Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - John 19:1 - 19:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jesus is Scourged and Mocked by the Soldiers (19:1-5). Pilate Makes Another Unavailing Attempt to Save Him (vv. 6, 7)
19:1. Pilate went back into the palace, where Jesus was, and ordered Him to be scourged, in the hope (apparently) that this sufficiently terrible punishment would satisfy the chief priests (cf. Luk_23:16). Mar_15:15, Mat_27:26 connect the scourging and the mock coronation with the death sentence (see on v. 16 below), but Jn.’s narrative is very explicit and is to be followed here. The “Pillar of the Scourging” is now shown in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, but in the fourth century it was shown to the Bordeaux Pilgrim in the traditional house of Caiaphas. The original pillar to which the Lord was bound was, no doubt, inside the Præ Cf. Mat_20:19, Luk_18:33.
2. In the account of the mockery of Jesus by the soldiers of Pilate, Jn. follows Mar_15:17, or, at any rate, uses phrases which recall Mk. There is no probability that he uses Mt. Luk_23:11 ascribes this cruel indignity to the soldiers of Herod. The soldiers were amused by the idea that the poor prisoner claimed to be a king, and their rough jests were directed rather against the Jews than against Jesus personally. “This, then, is the King of the Jews!”
πέατςσέαο ἐ ἀαθν Verbally identical with Mat_27:28; Mar_15:17 has πέατςἀάθννσέαο. Lk. does not mention the mock coronation. Pseudo-Peter (§3) attributes the jest to an individual; τςατνἐεκνσέαο ἀάθννἔηε ἐὶτςκφλςτῦκρο.
The soldiers plaited the twigs of some thorny plant into a crown or wreath (cf. ὁσέαο …ὁπεες Isa_28:5).
ἐέηα ατῦτ κφλ. This phrase, too, might be thought to come from Mat_27:29 ἐέηα ἐὶτνκφλνατῦ for Mar_15:17 has only πρτθαι ατ. But Jn. says nothing of the mock sceptre which Mt. mentions, a detail which is not in Mk. It would be precarious to infer that Jn. is using Mt.’s narrative.
κὶἱάινπρυονπρέαο ατν This is reminiscent of Mar_15:17, ἐδοσνατνπρύα, rather than of Mat_27:28 or Luk_23:11 (where, however, we find πρβλνατνἐθτ λμρν The substitute for the regal purple (cf. 1 Macc. 8:14, etc.) may have been the scarlet cloak of one of the legionaries (χαύακκίη, Mat_27:28). Jesus had first been stripped of His own outer clothing (ἐδσνε ατν Mat_27:28). For ἱάιν see on v. 23.
3. κὶἤχνοπὸ ατν This clause is omitted in the rec. text, following ADsuppΓ, but is retained in אΘ It is descriptive of the soldiers approaching Jesus with mock reverence. Philo has a story of the mock coronation of a halfwitted man called Carabas by the mob at Alexandria, which illustrates this. “They approached, some as if to salute him, others as if pleading a cause, others as though making petition about public matters” (in Flacc. 6).
κὶἔεο χῖε ὁβσλὺ τνἸυαω. This is verbally identical with the pretended salutation as given in Mat_27:29. The soldiers cried Ave! as they would to Cæ The art. ὁbefore βσλὺ τ Ἰ suggests their derision.
κὶἐίοα ατ ῥπσαα “They slapped Him” with the palms of their hands. See on 18:22 for ῥπσα ἐίοα (א is to be preferred to the rec. ἐίον(ADsuppΓΘ They gave Him some slaps in the face, during their cruel horse-play, but this was not a continuous form of insult, like the shouting of Ave.
4. Pilate had gone into the Præ to order the scourging, and he now comes out again to make another appeal to the pity of the Jews The exact reading is not certain. ABL give κὶἐῆθν אΓomit κί and NWΘhave ἐῆθνον(as at 18:29: see 18:38 and cf. v. 5).
Pilate says to the Jews that He is bringing Jesus out to them, that they may understand that, as he said before (18:38), he can find no fault in Him. Up to this Jesus had been inside the Præ and the scourging and mockery were probably not visible to the waiting Jews.
Ἴε a favourite word in Jn.; see on 1:29.
ὅιοδμα ατα ερσωἐ ατ. א has the shorter form ὅιατα οκερσω The phrase has occurred 18:38, and appears again 19:6, in slightly different forms.
5. Jesus was brought out, no doubt weak and faint after the scourging, still wearing the mocking insignia of royalty. These He probably continued to wear until He was brought out for the last time for formal sentence (v. 15; cf. Mat_27:31).
φρν This is the regular word for “wearing” clothes; cf. Mat_11:8, Jam_2:3.
