6.The Burial (19:38-42)

6.The Burial (19:38-42)

3. Behold, the Man (19:l-6a)

1Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged. 2 The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed him in a purple robe 3and went up to him again and again, saying, "Hail, Ο king of the Jews! "And they struck him in the face. 4 Once more Pilate came out and said to the Jews, "Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for a charge against him." 5When Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate said to them, "Here is the man! " 6As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, "Crucify! Crucify!"

Pilate's attempt to free Jesus by way of complying with the custom of release of a prisoner at the feast having failed, he tried another tack. He had Jesus flogged, maltreated, mocked, and paraded before the mob. This may have been a way of appealing to the pity of the Jews; he may have reasoned that they might respond when they saw one of their own people treated in this fashion. Perhaps more probably he meant it as a visual demonstration of the impossibility of taking the charge seriously. This helpless object of violence and derision a king? Impossible! If Pilate was making an appeal to the people in either form he was guilty of a serious miscalculation. The only effect of it was to provoke the cry, "Crucify him!"

There is a difficulty in that Matthew and Mark appear to place the scourging after the sentence of crucifixion (though they do not actually say so), whereas here the sentence appears not to have been given. But then neither Matthew nor Mark nor John appears to record a formal sentence, so this is not decisive.¹ John's narrative is supported by Luke 23:16, 22 (though Luke does not actually mention that the scourging took place). It is unlikely that such a fearsome punishment was inflicted twice.² The probability accordingly is that the first two Evangelists are not following chronology too closely at this point. They knew that Jesus had been scourged before being crucified and said so, but they did not bother to insert it in its exact place in the sequence of events. Alternatively they do insert it in its right place and the trouble arises only because John does not say exactly when sentence was passed. It is perhaps more likely that John has the scourging in its right place. Scourging was standard practice before a crucifixion, and the Synoptists mention it accordingly. But it is only John who lets us see "that Jesus was not scourged in order to be crucified but in order to escape crucifixion" (Lenski).

1 John does apparently intend us to understand that this followed next in sequence.³ He gives no reason for the scourging. Luke, however, informs us that Pilate said, "I will punish him and then release him" (Luke 23:16, 22), which makes it appear that it was an attempt to induce the Jews to think that Jesus had been punished enough. But neither Luke nor John actually says this, and we are left to infer the motive from the fact. Scourging was a brutal affair. It was inflicted by a whip of several thongs, each of which was loaded with pieces of bone or metal. It could make pulp of a man's back.⁴ It is a further example of the reserve of the Gospels that they use but one word to describe this piece of frightfulness. There is no attempt to play on our emotions.

2 Now the soldiers engage in some crude horseplay. The prisoner has been accused of being "King of the Jews," so a "King" they will make him.

They plait a chaplet of some thorny material⁵ and use this to "crown" him. The purple⁶ garment will be the chlamys (Matt. 27:28), a cloak worn by military officers and men in high position. Since it was used by officers, they would have had no great difficulty in obtaining one for their fun. In Matthew and probably Mark, the mockery took place after Jesus' condemnation, and it is more thoroughgoing than here. Westcott suggests that it took place in two stages. He thinks that Pilate arranged the incident recorded here, with a view to presenting Jesus before the crowd and securing his release. Then, immediately before the crucifixion, the soldiers took up the idea on their own initiative and carried it further. There is nothing improbable about this. The mockery will have been aimed at the Jews generally rather than at Jesus specifically. He simply formed a convenient means whereby the soldiers showed their contempt for the nation at large.

3 They "went up to him" seems to mean that they kept coming up,⁷ (NIV brings this out by inserting "again and again"), probably in some formal manner, as though doing homage to royalty. "Hail" was a normal way of greeting (used, e.g., in Matt. 28:9), but it was also used in acclaiming royalty (cf. "Hail, Caesar"). "King of the Jews" shows what had caught the soldiers' attention and what it was that gave point to their mockery. At the same time their choice of words makes it plain that they are mocking.⁸ The soldiers doubtless conceived of themselves as witty fellows, able to devise an ironical situation. But the real irony lay in the fact that the one whom they so mocked is indeed "King of kings, and Lord of lords." They struck him, apparently with their hands,⁹ which seems to be meant to take the place of some expression of homage, such as the dutiful kiss or the bringing of a present. John's account of the mockery is briefer than those in Matthew and Mark. There we read that the soldiers hit Jesus on the head with a reed, which they had previously put in his hand, apparently as a sceptre. If John is referring to the same thing the blows will be not with the hand, but with this reed. Matthew and Mark also tell us that the soldiers knelt before their prisoner and spat on him.

4 Once again Pilate went outside (as in 18:38). John appears to mean that Pilate came out first and announced that he was going to have Jesus brought out and only after he had told the crowd what he intended did the prisoner come out. Pilate told the people that he found nothing blameworthy in Jesus (cf. v. 6; 18:38) and he was bringing him out so that they could see for themselves. It is not clear how Pilate's bringing of Jesus out will enable the people to know that the governor finds no fault in him. Perhaps his general demeanor is held to show that there is no substance in the charges leveled against him.

5 Jesus therefore came out, dressed as he was in his "royal" robes and wearing his "crown." It was plainly ludicrous to take seriously any suggestion that this figure of scorn had pretensions to kingship. The very sight of him ought to be enough to demonstrate this and allow Pilate to release him. As Jesus came out, the governor introduced him with the words, "Here is the man!"¹⁰ Abbott points out that in the classics this on occasion means "the poor man," "the poor creature."¹¹ Pilate may be using the words in a some-what contemptuous manner. The expression need mean no more than "Here is the accused," but it is likely that John saw more in it than that. For John Jesus is THE man, and in this dramatic scene the supreme governing authority gives expression to this truth. It has been suggested that John is making an allusion to "the Son of man," but it is impossible to imagine Pilate voicing such an allusion. It is, however, not unlikely that John intends "the man" to evoke memories of Jesus' favorite self-designation.¹²

6a If Pilate had meant to appeal to the pity of the Jews or their natural aspirations or anything else that might prove favorable to Jesus, he was disappointed. The only effect of bringing Jesus out was to cause the chief priests and their retainers¹³ to call¹⁴ for crucifixion. This is the first use of the term "crucify" in the narrative, and it is perhaps significant that it is not "the Jews" or "the crowd" who raise the cry, but the chief priests and their retainers. Pilate brought forth Jesus apparently in an attempt to win people over to his way of thinking. The chief priests waste no time. They do not attempt to persuade the crowd. They and their henchmen immediately cry, "Crucify!" The use of the verb as a one-word slogan is the kind of cry that a crowd might well take up.

4. Pilate's Final Decision (19:6b-16a)

But Pilate answered, "You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him." 7The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God. 8When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, 9and he went back inside the palace. "Where do you come from?" he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer. 10"Do you refuse to speak to me?" Pilate said. "Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?" 11Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin. 12From. then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jews kept shouting, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar." 13When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge's seat at a place known as The Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha). 14It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour. "Here is your king," Pilate said to the Jews. 15But they shouted, "Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!" "Shall I crucify your king?"Pilate asked. "We have no king but Caesar," the chief priests answered. 16Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified.

Pilate's final abortive attempt to release Jesus was sparked off by the Jews' remark that Jesus had claimed to be the Son of God. This apparently struck a chord in the governor's superstitious nature and led him to speak further with Jesus. Confirmed in his conviction that there was no case against Jesus he tried again to set him free. But when the Jews raised the ominous issue of "Caesar's friend," — that is, a veiled threat to let it be known in Rome if he did not sentence the Galilean as they desired — Pilate capitulated. Jesus was delivered over to crucifixion.

6b Possibly Pilate's reply is somewhat petulant. Otherwise it is difficult to understand why he should have told the Jews to crucify Jesus. They had no power to carry out this form of execution, whatever may be thought of their right to inflict some other form of death penalty (see on 18:31). Moreover, Pilate's "you" and "I" are set in emphatic contrast. It is as though he is saying, "I want nothing to do with this. Do it yourselves." But the Jews could not do it themselves. Their method of execution was by stoning. He may mean, "He will be crucified, but the responsibility will be yours, not mine." The emphatic pronouns are, however, against this; the words seem rather to be the sudden wild statement of a man goaded into speaking unreasonably. He may mean: "If you are not going to take any notice of me, then crucify him yourselves — if you can."

7 Now the Jews come to the real issue. Pilate had used emphatic pronouns in telling them what to do and they respond with one of their own. "We have a law," they say, and imply "whatever be the case with you Romans!" "Law" clearly refers to the law of blasphemy (Lev. 24:16), By this law, they say, Jesus ought to die because he has made himself Son of God (cf. 5:18; 8:53; 10:33 for this accusation). It was his religious claims that antagonized them. "Son of God" is in an emphatic position. It was nothing less than this that he had made himself.¹⁵ Pilate, from his own point of view, sees no crime in Jesus. Very well. Let him look at it from theirs.

8-9 Pilate was evidently superstitious. He can scarcely be called a religious man, but the news that his prisoner had made divine claims scared the governor (his fear cannot be fear of the Jews; it must be fear connected with Jesus in some way). He had possibly been affected by a message from his wife about a dream she had had (Matt. 27:19). And every Roman knew of stories of the gods or their offspring appearing in human guise. "Divine men" were part of the first-century understanding of life. Pilate had plainly been impressed by Jesus as he talked with him. Now that he hears of the possibility of the supernatural he is profoundly affected.¹⁶ Was he being confronted by a "divine man''? Or in view of the habit of referring to the Roman Emperor as divi filius ("Son of God") it may be that Pilate feared that, after all, Jesus was claiming to be King in a political sense. But a superstitious fear seems more likely. He left the Jews and questioned Jesus in the Praetorium. It is not clear when Jesus went back inside. He was brought out (v. 5), but there is no mention of his return. Probably he was still outside during the conversation of verses 6-7, after which Pilate had him brought back inside, preferring to talk to him in the absence of the Jews. He proceeded to ask him where he had come from, a curious question,¹⁷ but one the answer to which might be determinative for any claim to divinity. But Jesus does not answer. The reason is not clear. He had answered Pilate readily enough before. Possibly he felt that then Pilate had been discharging his function as judge, whereas now he was exceeding it. The question to be decided was Jesus' guilt or innocence, and his origin was irrelevant. But, in view of Jesus' free conversation both before and after this, his silence on this one question stands out. It may be that the answer must be such that Pilate would not have understood it.¹⁸ He certainly would never have believed it! It was not a simple question. Or again, it may be that the answer had in effect already been given (18:37). It still stood. Jesus' silence at one point or another of his trial is mentioned in all four Gospels (Matt. 26:63; 27:14; Mark 14:60-61; 15:5; Luke 23:9). Both Augustine and Chrysostom see in this the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah 53:7.

10 Pilate does not like this. He is very conscious of his dignity and position of power. It is incredible that Jesus will not speak to him¹⁹ of all people. So he reminds his prisoner that he has power²⁰ either to release him or to crucify him. The question is illuminating. In the last resort it was Pilate alone who could say "Crucify" or "Release," and this frank recognition of it makes nonsense of all the shifts to which he resorted in the attempt to avoid making a decision. Ultimately he could not avoid responsibility, and these words show that deep down he realized this.

