. The Sanhedrin would not enter into the praetorium, but made their charges to Pilate who came out to them. They simply wanted Pilate to ratify their decision; this he refused to do without knowing their accusation and the evidence that they had to give. The Jews felt that this was an insult to their high tribunal, the Sanhedrin. It is to be noticed that the charges they preferred against Jesus before Pilate were different from the ones they preferred against him in their own court; before the Sanhedrin he was charged with the crime of blasphemy, hut before the Roman governor he is charged with “perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that lie himself is Christ a king.” These three charges before Pilate were false; Jesus had neither perverted the Jewish nation, nor had he forbidden to pay tribute to Caesar, neither was he a “King” aspiring to an earthly throne.

3 And Pilate asked him,-Pilate simply asked Jesus if the charges were true, and especially if he was “the King of the Jews.” Before Jesus answered Pilate, he brought out clearly the distinction between a civil and a spiritual kingdom, declaring that his kingdom was “not of this world.” (Joh 18:36.) Jesus answered: “Thou sayest.” This was an affirmative answer. (See Luk 22:70.) All four of the writers of the gospel record Pilate’s question to Jesus in the same language. (Mat 27:11; Mar 15:2; Luk 23:3; Joh 18:33.) Matthew, Mark, and Luke record Jesus’ answer in the same language, while John gives a fuller answer.

4 And Pilate said unto the chief priests-Here Pilate declares the innocence of Jesus; his judgment was not pronounced until after the private interview Pilate had with Jesus. Only John relates this interview. (Joh 18:33-38.) It seems that thus early in the day a multitude had now assembled, and was present with the Sanhedrin. This is the first mention of “the multitude”; it was now after daybreak; the procession of the Sanhedrin would naturally draw a crowd; some of them may have come to ask for the release of Jesus. (Mar 15:8.) There was need of haste if the condemnation went through before friends of Jesus came.

5 But they were the more urgent,-The Jews kept insisting that Pilate pass judgment on Jesus; it seems that they thought that Pilate had taken the matter too lightly; hence, they were more vigorous in repeating the charge that he perverted the nation or stirred up the people. Pilate had been convinced that Jesus had committed no crime of treason against the Roman government; he was not concerned about their being aroused over any religious teaching. In fact, Pilate did not like the Jews, and he did not care who disturbed their peace of mind so long as they remained peaceful citizens of Rome. The Jews had found that their charge against Jesus as a king did not disturb Pilate, hence they emphasized the charge that he was an insurrectionist.

6, 7 But when Pilate heard it,-The Jews had mentioned the fact that Jesus had disturbed their nation “throughout all Judaea, and beginning from Galilee,” hence Pilate is prompted to ask if Jesus “were a Galilaean.” It is probable that the Jews intended to excite prejudice against Jesus by mentioning Galilee, knowing that Pilate had no love for Herod or the Galileans. If they thought that they would excite prejudice against Jesus by speaking of Jesus as a Galilean, they were again disappointed. So soon as Pilate learned that Jesus was a Galilean, he sought to evade any responsibility by referring Jesus to Herod. Herod was in Jerusalem at that time. Some think that Pilate was not seeking to get rid of a troublesome case, but that he was seeking for an occasion to become reconciled to Herod. At any rate, Pilate sent Jesus to Herod. It was easy for Pilate to do this, as Herod was in Jerusalem at that time, probably to attend the feast.

8 Now when Herod saw Jesus,-Herod had longed to see Jesus; he had recovered from his fright that Jesus was John the Baptist raised from the dead. (Mat 14:1-2.) Herod was still selfish; he wanted to witness some miracle; he was not interested in Jesus as the Messiah or as a Savior; he was weak and sensual and cunning, but superstitious and cruel he was revengeful. (Mat 14:9; Luk 3:19; Luk 9:9; Luk 13:32.) Herod’s curiosity had been excited greatly by the reports that he had heard of the miracles of Jesus; he wanted to be entertained by Jesus’ working miracles; he had no further interest than to gratify his vain curiosity.

9-11 And he questioned him in many words;-Jesus had no desire to satisfy the wicked curiosity of Herod; he asked Jesus questions; we know not what the questions were, save than to know that he was not searching for the truth. Doubtless they were weak and frivolous questions, corresponding to the character of Herod. Jesus made no reply to Herod; he knew Herod’s motive, and he had no intention of satisfying his curiosity. When Herod propounded his questions to Jesus the “chief priests and the scribes stood, vehemently accusing him.” These Jews were afraid that Herod would not render a verdict in their favor; hence they loudly and piously accused Jesus; what they lacked in facts they attempted to make up in their vehement charges. Herod and his soldiers “mocked him, and arraying him in gorgeous apparel sent him back to Pilate.” Herod was greatly disappointed, and he is willing to let his bodyguard join with the Jews in reviling him. The Son of God stood before them, but they could see in him only an object of contempt and derision!

12 And Herod and Pilate became friends-Luke does not state why enmity existed between Herod and Pilate; neither does profane history record the cause of enmity between them. Some have thought it arose from some encroachment of Pilate upon the jurisdiction of Herod. Herod seems to have regarded the case of Jesus as beneath his judicial notice, and Pilate wished to escape judging the case; yet it becomes the occasion of the reconciliation between Herod and Pilate. Pilate had performed an act of courtesy toward Herod, which gave him an opportunity to become friendly with Pilate We find that Luke is the only writer that records the part that Herod had to do with this transaction. We notice that before Herod, Jesus maintained persistent silence, having not the least respect for his character, and being by no means disposed either to gratify his curiosity or recognize his authority in the matter. It is a strange affair for two Gentile rulers at enmity with each other to become reconciled in the trial of Jesus. It is probable that they both agreed in despising Jesus, and in insulting him; it is common today to see the enemies of Jesus agreeing in their opposition to the church.

13-15 And Pilate called together the chief priests-Herod sent Jesus back to Pilate, and Pilate called “the chief priests and the rulers and the people” together; we are not told why he called “the people” with the rulers; perhaps he thought Jesus might have some friends among the people who would help him plead for Jesus. Pilate was about to deliver his decree or judgment, hence if the people were present and in sympathy with Jesus, it would make it easier for Pilate to release Jesus. When they were assembled Pilate plainly told them that they had brought “this man” to him and had preferred certain charges against him, but that he had examined him in their presence and had “found no fault in this man”; he told them that their accusations against Jesus had not been sustained. Furthermore, he told them that he had sent Jesus to Herod, and that Herod had examined him, and had returned him without any charges proved against him. Pilate thus strengthens his own decree by the official judgment of Herod. He was not worthy of death; he had done nothing which seemed to be a violation of Roman law. Pilate delivers his judgment with emphatic words which imply that the Jews themselves could see that there was nothing to the charges which they made.

16 I will therefore chastise him,-Pilate was convinced that Jesus had done nothing worthy of death, or even worthy of any punishment but in order to satisfy the Jews, he offers to “chastise” Jesus and release him. “Chastise” in the original means “to bring up a child,” hence “to instruct,” “to discipline or correct.” This word is not synonymous with “punish,” but since it always inplies an infliction, it gradually took the meaning of “punishment.” “chasten” is derived from this word and properly means to “purify.” Instead of punishing Jesus with death, Pilate thought to “chastise” him in order to teach him better. The chastisement that Pilate suggested here was that of scourging. It was a Roman custom to inflict upon criminals before crucifixion such punishment; sometimes during the trial of a prisoner, the Romans inflicted scourging in order to make the prisoner confess to the crime. The Roman scourging was more severe than the Jewish; the number of lashes was not limited to forty among the Romans. The whips were fitted with bones or lead to render the blow more fearful and to tear or lacerate the flesh. The criminal was generally bound to a low block, in a stooping posture, and received the fearful blows upon the naked back. The scourging before crucifixion was generally exceedingly cruel, and victims frequently died while being scourged.

The American Revised Version omits verse 17; it seems not to occur in the best manuscripts now available. In the King James Version it is inserted and inclosed in parentheses. It is found in Mat 27:15; Mar 15:6; Joh 18:39. “Now he must needs release unto them at the feast one prisoner.” Though this verse is omitted from Luke, yet the other writers and history fully establish the custom established by the Romans of releasing a prisoner at the feast; the custom was established to conciliate the Jews and make them more submissive to Roman law at their feast; the Jews gathered from all countries at Jerusalem to keep their feast, and oftentimes they were rebellious. Many insurrections among the Jews occurred at their feasts.

18, 19 But they cried out all together,-Matthew and Mark particularly describe the character of Barabbas; Matthew records the dream and message of Pilate’s wife. (Mat 27:19.) “They” include the chief priests, the rulers, and the people; the rulers had “persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.” (Mat 27:20.) Mark mentions only the “chief priests” as being the ones who stirred up the multitude to ask the release of Barabbas. (Mar 15:11.) From Matthew we learn that Pilate himself had suggested the release of Barabbas. (Mat 27:17.) The Jews who claimed to be sticklers for the law deliberately violate their own law in preferring to release a murderer and put to death the Messiah. (Lev 24:17; Num 35:16-24.) Peter said later in accusing the Jews of the death of Jesus that they had delivered him up, “and denied before the face of Pilate, when he had determined to release him.” He further charges them that they had denied “the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted” unto them. (Act 3:13-14.) The multitude was made up of those who had come together during the arrest and trial of Jesus, and those who had gathered from the streets as they marched Jesus as a prisoner to Pilate’s court.

20, 21 And Pilate spake unto them again,-Pilate, like most weak men, was evidently superstitious, as the tone of his wife’s message implies. (Mat 27:19; Mat 27:24.) He desired to release Jesus because he knew that he was innocent and that the Jews were envious of him. The people had made their choice; it was opposed to the judgment of Pilate; Pilate asked them what lie should do with Jesus. Pilate had hoped that they would choose to release Jesus; he had put up one of the worst criminals that was held in prison at that time, thinking that surely they would choose to release Jesus rather than Barabbas;hut now when they chose to release Barabbas, Pilate seeks another way of releasing Jesus. Hence, according to Matthew and Mark, he asks what he should do with Jesus. They, in answer to this query, “shouted, saying, Crucify, crucify him.” Their clamor was so loud and so persistent that Pilate is swayed by their choice; however, lie knows that Jesus is innocent.

22 And he said unto them the third time,-Pilate was persistent in his attempt to release Jesus. He asked them the third time what wrong he had done; they had proved none of their charges; Pilate had let them know that he did not accept the evidence that they gave; furthermore, he let them know that he did not believe that Jesus had done anything worthy of death. In asking them the third time the reason for their demand, Pilate was rejecting all former charges and evidence formerly given. The Jews were as persistent in demanding the death of Jesus as Pilate was in desiring to release him. Instead of acquitting Jesus, Pilate partially laid aside his rights as a judge and asked the decision of the people. (Mar 15:12.) Pilate now, having heard their decision, accepts the situation, but strives to reason with them. If they insist on his death, they must show some crime meriting such a punishment. Jesus had done nothing worthy of crucifixion. Instead of stopping to reason with them, Pilate should have retraced his steps and acted the part of a righteous judge and released Jesus. However, he again offered to “chastise him” and release him. Though he had found no evil in him, yet as a matter of expediency, he again proposes to conciliate the Jews by the milder punishment of scourging. The Jews saw their advantage and made the most of it.

23, 24 But they were urgent with loud voices,-The Jews with loud and importunate cries demanded that Jesus be crucified. The people led by the rulers prevailed upon Pilate to comply with their wishes. “Prevailed” implies great and persistent effort before they could induce the governor to pass sentence upon him who they knew and Pilate knew was innocent. Nothing short of death by crucifixion would satisfy their rage and bitter hatred. Pilate gave his judicial sentence after the renewed efforts to release Jesus. He had tried every means and method that he knew to release Jesus; he was too weak to exercise his own good judgment; he was too wicked to uphold a righteous judgment. He had no right to pronounce what he knew to be an unrighteous condemnation, and to relieve himself of the responsibility of a judge was impossible. At this time Matthew records that Pilate took a basin of water and washed his hands before the multitude (Deu 21:6-9) and said: “I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man: see ye to it” (Mat 27:24). Pilate could not have escaped full legal and moral responsibility for his cowardly surrender to the Sanhedrin; the guilt of the Pharisees and Sadducees unites in the demand for the blood of Jesus, hence they are not free from his blood. This was a bitter mockery of justice in the sentence that Pilate passed; his sentence is not according to the guilt of the prisoner, not in harmony with the testimony, but was a yielding to the hatred of the Jews toward Jesus.

25 And he released him that for insurrection and murder- The Jews had asked for the release of Barabbas instead of Jesus; they knew the character of Barabbas; they chose him, not so much because they preferred or endorsed murder, but because they hated Jesus so much. Luke omitted from his record the scourging of Jesus, the mockings of the soldiers, Pilate’s appeal to the sympathy of the Jews, their declaring him worthy of death because he made himself the Son of God, Pilate’s greater fear and his bringing Jesus again into the judgment hall, Jesus’ speaking of Pilate’s power and the greater sin of the Jews, Pilate’s seeking again to release Jesus, the declaring of the Jews that Pilate is not Caesar’s friend if he let Jesus go, Pilate’s bringing Jesus to his judgment seat on the pavement, the Jews’ answer to Pilate’s final appeal.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

This is the story of the Cross, and, as in dealing with other Gospels, it is best read in reverent quietness and meditation. We see all the forces of evil as represented in the Jewish priests and in Pilate joining hands to secure the murder of Jesus. Dr. Maclaren has remarked that there is something impressive in the unbroken continuity of the clauses in this paragraph which follow one another, linked by a simple ‘and,’ like the waves of the Dead Sea which roll heavily in dreary succession. It is for us to stand on the margin of that sea of unutterable anguish, and to remember that His submerging was for our deliverance.

What mingled feelings of disappointment and love must have filled the heart of Joseph as he laid the body of Jesus in his garden grave. Nevertheless, the love was the supreme matter, and it found vindication later.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

23:1-7. The Civil Trial before Pilate. Comp. Mat 27:2, Mat 27:11, Mat 27:12; Mar 15:1-3; Joh 18:28-37. Lk. assumes that his reader know that Jesus was condemned to death by the Sanhedrin. But it was necessary to have Him condemned by Roman procurator also, in order that the sentence might be executed, and without delay, by him who possessed (Jos. B. J. ii. 8, 1).1 It is almost certain that at this time the Jews were deprived of the right of inflicting capital punishment. They sometimes did inflict it and risked the consequences, as in the case of S. Stephen: and the Romans sometimes found it expedient to ignore these transgressions (Joh 5:18, Joh 5:7:1, Joh 5:25, Joh 5:8 [5, ] 59; Act 5:33, Act 21:31, Act 26:10). A good deal would depend upon the character of the execution and the humour of me procurator. But besides Joh 18:31 we have the express statement, quadraginta annis ante vastatum templum ablata sunt judicia capitalia ab Israle (Bab. Sanh. f. 24, 2). See Blass on Act 7:57.

But it is quite possible that in some of the cases in which the Jews are represented as trying to put persons to death, the meaning is that they wished to no them over to the Romans for execution. See notes on Joh 18:31 in Camb. Grk. Test. In the accounts of this Roman trial we have the attempts of the Jews to induce Pilate to condemn Jesus contrasted with Pilates attempts to save Him from execution. The Sanhedrin hoped that Pilate would confirm their sentence of death; but Pilate insists on trying the case himself. This be does in his or palace (Mat 27:27; Mar 15:16; Joh 18:28, Joh 18:33, Joh 18:19:9). But we do not know where this was. A little later than this (Philo, Leg. ad Gaium, 38, ed. Mangey. ii. 589) the Roman governor resided in Herods Prtorium, a large palace on the western hill of the city. But Pilate may have used part of the fortress Antonia, the site of which is supposed to be known; and some conjecture that a chamber with a column in it is the scene of the scourging. For the rather considerable literature concerning Pilate see Leyrer in Herzog, art. Pilatus, sub fin., and Schrer, Jewish People, etc. I. 2. p. 82, who refers especially to G. A. Mller, Pontius Pilatus, Stuttgart, 1888.

1. . All three words are characteristic: see on 1:39, on 3:21, and on 1:10. The whole body of the Sanhedrin () is meant, not including the populace, who at this point are not mentioned in any of the accounts.

. Neither in order to shift the responsibility on to him, nor to avoid disturbing the feast with a Jewish execution, nor to ensure death by crucifixion, but simply in order to get their own sentence of death confirmed.

2. Lk. is alone in giving clearly the three political charges, which could not fail to have weight with Pilate: (1) seditious agitation, (2) forbidding tribute to Tiberius, (3) assuming the title of king. The point of seems to be that they began to do all this, but Pilate interposed: comp. 5:21, 12:45, 13:25, 19:37. The is probably contemptuous: this fellow (Tyn. Cov. Cran. Gen. AV.). Whether refers to catching in the act or to discovering by investigation is not certain.

The form is well attested here (B* L T X) as in 2:16. In 2Sa 17:20 we have with and . See small print on 1:59.

. They imply that the perversion of the nation was seditious. The excitement caused by Christs ministry was notorious, and it would not be easy to prove that it had no political significance. For the verb comp. 9:41; Act 13:10, Act 13:20:30; Exo 5:4; 1Ki 18:17, 1Ki 18:18.

. Jesus had done the very opposite a day or two before (20:25). But this second charge seemed to be of one piece with the third. If He claimed to be a king, He of course would forbid tribute to a foreign power. Vulg. wrongly changes the dare of Lat. Vet. to dari.

. Messias. a king (comp. 2:11) is more probable than either King Messias, or. an anointed king (Schegg). They add that Pilate may know the political significance of (Schanz). It is here that the charge made before Pilate approximates to the charge on which they condemned Jesus (22:69-71). But with them it was the theological significance of His claim that was so momentous: and this Pilate could not regard.

Epiphanius (Marc. 316, 317, 346) tells us that after Marcion inserted ; and that after he added . The former of these interpolations is found in various MSS. of the Old Latin, et solventem legem [nostram] et prophetas (b c e ff2 i l q), and in some MSS. of Vulg., (A Q R), while the latter is added to ver. 5 in some Old Latin texts: see below. Prof. Rendel Harris attributes these insertions to Marcion himself, who was himself accused of these things. Texts & Studies. ii. 1. p. 230. See small print note on 16:17.

3. ; All four record this question, and in exactly these words. The pronoun is emphatic, implying that His appearance was very much against such a claim.

. Like the reply in 22:70, this is probably not interrogative. It condenses a conversation given at greater length by Jn., without whose narrative that of the three is scarcely intelligible. It would be extraordinary that Pilate should simply hear that Jesus admitted that He claimed to be King of the Jews, and at once declare, I find no fault in this man. But a conversation with Jesus had convinced Pilate that He was a harmless enthusiast. He did not claim to be a king in the ordinary sense.

4. . The first mention of them. The procession of the Sanhedrin would attract a crowd; and perhaps some had come to ask for the customary release of a prisoner (Mar 15:8).

. = is peculiar to Lk., and is always combined with a negative: vv. 14, 22; Act 19:40.

5. . Intransitive, as in 1 Mac. 6:6, so that nothing is to be understood: they were the more urgent, invalescebant (Vulg.). They became more definite in their accusations, because Pilate took the matter too easily.

. Comp. 4:44. Whether this means the whole of Palestine (1:5, 7:17; Act 2:9, Act 2:10:37, Act 2:11:1, Act 2:29) or Juda proper (2:4; Act 1:8, Act 8:1), is uncertain. In either case we have allusion to an activity of Jesus in southern Palestine of which Lk. records very little.

. Nutrix seeditiosorum hominum (Grot). The may have special reference to the triumphal entry into Jerusalem; but it may also refer to previous visits of Jesus to the city.

With the constr. comp. Act 1:22; Mat 20:8; [Joh 8:9]. The very words , occur Act 10:37.

At the end of ver. 5 Cod. Colb. adds et filios nostros et uxores avertit a nobis, non enim baptizatur sicut nos; and Cod. Palat. has the same down to nobis, and continues non enim baptizantur sicut et nos nec se mundant.

The retention of Jewry in AV. here, Joh 7:1, and Dan 5:13 (where the same word is translated Jewry and Judah) was probably an oversight.

7. . Freq. in Lk. in the sense of thoroughly ascertain 7:37; Act 19:34, Act 22:29, Act 24:11, Act 28:1, etc.

. The verb may be used in the legal sense of sending up to a higher authority or referring to another jurisdiction, like remitto, which Vulg. has here and vv. 11, 15: comp. Act 25:21; Jos. B. J. ii. 20, 5; Philo, De Creat. Prin. 8. But in vv. 11, 15 the meaning send back is more suitable, and may be retained here: comp. Phm 1:12. If Jesus originally belonged to Herods jurisdiction, sending Him to Herod was, sending Him back; just as the man born blind is said to recover his sight (), because sight is natural to man (Joh 9:15, Joh 9:18). It was perhaps chiefly in order to get rid of a difficult case, or to obtain official evidence from the tetrarch, that Pilate sent Jesus, rather than merely to conciliate Antipas. Justin says that Pilate 45 (Try. 103.); and comp. Vespasian allowing Agrippa to have the prisoners who came from the latters kingdom (Jos. B. J. iii. 10. 10). Herod had come up to keep the feast, and probably occupied the palace of the Asamonans (B. J. ii. 16, 3; Ant. xx. 8, 11).

8-12. The Trial before, Herod. It has been noticed by Schleiermacher that its omission by Jn. is no serious objection to its authenticity. The transaction is too circumstantially detailed to admit a doubt, and our reporter seems to have had an acquaintance in the house of Herod who supplied him with this fact, as John seems to have had in the house of Annas (S. Luke, p. 304, Eng. tr.). Joana, the wife of Chuza, Herods steward (8:3), would be a likely source of information: see on 8:3 and 24:10.

8. , , . These expressions indicate the continuance of the wishing, hearing, and hoping: comp. 9:9. Such curiosity is not gratified any more than the demand for signs from heaven (11:29). With comp. (8:27; Act 8:11), (20:9).

TR. follows A R D L in reading , to which H M C add . But B D L T, Sah. Arm. give the plural.

9. . But He on His part answered him nothing. The language and tone of Antipas showed that he was in no condition to profit by anything that Jesus might say: see on 3:1. He regarded Jesus as a sight. For comp. 3:16.

Cod. Colb. adds quasi non audiens: and Syr-Cur. has the more remarkable quasi non ibi erat. This may have suggested the possibly Docetic touch in the Gospel of Peter, He held is peace as in no wise feeling pain. Both Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. for have in cunning words. Syr-Sin. omits vv. 10, 11, 12.

10. . This, and not , is the pluperf. of . The evidence varies in the fourteen places; but is never a more itacism, and is freq. in LXX. Even B, which often prefers to , supports five times (WH. ii. App. p. 162).

. At full stretch, vehemently, in N. T. only here and Act 18:28: comp. Jos 6:8; Jos_2 Mac. 12:23. In Latin texts we have instanter (c), fortiter (d), vehementer (a r), constanter (f Vulg.). Apparently they had kept silence while Herod was questioning Jesus; but his silence had exasperated them. Syr-Sin. omits vv. 10-12.

11. . These participles are put first in their clauses with emphasis. Herods baffled curiosity takes this despicable revenge: comp. 18:9; Gal 4:14. We need not suppose that Antipas formally pronounced Him innocent, but that he did not condemn Him to death. He evaded the responsibility, as Pilate tried to do. In the Gospel of Peter Herod sentences the Lord; and when Joseph, the friend of Pilate and of the Lord, asks Pilate before the crucifixion for the Lords body, Pilate sends to ask Herod for it. The chief guilt throughout is transferred from Pilate to Herod and the Jews.

. Probably a guard of honour: cum militibus suis (f). It was one of these perhaps that he had sent to behead John in the prison (Mar 6:27; Mat 14:10). It was fitting that the prince who had murdered the Baptist should mock the Christ.

. He treats Him as a crazy enthusiast, and gives a mock assent to His claim to be a king, which the scribes no doubt reported. Latin texts have irrisit (c), inludens (d), deludens (r), delusum (a), inlusit (Vulg.).

. A bright robe, splendidum (c), rather than a white robe, candida (a), alba (f Vulg.). That it was a toga candida to mark Him as a candidate for royalty, is not likely: it was to mark Him as already king. The epithet does not indicate its colour, but its gorgeous character: comp. Jam 2:2, Jam 2:3. In Act 10:30 it is used of angelic apparel. Elsewhere in N.T. occurs only 24:4; Act 1:10, Act 12:21: comp. 2 Mac. 8:35, 11:8.

12. . Although Pilate failed in the attempt to transfer the responsibility to Herod, yet something was gained by the transaction. In the Gospel of Peter Herod addresses him as . The cause of enmity may easily have been some dispute about jurisdiction.

Ephrem conjectured that the enmity arose through Pilate sending soldiers to punish the chief men of Galilee who had been the guests of Herod when he put the Baptist to death, and that this was the occasion when the blood of Galileans was mingled with their sacrifices. For the importance of this strange idea as a link in the evidence respecting the Diatessaron see Rendel Harris in Contemp. Review, Aug. 1895, p. 279.

D transposes the clauses, and has for : . . . . . So also Cod. Colb. cum essent autem in dissensionem pil. et her. facti sumt amici in illa die.

13-25. The vain Attempts of Pilate to avoid Sentencing Jesus to Death. Comp. Mat 27:15-26; Mar 15:6-15. Pilates first two expedients had failed: (1) telling the Jews to deal with case themselves; (2) sending it to Herod. He now tries two others: (3) to release Him in honour of the feast; (4) to scourge Him and let Him go. Roman dislike of a gross injustice to an innocent person possibly influenced him; but perhaps the chief motive was the superstitious fear, produced by his wifes dream and confirmed by Christs bearing and words. Jn. states that he again and again declared Jesus to be innocent (18:38, 19:4, 6). In wording Lk. is not very similar to either Mat 27:15-26 or Mar 15:6-15; but the substance of all three is the same. Jn. is more full and quite independent; he distinguishes the conversation inside the prtorium with Jesus and outside with the Jews.

13. . See on 9:1. Pilate in taking the matter in hand again summons not only the hierarchy, whose bitterness against Jesus he knew, but the populace, whom he hoped to find more kindly disposed, and able to influence their rulers.

14. . Seducing the people from their allegiance. He condenses the three charges in ver. 2 into one. Note the emphatic and the : the one anticipates , and the other implies that they know with what thoroughness the case has been investigated.

. In its forensic sense of a judicial investigation word is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (Act 4:9, Act 12:19, Act 24:8, Act 28:18). But the classical use for a preliminary examination must not here be pressed. See Dict. of Grk. and. Rom. Ant., art. Anakrisis; Gardner and Jevons, pp. 574ff. Pilates is in direct contradiction to their (ver. 2). For see on ver. 4.

15. . Therefore the friendship between Herod and Pilate is hardly a type of Judaism and Heathenism leagued together to crush Christianity. Both were willing to set Jesus free. What we see here is, however, an anticipation of what not unfrequently happened during the first three centuries, viz. that Jewish mobs incited the heathen against the Christians.

. This reading agrees better with No, nor yet Herod than does For I sent you to him, and the external evidence for it is decisive.

For the text, B K L M T and some cursives; for , A D C L. Versions are divided, Latt. against gyptt., while Syrr. including Syr-Sin. have the conflate. For I sent Him to him. Wic. had a Lat. text such as Cod. Brix. nam remisit eum ad nos, for he renders For he path sent Him again to us, although Vulg. has nam remisi vos ad illum. Some Latin authorities combine both readings.

. Is done by Him. or hath been done by Him (RV.). The former is perhaps better, as giving the result of the trial before Herod. The dat. indicates that what is done stands to the persons credit; Win. iii. 10, p. 274: xxiv. 25 is not parallel. Nothing worthy of death is done unto Him (AV.) is scarcely sense. Cov. has There is brought upon Him nothing that is worthy of death. For the periphrastic perfect see Burton., 84.

16. . He uses a light word to express the terrible flagellatio, in order to excuse the injustice to his own conscience, and to hide his inconsistency from them. It is no punishment, but a chastisement to warn Him to be more circumspect in future. But the priests would see that a judge who was willing to inflict this on an innocent person could be induced by further pressure to inflict death. Scourging was sometimes fatal: Hor. Sat. i. 2, 41; comp. i. 3, 119. Comp. Deu 22:18.

17. This verse is wanting in A B K L T , Sah. a, while D, Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. th. insert it after ver. 19. It is a gloss based on Mat 27:15, and Mar 15:6. Alf. urges that is an idiom Lk.s manner. But Lk. uses it only once (14:18), as do also S. Paul (1Co 7:37) and S. Jude (3). Homoteleuton (, ) might explain the omission in one family of witnesses; but against this is the widespread omission, and the fact that the gloss is inserted in two different places. The passage reads more naturally without the gloss than with it.

18. . We have the 1 aorist 4:33, 8:28; Mar 1:23, Mar 6:49: and in LXX both aorists are common. Here A X have , B L T . Here only in bibl. Grk. does occur.

. E medio tolle istum: Act 21:36, Act 21:22:22; Mat 24:39; Joh 19:15: comp. Act 8:33. They are perhaps recalling such passages as Deu 17:7, Deu 19:19.

. Nothing is known of this custom of releasing a prisoner at the Passover apart from the Gospels. Pilate says Ye have a custom (Joh 18:39), which is against the hypothesis that he originated it: The Herods may have done so in imitation of Roman customs. At the first recorded lecstisternium prisoners were released (Livy, v. 13, 7).

. Son of Abba (father). Other instances of the name are given by Lightfoot: Samuel Bar-Abba, Nathan Bar-Abba (Hor. Heb. Mat 27:16). But evidence is wanting that Abba was a proper name. On the remarkable reading Jesus Barabbas Mat 27:16, Mat 27:17 see WH. ii. App. 19.

19. . Of Barabbas they might with some truth have said (ver. 2). Not that he had originated the but that he had taken a conspicuous part in it. The was probably no popular movement, but some plundering disturbance. Jn. calls him simply a robber, and he may have been connected with the other two robbers who were crucified with Jesus. The rather awkward order of the words in the verse is perhaps to intimate that while the took place in the city the murder did not.

On the rare form of periphrastic tense ( with aor. part.), see Burton., 20. is the reading of B L T, for which * a A D X etc. have the more usual (): and while B L T X, f qhave , A D etc. have the obvious correction .

Excepting Mar 15:7 and Heb 9:8, in N.T. is peculiar to Lk. (ver. 25; Act 15:2. Act 15:19:40, Act 15:23:7, Act 15:10, Act 15:24:5). In LXX it represents several Hebrew words of different meaning. Syr-Sin. here has wicked deeds.

20. That we should read ( A B D T, Latt. Bob. Sah.) and not (C L etc.) after is certain. That is to be added after ( B L T, Latt. Boh. Sah. Syx-Cur. th.) is also certain. But Lk. uses the verb absolutely, 13:12; Act 21:40. Contrast 7:32; Act 22:2.

21. . Kept shouting at him: clamabant (f), proclamahant (a), succlamabant (Vulg.). In N.T. the verb is peculiar to Lk. (Act 12:22, Act 21:34, Act 22:24); but it is classical. According to all four Gospels the demand for crucifixion was not made until Pilate had proposed to release Jesus on account of the feast. Lk. and Jn. give the double cry, Crucify, crucify. Mt. has , Mk. and Jn. , Lk. .