κὶλγιατῖ (sc. Pilate) Ἰο ὁἄθωο. For ἰο (א the rec. has Jn.’s favourite ἴε(cf. vv. 4, 14). In this verse B omits ὁbefore Ἰσῦ (see on 1:29), and also before ἄθωο (cf. Zec_6:12 ἰο ἀή, referring to “the Man whose name is the Branch,” the future Builder of the Temple). For Ἰσῦ N has Πιᾶο by mistake.
Ἰο ὁἄθωο, Ecce homo! This, on Pilate’s lips, meant, “See the poor fellow!” ὁἄθωο, expressing pity. This is a classical use (cf. Dem. de falsa leg. 402, §198, and Meid. 543, §91); see also Mat_26:74. Pilate thought to move the priests to compassion by exhibiting Jesus to them, who had been scourged by his orders, and whom the soldiers had treated as an object of mockery and rude jesting.
Jn. may mean to represent Pilate, like Caiaphas (11:51), as an unconscious prophet, his words, “Behold the Man!” pointing to the Ideal Man of all succeeding Christian generations. Abbott (Diat. 1960c) recalls some passages from Epictetus, in which ὁἄθωο is thus used of the ideal of humanity. But such an interpretation of Pilate’s famous words is probably a Christian afterthought.
The whole clause λγι…ἄθωο is omitted in the O.L. texts a e ff2 r, and also by the Coptic Q, an interesting combination.
6. ὅεονἴο ατνο ἀχεεςκλ The common people are not mentioned; the chief priests were the important persons whom Pilate wished to move from their purpose. But the sight of Jesus only angered them; and they, with their satellites (ο ὑηέα), raised the shout of “Crucify!” It has been implied throughout that this was the death which they had designed for Jesus, but the word σαρσνis used now for the first time. Cf. Mat_27:22.
For ἴο (א the rec. with BΘhas εδν After ἐρύαα (cf. 18:40), the rec. adds λγνε with ABDsuppNWΘ(cf. 7:37); but om. א Again, after σαρσνbis אΘadd ατν(as at v. 15); but om. BL.
Λβτ ατνὑεςκίκλ “Take Him yourselves, etc.” Pilate repeats this suggestion, which had disconcerted the priests when he made it before (18:31, where see note). He now adds “and crucify Him,” although he and they both knew that the Sanhedrim could not legally do this. He also says for the third time that he can find no just cause for a death sentence (cf. 18:38 and v. 4). Jn., like Lk. (23:4, 14, 22), is careful to record that Pilate three times affirmed his conviction of Jesus’ innocence.
7. The chief priests, however, make an unexpected rejoinder. They tell Pilate that, according to Jewish law, Jesus ought to be put to death as a blasphemer, and they warn him by implication that he must not set aside their law in such a matter. It was the Roman practice to respect the laws and customs of Judæ as of other distant provinces of the empire; and of this the accusers of Jesus remind Pilate.
Ἡεςνμνἔοε, viz. Lev_24:16, which enacted that a blasphemer should be stoned to death. The chief priests knew that this could not be put into operation (see on 18:31). In any case, the witnesses had to cast the first stone (Deu_17:7), and those who bore witness as to the blasphemy of Jesus were not in agreement with each other (Mar_14:56). The Sanhedrim, therefore, were content, in this particular case, that the responsibility lay with Pilate.
κτ τννμν(the rec. adds ἡῶ with AΓΘ but om. אΔ ὀελιἀοαεν For the verb ὀελι, see on 13:14.
ὅιυὸ θο ἑυὸ ἐοηε. This charge was better founded than the charge of treason, alleged to be inherent in Jesus’ claim to be a king. “Son of God” was a recognised title of Messiah (see on 1:34); and in his examination before the chief priests Jesus had admitted that He was the Messiah (Mar_14:62, Mat_26:64, Luk_22:70, in the last passage the phrase ὁυὸ τῦθο. being explicitly used). But He had been suspected of, and charged with, blasphemy on several occasions before this, according to Jn. See 5:18, 10:33, 36. To the question τν σατνσ πιῖ; (8:53), the Jews had good ground for believing that υὸ θο would be His answer.
The omission of the def. articles in υὸ θο is probably due to the tendency to drop the article before familiar titles rather than to the phrase being used in any sense less exalted than the highest, as may be the case at Mat_14:33. But in this, the Messianic sense, Pilate could not have understood it, any more than the centurion at the Cross (Mat_27:54). It must have suggested to Pilate a vague, mysterious claim on the part of Jesus to be more than human; and hearing of it awakened in his mind a superstitious fear. υὸ θο is frequently used in inscriptions as a title of the Emperor.1
The Second Examination of Jesus by Pilate (vv. 8-11)
8. ὅεονἤοσνὁΠιᾶο τῦο τνλγνκλ Observe that ἀοενfollowed by the acc. does not connote an intelligent hearing (see on 3:8); as Abbott says (Diat. 2586), “the hearing does not produce (upon Pilate) any result beyond emotion.”
