18 Where they crucified him, and two others with 18 Golgotha: where they crucified him, and with him him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.

two others, on either side one, and Jesus in the

was the most sacred spot upon earth-the 'Sepulchre in the Garden'-we dare not positively assert, though every probability attaches to it."1

has-Sekilah-The House of Stoning:' for there is no reason to think that the Roman procurator would have made use of a different place of execution to that established by the Jewish Sanhedrin, although that assembly 18. Where they crucified him. These had been debarred by the Romans from the few words signify a most cruel infliction, a power of inflicting capital punishment only a punishment that was invented to make death little before the date of the crucifixion." as painful and protracted as possible. EderAfter showing that the "House of Stoning" sheim describes it thus: "First, the upright was also a recognized place of crucifixion, wood was planted in the ground. It was not he proceeds thus: "A tradition is current high, and probably the feet of the sufferer amongst the Jews of Jerusalem, which places were not above one or two feet from the this House of Stoning' at the present knoll ground. Thus could the communication, north of the Damascus Gate, in which is a described in the Gospels, take place between cave, known since the fifteenth century as the him and others; thus, also, might his sacred 'Grotto of Jeremiah,' with a cliff, the maxi- lips be moistened with the sponge attached to mum height of which is about 50 feet, facing a short stalk of hyssop. Next, the transverse southwards towards the city." "The site is wood (antenna) was placed on the ground, one well-fitted for a place of public execution. and the sufferer laid on it, and his arms were The top of the knoll is 2,550 feet above the extended, drawn up, and bound to it. Then sea, or 110 feet above the top of the Sakhrah (this, not in Egypt, but in Carthage and rock in the Haram. It commands a view Rome), a strong, sharp nail was driven, first over the city walls to the temple enclosure, into the right, then into the left hand (the and the Holy Sepulchre Church. A sort of clavi trabales). Next, the sufferer was drawn amphitheatre is formed by the gentle slopes on up by means of ropes, perhaps ladders; the the east; and the whole population of the city transverse either bound or nailed to the upmight easily witness from the vicinity any right, and a rest or support for the body fasthing taking place on the top of the cliff. The tened on it-(the cornu or sédile). Lastly, the knoll is just beside the main north road. It feet were extended, and either one nail hamis occupied by a cemetery of Moslem tombs, mered into each, or a larger piece of iron which existed as early as the fifteenth century, through the two. We have already expressed at least; and the modern slaughter-house of our belief that the indignity of exposure was Jerusalem is on the north slope. The hill is not offered at such a Jewish execution. And quite bare, with scanty grass covering the rocky so might the crucified hang for hours, even soil, and a few irises and wild flowers grow- days, in the unutterable anguish of suffering, ing among the graves. Not a tree or shrub is till consciousness at last failed." And with visible on it, though fine olive groves stretch him two others, on either side one, and northward from its vicinity." ("Survey of Jesus in the midst. Matthew (27: 38), and Western Palestine-Jerusalem," p. 430, sq.). Mark (15: 27), call these two men robbers (Aporai) We regard the "House of Stoning" as meeting the conditions found in the New Testament for Golgotha far better than they are met by the traditional site at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Of it, Edersheim, says: "It is a weird, dreary place, two or three minutes aside from the high road, with a high, rounded, skull-like, rocky plateau, and a sudden depression or hollow beneath, as if the jaws of that skull had opened. Whether or not the tomb of the Herodian period in the rocky knoll to the west or Jeremiah's Grotto, | fixion of our Lord."

1 The last word on the "Site of Calvary," is from the lem, in the Andover Review, for November, 1885, p. 484 : pen of Dr. Selah Merrill, American Consul at Jerusa"If a person, wholly ignorant of any question in connection with the Site of Calvary, were asked to select a spot, without the walls of the city for the public execution of criminals, the only two conditions being that the place should be a sightly one and convenient to the Castle of Antonia, he would not hesitate a moment in choosing this hill for that purpose." Again, on p. 488. "The strong probabilities are in favor of regarding the hill above Jeremiah's Grotto, as the place of the cruci

a Matt. 27: 37; Mark 15: 26; Luke 23: 38.-1 Or, for the place of the city where Jesus was crucified was nigh at hand.

He

only kind of a king they were ever likely to have, had died the death of a malefactor." Attention has been called by writers on in

-not thieves-for thieves take that which be- | was, apparently, a kind of rough tenderness longs to others, secretly, while robbers do the towards the man whom he had condemned in same thing by open violence and murder. the form which Pilate had ordered. The Evangelists have given us no informa- would, at least, recognize his claims to be in tion, beyond the meaning of this designation, some sense a king. The priests obviously felt concerning the previous life or criminal con- it to imply such a recognition, a declaration, duct of the " malefactors" (Luke) crucified as it were, to them and to the people that One with the Saviour. But, Matthew and Mark | who had a right to be their king, who was the testify that the robbers joined with the chief priests in reproaching Christ, while Luke asserts that one of them relented, confessed the justice of his punishment and the blameless-spiration to the difference between the superness of Christ, and entreated the latter to remember him when he should come in his kingdom. (Matt. 27: 44; Mark 15: 32; Luke 23: 39-43.) Thus these two dying criminals were equally near the Saviour; but one of them rejected him bitterly, while the other sought his favor with penitence.