We must read , 2 pers. imper. act., and not , mid. B D Fa have (bis), A L R C etc. have (bis); but U 157, a b e f ff2 1 Arm. Aeth. omit the second Crucify.

22. ; So in all three. The means Impossible; for what evil hath this man done? This is well represented by the idiomatic Why, which we owe to the Vulg. Quid enim, through Rhem. Cov. has What evil then, etc. The refers to vv. 4 and 14.

. The is a qualification added after failure of the mission to Herod (ver. 15). Previously it was without limitation (vv. 4, 14). In his weakness Pilate s to admit, Well, perhaps He may be guilty of something: but He is not guilty of a capital offence. He began by saying that Herod had not found Him worthy of death. Now he says the same himself. In each case the proposal is the same,- (vv. 16, 22).

23. . . . Comp. . (Jos. Ant. xviii. 6, 6, xx. 5. 3). With comp. 1:42, 4:33, 8:28, 17:15, etc.

. Comp. 21:36: they prevailed, but not until Pilate had tried whether the would satisfy them (Joh 19:1). Mt. and Mk. connect the scourging with the crucifixion, because it usually preceded this punishment in Roman law.1 It is extremely unlikely that Pilate allowed the scourging to be repeated. He merely separated it from the crucifixion in the hope that the latter would not be required. Note the impressive repetition of .

24. . He gave sentence; 2 Mac. 4:47?; 3 Mal 4:2. Here only N.T., but classical. For comp. Php 4:6.

25. . This tragic contrast is in all three; and all four use of the final surrender. Comp. Act 3:14, and note the contrast between these aorists and the imperfect , kept demanding. Both the repetition of , … and the addition of are peculiar to Lk. The writer thus emphasizes the enormity of the transaction. In the Gospel of Peter Herod is present at this point and gives the sentence. He does not wash his hands, and the blame is transferred to him and the Jews. So also in the Acta Pilati (B. x.) it is the Jews who hastily execute the sentence, as soon as Pilate has pronounced it. Comp. Justin (Try. 108.) . See Hastings, D.B. 1. p. 245.

26-32. The Road to Calvary. Simon the Cyrenian, and the Daughters of Jerusalem. With the exception of ver. 26, the whole of this peculiar to Lk. In ver. 26 his wording is closer to Mar 15:21 than to Mat 27:32.

26. . Josephus tells of the origin of the Jewish colony in Cyrene (Apion. 2:4), and quotes Strabo respecting it (Ant. xiv. 7, 2): this gives us important information respecting branch of the Dispersion. Comp. Ant. xvi. 6. 1, 5; 1 Mac. 15:23; 2 Mac. 2:23. That Cyrene was the chief city of the district, which is the modern Tripoli, is shown by the name Cyrenaica and by Act 2:10. For the literature of the subject see D. B.2 i. p. 688. This Simon may have been a member of the Cyrenian synagogue at Jerusalem (Act 6:9). It has been proposed to identify in with Symeon that was called Niger, who is mentioned in company with Lucius of Cyrene (Act 13:1). But Simon or Symeon was one of the commonest of names; and Lk. would probably have given the same designation in both books, if he had meant the same person. If the Rufus of Rom 16:13 is the Rufus of Mar 15:21, then the wife of Simon of Cyrene was well known to S. Paul.

. Mk. has the same. He might be taking a Sabbath days journey; so that this is no proof as to the date. But he would not be likely to be coming in from the country on such a sabbatical day as Nisan 15.

The gen. of TR. following A R D etc. ( ) is probably a grammatical correction.

. His being a provincial may have made them more ready to make free with him. Perhaps it was only the cross-beam (patibulum) which he carried; and if he carried both pieces, they would not be fastened together as finally erected. On the shape of the cross see Justin, Try. xci.; 1, Apol. lv.; Iren. ii. 24, 4; Tert. Adv. Jud. x.; Ad. Nat. xii.; and Schaffs Herzog, art. Cross; Kraus, Real-Enc. d. Chr. Alt. ii. p. 225. At first Jesus carried it Himself (Joh 19:17), according to the usual custom. (Plutarch, De Sera Num. Vind. 9. p. 554 B), as indicated by the word furcifer: but He was physically unable to continue to do so. Indeed it has been inferred from (Mar 15:22) that at length He was unable even to walk, and was therefore carried to Golgotha: but comp. Mar 1:32, Mar 7:32, Mar 8:22, Mar 9:19. On the other hand Lange interprets as meaning that Simon carried the lower end, while the top was still carried by Jesus. But this is not in harmony with (Mt. Mk). Syr-Sin. here has, that he might bear the cross and follow Jesus. See Hastings, D.B. 1. p. 529.

The Basilidian Gnostics taught that Simon was crucified in the place of Jesus, being transformed by Jesus to look like Him, while Jesus in the form of Simon stood by and laughed at His enemies: and it was for this reason that they disparaged martyrdom, as being an honour paid, not to Christ, but to Simon the Cyrenian. See Photius, Bibl. cxiv. 292. Irenus (i. 24. 2) wrongly attributes that doctrine to Basilides himself, who was not docetic, but made the sufferings of Jesus an essential part of his system. Contrast Hippol. Refut. vii. 15 the Mahometans teach a similar doctrine; that God deceived the Jews and caused them to crucify a spy, or an emissary of Judas, or Judas himself, in mistake for Jesus. See Sales Koran, pp. 38, 70, Chandos ed.

27. . This incident is in place in the Gospel of Womanhood (1:39-56, 2:36-38, 7:11-15, 37-50, 8:1-3, 10:38-42, 11:27, 13:11-16). These are probably not the women who had ministered to Him previously (8:1-3), but sympathizers from the city. Comp. Zec 12:10-14. In the Gospels there is no instance of a woman being hostile to Christ. For comp. 8:52 and Mat 11:17.

The after -which also bewailed (AV.)-must be omitted upon decisive evidence: A B C * D L L X. Boh. Sah. Vulg. etc.

28. . As they were following Him, this would hardly have been possible, if He was still carrying the cross: comp. 7:9, 44, 9:55, 10:23. For daughter of = inhabitant of comp. Isa 37:22; Zep 3:14; Jer 46:19; Eze 16:46.

. Comp. Jdg 11:37, Jdg 11:38. Note the chiasmus, making the contrast between and very emphatic. His sufferings will be short, and are the road to glory: theirs will be prolonged, and will end in shame and destruction. Christ is not rebuking mere sentimentality or sympathetic emotion, as if the meaning were that they ought to lament their own sins rather than His sufferings. The form of command is similar to that in 10:20. They are not wrong in weeping for Him: nevertheless there is something else for which they may weep with far greater reason. That for which He wept (19:41-44) may rightly move them to tears,-the thought that a judgment which might have been averted must now take its course. For the legend of Veronica see D. of Chr. Biog. iv. p. 1107.

Comp. an eloquent passage in a lecture on the relation of Art to Religion by Ruskin, in which he contrasts the barren emotion produced by realistic representations of the past agonies of Christ with sympathetic realization of the present miseries of mankind (Lecturers on Art, Oxford, 1870, 57, p. 54).

29. . Days are coming: comp. Heb 8:8; Jer 7:32, Jer 7:9:25, Jer 7:16:14, Jer 7:19:6, Jer 7:23:5, Jer 7:7, etc. In all these cases precedes . In Lk. the fut. is more common: 5:35, 17:22, 19:43, 21:6. Here the nom. to is not , but people, the world in general: man wird sagen.

. As a rule childless women are commiserated or despised (1:25, 36), but in these dreadful times they will be congratulated. Comp. Eur. Androm. 395; Alc. 882; Tac. Ann. ii. 75, 1. See on 1:24.

30. . The nom. is the same as to , -the population generally, not the women only; and the means simply . The wish is that the mountains may fall on them and kill them, not hide and protect them. Death is preferable to such terror and misery. So also in the original passage Hos 10:8; comp. Rev 6:6, and contrast Isa 2:19.

31. . This is not a continuation of the cry of despair, but gives the reason for predicting such things. These horrors will certainly come, because, etc. In Syr-Sin. the is omitted: Who do these things in the moist tree, what shall they do in the dry? Proverbs of similar import are found in various languages, and are capable of many applications: comp. Pro 11:31; 1Pe 4:17, 1Pe 4:18. This saying is an argument fortiori, and it may be easily applied in more than one sense here. (1) If the Romans treat Me, whom they admit to be innocent, in this manner, how will they treat those who are rebellious and guilty? (2) If the Jews deal thus with One who has come to save them, what treatment shall they receive themselves for destroying Him? (3) If they behave thus before their cup of wickedness is full, what will they commit when it overflows? The use of , lignum, for a tree as well as for timber is late Greek (Gen 1:29, Gen 1:2:9, Gen 1:3:1; Isa 14:8; Psa 1:3). In Eze 21:3 [20:47] we have and combined; but otherwise there is no parallel.

For the delib. subjunct. comp. Mat 26:54, and , ; ; (Hom. Od. v. 465). See Burton., 169.

32. . This is the order of B and Aegyptt., which has been corrected to , to avoid the implication that Jesus was a . With a similar object Syr-Sin. with Codd. Colb. and Palat. omits , and perhaps the omission of before (Syr-Cur. b) is due to the same cause. Yet the implication is not necessary. We may retain the order of B and translate, others. viz. two malefactors; or, two very different malefactors. In the latter case is used of Jesus with irony against those who treated Him as such: (Isa 53:12). But it is perhaps best to regard it as what Field calls a negligent construction not likely to be misunderstood. In that case the AV. is courageously accurate with two other malefactors: for the comma after other is a later insertion of the printers; it is not found in the edition of 1611. These two were bandits (Mat 27:38, Mat 27:44; Mar 15:27). The hierarchy perhaps contrived that they should be crucified with Jesus in order to suggest similarity of crime. In the persecutions, Christians were sometimes treated in this way. Comp. (Eus. Mart. Pal. vi. 3).

Note the characteristic , and for see on 22:2.

The Latin Versions render latrones (a b e f ff2 l), maligni (d), rei (c), nequam (Vulg.), to which are added the names of the robbers, Ioathas et Maggatras (1). Similarly in Mar 15:27 we have names added, Zoathan et Chammatha (c), and in Mat 27:38, Zoathan et Camma. See on ver. 39.

33-38. The Crucifixion. The narrative is substantially the same as Mat 27:33-44 and Mar 15:22-32; but it has independent features.

33. . This word is used by all three. The precise place is still a matter of controversy, and must remain so until excavation has determined the position of the old walls, outside which it certainly was. See MacColl. Contemp. Rev., Feb. 1893, pp. 167-188; D. B.2 i. pp. 1205, 1652-1657.

. See on 6:15. It was so called on account of its shape, not because skulls were lying there unburied, which would have outraged Jewish feeling. Lk. omits the Hebrew name Golgotha (Mat 27:33; Mar 15:22; Joh 19:17), which would have conveyed in meaning to Greek readers, as he has already omitted (without Greek equivalent) Gethsemane and Gabbatha. It is from the Latin (locum qui vocatur Calvari) that the word Calvary has come into all English Versions prior to RV., which has, the place which is called The Skull.

The ancient explanation that the place was thus called because of the skull of Adam, who was buried there by Noah after the Flood, is rejected by Jerome (on Mat_27, Migne, xxv. 209), as interpretatio mulcens aurem populi, nee tamen vera. But he wrongly adopts the view that it was a plac in which truncantur capita damnata, a view which even Fritzsche (on Mat 27:33) has defended. No such place has ever existed in the East, least of all at Jerusalem: and such a place would be styled not . A rocky protrusion, resembling a skull in form, is no doubt the meaning. Thus Cyril of Jerusalem speaks of it as rising on high and showing itself to this day, and displaying even yet how because of Christ the rocks were then riven (Catech. Lect. xiii. 39).

For the attractive Adam legend compare Ambrose, ad loc.: Congruebat quippe ut ibi vit nostra primitia locarentur, ubi fuerant mortis exordia (Migne, xv. 1852). Chrys. and Euthym. do not o beyond tradition ( ), which they do not expressly accept. See Tisch. app. crit. ad Joh 19:17.

. It will always remain disputable whether our Lords feet were nailed as well as His hands. Joh 20:25-27 proves that His hands were nailed: but it is not certain that Luk 24:39 has way reference to the nails. In the Gospel of Peter, before the burial, nails are taken from the hands only. Ewald refers to the Zeitschrift fr die Kunde des Morgenlandes, i. 20, for evidence that in Palestine the medival tradition limited the nailing to the hands; but this is less probable.

For this late use of the relative comp. Mat 21:35, Mat 21:22:15; 1Co 11:21; 2Ti 2:20; Rom 9:21.

34, a. As in we cases of 22:19b, 20 and of 43, 44, we have to consider whether this passage is part of the original text. For the evidence see the additional note at the end of the chapter. Few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to the truth of what they record than this first of the Words from the Cross: but it need not therefore have belonged originally to the book in which it is now included. We cannot doubt that it comes from an extraneous source. Nevertheless, like 22:43f.; Mat 16:2 f., it has exceptional claims to be permanently retained, with the necessary safeguards, in its accustomed place (WH. ii. App. p. 68).

. The and the imperf. refer back to : while they crucified Him, He in contrast to them was saying.

. This cannot refer to the Roman soldiers, who were doing no more than their duty in executing a sentence which had been pronounced by competent authority. It was the Jews, and especially the Jewish hierarchy, who were responsible for what was being done: and but for the pressure which they had put upon him, even Pilate would have remained guiltless in this matter. What follows shows that the petition refers to the act of crucifixion, not to their sins generally. In this way He made intercession for the transgressors (Isa 53:12); where, however, LXX has .

. This was true even of the rulers (Act 3:17), still more of the people, and most of all of Pilate. Their ignorance of what they were doing in crucifying the Christ mitigates their guilt. Comp. 12:48, and in ver. 31: also the use of the words attributed to James the Just at his martyrdom (Hegesip. ap. Eus. H.E. ii. 23, 16).

34, b. . The wording is very similar in all three, and is influenced by Psa 22:19, which Jn. (19:24, quotes verbatim from LXX. Some texts wrongly insert the quotation Mat 27:35; but the Synoptists use the wording of the Psalm without directly quoting it. Jn. tells us that it was a quaternion of soldiers (comp. Act 12:4) who were carrying out the procurators sentence, and thus came to share the clothes as their perquisite. And Jn. distinguishes, as does the Heb. of Psa 22:19, although LXX and the Synoptists do not, between the upper and under garments. This dividing of the clothes is one more detail in the treatment of Christ as a criminal, and a criminal whose career was closed.

The sing. ( B C D L, b c d Aeth.) has been altered in some texts to (A X, a e f ff2 Vulg. codd. plur. Syr-Sin.) to harmonize with usage, e.g. 1Ch 25:8, 1Ch 25:26:13, 1Ch 25:14; Neh 10:34, Neh 11:1, etc.

35. . . Both words are from Psa 22:8: . Mt. and Mk. use other words; but they add, what Lk. omits, the fulfilment of . Lk. marks clearly four kinds of ill-treatment which Jesus received. The people , the rulers , the soldiers , and the robber . They form a sort of climax. The implies vulgar curiosity, staring as at a spectacle (comp. ver. 48): for comp. 16:14, where, as here, Cod. Bezae has subsannabant. For the form see on ver. 10.

. This sarcasm is preserved in all three narratives, but Lk. alone gives the contemptuous and . Comp. 9:35. Jesus was elected from all eternity to fulfil all there things. Comp. Enoch, xl. 5.

WH. and RV. put a comma after , which belongs to , not to . TR., following A C3 Q X etc., places before , while C*, ff2 have before . Syr-Sin. supports this combination. D has , si filius es dei si christus es electus; and the insertion of is found in other texts.

The after (A , f Vulg. Syr-Sin.) is an insertion to harmonize with Mt. and Mk.

36, 37. This mockery by the soldiers is peculiar to Lk. Apparently it was the hierarchy who took the initiative. They told the King of Israel to come down from the cross; the soldiers told the King of the Jews to save Himself. Note the change of tense (, , which implies that the soldiers were less persistent in their derision than the rulers. The reading (A C D Q etc.) has all the look of a correction.

36. . Offering some of their sour wine or posca, which the Evangelists call , perhaps in connexion with (Psa 68:22). Probably they could not have reached His lips with a vessel held in the hand; otherwise the sponge would no have been placed on a stalk, however short (Joh 19:29): but there is no reason for supposing that Christs feet were on a level with the heads of the spectators, as pictures sometimes represent. Syr-Sin. omits the words.

Comp. the words which legend has put into the mouth of His Mother at the cross: , (Acta Pilati, B. x.).

. For Mt. has . , Mk. , Jn. . Thus Mk. again has the whole expression of which Mt. and Lk. have each a part: comp. 4:40, 5:13, 22:34. The name and crime of the person executed was sometimes hung round his neck as he went to the place of crucifixion and then fastened to the cross. The suggests that this inscription was an additional mockery.

The wording differs in all four Gospels, and perhaps it varied in the three languages. It was directed against the hierarchy rather than against Jesus. All four variations contain the offensive words The King of the Jews (Joh 19:21). But Lk. regards it as an insult to Jesus. In the Gospel of Peter the wording is This is the King of Israel, just as at the mock homage the address is Judge righteausly, O King of Israel.

The words are almost certainly a gloss from Joh_19. They are omitted in c a B C* L, Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. Boh. Sah., and by the best editors. The authorities which insert the words differ as to the order of the languages and as to the introductory words or , or . The omission of the statement, if it were genuine, would be unintelligible. Comp. Jos. Ant. xiv. 10, 2; B. J. vi. 2, 4, v. 5, 2. In the inscription itself the order of B L, . . , is to be preferred. D has the same, adding after , rex Judorum hic est. Contrast Eus. H. E. v. 1, 44.

39-43. The Two Robbers. Mt. (27:44) and Mk. (15:32) merely state that those who were crucified with Him reproached Him.

Harmonists suggest that during the first hour both robbers reviled Jesus, and that one of them (who may have heard Jesus preach in Galilee) afterwards changed his attitude and rebuked his comrade. So Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, Theophylact, Euthymius, on Mat_27. But Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, and Augustine confine the reviling to one robber, who in Mt. and Mk. is spoken of in the plur. by synecdoche. See Maldonatus on Mat 27:44: wt Suarez he adopts the latter view. Or they insist upon the difference between , which Mt. and Mk. use of the two robbers, and , which Lk. uses of one of them. Both bandits reproached Jesus (perhaps for not having them in their revolt against existing conditions of society); but only one of them railed upon Him. It is much simpler to suppose that Mt. and Mk. regard the two as a class, to which the conduct of either of them may be hear attributed. Christs conversation with the penitent robber would not be heard by many. The constant reviling (imperf.) of the other would be much more widely known. That may mean much the same as is seen from 6:22; Rom 15:3; 1Pe 4:14. The two verbs are combined 2Ki 19:22, and seem to be synonymous. Mt. and Mk. would hardly have omitted the incident of the penitent robber, if they had known it; but here Lk. once more other sources of information. The incident would have special interest for him as illustrating the doctrine that salvation is open to all.

In the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy (xxiii.) the names of the two robbers are given as Titus bribes Dumachus. Titus bribes Dumachus to release the Holy Family, whom they had captured. In the Greek form of the Gospel of Nicodemus (Acta Pilati x.) the penitent malefactor is Dysmas, and the other is nameless. In the Latin form (Gesta Pilati x.) the two are Dismas and Gestas. See small print note on ver. 32.

39. . When used of hanging on a cross or gibbet is commonly added (Act 5:30, Act 5:10:39; Gal 3:13; Gen 40:19, Gen 40:22; Deu 21:22, Deu 21:23, etc.): but here the context is sufficient.

. This is the true reading ( B C* L and most Versions, including Syr-Sin.) rather than (A Q R X etc. c f q vulg.). Art thou not is a more bitter taunt than If thou art.

D d e omit the utterance, and 1 substitutes qui destruebas templum et in tribus diebus redificabas illum, salvumm te fac nunc et descende de cruce.

40. . The cannot be taken with either (De W. Nsg.) or (Pesh.), but only with . Dost thou not even fear, to say nothing of penitent submission (Schanz). Dost not even thou fear would be ; Vulg. Neque tu times, Beza Ne tu quidem times, and Godet Et toi non plus, tu ne crains donc point, are all inaccurate. The meaning is, You and He will soon have to appear before God. Does not even fear restrain you from adding to your sins; whereas He has nothing to answer for.

41. . A meiosis: nothing unbecoming; still less anything criminal; Act 25:5; Job 27:6, 34:12, 35:13; Prov. 24:55; Pro_2 Mac. 14:23.

D has and then adds a characteristic amplification: . (?) , . Respondens autemm Jesus dixit qui objurgabat animuior esto, hodie mecum eris in paradiso. See on ver. 53 and 6:5.

42. , . Jesus, remember me, The insertion of (A R X etc. and most Versions) was made because was mistaken for the dat. after : dicebat ad Jesum, Domine, memento mei (Vulg.). So also Syr-Sin. Comp. (Gen 40:14). The robber knew that he had only a few hours to live, and therefore this prayer implies a belief in a future state in which Jesus is to receive him in His Kingdom. Possibly he believed that Christ would raise him from the dead. In any case his faith in one who is crucified with him is very remarkable. Some saw Jesus raise the dead, and did not believe. The robber sees Him being put to death, and yet believes. Contempserunt Judi mortuos suscitantem: non contempsit latro secum cruce pendentem (Aug. Serm. xxiii. 3). D again amplifies with . .

. This is perhaps the best supported reading: comp. Mat 16:28, Mat 25:31. It means when Thou comest in the glory and power of Thy Kingdom: whereas (B L, Vulg., Hil Ambr.) would mean comest into Thy Kingdom. The former refers to Christs return in glory, the latter to his return to the Father through death. The alteration of into as more appropriate to seems more probable than the converse. That the robber had heard what is recorded Joh 18:36, Joh 18:37 is possible, but not probable. He believes that Jesus is the Messiah, and he knows that the Messiah is to have a kingdom. It is all but certain that the robber was a Jew. This is antecedently probable; and to a heathen the word paradise would hardly have been intelligible.

There is no reason for supposing that the robber felt the need of obtaining forgiveness from the Messiah. To the Jew death is an expiation for sin. In the Confession on a Death Bed in the Authorised Daily Prayer Book of the United Hebrew Congregations we have, O may my death be an atonement for all my sins, iniquities, and transgressions, of which I have been guilty against Thee (p. 317).

43. . As usual, this introduces something of special importance, or beyond expectation: 4:24, 12:37, 18:17, 29, 21:32. B C* L have this order; others the common .

. To take this with robs it of almost all its force. When taken with what follows it is full of meaning. Jesus knows that both He and the robber will die that day, and He grants him more than he had asked or expected. Uberior est gratia quam precatio. Ille enim rogabat ut memor esset sui Dominus cum venisset in regnum suum: Dominus autem ait illi: Amen, amen dico tibi: Hodie mecum eris in paradiso. Ubi Christus, ibi vita, ibi regnum (Ambr. ad loc.).

. Not merely in My company ( ), but sharing with Me. The promise implies the continuance of consciousness after death. If the dead are unconscious, the assurance to the robber that he will be with Christ after death would be empty of consolation.

. The word, said to be of Persian origin, is used in various senses in Scripture: 1. a park or pleasure-ground (Neh 2:8; Son 4:13; Ecc 2:5); 2. the garden of Eden (Gen 2:8-10, Gen 2:15, Gen 2:16, 3:Gen 2:1-3, Gen 2:8-10, etc.); 3. Abrahams Bosom, i.e. the resting-place of the souls of the just until the resurrection (the meaning here); 4. a region in heaven, perhaps identical with the third heaven (2Co 12:4). It is doubtful whether (Rev 2:7) is the same as 3 or 4, or is yet a fifth use. By His use of the word, Jesus neither confirms nor corrects Jewish beliefs on the subject. He assures the penitent that He will do far more than remember him at some unknown time in the future: this very day He will have him in His company in a place of security and bliss. See Wetst.

Epiphanius (317, 347) states that Marcion omitted this promise of Christ to the robber.

Origen sometimes adds to : e l r add patris. Syr-Cur. substitutes in horto Eden. See Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 148.

44-49. The Death. In substance, and sometimes in wording Lk. is the same as Mat 27:45-56 and Mar 15:33-41. But the words recorded in ver. 46 are peculiar to this Gospel, and once more (comp. vv. 27-32) are among the most precious details in the history of the Passion.

44. . This is Lk.s first note as to the time of day (22:66), and he qualifies it with his favourite (3:23, 9:14, 28, 22:41, 59, 24:11). In days in which there were no clocks, and on a day on which the darkness and the earthquake caused so much disturbance of the ordinary signs of the hour, very large margin for inaccuracy may be covered by . All three Synoptists give the sixth hour, i.e. about noon, as the time when the darkness began; while Mk. (15:25) gives the third hour as the time of the Crucifixion. On the apparent discrepancy between these statements and Joh 19:14 see Ramsay in the Expositor for March 1893 and June 1896. The is in B C* L Boh.

. Over the whole land (Orig. Luth: Calv. Bez. Mald. Nsg. Schanz, Hahn, Tyn. Con Gen. RV.), rather than over all the earth (Euthym. Beng. De W. Mey. Godet, AV.). For land comp. 4:25, 21:23: for earth 21:35; Act 1:8. The Gospel of Peter has , where, as here, the time of day and the darkness are co-ordinate (, not ): Win. liii. 3, p. 543.

These exceptional phenomena, as Godet points out, may be attributed either to a supernatural cause or to a providential coincidence. On ne peut mconnitre une relation profonde, dun ct, entre lhomme et la nature, de l autre, entre lhumanit et Christ. The sympathy of nature with the sufferings of the Son of God is what seems to be indicated in all three accounts, which are here almost verbally the same; and possibly the Evangelists believed the darkness to have enveloped the whole earth.

45. . The reading is doubtful; but this is probably correct, although may possibly be correct. The sun failing, or the sun having failed. is the meaning: and we must leave it doubtful whether Lk. supposes that there was an eclipse (which is impossible at full moon), or uses in its originally vague sense of fail. The latter is probable. Neither in LXX nor elsewhere in N.T. is used of the sun. The fact that it might mean an eclipse, and that an eclipse was known to be impossible, would tempt copyists to substitute a phrase that would be free from objection; whereas no one would want to change . The Gospel of Peter states that many went about with lamps, supposing it is night. and that the darkness lasted until Jesus was taken from the cross, when the earthquake took place: then the sun shone out, and it was found to be the ninth hour. See Charles. Assump. of Moses, 41, 87.

The evidence stands thus:-

(or L al., Tisch.) B C* (?) L codd. ap. Orig. Aegyptt. Orig. Cels. WH. RV. Weiss. A C3 D Q R X etc., codd. ap. Orig-lat. Latt. Syr. Marcion ap. Epiph. Lach. Treg. D has . . The Latin renderings are intenebricatus est sol (a),tenebricavit sol (c), obscuratus est sol (d e f Vulg.). See WH. ii. App. pp. 69-71 for a full discussion of the evidence.

Julius Africanus (c. a.d. 220) in his Chronica opposes the heathen historian Thallus for explaining this darkness as an eclipse, which at the Passover would be impossible (Routh, Rel Sacr. ii. pp. 297, 476). In the Acta Pilati, A. xi. the Jews are represented as explaining away the darkness in a similar manner: !

Origen (Con. Cels, ii. 33, 59; comp. 14) tells us that Phlegon (a freedman of Hadrian) recorded the earthquake and the darkness in his Chronicles. Eusebius in his Chronicle quotes the words of Phlegon, stating that in the 202nd Olympiad (4th year of the 203rd, Arm. Vers.) there was a very great eclipse; also that there was a great earthquake in Bithynia, which destroyed a great part of Nica (Eus. Chron. p. 148, ed. Schne). It is impossible to determine whether the events recorded by Phlegon have any connexion with the phenomenoa which accompanied the death of Christ.

. Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies (Exo 26:31; Lev 21:23, Lev 21:24:3; Heb 6:19; comp. Heb 10:20) there was a curtain called (Heb 9:3), to distinguish it from the curtain which separated the outer court from the Holy Place. The latter was more accurately, but not invariably, called (Exo 27:16; Num 3:25). But Jewish traditions state that there were two curtains, one cubit apart, between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, the space between them being called because of the perplexity which led to this arrangement (J. Light. foot on Mat 27:51). It is not clear how many curtains are included in in 1 Mac. 4:51. It is futile to speculate how the curtain was rent; but the fact would be well known to the priests, a great company of whom soon afterwards became obedient to do faith (Act 6:7). The of Lk. is more classical than the of Mt. Mk. and the Gospel of Peter.1

46. . All three mention this loud voice, which seems to indicate that Jesus did not die of exhaustion. Comp. Stephens cry (Act 7:60). But here the fondness of Lk. for cognate words is conspicuous. While he has , Mt. has , and Mk. : comp. 2:8 and 9, 7:29, 12:50, 17:24, 22:15: and see on 11:46. The aorist does not prove that is not to be taken with , and we may suppose that what was uttered with a loud voice was the saying, Father, into Thy hands, etc. Comp. the freq. . But it is admissible to make the refer to It is finished, or to some separate inarticulate cry. It is quite unnecessary to suppose that Lk. has here taken the words of Psa 31:6 and attributed them to Jesus, in order to express His submissive trust in God at the moment of death. Are we to suppose that Jesus did not know Psa_31? or that, if He did not, such a thought as this could not occur to Him?

. . . The psalmist, thinking of a future death, has , which L and inferior MSS. read here. The voluntary character of Christs death is very clearly expressed in this last utterance, as in (Mt.) and (Jn.). None of the four says , or , or . Quis ita dormit quando voluerit, sicut Jesus mortuus est quando voluit? Quis ita vestem ponit quando voluerit, sicut se carne exuit quando voluit? Quis ita cum voluerit abit quomodo cum voluit obiit? (Aug. Tr. in Job. xix. 30). To urge that this utterance is not consistent with ver. 43 is futile, unless we believe that God is excluded from paradise(Psa 16:10, 139:8; Act 11:27).

Strauss, Renan, and others are unwilling to decide whether all the Seven Words from the Cross are to be rejected as unhistorical. Keim will commit himself to no more than the two probable facts, that shortly before His death Jesus uttered a cry of lamentation, and when on the point of dying a death-cry (vi. p. 162). One asks once more, Who was capable of inventing such words? Compare the inventions in the apocryphal gospels.

47. . The one who was there to superintend the execution, supplicio prpositus: all three speak of him as the centurion. Legend has invested him with the name Longinus (Acta Pilati, B. xi.), which perhaps originally meant the soldier with the (Joh 19:34), and later writers make both him and the soldier with the spear die a martyrs death. See D. of Chr. Ant. p. 1041.

. Not merely the manner of Christs death, but its extraordinary circumstances. Mt. has , Mk. . Mt. says that those with him joined in the exclamation, and that they feared greatly.

. He glorified God unconsciously by this public confession, by saying () that Jesus was no criminal, but had died in accordance with Gods will. The statement is the Evangelists appreciation of this heathens attitude towards the death of Christ. Some, however, suppose that the centurion was a proselyte, and that He first consciously praised God, and then added the remark which is recorded: comp. the use of the phrase 2:20, 5:25, 26, 7:16, 13:13, 13:15, 18:43; Act 4:21, Act 11:18, Act 21:20. The good character of the centurions in N.T. confirms the statement of Polybius, that as a rule the best men in the army were promoted to this rank (vi.24. 9). See small print on 7:5. A C P Q X etc. have .