11 These are Jesus' final words to Pilate, and, indeed, the only words he is recorded to have said after the scourging. First, he corrects a misapprehension. Pilate has²¹ no inherent authority over²² Jesus, but only that granted him "from above" (cf. 3:27). This will mean "from heaven," not "delegated from your superiors in Rome." Jesus is asserting that God is over all and that an earthly governor can act only as God permits him (cf. Rom. 13:1). Since then Pilate is limited in what he can do, the greater sin rests with him that handed Jesus over. This surely means Caiaphas ("he must be the high priest Caiaphas," Bruce). It cannot mean Judas, for he did not deliver²³ Jesus to Pilate, but to the Jews. In any case, in this context it must be the man who is ultimately responsible who is in mind, and that means Caiaphas. Judas was no more than a tool. This does not mean that Pilate is excused. After all, "greater sin" implies "lesser sin," and that was the governor's. He did not bear all the responsibility he thought he did. But he was a responsible man, and therefore guilty for his actions in this case.²⁴

12 Something in Jesus' answer won Pilate, though it is not easy to see just what. He did not excuse Pilate for what he was doing, but simply affirmed that another had a greater guilt and that Pilate's own part was less than he thought. Perhaps Pilate saw in the answer something that strengthened the case that Jesus was the Son of God. At the very least the answer presupposes a familiarity with God's ways. Therefore (or "from then on")²⁵. Pilate was trying²⁶ to release Jesus. John does not tell us in what this attempt consisted. He moves immediately to the opposition it aroused. But the governor probably said something to the Jews. He certainly went outside the Praetorium where he was in verse 11, for here the Jews are addressing him. They give a shout, setting Jesus in opposition to Caesar. "Caesar's friend" may be used in a technical sense,²⁷ but this seems unlikely. Here it is rather a general term for a loyal supporter of Rome. The Jews are maintaining that there is an antagonism between Jesus²⁸ and Caesar. Again John is ironical, for there is a sense in which this is true, though not the sense in which the Jews meant it. Jesus was no revolutionary. A just judge could well release an innocent man and still be Caesar's friend. But the claims of Christ are such that Caesar cannot have the principal place. In that sense it is really "Christ or Caesar?" and John will not want his readers to miss this. The Jews go on to point out that the charge they are preferring is one of high treason. To make oneself a king is to oppose Caesar. The Jews do not spell out their threat. But there cannot be any doubt but that the mention of Casear in this way is meant to remind the governor that, if he released Jesus, they could bring a damaging accusation against him at Rome. They could report that he had failed to deal firmly with a man guilty of treason. A man with a good record need not, of course, take notice of such a palpably false accusation. But Pilate's record was not one to be subjected to a close scrutiny,²⁹ and Tiberius's suspicious nature was very well known. Plummer comments on the tactics of the Jewish leaders: "They know their man: it is not a love of justice, but personal feeling which moves him to seek to release Jesus; and they will overcome one personal feeling by another still stronger."

13 Pilate got the message.³⁰ Humanly speaking, the mention of Caesar sealed Jesus' fate. The prefect made no answer to the Jews, but brought Jesus out and sat down³¹ on the judgment seat.³² This looks like the solemn preparation for the end of the case. Pilate will now give the official sentence that will conclude matters. John gives us both the Greek and the Aramaic names³³ of the place³⁴ where the judgment seat was set. This is not required by the sense, and it looks like a personal reminiscence.

14 John puts in a characteristic time note (see on 1:39), but this one arouses some problems, "The day of Preparation of Passover Week" (more literally "preparation of the Passover") almost certainly means "Friday in Passover week" rather than "the day before Passover" (see Additional Note H, pp. 684-95). The other problem concerns the time of day. Mark says that Jesus was crucified at "the third hour" (Mark 15:25).³⁵ Here John speaks of the trial as still not completed at "about the sixth hour." Westcott thought that John used the "Roman" method of computing time, whereby the day began at midnight as with us. The sixth hour would thus be about 6 a.m. whereas Mark, using the Palestinian method of beginning the day at sunrise, would mean about 9 a.m. by his "third hour." This is attractive, but there appears to be no evidence that the so-called Roman method of computing time was used other than in legal matters like leases. At Rome, as elsewhere, the day was reckoned to begin at sunrise.³⁶ Where a definite hour is given ("the first hour," "the fourth hour," etc.) the reference always appears to be to the time since daybreak and not to the interval since midnight. It is more likely that in neither Mark nor John is the hour to be regarded as more than an approximation. People in antiquity did not have clocks or watches, and the reckoning of time was always approximate. The "third hour" may denote nothing more than a time about the middle of the morning, while "about the sixth hour" can well signify getting on toward noon. Late morning would suit both expressions unless there were some reason for thinking that either was being given with more than usual accuracy. No such reason exists here.³⁷

Pilate had Jesus brought out, and he sat on the judgment seat. He did not, however, deliver sentence as might have been expected; in fact, nowhere does John record that he sentenced Jesus. Now he said, "Here is your king." As in the case of "Here is the man!" (v. 5) John's irony lurks behind the words. For Pilate there was no question of kingship; his bedraggled prisoner was the antithesis of all that kingship meant for him. Jesus was not a king in any sense in which he understood the word. He was simply using the terms of the accusation in a last-ditch effort to get the Jews to drop proceedings. But for John the kingship was real. He wants us to see Jesus as King in the very act in which he went to death for the salvation of sinners.

15 Inevitably this feeble effort resulted in failure, just as all Pilate's previous efforts had done. His words provoked a mighty yell, as the crowd called³⁸ for Jesus to be taken away³⁹ and crucified. Pilate made yet one more ineffectual protest. When he says, "Shall I crucify your king?" he puts the word "king" in an emphatic position; he gives the title all it will stand. But this is not enough. The mob is past reasoning and wants only blood. Pilate is answered, however, not by the mob but by the chief priests. And they of all people assure him, "We have no king but Caesar"! Nothing could be more ludicrous than this protestation of loyalty on the lips of such men. It is another fine example of Johannine irony. They certainly claimed, in accordance with the Old Testament, to be God's people. They held that God was their King (Judg. 8:23; 1 Sam. 8:7; Schnackenburg points out that in the eleventh of the Eighteen Benedictions they prayed, "May you be our King, you alone"). On this occasion they spoke in terms of cynical expediency. But they expressed the real truth. Their lives showed that they gave no homage to God. The truth was that they had no king but Caesar. And it is die chief priests, the religious leaders, who utter the words.

16 There was nothing more that Pilate could do. He recognized defeat and handed Jesus over to execution.⁴⁰ He could now release him only at the cost of facing an accusation of having failed in his duty to Caesar. He had troubles enough without inviting a report to Caesar for taking action in favor of a powerless Galilean peasant. So Pilate handed him over. Grammatically "to them" ought to refer to the chief priests. But the execution was, of course, carried out by the Romans. Crucifixion was not a Jewish form of death, and in any case the Jews would not have been permitted to carry it out. But John's turn of phrase reveals that, whoever did the actual killing, Jesus was being delivered over to the will of the Jews who sought his death (cf. Luke 23:25). REE renders, "Then at last, to satisfy them, he handed Jesus over to be crucified."

D. JESUS PUT TO DEATH (19:16b42-)

John proceeds to the crucifixion proper. His narrative brings before us some things not recorded in the Synoptics: the information that the title over Jesus' head was in three languages, the Jews' challenge of the wording, and three of Jesus' "words" from the cross: "Dear woman, here is your son" with the corresponding "Here is your mother," "I am thirsty," and "It is finished." It is to John also that we owe the information that Jesus carried his cross during the first part of the journey to Golgotha, that Jesus' side was pierced, and that Nicodemus played an important part in the burial.

1. Jesus Crucified (19:16b-22)

So the soldiers took charge of Jesus, 17Carrying his own cross, he went out to The Place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Gol-gotha). 18Here they crucified him, and with him two others — one on each side and Jesus in the middle. 19Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read, JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek. 21 The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, "Do not write 'The King of the Jews,'but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews," 22Pilate answered, "What I have written, I have written."

16b ΝIV reads "the soldiers," but John says no more than "they"; this certainly refers to the soldiers, but the expression is curious.⁴¹

17 It was usual for a condemned prisoner to carry to the place of execution all or part of the cross to which he was to be fastened. John's "for himself" (NIV, "his own") puts a certain emphasis on the fact that Jesus did this particular piece of work.⁴² John's emphasis may be on the fact that Jesus accomplished the world's salvation alone. Many have discerned a reference to Genesis 22:6, Isaac being seen as a type of Christ. The Synoptists tell us that on the way Simon of Cyrene was pressed into service to relieve Jesus of this burden (Matt. 27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26; Mark and Luke add that he was coming "from the country"). Jesus will thus have carried the cross at first, but along the way, probably because he was weak through the flogging he had endured, he was relieved of the burden. This is the more likely in that the cross piece usually carried was not an unduly heavy burden for a normal man.⁴³ John tells us the name of the place where the crucifixion took place in both Greek and Aramaic.⁴⁴ The name means "a skull," but why a place was given this name is not known.⁴⁵ It is another example of John's knowledge of the topography of Jerusalem before its destruction, but we do not share his knowledge. The traditional site or "Gordon's Calvary" may be right. But we have no means of knowing.

18John describes the horror that was crucifixion⁴⁶ in a single word. As in the case of the scourging, he simply mentions the fact and passes on. Popular piety, both Protestant and Catholic, has often emphasized the sufferings of Jesus; it has reflected on what happened and has dwelt on the anguish the Savior suffered. None of the Gospels does this. The Evangelists record the fact and let it go at that. The death of Jesus for sinners was their concern.⁴⁷ They make no attempt to play on the heartstrings of their readers.

John, like the other Evangelists, tells us that there were two others crucified with Jesus, and that Jesus was in the middle. This may have been meant as a final indignity; Jesus was among criminals as he died, and in no sense separate. But John probably records the fact in order to bring out the truth that Jesus was one with sinners in his death.

19 Pilate wrote out "a notice"; this does not necessarily mean that he wrote it himself (cf. NIV, "had a notice prepared)." NIV omits "also" (see NRSV), which may well mean "in addition to the other indignities he had shown the Jews," The "notice" was a placard listing the crimes of the con-demned,⁴⁸ and attached to the cross. Over Jesus he wrote, "Jesus of Nazareth,⁴⁹ the King of the Jews," thus maintaining the position he took up in verses 14-15, and securing a certain grim revenge on those who had hounded him into consenting to Jesus' execution. John stresses the kingship motif right to the end. For him the royalty of Jesus is the significant thing. He does not let us forget it.

20John adds some information not found in the other Gospels. The title was read by many people. Probably not a great number had heard Pilate when he spoke of Jesus as King outside the Praetorium. But executions were popular functions in the first century and people would tend to watch a crucifixion, especially in a case like this where it was close to the city.⁵⁰ The reading was aided also by the fact that the inscription was trilingual. Anyone in the crowd who could read could almost certainly read Aramaic or Latin or Greek. Thus Pilate's description of Jesus would become widely known through the city and beyond. Moreover, each of the languages has a significance of its own. Aramaic was the language of the country, Latin the official language, and Greek the common language of communication throughout the Roman world. This will surely emphasize the universality of Jesus' kingship. Incidentally, the fact that the inscription was in three languages will sufficiently account for the fact that divergent accounts are given of its content in the four Gospels.