cription over Jesus given by one Evangelist and that given by another. No two of them are alike. Matthew says it was: This is Jesus, THE KING OF THE JEWS; Mark: THE KING OF THE JEWs; Luke: This is THE KING OF THE JEWS; and John: Jesus of Nazareth, THE KING OF THE JEWS. It is admissible to suppose that the title in full, read: This is Jesus of Nazareth, THE KING OF THE JEWS. In copying it, Mark thought it sufficient to give only the essential part, the accusation, omitting the introductory words; Luke also thought it unnecessary to give the name, and therefore copied the accusation, with the introductory words, this is; Matthew gave all but the adjective signifying of Nazareth; and John omitted the less important this is, giving the name in full and the accusation. No one of them added anything to what was written; no one omitted any word of the accusation. Historians of perfect veracity are doing the same thing continually. To say that this or that was said, is not, ordinarily, to

19. And Pilate wrote a title. Add the word also, with the Revised Version, to make the English represent exactly the Greek. The word title is said to have been the technical name for such a statement as was placed on the cross. Matthew and Mark call it his accusation. It was "the bill, or placard, showing who the condemned person was, and why he was punished.”—Plumptre. And put it on the cross: probably, above the head of Jesus, on the upright shaft. And the writing was: more literally, and there was written.-(Rev. Ver.), but the meaning is the same. Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews. It is easy to imagine several reasons why Pilate put just this title on the cross. It would be, in some sense, an adequate rea-affirm that this or that is all that was said. If son for capital punishment, at least, in Roman nothing is omitted which changes the meaneyes. It would keep before the Jews the ing of what is repeated, there is often no charge on which Pilate acted; and the more reason for saying that anything is omitted. of reality there was back of the claim of We regard, therefore, such differences as apJesus, the more disgraceful was the transac-pear in the several copies of this title made by tion on the part of the Jews, and the less the Evangelists as entirely consistent with the culpable on the part of the governor. doctrine of plenary inspiration. would, perhaps, suggest that Jesus had impressed Pilate as one who had some sort of religious pre-eminence which the Jews were bound to honor. Says Plumptre: "There

It

20. This title then (therefore) (ovv) read many of the Jews. The reading of it was a natural consequence of its being placed on the cross, and also, of its being placed there by au

21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, Í am King of the Jews.

22 Pilate answered, What I have written I have writ

ten.

23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.

21 The chief priests of the Jews therefore said to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but, that he said, 22 I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What have written I have written.

23 The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also the coat: now the 1 coat was without seam, woven from the top

a Matt. 27: 35; Mark 15: 24; Luke 23: 34.-1 Or, tunic.

priest had rent his clothes and accused him of blasphemy. (See Matt. 26: 63-66; Mark 14: 61-64; Luke 22: 67-71; John 19: 7.) Taking this answer of Jesus as it was understood by the Sanhedrin, we must deny that it was a claim to being king of the Jews, in any ordi

thority, and not less, perhaps, of its character, | But it did not fairly represent what Jesus had so displeasing to the Jews. For the first priest said of himself, either to them or to the govthat read it, would be likely to speak of it toernor. When conjured by the high priest, in his companions with keen dissatisfaction, and answer to the question, "Art thou the Christ, so the knowledge of it would spread. For the Son of God?" he had said, "I am; and the place where Jesus was crucified was ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the nigh to the city: and, therefore, many vis- right hand of power, and coming with the ited Golgotha, and when there, read the super-clouds of heaven." Upon this, the high scription. The nearness of the place was a reason why so many read the offensive title. And it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. So that all who passed by could read it for themselves, if they could read at all. The natives of Palestine were, of course, familiar with their mother tongue-nary sense of that expression. In answer to the Aramaic, here called the Hebrew. Jews born in foreign lands, but sojourning at this time in Jerusalem (see Acts 2: 8-11), would be likely to know the Greek, as would many of other nations. And some of the Romans connected with Pilate's army would probably know how to read the Latin only. It is possible that the full superscription was written in but one of these languages, while only the more important part of it was written in the others. But there is no evidence of this in

the Gospel narratives.

Pilate's question, "Art thou a king, then?" he affirmed that he was; but proceeded to explain his kingship, not as placing him over the Jews, as a people, but as clothing him with authority as a witness to the truth over all genuine lovers of the truth (John 18: 36, 37). It is clear, then, that these "chief priests of the Jews" wished to have the title changed, not for truth's sake, but to escape the sting that was felt to be in it.

22. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written. In other words: "The thing is done and cannot be changed; the word is spoken and cannot be revoked: I have written once for all, and the matter is settled.". For the procurator has no desire to gratify these Jewish zealots. On the contrary, he is pleased to show them his independence.

23, 24. THE SOLDIERS DIVIDE HIS GARMENTS AMONG THEMSELVES.