. Mt. and Mk. have . Harmonists suggest that the centurion said before the earthquake, and after it. More probably the two expressions represent one and the same thought: He was a good man, and quite right in calling God His Father (vv. 34, 46). The centurion would not mean much by . See Aug. De Cons. Ev. iii. 20.

48. . Neither word occurs elseWhere in N.T. For comp. Dan 5:7; Dan_2 Mac. 5:26, 15:12; 3 Mac. 5:24. Note the here and ver. 49. Neither Mt, nor Mk. has it: comp. 20:18, 45, 21, 29, 23:1. The multitude would be very great, owing to the Passover, and thousands would see Jesus hanging dead upon the cross. They had looked on the whole tragedy as a sight, spectaculum (ver. 35).

. Many of them had had no share in clamouring for Christs death; and those who had taken part had been hounded on by the priests, and now felt remorse for what they had caused. In the Gospel of Peter they are made to say, Woe to our sins, for the judgment and the end of Jerusalem is at hand! One Latin MS.(G) here adds dicentes v nobis qu facta sunt hodie propter peccata nostra, adpropinquavit enim desolatio hierusalem. In Syr-Sin. the verse runs, And all those who had ventured there and saw what happened, smote upon their breasts, saying, Woe to us, what hath befallen us! woe to us for our sins! Syr-Cur.. is similar. D adds to .

49. . But (not And, as AV. RV.), in contrast to the crowds who (Lk.s favourite word), the faithful few remained. Lk. alone mentions this fact: the Apostles perhaps are included. Comp. (Ps. 87:9); (37:12).

For this use of comp. 2:44. In the common signification of known. is freq. in Acts: elsewhere in N.T. rare.

. Mt. and Mk. name Mary Magdalen, Mary the mother of James and Joses and Salome the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

. These do not gaze as at a spectacle. The change of verb from (ver. 48) is ignored in Vulg. Tyn. Gen. Rhem. AV., while Cov. Cran. RV. distinguish. Although feminine, because of the nearest substantive, belongs to as well as to .

50-56. The Burial. Comp. Mat 27:57-61; Mar 15:42-47. In this section the whole of vv. 54-56 and portions of the rest are peculiar to Lk. Mk. tells us of Pilates surprise that Jesus was already dead, and of his sending for the centurion to be certified of the fact. Joh 19:38-42 is altogether independent. All four show how, even before the Resurrection, love and reverence for the Crucified was manifested.

50. Note the characteristic (1:20, 31, 36), (see on 5:27). (see on 8:3 and 41).

. A member of the Sanhedrin is meant; and is to be taken with . Another amphibolous expression: comp. vv. 35, 43.

The Latin Versions render by decurio, the technical word for a member of a municipal senate; but has consiliarius. Cod. Colb. after Joseph continues de civitate arimathia cum esset decurio qui sperabat regnum dei et bonus homo non consentiens concilio et actui eorum hic accessit, etc.-a free transposition.

. Syr-Cur.. and Syr-Sin. transpose the epithets, which refer to his life as a whole, and not merely to his conduct at this time (1:6, 2:25). Mt. says that Joseph was , Mk. that he was , Jn. that he was .

51. . We do not know whether he had absented himself, or abstained from voting, or voted in opposition to the sentence: the verb occurs Exo 23:32. Apparently he was not present when the sentence recorded Mar 14:64 was pronounced, for that was unanimous.

. Excepting 1Co 4:5; Eph 1:11; Heb 6:17. is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. See on 7:30. In LXX it is very common. Syr-Sin. has to the accusers.

. When the word is used in a bad sense, the plur. is more common (Act 19:18; Rom 8:13; Col 3:9), as in our practices: but Polybius uses the sing. in this sense. Here the method by which they compassed the death of Jesus is specially meant.

. Who these are is suggested rather than stated by the preceding : means of the Sanhedrin. Win. 22:3(2), P. 182.

. . The probably means birth-place or former residence (Mat 21:11): his having a burial-place at Jerusalem shows that be had settled there; and his being one of the Sanhedrin confirms this. Arimatha is commonly identified with Ramah, the birthplace and home of Samuel. Its full name was Ramathaim-zophim = Double Height of the Watchers. In LXX it is called (1Sa 1:19), and the identification of its site is, without exception, the most complicated and disputed problem of sacred topography (Stanley, Sin. & Pal. p. 224). The addition of points to Gentile readers.

. . . He was waiting for the Messianic Kingdom: that he recognized Jesus as the Messiah is not implied. Comp. 2:25, 38; Act 23:21, Act 24:15. The verb is not found in Mt. or Jn, and only once in Mk., but occurs seven times in Lk. and Acts.

52. The wording of all three is very similar, and also of the Gospel of Peter, which represents Joseph as coming before Jesus was dead. and Pilate as sending to ask Herod for the body, who replies. Brother Pilate, even if some one had not asked for Him, we were intending to bury Him before the first day of the unleavened bread. Comp. the addition made in Cod. Colb.

53. . The verb occurs only here, Mat 27:59, and Joh 20:7. All three mention the , which was cut into strips ( or ) for the burial. Mk. (15:46) tells us that it had been bought by Joseph for the purpose, and therefore on that day; which is another sign that the feast had not begun the previous evening. The Gospel of Peter says that Joseph washed the body before wrapping it in linen.

. For see on 24:1: the adjective is not classical; once in LXX (Deu 4:49) and four times in Aquila (Num 21:20, Num 21:23:14; Deu 34:1; Jos 13:20). Comp. (Exo 34:1, Exo 34:4; Num 21:19, Num 21:23:14; Deu 3:27, Deu 3:10:1, Deu 3:3, etc.). Verb and adjective seem to belong to the important class of words which became current through having been needed to express Jewish ideas and customs. Kennedy. Sources of N.T. Grk. p. 116.

. Accumulation of negatives: comp. Heb 13:5, and see Win. 4:9. b, p. 626; Burton.. 489. Mt. has . The fact is mentioned as a mark of special honour in contrast to the shameful death: comp. 19:30.

Cod. Bezae has hue one of its characteristic interpolations. After it adds : et posito eo imposuit in monumento lapidem quem vix viginti movebant. Scrivener (Cod Bezae p. 52) remarks that this strange addition is conceived somewhat in the Homeric spirit. Comp. Oba 1:9:241. Prof. Rendel Harris (Cod. Bezae, ch. vii) finds a hexameter in the Latin: imposuit lapidem quem vix viginti movebant. But against this (as an acute critic in the Guardian of May 25, 1892. p. 787, points out) are to be urged (1) the intrusive in monumento. (2) the shortening of the final s syllable in viginti, which is improbable so early as the second century, (3) the fact that the same loss, rather differently worded, is found not only in. cod. Colb, but in the Sahidic Version. Thus in one we have, posuerunt lapidem quem vix viginti volvebant (c); in the other, posuit lapidem in porta sepuleri quem viginti homines volvere possent. To assume a Greek gloss, which was differently translated in two Latin and one Egyptian text, is a simpler hypothesis than a Latin gloss translated into Greek and Egyptian, and then from the Greek act into a different Latin. Moreover. the fact that the tone of the gloss is Homeric rather than Virgilian points to a Greek origin. That there were Homerizers and Virgilianizers at this early date may be inferred from Tertull, De Prser, Hr. 39.

54. . The word may mean either the eve of the sabbath or the eve of the Passover: and on this occasion the sabbath probably coincided with Nisan 15, the first day of the Passover. This fist day ranked as a sabbath (Exo 12:16; Lev 23:7), and therefore was doubly holy when it coincided with an ordinary sabbath. If the Passover had begun the previous evening, would Lk. and Mk. (15:42) speak of its first day as the eve of an ordinary sabbath? Just as we should hardly speak of the first Sunday in April, if that Sunday was Easter Day. But, although the day was a to both sabbath and Passover, it is the former that is probably meant. Comp, Mar 15:42. Caspari ( 157) would take it the other way.

For ( B C* L 13 346, cen pur a b c l parasceues Vulg.) A C2 P X etc., f ff2 have , Syr-Cur. feria sexta. For the whole verse D substitutes erat autem dies antesabbatum.

. An inaccurate expression; because the sabbath began, not at dawn, but at sunset. But it was dawning easily comes to mean it was beginning, and is transferred to things which cannot dawn. In the Gospel of Peter, when Pilate before the Crucifixion asks Herod for the body of Jesus, Herod replies that in any case the body would have been buried that day, , , . The verb has nothing to do with lighting lamps at the beginning of the sabbath (J. Lightfoot, Wetst.), nor is the rising of the stars or the glow of sunset meant (Hahn).

55. . In N. T. here and Act 16:17 only: in LXX Jer 17:16; Jer_1 Est 7:1; Judith 11:6; Dan 9:10; Dan_1 Mac. 6:23. Their following from the Crucifixion (ver. 49) to Josephs garden is meant, and the – does not mean down into the grave but after Joseph and his assistants. Syr-Sin. and Syr-Cur.. have And the women, who came with Him from Galilee, went to the sepulchre in their footsteps, and saw the body when they [had] brought it in there. The fact of the women beholding the tomb in which the body was laid is in all three Synoptic Gospels. It is part of the evidence for the Resurrection.

For (B L P X, Boh Sab.) D 29, a b e ff2 q r have while TR. follows certain cursives in reading . A C etc. have without or or , and this Tisch. adopts.

. We Might have expected comp. 6:4, 8:47, 24:35.

56. . In N.T. only of these spices; freq. in LXX. For comp. 7:37. Mk. says that when the sabbath was over, i.e. on Saturday evening, the women bought that they might anoint Him, which shows that are not to be confined to sweet-smelling herbs or to dry spices. The chapter ought to end at , for plainly balances , and no more than a comma is needed after . D omits .

. The notice of this resting on the sabbath would be strange if they had been working on so sabbatical a day as Nisan 15; for it could not be urged that the preparation of spices and ointments was in any sense necessary. When a Sabbath immediately preceded Nisan 15, it was lawful to work on the sabbath at preparations for the feast. But can we suppose that, if in this year Nisan 15 immediately preceded the sabbath, pious women would have worked merely to gratify affectionate feeling? Or, having thought themselves justified in working for this purpose on Nisan 15, that they would scrupulously have avoided continuing such work on the sabbath? If Nisan 15 coincided with the sabbath, all is explained: up to sunset on Friday it was lawful to work. and after sunset on Saturday it was lawful to work again. Of the interval Godet remarks, On peut dire que ce sabbat tait le dernier de Iancienne alliance qui prenait fin avec la mort du Christ Il fut scrupuleusement respect par tous ceux qui, sans le savoit allaient inaugurer la nouuelle.

Additional Note on Readings in Chapters 22 and 23

(1) 22:43, 44, .

Evidence for the passage:-

*cD F G H K L M Q U X L etc. and nearly all cursives. A has the Ammonian section the passage marked in the margin. although it omits the passage in the text.

All MSS. of Lat Vet. Excepting f Vulg. some MSS. of Bob. of Sah. and of Arm. Syr-Cur. (omitting ) Syr-Pesh. Syr-Hier.

Just- M. Iren. Hippol. Dion-Alex. Eus. Greg-Naz. Epiph. Hil Hieron Aug.

Evidence against the passage:-

a A B R T 124 : 13 has prima manu, the rest secunda manu Co 69 and all known Evangelistaria have the passage inserted after Mat 26:39, A S V G D P and others, including nine cursives. have the passage marked with asterisks or obeli. Et in Grcis et in Latinis codd. complur. known to Hilary it was wanting. and it was found only in quibusdam exemplaribus tam Grcis quam Latinis known to Jerome

f, most MSS. of Boh. including the best, some MSS. of Sah. and of Arm. (see Sanday, App. ad N.T. pp. 188. 191). Syr-Sin., Syr-Harcl. marg.

Cry-Alex. omits in his Homilies on Lk. Ambr. likewise. The silence of clem-Alex. Orig. Cyr-Hier. Ath. and Greg-Nys. can hardly be accidental in all even in most.

Excision for doctrinal reasons will not explain the omission. There is no tangible evidence for the excision of a substantial portion of narrative for doctrinal reasons at any period of textual history (WH ii. App. p. 66).

Nor does Lectionary practice seem to be an adequate cause for such widespread omission. It is suggested that. because the passage was read after Mat 26:39 in the Lection for Holy Thursday, and omitted after Luk 22:42 in the Lection for Tuesday after Sexagesima, therefore some MSS. came to omit in Lk. or both Gospels.

It will be observed that the early non-patristic evidence in favour of the words is *D Latt. Syrr. a frequent Western combination.

But, if we regard the passage as probably a Western insertion in the text of Lk. we need have no hesitation whatever in retaining it as a genuine portion historical tradition. It is true, whoever wrote it.

(2) 22:68. After the words .

Evidence for the words:-

A D X etc., Latt. Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin.

Evidence against the words:-

B L T, Boh. one MS. of Vulg. (J). Cyr-Alex. Ambr.

A few authorities have without .

With Tisch. WH. RV., we may safely omit. Treg, brackets, Alf. the same, suggesting homoteleuton as the cause of omission.

(3) 23:34a.

Evidence for the passage:-

*c A C D2L Q X etc.

c e f ff2 I r Vulg. most MSS. of Bob. Syrr. (Cur. Pesh, Harel. Hier.) Aeth. Arm.

Iren-lat. Orig-lat. Hippol. Clem- Hom Eus. Ath. Greg-Nys. Bas. Gest-Pilat. Chrys, Hil,. Ambr. Hieron. Aug.

Evidence against the passage:-

* B D* 38 43 435. A has it marked with an asterisk.

a b d two best MSS. of Bob. Sah. Syr-Sin.

Cyr-Alex is said by Arethas to have regarded it as spurious; and this is confirmed by the text prefixed to the Syriac Homily on Luk 23:32-43 (p. 718 ed. Payne Smith). This, however, exists in only one which ends before ver. 34 is properly reached.

The omission in such witnesses would be very difficult to explain, if the passage had been part of the original text of Lk. But, even more strongly than in the case 22:43, 44, internal evidence warrants its in retaining the passage in its traditional place as a genuine portion of the evangelic narrative. That point being quite certain, it matters comparatively little whether we owe this precious fragment to Lk. or not.

Additional Note on 23:45

Dr. E. A. Abbott conjectures that both here and 22:51 we have instances of substitution through misunderstanding. In the Classical Review of Dec. 1893, p. 443, he writes: Though these words ( ) might mean the sun failing (to give its light), yet the natural meaning is the sun being eclipsed. Now every one knew that an eclipse could not happen except at new moon, and every Jew knew that Passover was at full moon. Why, then, he goes on to ask, does Lk. give an explanation of the darkness, which neither Mt. nor Mk. give, and which involves a portentous miracle? To the imaginary reply, Because Lk. wished to make it clear that it was a miracle and not a natural obscuration of the sun; for he is not afraid of being the only Evangelist to insert a miracle, as is shown by his account of the healing of Malchus ear, Dr. Abbott rejoins that the latter miracle is substituted rather than inserted. It is substituted for a rebuke to Peter, restore thy sword to its place. Comp. Mat 26:52; Joh 18:11, with in Jer_29. (Heb. 47) 6, and it will appear that the miraculous narrative probably arose from a misunderstanding of some ambiguous word, such as (be thou restored) or (let it be restored), in the original tradition. It (or thou) was interpreted by Mt. and Jn. (rightly) to be the sword and by Lk.(wrongly) to be the ear; and the verb was interpreted by Mt. and Jn. (rightly) to mean restored to its place but by Lk. (wrongly, though more in conformity with the Synoptic vocabulary, Mat 12:13; Mar 3:5, Mar 3:8:25; Luk 6:10, where it is used of a withered hand, or of a blind man) to mean restored to its original condition.

Is it possible that the present, also, may be a case of substitution through misunderstanding? Let us turn to the parallel passage in Mt (27:46-49) and Mk. (15:34-36). Here we find no mention of an eclipse, but of a saying of Jesus which was interpreted by the bystanders to mean that Elise had abandoned () Jesus. This Lk. omits altogether. But the genitive case of Elise is the same so that of the sun, viz. or in MSS. and although not often used of persons failing others in an emergency, is so used occasionally. Thus might mean either the sun being, eclipsed, or Elias failing, or forsaking.

But how could be changed into ? Curtailments of long compounds are not infrequent in MSS. of the N.T., and specially with : comp. Mar 14:40; Luk 6:36; Mat 13:40; Jam 2:13, Jam 3:14. If Lk., or others before him, concluded that must mean the sun, they would naturally infer that must be an error for .

It seems probable that Lk., finding obscure and divergent traditions about some utterance of Jesus, considered that he was restoring the original meaning, and a meaning worthy of the subject, in retaining two or three words of the current tradition, but placing them in such a context as to show that it was the sun, and not Elias, that failed.

Jos. Josephus.

1 The expressions jus gladii and potestas gladii are of later date. Professor Chwolson argues that the Sadducees were dominant when Jesus was condemned to death. It was against the law as maintained by the Pharisees to sentence a criminal and execute him within a few hours. The law required an interval of forty days for the collection of evidence on his behalf. It was the Sadducees, the servile upholders of Roman authority, who took the lead against Christ. They were the wealthy class, who lived on the temple sacrifices and dues, and therefore were bitter antagonists of a Teacher whose doctrine tended to the reform of lucrative abuses (Das letzte Passamahl Christi, etc., Appendix).

Tyn. Tyndale.

Cov. Coverdale.

Gen. Geneva.

AV. Authorized Version.

B B. Cod. Vaticanus, sc. 4. In the Vatican Library certainly since 15331 (Batiffol, La Vaticane de Paul 3, etc., p. 86).

L L. Cod. Regius Parisiensis, sc. viii. National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Gospel.

X X. Cod. Monacensis, sc. ix. In the University Library at Munich. Contains 1:1-37, 2:19-3:38, 4:21-10:37, 11:1-18:43, 20:46-24:53.

Vulg. Vulgate.

Lat. Vet. Vetus Latina.

A A. Cod. Alexandrinus, sc. v. Once in the Patriarchal Library at Alexandria; sent by Cyril Lucar as a present to Charles 1. in 1628, and now in the British Museum. Complete.

R R. Cod. Nitriensis Rescriptus, sc. 8. Brought from a convent in the Nitrian desert about 1847, and now in the British Museum. Contains 1:1-13, 1:69-2:4, 16-27, 4:38-5:5, 5:25-6:8, 18-36, 39, 6:49-7:22, 44, 46, 47, 8:5-15, 8:25-9:1, 12-43, 10:3-16, 11:5-27, 12:4-15, 40-52, 13:26-14:1, 14:12-15:1, 15:13-16:16, 17:21-18:10, 18:22-20:20, 20:33-47, 21:12-22:15, 42-56, 22:71-23:11, 38-51. By a second hand 15:19-21.

Found in Luke alone.

TR. Textus Receptus.

D D. Cod. Bezae, sc. vi. Given by Beza to the University Library at Cambridge 1581. Greek and Latin. Contains the whole Gospel.

M M. Cod. Campianus, sc. ix. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Gospel.

C

C. Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus, sc. 5. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the following portions of the Gospel: 1:2-2:5, 2:42-3:21, 4:25-6:4, 6:37-7:16, or 17, 8:28-12:3, 19:42-20:27, 21:21-22:19, 23:25-24:7, 24:46-53.

These four MSS. are parts of what were once complete Bibles, and are designated by the same letter throughout the LXX and N.T.

Cod. Sinaiticus, sc. iv. Brought by Tischendorf from the Convent of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai; now at St. Petersburg. Contains the whole Gospel complete.

Sah. Sahidic.

Arm. Armenian.

Syr Syriac.

Cur. Curetonian.

Sin. Sinaitic.

WH. Westcott and Hort.

Aug. Augustine.

K K. Cod. Cyprius, sc. ix. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Gospel.

. Cod. Sangallensis, sc. ix. In the monastery of St. Gall in Switzerland. Greek and Latin. Contains the whole Gospel.

Latt. Latin.

Wic. Wiclif.

RV. Revised Version.

Win. Winer, Grammar of N.T. Greek (the page refers to Moultons edition).

Burton. Burton, N.T. Moods and Tenses.

Alf. Alford.

Boh. Bohairic.

F F. Cod. Boreeli, sc. ix. In the Public Library at Utrecht. Contains considerable portions of the Gospel.

Aeth. Ethiopic.

Rhem. Rheims (or Douay).

1 Jos. B. J. ii. 14, 9, v. 11, 1; Livy, xxii. 13, 6, xxxiii. 36, 3; Cir. In Verr. v. 62, 162. Capital punishment of any kind was generally, according to Roman custom, preceded by beating.

D. B. Smiths Dictionary of the Bible, 2nd edition.

Iren. Irenus.

Tert. Tertullian.

Hippol. Hippolytus.

Aegyptt. Egyptian.

Eus. Eusebius of Csarea

Chrys. Chrysostom.

Euthym. Euthymius Zigabenus.

Tisch. Tischendorf.

c attributed to the beginning of sc. 7. Two hands of about this date are sometimes distinguished as ca and cb

a a contemporary, or nearly so, and representing a second MS. of high value;

De W. De Wette.

Nsg. Nsgen.

Pesh. Peshitto.

Ambr. Ambrose.

Wetst. Wetstein.

Orig. Origen.

Beng. Bengel.

Mey. Meyer.

Orig-lat. Latin Version of Origen.

Epiph. Epipnamus.

Treg. Tregelles.

1

Jerome says. In evangelio autem quod Hebraicis litteris scriptum est, legimus non velum templi scissum, sed superlimenare Templi mir magnitudinis coruisee (Ad Hedyb. viii.). Elsewhere he says. superlimenare templi infinit magnitudinis fractum esse atque divisum legimus (Com. in. Matt. xxvii. 51). See Nicholson, Gospel acc. to the Hebrews, p. 62.

In the Gemara it is stated that some forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem, the heavy gates of the temple, which could with difficulty be moved by many men, and which were locked at the time, flew open about midnight at the Passover. Josephus (B.J. vi. 5, 3) reports an occurrence of this kind shortly before the capture of the city. As Neander remarks (L. J. C. 293 n.), these accounts hint at some strange occurrence as being remembered in connexion with the time of the Crucifixion.

The rending of the veil perhaps symbolized the end of the temple and its services. In Clem. Recogn. i. 41 It is otherwise interpreted as a lamentation (comp. the rending of clothes) over the destruction which threatened the place. Better Theophylact: , , , .

G G. Cod. Harleianus, sc. ix. In the British Museum. Contains considerable portions.

U U. Cod. Nanianus, sc. x. In the Library of St. Marks, Venice. Contains the whole Gospel.

Hier. Palestinian (Jerusalem).

T T. Cod. Borgianus, sc. v. In the Library of the Propaganda at Rome. Greek and Egyptian. Contains 22:20-23:20.

S S. Cod. Vaticanus, sc. x. In the Vatican. The earliest dated MS. of the Greek Testament. Contains the whole Gospel.

Harcl. Harclean.

Iren-lat. Latin Version of Irenus

Bas. Basil.

Fuente: International Critical Commentary New Testament

Silent under False Accusations

Luk 23:1-12

The Jewish Sanhedrin, hastily summoned at the hour of dawn, having elicited from Jesus the profession of His messiahship and deity, and having concluded on the death sentence, set themselves to induce Pilate, the Roman governor, to concur in their verdict. In order to do this, they urged that Jesus imperiled the Roman supremacy.

Pilate was accustomed to deal with men, and after careful examination, was satisfied that there was no ground for the death sentence. I find no fault. As Gods Paschal Lamb, the Savior was searched to discover if there were spot, or blemish, or anything that could invalidate His claim to sinlessness. Only the sinless could save sinners. In his heart Pilate knew that our Lord should be acquitted, but his fear of the Jews deflected the verdict of his conscience. By sending the case to Herod, he hoped to get the right thing done, without incurring the odium incident to doing it.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Pilate’s Perplexity — Luk 23:1-25

And the whole multitude of them arose, and led Him unto Pilate. And they began to accuse Him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that He Himself is Christ a King. And Pilate asked Him, saying, Art Thou the King of the Jews? And He answered him and said, Thou sayest it. Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this Man. And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place. When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the Man were a Galilean. And as soon as he knew that He belonged unto Herods jurisdiction, he sent Him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time. And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see Him of a long season, because he had heard many things of Him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by Him. Then he questioned with Him in many words; but He answered him nothing. And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused Him. And Herod with his men of war set Him at nought, and mocked Him, and arrayed Him in a gorgeous robe, and sent Him again to Pilate. And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves. And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, said unto them, Ye have brought this Man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined Him before you, have found no fault in this Man touching those things whereof ye accuse Him: no, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto Him. I will therefore chastise Him, and release Him. (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.) And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this Man, and release unto us Barabas: (who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.) Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them. But they cried, saying, Crucify Him, crucify Him. And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath He done? I have found no cause of death in Him: I will therefore chastise Him, and let Him go. And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that He might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed. And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required. And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will- Luk 23:1-25.

As we consider the inspired account of the condemnation and crucifixion of our blessed Lord, we may well approach the subject with repentant hearts and broken spirits while we remind ourselves afresh that it was for our sins that He went to the cross. Apart from this solemn fact there was no power on earth or in hell that could have forced Jesus Christ to die as He did. He need not have died at all: He was the sinless Son of God. But He chose to die as our substitute. He voluntarily became our Surety and undertook in grace to pay the debt we owed. The pitiable thing is that men, led on by Satan, should have raised wicked hands against Him and heaped such shame and ignominy upon Him. But it only told out the vileness of the sinful heart of man and the malignity of Satan. As we follow our Lord in His mock trials before Pilate and Herod, and from Pilates judgment-hall to Calvary with its bitter cross, it should surely break down our pride and subdue us as we reflect upon what sin really is, when we see the lengths to which men like ourselves could go when under its power.

We have four references to Pontius Pilate in other parts of the New Testament outside the Gospels. Of course, we read of the trial of Jesus in all the Gospels, and of Pilates failure to stand for righteousness at a time when he knew the Prisoner before him was guiltless of the charges brought against Him. When the apostle Peter was addressing the people of Israel after Pentecost (Act 3:13-14), he said, The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified His Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied Him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you. In Act 4:27 we hear Peter speaking in prayer to God, saying, For of a truth against Thy holy Child Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together. Then in Act 13:28, when Paul was preaching in the synagogue at Antioch of Pisidia, he said, And though they found no cause of death in Him, yet desired they Pilate that He should be slain. In writing to his own convert, the young preacher Timothy, Paul reminds him, in 1 Timothy, of the faithful testimony of our Lord on the occasion of His trial. In 1Ti 6:13, he said, I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession; that thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. Pontius Pilates name stands out in the Word of God and on the pages of history for eternal infamy. I suppose there is no other mortal man whose name is mentioned as frequently as the name of Pontius Pilate. Every Lords Day and often on many other occasions, hundreds of thousands of professed Christians gathered together in various places, repeat the words found in the Apostles Creed; crucified under Pontius Pilate, and so Pilates name is repeated and has been repeated all down through the centuries as the one who condemned the innocent Christ to death. And Pilate has not heard the last of it yet. When he stands finally at the great white throne he will see sitting on that throne the One who once stood as a Prisoner before him; the One whom he pronounced to be innocent of the charges against Him, and yet whom he delivered up to be crucified. The trouble with Pontius Pilate was this: he was so filled with selfish ambition, a desire to win the favor of the powers above him and even of the people whom he ruled, that he did not have the manhood, the conscientious principle, to stand up for what he knew to be right.

When Jesus Christ was brought before Pilate, He was not a stranger to him. Pilate had heard of Jesus before; he knew of His ministry in Israel; and he knew it was because of envy that the chief priests had delivered Jesus to be tried. Pilate should have dealt with Him as One who was falsely accused, but he was fearful he might be censured and so lose his position which he held by Caesars favor.

The whole multitude were gathered together and led Jesus to Pontius Pilate to be charged with sedition against the Roman Government. They began to accuse Him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that He Himself is Christ a King. Notice there was a certain element of truth in their charges, and yet the charges as a whole were false, for a half-truth is often a whole lie. It is true the Lord Jesus Christ proclaimed Himself to be a King, but He never declared Himself to be King over Israel at that time. He came in full accord with prophecy and knew He was to be rejected, and that His kingdom was yet to come. On the other hand, their charge of sedition was utterly false, because when He was asked, Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no? Jesus replied by requesting them to show Him a penny, and He asked, Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesars. And He said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesars, and unto God the things which be Gods (Luk 20:24-25). They heard Him say this; therefore, they lied when they came before Pilate and said He had forbidden them to give tribute to Caesar.

Pilate put the question definitely, Art Thou the King of the Jews? The Lord answered, Thou sayest it. This may seem to be ambiguous, but it was as though He said, You have said it; you said that by right, by divine title, I am King of the Jews. He had not stressed that as He went about ministering among the people, but the question was put to Him, and He confessed that He was indeed the One whom God had sent to rule Israel. Pilate turned to the chief priests and to the people and said, I find no fault in this Man. And they were the more fierce. They would not listen to anything that could be said in behalf of Christ. They cried, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place. When Pilate heard the word Galilee, he thought he had found a loophole through which he might escape responsibility; so he asked whether the Man were a Galilean. When he learned that Jesus came from Galilee, he saw an opportunity to turn the judgment of Christ over to someone else. Herod was tetrarch, or governor of Galilee, who had come down to Jerusalem in order to keep the feast of the passover, and as soon as Pilate knew that Jesus belonged to that jurisdiction he sent Him to Herod, who, when he saw Jesus, was glad. He was delighted to see Him; he had heard so much of Him. He was always interested in wonder-workers and those whom the people lauded. He had been interested in John the Baptist until John faithfully said to him, as he pointed to another mans wife who was sitting by his side, It is not lawful for thee to have her (Mat 14:4). In indignation Herod put John the Baptist in prison, and, later to satisfy that womans desire for vengeance, Herod decapitated him.

Now here was a Man who was reported to have wrought great miracles, and Herod was glad to see Him, and hoped to see some wonder done by Him. Then he questioned with Him in many words: but He answered him nothing. As always the Lord Jesus had nothing to say to those who were curious but who had no desire to know the truth. And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused Him. And Herod with his men of war set Him at nought, and mocked Him, and arrayed Him in a gorgeous robe. It was evidently a robe of something like what we call changeable silk. One Gospel writer says it was purple; another says it was scarlet. The warp may have been of one color and the woof of another, so that it was indeed a gorgeous robe. They put it on Him; they bowed their knees, and put a reed in His hand, and mocked Him, crying, Hail, King of the Jews/ In the other Gospels we learn that the Roman soldiers platted a crown of thorns and pressed it upon His head, causing intense and bitter suffering.

We read in the next verse, The same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves. Here were two crafty politicians who hated and distrusted each other, but they could agree in rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ.

Herod sent Jesus back to Pilate. And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, said unto them, Ye have brought this Man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined Him before you, have found no fault in this Man touching those things whereof ye accuse Him: no, nor yet Herod for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto Him. I will therefore chastise Him, and release Him.