21-22 Not unnaturally the chief priests (here called "the chief priests of the Jews")⁵¹ did not like this. They had refused to have Jesus as their King, though they had made his claim to being a king a chief point in their accusation before the governor. They lodged an objection,⁵² though with the title already written and affixed it was a little late in the day. They wanted to have substituted for "The King of the Jews" something that said that he claimed that he was King.⁵³ Instead of the fact, they wanted the claim. But Pilate would not hear of it. With an air of finality he refused to alter what he had written.⁵⁴ John will want us to see that there is a kingship that Jesus exercises, and that nothing can change this. Whether Pilate sensed anything of this or whether his title is a further mockery of Jesus or of Jesus' accusers John does not say. Perhaps the last-mentioned is most probable.

2. The Division of Jesus' Clothing (19:23-24)

23When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom. 24"Let's not tear it," they said to one another. "Let's decide by lot who will get it." This happened that the Scripture might be fulfilled which said,

"They divided my garments among them

and cast lots for my clothing. "^a

So this is what the solders did.

a, 24 Psalm 22:18

23 It was customary for the soldiers who performed a crucifixion to take the clothing of the executed man; this was a recognized perquisite of their office. In accordance with this custom the soldiers who crucified Jesus divided his clothing⁵⁵ into four, one part for each soldier. It is this that enables us to see that there were four soldiers in the execution squad. The "undergarment," instead of being made out of separate pieces of cloth sewn together, was woven in one piece, without a seam.⁵⁶ It was thus of some value.

24 Accordingly the soldiers decided not to divide it up among them but to give it to one of their number as it was. They cast lots⁵⁷ to determine who should be the fortunate fellow. John sees in this a literal fulfillment of Scripture (Ps. 22:18).⁵⁸ He stresses that this is the reason for the soldiers' action.⁵⁹ Once again we see that his master thought that God was over all that was done, so directing things that his will was accomplished, not that of puny men. It was because of this⁶⁰ that the soldiers acted as they did.

3. Jesus Provides for Mary (19:25-27)

25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and. the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son, " 27and to the disciple, "Here is your mother. "From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

25 Jesus was not entirely forsaken in the hour of his death; some women stood by his cross. It is not certain how many there were. It is possible to think of two, "his mother" and "his mother's sister," who are then given their names. There are three if we equate "his mother's sister" with "the wife of Cleopas,"⁶¹ but this would involve two sisters both with the name "Mary," which seems very improbable. It is most natural to understand John to mean four women, the first two described, the third and fourth named. Thus four believing women stood by the cross. They will stand over against the four unbelieving soldiers who crucified Jesus,⁶² quite in the Johannine manner. Jesus' mother is mentioned first, unnamed as always in this Gospel. It is probable that "his mother's sister" is to be equated with Salome (Mark 15:40), and that she was "the mother of Zebedee's sons" (Matt. 27:56), who was standing at a distance with the other women when Jesus died. If so, and if the beloved disciple is John the son of Zebedee, a reason for the omission of her name appears. John never names himself or his brother or any of his family. It would be quite in keeping that he should not name his mother. Clopas is mentioned here only in the New Testament.⁶³ Mary Magdalene⁶⁴ is mentioned here for the first time in this Gospel, but in the next chapter John tells us of Jesus' appearance to her after the resurrection.

26 Even in his bitter anguish Jesus took thought for his mother.⁶⁵ He saw her and the disciple "whom he loved" (see on 13:23). This man has not been mentioned, though the others by the cross are listed. Is this perhaps the touch of one who remembers who were there, but records them as he saw them and thus does not mention himself? Jesus then said to Mary, "Dear woman,⁶⁶ here is your son." This is surely a way of saying that the beloved disciple would take his place in being her protector and provider, now that his earthly course was finished. It is perhaps a little strange that Jesus commends Mary to the beloved disciple rather than to his brothers. But they did not believe in him (7:5) and Mary did. The crucifixion and resurrection, however, seem to have worked a change in them, for shortly after the ascension we find them associated with the apostles and with Mary (Acts 1:14).

27 His words to Mary are complemented by similar words to the disciple.⁶⁷ These he would remember as a sacred charge. There is a typical Johannine note of time, "From that hour" (NIV, "time").⁶⁸ That he took her into his own home⁶⁹ implies, of course, more than that he provided her with a roof. From that time he took responsibility for her.

4. The Death of Jesus (19:28-30)

28 Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I am thirsty." 29A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips. 30When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

28 "Later" signifies a short interval;⁷⁰ John passes over other things and moves to the consummation. Jesus knew that the end was at hand. Once again John sees him as in complete command. It is not certain whether we should take "so that the Scripture would be fulfilled"⁷¹ with the preceding (". . . all was now completed so that the Scripture should be fulfilled")⁷² or with the following ("so that the Scripture should be fulfilled Jesus said, '1 thirst' "). In the latter case the Scripture will perhaps be Psalm 69:21. Either is possible, or, in the Johannine manner, there may be a reference to both.⁷³

29 "Wine vinegar" signifies a cheap wine,⁷⁴ the kind of drink that would be used by the masses. There was some of it there in a container of some sort. "There was set there" (NIV, "was there") appears to mean that it was provided for use at the crucifixion. It was not some wine that some people just happened to have with them. That there were also a sponge and some hyssop seems to indicate that it had been provided for the crucified, not simply for the soldiers. They now soaked a sponge in the wine, put it on "hyssop,"⁷⁵ and thus raised it to Jesus' mouth. The sponge was a useful way of conveying liquid to the lips of a crucified man, a cup of any sort being manifestly unsuitable.

30 Jesus drank the vinegar. Matthew and Mark tell us that he refused drugged wine before the crucifixion (Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23).⁷⁶ We should probably conclude that he wished to undergo his sufferings with a clear mind. But now that he is at the point of death he wants to say something that will be heard, so he calls for a drink to moisten his parched throat. He drinks, then says, "It is finished."⁷⁷ Immediately he dies. John does not speak of the tone in which he uttered the word, but elsewhere we read that Jesus uttered a loud cry just before his death (Matt. 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46; the first two mention that Jesus was given a drink just before this). It would appear then that the loud cry was, "It is finished." Jesus died with the cry of the Victor on his lips. This is not the moan of the defeated, nor the sigh of patient resignation. It is the triumphant recognition that he has now fully accomplished the work that he came to do.⁷⁸ Then he bowed his head, a detail mentioned only by John, and possibly the touch of an eyewitness. It is perhaps worth noting that the same expression is used of going to bed: "the Son of Man has no place to lay his head" (Matt. 8:20; Luke 9:58).⁷⁹ There is the thought of a peaceful death, the death of one who trusts his Father.⁸⁰ John goes on, "and gave up his spirit." This is not the usual way of referring to death.⁸¹ Indeed, in none of the four Gospels is any usual expression employed to describe the manner of Jesus' end. His relation to death is not the same as that of other people. It may be going too far to say that he "dismissed his spirit," but there does seem to be an element of voluntariness that is not found in the case of others.⁸²

5. The Piercing of Jesus' Side (19:31-37)

31Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34lnstead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36These things happened so that the Scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken, "^a 37and, as another Scripture says, "They will look on the one they have pierced. "^b

a. 36 Exodus 12:46; Num. 9:12; Psalm 34:20

b. 37 Zech. 12:10

This incident is peculiar to this Gospel. It indicates that the death of Jesus took place fairly quickly, more quickly than in the case of either of the others crucified with him. John finds scriptural significance in the facts that his bones were not broken and that his side was pierced. Despite the attempts to find an edifying meaning in the latter incident it seems best understood as the touch of an eyewitness who recorded it because it impressed him.

31 "The Preparation" (NIV inserts "day of") had become a technical term for "the Preparation for the Sabbath," that is, Friday (see Additional Note H, pp. 684-95). According to Jewish law the dead body of an executed criminal was not to remain all night "on the tree," but was to be buried that same day, because "You must not desecrate the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance" (Deut. 21:23). Thus a body should be removed from a cross⁸³ on any day before evening.⁸⁴ But especially was this the case when a sabbath was approaching, and even more so when that sabbath⁸⁵ was "a high day" (NIV, "a special Sabbath"),⁸⁶ that is, one of the important feasts (Berkeley, "a specially important day"). The Jews were thus insistent that the legs of the crucified should be broken.⁸⁷ The Roman custom was to leave the bodies of the crucified on their crosses as a warning to others. It was therefore necessary to obtain permission before removing a body. The victims of this cruel form of execution would slightly ease the strain on their arms and chests by taking some of their weight on their feet. This helped them to breathe and thus to prolong their lives a little, but when the legs were broken this was no longer possible. There was then a greater constriction of the chest, and death came on more quickly. This was aided also, of course, by the shock attendant on the brutal blows as the legs were broken with a heavy mallet. So the Jews wanted the process of death speeded up and the bodies removed.⁸⁸ It is perhaps significant that this is the last action of "the Jews" recorded in this Gospel. "The Jews" did not want their land defiled by the dead, but they were not concerned that they themselves were defiled by their deed.

32-33 It is not said that Pilate gave his approval, but evidently he did for the soldiers came to break the legs of the sufferers. They did actually break the legs of both the men who were crucified with Jesus, which indicates that they were at this time still alive. But when they came to⁸⁹ Jesus they saw that he was already dead. Therefore they did not break his legs. There was no point in it.