μλο ἐοήη “he was more alarmed than he had been before” (see on 18:39).
9. The first questioning of Jesus by Pilate has been described, 18:33-38.
κὶεσλε εςτ πατρο πλν cf. 18:33.
Pilate’s question, Πθνε σ; is no formal interrogatory as to the birthplace or domicile of Jesus. He had learnt already that He was of Galilee (Luk_23:6, Luk_23:7). But Pilate has been moved by the dignified bearing of the prisoner, and is uneasy because of the strange claim which He was said to have made for Himself, that He was υὸ θο (v. 7). The question recalls the similar question Σ τςε; which was put by the Jews who were impressed, despite their incredulity, by His words (8:25).
ὁδ Ἰ. ἀόρσν(cf. 1:22, Luk_2:47, Luk_20:26) οκἔωε ατ. The silence of Jesus under cross-examination is mentioned in all the Gospels. Mar_14:61, Mat_26:63 note His silence before the high priest; Luk_23:9 says that He did not answer Herod at all; Mar_15:5, Mat_27:14 state that He would not reply to the accusations which the Sanhedrim put before Pilate; and in the present passage His silence is irritating to the dignity of Pilate, who in this repeated inquiry was trying to elicit something that would save Him. Salmon suggested1 that the silence of Jesus is sufficiently explained by bodily fatigue and exhaustion; and so far as this last examination by Pilate is concerned, it may well be that His exhaustion after being scourged was such that speech was difficult for Him. After the scourging Jn. ascribes only one sentence to Jesus (v. 11) before He was crucified. But bodily fatigue would not, by itself, explain His silence when cross-examined by the high priest (Mar_14:61) or before Herod (Luk_23:9); and His refusal to answer questions which were not asked in sincerity, but out of mere curiosity or with intent to betray Him into some dangerous admission, is explicable on moral grounds. Indeed, the dignity of His silence before His accusers does not need exposition. He was moving to a predestined end, and He knew it.
Many commentators, following Chrysostom and Augustine, find in the silence of Jesus before His judges a fulfilment of Isa_53:7.
10. Pilate’s dignity is offended by receiving no answer to his question. The silence of Jesus amounts to contempt of court. Ἐο ο λλῖ; “Do you not speak to me?” ἐο being placed first for emphasis. “I have power (ἐοσα to release you, and I have power to crucify you” (the rec. text interchanges the order of these clauses).
ἐοσα(see on 1:12) is “authority,” rather than “power.” Pilate had both, but he is reminded by Jesus that his authority, like all human authority, is delegated; its source is Divine, and therefore it is not arbitrary power which can be exercised capriciously without moral blame.
11. ἀερ ατ Ἰσῦ. ANΓΘom. ατ, which is retained by א and אΘins. ὁbefore Ἰς but om. BDsupp. Cf. for similar variants, 18:34.
Οκεχςἐοσα κλ So BWΓΘ but א have ἔες
ε μ ἦ δδμννσιἄωε. This doctrine of authority is expressed by Paul in other words (Rom_13:1, Rom_13:2). For ἄωε, see on 3:3. It must mean “from God”; the suggestion that it means “from the ecclesiastical authority” is untenable. Pilate’s ἐοσαwas not, in fact, delegated to him by the Sanhedrim.
ὁπρδύ μ σικλ So אΔ; the rec., with ADsuppLNW, has πρδδύ. Judas is repeatedly described in Jn. as the person who was to deliver Jesus up (cf. 6:64, 71, 12:4, 13:2, 21, 18:2, 5), but he is not indicated in this passage. He did not deliver Jesus up to Pilate; and he disappears from the Johannine narrative after the scene of the betrayal in the garden (18:5). In Mat_27:3f. he is represented as repenting, after the priests brought Jesus before Pilate; but the other evangelists say nothing as to this. It is remarkable that it is not told anywhere that Judas bore “witness” to what Jesus had said or done. His part was finished when he identified Jesus at Gethsemane.
Those who delivered Jesus to Pilate were the members of the Sanhedrim (18:30, 35; cf. Mat_27:2, Act_3:13), with Caiaphas as their official chief. ὁπρδύ μ σιis Caiaphas, as representing those who were ultimately responsible for the guilt of putting Jesus to death.
μίοαἁατα ἔε. These words are commonly taken to mean “has greater sin” than you; i.e. that Caiaphas was more guilty than Pilate; and this was, no doubt, true. But such an interpretation will not suit the context, or explain δὰτῦοat the beginning of the sentence. “Your power and authority are delegated to you from God, therefore Caiaphas, who brought me before you for sentence, is more guilty than you.” That is not easy to understand; for the ἐοσαof Caiaphas was a trust from God, equally with that of Pilate. Wetstein suggested a better explanation: “Your power and authority are delegated to you from God, therefore Caiaphas is more guilty than he would be if you were only an irresponsible executioner, for he has used this God-given authority of yours to further his own wicked projects.” μίοαἁατα ἔε, “he has greater sin,” not than you (which is not in question), but than he would have had if Pilate had not been a power ordained of God. “Therefore his sin is the greater” is the meaning.