This was the second session in Pilates courtroom. It took place after Jesus had returned from Herod, where He had been set at nought, but no charge sustained against Him. I, having examined Him before you, have found no fault in this Man. Pilates declaration should have meant the acquittal of Jesus, but that would not satisfy his relentless enemies, who were determined that He must die, little realizing that His death was predetermined by God for our salvation (Act 2:23). No, nor yet Herod. This godless king had not dared to condemn Jesus to death, for he well knew he was not guilty of the charges, either of blasphemy or sedition, which were brought against Him. Pilate said, I will therefore chastise Him, and release Him. To inflict chastisement on an innocent man was preposterous, but Pilate evidently thought by this to placate the Jewish leaders and so he could release Jesus from any greater condemnation.

It had been the custom for some time, that a notable prisoner would be set free at the passover, and Pilate grasped at the thought that he might act upon that and release Jesus. There was a prisoner named Barabbas awaiting execution, and so he proposed, as recorded in another Gospel, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas (Mat 27:21). Barabbas was a notable rebel. He was in prison for sedition and murder. But the people cried all at once, Away with this Man, and release unto us Barabbas. With one voice they chose for release this famous champion of Jewish nationalism who was condemned to die. They demanded instead the death of Jesus, the innocent One. It is written (Mat 27:22) that Pilate put the solemn question, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? This is the question which has come ringing down the ages to every man. And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this Man Crucify Him, crucify Him. Pilate felt he was helpless before the multitude if he was going to save his own reputation, for he was afraid that the Jews would bring a charge against him. And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath He done? I have found no cause of death in Him: I will therefore chastise Him, and let Him go. And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that He might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed. Pilate went against his own conscience; he went against his own best judgment; he went against the pleadings of his wife, who sent a message to him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that Just Man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of Him (Mat 27:19). And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required. And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will.

In the choice that was made that day between Jesus and Barabbas, we find the choice not only of Israel, but also the choice that the nations have been making all down through the centuries. They have chosen a murderer, a malefactor, instead of the Lord of glory. If Christ had been received He would have brought peace and righteousness to the world; but because He was not chosen the nations have been dominated by men of the spirit of Barabbas, in a large measure, ever since that fatal day. The world, itself, has been soaked with the blood of millions of people who have died because of the awful conditions which have ensued through the rejection of the Prince of Peace.

The question comes to every one of us as individuals: What shall I do then with Jesus? You who have heard the story of Jesus all your lives, do you still vacillate just as Pilate vacillated? Though you know you should receive Christ, are you afraid as Pilate was afraid? Do you fear what man will say more than what God would say? If you have never yet trusted Christ Jesus, I plead with you to answer, Not Barabbas, but this Man! for through this Man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by Him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses (Act 13:38-39).

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

Luk 23:21

The Cross the expression of man’s unbelief. Crucifixion was the death of the outcast only,-the Gentile outcast. “Crucify Him,” then, meant, “Let Him die the worst of deaths, the Gentile death, the death that is so specially connected with the curse; the death that proclaims Him to be not merely an outcast from Israel, an outcast from Jerusalem, but an outcast from the Gentiles, an outcast from the race.”

I. It was thus that man rejected Christ-civilised man, educated man, religious man! It was thus that the natural heart spoke out, and showed the depths of its enmity and atheism-the extent of its desperate unbelief. All unbelief is rejection of the Son of God. Whatever be its evasions and subterfuges, and excuses, and fair pretences, this is its essence-rejection of the Christ of God.

II. And why this desperate rejection; this feeling of man towards the Christ? For many reasons; but chiefly for this, that God’s religion, of which Christ is the beginning and the ending is so thoroughly opposed to man’s religion, or man’s ideas of religion, that to accept Jesus of Nazareth would be a total surrender of self, a confession of the utter absence of all goodness, an overturning of every religious idea or principle which the flesh had cherished and rested on. Man’s alternative is-the denial of self, or the denial of Christ; the rejection of his own claims to be his own Saviour, or the rejection of the claims of Christ; the crucifixion of the flesh, or the crucifixion of Christ. Allow unbelief to take its own way and, run its course, and it will end in the crucifixion of the Lord of glory. It will prefer self, the flesh, the devil, the worst of criminals to Christ. “Not this man, but Barabbas!”

H. Bonar, Short Sermons, p. 157.

Luk 23:25

I. What was this will? What was the moving spring of their fierce resolution that Jesus of Nazareth should die? (1) It was their will that this stern censor of their manners and morals should die. This was, perhaps, the first and broadest reason of their hate. They writhed under His vehement denunciation of their sins-the bold hand which rent off the cloak of their sanctity, and revealed the foul sink of corruption that was beneath. (2) They willed that the witness to the truth should die. The Lord belonged to another world which they did not care to enter; a world which troubled their selfish, sensual lives. Men hate the witness of truth when they are bent on transgression. They cannot bear it, they will hot. (3) They willed that the teacher of the people, the friend of publicans and sinners, should die. They were a ruling class, almost a caste. And such rulers hate none so bitterly as those who speak loving, quickening, emancipating words to the poor. “The common people heard Him gladly.” As society was then constituted in Juda, that meant that He or the rulers must fall. (4) There was something deeper and more malignant than this. It was their will that their Saviour should die. One cannot shake off the impression, reading the Gospel narrative, that the rulers knew Him. Nicodemus was not without vision of the truth. Others must have shared his ideas. They felt that He had come to save them, and they would not be saved. This was the will of the Jews.

II. But what, meanwhile, was the will of God? St. Peter explains it (Act 2:23): “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.” How is this? It was God’s will as well as their own; as far as the act was concerned, the Father delivered the well-beloved Son into the hands of the Jews. To understand this, we must consider (1) that it was not possible that the God-Man should be holden of death. The Jews willed that He should die, but what He was, what they hated, could not die. (2) Through death the power of Christ, His witness to the truth, His witness against sin, His redemptive work for mankind, became living, nay, all-pervading and almighty realities in the world.

J. Baldwin Brown, The Sunday Afternoon, p. 159.

References: Luk 23:26.-J. Vaughan, Sermons, 15th series, p. 149; A. Blomfield, Sermons in Town and Country, p. 99; Spurgeon, Morning by Morning, p. 96. Luk 23:27.-Ibid., p. 100. Luk 23:27-31.-Ibid., vol. xxii., No. 1,320. Luk 23:28.-W. Morrison, Church of England Pulpit, vol. vii., p. 203.

Luk 23:28-31

Lessons of the Passion.

We have in this passage two lessons before us.

I. The first is the right and wrong view of Christ’s Passion: “Weep not over Me, weep for yourselves.” These women were indulging the emotion, the sentiment, the luxury of weeping. They wept as all that is human in us does weep at the sight of pain, at the spectacle of sorrow, at the march of death. But their weeping was misapplied. As a merely natural expression of sorrow it was out of place. There was something in that spectacle above, beyond, and beside the mark of pity; there was something in that death which was in danger of being obscured and being lost sight of if it was wept over. If they could not see that death in a higher light than pity, they had better turn their weeping another way; they had better anticipate a terrific future which would claim a monopoly of tears for themselves and for their children. Now these things are our ensamples, they were written for our admonition. The Passion of our Lord is not in itself a thing for tears. He Himself, long centuries ago, went back into the heaven of His holiness and of His glory. To weep over Him, year after year, as these daughters of Jerusalem wept is too much or too little. He needs not, asks not, accepts not our compassion.

II. If these things are done in the green tree, what must happen to the dry? If He who knew no sin thus suffers, how much more the wicked and the sinner? The sufferings of Jesus Christ say to us, See what sin is, by seeing the Sinless suffer for it. If the green tree burned as it burned on Calvary, in misery, in anguish, in a hiding of God’s countenance, and a very dying under that cloud-if these things were done in the green tree-how must it be in the dry? How shall he escape the conflagration who is as fuel ripe for it? How shall he escape the everlasting burnings who has here despised the riches of God’s goodness, and forbearance, and longsuffering, and treasured up for himself wrath in a day of wrath?

C. J. Vaughan, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xv., p. 225.

References: Luk 23:29.-J. Irons, Thursday Penny Pulpit, vol. xv., p. 29. Luk 23:31.-Spurgeon, Morning by Morning, p. 99; D. Fraser, Metaphors of the Gospels, p. 370; Homilist, vol. vi., p. 415. Luk 23:33,-Christian World Pulpit, vol. iv., p. 189; Ibid., vol. xiv., p. 158; Ibid., vol. xxiv. p. 300; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 108; Ibid., vol. vii., p. 266; Spurgeon, Morning by Morning, p. 101; F. W. Robertson, The Human Race and Other Sermons, p. 152; F. Temple, Rugby Sermons, 1st series, p. 298.

Luk 23:34

I. Jesus prays. It is something to be capable of prayer in acute anguish of body. He prays, not for Himself. That is more. A cry for pity, for relief, for mitigation, for death-a cry for patience, for faith, for grace, for heaven-this might be. But to forget self altogether in suffering, to think of others, to use that breath of life, each gasp of which is torture, in prayer for another life or another soul-this is not the manner of men, but it is the prayer of Christ. Yet once again, to think, even then of some loving and beloved one, some life next our own, and to pray for its welfare, and its salvation-this too might be-might just be. Jesus prays for His enemies, for His murderers, for His crucifiers. He prays, and He inspires the prayer; the first martyr, Stephen, prayed it after Him: “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.”

II. Inventive love, it has been written, makes ignorance a plea for mercy. These rude executioners, the direct objects of the intercession, might not the Sufferer have arraigned them for that ignorance which was doing despite to God Himself in the display of every hateful characteristic of the fallen and sinful nature. Evidently the ignorance is no innocence. Else why the prayer, Forgive them? St. Paul’s ignorance was no innocence, for he speaks of himself, in the same breath, as needing mercy, and mercy is, by definition, kindness to the sinful.

III. We see in all this the exceeding great love, the self-forgetfulness, of Jesus Christ: His considerateness, stronger than death, yea, prevalent because of death, towards men who pierce Him; His unprovokableness by slight or insult; His far-seeing hope for the unthankful and the evil. He looks to the end, the eventual state, the eternity to be lived through. Let Him see of the travail of His soul, in that one case over which alone you have control-your own. It has been written, “Wander whither thou wilt, thou must come at last to the place of a skull.” Let it be to that Golgotha where Christ gave Himself to be life from the dead.

C. J. Vaughan, Words from the Cross, p. 1.

I. The first thing that strikes me in this passage, is that it is one of our Saviour’s dying sayings. His death must ever be the most public event in time-the central fact of history. All the children are sent for-all are called to look and listen while He is dying. Every dying word of His is set down with most exact minuteness, and set down for the purpose of perfect and eternal publication. No preacher like the dying Christ; no pulpit like the Cross; no congregation like that which was and ever is around it; no sermon like the seven sentences used there.

II. Observe, secondly, that this saying is one of seven. What is the deep thought that underlies this mystic seven? Looking intently on the surface, we recognise that, at least, here is the sign of “order, heaven’s first law,” and have an evidence that the work finished by Jesus on the Cross has a Divinely symmetrical completeness. Looking below the surface, we gradually find that here, as in other Scripture passages, the number seven on any series of words or actions marks that series as conveying some revelation of God to us, which is distinguished even above His other revelations by its great glory and its importance.

III. We are struck with the fact that the first of these seven sayings of Christ crucified is a prayer for His crucifiers. As chance had nothing to do with making the sayings seven, so chance had nothing to do with the place of each in the order of succession. To our mind, this order shows development of a revelation and not mere sequence in time. It shows what so filled the Saviour’s heart when He was dying as to make this speech its first overflow.

IV. This prayer of love was effectual. When the Holy Spirit lighted up the meaning of the Cross, brought out its force, showed the crucifiers what they had been doing, made a judgment day in their souls, and pricked them to the heart; then they cried out, and looking to Him whom they had pierced, were forgiven.

C. Stanford, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xviii., p. 232.

References: Luk 23:34.-Plain Sermons by Contributors to “Tracts for the Times,” vol. vii., p. 86; H. Wace, Expositor, 2nd series, vol. ii., p. 196; J. E. Vaux, Sermon Notes, 3rd series, p. 24; Ibid., 4th series, p. 28; J. Keble, Sermons for Holy Week, p. 247; Spurgeon, My Sermon Notes: Gospels and Acts, p. 112; Ibid., Sermons, vol. xv., No. 897. Luk 23:35-37.-Homiletic Magazine, vol. x., p. 206; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. v., p. 160. Luk 23:39.-S. Minton, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xiii., p. 198. Luk 23:39-43.-J. C. Ryle, Church Sermons, vol. i., p. 57; Homiletic Magazine, vol. x., p. 193. Luk 23:39-45.-Ibid., vol. xii., p. 142; Ibid., vol. xiv., p. 236; Christian World Pulpit, vol. i., p. 333; Ibid., vol. xiii., p. 217; R. C. Trench, Studies in the Gospels, p. 297. Luk 23:40-42.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxii., No. 1881. Luk 23:41.-J. Keble, Sermons from Septuagesima to Ash Wednesday, p. 31.

Luk 23:42

Faith’s Language.

Note:-

I. The circumstances of this prayer. They were surely as unpropitious as any in which a heavy-laden sinner ever sought the Lord. How terribly short is the time he has left to devote to the business of eternity! Then think how hard it must have been to fix his thoughts and raise them upward at such a time. In no case is a deathbed scene the fittest place for serious thoughts and prayer, and his was no ordinary deathbed. Yet even then his mind was clear, and his spirit strong. The urgent demands of his suffering body hindered not the upward aspirings of his soul. Let no one, then, throw on his circumstances the blame of that neglect of his soul’s concerns which is all his own. The spirit that is all in earnest will press through all these obstacles.

II. The occasion of the prayer. Not only did hell lie all about him, but close at his side, vexing his soul with impious blasphemies, and almost shrouding from view the blessed Form on which he is striving to fix his eye, in a cloud of contumely and scorn. Yet even these adverse circumstances were turned, through the mighty power of grace, into an instrument of good. He is not satisfied with merely rebuking his companion’s blasphemies, he hastens to cast himself at the Saviour’s feet whom he blasphemed. This brings us to our third head, viz.-

III. The nature of the prayer itself. We notice (1) its brevity. Such prayers are the soul’s swift arrows, glowing sparks thrown off from the burning heat, gleaming for a moment, then vanishing out of sight. (2) Its comprehensiveness. If the words are few, how pregnant and how vast is the sense. (3) It was an act of worship, “Lord, remember me.” It was an act of supplication, and as such, how all embracing! “Lord, remember me.” What needed blessing, what conceivable work and gift of Divine grace is not included in it!

IV. The success of this prayer, How prompt, how immediate was the Saviour’s reply to the cry of the penitent. No sooner is the prayer offered than it is answered. While he is yet speaking, the Redeemer hears. He is in haste to meet the returning prodigal, and present him with the blessings of His goodness, the seals of His pardoning love.

I. Burns, Select Remains, p. 59.

Luk 23:42-43

I. We see here an illustration of the Cross in its power of drawing men to itself,

II. We have here the Cross as pointing to and foretelling the kingdom.

III. Here is the Cross as revealing and opening the true Paradise.

A. Maclaren, Sermons preached in Manchester, p. 153.

I. It is no over-wrought or exaggerated statement that the dying thief exhibited all the tokens which can ever be demanded of a genuine conversion. There was confession of sin, there was spirituality of mind, there was anxiety for others, there was the fullest recognition of Christ’s power to deliver; and there was a mighty faith which, nothing daunted by all the circumstances of apparent helplessness and defeat, was sufficient to confound and overcome distance, sprang beyond the line of death and shame, and seemed to gaze on the palace and the crown. The thief was perhaps the only individual who believed on Jesus when Jesus died; and certainly it was an amazing thing, that he who was hanging beside Christ should believe, while he who had lain in His bosom had doubted.

II. We may all be aware that what is called deathbed repentance has been identified with the repentance of this malefactor-that men have encouraged themselves from it, in deferring to the end of life the providing for eternity. So men forget (1) that two thieves were crucified with Christ, and although the one was saved, the other perished. He must be singularly unconcerned about his soul who can be satisfied in pursuing a plan which, on the best calculation, leaves exactly equal the chances of being condemned and of being saved. (2) There is not one amongst us who can possibly, when his deathbed draws nigh, stand morally in the same position as the thief on the cross. We cannot drive away the baptismal waters from our foreheads; we may make ourselves apostates-we cannot make ourselves heathens. (3) He who of set purpose defers repentance to a deathbed should be able to prove that the thief of set purpose deferred repentance to a deathbed, else the cases are so distinct that there is no excuse for believing that the final penitence of the one renders at all probable the final penitence of the other.

III. The history of the dying thief offers no encouragement to those who would defer repentance, but it does offer encouragement the fullest and the richest, to all who are sincerely desirous of being saved. Who can despair of finding mercy, when he sees a thief transported in a moment, from the Cross to Paradise? One thief, indeed, perished, though within reach of the Saviour, and therefore we are bound to guard against presumption; the other was saved, though in the jaws of destruction, and therefore we are bidden never to despair.

H. Melvill, Penny Pulpit, No. 2,071.

References: Luk 23:42.-Homiletic Quarterly, vol. v., p. 323; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. ii., p. 159; F. O. Morris, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxxii., p. 409. Luk 23:42, Luk 23:43.-S. Minton, Ibid., vol. xiii., p. 233; A. Scott, Ibid., vol. xxii., p. 76; T. T. Carter, Sermons, p. 47.

Luk 23:43

I. There was something of prophecy even in the word today. For crucifixion ended not, commonly, with the twelve hours, or the twenty-four; it was protracted often, in its horrors and its anguish, till the second day, the third, the fourth. There was a sound of mercy in the very today, promising a speedier end to those sufferings. In Paradise. That name of rest and felicity, appropriated in the Greek Bible to the original home of man’s innocence, is thus transferred by our Lord Himself to a state or region immediately beyond death, into which He Himself would enter that very day; so soon, therefore, as the warfare was accomplished, and the burden of the flesh laid aside. The today so powerfully emphasised leaves no doubt whatever upon this interpretation. Like other figures of Holy Scripture, Paradise is capable of more than one application; here to the intermediate, there to the final, home of the blessed dead; here to that presence of Christ which is instant upon dissolution, of which St. Paul says that he has a desire to depart and to be with Christ, elsewhere to that presence of Christ which waits for resurrection, for the glorious adoption and manifestation of the sons of God.

II. “Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise.” Wheresoever the Christian soul is while the body sleeps in dust, thither journeyed the Lord, brightening our Hades, as He also consecrated the grave. Whatsoever be the unseen home for us, between death and glory, such was it for Him. One mysterious passage seems to tell us that in that intermediate state the Spirit of Christ was not inactive; that the putting to death of the body was the quickening of the soul, and that in some errand of love and power He journeyed in that interval, carrying hope and salvation to some inmates of a less than perfect world. The text is a word of blessed hope for such as are mourning the blessed dead; for such, also, as feel that natural, that inevitable, human shrinking from a journey in the dark into an undiscovered country and an unrealised world. Christ is there in a sense in which He is not here; there are they, and there shalt thou be in thy season, with Him in Paradise.

C. J. Vaughan, Words from the Cross, p. 15.

References: Luk 23:43.-J. Keble, Sermons for Holy Week, p. 258; J. E. Vaux, Sermon Notes, 3rd series, p. 26. Luk 23:44-46.-J. Wells, Thursday Penny Pulpit, vol. xiii., p. 421. Luk 23:45.-Homiletic Quarterly, vol. iv., p. 267.

Luk 23:46

These words have two aspects, and the first of these is towards our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

I. In the one week of the year in which we commemorate His Cross and Passion, it ought to be the foremost thought of each of us how we can honour Him in the appreciation of what He did and suffered in working out our salvation. When we hear Him say at last, “It is finished,” the warfare is accomplished, the victory won, atonement made, heaven opened for all who believe; when, finally, turning His latest thought of all to God, known, loved, and trusted in, we hear Him cry, amidst all the horror and darkness and anguish, “Father, into Thy hands 1 commend My spirit;” we shall feel that here, in the utterance of the mind that was in Christ, we have indeed the rightful Owner of our lives and of our hearts; we shall cry out to Him, with the energy of all that is in us, no longer faithless, but believing, “My Lord and my God.”

II. The words before us have an aspect also towards ourselves. We know not the time nor the manner, but the fact of our own death is the one certain thing for all of us. The wise man, the tolerably sensible man, feels that a necessity is laid upon him of making provision for that end. There is only one thought, one utterance, which can be a satisfactory aid to ourselves, then, and it is here to-night in our view. In this one thing, we must not only learn from, but actually make our own, the Master’s word. The very words of Christ Himself have been the dying words of thousands of His saints. “Blessed are they,” wrote the great reformer, “who die not only for the Lord as martyrs, not only in the Lord as all believers, but likewise with the Lord, as breathing forth their lives in these words, ‘Into Thy hands I commend my spirit.'” These were his last words, and of many of his fellow-reformers and fellow-witnesses in all lands. That they may be ours, in form and substance, they must be the meditation of the life.

C. J. Vaughan, Words from the Cross, p. 85.

I. Observe that this verse represents to us one of the two main aspects of the Passion of our Lord-one, and one only. There is in a city in France a curiously wrought crucifix, which conveys to the spectator a totally different impression according as he looks at it. On one side it expresses anguish and grief; on the other, profound calm and submission. What is there represented to the sight is represented to the mind in the different speeches from the Cross. “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” is one; “Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit,” is the other. Both belong to our Saviour’s humanity, both are needed to convey to the world the full import of our Saviour’s mission.

II. “Father.” That is the word which our Saviour adds to the prayer of the Psalmist. In Him He confided, and we with Him may safely confide also. It is this which gives to our resignation the rational understanding and affectionate character which alone befit the religion of reasonable human beings. We are subject, we submit ourselves-not to a blind fate which crushes us, not to an angry demon which needs to be appeased, not to an abstract doctrine which we cannot understand; but to One who rules us, guides us, chastises us for our good.

III. Take the next phrase: “Into Thy hands.” This is doubtless a figure of speech, to speak of the hands of God; yet a figure now very expressive. The everlasting arms are beneath and around us. These are the hands into which we surrender ourselves: these are the hands at whose call we move.

IV. “I commend.” That is, not only in a general sense, not only as giving back my trust, but, “I trust, I make over as a deposit, to Him the gift which He will keep for me.” In that great act of self-sacrifice, Christ our Lord of His own free will laid down His life; He was not merely waiting for God’s call, He went forth to meet Him.

V. And what is it that we give? It is “my spirit;” not mere life only, not mere soul only, but the best part of our life, the best part of our soul, our spirit. The present life may be dark and stormy. There are many trials of the spirit of man, yet there is one sure remedy, and that is to trust the Father of spirits with the spirits that He has made.

A. P. Stanley, Penny Pulpit, new series, No. 449.

I. The confidence here expressed by Jesus in reference to the Father was not a confidence at all grounded on His consciousness of the Father’s love and favour. There was no appeal made to that. It was grounded on the Infinite perfections of the Father’s righteousness and justice, and on the merits of the question. Christ claimed this of the Father. He rested upon the merit of His own work. He had done the work, and now He claimed the firstfruits in the way of recompense.

II. Was this confidence justified? What followed in the case of Christ? We know what became of His spirit, for He said Himself to the thief on the Cross, “Today thou shalt be with Me in Paradise.” It is clear then, at all events, Christ being true, that His spirit went to Paradise. His body rested in peace until the third day. Then the Father commanded the angels to roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre; the angels rolled it away and the prisoner came forth. All power was given to Him. He was made Head over all things to the Church.

III. Look next at the parallel with regard to our own experience. Christ’s confidence is to be ours. The perfect work of Jesus Christ, on which He stood before His Father, is the work on which we stand before our Father. If at this moment we were dying, we have the same reason for saying, “Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit,” as Jesus Christ Himself had. It is not robbery of Christ to say that. Stand upon that truth in life and death, and you will stand upon it in eternity.

C. Molyneux, Penny Pulpit, new series, Nos. 395-6.

References: Luk 23:46.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. v., p. 163; G. Macdonald, Unspoken Sermons, p. 180; J. E. Vaux, Sermon Notes, 3rd series, p. 36; Ibid., 4th series, p. 40; T. M. Herbert, Sketches of Sermons, p. 207. Luk 23:46-49.-D. Davies, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxvii., p. 342. Luk 23:48.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xv., No. 860. Luk 23:49.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. ii., p. 211; J. Vaughan, Sermons, 13th series, p. 117. Luk 23:50.-Homiletic Quarterly, vol. v., p. 459. Luk 23:51.-E. White, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxvi., p. 11. Luk 23:55.-J. Keble, Sermons for Holy Week, pp. 205, 215. Luk 23:56.-G. Brooks, Five Hundred Outlines of Sermons, p. 258; G. Dawson, The Authentic Gospels, p. 275; R. S. Candlish, Scripture Characters and Miscellanies, p. 75. Luke 23-F. D. Maurice, The Gospel of the Kingdom, p. 343. Luk 24:1-8.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. i., p. 302. Luk 24:2.-Homiletic Magazine, vol. xii., p. 208.

Fuente: The Sermon Bible

CHAPTER 23

1. The son of man before Pilate and Herod. (Luk 23:1-12)

2. Pilate Yields to the Peoples Will; Barabbas Freed and the Son of man Condemned. (Luk 23:13-26)

3. The Crucifixion of the Son Of Man. (Luk 23:27-38)

4. The Penitent Thief. (Luk 23:39-43)

5. The Death of the Son of Man. (Luk 23:44-46)

6. The Testimony of the Centurion. (Luk 23:47-49)

7. The Burial. (Luk 23:50-56.)

Luk 23:1-12

Before Pilate the Son of Man is accused as a perverter of the nation and as an enemy of the Roman government. They had attempted to ensnare Him with the question of the tribute money and failed so miserably in it. Their motive stands now uncovered. Pilate asks Him concerning His Kingship, which the Lord answered affirmatively. Thus He witnessed to two facts, His Sonship and His Kingship. Luke tells us what Matthew and Mark omit, that Pilate sent Him to Herod. The silence of the Son of Man standing before that wicked king is very solemn. Then He is mocked by Herod and his soldiers. Herod and Pilate became united in rejecting Christ. See how this fact is used in the first prayer meeting after the church had been formed. Act 4:23-30.

Luk 23:13-38

The weakling Pilate is helpless. Their voices prevail. Away with this man!; Release unto us Barabbas!–Crucify Him! Crucify Him! These are the cries now heard. Pilate then gave the awful sentence, that it should be done to Him as they required. The lamenting women and the Lords answer is peculiar to Luke. Weep not for me! Blessed words of His great love. He looked for no sympathy from man. Frail women were moved to pity. He is the green tree; they were the dry wood. The peoples wrath fanned by Satans power was spending itself upon Him, the green and fruitful tree. How awful it would be when the dry wood, the unsaved masses, would be exposed to the fires of wrath and persecution. Forty years later the dry wood burned fiercely in the siege of Jerusalem. When they reach the place called Calvary (the skull: Luke only gives the name Calvary because it is the Gentile Gospel), the Latin, Gentile name for Golgotha,* they crucified Him. Luke omits much which is more fully given in the other Synoptics; we read nothing of the cry of the forsaken One. But Luke tells us of the blessed prayer which Matthew and Mark omit, Father, forgive them for they know not what they do. And His last word, Father, into Thy hands I commit My Spirit, is also given exclusively by Luke. All this is in blessed keeping with the character of this Gospel.

Luk 23:39-56

The story of the dying thief and his salvation is also characteristic to Luke. The great lesson of the three crosses is so familiar that it needs no lengthy annotations. The two classes, the saved and the unsaved, are represented by the two thieves. He, the Lamb of God paying the penalty of sinners, is in the midst. The way the penitent was saved is the only way in which man can be saved. He could do no good works; he could not get baptized or perform anything else. All he could do was to cast himself in faith as a lost sinner upon the Lord. Nor was his salvation a life-long, progressive work (as some teach on salvation); it was instantaneous. Nor was there any purgatory for him. He expected to be remembered in the Kingdom to come. Instead of that he hears, Verily I say unto thee, today thou shalt be with me in paradise. The attempt by soul-sleepers, restorationists and others to put the comma after today is a deceptive invention to bring the Word of God into line with their evil doctrines.

This short prayer contained a very large and long creed, the articles whereof are these.

1. He believed that the soul died not with the body of man;–

2. That there is a world to come for rewarding the pious and penitent, and for punishing the impious and impenitent;–

3. That Christ, though now under crucifying and killing tortures, yet had right to a kingdom;–

4. That this kingdom was in a better world than the present evil world;–

5. That Christ would not keep this kingdom all to himself;–

6. That He would bestow a part and portion hereof on those that are truly penitent;–

7. That the key of this kingdom did hang at Christs girdle, though He now hung dying on the cross;–

8. That he does roll his whole soul for eternal salvation upon a dying Saviour (Ness).

Then the Son of Man cried with a loud voice ere He dismissed His spirit and the Centurion, in keeping with this Gospel, bears witness, that He was a righteous Man.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

Chapter 50

Barabbas: A Picture Of Substitution

Of all the doctrines taught in the Word of God, none is so vitally important as the doctrine of substitution. Men everywhere talk about the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. They speak much about Christ, the sinners Substitute. But their language is vague. And very few people understand what the Bible teaches about substitution. In the historic narrative given in Luk 23:1-33 we have a clear illustration of the nature of Christs death. It was a substitutionary sacrifice and atonement. The innocent died in the place of the guilty; and the guilty must go free.

Background

You are all familiar with the story of Barabbas. It is recorded by all four of the gospel writers. During the days of Israels subjection to Rome, a strange custom was regularly practised. On the day of the Passover the Roman governor released a guilty prisoner. No doubt, this was intended to be an act of benevolence on the part of the Roman authorities toward the Jews. The Jews probably accepted it as a significant compliment to their Passover celebrations. Since on that day the Jews were themselves delivered out of the land of Egypt, they may have thought it a most fitting thing for some prisoner to obtain his freedom.

Since some prisoner must, by the arrangement of Divine providence, be released on the Day of Atonement, Pilate thought that he now had opportunity to allow the Saviour to go free, without compromising himself in the eyes of his superiors at Rome. So he asked the people which of the two they preferred, a notorious criminal or the holy Saviour. Without hesitation or dissension, the crowd cried for the release of Barabbas and the death of Christ. Pilates last effort to release Christ had failed. And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required. And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will (Luk 23:24-25).

Who Barabbas was we do not know. His name signifies his fathers son. Some suggest that there is an indication here that he was particularly and specially the son of Satan. Others suppose Barabbas was an endearing name, a name given to him because he was his fathers darling, a child indulged by his father, or as we would say his daddys boy. Certainly, there is a warning here for us. Overly indulged, spoiled children are the most likely persons to become injurious to society, a grief to their parents, and curses to all around them. Looking at the cases of Elis two sons, Absalom, and Barabbas, we are warned as parents not to be excessive in the indulgence and pampering of our children.

Substitution

At any rate, Barabbas appears to have committed at least three crimes. He was imprisoned for robbery, sedition, and murder. We might well pity the father of such a son. This wretch was brought out and set in competition with the holy Son of God; and the poor inhabitants of Jerusalem were so hardened in their unbelief and sin, so thirsty for the innocent blood of Christ, that they preferred this obnoxious creature to the man who is Gods own Fellow!