34 But one of the soldiers was not content simply to pass by. Either out of brutality or to make sure that Jesus was really dead he thrust⁹⁰ his spear⁹¹ into his side. Immediately blood and water came out (cf. 1 John 5:6). The significance of this is not clear. In view of the following verse it is plain that John wants us to take this as a record of what actually happened. He is not manufacturing an edifying piece of symbolism but describing an event. The author was struck by it, and therefore included it in his Gospel. But this does not exclude the possibility that John saw spiritual significance in what he records. Some scholars appear to deny this, holding that it points to the manner of Jesus' death, namely by a ruptured heart.⁹² Or it may be that he has in mind a Jewish belief that the body consists of half water and half blood.⁹³ The thrust of the spear shows Jesus' body to be a genuine human corpse (in opposition to Docetic teaching that the body was a phantom). Others, however, see a mystical significance⁹⁴ or a reference to the sacra-ments.⁹⁵ It is more likely that the explanation should be in terms of John's use of the terms "blood" and "water" elsewhere. Apart from the statement that believers are born "not of bloods" (1:13) John uses the former term only in chapter 6, from which we learn that life comes from appropriating the blood of Christ (6:53-56). Water is used more often, but perhaps the significant references are those to being born "of water and the Spirit" (3:5), to the "living water that is the gift of Christ (4:10, 11, 14), and to the "living water" that would flow from the inner being of the believer, which is explained as referring to the Spirit (7:38-39). There is a consistent reference in the use of both terms to the life that Christ gives. We conclude, then, that John is reminding us that life, real life, comes through Christ's death.⁹⁶

35 This incident evidently made a profound impression on the mind of the Evangelist. He brings out emphatically that he has good evidence for what he is saying. This evidence is surely the testimony of the Beloved Disciple. He is mentioned in verses 26-27, the last reference to the followers of Jesus before this verse. Moreover, the writer mentions no other disciple as having been present at the scene. The identification is not certain, but it is probable.⁹⁷ Be that as it may, there was someone there who saw it and who has borne his testimony,⁹⁸ a testimony that is reliable.⁹⁹ This may be understood in more ways than one. The writer may be referring to himself as a witness, which seems to be the meaning in Weymouth's translation: "This statement is the testimony of an eye-witness, and it is true. He knows that he is telling the truth — in order that you may believe."¹⁰⁰ Or the writer may be distinguishing between himself as the author and another man who is the witness. Rieu sees it that way: "This is vouched for by the man who saw it, and his evidence may be relied on. Also, to assure you, the writer knows that he is telling the truth.¹⁰¹ It is also possible that the writer is calling God to witness, as Moffatt renders: "He who saw it has borne witness (his witness is true; God knows he is telling the truth), that you may believe."¹⁰² When experts differ so widely it is unwise to be dogmatic. I incline to the view that the first suggestion is the correct one, but one cannot be sure. What is plain is that John is placing some emphasis on the fact that this incident may be relied on.¹⁰³ He is maintaining that it is recorded "so that you also may believe."¹⁰⁴ The production of faith in the readers is the main purpose for the writing of this Gospel (20:31).¹⁰⁵ John does not explain how faith will result from the narration of the issuing of water and blood from the side of the crucified Savior, but clearly he expected it to do so.¹⁰⁶

36 Characteristically John finds a fulfillment of Scripture in these happenings. The purpose of God had to be fulfilled.¹⁰⁷ He refers to two separate things, the fact that Jesus' bones were not broken and the fact that his side was pierced. It is really extraordinary that both these things happened. Jesus escaped the breaking of the legs though this happened to both those crucified with him, and he experienced a hard spear thrust, which appears to have been most unusual but which yet did no bone damage. Most commentators think that the passage John has in mind for the first is Exodus 12:46 or Numbers 9:12, both referring to the Passover (or perhaps Exod. 12:10, LXX). When that sacrifice was instituted the command was given that not one bone of the victim was to be broken. If this is the allusion, John is referring to Jesus as the perfect Passover offering (cf. the death at the time of the killing of the Passover sacrifices, v. 14, and the use of hyssop, v. 29). This is a motif that we have seen elsewhere, and it is the most likely explanation of this passage. Those who do not see the Passover here prefer a reference to Psalm 34:20, which refers in a general way to God's care for his own. It contains the specific assertion that God "protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken." This is possible, but it does not seem as probable as the Passover allusion.¹⁰⁸

37 The other Scripture does not seem so difficult. There is agreement that John is referring to Zechariah 12.10¹⁰⁹ (cf. also Rev. 1:7). It is not the kind of allusion that a modern student would readily discern, but it fits in with the habit of mind of the first century.¹¹⁰ And this passage from the prophet certainly strengthens the Evangelist in his conviction that in the events associated with the crucifixion the will of God was done. John was evidently impressed by the fact that, though Jesus' body was pierced, not one bone was broken, and that this corresponded exactly with Scripture.

6. The Burial (19:38-42)

38 Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jews. With Pilate's permission, he came and took the body. 39He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.^a 40Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. 41At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. 42Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.

a. 39 Greek a hundred litrai (about 34 kilograms)

38 Sometime later¹¹¹ Joseph of Arimathea¹¹² began to make arrangements for Jesus' burial. John introduces Joseph rather abruptly. We hear of him neither before nor after this incident; the burial of Jesus is the one thing by which he is known. We are told only that he was from Arimathea, and that he was a secret disciple. Neither Mark nor Luke says in so many terms that he was a disciple, though this may be implied when they say that he was "waiting for the kingdom of God" (Mark 15:43; Luke 23:51). Matthew does say that he was a disciple (Matt. 27:57), and also that he was rich. Mark and Luke do not say this, but they tell us that he was a councillor, and Luke adds that he was "a good and upright man" and that he "had not consented to their decision and action" (Luke 23:50-51). It would not have been easy for a member of the Sanhedrin to profess himself a follower of Jesus, so that John's information has nothing inherently improbable about it. But the death of Jesus apparently affected Joseph in a way different from that of the closer disciples. They all fled, but Joseph now went to Pilate (Mark says that he went in "boldly") and asked permission to take Jesus' body away for burial. It may be that he felt that in Jesus' lifetime he had paid him little honor, and that he was now presented with his last opportunity. The Jews of that day regarded proper burial of their dead as most important. Many went out of their way to see that fellow countrymen received proper burial, and this may have had something to do with Joseph's action. He now came to ask Pilate's permission to remove Jesus' body. The Romans did not normally give such permission in the case of people executed for sedition. That Pilate gave it may be a further indication that he did not think that Jesus was guilty. Joseph took the body away. Clearly Joseph was a rich man, and we may find in his action a fulfillment of Isaiah 53:9.

39 The other Evangelists speak of Joseph's part in the burial, but they do not mention Nicodemus. Indeed, they never mention him at all; it is to John that we owe all our information about him. He is characterized here by his first coming to Jesus by night (see on 3:2). Clearly this fact meant a good deal to John. Nicodemus brought spices, myrrh, and aloes (for this conjunction cf. Ps. 45:8; Prov. 7:17; Song 4:14; aloes are mentioned only here in the New Testament). It was the custom to put spices of this kind in with the sheets round the body in a burial, so Nicodemus was performing a normal courtesy. What is unusual is the amount, "about seventy-five pounds" (34 kilograms), though if Nicodemus wished to cover the body completely the quantity is not excessive. But there is evidence that large quantities were used in royal burials (2 Chron. 16:14), and the probability is that John is reminding us again of Jesus' kingship.¹¹³ The thought may well be in mind that when he spoke with Nicodemus Jesus talked of the kingdom (3:3). The lavish provision may also be meant to show that Nicodemus, like Joseph, was trying in the hour of Jesus' death to make some reparation for his failure to do more in Jesus' life. The amount shows that Nicodemus must have been a wealthy man. It is possible that in this incident we are to see the consequence of Jesus' prediction of the passion in his first interview with Nicodemus. If on that night Jesus had told the Pharisee that he would one day die for people this may explain why Nicodemus was ready to do what he could at the burial at a time when the disciples had all run away. Whereas the disciples who had openly followed Jesus ran away at the end, the effect of the death of Jesus on these two secret disciples was exactly the opposite. Now, when they had nothing at all to gain by affirming their connection with Jesus, they came right out into the open.

40 These men gave Jesus decent burial according to the Jewish custorn. This provided for an embalming, but unlike, for example, the Egyptian practice, there was no mutilation of the body. They first prepared the body by wrapping it in linen cloths.¹¹⁴ This will mean long, bandage-like strips rather than a shroud or the like. They put the spices between the folds.

41 There was a tomb in a garden (only John mentions the garden) very near to the place of execution. John actually says that it was "in" the place, so it must have been very close indeed. The tomb is described as "new," as one "in which no one had ever been laid." Tombs were commonly hewn out of the solid rock, and closed with heavy stones. The stone at the mouth would run in a groove and finish right over the opening. Such tombs were expensive, and there would be a tendency to use them again and again. Sometimes this would arise because from the beginning the tomb was designed to take more than one body, but on this occasion John tells us that the tomb had never¹¹⁵ before been used, a detail that Luke also mentions (Luke 23:53). Matthew tells us that it was Joseph's own tomb (Matt. 27:60).

42 There was need for haste, for clearly it would be getting near to sundown when the Sabbath would start. It was necessary therefore to get the burial completed before then. So, because it was Friday (for the term "the Preparation" see the comments on v. 31 and Additional Note H, pp. 684-95), and because¹¹⁶ this tomb was near, they buried Jesus there.

————————————————

1. Beasley-Murray cites J. Blinzler for the view that "Mark's past participle,

2. Yet we should remember that there were different kinds of flogging. Sherwin- White lists fustes, flagella, and verbera (Roman Society and Roman Law, p. 27). The first was a comparatively light beating, something in the nature of a warning. The third, a severe flogging, was never used by itself, but would accompany, for example, a crucifixion. If there were two beatings of Jesus, the first will have been a fustigatio and the second a verberatio.

3. This appears to be the force of τότε ούν; cf. BDF, "Jn uses τότε ούν . . . with a fuller sense = 'now' (in contrast to the preceding time)" (459 [2]).

4. The severity of this form of punishment is seen in certain incidental references. Thus Josephus tells us that a certain Jesus, son of Ananias, was brought before Albinus and "flayed to the bone with scourges" (Bell. 6.304). Eusebius says that certain martyrs at the time of Polycarp "were torn by scourges down to deep-seated veins and arteries, so that the hidden contents of the recesses of their bodies, their entrails and organs, were exposed to sight" (HE 4.15.4). Small wonder that men not infrequently died as a result of this torture (cf. the passages fromCicero cited by Godet). Incidentally, if Jesus' scourging was a severe one (we do not know how many blows he received), this would explain why he died after such a comparatively short time on the cross.

5. στέφανος strictly denotes a wreath of victory rather than a royal crown (διάδημα). It was awarded, for example, to the winners at the Games. The στέφαμνος might also be used at feasts. For the crown of thorns cf. H. St. J. Hart in JThS, n.s. Ill (1952), pp. 66-75. Hart argues that it was a caricature of the "radiate" crown, a crown in which spikes radiate outward. He suggests that such a crown (which might well be made from the palm tree) was a form of crown that pointed to the ruler as divine. If this form of crown was used, then Jesus "was presented as at once θεός and βασιλεύς — he was as it were divus lesus radiatus. Accordingly he was the object in mockery of proskynesis" (p. 74). This is, of course, not proven, and the traditional idea that the crown was an instrument of torture may be correct. But we do not know for sure. Mr. Hart's suggestion is an interesting one, and widely accepted.

6. John's word is πορφυροΰν (cf. Mark 15:17, πορφύραν). Matthew speaks of a χλαμύδα κοκκίνην (Matt. 27:28). In strictness scarlet was the color formed from the dried bodies of a scale insect that lived on the oak, while purple, a very costly color, came from the shellfish murex. But the ancients do not seem to have distinguished very sharply between colors, at least in their nomenclature. Purple was the color for royalty, but the soldiers would not have had access to a genuine purple cloak. A scarlet cloak, however, would be easy to obtain, and it would give the general idea well enough. See further R. C Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament (London, 1880), pp. 185-86.

7. There are three imperfects here, ἤρχοντο, ἔλεγον, and έδίδοσαν. They indicate that the soldiers kept doing these things.