21. Then said the chief priests of the Jews. The Revised Version is probably correct in rendering the conjunction (ovv), therefore, instead of then; for the sequence is logical rather than temporal. John conceives of the remonstrance of these Jewish priests as occasioned by the ease with which all who passed that way could read the title over Jesus, as it was written in three languages. The expression, "chief priests of the Jews," 23. This verse resumes the narrative of the is not found elsewhere in the New Testament, crucifixion by the soldiers at the point reached but may be accounted for by the writer's de- in verse 18-the narrative concerning the title sire to emphasize the fact that they belonged over Christ having taken the writer along to to the leading Jewish party that had com- a somewhat later point. The connecting parpassed the death of Christ. Write not, The ticle (our) should be rendered therefore, instead King of the Jews; but that he said, I of then. For, as a consequence of their am King of the Jews. This request of having crucified Jesus, the soldiers took the priests was natural, and indeed, plausible. his garments-"the head-gear, the outer

a

24 They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the Scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.

24 throughout. They said therefore one to another,
Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall
be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith,
They parted my garments among them,
And upon my vesture did they cast lots.

a Ps. 22: 18.

cloak-like garment, the girdle, and the san- | Messiah"-a work of great value-it may not dals."-Edersheim. And made four parts, be out of place to add, that we see no reason to every soldier a part: from which it ap- for his statement regarding the time when this pears that they were but four in number--a qua- division of the Saviour's garments was effected, ternion. (Acts 12: 4.) If, as many infer from viz.: "Before nailing him to the cross, the Matt. 27: 54; Mark 15: 39; Luke 23: 47, there soldiers parted among themselves the poor, was a centurion over the four, he did not worldly inheritance of his raiment." It was share in the division of raiment. "It is gen- after, rather than before, according to the erally stated, that this [division of the crimi- obvious meaning of all the narratives. nal's raiment among the executioners,] was the common Roman custom. But of this there is no evidence, and in later times it was expressly forbidden (Ulpianus 'Digest,' 48, 20, 6). I cannot see how Keim, and, after him, Nebe, infers from this as certain, that the law had formerly been the opposite."-Edersheim. But a prohibitory law implies a more or less prevalent custom, against which it was aimed, and this custom explains the word therefore, by which John connects the division of the garments with the act of crucifixion. And also his coat, or tunic (xirwv), the garment worn next the skin, and covering the whole body from shoulder to ankle. Now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. "Besides these four articles of dress, there was the seamless, woven, inner garment, by far the most valuable of all, and for which, as it could not be partitioned without being destroyed, they would specially cast lots."-Edersheim. "Specially"—because, as Edersheim thinks, they had previously cast lots for their several portions in the four less important garments. But this is by no means certain. Matthew, says, that they parted his garments, casting lots; and Mark, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take; and even the words of Mark might be used, we think, by one who intended to characterize the division, briefly, as one in which lots were used, though not, perhaps, for every article. Edersheim remarks, still further: "It is deeply significant, that the dress of the priests was not sewed, but woven (Sebach. 85a), and especially so, that of the high priest." Having quoted so freely from Edersheim, "The Life and Times of Jesus, the

24. Note the particularity of this description, as if the writer had been present, seeing and hearing. That the Scripture might be fulfilled. Nothing was unforeseen or unprovided for in the plan of God. "Him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye, by the hand of lawless men, did crucify and slay," (Rev. Ver.,) said Peter, to the men of Israel, on the Day of Pentecost. And, therefore, the apostles were not surprised to find the events of Christ's death foreshadowed or foretold in the Old Testament. The Scripture quoted is the eighteenth verse of the twenty-second Psalm -a Psalm which must be interpreted as referring to Christ. Perowne believes that reference to be typical, but adds: "Whether, however, we take the Psalm as typical or predictive, in any case, it is a prophecy of Christ, and of his sufferings on the cross." On the other hand, Weiss affirms that it was understood by John as a direct prediction: “that the Scripture, etc., namely, Ps. 22: 18, verbally according to the Septuagint; yet, not understood typically, of the old theocratic sufferer (Meyer), or of David (Luthardt and Godet), but directly, of Christ." Westcott seems to agree with Weiss: "The central thought in the original context is that the enemies of the Lord's Anointed treated him as already dead, and so disposed of his raiment." For other citations from Psalm 22, see Matt. 27: 39, 43, 46; John 19: 28, below; and Heb. 2: 12. These things therefore the soldiers did. Therefore, that is, because they were predicted in Scripture, or, looking a little more deeply, because they were included in the purpose God as made known in part by the Holy Scriptures.

25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, | 25 These things therefore the soldiers did. But there and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

a Matt. 27: 55; Mark 15: 40; Luke 23: 49....b Luke 24: 18....c ch. 13: 23; 20: 2; 21: 7, 20, 24....d ch. 2: 4....e ch. 1: 11; 16: 32.

25-27. JESUS COMMITS HIS MOTHER TO | earlier Evangelists passed it by in silence is THE CARE OF JOHN.