This fact is very significant. There is more teaching in it than we might realize at first glance. In this act of freeing the guilty and binding the innocent, we have a vivid example of salvation by substitution. The guilty is set free and the innocent is put to death in his place. Barabbas is spared, and Christ is crucified. We have in this striking event a display of the manner in which God pardons and justifies the ungodly. He does it because Christ has suffered and died in their stead, the Just for the unjust.

We deserve to die for the punishment of our sins; but a mighty Substitute has suffered our punishment. Eternal death is our due; but a glorious Surety has died for us. We are all in the position of Barabbas by nature. We are guilty, wicked, condemned, and shut up under the law. But when we were without hope and without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. And now God, for Christs sake, can be just and yet the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus (Rom 3:26).

Two Birds

In the Old Testament rite of cleansing lepers, two birds were used. One bird was killed, and its blood was poured into a basin. The other bird was dipped into the blood, and then, with its wings covered with crimson, it was set free to fly into the open air. The slain bird typified our Saviour whose blood was shed at Mount Calvary. And every soul that by faith is plunged into the …

Fountain filled with blood,

Drawn from Immanuels veins,

… is set free, owing his life and liberty to the Saviour who was once for sinners slain. That is substitution. It comes to this: Barabbas must die, or Christ must die. You the sinner must perish, or Christ, the immaculate Lamb of God, must be slain. Behold, the Incarnate God dies that we may be delivered. The Lord Jesus Christ suffered in the place of sinners like Barabbas, satisfying the wrath and justice of God; and, like Barabbas, all those sinners for whom Christ made satisfaction must go free. I want you to see four things about this man Barabbas.

A Guilty Man

The first thing I want you to see is the fact that Barabbas was a man guilty of many offences. We sometimes say that a man is as guilty as sin. Barabbas was as guilty as sin. His life was a life of riotousness and sin. He was tried in a court of law and found guilty of robbery, sedition, and murder. As such he is a fair representative of all men by nature. We could all be named Barabbas. We are all the sons of our father Adam. His image, his nature, and his character are reflected in us all.

Like Barabbas, we are all rebels. Barabbas stirred up sedition. He was a revolutionary. That is a modern name for rebels. He would not submit to authority. This is the problem with our race. We are proud, self-willed rebels. We hate authority.

In our father Adam, we rebelled against Gods command. We are born with a rebellious nature. In pride and self-will, we rebelled all the days of our lives against Gods throne. We sinfully rebel against Gods holy law. Man acts like he does simply because God says, Dont do that. Man sees the good and refuses to do it simply because God says, Do it. And we are stedfast and persistent in our rebellion.

As children, we rebelled against parents and teachers. As adults, we rebel against moral and civil authority. Even as believers, we have a nature within us that rebels against everything holy and good (Rom 7:14-15; Rom 7:18).

And like Barabbas, we are all robbers. It was Adams determination to rob God of his authority, of his creation, and of his glory. And that is what man does by his sin. We have robbed God of his glory, refusing to worship him. We have robbed God of his honour, refusing to believe his Word. We have robbed God of his creation, stealing that which God has made for himself and using it for ourselves, without regard to him. We have robbed ourselves and our children of the blessedness of our original creation, fellowship with God, the image of God, true freedom, the favour of God, and of life itself. Through our sin and rebellion our race is reduced to nothing but emptiness and vanity. Once we were princes of Gods creation. Now we are empty handed thieves (Eph 2:11-12).

Yet, there is more. Like Barabbas, we are all murderers. In the course of his rebellion and robbery, Barabbas had committed murder. So have we all. There is not a guiltless one among us. We have all committed multiple murders in our hearts. Envy, hatred, anger, wrath, and malice are in the eyes of Gods law equal to murder (Mat 5:21-22). We have infected our children with the deadly disease of sin. Sin is a plague of the heart. It is a family disease passed on from generation to generation. What is more, we are all guilty of the blood of the Son of God. Yes, we are guilty of slaughtering the Lord of Glory!

We must never forget what we are by nature. There is no evil deed, or atrocious crime, or infamous sin recorded on the pages of human history which does not reside in the heart of every man, woman, and child in the world (Mat 15:19). We all might be most properly named Barabbas! We are all the descendants of Adam. We are all of our father the devil. We are all, by nature, children of wrath, even as others.

A Condemned Prisoner

In the second place, Barabbas was a prisoner under the sentence of the law. Barabbas had been found guilty. The sentence was passed. He must die. On the day when the Jews observe their Passover, two thieves will be crucified. And Barabbas will be crucified in the midst of them, for he is the vilest of the three. Take him away. Bind him hand and foot in the prison until the day of his execution.

Picture Barabbas in the prison. He expected very soon to be taken out, nailed to a cross and hung up to die, as the just payment for his crimes. He was held under the sentence of the law. That is just the condition of every person in the world by nature (Joh 3:36; Rom 3:19; Gal 3:10; Gal 3:22-23; Eph 2:3).

Mans bondage is as cruel and terrible as it is sure. Men today like to boast of their independence and freedom. People think, Im going to do my own thing. But they are only doing exactly the same thing that men have been doing throughout history. Man is not free. He is in bondage. He is in bondage to religious tradition, social custom, and peer pressure. And man by nature is in bondage to sin. He is in bondage to his own sinful nature and the lusts of his own corrupt heart. Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil (Jer 13:23). Men are taken captive by Satan at his will (2Ti 2:26). Man by nature is prone to every kind of evil. It is only the restraining grace of God that keeps any of us from the wicked things we pretend to abhor.

Fallen men and women, without Christ, are bound under the chains of darkness. Your will is held in captivity by the fetters of iniquity. You have resolved many times to change. You may have even succeeded in reforming your outward behaviour somewhat; but your character, your nature, your will is in bondage, helpless and hopeless!

Christ alone can set prisoners free! If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed! We were such as sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, being bound in affliction and iron. Then we cried unto the Lord in our trouble, and he saved us out of all our distresses. He brought us out of darkness and the shadow of death, and broke our bands in sunder (Psa 107:10-14).

Fallen mans sentence is fixed and immutable. The soul that sinneth, it shall die! God has spoken. There is no reprieve. There is no amnesty. There is no repeal. Gods law says the sinner must die. Gods holiness says the sinner must die. Gods justice says the sinner must die.

Man by nature is under the sentence and curse of Gods holy law. The law of God demands your death. You are not on probation. You are on death row. The God of heaven judges you guilty. Your own conscience consents to the verdict. The sentence is passed. The only thing lacking is the appointed day of execution. We died spiritually in our father Adam (Rom 5:12). And every unbelieving sinner must die eternally, because of Gods immutable law. Every sinner out of Christ is dead at law.

Is there therefore no hope for a sinner like Barabbas? Must all the guilty forever perish? Will God not have mercy? Is there any way whereby God can be faithful to his holy law and yet pardon sin? Is there any means whereby God can both satisfy his justice and let the sinner live? God will not show mercy at the expense of his justice. But he will show mercy if justice can be satisfied in a Substitute. Blessed be the name of the Lord, there is hope for sinners, for God has found a Substitute (Job 33:24).

A Substitute Found

So mark this third fact and rejoice. A Substitute was found to die in Barabbas place. The Roman soldier came and unlocked Barabbas prison door, took off his shackles, and said, Barabbas, youre free to go. Jesus of Nazareth is going to die in your place. That is real substitution. That One who suffered and died as Barabbas substitute is our Substitute. His name is Jesus Christ, the Lord. He is Gods own, well-beloved Son. He is the only Substitute God can or will accept (Rom 3:24-26; 2Co 5:21; 1Pe 2:24).

The sinners Substitute must be a suitable person, able and willing to redeem. Whoever undertakes to reconcile the holy God and sinful men must himself be both God and man. He must be God, for only God is able to make infinite satisfaction. And he must be man, for man must be punished. Behold, the God-man, our Saviour. Being God he is able to redeem. Being man he is able to suffer. Being the God-man he is an all-sufficient Redeemer, both able and willing to save!

In order to be a Substitute for others, our Redeemer must be perfect and sinless. He knew no sin. The Lord Jesus Christ suffered the just punishment due to our sins, as our Substitute. He was made sin for us. He made our sins his own! Oh, wondrous grace! God took his darling Son without the camp. He hung his Son up in our place between two thieves. God forsook his well-beloved Son. He killed his Son! And he buried the body that bore our sin. And by a marvellous transfer of grace, the Lord God has made Christs perfect righteousness our righteousness. We have been made the righteousness of God in him.

Barabbas Set Free

Now, in the last place, I want you to see that because Christ died in his place, Barabbas was set free. Jesus Christ took Barabbas place at Calvary. Therefore Barabbas did not die. There is a glorious truth here. All of those for whom the Son of God died at Calvary must be set free.

It is not possible for the law to punish my Substitute and punish me too. Not one soul for whom Jesus Christ died shall be found in hell. The cross of Christ can never be discovered a miscarriage. The blood of Christ cannot be spilled in vain. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied. I am talking to you about real substitution. Any doctrine that teaches that God will both punish Christ and those for whom Christ died is not substitution and is not the gospel.

If Christ has my discharge procured,

And freely in my room endured

The whole of wrath Divine:

Payment God cannot twice demand,

First at my bleeding Suretys hand,

And then again at mine!

Augustus M. Toplady

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

Luk 22:66, Mat 27:1, Mat 27:2, Mat 27:11-14, Mar 15:1-5, Joh 18:28-38

Reciprocal: Exo 12:6 – the whole Psa 31:13 – I have Psa 119:23 – Princes Jer 26:11 – saying Mat 20:19 – shall deliver Mar 10:33 – deliver Luk 3:1 – Pontius Pilate Luk 18:32 – delivered Luk 23:14 – as one Luk 24:20 – General Act 4:27 – of a

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

THEN SECOND, they led Him to Pilate to get the Roman sanction for the execution of this sentence. Here they changed their ground completely, and charged Him as being an insurrectionary and a rival to Caesar. Jesus confessed Himself to be the King of the Jews, yet Pilate declared Him to be faultless. This might seem a surprising declaration, but Mark gives us a peep behind the scenes when he tells us that Pilate knew that the fierce hatred of the religious leaders was inspired by envy. Hence he began by refusing to be the tool of their grudge, and availed himself of the Lords connection with Galilee to send Him to Herod. The accusation, He stirreth up the people, was indeed true; but He stirred them up towards God, and not against Caesar.

So, third, there was the brief appearance of the Lord before Herod, who was eager to see Him, hoping to witness something sensational. Here again the chief priests and scribes vehemently accused Him, but in the presence of that wicked man, whom He had previously characterized as, that fox, Jesus answered nothing. His dignified silence only moved Herod and his soldiers to abandon all pretence of administering justice, and descend to mockery and ridicule. In His humiliation His judgment was taken away.

Hence Herod returned Him to Pilate, and here the fourth and last stage of His trial began. But before we are told of Pilates further efforts to placate the accusers and release Jesus, Luke puts on record how both he and Herod buried their enmity that day in condemning Him. The same tragedy has been often repeated since. Men of wholly different character and view have found a point of unity in their rejection of Christ. Herod was given up to his pleasures and utterly indifferent: Pilate, though possessed of some sense of what was right, was a time-server and hence ready to do wrong for popularitys sake; but they came to an agreement here.

The story of the final scenes of the trial are given with brevity in verses Luk 23:13-26. Not one word spoken by our Lord is put on record: all is presented as a matter lying between Pilate and the people instigated by the chief priests; yet certain things stand out very clearly. In the first place, abundant witness is given that Jesus was faultless. Pilate had stated this during the earlier examination (verse Luk 23:4), and now he repeats it twice (verses Luk 23:14, Luk 23:22), and states it for a fourth time as being Herods verdict (verse Luk 23:15). God took care that there should be abundant and official witness to this.

Then the blind unreasoning fury of His accusers is made abundantly manifest. They merely shouted for his death. Again, the choice they made as an alternative to His release stands out with crystal clearness. Twice in these verses Barabbas is identified with sedition and murder; that is, he was the living embodiment of the two forms in which evil is so frequently presented in Scripture-corruption, and violence; or, to put it in another way, we see the power of Satan working, both as a serpent, and as a roaring lion. Lastly we see that the condemnation of Jesus was the result of the weakness of the judge, who delivered Jesus to their will. He represented the autocratic power of Rome, but he abdicated it in favour of the will of the people.

The crucifixion scenes occupy verses Luk 23:27-49. We are struck by the fact that right through nothing happened in an ordinary way. Everything was unusual-supernatural, or bordering upon the supernatural. It was quite usual for professional wailing women to appear on these occasions, but wholly unusual for them to be told to weep for themselves, or to hear a prophecy of coming doom. Jesus Himself was the green tree, according to Psa 1:1-6, and perhaps He was alluding to the parable of Eze 20:45-49. In that scripture God predicts a flame upon every green tree and every dry tree. Judgment fell upon the green tree when Christ suffered for our sakes. When the fire breaks out in the dry tree of apostate Jews, it will not be quenched.

Then the prayer of Jesus as they crucified Him was wholly unexpected and unusual. He desired the Father, in effect, that the sin of the people might be counted not as murder, for which there was no forgiveness, but as manslaughter, so that there might yet be available a city of refuge, even for His murderers. An answer to that prayer was seen some fifty days later, when Peter in Jerusalem preached salvation through the risen Christ, and 3,000 souls fled for refuge. The prayer was unusual because it was the fruit of such Divine compassions as had never come to light before.

The actions of the various people involved in His crucifixion were unusual. Men do not ordinarily taunt and revile even the worst criminals undergoing capital punishment. Here all classes did so, even rulers soldiers, and one of the malefactors who suffered at His side. The power of the devil and of darkness had seized their minds.

Pilates superscription was unexpected. Having condemned Him as a false claimant of kingship amongst the Jews, he wrote a title proclaiming Him to be the King of the Jews, and, as another Gospel shows, he refused to alter it. This was the overruling of God.

The sudden conversion of the second thief was wholly supernatural. He condemned himself, and justified Jesus. Having justified Him, he owned Him as Lord and proclaimed-virtually, though not in so many words- his belief that God would raise him from the dead, so as to establish him in His kingdom. He fulfilled the two conditions of Rom 10:9, only he believed that God would raise Him from the dead, instead of believing, as we do, that God has raised Him from the dead. The faith of the dying thief was a gem of the first order, beside which our faith today loses its sparkle. It is much more remarkable to believe that a thing shall be done, when as yet it is not done, than to believe that a thing is done, when it is done. And further, it was most unusual that a malefactor should wish to be remembered by the King, when His kingdom was established. Malefactors usually slink into the dark and wish to be forgotten by the authorities. His wish to be remembered shows his faith in the grace of the suffering Lord equalled his faith in His coming glory.

The response of Jesus to the thiefs prayer was wonderful and unexpected indeed! Not merely in the coming kingdom but that very day he was to experience grace reaching beyond death, and landing his ransomed spirit into companionship with Christ in Paradise. Now Paradise and the third Heaven are identified in 2Co 12:24. These words of the Lord were the first definite revelation of the fact that immediately death supervenes the spirits of the saints are to be in conscious blessedness with Christ.

If everything was unusual, on the human side, when Jesus died, there were also supernatural manifestations from the hand of God; and of these verses Luk 23:44-45 speak. The three brightest hours of the day were darkened, by the sun being veiled. There was something very fitting in this, for the true Sun of Righteousness was bearing our sin at that time. Also the veil of the temple was rent by a Divine hand, signifying that the day of the visible temple system was now over, and the way into the holiest about to be made manifest-see, Heb 9:8. Our true Sun was veiled for a moment, enduring our judgment, that there might be no veil between us and God.

Luke does not record the Saviours cry as to the Divine forsaking, uttered about the time that the darkness passed away, nor the triumphant shout, It is finished, though he does put on record that He cried with a loud voice, and that then His closing words were, Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit. In these closing words on the cross we see the One, who all along had been marked by prayerful submission to the will of God, closing His path as the perfect, dependent Man. Having said this, He yielded up His spirit; yet we see He is more than Man, for at one moment there was the loud voice, His vigour unimpaired, and the next moment He was dead. In every sense His was a supernatural death.

Testimony to this was borne by the centurion who witnessed the scene by reason of his official duty. Even the crowds drawn together by morbid curiosity were moved to uneasy fear and foreboding, and those who were His friends retreated into the distance. The centurion became a fourth witness to the perfection of Jesus, joining Pilate, Herod and the dying thief.

The prophetic writings had said, Lover and friend hast Thou put far from Me (Psa 88:18), but they had also said, He made His grave… with the rich in His death (Isa 53:9). If verse Luk 23:49 gives us the fulfilment of the one, verses Luk 23:50-53 give us the fulfilment of the other. In every emergency God has in reserve an instrument to effect His purpose and fulfil His word. Joseph is mentioned in all four Gospels, and John informs us that up to this point he had been a secret disciple for fear of the Jews. Now he acts with boldness when all others were cowed, and the new, untainted tomb is available for the sacred body of the Lord. Not even by the faintest contact did He see corruption. Men had intended otherwise, but God serenely fulfilled His word.

Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary

2

See Mat 27:1-2.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

LET us observe, for one thing, in this passage, what false accusations were laid to our Lord Jesus Christ’s charge. We are told that the Jews accused Him of “perverting the nation,-forbidding to give tribute to Csar,-and stirring up the people.” In all this indictment, we know, there was not a word of truth. It was nothing but an ingenious attempt to enlist the feeling of a Roman governor against our Lord.

False witness and slander are two favorite weapons of the devil. He was a liar from the beginning, and is still the father of lies. (Joh 8:44.) When he finds that he cannot stop God’s work, his next device is to blacken the character of God’s servants, and to destroy the value of their testimony. With this weapon he assaulted David: “False witnesses,” he says, “did rise against me: they laid to my charge things that I knew not.” With this weapon he assaulted the prophets. Elijah was a “troubler of Israel”! Jeremiah was a man who “sought not the welfare of the people but the hurt”! (Psa 35:11; 1Ki 18:17; Jer 38:4.) With this weapon he assaulted the apostles. They were “pestilent fellows,” and men who “turned the world upside down.” (Act 24:5; Act 17:6.) With this weapon he assaulted our Lord all through His ministry. He stirred up his agents to call Him a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a Samaritan and a devil. (Luk 7:34; Joh 8:48.) And here, in the verses before us, we find him plying his old weapon to the very last. Jesus is arraigned before Pilate upon charges which are utterly untrue.

The servant of Christ must never be surprised if he has to drink of the same cup with his Lord. When He who was holy, harmless, and undefiled, was foully slandered, who can expect to escape? “If they called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they call them of his household?” (Mat 10:25.) Nothing is too bad to be reported against a saint. Perfect innocence is no fence against enormous lying, calumny, and misrepresentation. The most blameless character will not secure us against false tongues. We must bear the trial patiently. It is part of the cross of Christ. We must sit still, lean back on God’s promises, and believe that in the long run truth will prevail. “Rest in the LORD,” says David, “and wait patiently for Him.”-“He shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday.” (Psa 37:6-7.)

Let us observe, for another thing, in this passage, the strange and mingled motives which influence the hearts of unconverted great men. We are told that when our Lord was sent by Pilate to Herod, king of Galilee, “Herod was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him.”

These words are remarkable. Herod was a sensual, worldly man,-the murderer of John the Baptist,-a man living in foul adultery with his brother’s wife. Such a man, we might have supposed, would have had no desire to see Christ. But Herod had an uneasy conscience. The blood of God’s murdered saints, no doubt, rose often before his eyes, and destroyed his peace. The fame of our Lord’s preaching and miracles had penetrated even into his court. It was said that another witness against sin had risen up, who was even more faithful and bold than John the Baptist, and who confirmed his teaching by works which even the power of kings could not perform. These rumors made Herod restless and uncomfortable. No wonder that his curiosity was stirred, and he “desired to see Christ.”

It may be feared that there are many great and rich men like Herod in every age of the church, men without God, without faith, and living only for themselves. They generally live in an atmosphere of their own, flattered, fawned upon, and never told the truth about their souls,-haughty, tyrannical, and knowing no will but their own. Yet even these men are sometimes conscience-stricken and afraid. God raises up some bold witness against their sins, whose testimony reaches their ears. At once their curiosity is stirred. They feel “found out,” and are ill at ease. They flutter round his ministry, like the moth round the candle, and seem unable to keep away from it, even while they do not obey it. They praise his talents and openly profess their admiration of his power. But they never get any further. Like Herod, their conscience produces within them a morbid curiosity to see and hear God’s witnesses. But, like Herod, their heart is linked to the world by chains of iron. Tossed to and fro by storms of lust or ungovernable passions, they are never at rest while they live, and after all their fitful struggles of conscience, they die at length in their sins.-This is a painful history. But it is the history of many rich men’s souls.

Let us learn from Herod’s case to pity great men. With all their greatness and apparent splendor, they are often thoroughly miserable within. Silks and satins and official robes, often cover hearts which are utter strangers to peace. That man knows not what he is wishing, who wishes to be a rich man.-Let us pray for rich men, as well as pity them. They carry weight in the race for eternal life. If they are saved, it can only be by the greatest miracles of God’s grace. Our Lord’s words are very solemn, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Mat 19:24.)

Let us observe, finally, in this passage, how easily and readily unconverted men can agree in disliking Christ. We are told that when Pilate sent our Lord a prisoner to Herod, “the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together; for before they were at enmity between themselves.” We know not the cause of their enmity. It was probably some petty quarrel, such as will arise among great as well as small. But whatever the cause of enmity, it was laid aside when a common object of contempt, fear, or hatred was brought before them. Whatever else they disagreed about, Pilate and Herod could agree to despise and persecute Christ.

The incident before us is a striking emblem of a state of things which may always be seen in the world. Men of the most discordant opinions can unite in opposing truth. Teachers of the most opposite doctrines can make common cause in fighting against the Gospel. In the days of our Lord, the Pharisees and the Sadducees might be seen combining their forces to entrap Jesus of Nazareth and put Him to death. In our own times we sometimes see Romanists and Socinians,-infidels and idolaters,-worldly pleasure-lovers and bigoted ascetics,-the friends of so-called liberal views and the most determined opponents of all changes-all ranked together against evangelical religion. One common hatred binds them together. They hate the cross of Christ. To use the words of the apostles in the Acts: “Against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, are gathered together.” (Act 4:27.) All hate each other very much, but all hate Christ much more.

The true Christian must not count the enmity of the world a strange thing. He must not marvel, if like Paul at Rome, he finds the way of life, a “way everywhere spoken against,” and if all around him agree in disliking his religion. (Act 28:22.) If he expects that by any concession he can win the favor of man, he will be greatly deceived. Let not his heart be troubled. He must wait for the praise of God. The saying of his Master should often come across his mind: “If ye were of the world, the world would love his own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” (Joh 15:19.)

==================

Notes-

v1.-[Unto Pilate.] Pilate was the Roman governor of Juda. Without him the Jews had no power to put our Lord to death. The mere fact that they were obliged to apply publicly to a foreign ruler for the carrying out their murderous plan, was a striking proof that the “sceptre had departed from Judah,” and the time of Messiah had come. (Gen 49:10.)

v2.-[Perverting…forbidding to give tribute.] The duplicity and dishonesty of this charge are evident. When the enemies of our Lord wanted to bring Him into disfavor with the Jews, they had asked Him “if it was lawful to pay tribute unto Csar.” (Luk 20:22.) But now when they want to make Him out an offender at the bar of the Roman governor, they charge Him with forbidding to give tribute to Csar the Roman emperor. The falseness of the charge is as striking as its dishonesty.

v3.-[Thou sayest it.] This is the remarkable saying which Paul refers to, when he tells Timothy that our Lord “before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession.” (1Ti 6:13.) But we must remember that Luke only reports a portion of what our Lord said. The Gospel of John contains other particulars which are not reported here. (Joh 18:28-38.)

v4.-[I find no fault in this man.] It is clear that Pilate said this after the conversation with our Lord, reported by John, and after satisfying himself that He claimed no temporal kingdom, and was not such a King as would interfere with the Roman authority. He had in particular heard our Lord’s words, “My kingdom is not of this world.” (Joh 18:36.)

v5.-[They were the more fierce.] The Greek word so translated, means literally, “they grew more strong, more violent, more urgent,-persisted in their accusation.”

v7.-[He sent him to Herod.] This Herod was Herod Antipas, the same Herod who put to death John the Baptist. He was son of Herod the Great, who caused all the children under two years of age to be murdered at Bethlehem, and uncle of Herod Agrippa, who slew James the apostle with the sword, and would have slain Peter if he had not been miraculously delivered from prison.

The family of the Herods was Iduman. They were all descended from Esau, the father of Edom. This circumstance is noteworthy, when we see their unceasing enmity against Christ and His people. The seed of Esau seems to carry on the old enmity against the seed of Jacob.

v8.-[Exceeding glad…desirous to see…heard many things, &c.] The expressions in this verse are very remarkable. They bring before us the fearful history of Herod’s sins, and throw light on the power of conscience. Herod had not forgotten John the Baptist and his testimony. Moreover he had probably heard much about our Lord from his steward Chuza, whose wife Joanna was one of our Lord’s disciples. (Luk 8:3.)

v9.-[He answered him nothing.] It is probable that it would have been useless to answer Herod’s questions. Herod had heard the truth often from John the Baptist’s mouth. What he wanted was not more knowledge, but a heart and a will to act upon what he knew.

v10.-[The chief priests and scribes stood.] It is clear that these bitter enemies of our Lord followed Him from place to place, and from court to court with their accusations. The great additional fatigue which this going backwards and forwards from one ruler to another must have entailed on our Lord, should be remembered in estimating the whole amount of His sufferings.

v11.-[With his men of war.] The Greek word so rendered, means literally, “his armed force,” or “guards.” Of course we cannot suppose that Herod had a large army with him. The soldiers around him were only his body guard or escort.

[Set him at nought…mocked…gorgeous robe.] It is evident that Herod regarded our Lord as little better than a foolish, fanatical and contemptible person,-a person to be mocked and ridiculed, but not to be feared. The gorgeous or shining robe put on Him, was probably such as candidates for high office used to wear. It was intended to ridicule His supposed claim to be a king, and to show that Herod thought it absurd. Thus was our Lord made a scorn of men, and the outcast of the people. (Psa 22:6.)

[Sent him again to Pilate.] It is worthy of remark that we are specially told that neither the ruler of Galilee, nor the ruler of Juda, could find any fault in our Lord. In Galilee most of His miracles had been wrought, and much of His time spent. Yet the ruler of Galilee had nothing to lay to His charge. He was to be crucified as “a lamb without blemish or spot.”

v12.-[Pilate and Herod were made friends.] It is doubtless true that neither Pilate nor Herod were afraid of Christ, or were animated by any special feeling of hatred towards Him personally. But it is no less true that they agreed in despising Him, and insulting Him, and were utterly unbelieving as to His claim to faith and respect. Their reconciliation therefore on the occasion of His trial, is a fact that is very significant and instructive.

It is certain that the circumstance struck the apostles very much. They regarded it as a fulfilment of part of the second Psalm. They mentioned in prayer to God the union of Pilate, Herod, and the Jews against their Master. See Act 4:23-30.

I mention this, because there is a disposition in some quarters, now-a-days, to deny the significance of the reconciliation of Pilate and Herod, and the correctness of the lesson commonly drawn from it. The comment of the Holy Ghost on the transaction outweighs all the reasonings of man.

Theophylact remarks on this verse, that “It is matter of shame to Christians, that while the devil can persuade wicked men to lay aside their enmities, in order to do harm, Christians cannot even keep up friendship in order to do good.”

Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

Luk 23:1. Led him, probably in formal procession.

Unto Pilate. It is a question whether Pilate resided in a palace formerly belonging to Herod, or in the Castle Antonia (see on Mat 27:27).

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

In this chapter we have a relation of the blackest and saddest tragedy that ever was acted upon the stage of the world, namely, the barbarous and bloody murder of the holy and innocent Jesus, by the Jews his own countrymen, the best of kings put to death by his own subjects. And the first step towards it, is his arraignment before Pilate and Herod; they post him from one to another; Pilate sends him to Herod; and Herod having made sufficient sport with him remands him to Pilate; neither of them find any fault in him worthy of death, yet neither of them would release him.

Here observe, that our Saviour, being before Pilate, answers him readily and cautiously; Art thou the King of the Jews? says Pilate. Thou sayest it, says our Saviour. Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? He replied, I am. Hence says the apostle, That Jesus Christ before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession. 1Ti 6:13

Teaching us, that though we may, and sometimes ought, to hold our peace, when our reputation is concerned, yet we must never be silent, when the honor of God and his truth may be effectually promoted by a free and full confession.

Yet it is farther observable, that our Saviour being before Herod, would neither answer him to any question, nor work any miracle before him. This was an instance and evidence of our Lord’s great humility, in refusing to work miracles before Herod, who desired it only to gratify his curiousity. Thus do vile men abuse the power of God, desiring to see it exerted for admiration and pastime; not to be convinced or converted by it, but only to please thier foolish fancy. And as admirable was the patience and humility of Christ, and his present silence, who neither at Herod’s request, nor at the Jews importunity and false accusations, could be moved to answer anything.

Observe farther, that though Herod had murdered Christ’s forerunner, John the Baptist, and our Saviour’s own life was in danger by Herod heretofore, yet now he has him in his hands, he lets him go; only he first abuses him, and mocks him, and arrays him in a gorgeous robe, like a mock-king. Thus were all the marks of scorn imaginable put upon our dear Redeemer; yet all this jeering and sportful shame did our Lord undergo, to show what was due unto us for our sins; and also to give us an example to bear all the shame and reproach imaginable for his sake; who, for the joy that was set before him, despised the shame, Heb 12:2

Observe lastly, the wicked accusation brought in against our blessed Redeemer; We found (say they) this fellow perverting the nation, forbidding to give tribute to Caesar. Oh hellish untruth! How directly contrary to the whole curse and tenor of Christ’s life was this accusation! By his doctrine he preached up subjection to governors and government; saying, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. And by his practice he confirmed his own doctrine, working a miracle to pay tribute to Caesar. Satan could help them to draw up an indictment as black as hell, against the innocent Jesus, but all the powers of hell and darkness could not prove a tittle of it.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Luk 23:1-3. And the whole multitude of them Namely, of the chief priests, scribes, and elders, arose and led him unto Pilate See on Mat 27:42; and Mar 15:1. And they began to accuse him, Charging him with three capital crimes; perverting the nation, forbidding to give tribute to Cesar, and saying, that he himself was Christ, a king. They did not charge him with calling himself the Son of God, knowing very well that Pilate would not have concerned himself with such an accusation, which no way affected the state. All the three crimes, however, with which the Jews charge him, were only inferences of theirs, from his saying that he was the Son of God, Luk 22:70. They themselves drew imaginary consequences from his doctrine, which he had expressly denied; nay, and taught the contrary: and they who oppose his followers still use the same method. They lay to their charge things of which they are perfectly innocent, and on that ground persecute them with violence. The truth is, the opposition which these chief priests and others made to Christ, proceeded from mere malice and envy: and they pretended zeal for Cesar only to ingratiate themselves with Pilate, and to procure from him a condemnatory sentence against Jesus, without which they knew they could not accomplish their design of putting him to death. So far were they from being in reality zealous for, or even well affected toward Cesar, that a general uneasiness, of which Pilate was not ignorant, prevailed in the nation under the Roman yoke, and they wanted nothing but an opportunity to shake it off. And now they wished Pilate to believe, that this Jesus was active to foment that general discontent, of which, in reality, they themselves were the aiders and abetters. Christ had particularly taught, that they ought to give tribute to Cesar, though he knew many would be offended with him for it; and yet he is here falsely accused as forbidding to pay that tribute! As to making himself a rival with Cesar, it is certain that the chief reason why they rejected him, and would not own him to be the Messiah, was because he did not appear in worldly pomp and power, and assume the character of a temporal prince, nor do any thing against Cesar. He did indeed say that he was Christ, and if so, then a king; but not such a king as was ever likely to give disturbance to Cesar.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

2 d. The Civil Judgment: Luk 23:1-25.