8. This appears to be the force of ό Βασιλεύς. Cf. Moulton: "we may represent the nuance by . . . 'Hail, you "King"!' In the latter passage we can easily feel the inappropriateness of the βασιλεϋ found in , which would admit the royal right, as in Ac 26⁷. Its appearance in Mk 15¹⁸ is merely a note of the writer's imperfect sensibility to the more delicate shades of Greek idiom" (Μ, I, pp. 70-71). Similarly BDF points out that "Attic used the nominative (with article) with simple substantives only in addressing inferiors, who were, so to speak, thereby addressed in the 3rd person" (147 [3]). This must not be applied rigorously in the New Testament, since God may be addressed with ό θεός or ό Πατήρ. But in the present passage it is likely that there is an element of contempt.

9. For ράπισμα see the note on 18:22.

10. For John's use of άνθρωπος of Jesus see on 4:29. J. L. Houlden draws attention to the suggestion of J. Tomin that we should understand the speaker as Jesus (the Greek means no more than "and he says"; grammatically the subject could be "Jesus"), and the meaning as "See what man is like" (ExT, 92 [1980-81], pp. 148-49). Houlden considers this sense "a shade too philosophical" and sees no compelling reason for taking the words in this way. We should understand the words as Pilate's.

11. 1960.

12. Cf. Richardson, "Adam (a Hebrew word meaning 'man') was created by God to be a king over the whole created world; all creation was to be ruled by a son of man (Hebrew, ben adam) (Ps. 8 . . .). In Christ, the Son of Man, God's original intention in the creation is fulfilled. He is the new Adam, the messianic King. Thus, we have in Pilate's words a striking example of Johannine double entendre; whereas Pilate might merely have meant, 'Look, here is the fellow,' his words contain the deepest truth about the person of Christ." Cf. also Pilcher, "Jesus summed up in His own Person the ideal Humanity — and this was how humanity treated Him." F. J. Moloney says, "Seen in the context of the whole Gospel, and of John's use of 'the Son of Man', it seems very probable that the title is implied here" (The Johannine Son of Man [Rome, 1976], p. 207).

13. The repetition of the article before ύπηρέται separates the two groups and stops us taking them as a uniform whole. Contrast Matt. 16:21; 26:47; 27:3, 12; and Luke 9:22, all of which regard the high priests and elders as forming a kind of unity. John once links the Pharisees and the high priests in this way (7:45), but otherwise he always has the high priests as a separate group. Cf. Μ, III, p. 182.

14. ἐκραύγασαν denotes a loud shout, "roared" (Dods), "yelled" (Moffatt).

15. The anarthrous Yἱὸv Θεοϋ may be meant to put some stress on the quality.

16. μάλλον έφοβήθη is somewhat curious. There has been no previous mention of Pilate as being afraid. Thus, the expression makes it seem as though the meaning is "was afraid rather than — ." Perhaps the Jews expected him to be angry or the like, but rather he was afraid. More probably the term is elative, "he was very much afraid."

17. It is also somewhat strange that Pilate should use the emphatic pronoun σύ. Abbott points out that σύ in questions and imperatives "sometimes implies contempt" (2403), but he prefers the explanation that, as in Epictetus, there is a suggestion of incredulity: "he comes back into the Praetorium repeating to himself 'This man son of God!' and then utters his thought aloud to the prisoner, 'How could you possibly be (Son of God)?'" (2404). Another suggestion is that the question was a natural one at the beginning of an inquiry, and that Pilate is beginning his inquiry all over (Luke records that at an early stage Pilate asked whether Jesus were a Galilean, Luke 23:6).

18. Cf. Temple, "With his mind full of stories about gods who married women, and of the offspring of such unions, how can he begin to understand the relation of Jesus, Son of God, to the Father?"

19. He uses the emphatic pronoun έμοί and begins his sentence with it: "To me you do not speak?" In view of the almost unlimited power possessed by the Roman prefect in the exercise of his imperium the question is not unnatural.

20. The word is έξουσία, "authority." Pilate repeats the word, thus giving it a certain emphasis, and the same word is then taken up by Jesus in the next verse as he brings out the true nature of authority.

21. We would have anticipated av with οϋκ είχες. Its omission does not, however, appear to affect the sense.

22. κατ' έμοϋ should probably be translated "over me" (as in ΝIV, Moffatt, Rieu, etc.) rather than "against me" (KJV). It is the sense, "in respect of," "concerning" (LS, A.II.7). κατά often does have the meaning "against," but it is difficult to believe that Jesus is thinking here exclusively of Pilate's power to crucify. There is also the power to release, and this is not a power "against" Jesus.

23. The verb παραδίδωμι is used characteristically of Judas, who is described as ό παραδιδοΰς αϋτόν (18:2, 5). But it is also used of the Jews in their giving up of Jesus to Pilate (18:30, 35). For that matter it can be used of Pilate himself (19:16).

24. Some scholars hold that the comparison is not with Pilate, but with what would otherwise be the case. Thus Bernard cites Wetstein: "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." But this is scarcely a natural interpretation and the more usual view is to be preferred.

25. έx τούτου. See also 6:66 for the same expression and the same ambiguity.

26. Note the imperfect έζήτει.

27. See BAGD sub Καίσαρ for examples of the expression as an official title; also Deissmann, ΙΛΕ, pp. 377-78; Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law, p. 47.

28. τοϋτον is probably used with a touch of contempt, "this fellow."

29. Philo tells us that on another occasion when certain Jewish leaders spoke of referring a certain matter to the Emperor Tiberius, Pilate "feared that if they actually sent an embassy they would also expose the rest of his conduct as governor by stating in full the briberies, the insults, the outrages and wanton injuries, the executions without trial constantly repeated, the ceaseless and supremely grievous cruelty" (Leg. ad Gai. 302). We need not doubt that Philo was overplaying his hand, but it is plain enough that Pilate would not relish an imperial scrutiny of his governorship.

30. For άκούω with the genitive see on 5:25.

31. The verb καθίζω is often transitive, and some scholars take it that way here. This gives the meaning that Pilate sat Jesus on the judgment seat (so, e.g., Weymouth, Moffatt, Goodspeed, Schonfield, Haenchen, and de la Potterie). This is, however, most unlikely. In the first place it is impossible to imagine the governor doing such a thing (whether with his approval or not, it was the soldiers who carried out the mockery). In the second place, the transitive use is not very common in the New Testament. John uses the verb elsewhere only in 12:14, where it is intransitive (it also occurs in 8:2, again intransitively). And in the third place καθίζω έπΐ βήματος is a rather natural expression for taking one's place on the judgment seat (it is used of Pilate himself by Josephus, Bell. 2.172). Barrett discovers a typical Johannine double meaning: "We may suppose then that John meant that Pilate did in fact sit on the βήμα, but that for those with eyes to see behind this human scene appeared the Son of man, to whom all judgement has been committed (5.22), seated upon his throne."

32. This is the only place in the New Testament where βήμα is used of the judgment seat without having the article prefixed, that is, it is "a" judgment seat, not "the" judgment seat. It may well signify that a temporary judgment seat was set up on the Pavement. One would have expected that the normal βήμα would have been inside the Praetorium.

33. Λιθόστρωτον may mean "a stone pavement" or "a mosaic pavement." Γαββαθα, a word that occurs here only, is of uncertain meaning. It has been suggested that it is from, gab baitha', "the hill of the House," i.e., the mound on which the temple was built. It it difficult to grasp the appropriateness of this suggestion. The same is true of other explanations. In our present state of knowledge neither the meaning of the name, nor the situation of the place so named, can be known with certainty. Λιθόστρωτον is not, of course, meant as a translation of the Aramaic term. The two appear to have quite different meanings. They are alternative names for the same spot. Some scholars think the "Pavement" was a portable site for the judgment seat and cite Suetonius, Vit. Div. Jul. 45, in support. Suetonius, however, speaks of the portable "tesselated and mosaic floors" as evidence of unusual luxury, not as the normal state of affairs, and he does not connect them with judgment. W. F. Albright thinks that L. H. Vincent has demonstrated that the place referred to is the courtyard of the Tower of Antonia, where there was a Roman pavement covering at least 2,500 square meters. Since it stood on a rocky height, the name gabbetâ, "ridge," was applicable (BNT, pp. 158-59). Robinson, however, rejects this identification (Priority, p. 54).

34. The preposition εις before τόπον is curious. It may be due to the influence of the earlier ἤγαγεν, or it may simply be equivalent to έν.

35. That is, taking the usual sentence division. A. Mahoney, however, argues that the words "at the third hour" should be taken with the preceding words about the casting of lots and not with the following words about the crucifixion (CBQ, XXVIII [1966], pp. 292-99). He thinks that this casting of lots took place at the time of the scourging, well before the crucifixion. If this be accepted, there is no contradiction with the present passage.

36. Westcott, however, draws attention to Polycarp's martyrdom "at the eighth hour" (Mart. Pol. 21), which he thinks must mean 8 a.m. and not 2 p.m. He also cites the martyrdom of Pionius "at the tenth hour" and maintains that this cannot be 4 p.m. since this kind of thing usually took place in the morning. From these two references he reasons that in Asia Minor people counted from midnight. It is a slender basis on which to erect a theory that involves John in a method of counting the hours at variance with what is established in every other place. W. M. Ramsay further points out that the games were over when Polycarp was tried, and that this is unlikely to have occurred much before midday (Expositor, 4, vii [1893], pp. 221ff.; he also regards Pionius as having died in the afternoon, p. 223). Pliny, commenting on the fact that various people reckon time in various ways, says; "The actual period of a day has been differently kept by different people: the Babylonians count the period between two sunrises, the Athenians that between two sunsets . . . the common people everywhere from dawn to dark, the Roman priests and the authorities who fixed the official day, and also the Egyptians and Hipparchus, the period from midnight to midnight" (Natural History 5.188; Loeb translation). There is a good discussion in HDB, V, pp. 475-79). The critical point is the absence of evidence for dividing this "official day" into hours reckoned from midnight. No passage is cited for this. See also on 1:39.

37. Barrett thinks the difficulty may be a purely transcriptional one. Since the Greek numerals Γ (3) and F (6) could easily be confused, he notes a similar possibility with Hebrew characters. He prefers to think, however, that John has altered the time so as to bring the death of Jesus to the time the Passover victims were being killed. Ryle has a good account of the various attempts to solve the problem. C. C. Cowling thinks that in Mark ὥρα can have the meaning "watch," and, since the third watch was from noon onward, that Mark means essentially what John does (ABR, V, nos. 3-4, pp. 155-60). The argument is ingenious, but falls short of demonstration. W. M. Ramsay's article, "About the Sixth Hour" (Expositor, 4, vii [1893], pp. 216-23) takes the line I have adopted: "The Apostles had no means of avoiding the difficulty as to whether it was the third or the sixth hour when the sun was near mid-heaven, and they cared very little about the point" (p. 218). He illustrates the normal vagueness about time by pointing out that "in Latin idiom, 'in the lapse of an hour' (horae momento) is used where we should now say 'in a second' " (ibid.).

38. The aorist έκραύγασαν perhaps points to a great shout (rather than a continuing noise, which, however, almost certainly followed), έκεΐνοι will set the Jews in emphatic contrast to Pilate.

39. Άρον is usually taken to mean "Away with him," but Lightfoot points out that the verb also means "raise." He thinks that there may be a subtle Johannine reference to the exaltation of Jesus. Curiously C. K. Williams translates, "Down with him." But the word has the meaning "up" rather than "down."

40. Cf. Sherwin-White, "the implication that Pilate adopted, or was willing to adopt, the sentence of the Sanhedrin — is entirely within the scope of the procurator's imperium" (Roman Society and Roman Law, p. 47).

41. Grammatically the words refer to the chief priests and the words recall 1:11. Westcott comments, "The Jews received Christ from the hands of the Roman governor for death: they did not receive Him from the teaching of their own prophets for life." Some scholars hold that "they" means the Jews, who then proceeded to crucify Jesus by the hands of the Romans.

42. It may, however, reflect the Aramaic dativus ethicus, "carried him the cross," as Black thinks (AA, p. 76).

43. Some students find further evidence for Jesus' weakened state in the use of the verb φέρουσιν to describe his progress after Simon took the cross (Mark 15:22). The most natural meaning of this expression is "they carried" (him), though too much should not be placed on this since the verb is often used in the sense "lead," "conduct."

44. Γολγοθά = . BAGD thinks that this may point to an Aramaic (cf. 2 Kings 9:35). Our word Calvary is from the Latin calvaria, which also means "skull." The neuter relative δ is rather strange since τόπος is masculine. Perhaps it refers to Κρανίου, a neuter noun. Or the expression Κρανίου τόπου may be regarded as a unity and treated as a neuter place name. There are somewhat similar neuters in Matt. 27:33 and Mark 15:22, referring to this same place and its interpretation. The expressions δ έστιν and τοϋτ' έστιν are often used as explanatory formulas (like the Latin id est) quite irrespective of gender (see BDF, 132 [2]). It may be that a similar force is at work here.

45. The usual explanation is that Jesus was crucified on a hill that was in the shape of a skull. This may be right. But there is no ancient tradition to that effect and we should also bear in mind that, despite frequent references in hymns, sermons, and the like to the hill on which Jesus was crucified, nothing in the Gospels indicates that Jesus was crucified on a hill. Another explanation is that skulls from executed victims lay there. But this would require the plural "skulls," not "skull." Moreover, there was a garden "in" this place (v. 41), which makes it highly improbable that bodies or parts of them were allowed to lie about. Another suggestion, dating from the time of Origen, is that Adam was buried there. But there is no reason for thinking that this tradition is pre-Christian. The plain fact is that we have no evidence at all to determine the point. We do not know why such a curious name was used.

46. The Gospel accounts are the fullest descriptions of crucifixion that have come down to us from ancient times. Crucifixion was a shameful thing, and the writers of antiquity do not dwell on it. There was some variety in crucifixion; a good deal depended on the whims and the sadism of the executioners. Sometimes a single stake was used, or the cross might be in the shape of an X or a Y. There might be a cross beam at the top of a vertical stake (the crux commissa or patibulata) or lower down (the crux immissa or captilata). The victim was fastened to the cross with either cords or nails, the nails being driven through the wrists or forearms (not the hands, which could not sustain the weight of the body; it would tear free). The cross beam was fixed so that the victim's feet were off the ground, but not necessarily very high off the ground. There was a hornlike projection (the sedile or sedecula), on which the crucified person could rest some of his weight. This was meant not to relieve the sufferer but to prolong the agony. Goguel quotes A. Réville's description: "it represented the acme of the torturer's art: atrocious physical sufferings, length of torment, ignominy, the effect on the crowd gathered to witness the long agony of the crucified. Nothing could be more horrible than the sight of this living body, breathing, seeing, hearing, still able to feel, and yet reduced to the state of a corpse by forced immobility and absolute helplessness. We cannot even say that the crucified person writhed in agony, for it was impossible for him to move. Stripped of his clothing, unable even to brush away the flies that fell upon his wounded flesh, already lacerated by the preliminary scourging, exposed to the insults and curses of people who can always find some sickening pleasure in the sight of the tortures of others, a feeling that is increased and not diminished by the sight of pain — the cross represented miserable humanity reduced to the last degree of impotence, suffering, and degradation. The penalty of crucifixion combined all that the most ardent torturer could desire: torture, the pillory, degradation, and certain death, distilled slowly drop by drop. It was an ideal form of torture" (The Life of Jesus [London, 1958], pp. 535-36). The remains of a man crucified in Jerusalem at roughly the same time as Jesus have been found (see J. H. Charlesworth, ExT, LXXXIV [1972-73], pp. 147-50). The legs were bent, twisted so that the calves were parallel to the cross beam and a single nail was driven through both heels into the upright. The legs had been broken, one simply fractured, the other shattered. It is not certain what actually caused the death of the crucified. Both the circulation and the respiration would have been affected, and this in a body already weakened by the vicious flogging that was the normal preliminary, and now subject to prolonged exposure. One suggestion is that the combination would bring on heart failure. Another possibility is brain damage caused by a reduced supply of blood reaching it. Or the effect on the lungs so reduced the air supply that the victim in effect suffocated in the end. We do not know. The shape of Jesus' cross has traditionally been held to be the crux immissa, and this may well be correct. That Pilate's τίτλος over his head proves that this is not, however, correct. With the crux commissa the body would sink down low enough for a τίτλος to be affixed. See further M, Hengel, Crucifixion (London, 1977); J. H. Charlesworth, LXXXIV, pp. 147-50; B. Smalhout, Zadok Perspectives, June 1985, pp. 9-10); Ε. M. Yamauchi, Evangelical Review of Theology, 9 (1985), pp. 136-37; J. A. Fitzmyer, CBQ, 40 (1978), pp. 493-513.

47. Cf. Morgan: "It may be a challengeable opinion, but I think the Church of God has suffered more than it knows by pictures of the crucifying of Jesus; and sometimes by very honest and well-intentioned sermons, trying to describe the matter on the physical side. I am not denying the tragedy and the pain of it physically, but the physical suffering of Jesus was nothing compared to the deeper fact of that Cross."

48. John calls it a τίτλος, which Dods describes thus: "The 'title,' αιτία, was a board whitened with gypsum (σανίς, λεύκωμα) such as were commonly used for public notices." Suetonius speaks of a slave whom Caligula ordered to be punished by having his hands cut off and hung from his neck, "and that he then be led about among the guests, preceded by a placard (titulo) giving the reason for his punishment" (Calig. 32).

49. For Ναζωραΐος see on 18:5.

50. The words John uses mean something like "near was the place of the city where Jesus was crucified." According to MiM this way of putting it was "because a closer connection is thus established between the crime committed there and the guilty city of Jerusalem."

51. oi αρχιερείς των 'Ιουδαίων. This appears to be the only place where this expression is found (though cf. Acts 25:15). A contrast with "the King of the Jews" may be intended.

52. Turner sees in the present imperative μή γράφε the significance "stop writing, i.e. alter what you have written " (Μ, ΠΙ, p. 76). Moule, however, includes this in a list of passages where "the reason for the use of the tense is difficult to detect" (IBNTG, p. 21). See further on 2:16).

53. After "Do not write" there is an article, ό Βασιλεύς, but this is lacking when the expression is repeated after "he said." Abbott draws attention to the distinction in the classics between βασιλεύς, " 'King' uniquely, the name given to the sovereign of the East, and ό βασιλεύς 'the king' of this or that barbarous tribe." He sees accordingly "perhaps an inner evangelistic meaning" in John's usage here (1966a). This, however, is to overlook the New Testament usage whereby a definite predicate noun which precedes the verb regularly lacks the article (see on 1:1). Here Βασιλεύς precedes είμι and is therefore anarthrous. The meaning is "The King."

54. This is reflected in the double use of the perfect tense, Ό γέγραφα, γέγραφα. The aorist might well have been used in place of the first γέγραφα, so that the substitution of the perfect increases the air of finality.

55. The plural ιμάτια is used, but this may be a general term for "clothing" (like our "clothes") rather than signifying a plurality of garments. See Mark 5:27, 30 for the interchangeability of the singular and plural of this word. In strictness it denotes the outer garment in distinction from the χιτών, the undergarment. The normal clothing of the time comprised a loin cloth, a χιτών, a ίμάτιον, a belt, a head covering, and sandals (see Daniel-Rops, Daily Life in Palestine at the Time of Christ [London, 1962], pp. 211-18). It is possible that Jesus' Ιμάτιον was divided at the seams. Or the four parts may have been made up by including such items as the belt and head cloth. If so, the one who got the Ιμάτιον got a good deal more than did his fellows. The casting of lots ("what each would get," Mark 15:24) may be concerned with this problem. The soldiers cast lots to determine which article belonged to which soldier. The seamless χιτών remained over when each had something. So, rather than divide it, they cast lots again.

56. Josephus tells us that the high priest's χιτών was of this type, woven in one piece (Ant. 3.161). John may want us to discern a reference to Christ's priestly activity as he offered himself in death. Christian commentators, both ancient and modern, have sometimes seen in the seamless robe a reference to the unity of Christ's followers, gathered together through his death (so, e.g., de la Potterie, p. 127). This unity is real, but it is a trifle fanciful to see it in the seamless robe. M. F. Wiles's citation of Theodore of Mopsuestia has point: "Christ's seamless robe woven from the top, which suggested to Origen the wholeness of Christ's teaching, to Cyprian the unity of the church, and to Cyril the virgin birth of Christ, receives from Theodore no other comment than that such methods of weaving were common in the time of Christ, although in his day they had died out except for soldiers' uniforms" (The Spiritual Gospel [Cambridge, 1960], p. 25). The term άραφος incidentally is found nowhere else in the New Testament, and the same is true of υφαντός.

57. The verb λαγχάνω means "to obtain by lot," as in Acts 1:17. However, it is clear that in the present passage the meaning must be "cast lots."

58. SBk has a long note on the use of Ps. 22 in ancient Jewish writings (Π, pp. 574-80). This is valuable in view of the frequent citation of this Psalm in the passion narratives.

59. He introduces the quotation from Ps. 22 with the purposive conjunction ίνα (for ίνα without a preceding principal verb see on 1:8), and after citing the passage from the Psalm he adds, "So (ούν) this is what the soldiers did." Some scholars think that the whole gambling motif has been introduced in order to find a fulfillment of prophecy. One feels that their zeal to find an Evangelist manipulating the facts to square with a theory outruns their knowledge of the ways of fighting men. Nothing is more natural than a little gambling in such circumstances.

60. μέν ούν is found in John only here and in 20:30. In the New Testament it is usually resumptive, and many writers hold that that is its significance here.

61. The Greek does not use the term "wife1' here. It reads Μαρία ή τοϋ Κλωπά. This could mean "the wife of" or for that matter "the mother of" or "the sister of" or "the daughter of" Klopas. The expression would perhaps most naturally be taken to mean "the daugher of" were it not that the woman in question seems to have had grownup sons. A lady of this age would be known by reference to her husband rather than to her father. Godet holds that this lady is identical with "his mother's sister" and that there were three women at the cross. He meets the objection that two sisters are not likely to have had the same name by suggesting that άδελφή here may be used in the sense of the rare term γαλόως ("sister-in-law"). This is possible, but scarcely convincing.

62. In the light of Matt. 27:55 and Luke 8:2-3 it is not impossible that these women had provided the very clothes over which the soldiers gambled.

63. It is unlikely that this man is to be identified with Cleopas (Luke 24:18). As NBD points out, the names appear to be distinct, for εο does not contract to ω but to ου. Moreover, there is agreement that Κλεόπας is a contraction of Κλεόπατρος, whereas Κλωπας is Semitic. Some identify Clopas with Alphaeus (Matt. 10:3, etc.), maintaining that these are variant Greek forms of the same Aramaic name, . This, however, is disputed (see Deissmann, BS, p. 315, n. 2), and some roundly deny the possibility. Those who maintain the identity point out that Alphaeus is the father of James the less (Matt. 10:3), and that the Mary mentioned here as Clopas's wife is apparently the mother of James (Mark 15:40). The identification cannot be ruled out as impossible, but in our present state of knowledge it is best not to be dogmatic. According to Eusebius, Hegesippus says that Clopas was the brother of Joseph (HE 3.11.1).

64. Her name is given here as Μαρία (as also in 20:1,11; , however, reads Μαριάμ in all three places). In 20:16,18 it is Μαριάμ, which corresponds more nearly to the Aramaic form (which would have been used by Jesus in addressing her), ή Μαγδαληνή probably means "the woman from Magdala," a town not far from Tiberias on the west side of the Sea of Galilee. We read of this woman in the passion narratives in all four Gospels, both as being present at the crucifixion and as coining to the tomb early on the morning of the resurrection. Apart from this we read of her only that seven demons went out of her (this is not further explained) and that she was one of the women who ministered to Jesus (Luke 8:2-3).

65. Cf. Barclay, "There is something infinitely moving in the fact that Jesus in the agony of the Cross, in the moment when the salvation of the world hung in the balance, thought of the loneliness of His mother in the days when He was taken away. Jesus never forgot the duties that lay to His hand."

66. The Greek means "Woman"; for γύναι as a form of address see on 2:4. NIV inserts "Dear" to make it clear that there is no harshness.

67. Roman Catholic exegesis has often taken this to mean that Mary is appointed mother to John and, more, to the whole church. But this is reading something into the text. Jesus is surely providing that Mary be cared for, now that his death is approaching, not appointing her to a place of supremacy over all his followers.

68. This may mean that the Beloved Disciple took Mary away immediately so that she did not witness the death of her Son. This is supported by the fact that she is not mentioned in the group of women who were there when Jesus died (Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:40). Against it is the difficulty of seeing how the beloved disciple could have taken her home and returned in time for the events of vv. 31-37 (most agree that he witnessed them whether or not he is directly mentioned in v. 35). But "From that hour" need not mean "from that moment." When we consider the way in which "the hour" is used in this Gospel it is clear that it need mean no more than "from the time of the crucifixion." It is also urged that if Jesus' mother came to the place of execution it is most unlikely that she would have left before the end, all the more so in that the other women remained.

69. The expression εις τά ίδια does not necessarily denote one's permanent home. It is used of all the disciples in 16:32 and they would certainly not all have had homes in Jerusalem.

70. The expression is μετά τοϋτο ("after this"), for which see on 2:12.

71. The verb τελειόω is used only here in the New Testament in the sense of the fulfillment of Scripture. It has about it the air of bringing to its end or aim (τέλος). It will point to the complete fulfillment of Scripture in Christ, and probably to the completion of the work of Christ in accordance with Scripture.

72. De la Potterie argues for this way of taking the words (pp. 137-38, 152-53).

73. J. M. Spurrell argues that the thirst is to be interpreted in terms of being "cut off from the knowledge and the Spirit of God" (it being a thirst to be understood in terms of the "living water"). He thinks of it accordingly as being akin to the cry: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" of Mark 15:34 (CQR, CLXVII [1966], pp. 12-18).

74. δξος was the Roman posca, a vinegar, well diluted with water.

75. There has been a good deal of argument about this term. Many scholars say that the plant in question is one well adapted for sprinkling, but that it does not grow stems long enough for the purpose here mentioned. The implication is that John was not concerned with accuracy, but only with some symbolical meaning, perhaps in connection with purification, though a better suggestion is that, since hyssop was used in connection with Passover ceremonies (Exod. 12:22), John may be calling attention to Jesus as the perfect Passover sacrifice. Some writers have been so impressed by the difficulty of using hyssop to give drink to a crucified man that in place of ύσσώπφ they conjecture an original ύσσω (javelin), a reading actually found in the eleventh-century cursive 476. No good reason has been adduced, however, why this reading, if original, should have been so universally corrupted. G. D. Kilpatrick remarks that the conjecture has been welcomed by the translators rather than by the commentators. He rejects it on two main grounds: it does not agree with the nature of John's vocabulary and the meaning of the term is the pilum, a weapon of the legionaries, but not of the auxiliaries who were stationed in Palestine (Transactions of the Victoria Institute, LXXXIX [1957], p. 99). Tasker accepts the conjecture, regarding the widespread reading as due to dittography (GNT, p. 429). But the conjecture should be rejected. The difficulty appears to be due to the fact that too many critics are too sure that they know what ΰσσωπος was. BAGD, for example, describes it as "a small bush w. blue flowers and highly aromatic leaves," from which one would never gather that the experts are not too sure what plant the term denotes. Thus W. E. Shewell-Cooper says, "I find it difficult to discover what hyssop really is" (Plants and Fruits of the Bible [London, 1962], p. 75). NBD thinks that the plant meant in the present passage "was probably the Sorghum vulgare, var. durra... a maize-like grass attaining at least 6 feet in height." In view of all this there seems to be no real reason for doubting that by ύσσώπφ John meant a plant with a stem sufficiently long for the purpose indicated. It should be borne in mind, moreover, that a very long rod was not needed since the crucified were not normally raised very high. All that was necessary was that the feet be clear of the ground, so that Jesus' mouth would probably be within reach of a man of average height. Quite a short cane would suffice.

76. It is good to know that it was customary for a drug to be offered to the crucified so that some of their pain was mitigated. We read of the custom in Sank. 43a, "When one is led out to execution, he is given a goblet of wine containing a grain of frankincense, in order to benumb his senses, for it is written, Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto the bitter in soul. And it has also been taught: The noble women in Jerusalem used to donate and bring it" (Soncino edn., pp. 279-80).

77. In the Greek this is one word, τετέλεσται, which is another of John's ambiguous terms. It could mean that Jesus' life was finished (i.e., that he was at the point of death). This is part of the meaning, but it is highly improbable that it is the whole meaning. More important is the truth that Jesus' work was finished. He came to do God's work, and this meant dying on the cross for the world's salvation. This mighty work of redemption has now reached its consummation. It is finished. The same word was used in v. 28 (NIV, "was completed"); the repetition gives emphasis.

78. Anton Baumstark sees in this the central point for John: "In the mind of the great Apostle of Asia Minor, St. John, the Beloved Disciple, who stood under the dying Master's Cross until the final Consummatum est, even the Resurrection could add nothing to the remembrance of that triumphant cry" (Comparative Liturgy [London, 1958], p. 174). A. Corell can say, "Surely it is not an exaggeration to think that τετέλεσται is the key word of the Fourth Gospel, the key to the solution of its theological problem." He proceeds, "The whole of the Fourth Gospel is really the story of the death of Jesus regarded as an eschatological fact" (Consummatum Est [London, 1958], p. 106). So also Marsh: "It cannot be too strongly emphasized that for John the cross is the instrument and point of victory, not the point of defeat which has to be reversed on Easter morning."

79. Matthew and Luke have ποϋ τήν κεφαλήν κλίνη, while John's expression is κλίνας τήν κεφαλήν. That resting place for his head that he did not have on earth he found on the cross.

80. Beasley-Murray cites a comment of Origen: Jesus "bent the head and took His departure in the act of resting it, as it were, on the lap of the Father, who could cherish it and strengthen it in His bosom."

81. παρέδωκεν τό πνεύμα. De la Potterie points out that this expression is never elsewhere used for dying (p. 163). Bernard points out that the Hebrew of Isa. 53:12, "he poured out his soul unto death," might well be translated παρέδωκεν είς θάνατον τήν ψυχήν αύτοΰ. He thinks that John may well be alluding to this passage. He goes on to maintain that the verb παραδιδόναι "expresses a voluntary act."

82. Another interpretation of this last phrase is that Jesus handed over the Spirit to the believers gathered near the cross (cf. 7:37-39). This seems to me very difficult to get from the text, but Hoskyns, in the light of I John 5:8, finds it "not only possible, but necessary." M. F. Wiles, however, tells us that among the patristic commentators πνεϋμα here "is never interpreted of the Holy Spirit" (The Spiritual Gospel [Cambridge, 1960], p. 67). Elsewhere he tells us that the expression used "is almost universally interpreted of the essentially voluntary nature of his death" (p. 62).

83. επί τοϋ σταυροϋ is singular, though "the bodies," τά σώματα, is plural. But the construction is perfectly intelligible.

84. Josephus attests this as the Jewish custom: "the Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even malefactors who have been sentenced to crucifixion are taken down and buried before sunset" (Bell. 4.317).

85. The expression ή ήμερα τοϋ σαββάτου, evidently a translation of the Hebrew , is found in a number of places (Luke 13:14, 16: 14:5). Sometimes the plural των σαββάτων replaces τοϋ σαββάτου with the same meaning (Luke 4:16; Acts 13:14; 16:13). This is the only example of the construction in John and the only place in the New Testament where έκεϊνο accompanies το σάββατον.

86. SBk points out that this Sabbath could be called "great" whether it were Nisan 15, since that was the first day of the Passover festival, or Nisan 16, for on that day the Omer sheaf was offered according to the Pharisaic tradition (II, pp. 581-82). The reference thus does not help in deciding the question of whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not. It accords with either of the two important theories. I. Abrahams finds no instance before John 19:31 of the use of the term the "great Sabbath" and he mentions an opinion that the later rabbinic use was borrowed from the church (Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, Π [Cambridge, 1924], p. 68). This, however, is unlikely, and John's use of the expression seems inexplicable unless the term was already in use among the Jews.

87. It is unusual to find in John the plural verb with a neuter plural subject, and it is difficult to see a reason for it here. All the more is this the case in that we have just had the singular μείνη with the subject τά σὠματα. It is, of course, possible that τά σκέλη is accusative, "that they might have their legs broken." This has the further advantage that it avoids an awkward change of subject when we come to the following ὰρθῶσιν. The subject of the verb can scarcely be τά σκέλη.

88. Plummer cites Lactantius: "His executioners did not think it necessary to break His bones, as was their prevailing custom. י' If this is accurate the horror of broken legs was habitually added to that of crucifixion. The apocryphal Gospel of Peter brings out the prolonging of the torture this normally meant by saying (4:14), they "commanded that his legs should not be broken, so that he might die in torments" (E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, I [London, 1963], p. 184).

89. This use of ἐπί with the accusative to denote motion right up to a person is found only here in John. It occurs more often in the Synoptic Gospels.

90. νύσσω occurs only here in the true text of the New Testament (though it is found in some MSS of Matt. 27:49, and in a different sense in one or two of Acts 12:7). It is perhaps another example of John's love for slight variation that the verb differs from that used in the citation of Scripture that he sees fulfilled in the incident, namely έκκεντέω (v. 37).

91. The λόγχη was originally the iron point or spearhead. Then it came to denote a lance, a shaft tipped with an iron point (see GT, LS).

92. This was argued by William Stroud, M.D., in his book, Treatise on the Physical Cause of the Death of Christ (London, 1847), and accepted by Sir Alexander Simpson (Expositor, 8.xi [1916], pp. 74-75). J. Wilkinson rejects this view, as also V. Taylor's theory of embolism, Le Bee's view that asphyxia was the cause, and J. L. Cameron's suggestion that acute dilatation of the stomach was the cause, all on medical grounds. He points out that each of the Evangelists uses an expression that "implies a deliberate act of will in dying" (Matt. 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46; John 19:30). He says most doctors know of patients who decided to die and did so "when there was no apparent physical reason for them to die." He concludes that "the view which most satisfactorily explains our Lord's death is that he voluntarily surrendered His life on the Cross before the usual physical causes of death in crucifixion could operate" (ExT, LXXXIII [1971-72], pp. 104-7; the quotations are from p. 107). Dodd refers to a study by Raymond Schmittlein that views traumatic shock as the fundamental cause of death (HTFG, p. 1361; Wilkinson rejects this view, too).

93. SBk gives the evidence (II, pp. 582-83). Cf. F. C. Burkitt: "According to 1 Joh ν 6-8 the living personality has in it three elements, viz., spirit, water, blood. From the 'water' we are begotten, by the 'blood' we are sustained, and the 'spirit' or breath is the immaterial element that enters at birth and leaves at death. The spirit quitted Jesus when He died (Joh xix 30), leaving behind the water and blood of a human body, the existence of which was demonstrated to the onlookers by the spear-thrust of the soldier" (The Gospel History and its Transmission [Edinburgh, 1907], p. 233, n. 1).

94. Thus Westcott says, "The issuing of the blood and water from His side must therefore be regarded as a sign of life in death. . . . Though dead, dead in regard to our mortal life, the Lord yet lived; and as He hung upon the cross He was shown openly to be the source of a double cleansing and vivifying power, which followed from His death and life." But this is based on a view of the connection between blood and life that appears to be untenable (see my The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross³ [London and Grand Rapids, 1965], ch. III). Hoskyns has an interesting list of patristic interpretations.

95. E.g., Richardson, "The symbolism is profound: from Christ's self-oblation there flow the healing waters of baptism and the life-giving blood of the Eucharist." W. Marxsen thinks that the words are there of a redactor who "is making it clear that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are based upon the death of Jesus" (Introduction to the New Testament [Philadelphia, 1974], p. 256). One would feel happier about this type of interpretation if it could be demonstrated that the early church did in fact use "water" to mean "baptism" and "blood" to signify "Holy Communion."

96. Cf. Barrett, who says that John "was not concerned to support this or that detail of sacramental practice or terminology, but to emphasize, perhaps against those who controverted it, that the real death of Jesus was the real life of men." Some commentators find a reference to purification in the water, and this is quite possible. Purification is connected with life in the Spirit as a necessary preliminary. Ryle is reminded of the opening of "a fountain ... for sin and for uncleanness" (Zech. 13:1).

97. Cf. W. G. Kümmel, "Since only the Beloved Disciple was mentioned as present at the cross (in addition to the women), it is natural to find him mentioned in the έωρακώς and witness of 19:35, though, to be sure, that is not clearly said" (Introduction to the New Testament [London, 1966], p. 166).

98. The perfect, μεμαρτύρηκεν, will signify "he has set it on permanent record."

99. Plummer brings out the force of it: "S. John first says that his evidence is adequate; then he adds that the contents of it are true. Testimony may be sufficient (e.g. of a competent eyewitness) but false: or it may be insufficient (e.g. of a half-witted child) but true. S. John declares that his testimony is both sufficient and true." For the importance of witness in this Gospel see on 1:7, and for άληθινός on 1:9. This is one of the places where Kilpatrick reads άληθής (with 124 א Chrys).

100. Lagrange notes an objection to understanding the writer to be referring to himself on the grounds that he has twice recorded the truth that a man's witness to himself is not valid (5:31; 8:13; he himself, however, thinks that the writer is the witness). This would have more weight if he were in fact bearing witness to himself here. But he is not. It is witness to an observed fact that is meant. Barclay detects a reference to the writer: "he goes out of his way to say that this is an eye-witness account of what actually happened, and that he personally guarantees that it is true." That έκεΐνος is not impossible with reference to the writer is shown by Josephus's use of the pronoun in just this way (Bell. 3.202; cf. also John 9:37). Support for the view that the writer is referring to himself may perhaps be found in the strong emphasis on personal witness in 1 John 1:1-3.

101. The principal advantage of this view (and it is a considerable one) is that it is a very natural way of understanding εκείνος. Torrey maintains that έκεΐνος here reflects the Aramaic hahu gabra, "a common Jewish substitute for the pronoun of the first person singular." An objection is the difficulty of seeing how the writer, if not an eyewitness himself, could know that the witness was speaking the truth, as he solemnly assures us is the case. Those who understand the words to refer to a witness other than that of the author often think of that witness as the Beloved Disciple. This, however, is not said.

102. This is sometimes supported by the contention that in this Gospel, apart from dialogue, έκεΐνος is generally emphatic and is often used of God or of Christ. Lagrange finds a reference to Christ, as does Hoskyns, who regards it as "almost necessary" to refer the words to our Lord. This, however, is not borne out by the facts. Dodd has shown that the usage of έκεΐνος in this Gospel supports the view that the reference is to the witness (HTFG, p. 134, n. 1). Bernard reminds us that John uses έκεΐνος not only of the Deity but quite often also of people, such as John the Baptist, (5:35), Moses (5:46), and the blind man (9:10). It requires more than this pronoun to demonstrate a reference to God or to Christ. Strachan sees a threefold witness: the Evangelist in v. 34, the Beloved Disciple in v. 35, and Christ himself, also in v. 35. This is attractive but hard to discern in the text. Incidentally John rarely uses και έκεΐνος as here, preferring κάκεΐνος.

103. I.e., assuming we have the text of what he wrote at this point. Blass was most uncertain of this, saying, "In this passage, however, everything is doubtful, so far as criticism is concerned. There is doubt about the whole verse, which is wanting in e and Cod. Fuldensis of the Vulgate, about this particular clause, about the text of this clause, as Nonnus read εκείνον οΐδαμεν, etc. . . . The fact that so many theologians have based their theories as to the origin of the 4th Gospel on this verse and the meaning ordinarily attached to it is only explicable on the ground of a complete neglect of textual criticism" (Grammar of New Testament Greek [London, 1905], p. 172, n. 2). It may, however, be doubted whether Blass is being fair to the evidence. While the textual variants he notes should be weighed we should not attach to them more than their due weight. After all, there is a limit to the value we attach to the combination e, Cod. Fuldensis, and Nonnus. These can scarcely outweigh the mass of the authorities, especially since they do not all say the same thing. Turner is also hesitant about this verse. He draws attention to variation in John's use of έκεΐνος and concludes, "it is inadvisable to build any theories of authorship on the notorious έκεΐνος (= he, the eye-witness) in Jn 19³⁵" (Μ, III, p. 46).

104. If, as seems likely, the present subjunctive should be read, ἵνα μιστεύητε may be meant to indicate a continuing faith rather than merely an entry into faith. But many MSS read the aorist, so the point should not be pressed.

105. J. Ramsey Michaels connects this verse with the confession of faith of the centurion recorded in Mark 15:39. He suggests a tentative identification of the centurion with the "witness" of this verse (CBQ, XXIX [1967], pp. 102-9). There is much that is speculative here, but Michaels certainly draws attention to the fact that John understands what he records to be for the purpose of establishing faith.

106. Westcott has a very useful Additional Note on the interpretation of this passage among the Fathers. He cites many of them, both Greek and Latin.

107. Note the significance of ίνα..

108. The correspondence with the Greek is not as close as in the case of the other two passages. For example, the words όστοϋν and αύτοϋ are absent from Ps. 34:20, though present in the other two passages. There is poetic parallelism in the Psalm, but not in John or in the Pentateuchal passages. Moreover, the Psalm is concerned with the preservation of the righteous from death; it is concerned with saving his life, not with the condition of the bones in his corpse. The other two passages do refer to the treatment of a dead body. In favor of the reference to the Psalm are the facts that the Pentateuchal passages both give a command and are in the active, whereas the Psalm and John both represent a prediction and are passive. But these considerations do not outweigh the others.

109. The quotation follows the Hebrew text, not LXX, which reads κατωρχήσαντο ("mocked," reflecting the misreading of for ) instead of John's έξεκέντησαν. But Theodotion and Aquila agree with John, so we cannot regard it as proved that John is translating direct from the Hebrew. He may have used a translation that on this point is like Theodotion and Aquila, but that has now perished. The most natural understanding of it, however, is that John knew and used the Hebrew. The LXX translators may well have been deterred by the bold anthropomorphism of the original (the piercing of God).

110. Calvin denies that the passage refers to Christ in the literal sense: "Rather he shows that Christ is the God who had complained through Zechariah, that the Jews had pierced His heart (Zech. 12:10). Now God here speaks in a human way, meaning that He is wounded by the sins of His people."

111. μετά ταΰτα (see on 2:12). The expression does not appear to denote strict chronological sequence and accordingly does not necessarily place Joseph's approach to Pilate immediately after the incident with the spear. It may mean that Joseph went to Pilate as soon as Jesus' death appeared imminent, or perhaps had taken place.

112. The location of Arimathea is not known. It may be identical with Ramathaim- Zophim (1 Sam. 1:1), but this does not help, for the site of this place is uncertain. Since Joseph had a tomb near Jerusalem it appears that Arimathea was his birthplace, but that he had now moved to the capital.

113. SBk cites an incident in which the proselyte Onkelos burned more than 80 minas of spices at the funeral of R. Gamaliel the elder. Asked why he did this he drew attention to Jer. 34:5 and went on: "Is not R. Gamaliel better than a hundred kings?" D. R. Sylva argues that the large quantity of spices "signifies a lack of understanding of 'the "lifting up" of the Son of Man' " (NTS, 34 [1988], p. 148), but his argument fails to carry conviction.

114. According to MM, όθόνιον in Egypt at any rate, denoted fine linen. They cite as parallels to the present passage papyri where it is used of "fine linen-wrappings for a mummy." It is generally agreed that the term denotes thin strips or bandages whereas σινδών (Matt. 27:59; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53) refers to a sheet or shroud. F. N. Hepper has a useful article entitled "Flax and Linen in Biblical Times" (Buried History 25 December 1989], pp. 105-16). He points out that linen "was an expensive textile" used by the rich or for special occasions like burials.

115. The double negative ούδεπω ούδείς puts emphasis on this fact.

116. For causal δτι see on 1:50.

↑ Back to top