For the Johannine phrase ἔενἁατα, cf. 9:41.
Pilate Again Fails to Obtain the Consent of the Jews to Acquit Jesus; And Pronounces the Formal Sentence of Death by Crucifixion (vv. 12-16)
12. ἐ τύο, “thenceforth.” See on 6:66.
ο δ Ἰυαο ἐρύαα λγνε κλ ἐρύαα (BDsupp) represents the yell of fury with which the Jews received Pilate’s last attempt to set Jesus free. The rec., with א has ἔρζν and ALNΘhave ἐρύαο, but the impf. does not represent the meaning so well as the aor. does. Mat_27:24f. relates that after Pilate’s failure to persuade the Jews he ostentatiously washed his hands, thereby endeavouring to shift his responsibility.
The last argument which the chief priests used, and which was effective, although their former overtures to Pilate (18:30, 19:7) had failed, was an appeal to his fears. “If you release Him, you are no friend of Cæ” There is no need to limit the term φλςτῦΚίαο, as if it were an official title (cf. 15:15); the expression is used generally. The official title is probably not found before Vespasian.
πςὁβσλαἑυὸ πινκλ “every one who makes himself a king,” which was the charge brought in the first instance against Jesus (see on 18:33), ἀτλγι(only here in Jn.), “opposes Cæ” Here was a veiled threat. If Pilate were reported at Rome to have set free a man making pretension to the title “King of the Jews,” it might go badly with him. Treason to the emperor was the cardinal offence for a viceroy or procurator.
13. We must read τνλγντύω, with א rather than τῦο τνλγνof the rec. text, which has come in from v. 8. Pilate not only heard what the Jews said, but he appreciated its force (see on 3:8 for ἀοενfollowed by the gen.). The reference is to the threat of v. 12. Pilate could not afford to have it reported to the emperor that he had acquitted a prisoner who was accused of setting himself up as a king. His position would be safe only if the Jews asked for an acquittal; for then he could always say that the charge had broken down.
ἤαε ἔωτνἸ., “he led Jesus out,” sc. from the Praetorium, where He had been under examination (v. 9).
ἐάιε ἐὶβμτςmust be rendered “he sat down on the judgment seat,” i.e. Pilate sat down, the examination being over, intending now to give judgment with full dignity. Before he finally passed sentence, he gave the priests another opportunity of claiming, or acquiescing in, the release of Jesus. This (intransitive) rendering of ἐάιε agrees with Mt.’s report κθμνυδ ατῦἐὶτῦβμτς(Mat_27:19), as well as with the only other place where ἐάιε occurs in Jn. (12:14). We have κθσςἐὶτῦβμτςused of Herod and of Festus in Act_12:21, Act_12:25:6, Act_12:17.
κθζι, however, is used transitively in 1Co_6:4, Eph_1:20 (cf. Hermas, Vis. III. ii. 4), and Archbishop Whately maintained1 that ἐάιε should be rendered transitively here, the meaning being that Pilate did not sit on the Βμ himself, but set Jesus on it in derision. It is worthy of note that there was a tradition current in the second century that Jesus had thus been placed by the Jews on the judgment seat. It appears in the Gospel of Peter (§3): ἐάια ατνἐὶκθδα κίες λγνε, Δκίςκῖε βσλῦτῦἸρή Justin (whencesoever he obtained the tradition) has it also: δαύοτςατν(referring to Isa_58:2) ἐάια ἐὶβμτς κὶεπνΚῖο ἡῖ (Apol. i. 35). Perhaps it came from a misunderstanding of Joh_19:13, attributing this derisive action to Pilate, not to the Jews. But a misunderstanding it must be, for, apart from the intransitive use of κθζι being always found elsewhere in the Gospels, it is inconceivable that a Roman procurator should be so regardless of his dignity, when about to pronounce sentence of death, as to make a jest of the matter.2
ἐὶβμτς “upon a judgment seat,” sc. perhaps upon one improvised for the occasion, as the Jews would not enter the Præ and judgment had to be given in public.
The rec. text has ἐὶτῦβμτς but τῦis omitted by א and it probably came in from such passages as Act_12:21, Act_12:25:6, Act_12:17.
Josephus (Bell. Jud. II. ix. 3), when telling of another sentence pronounced by Pilate, has ὁΠλτςκθσςἐὶβμτςἐ τ μγλ σαί, judgment in this case also being delivered in the open air. Here we have ἐὶβμτςεςτπνκλ instead of ἐ τπ. Perhaps εςis used because of the verb at the beginning of the sentence (see on 9:7); but it is possible that it is used for ἐ here, as it often is in Mar_3 and in Lk. and Acts. See on 1:18, 9:7
εςτπνλγμννΛθσρτν Ἑρϊτ (see on 5:2) δ Γβαά Λθσρτνis not the interpretation of the name Gabbatha (see on 4:25); Jn. gives the two names, Greek and Aramaic, of distinct derivation, by which the place was known. The word Λθσρτνdoes not occur again in the N.T., and in the LXX it is found only at Est_1:6, Son_3:10, 2Ch_7:3; in the last-mentioned passage being applied to the pavement of Solomon’s temple. (cf. Josephus, Antt. VIII. iii. 2).
The situation of the Præ has been already discussed (see on 18:28), and we have identified it with Herod’s Palace, which was to the south of the Temple area. But the name Gabbatha is not known elsewhere. Its derivation is probably from the root גה“to be high,” so that נַּתאwould mean “an elevated place.”1 G. A. Smith (Jerusalem, ii. 575) suggests that it is derived from גב “to pack closely,” so that Gabbatha would be equivalent to “a mosaic.”
It was customary to place the βμ or judgment seat on a dais of tesselated or mosaic pavement, in order that the judge might be seen and heard conveniently; and Julius Cæ is said to have carried about with him tessellata et sectilia pavimenta, to be laid down wherever he encamped (Suet. Jul. 46). A portable dais of this kind could not, however, have given its name to a locality; Λθσρτνwas probably one of the names by which the elevated place of judgment came to be known, because of the mosaic pavement which was laid down for the sake of dignity
14. ἦ δ Πρσεὴτῦπσα i.e. “Friday of the Passover week.” Elsewhere (Mar_15:42, Luk_23:54, Mat_27:62, and Joh_19:31) πρσεήmeans the day of preparation for the Sabbath, as here (see on 19:42 for a possible exception). Thus Josephus has ἐ σβαι ἤτ πὸατςπρσεῇ(Antt. xvi. 6. 2); and in the Didache (§8) πρσεήagain means Friday (cf. Clem. Alex. Strom., §75).
In the year of the Passion, the Passover, i.e. Nisan 14, fell on a Friday (v. 31). Had the meaning of πρσεὴτῦπσαhere meant “It was the Preparation day of the Passover, ” i.e. the day before the Passover, we should have had ἡπρσεήwith the def. article. See on v. 42.
ὥαἦ ὡ ἓτ. So א and vss. For ἓτ, אΔread τίη thus harmonising the text with Mar_15:25. Eusebius (as quoted by Severus) explains the variant by ascribing it to the confusion between Γ(3) and F (6).1 But the textual evidence for ἕτ is overwhelming.
In Mar_15:25 Jesus is said to have been crucified at “the third hour,” the darkness beginning at “the sixth hour” and continuing until “the ninth hour,” when He died. This is corrected by Jn.,2 who tells that the Crucifixion did not begin until after “the sixth hour,” i.e. after noon. The hypothesis that Jn.’s method of reckoning time was different from that of the Synoptists is inadmissible (see on 1:39). That a discrepancy should exist as to the actual hour will not surprise any one who reflects on the loose way in which time intervals are often reported by quite honest witnesses.3 Jn. is specially careful to fix the time at which things happened, and he is here followed by the Acts of John (§97), in which it is distinctly said “at the sixth hour.” Indeed it is difficult to believe that all that happened on the day of the Passion before Jesus was actually crucified was over by 9 a.m., as Mk.’s report indicates.
For ἴε“behold,” a favourite word with Jn., see on 1:29; and cf. v. 14 above for the derisive Ἴε ὁβσλὺ ὑῶ. The sarcasm of Pilate is directed against the Jews, not against Jesus.
15. ἐρύαα ονἐενι So א ἐενιbeing emphatic: the rec. text has ο δ ἐρύαα. W has ἔεο. For καγζι, see on 11:43 (cf. v. 6).
Ἆο ἆο. Cf. Luk_23:18 αρ τύο, and Act_21:36. Moulton-Milligan illustrate this usage of αρ from a second-century papyrus letter in which a mother says of her son: “He upsets me; away with him!” (ἄρνατν
Τνβσλαὑῶ σαρσ; Pilate’s ironical question is made specially incisive by the prominence in the sentence of τ βσλαὑ.
ο ἀχεες who have been the prime movers throughout (cf. vv. 6, 21, and 12:10), in their eagerness to answer Pilate, not only deny that Jesus was their King, but repudiate the idea that they have any king but Cæ thus formally denying the first principle of the Jewish theocracy that “Yahweh was their King” (1Sa_12:12). Implicitly, they denied the ideal of the Messianic King, in order to conciliate a heathen power; and thus, by saying “We have no king but Cæ” they abandoned that which was most distinctive of the religion of Judaism. In words, they not only rejected Jesus; they repudiated the claims of the Christ, to whose Advent they professed to look forward. So, at least, the Johannine narrative implies.
To be sure, they did not mean as much as this; they were so anxious to gain their point that they did not measure their words. By the time the Fourth Gospel was written, the Jewish state had been overthrown by Titus; and some of those who avowed before Pilate their unreserved loyalty to Cæ had doubtless fallen, fighting against Cæ’s legions.
16. ττ ονπρδκνκλ Pilate’s efforts to save Jesus had failed. The people had taken up the cry, “Crucify Him!” The priests had just announced their loyalty to Cæ in extravagant terms, and Pilate was afraid of their innuendo (v. 12) that he was not overzealous in Cæ’s cause. Therefore, afraid of the popular clamour, and not specially interested in the fate of an unpopular fanatic (as he deemed Jesus to be), “he delivered Him to them,” i.e. to the Jews (cf. 18:36 ἳαμ πρδθ τῖ Ἰυαος “that He might be crucified.”
The usual form of sentence in such cases was “ibis ad crucem,” but the Gospels do not record that it was formally pronounced. This may have been done, but in any case Pilate’s attitude was rather that he acquiesced in the capital penalty being inflicted than that he approved it. According to Roman custom, after the death sentence was pronounced, the criminal was first scourged, and then led off to execution without delay. So Josephus says of crucifixions under the procurator Florus: μσιῶα τ πὸτῦβμτςκὶσαρ ποηῶα (Bell. Jud. ii. 14. 9). Mk. (followed by Mt.) represents the scourging of Jesus as taking place at this point, that is, after His sentence. According to Jn. (19:1), He had already been scourged by Pilate’s order, in the hope that the Jews would be satisfied with this sufficiently terrible punishment (cf. Luk_23:22). It is probable that Jn.’s report is the more accurate here; and it is not likely that Pilate would have permitted a second scourging.
The Crucifixion and the Title on the Cross (vv. 17-22)
17. πρλβνοντνἸ., “So they received Jesus,” sc. at the hands of Pilate (cf. 1:11, 14:3, the only other places where Jn. used πρλμάεν
AW add κὶἀήαο after Ἰσῦ, and DsuppΓΘread κὶἤαο; but BL 33 a b c e ff add nothing (cf. Mar_15:20 Luk_23:26, Mat_27:31, from a reminiscence of which passages ἀήαο has crept into the Johannine text).
βσάω ἑυῷτνσαρν So א the rec. has βσάω τνσ. ατῦ B has ατ. For βσάεν see on 12:6.
A criminal condemned to be crucified was required to carry his own cross; cf. Plutarch (de sera numinis vindicta, 9), ἕατςκκύγνἐφριτνατῦσαρν and Artemidorus (Oneir. ii. 56), ὁμλω σαρ ποηοσα πόεο ατνβσάε, a custom which gives special point to the exhortation, Mar_8:34. The Synoptists speak of the Cross being borne by Simon of Cyrene, and do not mention that Jesus carried it Himself; however, the ancient explanation is sufficient, viz. that Jesus carried it as they were leaving the Præ but that when He was found to be overborne by its weight, Simon was compelled to carry it for Him. The patristic idea that Jesus bearing His Cross was typified by Isaac, upon whom τ ξλ (Gen_22:6) were laid, as he went to the place of sacrifice, goes back to Melito1 and Tertullian.2 See on 18:12.
ἐῆθν “He went out,” for executions were not allowed within the city walls. See on v. 20.
εςτνλγ καίυτπνκλ Γλοάis the transliteration of the Aramaic גולגַלתָ, Hebrew גְֶֹֻּ which is transl. by καίνin Jdg_9:53, 2Ki_9:35. For Ἑρϊτ, see on 5:2; and for Jn.’s habit of giving Aramaic names with their Greek equivalents, see on 1:38. Mar_15:22 and Mat_27:33 give the Greek name as Καίυ Luk_23:33 giving Καίν while Mt. and Mk. as well as Jn. supply also the Aramaic designation.
We do not know why this place was called “the Place of a Skull” (Calvaria). Origen is the first to mention a tradition, afterwards widely prevalent, that Adam was believed to be buried on this site (Comm. in Mat_27:33); but no evidence has been found to show that this was a pre-Christian tradition, and the idea may have grown out of a passage like 1Co_15:22. It has been suggested in modern times that this place-name was given because of the shape of the knoll or little hill where the Crucifixion was carried out. But there is no tradition whatever in favour of this, nor is there any evidence in the Gospel narratives to support the popular idea that Calvary was on a hill or rising ground. Yet another explanation of the name “Golgotha” is that it means “the place of skulls,” i.e. a public place of execution, where the bodies of the victims were left. This would require καίνnot καίυ not to speak of the facts that bodies were never left unburied in this way near a town, and that Joseph of Arimathea’s “new tomb” (19:41) would certainly not have been built near a place so abhorrent to a Jew The tradition reproduced by Origen may be pre-Christian; and if so it gives an explanation of the name Golgotha, but no other explanation is, in any case, forthcoming. See on v. 20.
18. ὅο ατνἐτύωα, “where they crucified Him,” i.e. the soldiers1 (see v. 23), who were told off for the purpose.
μτ ατῦἄλυ δο Mt. and Mk. call them λσα (such as Barabbas was, 18:40); Lk. says κκῦγι Jn. does not apply any epithet to them. All the evangelists note that the Cross of Jesus was placed between the other two. Mediæ fancy gave names to the robbers, Dismas or Titus or πσό to the penitent (who is generally represented as on the right side of the Cross of Jesus), Gestas or Dumachus or θοάο being the impenitent one.
ἐτῦε κὶἐτῦε. Cf. Dan_12:5 (Theodotion); the LXX has the more usual ἔθνκὶἔθν cf. 1 Macc. 6:38, 9:45.
19. ττο. The title or titulus, the technical name for the board bearing the name of the condemned or his crime or both, is only so called by Jn. In Mk. it is called ἡἐιρφ. Also it is only Jn. who tells that Pilate wrote it. As it appears in Jn. it included both the Name (Ἰσῦ ὁΝζρῖς see 18:5) and an indication of the crime, conveyed in words of mockery (ὁβσλὺ τνἸυαω. In Mk. and Lk. only the αταis given, the name being absent, while Mt. has οτςἐτνἸσῦ ὁβσλὺ τνΙοδίν It is not possible to determine which form is verbally correct, but probably it was considered sufficient to give the αταonly. In Suetonius (Domit. 10) the terms of a similar titulus are preserved: “impie locutus parmularius,” i.e. “a parmularian (the name by which the adherents of a gladiatorial party were known) who has spoken impiously.”
ἔηε ἐὶτῦσαρῦ in Mat_27:37 we have ἐέηα ἐάωτςκφλςατῦ which suggests that the cross was of the shape called crux immissa, with a cross-bar for the arms, as painters have generally represented it to be.
20. τ͂ο ὀντνττο κλ “This title, then (ονbeing a favourite conjunction with Jn.; see on 1:22), many of the Jews read,” as they would have opportunity of doing, the place being near the city, and as they would be able to do, because it was written in Aramaic as well as in Latin (the official language) and Greek (a detail peculiar to Jn.). That “many of the Jews” read the title placed in mockery above the cross, “the King of the Jews,” is not explicitly stated by any other evangelist, and Jn. makes no comment on it. But the irony of the statement is plain enough, and it is probably intentional. See on 1:45.
ἐγςἦ κλ We may translate this either by “the place where Jesus was crucified was near to the city,” or “the place of the city where Jesus was crucified was near”; but the former rendering is to be preferred. He suffered, not within the city walls, but “without the gate” (Heb_13:12); cf. Mat_27:32, Num_15:35, Act_7:58. The traditional site of Golgotha may not be the true one, but it has better claims to recognition than any other.1 Although within the present walls of Jerusalem, it may have been outside the walls as they existed in the first century,
21. ο ἀχεεςτνἸυαω. That the “chief priests” were “of the Jews” seems superfluous to mention, but Jn. writes for Greek readers. See on 2:6, and cf. 6:4.
They were uneasy about the title, lest any should fail to understand that it was written in mockery, and so they appealed to Pilate to change it. None of this is told by the Synoptists.
ἐενς ipse, is used for clearness. See on 1:8.
22. ὃγγααγγαα Pilate was a true Roman in his respect for an official document. He was himself responsible for the phrasing of the titulus; and, once written and affixed to the cross, it was the expression of a legal decision. From the legal point of view he was right in refusing to alter its terms. Litera scripta manet.
To the form of expression, “What I have written, I have written,” Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. iii. 432) gives some Rabbinic parallels (cf. also Gen_43:14, Est_4:16); but they are hardly apposite, as Pilate was not a Jew. Cf., however, ὅαἐτσμνπὸ ὑᾶ ἕτκν(1 Macc. 13:38). The perf. tense γγααmarks the permanence and abiding character of his act. Jn. uses the perfect as distinct from the aorist, with strict linguistic propriety.
The Distribution Among the Soldiers of Jesus’ Garments (vv. 23, 24)
23. ἔαο τ ἱάι ατῦ Nothing is said of the clothes of the crucified robbers. It was customary to remove the clothes before a condemned person was nailed to the cross, and by Roman law they were the perquisites of the soldiers who acted as executioners.1 But, presumably, the clothes of the malefactors were not worth anything, and so are not mentioned.
Of the soldiers there was the usual quaternion (ττάιν Act_12:4); and according to the Synoptists (Mar_15:39, Mat_27:54, Luk_23:47) a centurion was also present. The Synoptists do not give any detailed account of the doings of the soldiers; they merely say, paraphrasing the words of Psa_22:18 (which was no doubt in their minds), that the soldiers divided the clothes, casting lots. But throughout the Johannine account of the Crucifixion (vv. 23-37), the fuller testimony of an eye-witness (see v. 35) reveals itself. This account is due to one who was near the Cross all the time. And so Jn. tells that it was for the χτνor long cassock-shaped coat (as distinguished from the ἱάινor outer cloak: cf. v. 2 and Mat_5:40, Luk_6:29), which was woven in one piece, that lots were cast; and he adds that this was ἵαἡγαὴπηωῇ quoting Psa_22:18 from the LXX:
δεείατ τ ἱάι μυἑυος
κὶἐὶτνἱαιμνμυἔαο κῆο.2
In this verse ἱάι and ἱαιμςrepresent distinct Hebrew words, בֶֶ and לבּש, but it is not always possible to distinguish the meanings of these. In the original context, we have the ordinary parallelism of Hebrew poetry; but Jn. finds in the words an inspired forecast of that which was witnessed at the Crucifixion, viz. the division of some garments, and the drawing of lots for one in particular. “These things, therefore, the soldiers did.” Jn. sees in all the incidents of the Passion the fulfilment of the Divine purpose disclosed in the O.T., and so he says that these things happened ἵαἡγαὴπηωῇ
The χτνwas ἄρφς(this word does not occur elsewhere in the Greek Bible), “without seam,” as was the robe of the high priest’s ephod (a long garment, ὑούη πδρς Exo_28:32). Josephus (Ant. III. vii. 4) calls this robe of the high priest a χτν and (following the directions given in Exodus) he explains elaborately that it was woven in one piece.2 But this is only a verbal coincidence; the idea of a high-priestly robe does not enter here.3 χτνis the ordinary word for the long coat worn in the East under the cloak. It was of some value, and Jn. records that the soldiers said (the witness was near enough to hear the words) Μ σίωε ατν ἀλ λχμνπρ ατῦτνςἔτι
Field (in loc.) urges that λγάενis unprecedented in the sense of “to cast lots,” its usual meaning being “to obtain by lot.” But Symmachus translated יפִלּגָֹ in Psa_22:18 by ἐάχνν
The account of this incident in the second-century Gospel of Peter is as follows: τθιόε τ ἐδμτ ἔποθνατῦδεείατ, κὶλχὸ ἔαο ἐʼατῖ, “having set His garments before Him, they parted them among them and cast a lot for them.” It is not stated by Pseudo-Peter that this was the act of the soldiers, who appear a little later as a body of eight men, with a centurion, guarding the tomb, while Jn. is explicit that there were only four: τσεαμρ, ἑάτ σρτώῃμρς The unusual word λχό, for κῆο, in Pseudo-Peter may have been suggested by Jn.’s λχμν It is reproduced by Justin (Tryph. 97), who quotes Psa_22:15-18 from the LXX, and adds: ὅεγρἐτύωα ατν ἐπσοτςτὺ ἥοςτςχῖα κὶτὺ πδςατῦὤυα, κὶο σαρσνε ατνἐέια τ ἱάι ατῦἑυος λχὸ βλοτςἕατςκτ τντῦκήο ἐιοὴ ὃἐλξσα ἐεολτ.
ο μνονσρτ κλ μν recalling what the soldiers did, corresponds to δ in v. 25 introducing the fact that the women were present. μνονoccurs again in Jn. only at 20:30, where also it is followed by a corresponding δ.
Three Sayings of Jesus from the Cross, Before His Death (vv. 25-30)
25. εσήεσνδ πρ τ σαρ κλ From the Synoptic parallels (Mar_15:40, Mat_27:56; cf. Luk_24:10) we gather that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and Salome the wife of Zebedee and mother of the apostles James and John, were present at the Cross. Jn. enumerates Mary the mother of Jesus (whose presence the Synoptists do not mention), her sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene, i.e. four persons and not three as one reading of the text might suggest. Not only does the Peshitta make this clear by putting “and” before “Mary the wife of Clopas”; but the balance of the sentence, if four persons are indicated, is thoroughly Johannine. If we compare this with the Synoptic parallels we reach two important conclusions: (1) Salome was the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus, and therefore John the son of Zebedee and Salome was a maternal cousin of Jesus. (2) Mary the wife of Clopas is the same person as Mary the mother of James and Joseph (cf. Mat_27:56, Mar_15:40, Mar_15:47, Mar_15:16:1, Luk_24:10). It would be impossible to equate the Synoptic “Mary, the mother of James and Joseph” with the Lord’s mother, for no one can suppose that the Synoptists, when telling the names of the women at the Cross, would have described the mother of Jesus in so circuitous a