Here we have the description, on the one hand, of the series of manoeuvres used by the Jews to obtain from Pilate the execution of the sentence, and on the other, of the series of Pilate’s expedients, or counter-manoeuvres, to get rid of the case which was forced on him. He knew that it was out of envy that the chiefs among the Jews were delivering Jesus over to him (Mat 27:18; Mar 15:10), and he felt repugnance at lending his power to a judicial murder. Besides, he felt a secret fear about Jesus. Comp. Joh 19:8, where it is said: When Pilate therefore heard that saying (He made Himself the Son of God), he was the more afraid; and the question, Luk 23:9 : Whence art thou?a question which cannot refer to the earthly birthplace of Jesus,that was already known to him (Luk 23:6),and which can only signify in the context: From heaven or from earth? The message of his wife (Mat 27:19) must have contributed to increase the superstitious fears which he felt.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

CXXVIII.

THIRD STAGE OF JEWISH TRIAL. JESUS FORMALLY

CONDEMNED BY THE SANHEDRIN AND LED TO PILATE.

(Jerusalem. Friday after dawn.)

aMATT. XXVII. 1, 2; bMARK XV. 1; cLUKE XXII. 66-23:1; dJOHN XVIII. 28.

a1 Now when morning was come, c66 And as soon as it was day, bstraightway cthe assembly of the [702] elders of the people was gathered together, both chief priests and scribes; and they led him away into their council, aall the chief priests and {bwith} the elders aof the people band scribes, and the whole council, held a consultation, and atook counsel against Jesus to put him to death [Since blasphemy was by no means a criminal offense among the Romans, the Sanhedrin consulted together and sought for some charge of which the Romans would take notice. As we follow their course it will become evident to us that they found no new ground of accusation against Jesus, and, failing to do so, they decided to make use of our Lord’s claim to be the Christ by so perverting it as to make him seem to assert an intention to rebel against the authority of Rome]: csaying, 67 If thou art the Christ, tell us. But he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe [as experience had already proven– Joh 8:59, Joh 10:31]: 68 and if I ask you, ye will not answer. [Thus Jesus protests against the violence and injustice of his trial. His judges were asking him whether he was the Christ without any intention of investigating the truth of his claim, but merely for the purpose of condemning him by unwarrantedly assuming that he was not the Christ. They therefore asked in an unlawful spirit as well as in an unlawful manner. Jesus had a good right to ask them questions tending to confirm his Christhood by the Scripture, but had he done so they would not have answered– Mat 22:41-45. Jesus appeals to them to try the question as to who he was, but they insist on confining the inquiry as to who he claimed to be, assuming that the claim was false.] 69 But from henceforth shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power of God. [See p. 698.] 70 And they all said, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. [The Hebrew mode of expression, equivalent to “Ye say it, because I am.”] 71 And they said, What further need have we of witness? for we ourselves have heard from his own mouth. [Thus they unconsciously admit their lack of evidence against Jesus.] [703] 1 And the whole company of them rose up, a2 and they bound bJesus, and carried {aled} him away, d28 They lead Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the Praetorium: cand brought him before Pilate. band delivered him up to Pilate. athe governor. dand it was early; [The Sanhedrin could try and could condemn, but could not put to death without the concurring sentence of the Roman governor. To obtain this sentence, they now lead Jesus before Pilate in the early dawn, having made good use of their time.]

[FFG 702-704]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Luke Chapter 23

The Gentiles, however, are not presented in this Gospel as being voluntarily guilty. We see, no doubt, an indifference which is flagrant injustice in a case like this, and an insolence which nothing could excuse; but Pilate does what he can to deliver Christ, and Herod, disappointed, sends Him back unjudged. The will is altogether on the side of the Jews. That is the characteristic of this part of the history in Lukes Gospel. Pilate would rather not have burdened himself with this useless crime, and he despised the Jews; but they were resolved on the crucifixion of Jesus, and require Barabbas to be released-a seditious man and a murderer (see Luk 23:20-25). [44]

Jesus, therefore, as He was led to Calvary, announced to the women, who with natural feeling lamented for Him, that it was all over with Jerusalem, that they had to bewail their own fate and not His; for days were coming upon Jerusalem which would make them call those happy who had never been mothers-days in which they would in vain seek refuge from terror and judgment. For if in Him, the true green tree, these things were done, what would become of the dry tree of Judaism without God? Nevertheless, at the moment of His crucifixion, the Lord intercedes for the unhappy people: they knew not what they did-intercession, to which Peters discourse to the Jews (Act 3:1-26) is the remarkable answer by the Holy Ghost come down from heaven. The rulers among the Jews, completely blinded, as well as the people, taunt Him with being unable to save Himself from the cross-not knowing that it was impossible if He was a Saviour, and that all was taken from them, and that God was establishing another order of things, founded on atonement, in the power of eternal life by the resurrection. Dreadful blindness, of which the poor soldiers were but imitators, according to the malignity of human nature! But the judgment of Israel was in their mouth, and (on Gods part) upon the cross. It was the King of the Jews who hung there-abased indeed, for a thief hung by His side could railon Him-but in the place to which love had brought Him for the everlasting and present salvation of souls. This was manifested at the very moment. The insults that reproached Him for not saving Himself from the cross, had His answer in the fate of the converted thief, who rejoined Him the same day in Paradise.

This history is a striking demonstration of the change to which this Gospel leads us. The King of the Jews, by their own confession, is not delivered-He is crucified. What an end to the hopes of this people! But at the same time a gross sinner, converted by grace on the very gibbet, goes straight to Paradise. A soul is eternally saved. It is not the kingdom, but a soul-out of the body-in happiness with Christ. And remark here how the presentation of Christ brings out the wickedness of the human heart. No thief would mock at or reproach another thief on the gibbet. But the moment it is Christ who is there, this takes place.

But I would say a few words on the condition of the other thief, and on the reply of Christ. We see every mark of conversion, and of the most remarkable faith. The fear of God, the beginning of wisdom, is there; conscience upright and vigorous. It is not and justly to his fellow, but we indeed justly; knowledge of the perfect sinless righteousness of Christ as man; the acknowledgment of Him as the Lord, when His own disciples had forsaken and denied Him, and when there was no sign of His glory or of the dignity of His Person. He was accounted by man as one like himself. His kingdom was but a subject of scorn to all. But the poor thief is taught of God; and all is plain. He is as sure that Christ will have the kingdom as if He was reigning in glory. All his desire is that Christ should remember him then; and what confidence in Christ is here shewn through the knowledge of Him in spite of his acknowledged guilt! It shews how Christ filled his heart, and how his confiding in grace by its brightness shut out human shame, for who would like to be remembered in the shame of a gibbet! Divine teaching is singularly manifested here. Do not we know by divine teaching that Christ was sinless, and to be assured of His kingdom there was a faith above all circumstances? He alone is a comfort to Jesus upon the cross, and makes Him think (in answering his faith) of the Paradise that awaited Him when He should have finished the work that His Father had given Him to do. Observe the state of sanctification this poor man was in by faith. In all the agonies of the cross, and while believing Jesus to be the Lord, he seeks no relief at His hands, but asks that He will remember him in His kingdom. He is filled with one thought-to have his portion with Jesus. He believes that the Lord will return; he believes in the kingdom, while the King is rejected and crucified, and when, as to man, there was no longer any hope. But the reply of Jesus goes farther in the revelation of that proper to this Gospel, and adds that which brings in, not the kingdom, but everlasting life, the happiness of the soul. The thief had asked Jesus to remember him when He returned in His kingdom. The Lord replies that he should not wait for that day of manifested glory which would be visible to the world, but that this very day he should be with Him in Paradise. Precious testimony, and perfect grace! Jesus crucified was more than King-He was Saviour. The poor malefactor was a testimony to it, and the joy and consolation of the Lords heart-the first-fruits of the love which had placed them side by side, where, if the poor thief bore the fruit of his sins from man, the Lord of glory at his side was bearing the fruit of them from God, treated as Himself a malefactor in the same condemnation. Through a work unknown to man save by faith the sins of His companion were for ever put away, they no longer existed, their remembrance was only that of the grace which had taken them away, and which had for ever cleansed his soul from them, making him that moment as fit to enter Paradise as Christ Himself his companion there!

The Lord then, having fulfilled all things, and still full of strength, commends His spirit to His Father. He commits it to Him, the last act of that which composed His whole life-the perfect energy of the Holy Ghost acting in a perfect confidence in His Father, and dependence upon Him. He commits His spirit to His Father, and expires. For it was death that He had before Him-but death in absolute faith which trusted in His Father-death with God by faith; and not the death that separated from God. Meantime nature veiled itself-acknowledged the departure from this world of Him who had created it. All is darkness. But on the other hand God reveals Himself-the veil of the temple is rent in twain from the top to the bottom. God had hidden Himself in thick darkness-the way into the holiest had not yet been manifested. But now there is no longer a veil; that which has put sin away through perfect love now shines forth, while the holiness of Gods presence is joy to the heart, and not torment. What brings us into the presence of perfect holiness without a veil, put away the sin which forbade us to be there. Our communion is with Him through Christ, holy and unblameable before Him in love.

The poor centurion, struck with all that had taken place, confesses-such is the power of the cross upon the conscience-that this Jesus whom he has crucified was certainly the righteous man. I say conscience, because I do not pretend to say that it went any farther than that in the case of the centurion. We see the same effect on the spectators: they went away smiting their breasts. They perceived that something solemn had happened-that they had fatally compromised themselves with God.

Footnotes for Luke Chapter 23

44: This wilful guilt of the Jews is strongly brought out in Johns Gospel also, that is, their national guilt. Pilate treats them with contempt; and there it is they say, We have no king but Caesar.

Fuente: John Darby’s Synopsis of the New Testament

CHAPTER 26.

JESUS AT PILATES BAR

Mat 27:1-14; Mar 15:1-5; Luk 23:1-5; Joh 18:28-38. Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas into the judgment-hall.

When I was in Jerusalem last November and December, I went directly from the Sanhedrin hall, on Mount Zion in the west, to Pilates judgment- hall, north-east wall, on the intervening slope between Mount Moriah and Bezetha. And it was morning. Thus Jesus has been up all night, dragged hither and thither, abused and afflicted by His enemies, and must be awfully fatigued and exhausted. And they did not go into the judgment- hall, in order that they may not be polluted, but may eat the Passover. This illustrates the nonsense into which Satan runs religious people when they give him a chance. Here they are so fearful of contracting ceremonial defilement that they will not so much as enter the Gentile judgment-hall; while they are already guilty of the blackest murder ever concocted in the bottomless pit. You must not think that these things are peculiar to the ancient times. The world is full of them now.

Then Pilate came out to them, and said, What accusation do you bring against this Man? They responded and said, If He were not an evildoer, we had not delivered Him to thee. Then Pilate said to them, You indeed take Him, and judge Him according to your law. Then the Jews said to him, It is not lawful for us to kill any one, in order that the word of Jesus may be fulfilled, which He spoke, signifying by what death He was about to die. Very early in our Lords ministry (Joh 3:14), in the case of the brazen serpent, He predicted the manner of His death by crucifixion. This was a Roman punishment, the Jews having no such a law. Consequently He was delivered by the Jews to the Romans for execution. You see here the dilemma in which the Jews were involved.

a. Having condemned Him to die for blasphemy, they now wake up to the fact that Judea is no longer free, but a Roman province, the prerogative of capital punishment having already passed out of the hands of the Jews and become the sole right of the Romans. Consequently they have to take Him to Pilate, the Roman proconsul.

b. By the time they arrive at Pilates judgment-hall, they have awakened to the fact that the Romans have no law against blasphemy, for which they have condemned Jesus to die. Consequently they see that it will be utterly unavailable to bring this charge against Him before a Roman court. Therefore they have no bill of charges to present to Pilate justifying the commitment of a prisoner to his adjudication.

c. Now they find themselves in a serious puzzle, as the overwhelming probability favors the conclusion that if they present to Pilate the prisoner charged with nothing but blasphemy, on which Roman legislation is utterly Silent, Pilate will simply throw the case out of court, refuse to adjudicate, and drive them all away from his tribunal, as Gallio did at Corinth (Acts 18) when Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, brought Paul to him for condemnation, having no charge against him except matters pertaining to their own religion, which the proconsul looked upon as superstition, and consequently, threw it out of court, driving the Jews away from his tribunal, when the Gentile multitude became so disgusted with the foolish persecutions of the Jews against an innocent man that they took Sosthenes and gave him a good thrashing, which seems to have proved a blessing to him, as we only hear of him once more (1 Corinthians 1), when he is associated with Paul in the evangelistic work at Ephesus, having been converted and turned missionary.

d. The final result of all this tergiversation is, that they drop the charge of blasphemy altogether, and take up a new one, on which there had been no action, committing Him to Pilate under the accusation of high treason, claiming to be King of the Jews, and consequently a rival of the Roman emperor.

Luk 23:2. And they began to accuse Him, saying, We found Him revolutionizing the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that He Himself is, Christ a King. You see how adroitly they manipulated the matter. As the Scriptures denominate Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King, they construe Him as claiming to be King, and consequently a rival of Caesar.

Joh 18:33-38. Then Pilate went again into the judgment-hall, and spoke to Jesus, and said to Him, Art Thou the King of the Jews? Jesus responded to him, Do you speak this of yourself, or did others tell you concerning Me? Pilate responded, Whether am I a Jew? Thy nation and the chief priests delivered Thee to me; what hast Thou done Jesus responded, My kingdom is not from this world , If My kingdom were from this world, My servants would fight for Me, in order that I may not be delivered to the Jews. But now My kingdom is not from thence. This statement of our Savior in reference to His kingdom is frequently quoted as an argument against the coming Millennial Theocracy; but a moments reflection reveals the utter impertinency of such an application. Of course, Gods kingdom is not of this world, but of heaven; but that is no reason why, it should, not bear rule over this world. The kingdom of God is here now; yet it is not of this world. The kingdom of Satan is here; not of this world, but of hell, and a usurpation on the earth. When Satan is east out and imprisoned in hell (Revelation 20), thus all obstructions to the heavenly kingdom being removed, the latter, will, so wonderfully prevail on the earth as to receive a boundless, new impetus, not eliminating grace, but adding to it glory, when

He shall have dominion over river, sea, and shore, Far as the eagles pinion or doves light wing can soar.

Then Pilate said to Him, Art Thou not then a King? Jesus responded, Thou sayest that I am. N.B. This is an Oriental form of positive affirmation, Jesus admitting to Pilate that He is King. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, that I may witness to the truth. His is significantly a kingdom of truth, in contradistinction to Satans kingdom of falsehood and error. Every one being of the truth heareth My voice. Poor Pilate was not of the truth. He was a corrupt thieving politician, therefore he did not hear the voice of Jesus, but came to a miserable end, dying a suicide in lonely exile, having been degraded and banished by Caligula, the Roman emperor.

Pilate says to Him, What is truth? Pilate took up the idea that He was a dreamy, visionary philosopher, gone wild with hard study, imagining that He was a King, and that He had found out the truth, as so many Greek sages claimed to have done; meanwhile he had no confidence in His claims to have discovered the truth. Consequently, when he asked the question, he goes right away, not waiting for an answer.

Saying this again, he went out to the Jews, and tells them, I find nothing criminal in Him. The Roman Empire had conquered all the world, and was at that time ruling all nations. The very idea that a poor prisoner in bonds, without an army to defend Him, should claim to be King of the Jews was, in Pilates judgment, sheer nonsense. Consequently he looks upon the royal claims of his prisoner as simply a matter of ridicule. Believing Him to be a harmless fanatic, dreaming that He is King of the Jews, therefore he makes short work of the judgment by bringing in a verdict of innocence.

Mat 27:12-14. And while He was being accused by the high priests and elders, He responded nothing. Then Pilate says to Him, Do You not hear how many things they witness against You? And He responded to him not a word, so that the governor was astonished exceedingly. Will you not follow the example of Jesus, when people falsely accuse you, and keep silent? Let them tell; ever so many scandals on you, give them no attention whatever; and they will soon get ashamed and let you alone, and in all probability make a specialty of showing you kindness.

Luk 23:4-5. Pilate said to the chief priests and the multitudes, I find nothing criminal in this Man. And they continued to become more and more uproarious, saying that He revolutionizes the people, teaching throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee even unto this place. The sun having risen about five is rapidly climbing the Oriental skies, and pouring down, the day from the summit of great Mount Olivet. His enemies, having worked hard all night to get Him condemned and killed before day, lest the people rally and fight, for Him, are now in an awful dilemma. They have Him on hand and are determined to kill Him; meanwhile the people are pouring in from all directions, and they awfully fear an outbreak, in which they will very likely be killed.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Luk 23:12. The same day Pilate and Herod were made friends. This occurrence is quoted in Act 4:27, as an accomplishment of the prophecy in the second psalm.

Luk 23:22. He said to them the third time I have found no cause of death in him. Then Pilate was thrice weak, and thrice wicked, to condemn him to the cross. He was unworthy of any comparison with Gallio, who drove away the jews, and would be no judge of their questions.

Luk 23:43. To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise. Hades, according to the ancients, signifies the state of the dead. But in Hades, said they, there are two roads, the one for good men, and the other for bad men. Hence, when our Saviour entered Hades he entered paradise. But from the special grace conferred on the penitent thief, I would warn them against a false reliance on a protracted repentance. No man knows the case of this thief. Perhaps, says Saurin, he had been engaged in this awful course but a short time. Perhaps, seduced by an unhappy ease, he was less guilty of theft than of compliance. Perhaps, the accomplice only of Barabbas in sedition, he had less design of disturbing society than of restricting the enormous tyranny of the Romans. Perhaps, surprised by weakness, or tempted by necessity, he had received sentence for his first offence. Perhaps, having languished a long time in prison, he had already repented of his sin. We do not affirm these things; they are merely conjectures, but all you can object are similar conjectures. And how many criminating circumstances occur in your life which were not in his? He had not received the education which you have. He had not received the torrent of grace with which you are inundated; and he was unacquainted with a thousand motives which operate on you. The moment he saw Christ he loved him, and believed on him. How was that? With what faith, and at what time? In a manner the most heroic in the world; with a faith not found in Israel. At a time when our Saviour was fixed on the cross, when he was pierced with the nails, when he was delivered to a frantic populace, when he was spit upon, mocked by the greeks, and rejected by the jews; when Judas betrayed him, when St. Peter denied him, when the disciples fled; when Jesus made himself of no reputation, and so took upon him the form of a servant the thief the thief seemed the only believer, and he alone to constitute the whole church. See my translation of Saurins sermons, vol. 7. p. 72.

Luk 23:44-45. It was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour: and the sun was darkened. It was proper that the heavens should go into mourning for the Lord, who in his divine nature was their Creator. This darkness is very clearly asserted by St. Matthew, and St. Mark. It is asserted also by Ignatius, and by Clement. It was not a natural eclipse, because it happened at the full moon; eclipses of the sun always occur at the change. Besides, a total eclipse of the sun can never exist above four minutes; the suns disk then begins to appear as a bright silver wire, and sheds abundance of light on the earth. Many of the fathers quote the annals of Phlegon, who records this darkness with surprise. Tertullian says in his apology, that the same moment in which Christ was crucified, the solar orb was darkened at noon, and those who did not know that this event was predicted, Amo 8:9, thought it an eclipse: chap. 21. Origen, Africanus, and others mention it with a view to convince the gentile world that nature sympathized with the God of nature in his passion, and frowned on the unparalleled wickedness of the jews. This darkness most assuredly is one of the first proofs of our redemption by the death of Christ. It cannot be denied, and on what other account could it occur?

REFLECTIONS.

Oh Calvary, most instructive scene! There hangs the Lord of glory, surrounded with the scoffs of foes, and the tears of friends. The chief priests and rulers are chief in the crime, and they instruct the rabble in satire of infernal malice. This is wickedness which was never exceeded, never equalled. Yet at the same moment, amidst all the malignity that was ascending from the infernal pit, the ineffable piety and submission of our blessed Lord shone forth with a splendour never before witnessed, crying with an agony of love, Father forgive them, for they know not what they do. But mark how the termination of insult was the commencement of glory. The Son, having commended his spirit into the hands of his Sire, all nature honoured the exit of its Lord. The sun mourned in his passion, the earth trembled in his conflict, the spirits of just men made perfect arose from their tombs, having resumed their bodies, and the conscience of the guilty crowd formed the dark shades in the celestial portrait. They returned smiting their breasts, in anguish portentous of destruction.

Oh Calvary, most eventful Calvary! Thou art the theatre of redemption, the school of religion, and the mirror of the human heart. Here redeeming love displays its glory, here revelation unfolds its beauty, and discovers ten thousand wonders to our admiring view. Significantly was the veil of the temple rent from the top to the bottom, and its mystic symbols exposed to open vision. That sacred body, all covered with gore, and ghastly with wounds, reveals the shadowy import of oblations for sin. This Calvary without the gate, and that cross streaked with blood, illustrate the atoning figure of the heifer slain without the camp. Mysteries exist no more in the ritual law; they are all transferred to the person and glory of Christ. But ah, my sins have crucified the Lord. I have pierced that sacred body, and nailed it to the tree. I and my fellow-worms have merited the curse, the stripes, the anguish which he has borne. Oh, weep mine eyes, and grieve my heart. Oh my soul, enter, fully enter into thy Saviours passion, that thou mayest die with him to sin, and live with him to newness of life.

The circumstance of Josephs begging the Lords body, is highly worthy of remark. It was great faith for a nobleman so circumstanced to own his Lord. It baffled the malice of the council. It accomplished prophecy; His grave was appointed with the wicked, but with the rich man was his tomb. So Lowth reads Isa 53:9. It caused him to be interred in a new sepulchre, not yet used, which made the evidence of the Lords resurrection indisputably clear. Thus he confounded the malice of his foes, made death the gate of life, hallowed the grave as the bed of repose for his weary saints, and arose from the dead, the model and the pledge of all our future hopes.

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

Luk 23:1-5. Jesus before Pilate (Mar 15:1-5*, Mat 27:1 f., Mat 27:11-14*).Lk. alone records the charge against Jesus laid by the Sanhedrin before Pilate; its burden was that He was a political agitator, dangerous to Rome. That He forbade the payment of tribute money was deliberate falsehood (Luk 20:21-26).

Luk 23:3. This verse summarises Pilates examination of Jesus (Joh 18:33-38).Thou sayest may indicate assent.

Luk 23:4. Lk. puts less guilt than Mk., Mt., or Jn. on Pilate, and more on the Jews. He alone has Luk 23:5. The friendliness of Roman authorities towards Christianity is a leading motive of Lk.s Acts of the Apostles.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

DELIVERED TO PONTIUS PILATE

(vs.1-5)

It was still early morning when the Lord Jesus was brought to the judgment hall of Pilate, the Roman governor (Joh 18:28), for the Jews were determined to quickly force through their vicious purpose so as to allow no time for any appeal to sober justice. From the beginning of that mock trial the absence of orderly court procedure was most apparent. They laid no charge as to anything He had done, nor did they even lay the charge that He said He was the Son of God, for Roman law would never condemn a man for such a thing, but they made the indefinite accusation that they found Him perverting the people. This was no charge for a court of law, so they added a false charge that He forbad paying tribute to Caesar. They had cunningly sought to make Him commit Himself to object to tribute to Caesar, but He had plainly told them otherwise (Luk 20:21-25). They added to their charge that He had said He was the Christ, a King, for this might make Pilate think He was challenging the authority of Caesar.

It was not difficult for Pilate to see through their subtlety. He knew perfectly well that they would have no objection to the refusal of tribute to Caesar, so their charges were only subterfuge. But he asked Christ if He were King of the Jews, and the answer was in the affirmative. While the fact of His being King was true, yet everyone knew that He had not in any way sought to overthrow the Roman government.

Pilate saw that it was transparently evident that under Roman law no charge whatever could be sustained against the Lord Jesus, and Pilate publicly declared that he found no fault in Him. This being the case, justice demanded that He be immediately released. But the fierce opposition of the Jews, though they had no specific charge of wrongdoing against Him, was such as to influence Pilate to forget justice, and he began a course of vacillation that ended in the grossest miscarriage of justice that history has ever known.

SENT BY PILATE TO HEROD

(vs.6-12)

The Jewish leaders were concerned only that the Lord’s teaching might tend to undermine their authority over the people. They mentioned His preaching from Galilee to Jerusalem, and Pilate grasped at a possibility of shifting responsibility for judgment to Herod, tetrarch of Galilee, who was at the time at Jerusalem, so he sent Him to Herod.

Herod did not have the slightest interest in the question of justice being done in this case. Yet he was exceedingly glad to see the Lord, not because he had any interest in Him personally, but because he had heard many things as to His miraculous powers, so his idle curiosity was aroused in hope of seeing the Lord perform a miracle. How pathetically childish for a man in a high place of authority! The Lord remained totally silent in spite of the many questions that Herod asked Him. What a sight! The questioning monarch probably shifted his questions in every direction in hope of getting some answer. The chief priests and scribes were full of vicious, vehement accusation against Him, yet He remained calmly silent in such a way that they knew and felt Him to be master of the entire situation.

Yet rather than convicting them, this only galled Herod and his men of war. They resorted to the cowardly resource of contempt and mockery, clothing Him in a gorgeous robe in mockery of His being King of Israel, before returning Him to Pilate. Herod’s contempt added to the official enmity of Galilee against Him, so the Jews, Galileans and Romans were all represented in the rejection of the Son of God. How sad, yet how instructive is the fact of the common contempt of Herod and Pilate toward the Lord Jesus being the means of making them friends! (v.12). Nor is such a thing uncommon today. Herod seemed to have gotten rid of his gnawing fear that Jesus was John the Baptist risen from the dead (Mat 14:2). His conscience was evidently dulled and hardened by sin, so he appeared as cold as a stone.

BARABBAS CHOSEN IN PREFERENCE TO CHRIST.

(vs.13-25)

Pilate’s conscience strongly warned him against issuing the death penalty, for there was no concrete accusation of the Jews that could be sustained. Their charge that Lord Jesus was perverting the people was purely one of envy, as Pilate knew well (Mat 27:18). In speaking to the chief priests and rulers he plainly declared that he found no fault in Him. To this also he added that Herod could find no occasion to condemn Him. This was the second time Pilate spoke so plainly in this regard (cf.v.4). The issue therefore was transparently clear: justice must release Him. Yet Pilate tried a compromise with the unjust suggestion that he would chastise (lash) Him before releasing Him. He thought this lesser judgment might satisfy the Jews. By this dishonorable means he was himself weaving the net in which the Jews snared him. Then He involved another unjust principle in the trial. For it was the Roman custom to release one prisoner at the Passover, the Jews being allowed to choose which one (Joh 18:39). This practice assumed the prisoner to be guilty, so the custom should have had no application whatever to the Lord Jesus. But Pilate unjustly allowed the Jews to chose between Jesus and Barabbas, the latter being an insurrectionist and murderer. In the blindness of their unreasonable folly the Jews demanded Barabbas be released and Jesus crucified.

It seems Pilate had not expected such a choice, so he attempted to reason with the people again, but only to hear the unreasoning, vicious demand that Jesus be crucified. For the third time Pilate insisted that he had found no cause in Him for the death penalty, yet as before, Pilate said he would chastise Him. In fact, John tells us that Pilate did scourge Him (Joh 19:1) even before his final efforts to release Him, so that Pilate actually added more injustice than the Jews had demanded. Finally, Pilate gave in to the clamoring voices of the multitude. This unhappy representative of the Roman government (which so prided itself on its justice) was guilty of the most glaring and outrageous injustice that history has ever known.

The man proven guilty of sedition against the government and of murder was released, while He whom the judge declared three times to be without fault was condemned to crucifixion! It seems inevitable that Pilate would be left for the rest of his life with a torturing, burning conscience.

THE LORD OF GLORY CRUCIFIED!

(vs.26-38)

While we are told elsewhere that Jesus went forth bearing His cross (Joh 19:17), yet Luke does not mention this, but speaks of Simon a Cyrenian being enlisted to carry the cross (v.26). The Lord first bore it, then it was transferred to Simon. But Scripture does not support the assumption of many that Jesus collapsed because of the weight of the cross. Let us not dare to go beyond the Word of God with such inferences. But this occurrence does teach us that there is a sense in which the disciple of the Lord Jesus might bear the cross after Him, as one identified with Him in His rejection by the world. Not everyone was consenting to His death. A great company (and women particularly mentioned) followed Him in mourning and lamentation. His words to them are striking. Rather than to weep for Him, He told them to weep for themselves and for their children, for the rejection of their Messiah would mean unspeakable sorrow and trouble for Israel. Rather than the normal blessedness of childbearing (Psa 127:3-5), the day was coming when those would be counted happy who had no children to suffer the anguish that Israel had invited upon herself in the cry, “His blood be upon us and on our children” (Mat 27:25). History has seen such days on many occasions for Israel since that time, but the worst is not yet. When He says they will cry to the mountains and hills to fall on them and cover them, this is a prophecy that reminds us of Rev 6:15-17, though in Revelation it is not only Israel involved, but the nations also.

This prophecy of the Lord Jesus looks on to the time of the end, as verse 31 indicates. The Lord Himself was the green tree with promise of good fruit, which Israel rejected. The dry tree is the state of Israel in the time of the end, desolate and withered as a result of their long years of determined refusal of the grace of God in Christ. If people would so act in defiance of the opportunity of greatest blessing, what will take place when Israel comes to a place where there appears to be no prospect of blessing whatever?

Two robbers were also taken to be crucified, though the murderer was set free. At Calvary, the place of a skull, the Lord was crucified with a robber on either side. The wickedness of man finds its dreadful culmination in crucifying the Lord of glory!

But how full of matchless grace and beauty were His words, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.” Well did He know that blind unbelief had left the people in ignorance of the awful significance of their act. In contrast to their hatred, the pure love of His heart had deep, genuine desire for their forgiveness. Later Stephen, when stoned to death, prayed similarly, but could not say that the Jews did not know what they did, but simply said, “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge” (Act 7:60). For Stephen had faced the Jews with the fact that this same Jesus whom they had crucified was now raised by the power of God, the proof of God’s approval of Him, but the Jews callously rejected Him though risen from the dead.

The soldiers divided His garments, casting lots as to what each should have. We may question how they could be so callous as to even accept His clothing, but men’s hearts by nature are hard and selfish. They stood watching, as though this was a sight to entertain them. The rulers added the abuse of derision, yet admitting the wonderful fact that He had saved others. How sad is the ignorance of their assertion, “Let Him save Himself, if He be Christ, the chosen of God.” Indeed, He would willingly remain on the cross in order that He might save others eternally. Because He is the Christ, He would not save Himself from the agony and death of the cross.

Over His cross the superscription was written in the languages of the intellectual world (Greek), the political world (Latin), and the religious world (Hebrew): “This is the King of the Jews,” for all had united in rejecting Him who remained King of the Jews through death itself. God sovereignly ordered this clear, decided witness.

TWO ROBBERS: ONE HARDENED. THE OTHER SAVED

(vs.39-43)

Mat 27:44 tells us that both robbers cast the same derision as the Jews in the Lord’s teeth. One of them in mockery demanded, “If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.” Blindly, the robber thought only of being saved from the just sentence of his guilt. His hardened heart evidently had no concern for the solemnity of his eternal end, and no regard for the grace of the Lord Jesus who had prayed for the forgiveness of His enemies. He callously refused his last opportunity of forgiveness.

But the great grace of the Lord Jesus produced in the other robber a sudden and wonderful change. He spoke soberly and wisely, rebuking the first robber with a penetrating question, asking whether the fear of God was not sufficient in him to think seriously when he too was facing the death of crucifixion? But more: the second robber proved the reality of new birth in his soul by acknowledging that the two of them were suffering justly, receiving what they deserved, and affirming positively that Christ had done nothing wrong. His first words indicated honest repentance, and the last phrase showed a genuine faith in the Lord Jesus.

The repentant robber then directly addressed the Lord Jesus, asking that He remember him when He comes in His kingdom. He knew well that death is not the end, either for the Lord or for himself. Christ will yet reign in His glorious kingdom: the man believed it and asked for blessing at that future time.

But the Lord Jesus promised Him much more than he asked, with the positive declaration that, not in the distant future, but on that very day he would be with Christ in paradise. This is decisive! Though their bodies were buried, yet their spirits and souls were that day in paradise. Paradise is the third heaven, as 2Co 12:2-4 declares and Rev 2:7 confirms; that is, the very presence of God. Some have been confused by the wording of the King James Version of Scripture in its quoting Christ as saying, “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption” (Act 2:27). The word “hell” in that verse is not “Gehenna,” the lake of fire, but “hades” (or in Hebrew “sheol”) which does not indicate a place, but a state. It is the unseen state of the soul and spirit as separated from the body. His spirit and soul were therefore in the unseen condition called “hades,” but in the place called “paradise,” the third heaven. In resurrection His soul would not be left in this unseen condition, nor His body allowed to see corruption: both would be reunited.

Now about the sixth hour, which was noon — normally the brightest time of day — darkness enveloped all the land for three hours, the darkest hours of all earth’s history, when the blessed Son of Man bore the unspeakable agony of the unmitigated judgment of God against sin and against our many sins. But only Matthew and Mark mention His heart-rending cry of abandonment at the end of this three hours, for the trespass and sin-offfering aspects of His sacrifice are seen in those Gospels. Yet it is briefly said here that the sun was darkened and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst, showing a marked intervention of God, the latter being typical of the rending of the flesh of the Lord Jesus (Heb 10:20) so that believers today may have title to enter into the holiest of all, the very presence of God, as worshipers. The darkened sun intimates the light of God withdrawn from the Lord Jesus in the solitary agony of His sufferings. His cry of abandonment was with a loud voice (Mat 27:46), for all creation must pay attention to this. Again He cried with a loud voice, though Luke does not record His words, as John does, “It is finished” (Joh 19:30), a word of ringing victory intended for all the universe. Then with calm, lovely submission He prayed, “Father, into Your hands I commit My Spirit.” In perfect knowledge that the time had come, He expired. He dismissed His own spirit. He had authority to lay down His life. None could take it from Him (Joh 10:17-18). Wondrous, awesome, amazing sight!

How could not all this but impress souls to their depths? Even the centurion in charge of the execution was persuaded that “certainly this was a righteous Man” (v.47). Matthew mentions that the centurion and others with him, also declared Him to be the Son of God, but Luke emphasizes His manhood and so leaves that statement out. On the part of the common people too, how different was their attitude than when clamoring for His crucifixion! Returning from that sight, they beat their breasts, their thoughts deeply solemnized in realizing they had seen what they had never expected, nor could ever forget.

It is added that all His acquaintances, and specifically the women who followed Him from Galilee, stood far off watching what was done. There is no need to mention how deeply their hearts were affected, but the element of fear had probably kept them from coming near. Compare Joh 19:25. But the sight of the cross and all that transpired there could not but leave an eternal impression on those who witnessed it. Might not many have been brought to God at the time?

BURIAL BY JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA

(vs.50-56)

The great work of the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus being finished, no unholy hands were allowed to touch Him again. God had a man prepared for taking the burial in hand. Joseph was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrim, the council guilty of having plotted the death of the Lord. But Joseph’s character was honorable, and he had not consented to the evil purpose of his fellow council members. But the cross brought him out clearly, not only as being not against the Lord, but fully on the side of the One who had been murdered by his own people. Joseph waited for the kingdom of God. It is evident that this expectation was not hindered because of the death of the Lord Jesus: rather, one would say, his faith in a God of resurrection was brought into vital exercise.

Receiving permission from Pilate, he took the body of Jesus from the cross, wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a new tomb hewn out of the rock. John adds that Nicodemus joined him (Joh 19:39), but Joseph took the initiative. So Isa 53:9 was — fulfilled: He was with the rich in His death.

Verse 54 is clear that this day was Friday, called “the preparation,” and the Sabbath drew near. Some have imagined that there was more than one sabbath in the week, and that the crucifixion took place Wednesday or Thursday; but the Greek article is decisive, “the Sabbath.” In verse 56 the women rested only “the Sabbath day,” not “days.” The women came to observe His burial, then returned home to prepare spices and ointments in hope of anointing His body after the Sabbath, on which day they rested.

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

CHAPTER 23

Ver. 39.-And one of the malefactors which were hanged-(this one, according to tradition, hung on the left hand of Christ)-railed on Him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

If thou be the Christ, and Saviour of the world, save Thyself and us, free us from the cross and restore us to life and liberty. Christ chose to undergo the most bitter sufferings from all classes, and to be mocked and blasphemed, not only by the scribes and Jews, but even by the robber, the companion of His punishment. This made His trial the more hard; for the robber ought to have suffered with Christ and to have taken thought for the salvation of his soul, and to have begged it of Christ; as we also should beg that we may be quiet under scoffs, derisions, and insults, and be patient in mind and silent in speech.

Ver. 40.-But the other (who is said to have hung on the right side) answering rebuked him. The Syriac says, “Dost thou not fear, no, not even from God” (etiam, non, a Deo, non tirmes tu)?-that is, the scribes and Jews are well and strong and do not fear God, and therefore scoff at Christ; but thou, who art tormented on the cross, oughtest to fear Him, lest He punish thee severely, for blaspheming His Christ so sacrilegiously. This robber showed that he not only feared God himself, for “the beginning of wisdom” (and salvation) “is the fear of the Lord” (Ecclus. i. 16), but he also exhorted his companion to the same fear. That is, Let the Jews mock at Christ; we ought to fear God, because we are in the same condemnation-the punishment of the cross, to which we are justly condemned. But Christ, who was innocent was so condemned unjustly. Again, we should rather compassionate a companion in punishment, especially if innocent, than reproach him; because we ought to prepare ourselves for death and the judgment of God, where we shall give account for our blasphemy and undergo the heavy punishment of Gehenna. In his words, “Dost thou not fear God?” he seems to allude to Christ and to confess Him to be God. As if he had said, “Fear thou the retribution of Christ, whom thou blasphemest, for He is not only man but God also.” For, that he believed this from Christ’s illumination we shall shortly see. So S. Ambrose, and Eusebius, whose words I will produce.

Ver. 41.-And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds. This was an act of profound and public confession, contrition, and repentance, by which he expiated his former sins.

But this man hath done nothing amiss. The Greek is , which means out of harmony, unbecoming incongruous, nothing worthy of the slightest blame or reprehension. Lo! a free and public confession of, and testimony to, the innocence of Christ, given before the scribes and rulers, who had condemned Him, fearing nothing.

Ver. 42.-And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into Thy kingdom. “The heavenly and divine kingdom, to which Thou passest through the death of the cross, that shortly Thou mayest enter into it by death, and bring into it Thine elect. Wherefore I beseech Thee to bring me also into it with Thyself, and I implore of Thee pardon for all sinners, for whom I very greatly grieve. I offer to Thee, moreover, the torments of this cross, and the death upon it which I willingly undergo. To this end, I wholly resign, dedicate, and consecrate myself to Thee; I would that it were given to me to suffer these and still other torments for Thy faith and love.” These words show his living and ardent faith, hope, love, humility, patience, contrition, and other virtues.

Moraliter. Learn from this the strength, efficacy, and swiftness of the grace of Christ, by which, from the cross itself, He made a man holy, most holy. Wonderful was the conversion of S. M. Magdalene-wonderful that of S. Paul, but much more wonderful this of the thief. For S. Mary had witnessed the words and miracles, of Christ; and S. Paul had felt Him strike him from heaven; but the thief on the very cross, where Christ was suffering the infamous and atrocious death of a criminal, was converted to Him by herioc acts of faith, love, devotion, &c.

SS. Jerome, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, on S. Matt. xxvii., Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechetical Lectures, xiii., Origen, Tract xxxv. on S. Matt., say that this thief had first blasphemed Christ with his companion, for SS. Matt. and Mark say in the plural “the thieves reproached Him,” though SS. Augustine, Epiphanius, Anselm and others think, like Suarez, with more probability, the contrary. These think that one of them was called “the thieves” by synecdoche, for S. Luke says that one blasphemed and the other confessed. If one of them blasphemed first, so much the greater miracle that conversion by which he suddenly changed blasphemy into the confession and praise of Christ. This change of the thief was “the right hand of the High One” (Ps. cxviii. 15, 16; dextera Excelsi). It may be asked by what means he was converted. I reply, 1. Outwardly, by the example of the virtues which he discerned in Christ, namely, His singular love, by which he heard Him praying for His enemies, His patience, fortitude, religion, and all virtues. So Theophylact and Euthymius, c. 67, on S. Matt. 2. Inwardly, by the rare and almost miraculous motion and representation of God, by which he knew Christ to be innocent and the King of a higher kingdom and the supreme Lord, in whose power it was to make even a dead man happy; and therefore that He was the Messiah, the Son of God and the Saviour of the world. So S. Leo (Serm. ii. de Pass.): “What exhortation persuaded him to the faith? What teaching instilled it? What preacher kindled it? He had not seen the miracles performed previously; the healing of the sick had ceased; the giving of sight to the blind, the recalling of the dead to life, the things that were about to happen had not taken place yet, and he still confesses Christ to be the Lord, whom he saw to be a partaker of his own suffering. Hence came this gift, hence this faith received its answer.” Observe the above words, “the things that were about to happen had not taken place yet,” for they seem silently to reprove those of S. Jerome, on chap. xxvii. S. Matt., “When the sun disappeared, and the earth was moved, and the rocks were rent, and the darkness rushed down, one thief began to believe and to confess Christ.” This opinion of S. Jerome is stated by S. Chrysostom almost in the same words, in his second Homily “On the Cross and the Thief,” and by Origen, in tract 34 on S. Matt.

But it is wonderful that these Fathers did not see that this assertion was at variance with the Gospel, because, except the darkness, the other signs happened after the death of Christ, as is clear from the gospel of S. Luke, whilst it is plain from the same gospel that the thief was converted whilst Christ was alive; for the cessation of the sun’s light, and the darkness are related by S. Luke after the conversion of the thief. S. Cyril teaches the same as S. Leo (Cat. Lect. xiii.) saying, “What virtue illuminated thee, 0 thief? Who taught thee to love contempt, and that, when thou wast affixed to the cross? 0 light undying, lighting the darkness!” S. Augustine follows out at length the same idea (Serm. xiii. de Temp.); S. Chrysostom (Hom. de Latrone, and Serm. 1 de Cruce et Latrone). Suarez also; who adds that it was possible that the thief, before he was imprisoned, may have heard Christ preach, or have seen His miracles, or heard of them, and, perhaps, have believed in Him. S. Vincentius, in his Sermon on the Good Thief, says, that he was converted by the shadow of Christ, when the sun in its decline, and the shadow of the cross, touched him. So the shadow of S. Peter healed the sick. Acts iii. Others add that the virgin stood in the midst, between the thief and Christ, and obtained this grace for him, and that Christ showed Himself to him when he was dying, his truly crucified, as they who are crucified are shown to the people. Add, that he saw the heavens and the earth darkened, and the day changed into night, because of the Cross and death of its Creator.

The extraordinary holiness of this thief appears from his great faith, hope, and love. Faith by which he believed in Christ as the king of kings, though he saw him as the vilest, of men, nay as a crucified thief. Hope, by which he sought from Christ to be admitted into His kingdom. Love, by which he rebuked the blasphemy of his companion. He openly confessed, and defended the innocence of Christ against the Jews and His most bitter enemies, when all the others, even the Apostles themselves, fled for fear and deserted Him. His confession, therefore, was heroic. S. Greg. (xviii. Moral. chap. 13): “On the cross, the nails fastened his hands and feet, and nothing of him remained free from punishment, but his heart and tongue. God inspired him to offer the whole to Him, of that which he found free in himself, to believe with his heart to righteousness, and to confess with his lips to salvation. In the hearts of the faithful there are, as the Apostle testifies, three chief virtues, faith, hope, and charity, all of which the thief, filled with sudden grace, both received and preserved on the cross.”

S. Augustine (Serm. de Feria 3, Of the Pasch; and Book 1 On the Soul and its Origin, chap. 9): “To this faith I know not what can be added. If they trembled who saw Christ raise the dead, he believed who saw Him hanging with himself on the cross. Assuredly Christ found not so great faith in Israel, nay, in the whole world.” “Before he asked any thing for himself, he laboured to benefit his companion. This was a mark of singular charity.” S. Chrysostom. Some in fact call this thief a martyr, like S. Cyprian in his letter to Fabian, and assert him to have been baptized in His own blood. He repeats the same in his Serms. de Cna and de Passione-where he says, “The thief by his confession on the cross, not only merited indulgence, but was made the companion of Christ, and was sent before Him to Paradise, and made a sharer of His kingdom by confession, and a partner of martyrdom.” S. Augustine refers to these words of S. Cyprian, Lib. i. On the Soul and its Origin, and Lib. iv. On Baptism, chap. 22, where he says, “The thief had no need of baptism or martyrdom, but was saved by his contrition alone.” He had said before “that although the thief did not die for Christ, yet his death was of equal avail with God (because he confessed the Lord crucified) as if he had been crucified for Him, and so the measure of martyrdom was found in him who believed in Christ when they who were to be martyrs fell away.”

S. Augustine again (serm. 120 De Tempore): “The thief was not yet called, but was already an elect-he was not yet of the household, but he was a friend-not a disciple, but a master-and, from a thief, a confessor; for although punishment had commenced in the thief it was perfected in the martyr.” De anima et ejus orig. cap. 9: “The robber ranked as highly for his confession of his crucified Lord as if he had been martyred for Him.” S. Jerome (Ep. 13 to Paulinus). “The thief changed the cross for paradise, and made the punishment of his murder, martyrdom.” Drogo, Bishop of Ostia (Tract. de Sac. Dom. Pass. tom. ii. Bibliothica SS. Patrum), calls him “martyr.” Some assert as a probable reason of his martyrdom, that the Jews hearing his confession of Christ, by which he condemned their deeds and their judgment on Christ, were so stirred up by anger against him as to break his legs, as the Gospel relates, and to make his death more speedy and painful, and in the end to make him a martyr. And S. Hilary (lib. ii. de Trin.) calls him a martyr. “He promised to His martyr paradise-His martyr, that is, His witness, because the thief on the cross bore testimony to his own faith and hope in Christ, or he would not have been properly and precisely a martyr, because he suffered for his own sins, and not for Christ: unless, as I have already suggested, we say that the Jews aggravated and accelerated his death, because of his confession.”

Lastly, the Abbot Arnaldes or Renald (Tract 29 on the Seven words of Christ on the Cross, in the Bibliotheca SS. Patrum), asserts that the thief was carried up into the heavens, and possessed a seat above all angels and above all cherubim and seraphim, even the throne of Lucifer himself. See Stephen Binettus’ Book on the Good Thief, where he calls him “The Archangel of Paradise, the first-born son of the crucified Christ, the martyr, the apostle and preacher of the whole world, who, from his chair of the cross, preached Christ to the whole world.” “Paul,” he said, preached like the cherubim, the thief loved as the seraphim.” Hear now the praises of the fathers of him.

S. Chrysostom (Homily on the Cross and the Thief): “The thief purchased salvation from the tree. This thief stole the heavenly empire, he used compulsion to Majesty.” And below, “We find no one before the thief to have merited the promise of paradise, not Abraham, not Isaac, not Jacob, not Moses, not the Prophets or Apostles, but before all we find the thief.” He then compares the faith of the thief to that of Abraham, Isaac, Ezekiel, Moses, and this because he believed in Him, not in the temple, nor on His throne, nor in His glory, but as He was on the cross and in torments. “He sees Him,” he says, “in torments and adores Him as if He were in glory. He sees Him on the cross and prays to Him as if He were sitting in heaven. He sees Him and he calls upon Him, hailing Him as King of kings, saying, ‘Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom.’ Thou seest one crucified and thou callest Him a King, thou seest Him hanging on a tree and thou thinkest of the kingdoms of the heavens. 0 wonderful conversion of a thief!”

S. Ambrose (serm. 45). “It is the more to his grace and praise that he believed in Christ on the cross; and the suffering which was a scandal to others, availed to him for faith. Rightly then did he purchase paradise who thought the cross of Christ not an offence but a virtue.” And serm. 50: “Let him see His gaping wounds, let him look at His blood gushing out-he still believes Him to be God whom he knew not to be a criminal, he confesses Him to be righteous whom he knew not as a sinner.” And shortly after, “He understood that for the sins of others Christ bore these wounds. He knew that those wounds on the body of Christ were not the wounds of Christ, but of the thief, and he therefore began to love Him more when, on the Body of Christ, he had recognised his own wounds.” Again, “Great and wonderful, indeed, is that faith which believed that Christ crucified was glorified rather than punished. For in this was the form of his whole salvation. He then recognised the Lord of Majesty, when he saw Him crucified with the patience of humility. He went before in devotion, who went before also in reward. For the thief came into paradise before the Apostles.”

Eusebius of Emissa (or whoever was the author, for the style shows that he was a Latin, not a Greek or Syrian like Eusebius) in his Homily “De Latrone beato:” “How singular and how stupendous that devotion. The criminal believed at the very moment when the elect denied. It was more praiseworthy and more admirable in the thief to believe in the Lord when in bonds, and falling under the last punishments, than if he had done so when He was doing mighty works. Not therefore without reason did he merit such a reward.” He adds the cause. “The heart of the thief, I think, who was now a believer in Christ, was illuminated more properly by the Godhead in a bodily form, which had infused Itself more widely at that moment of the consummation of the redemption.” And again, “He did not say, ‘If Thou art God deliver me from this present suffering,’ but his ‘because Thou art God deliver me from the judgment to come,’ shows to the world its judge and the, King of ages. Although punishment began in the thief, it was perfected in a new manner in the martyr.”

This penitent thief, again, is termed by S. Athanasius an evangelist. “0 Thou excellent one! Thou wast crucified as a thief, thou comest forth suddenly as an evangelist.” He is called by S. Chrysostom in his Sermon on Parasc., “a prophet,” that is a preacher and enunciator of the greatness of Christ. “0 the might of Jesus!” he gays, “the thief is now a prophet and preaches from the cross!” He calls him “a robber and seizer of paradise.” “Thou sawest,” He says, “how he did not forget his former craft, even on the cross, but, by his confession, stole the kindom.” So Sedulius (Carm. v. on Pasch):

“Abstulit ipse suis clorum regna rapinis,”

“And he the heavenly kingdom took by force.”

S. Cyril (lib. ii. de Adoratione) and S. P. Damianus (Serm. on the Exaltation of the Holy Cross) calls him the first-fruit of the cross and of believers. Christ is thus pointed out by Drogo: “Thou wert Peter on the cross, and Peter in the house of Caiaphas was the thief,” because he denied Christ, whom the thief on the cross confessed before the people. He is called by S. Cyprian, or whoever is the author of the Sermon de Passione, “The colleague of the martyrdom of Christ.” By Arnold, abbot of Bona Vallis, (tract de verb. Christ): “The comrade” (collateralis) “of Christ, and the forerunner of His victory.” By S. Chrysostom (Homily on the Man Born Blind): “The advocate of Christ, because he defended Him against the Jews, like an advocate.” By Anastasius the Sinaite (lib. v. Hexam.), “The bird of heaven, the great eagle, flying through the air to paradise.” S. Athanasius classes together many eulogies in his aforesaid piece on Parasc:-Among other things he says, “0 thief, fellow soldier of Christ, accuser of the Jews. 0 thief, merchant of the kingdom, keeper of paradise. 0 thief, the garland, as it were, of the cross, making a heaven for thyself. 0 thief, teaching men how to carry off a kingdom as if by theft. 0 thief, the last to come, the first to be crowned. 0 thief, mighty accuser of the Jews. 0 thief, colleague (symmista) of the Apostles, purchaser of Christ!” Hear S. Paulinus in his Panegyric of the youth Celsus: Mror abi! discede pavor! fuge culpa, ruit mors. Vita resurrexit, Christus in astra vocat. Morte mea functus, mihi mortuus, et mihi victor, Ut mors peccati, sit mihi Vita Dei. Denique, servatum jam de cruce, duxit aperto Limite, Latronem, qua Paradisus adest. 1. 0 grief depart: depart, 0 fear: Flee guilt, for death ends all. Life, life has risen; from out the stars I hear my Master call. 2. Death’s debt is paid! I’m dead to self, O’er self I victory win; Be thou the life of God to me, Who art the death of sin. 3. Sav’d by the cross, the contrite thief He led unto the door- The open door of paradise, Open for evermore.

Christ answered S. Bridget when she prayed for a penitent sinner who had no means of confession, in these words: “He laments because he has none to hear his confession; tell him that the will is sufficient. For what benefited the thief on the cross? Was it not his good will? Or what opened heaven to him but his wish to desire good and hate evil? What makes hell but an evil inclination and inordinate concupiscence?” This is found in the sixth book of the Revelations of S. Bridget, chap. 115. See further, T. Reynaud in a learned work he wrote on the change of the thief into an Apostle-where, chap. xvii., he says, “He formed figurative honey by Christian bees, which they gathered from the meadows of the holy thief.”

Ver. 43.-And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, This day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise. That is, in a place of pleasure where thou mayest be in the beatitude and beatific vision of God, i.e. To-day I will make thee for ever happy; I will make thee a king reigning in the kingdom of glory with me this day. So S. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechet. Lect. c. 13); S. Chrysostom (Hom. ii. de Cruce et Latrone); S. Gregory of Nyssa (Serm. on the Resurrection); S. Augustine (Tract. III on John). He explains paradise by heaven, that is celestial beatitude. It is certain that Christ on the day on which He died, did not go up to heaven with the thief, but went down into the Limbus Patrum (S. Augustine Lib. ii. de Genese ad litt. chap. 34; and Maldonatus by paradise here understand Abraham’s bosom), and imparted to them the vision of His Godhead and thus made them blest, changing the order of things; for He then made limbus to be paradise, and the lower parts the upper, so that hell should be heaven. For where Christ is, there is paradise; where, the vision and beatitude of God, there, heaven. For, as to what Euthymius and other Greeks say, denying that the souls of the saints see God before the judgment and are happy: by paradise they understand an earthly place; that to which Enoch was carried. But it cannot be so-for it is of the faith that Christ, shortly after His death went down in infernum-that is, the limbus of the Fathers, but He did not go into any earthly paradise. It is, moreover, uncertain whether, after the Deluge, there be any earthly paradise remaining. But grant that there be such, it is the happy and joyful habitation, not of souls, but of bodies only. Hence it is plain from this passage, against the Greeks, Calvin, and the other innovators, that the souls of the saints, when thoroughly purged from sin, do not sleep till the day of judgment, but there behold God, and are beatified by a vision of Him.

Moraliter. Observe here the liberality of Christ, who exceeds our prayers and vows. The thief only prayed Christ to remember him when He came into His kingdom. Christ at the same time promised him a kingdom, that he might reign in it as a king. “This day,” says Eusebius of Emissa, in his “Homily on the Blessed Thief”-“as if He would say, 0 my faithful companion and one only witness of so great a triumph, dost thou think that I need to be so earnestly entreated to remember thee? this day shalt thou be with Me in paradise.” And again, “Christ when placed in the yoke (patibulum) as an arbiter between the two condemned, rejected him who denied, and received the one who confessed; on the latter He bestows a kingdom, the former He leaves in hell. Let us then believe that He will come to judge, whom we see to have already on the cross exercised judgment.” This is that most sweet answer of Christ to the thief which Fulgentius (serm. nov. 60), calls “the testament of Christ, written with the pen of the cross.”

Lastly, the name of this most blessed thief is said to have been Dismas, for some chapels are found, in the name of “Dismas the Robber.” His day in the Cataloaue of Saints is the 25th March, for on that day he seems to have suffered, and Christ in consequence on the same day. For we find in it, “At Jerusalem, the commemoration of the holy thief who confessed Christ on the cross, and who therefore merited to hear ‘This day shalt thou be with Me in paradise.'”

Ver. 46.-Father, into Thy hands I commend My Spirit. The Arabic has pono, Tertullian depono (cont. Prax. cap. xxv.). The Hebrew word Hiphid means the same as our “commend.” “My Spirit.” S. Athanasius in his work De Human. Nat. cont. Apollin., says, “When Christ said on the cross, Father, into Thy hands I commend My Spirit, He commends all men to the Father, to be, by Him and through Him, restored to life; for we are members, and those many members are one body, which is the Church. He commends therefore all who are in Him to God.” Christ therefore, according to S. Athanasius, calls men His soul and spirit. What then ought we not to do to profit and save souls, that we may keep as it were for Christ, His soul and spirit? So S. Paul to Philemon and Onesimus, “His bowels.” “He gave His life,” says S. Cyril, “into the hands of His Father (Lib. ii on John chap. xxxvi.), that by this and through this, as a beginning, we might have certain hope of this, firmly believing that we shall be in the hands of God after our death.” So Victor Antiochus on S. Mark, “This recommendation of Christ tends to the good of our souls, which, when freed from the bodies previously inhabited by them, He gave by these words, as a kind of deposit, into the hands of the living God.” And Euthymius: “God did this for us, that the souls of the just should not henceforth go down into hell, but should rather ascend to God.” He cites Psa 36:5, when David, afflicted and in danger of death, spoke as much in his own person as in that of Christ and said, “into Thy hands I commend my spirit.” And, from this, the Church daily uses the same Psalm and verse, and sings it in the Compline at night, to teach us, when we retire to rest, to commend our souls to God, because at night we run many risks of sudden death. The dying use the same words, as did S. Nicholas, Louis King of France, and S. Basil. S. Basil did it in the presence of angels, who brought him away; as S. Gregory Nazianzen testifies in his oration on him. S. Stephen also cried, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”

By these words we testify-1. That at our birth we received our souls, not from our father and mother, but from God alone; and that we therefore give Him back the same, as His own creatures. 2. That we believe that our souls do not die at our death, but survive and are immortal, and return to God who gave them and who will judge them. 3. That we believe in the resurrection of the flesh. For in death we commend our souls to God that He may keep them, as it were as a deposit, and restore them again at the resurrection to our bodies. 4. That in the last agony which we undergo, most bitterly, from the devils, we implore the assistance of God, that in giving back our souls to Him, we may overcome and triumph over the devil. Hence many think that each of us has his own peculiar devil, who appears to the dying in some terrible form, and tempts them to despair, and to other sins, as he did to S. Martha and others, but not to all. S. Ephrem seems to think this in his sermon on those who sleep in Christ. S. Chrysostom (Hom. 34 on S. Matt.), and others whom our own Lorinus cites on Eccles viii. 8. Many think the same of Christ. Hence Eusebius (Demonstrat. Lib. iv. cap. ult.) understands Christ’s words, Ps. xxii. 12, “Many strong bulls of Basan have beset me round,” of devils whom Christ saw, mocking Him on the cross as a criminal and wicked, and insulting Him for His crucifixion and impending death. Habakkuk seems to support this idea, Hab 3:5: “Burning coals” (diabolus) went forth at His feet;” and S. John, xiv. 30: “The prince of this world cometh, and he hath nothing in Me.” Christ lays down His Spirit therefore into the hands of God, certain that no one can sever Him from it. For God is a most faithful and strong protector. So S. Jerome on Psalm xxxi. 5, “Into Thy hands I commend my spirit.” That is, “into Thy power.” This example the Church received from Christ, and S. Stephen followed it. The saints when departing, use the same words; as the following: “They commend their souls to the faithful Creator for His good acts;” our Lord said this, when hanging on the cross, commending His Spirit to the hands of the Father as being to receive it again at the resurrection.

Symbolically, Didymus in his Catena on Psalm xxxi. “The spirit is threefold-1. Our thought. 2. Our soul. 3. Our conscience. These three we ought to commend to God.”

And having said thus, He gave up the ghost. The Syriac. “He said this, and ended,” His life, that is. The Arabic, “And when He had said this He gave up His Spirit.” This was a certain sign that He was the Son of God the Father, who was called upon by Him, and that the Father heard the cry of the Son and received His soul. “For when He had said, ‘Father, into Thy hands I commend My Spirit;’ then, at last, He suffered death to come to Him.” Says Euthymius, on Matt. 27: “As certainly knowing that the spirit, placed in His hands as a deposit, the Father would keep securely, and would give back in the resurrection on the third day. Firm in this hope He gladly and with alacrity rendered up His Spirit to the Father.”

Fuente: Cornelius Lapide Commentary

23:1 And {1} the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.

(1) Christ, who is now ready to suffer for the rebellion which we raised in this world, is first of all pronounced guiltless, so that it might appear that he suffered not for his own sins (which were none) but for ours.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

4. Jesus’ first appearance before Pilate 23:1-7 (cf. Matthew 27:2, 11-14; Mark 15:1b-5; John 18:28-38)

Jesus’ trial now moved from its Jewish phase into its Roman phase. [Note: See R. Larry Overstreet, "Roman Law and the Trial of Christ," Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):323-32.] It did not take long for Pilate to determine that Jesus was innocent of any crime worthy of death. Notwithstanding the record stresses how difficult it was for him to convict an innocent man. Pilate normally resided in the provincial capital at Caesarea. He was in Jerusalem because of the Passover season that drew huge crowds and possible civil unrest to the city.

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

The whole body in view is the Sanhedrin. Luke alone recorded their specific charges against Jesus. They accused Him of leading the Jews away from their duty to Rome. This was untrue. Second, they charged Him with teaching the Jews not to pay taxes. This was also untrue (cf. Luk 20:25). Third, they accused Him of claiming to be a king, namely, the Jewish Messiah. This was true (cf. Luk 22:69-70), and it was the only issue about which Pilate showed concern.

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

1

Chapter 25

THE PASSION.

Luk 22:47-71 – Luk 23:1-56

WHILE Jesus kept His sad watch in Gethsemane, treading the winepress alone, His enemies kept theirs in the city. The step of Judas, as he passed out into the night, went verberating within the house of the high priest, and onwards into the palace of Pilate himself, awaking a thousand echoes, as swift messengers flew hither and thither, bearing the hurried summons, calling the rulers and elders from their repose, and marshalling the Roman cohort. Hitherto the powers of darkness have been restrained, and though they have, again and again, attempted the life of Jesus, as if some occult spell were upon them, they could not accomplish their purpose. Far back in the Infancy Herod had sought to kill Him; but though his cold steel reaped a bloody swath in Ramah, it could not touch the Divine Child. The men of Nazareth had sought to hurl Him down the sheer precipice, but He escaped; Jesus had not come into the world to die at Nazareth, thrown off, as by an accident, from a Galilean cliff. He had come to “accomplish His decease,” as the celestials put it upon the mount, “at Jerusalem,” and that too, as He indicated plainly and frequently in His speech, upon a cross. Now, however, the hour of darkness has struck, and the fullness of the time has come. The cross and the Victim both are ready, and Heaven itself consents to the great sacrifice.

Strangely enough the first overture of the “Passion music” is by one of the twelve-as our Evangelist names him, “Judas who was called Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve”. {Luk 22:3} It will be observed that St. Luke puts a parenthesis of forty verses between the actual betrayal and its preliminary stages, so throwing the conception of the plot back to an earlier date than the eve of the Last Supper, and the subsequent narrative is best read in the light of its program. At first sight it would appear as if the part of the betrayer were superfluous, seeing that Jesus came almost daily into the Temple, where He spoke openly, without either reserve or fear. What need could there be for any intermediary to come between the chief priests and the Victim of their hate? Was not His Person familiar to all the Temple officials? And could they not apprehend Him almost at any hour? Yes, but one thing stood in the way, and that was “the fear of the people.” Jesus evidently had an influential following; the popular sympathies were on His side; and had the attack been made upon His during the day, in the thronged streets of the city or in the Temple courts, there would have been, almost to a certainty, a popular rising in His behalf. The arrest must be made “in the absence of the multitude,” {Luk 22:6} which means that they must fall upon Him in one of His quiet hours, and in one of His quiet retreats; it must be a night attack, when the multitudes are asleep. Here, then, is room for the betrayer, who comes at the opportune moment, and offers himself for the despicable task, a task which has made the name of “Judas” a synonym for all that is treacherous and vile. How the base thought could ever have come into the mind of Judas it were hard to tell, but it certainly was not sprung upon him as a surprise. But men lean in the direction of their weakness, and when they fall it is generally on their weakest side, the side on which temptation is the strongest. It was so here. St. John writes him down in a single sentence: “He was a thief, and having the bag, took away what was put therein”. {Joh 12:6} His ruling passion was the love of money, and in the delirium of this fever his hot hands dashed to the ground and broke in pieces the tables of law and equity alike, striking at all the moralities. And between robbing his Master and betraying Him there was no great distance to traverse, especially when conscience lay in a numb stupor, drugged by opiates, these tinctures of silver.

Here, then, is a betrayer ready to their hand. He knows what hour is best, and how to conduct them to His secret retreats. And so Judas “communed” with the chief priests and captains, or he “talked it over with them” as the word means, the secret conference ending in a bargain, as they “covenanted” to give him money. {Luk 22:5} It was a hard and fast bargain; for the word “covenanted” has about it a metallic ring, and opening it out, it lets us see the wordy chaffering, as Judas abates his price to the offer of the high priests, the thirty pieces of silver, which was the market price of an ordinary slave. Not that Judas intended to be a participator in His death, as the sequel of his remorse shows. He probably thought and hoped that his Master would escape, slipping through the meshes they so cunningly had thrown about Him; but having done his part of the covenant, his reward would be sure, for the thirty pieces were already in his possession. Ah, he little dreamed how far-reaching his action would be! That silver key of his would set in motion the ponderous wheel which would not stop until his Master was its Victim, lying all crushed and bleeding beneath it! He only discovered his mistake when, alas! it was too late for remedy. Gladly would he have given back his thirty pieces, aye, and thirty times thirty, to have called back his treacherous “Hail,” but he could not. That “Hail, Master,” had gone beyond his recall, reverberating down the ages and up among the stars, while even its echoes, as they came back to him in painful memories, threw him out of the world an unloved and guilty suicide!

What with the cunning of the high priests and the cold calculations of Judas, whose mind was practiced in weighing chances and providing for contingencies, the plot is laid deeply and well. No detail is omitted: the band of soldiers, who shall put the stamp of officialism upon the procedure, while at the same time they cower the populace and repress any attempt at rescue; the swords and staves, should they have to resort to force; the lanterns and torches, with which to light up the dark hiding-places of the garden; the cords or chains, with which to bind their Prisoner; the kiss, which should be at once the sign of recognition and the signal for the arrest, all are prearranged and provided; while back of these the high priests are keeping their midnight watch, ready for the mock trial, for which the suborned witnesses are even now rehearsing their, parts. Could worldly prudence or malicious skill go farther?

Stealthily as the leopard approaches its victim, the motley crowd enter the garden, coming with muffled steps to take and lead away the Lamb of God. Only the glimmer of their torches gave notice of their approach, and even these burned dull in the intense moonlight. But Jesus needed no audible or visible warning, for He Himself knew just how events were drifting, reading the near future as plainly as the near past; and before they have come in sight He has awoke the three sleeping sentinels with a word which will effectually drive slumber from their eyelids: “Arise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that betrayeth Me”. {Mat 26:46}

It will be seen from this that Jesus could easily have eluded His pursuers had He cared to do so. Even without any appeal to His supernatural powers, He could have withdrawn Himself under cover of the night, and have left the human sleuth-hounds foiled of their prey and vainly baying at the moon. But instead of this, He makes no attempt at flight. He even seeks the glades of Gethsemane, when by simply going elsewhere He might have disconcerted their plot and brought their counsel to naught. And now He yields Himself up to His death, not passively merely, but with the entire and active concurrence of His will. He “offered Himself,” as the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews expresses it, {Heb 9:14} a free-will Offering, a voluntary Sacrifice. He could, as He Himself said, have called legions of angels to His help; but He would not give the signal, though it were no more than one uplifted, look and so He does not refuse even the kiss of treachery; He suffers the hot lips of the traitor to burn His cheeks; and when others would have shaken off the viper into the fire, or have crushed it with the heel of a righteous indignation, Jesus receives patiently the stamp of infamy, His only word being a question of surprise, not at the treachery itself, but at its mode: “Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?” And when for the moment, as St. John tells us, a strange awe fell upon the multitude, and they “went backward and fell to the ground,” Jesus, as it were, called in the outshining glories, masking them with the tired and blood-stained humanity that He wore, so stilling the tremor that was upon His enemies, as He nerved the very hands that should take Him. And again, when they do bind Him, He offers no resistance; but when Peters quick sword flashes from its scabbard, and takes off the right ear of Malchus, the servant of the high priest, and so one of the leaders in the arrest, Jesus asks for the use of His manacled hand-for so we read the “Suffer ye thus far”-and touching the ear, heals it at once. He Himself is willing to be wounded even unto death, but His alone must be the wounds. His enemies must not share His pain, nor must His disciples pass with Him into this temple of His sufferings; and He even stays to ask for them a free parole: “Let these go their way.”

But while for the disciples Jesus has but words of tender rebuke or of prayer, while for Malchus He has a word and a touch of mercy, and while even for Judas He has an endearing epithet, “friend,” for the chief priests, captains, and elders He has severer words. They are the ringleaders, the plotters. All this commotion, this needless parade of hostile strength, these superfluous insults are but the foaming of their rabid frenzy, the blossoming of their malicious hate; and turning to them as they stand gloating in their supercilious scorn, He asks, “Are ye come out, as against a robber, with swords and staves? When I was daily with you in the Temple, ye stretched not forth your hands against Me; but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.” True words, for they who should have been priests of Heaven are in league with hell, willing ministers of the powers of darkness. And this was indeed their hour, but the hour of their victory would prove the hour of their doom.

St. Luke, as do the other Synoptists, omits the preliminary trial before Annas, the ex-high priest, {Joh 18:13} and leads us direct to the palace of Caiaphas, whither they conduct Jesus bound. Instead, however, of pursuing the main narrative, he lingers to gather up the side-lights of the palace-yard, as they cast a lurid light upon the character of Simon. Some time before, Jesus had forewarned him of a coming ordeal, and which He called a Satanic sifting; while only a few hours ago He had prophesied that this night, before the cock should crow twice, Peter would thrice deny Him – a singular prediction, and one which at the time seemed most unlikely, but which proved true to the very letter. After the encounter in the garden, Peter retires from our sight for awhile; but his flight was neither far nor long, for as the procession moves up towards the city, Peter and John follow it as a rear-guard, on to the house of Annas, and now to the house of Caiaphas. We need not repeat the details of the story-how John passed him through the door into the inner court, and how he sat, or “stood,” as St. John puts it, by the charcoal fire, warming himself with the officers and servants. The differing verbs only show the restlessness of the man, which was a life-long characteristic of Peter, but which would be doubly accentuated here, with suspecting eyes focused upon him. Indeed, in the whole scene of the courtyard, as sketched for us in the varying but not discordant narratives of the Evangelists, we may detect the vibrations of constant movement and the ripple-marks of intense excitement.

When challenged the first time, by the maid who kept the door, Peter answered with a sharp, blunt negative: he was not a disciple; he did not even know Him. At the second challenge, by another maid, he replied with an absolute denial, but added to his denial the confirmation of an oath. At the third challenge, by one of the men standing near, he denied as before, but added to his denial both an oath and an anathema. It is rather unfortunate that our version renders it, {Mat 26:74, Mar 14:71} “He began to curse and to swear”; for these words have a peculiarly ill savor, a taste of Billingsgate, which the original words have not. To our ear, “to curse and to swear” are the accomplishments of a loose and a foul tongue, which throws out its fires of passion in profanity, or in coarse obscenities, as it revels in immoralities of speech. The words in the New Testament, however, have meaning altogether different. Here “to swear” means to take an oath, as in our courts of law, or rather to make an affirmation. Even God Himself is spoken of as swearing, as in the song of Zacharias, {Luk 1:73} where He is said to have remembered His holy covenant, “the oath which He sware unto Abraham our father.” Indeed, this form of speech, the oath or affirmation, had come into too general use, as we may see from the paragraph upon oaths in the Sermon on the Mount. {Mat 5:33-37} Jesus here condemned it, it is true, for to Him who was Truth itself our word should be as our bond; but His reference to it shows how prevalent the custom was, even amongst strict legalists and moralists. When, then, Peter “swore,” it does not mean that he suddenly became profane, but simply that he backed up his denial with a solemn affirmation. So, too, with the word “curse”; it has not our modern meaning. Literally rendered, it would be, “He put himself under an anathema,” which “anathema” was the bond or penalty he was willing to pay if his words should not be true. In Act 23:12 we have the cognate word, where the “anathema” was, “They would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.” The “curse” thus was nothing immoral in itself; it was a form of speech even the purest might use, a sort of underlined affirmation.

But though the language of Peter was neither profane nor foul, though in his “oath” and in his “curse” there is nothing for which the purest taste need apologize, yet here was his sin, his grievous sin: he made use of the oath and the curse to back up a deliberate and cowardly lie, even as men today will kiss the book to make Gods Word of truth a cover for perjury. How shall we explain the sad fall of this captain-disciple, who was first and foremost of the Twelve? Were these denials but the “wild and wandering cries” of some delirium? We find that Peters lips did sometimes throw off unreasoning and untimely words, speaking like one in a dream, as he proposed the three tabernacles on the mount, “not knowing what he said.” But this is no delirium, no ecstasy; his mind is clear as the sky overhead, his thought bright and sharp as was his sword just now. No, it was not a failure in the reason; it was a sadder failure in the heart. Of physical courage Simon had an abundance, but he was somewhat deficient in moral courage. His surname “Peter” was as yet but a fore-name, a prophecy; for the “rock” granite was yet in a state of flux, pliant, somewhat wavering, and too easily impressed. It must “be dipped in baths of hissing tears” ere it hardens into the foundation-rock for the new temple. In the garden he was too ready, too brave. “Shall we smite with the sword?” he asked, matching the “we,” which numbered two swords, against a whole Roman cohort; but that was in the presence of his Master, and in the consciousness of strength which that Presence gave. It is different now. His Master is Himself a bound and helpless Prisoner. His own sword is taken from him, or, which is the same thing, it is ordered to its sheath. The bright dream of temporal sovereignty, which like a beautiful mirage had played on the horizon of his thought, had suddenly faded, withdrawing itself into the darkness. Simon is disappointed, perplexed, bewildered, and with hopes shattered, faith stunned, and love itself in a momentary conflict with self-love, he loses heart and becomes demoralized, his better nature falling to pieces like a routed army.

Such were the conditions of Peters denial, the strain and pressure under which his courage and his faith gave way, and almost before he knew it he had thrice denied his Lord, tossing away the Christ he would die for on his bold, impetuous words, as, with a tinge of disrespect in his tone and word, he called Him “the Man.” But hardly had the denial been made and the anathema been said when suddenly the cock crew. It was but the familiar call of an unwitting bird, but it smote upon Peters ear like a near clap of thunder; it brought to his mind those words of his Master, which he had thought were uncertain parable, but which he finds now were certain prophecy, and thus let in a rush of sweet, old-time memories. Conscience-stricken, and with a load of terrible guilt pressing upon his soul, he looks up timidly towards the Lord he has forsworn. Will He deny him, on one of His bitter “woes” casting him down to the Gehenna he deserves? No; Jesus looks upon Peter; nay, He even “turns” round toward him, that He may look; and as Peter saw that look, the face all streaked with blood and lined with an unutterable anguish, when he felt that glance fixed upon him of an upbraiding, but a pitying and forgiving love, that look of Jesus pierced the inmost soul of the denying, agnostic disciple, breaking up the fountains of his heart, and sending him out to weep “bitterly.” That look was the supreme moment in Peters life. It forgave, while it rebuked him; it passed through his nature like refining fire, burning out what was weak, and selfish, and sordid, and transforming Simon, the boaster, the man of words, into Peter, the man of deeds, the man of “rock.”

But if in the outer court truth is thrown to the winds, within the palace justice herself is parodied. It would seem as if the first interview of Caiaphas with Jesus were private, or in the presence at most of a few personal attendants. But at this meeting, as the High Priest of the New was arraigned before the high priest of the Old Dispensation, nothing was elicited. Questioned as to His disciples and as to His doctrine, Jesus maintained a dignified silence, only speaking to remind His pseudo-judge that there were certain rules of procedure with which he himself was bound to comply. He would not enlighten him; what He had said He had said openly, in the Temple; and if he wished to know he must appeal to those who heard Him, he must call his witnesses; an answer which brought Him a sharp and cruel blow from one of the officers, the first of a sad rain of blows which bruised His flesh and made His visage marred more than any mans.

The private interview ended, the doors were thrown open to the mixed company of chief priests, elders, and scribes, probably the same as had witnessed the arrest, with others of the council who had been hastily summoned, and who were known to be avowedly hostile to Jesus. It certainly was not a properly constituted tribunal, a council of the Sanhedrim, which alone had the power to adjudicate on questions purely religious. It was rather a packed jury, a Star Chamber of self-appointed assessors. With the exception that witnesses were called (and even these were “false,” with discrepant stories which neutralized their testimony and made it valueless), the whole proceedings were a hurried travesty of justice, unconstitutional, and so illegal. But such was the virulent hate of the hierarchy of the Temple, they were prepared to break through all legalities to gain their end; yea, they would even have broken the tables of the law themselves, if they might only have stoned the Nazarene with the fragments, and then have buried Him under the rude cairn. The only testimony they could find was that He had said He would destroy the temple made with hands, and in three days build another made without; {Mar 14:58} and even in this the statements of the two witnesses did not agree, while both were garbled misrepresentations of the truth.

Hitherto Jesus had remained silent, and when Caiaphas sprang from his seat, asking, “Answerest Thou nothing?” seeking to extract some broken speech by the pressure of an imperious mien and browbeating words, Jesus answered by a majestic silence. Why should He cast His pearls before these swine, who were even now turning upon Him to rend Him? But when the high priest asked, “Art Thou the Christ?” Jesus replied, “If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I ask you, ye will not answer. But from henceforth shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power of God”; thus anticipating His enthronement far above all principalities and powers, in His eternal reign. The words “Son of man” struck with loud vibrations upon the ears of His enraged jurors, suggesting the antithesis, and immediately all speak at once, as they clamor, “Art Thou, then, the Son of God?” a question which Caiaphas repeats as an adjuration, and which Jesus answers with a brief, calm, “Ye say that I am.” It was a Divine confession, at once the confession of His Messiah-ship and a confession of His Divinity. It was all that His enemies wanted; there was no need of further witnesses, and Caiaphas rent his clothes and asked his echoes of what the blasphemer was worthy? And opening their clenched teeth, his echoes shouted, “Death!”

The lingering dawn had not broken when the high priest and his barking hounds had run their Prey down to death-that is, as far as they were allowed to go; and as the meeting of the full council could not be held till the broad daylight, the men who have Jesus in charge extemporize a little interlude of their own. Setting Jesus in the midst, they mock Him, and make sport of Him, heaping upon that Face, still streaked with its sweat of blood, all the indignities a malign ingenuity can suggest. Now they “cover His face,” {Mar 14:65} throwing around it one of their loose robes; now they “blindfold” Him, and then strike “Him on the face,” {Luk 22:64} as they derisively ask that He will prophecy who smote Him; while, again, they “spit in His face,” {Mat 26:67} besmearing it with the venom of unclean, hissing lips! And amid it all the patient Sufferer answers not a word; He is silent, dumb, the Lamb before His shearers.

Soon as the day had fairly broke, the Sanhedrists, with the chief priests, meet in full council, to give effect to the decision of the earlier conclave; and since it is not in their power to do morel they determine to hand Jesus over to the secular power, going to Pilate in a body, thus giving their informal endorsement to the demand for His death. So now the scene shifts from the palace of Caiaphas to the Praetorium, a short distance as measured by the linear scale, but a far remove if we gauge thought or if we consider climatic influences. The palace of Caiaphas lay toward the Orient; the Praetorium was a growth of the Occident, a bit of Western life transplanted to the once fruitful, but now sterile East. Within the palace the air was close and moldy; thought could not breathe, and religion was little more than a mummy, tightly bound by the grave-clothes of tradition, and all scented with old-time cosmetics. Within the Praetorium the atmosphere was at least freer; there was more room to breathe: for Rome was a sort of libertine in religion, finding room within her Pantheon for all the deities of this and almost any other world. In matters of religion the Roman power was perfectly indifferent, her only policy the policy of laissez faire; and when Pilate first saw Jesus and His crowd of accusers he sought to dismiss them at once, remitting Him to be judged “according to your law,” putting, doubtless, an inflection of contempt upon the “your.” It was not until they had shifted the charge altogether, making it one of sedition instead of blasphemy, as they accuse Jesus of “perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar,” that Pilate took the case seriously in hand. But from the first his sympathies evidently were with the strange and lonely Prophet.

Left comparatively alone with Pilate-for the crowd would not risk the defilement of the Praetorium-Jesus still maintained a dignified reserve and silence, not even speaking to Pilates question of surprise, “Answerest Thou nothing?” Jesus would speak no word in self-defense, not even to take out the twist His accusers had put into His words, as they distorted their meaning. When, however, He was questioned as to His mission and Royalty He spoke directly, as He had spoken before to Caiaphas, not, however, claiming to be King of the Jews, as His enemies asserted, but Lord of a kingdom which was not of this world; that is, not like earthly empires, whose bounds are mountains and seas, and whose thrones rest upon pillars of steel, the carnal weapons which first upbuild, and then support them. He was a King indeed; but His realm was the wide realm of mind and heart; His was a kingdom in which love was law, and love was force, a kingdom which had no limitations of speech, and no bounds, either of time or space.

Pilate was perplexed and awed. Governor though he was, he mentally did homage before the strange Imperator whose nature was imperial, whatever His realm might be. “I find no fault in this Man,” he said, attesting the innocence he had discovered in the mien and tones of his Prisoner; but his attestation only awoke a fiercer cry from the chief priests, “that He was a seditious person, stirring up the people, and preparing insurrection even from Galilee to Jerusalem.” The word Galilee caught Pilates ear, and at once suggested a plan that would shift the responsibility from himself. He would change the venue from Judaea to Galilee; and since the Prisoner was a Galilean, he would send Him to the Tetrarch of Galilee, Herod, who happened to be in Jerusalem at the time. It was the stratagem of a wavering mind, of a man whose courage was not equal to his convictions, of a man with a double purpose. He would like to save his Prisoner, but he must save himself; and when the two purposes came into collision, as they did soon, the “might” of a timid desire had to give way to the “must” of a prudential necessity; the Christ was pushed aside and nailed to a cross, that Self might survive and reign. And so “Pilate sent Him to Herod.”

Herod was proud to have this deference shown him in Jerusalem, and by his rival, too, and “exceeding glad” that, by a caprice of fortune, his long-cherished desire, which had been baffled hitherto, of seeing the Prophet of Galilee, should be realized. He found it, however, a disappointing and barren interview; for Jesus would work no miracle, as he had hoped; He would not even speak. To all the questions and threats of Herod, Jesus maintained a rigid and almost scornful silence; and though to Pilate He had spoken at some length, Jesus would have no intercourse with the murderer of the Baptist. Herod had silenced the Voice of the wilderness; he should not hear the Incarnate Word. Jesus thus set Herod at naught, counting him as a nothing, ignoring him purposely and utterly; and stung with rage that his authority should be thus contemned before the chief priests and scribes, Herod set his Victim “at naught,” mocking Him in coarse banter; and as if the whole proceeding were but a farce, a bit of comedy, he invests Him with one of his glittering robes, and sends the Prophet-King back to Pilate.

For a brief space Jesus finds shelter by the judgment-seat, removed from the presence of His accusers, though still within hearing of their cries, as Pilate himself keeps the wolves at bay. Intensely desirous of acquitting his Prisoner, he leaves the seat of judgment to become His advocate. He appeals to their sense of justice; that Jesus is entirely innocent of any crime or fault. They reply that according to their law He ought to die, because He called Himself the “Son of God.” He appeals to their custom of having some prisoner released at this feast, and he suggests that it would be a personal favor if they would permit him to release Jesus. They answer, “Not this man, but Barabbas.” He offers to meet them half-way, in a sort of compromise, and out of deference to their wishes he will chastise Jesus if they will consent to let Him go; but it is not chastisement they want-they themselves could have done that-but death. He appeals to their pity, leading Jesus forth, wearing the purple robe, as if to ask, “Is it not enough already?” but they cry even more fiercely for His death. Then he yields so far to their clamor as to deliver up Jesus to be mocked and scourged, as the soldiers play at “royalty,” arrayed Him in the purple robe, putting a reed in His hand as a mock scepter, and a crown of thorns upon His head, then turning to smite Him on the head, to spit in His face, and to kneel before Him in mock homage, saluting Him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And Pilate allows all this, himself leading Jesus forth in this mock array, as he bids the crowd, “Behold your King!” And why? Has He experienced such a revulsion of feeling towards his Prisoner that he can now vie with the chief priests in his coarse insult of Jesus? Not so; but it is Pilates last appeal. It is a sop thrown out to the mob, in hopes that it may slake their terrible blood-thirst, a sacrifice of pain and shame which may perhaps prevent the greater sacrifice of life; while at the same time it is an ocular demonstration of the incongruity of their charge; for His Kingship, whatever it might be, was nothing the Roman power had to fear; it was not even to be taken in a serious way; it was a matter for ridicule, and not for revenge, something they could easily afford to play with. But this last appeal was futile as the others had been, and the crowd only became more fierce as they saw in Pilate traces of weakening and wavering. At last the courage of Pilate breaks down utterly before the threat that he will not be Caesars friend if he let this man go, and he delivers up Jesus to their will, not, however, before he has called for water, and by a symbolic washing of his hands has thrown back, or tried to throw back, upon his accusers, the crime of shedding innocent blood. Weak, wavering Pilate-

“Making his high place the lawless perch Of winged ambitions”;

overriden by his fears; governor, but governed by his subjects; sitting on the judgment-seat, and then abdicating his position of judge; the personification of law, and condemning the Innocent contrary to the law; giving up to the extremest penalty and punishment One whom he has thrice proclaimed as guiltless, without fault, and that too, in the face of a Heaven-sent warning dreamt In the wild inrush of his fears, which swept over him like an in-breaking sea, his own weak will was borne down, and reason, right, conscience, all were drowned. Verily Pilate washes his hands in vain; he cannot wipe off his responsibility or wipe out the deep stains of blood.

And now we come to the last act of the strange drama, which the four Evangelists give from their different stand-points, and so with varying but not differing details. We will read it mainly from the narrative of St. Luke. The shadow of the cross has long been a vivid conception of His mind, and again and again we can see its reflection in the current of His clear speech; now, however, it is present to His sight, close at hand, a grim and terrible reality. It is laid upon the shoulder of the Sufferer, and the Victim carries His altar through the streets of the city and up towards the Mount of Sacrifice, until He faints beneath the burden, when the precious load is laid upon Simon the Cyrenian, who, coming out of the country, met the procession as it issued from the gate. It was probably during this halt by the way that the incident occurred, related only by our Evangelist, when the women who followed with the multitude broke out into loud lamentation and weeping, the first expression of human sympathy Jesus has received through all the agonies of the long morning. And even this sympathy He gave back to those who proffered it, bidding these “daughters of Jerusalem” weep not for Him, but for themselves and for their children, because of the day of doom which was fast coming upon their city and on them. Thus Jesus pushes from Him the cup of human sympathy, as afterwards He refused the cup of mingled wine and myrrh: He would drink the bitter draught unsweetened; alone and all unaided He would wrestle with death, and conquer.

It is somewhat singular that none of the Evangelists have left us a clue by which we can recognize, with any certainty, the scene of the Crucifixion. In our thoughts and in our songs Calvary is a mount, towering high among the mounts of God, higher than Sinai itself. And such it is, potentially; for it has the sweep of all the earth, and touches heaven. But the Scriptures do not call it a “mount,” but only a “place.” Indeed, the name of “Calvary” does not appear in Scripture, except as the Latin translation of the Greek “Kranion,” or the Hebrew “Golgotha,” both of which mean “the place of the skull.” All that we can safely say is that it was probably some rounded eminence, as the name would indicate, and as modern explorations would suggest, on the north of the city, near the tomb of Jeremiah.

But if the site of the cross is only given us in a casual way, its position is noted by all the Evangelists with exactness. It was between the crosses of two malefactors or bandits; as St. John puts it, in an emphatic, Divine tautology, “On either side one, and Jesus in the midst.” Possibly they intended it as their last insult, heaping shame upon shame; but unwittingly they only fulfilled the Scripture, Which had prophesied that He would be “numbered among the transgressors,” and that He would make His grave “with the wicked” in His death.

St. Luke omits several details, which St. John, who was an eye-witness, could give more fully; but he stays to speak of the parting of His raiment, and he adds, what the others omit, the prayer for His executioners, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do,” an incident he probably had heard from one of the band of crucifiers, perhaps the centurion himself.

With a true artistic skill, however, and with brief touches, he draws for us the scene on which all ages will reverently gaze. In the foreground is the cross of Jesus, with its trilingual superscription, “This is the King of the Jews”; while close beside it are the crosses of the thieves, whose very faces St. Luke lights up with life and character. Standing near are the soldiers, relieving the ennui with cruel sport, as they rail at the Christ, offering Him vinegar, and bidding Him come down. Then we have the rulers, crowding up near the cross, scoffing, and pelting their Victim with ribald jests, the “people” standing back, beholding; while “afar off,” in the distance, are His acquaintance and the women from Galilee. But if our Evangelist touches these incidents lightly, he lingers to give us one scene of the cross in full, which the other Evangelists omit. Has Jesus found an advocate in Pilate? Has He found a cross-bearer in the Cyrenian, and sympathizers in the lamenting women? He finds now upon His cross a testimony to His Messiahship more clear and more eloquent than the hieroglyphs of Pilate; for when one of the thieves railed upon Him, shouting out “Christ” in mockery, Jesus made no reply. The other answered for Him, rebuking his fellow, while attesting the innocence of Jesus. Then, with a prayer in which penitence and faith were strangely blended, he turned to the Divine Victim and said, “Jesus, remember me when Thou comest in Thy kingdom.” Rare faith! Through the tears of his penitence, as through lenses of light, he sees the new Dawn to which this fearful night will give birth, the kingdom, which is sure to come, and which, coming, will abide, and he salutes the dying One as Christ, the King! Jesus did not reply to the railer; He received in silence his barbed taunts; but to this cry for mercy Jesus had a quick response – “Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise,” so admitting the penitent into His kingdom at once, and, ere the day is spent, passing him up to the abodes of the Blessed, even to Paradise itself.

And now there comes the hush of a great silence and the awe of a strange darkness. From the sixth to the ninth hour, over the cross, and the city, and the land, hung the shadow of an untimely night, when the “suns light failed,” as our Evangelist puts it; while in the Temple was another portent, the veil, which was suspended between the Holy Place and the Most Holy, being rent in the midst! The mysterious darkness was but the pall for a mysterious death; for Jesus cried with a loud voice into the gloom, “Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit,” and then, as it reads in language which is not applied to mortal man, “He gave up the ghost.” He dismissed His spirit, a perfectly voluntary Sacrifice, laying down the life which no man was able to take from Him.

And why? What meant this death, which was at once the end and the crown of His life? What meant the cross, which thus draws to itself all the lines of His earthly life, while it throws its shadow back into the Old Dispensation, over all its altars and its passovers? To other mortals death is but an appendix to the life, a negation, a something we could dispense with, were it possible thus to be exempt from the bond we all must pay to Nature. But not so was it with Jesus. He was born that He might die; He lived that He might die; it was for this hour on Calvary that He came into the world, the Word being made flesh, that the sacred flesh might be transfixed to a cross, and buried in an earthly grave. Surely, then, it was not as man that Jesus died; He died for man; He died as the Son of God! And when upon the cross the horror of a great darkness fell upon His soul, and He who had borne every torture that earth could inflict without one murmur of impatience or cry of pain, cried, with a terrible anguish in His voice, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” we can interpret the great horror and the strange cry but in one way: the Lamb of God was bearing away the sin of the world; He was tasting for man the bitter pains of the second death; and as He drinks the cup of the wrath of God against sin He feels passing over Him the awful loneliness of a soul bereft of God, the chill of the “outer darkness” itself. Jesus lived as our Example; He died as our Atonement, opening by His blood the Holiest of all, even His highest heaven.

And so the cross of Jesus must ever remain “in the midst,” the one bright center of all our hopes and all our songs; it must be “in the midst” of our toil, at once our pattern of service and our inspiration. Nay, the cross of Jesus will be “in the midst” of heaven itself, the center towards which the circles of redeemed saints will bow, and round which the ceaseless “Alleluia” will roll; for what is “the Lamb in the midst of the throne” {Rev 7:17} but the cross transfigured, and the Lamb eternally enthroned?

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary