Apart from John’s very indirect allusion to himself as present at the crucifixion, the gospels give no hint of the other apostles being there. Yet Peter was at Golgotha-“a witness of the sufferings of Christ” (1 Pet. 5 :1). Now, as he beheld his Master suffering alone, with what pangs of self-reproach he would think of the harrowing experiences of the previous night.

Possibly others of the apostolic band were there also, mingling as obscurely as possible with the crowd. But if they were there, the reference to them is veiled. Luke records that “all his acquaintance stood afar off beholding these things.” That phrase seems to include the apostles. Is it then because of their desertion of him that they are not named as disciples?

This loneliness in suffering is another of the aspects of the Lord’s sacrifice which is dwelt upon more than once in the prophecies of his rejection. “My lovers and my friends stand aloof from my sore; and my kinsmen stand afar off” (Ps.38 ill). “Thou hast put mine acquaintance far from me; Lover and friend hast thou put far from me; mine acquaintance is darkness” (88:8,18). “Because of all mine adversaries I am become a reproach, yea, unto my neighbours exceedingly, and a fear to mine acquaintances: they that did see me without fled from me” (31 :11RV; note that verse 5 here was quoted by Jesus on the cross).

Some of the women seem to have taken courage to come right up to the cross. “Perfect love casteth out fear.” Possibly, after a while, they were given permission by the centurion in charge. The expression: “when Jesus saw his mother,” implies that they were not there close to the cross all the time. Along with Mary was her sister Salome (Mk.15 :40), the wife of Zebedee and mother of James and John, and also Mary Magdalene and the other Mary the wife of Cleophas (Alphaeus), the mother of at least one of the Twelve (Study 42).

These were a few out of a larger group of women who had made it their special concern to see that Jesus was suitably and properly cared for as he travelled up to Jerusalem from Galilee. Probably from the earliest days of his ministry there were some who had devoted themselves to serving the Lord in this way. It is eloquent of their attachment to him that they were now prepared to stand by him in sympathy and grief, even though the horror of the scene harrowed their souls.

But this was no place for the Lord’s mother—she had not only borne him, she had reared him, taught him, cooked and sewed and scrubbed for him. She had given him good counsel and been counselled by him. She had known his friendship and rejoiced in his love. From his earliest days it was foretold that because of him “a sword shall pierce through thine own soul also.” That bitter experience had been Mary’s already when she had found herself disowned by her best Son (Study 77).

As time passed., her faith in him had been reborn. But now, in a different sense, a sword pierced her soul as she found herself witnessing and sharing his agony. It was an experience from which he fain would save her.

So with moving economy of phrase, he said to her: “Behold thy son.” The ambiguity of the words was immediately removed by the instruction to John: “Behold thy mother.” This was the Lord’s last will and testament. To his mother he bequeathed his beloved disciple as a son in his stead. To his disciple he bequeathed the care of his mother. And who more fitted to receive and care for Mary than he? Up to this time the rest of the Lord’s family did not believe on him. But John understood and loved him more than almost any; and he was Jesus’ cousin. So it was right that Mary should be in his care.

Here for all time the principle was enunciated, and given practical expression by the Lord himself, that the father or mother or brother or sister in Christ is a far closer relation than those of the same blood or the same roof who do not know the Lord. Mary was not left to the care of James or Joses or Simon or Judas or any of the sisters in that Nazareth family.

This trust: “Behold thy mother,” involved a change of status for John. He was now accepted as brother of Jesus. Hitherto Jesus had referred to his followers as servants (Jn. 15 :15) and disciples, and at last as friends. But now here was the first hint of a higher relationship, brought into being through his own death. His word on the morning of resurrection: “Go. tell my brethren. . .” appropriately marked, by his first use of that word, the coming to birth of a New Family.

Rightly interpreting his instructions, John took Mary to his own home “from that hour.” Doubtless accompanied by his own mother also, he promptly lead her away from Golgotha. All attempts at consolation would be ineffective by comparison with her own cherished memory of how once, years before, in Jerusalem at another Passover she had lost her Son, only to find him again “among his Father’s men” on the third day!

When John knew that Mary was in good hands and comforted, he returned without loss of time to Golgotha. His love for his Lord would not allow him to stay away. And thus in later days he was able to write out of his own personal experience: “He that saw it bear record, and his record is true.”

At a time during the long drawn-out hours of pain, thirst and misery, when by jeers and taunts priests, people and Roman soldiers seemed bent on adding as much as they could to the sufferings of Jesus, there came marvellous help and encouragement from an altogether unexpected source. What was it that turned the thief at Jesus’ right hand from curses and blasphemy to the utterance of a matchless confession of faith? The gospels offer no explanation, nor do the commentators. It is ground for thankfulness that the fact is recorded.

The contrast between the two malefactors is picked out markedly by Luke’s choice of word “other” —a different kind of man. The one ends his days foaming out bitter curses and sarcastic sneers: “You are the Messiah, aren’t you?” The other not only rebukes him but also acknowledges his own fate to be well-deserved. His estimate of Jesus is remarkable: “This man hath done nothing amiss.” But how did he know that Jesus had done nothing amiss? Even if taken in a vague, general way as signifying: ‘This Jesus has committed no bloody crimes as we have,’ his words are sufficiently startling as betraying a knowledge of the kind of man Jesus was and the work he had been doing. But if the words are taken at their face value then this thief must have known Jesus before this, and known him so intimately as to be able to say with emphasis: ‘This man hath done nothing amiss; his character is without any blemish; none has ever convicted him of sin.’

By itself this conclusion might appear farfetched. But the rest of this unique incident makes it a much more likely explanation.

Eloquent confession of faith

“Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” The thief’s appeal appears to mean: ‘Remember me when you inherit your kingdom.’ But the more precise translation of the RV changes the meaning drastically: “Remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom.” These words now plainly imply the thief’s conviction that Jesus would one day come again in a kingdom, that is, with authority and power as King of the Jews.

Indeed, the implication is much more far-reaching than this. Here was Jesus dying by his side, and yet the thief expressed a conviction that he would one day “come in a kingdom.” Then he must surely have believed that Jesus would rise from the dead, and, further, that he would ascend to heaven; for unless he first went away how could he come in a kingdom?

It has to be realised, that, whilst the resurrection of Jesus and his ascension to heaven are commonplace knowledge to the believer of today, the disciples of Jesus seem to have been blind to these glorious truths until the resurrection had actually taken place. Time after time when Jesus had sought to instruct the Twelve concerning the experience that lay before him at Jerusalem, “they understood not that saying” (Mk. 9:32), “they understood none of these things; and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken” (Lk. 18;34). Indeed, after the first news of the resurrection had been proclaimed to the Twelve, it was still possible for Jesus to say to the two whom he accompanied on the road to Emmaus; “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?” (Lk. 24:25,26).

The impressive conclusion seems inescapable, then, that when the thief proclaimed his faith in the dying Jesus, he was perhaps the only man in all the world who believed also that this same Jesus would soon rise again from the grave, the conqueror of the great Enemy, and would ascend to heaven. Surely, if ever there was a justifying faith, it was in the heart of this man who now hung on a cross paying the penalty of his crime.

It is worthwhile to make a list of the articles of belief, which explicitly or by implication, were included in the malefactor’s confession of faith:

1. Jesus was sinless—”this man hath done nothing amiss.”
2. He himself was a worthless sinner: “We indeed receive the due reward of our deeds.”
3. Jesus was “Lord”, i.e. the Meessiah.
4. He would rise from the deed.
5. He would ascend to heaven.
6. He would come again,
7. At his coming he would raise dead —”remember me,” a victim crucifixion,
8. “Remember me” also implies discrimination (i.e. judgment) between those accepted and those not.
9. His coming would also establish a kingdom.

The catalogue is certainly a remarkable one, especially when set over against the blindness of the apostles who had had such exceptional opportunities of grasping the truth of the Father’s purpose in His Son.

Now it is possible to add other even more remarkable items to the list. The other malefactor, echoing the jibes of the chief priests, had railed on Jesus, saying: “If thou be the Christ, save thyself and us.” But this man made a careful distinction. He said, in effect: “I know you are the Christ. Therefore save me.” This seems to imply a realisation that Jesus must die, and that apart from the death of Jesus there could be no salvation for himself! This harmonizes admirably with what has already been learned concerning the man. It adds the crowning fact to his saving knowledge of Jesus that without the death of the Saviour on the cross his own sins could not be forgiven!

There is also this. The rebuke to his fellow: “Dost not thou fear God . . . ?” carried with it the implication: “I do fear Him.” Thus, not only did he believe, but he also made an open confession of faith. Up to that point, as a supporter of a popular hero Barabbas, he and his fellow would have the strong sympathy of the crowd. But now this was forfeited. He chose instead to share the reproach of Christ.

A lapsed disciple

The question inevitably arises: How came this malefactor to have such remarkable insight into all these divine truths? To this, there is only one possible answer: He had been a disciple of Jesus in earlier days! Not only so, to have gained such exceptional knowledge of his character and teaching he must have been one of Christ’s most intimate followers.

Consequently, it is manifestly inaccurate and unfair to represent this man as making a “deathbed” repentance-a rank unbeliever suddenly brought to belief in the Saviour when face to face with the stark horror of death.

A far more close (though not exact) parallel would be with Peter, who in spite of many vigorous protestations to the contrary, denied His Lord three times and then, coming to himself, went out and wept bitterly. For such the grace of divine forgiveness is ever available “I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin” (Ps. 32:5).

Thus it was with David; thus it was with Peter; and thus also it was with this nameless sinner, for did he not declare: “We (the other malefactor and himself) are receiving the due reward of our deeds”?

The suggestion that a man of this character could ever have been a disciple is not as unlikely as it may seem. This matter is worth exploring further.

The word “thief” in the ordinary version of the Bible is misleading. This man crucified with Christ was neither pick-pocket, cat-burglar, highwayman nor brigand. The same word is applied to Barabbas (Jn. 18:40 Gk.), who certainly was no insignificant, unknown cutthroat from the hills, but a well-known and popular figure in Judaea (a “notable prisoner”; Mt. 27:16), who had led a rebellion in Jerusalem itself against Roman authority (Lk. 23:19). This “thief” was one of a number who had been taken prisoner during this upheaval: “And there was one named Barabbas which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him…” (Mk. 15:7).

Evidently, then, Barabbas and his two fellows were Jewish Zealots, patriots who might be described in modern jargon as members of the nationalist resistance movement.

Alternative to Jesus

With these facts in mind the sequence of ideas in John 6 becomes impressive. At the time of that Passover, Jesus had fed a great multitude miraculously from a few loaves and fishes. The effect of this on the crowd was more marked than after any of his other miracles: “Then those men, when they had seen the miracles that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world. When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone” (Jn. 6:14,15).

The party of the Zealots evidently thought that at last they had found the very leader they needed. Led by a chief endowed with such amazing powers, they could speedily drive the Romans into the sea, and the Kingdom of Jehovah over Israel would once again be established in Palestine.

But Jesus quenched all such wild notions by an abrupt departure and, next day, by his discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” There was immediately a sharp reaction among the multitude: “Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is a hard saying: who can hear it? . . . From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him” (Jn.6 :53,60,66).

The more energetic and idealistic of these who now deserted Jesus would almost inevitably drift into the ranks of the Zealots. Where else could they go? And if indeed this “thief” crucified with Jesus was among that number, the sudden regeneration of faith when hanging on the cross is easily understood. He would not only recognize Jesus but would also have it driven home to his mind that Jesus, in foretelling his own miserable death at the time of Passover in order that others might have eternal life, had proved himself a true prophet. It would therefore come to him in a flash that all the other far-reaching claims included in that discourse at Capernaum must also be true- his divine origin, his Messiahship, his sinlessness, his resurrection and his coming again to raise the dead (see, for instance, John 6:46,38,51,62,54,). All of these, in one way or another, this malefactor now included in the noblest confession of faith ever made. And who can doubt that he was encouraged to it by the memory of other words of Jesus that day: “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (Jn.6:37)?

Baptized?

There need be no difficulty now over the question: Will this malefactor receive his eternal life without being baptized? The preponderant evidence of the New Testament is that baptism is essential for salvation (Mt. 3:15; Jn. 3:5; Mk. 16:15,16; Acts 10:48 and 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21). Appropriately, then, both John the Baptist and Jesus had insisted on baptism for their disciples (Jn.3 :22,23; 4 :1,2). So if this crucified sinner were indeed a renegade disciple, his earlier acceptance of Christian baptism may be safely presumed.

A question of some interest now arises. Baptism is a symbolic death with Christ. Then, since this malefactor was literally crucified with Christ, dying when he died, would he need the symbolic death also? The answer is not important for modern believers, but it is intriguing.

In that endless day of living death how Jesus would be heartened by this sinner’s matchless confession of faith. What a difference it would make to the spirit with which he now endured the torment of suffering and shame. Here was plain proof to his own eyes and ears that his work was not in vain.

Re-punctuation

No wonder, then, that he answered the man’s appeal with such emphasis: “Verily / say unto thee today, Thou shalt be with me in Paradise” —as who should say: ‘Remember you then, in the day of my glory? nay, you shall have my assurance now.’

Some are uneasy about this shift of a comma in such a way as to rid the words of Jesus of the meaning put on them by a misguided orthodoxy, but they have no need to be. Textually and grammatically, and also from the point of view of harmony with the context and the over-all teaching of Scripture, this re-punctuation of the words is altogether sound.

The same construction (in Gk.) comes in Lk. 22:61 (see RV); Acts 26 :29. There are plenty of examples in the RV of corrections of, or alternatives to AV punctuation similar to the one suggested here: Lk. 23:42 (the preceding verse!); 17:7; 13:24; 10:5; 12:1; 24:47; 21:34; 1:45; Mt. 19:28; 24:47; Jn. 1:3; 4:35; 7:21,38; 11:28; 16:23; Rom. 9:5; 15:13; Dt. 5:29; Is. 40:3; Jer. 31:33. At Lk. 23:43 the Gospel according to Nicodemus has the order of words: “Today I say unto thee . . .” Yet there may be a sense in which the promise of Jesus had its fulfilment in the very day in which it was spoken (see Study 232).

Paradise

One further detail of interest and importance remains for consideration. The malefactor asked to be remembered in Christ’s kingdom. Why, then, did Jesus answer with a promise of blessing “in that Paradise” (see Gk. text)?

There is, of course, no adequate ground for equating Paradise with heaven, as is commonly done. In Genesis 2,3 LXX uses “paradise” thirteen times. The word normally means a garden, and is used with this specific reference in Ezekiel 36:35: “This land that was desolate is become like the garden (paradise) of Eden; and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are become fenced, and are inhabited.”

Paul’s personal reminiscence about being “caught up to Paradise” (2 Cor. 12:1-4) is much too figurative and problematical to serve as proof for anything. The promise: “To him that overcometh I will give to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the Paradise of God” (Rev. 2:7), also has a marked figurative element, but it is as definitive as one could wish, for it pictures an enjoyment of this world restored to the faultless perfection of the Garden of Eden (cp. Rev.22:2 for the same idea).

A little reflection will now show that there was purpose and wonderful insight in this precise choice of words made by Jesus. It was in Paradise that Adam and his wife, whilst yet innocent of transgression, had fellowship with the angels, the sons of God (Job 38:7). Later, because of sin, that high privilege was lost. Instead they found themselves thrust forth from the garden and put under sentence of death. Yet even in the hour of condemnation they were given ground for hope in the promise of a Seed of the Woman who would crush the power of sin, himself suffering in the process (Gen. 3:15). Understanding and believing this matchless Promise, Adam gave his wife a new name: Eve, the mother of life. Thus Adam and Eve died according to the curse, but they died justified by faith in the promise of the Saviour.

All this story of human sin, condemnation and regeneration was re-enacted in the microcosm experience of this thief to whom Jesus spoke. He had known the fellowship of the Son of God: he too through disbelief had gone over to the side of the Enemy: he suffered the due reward of his deeds, for still death was and is the wages of sin, and he, believing in the promised Saviour who was even now consummating at his side the great work of sin-conquest, was justified by his faith and received the sublime and emphatic assurance of restoration to life and the fellowship of his Lord.

All this remarkable parallel Jesus saw in a flash and with the divine wisdom which was with him to his dying breath he embodied it in a word, for the blessing and inspiration of generations to come: “Thou shalt be with me in Paradise.”

It is no easy matter to harmonize the gospel narratives in their accounts of the visits to the tornb, and of the appearance of the angels and of Jesus himself. Many say dogmatically that it cannot be done. Unwilling to believe themselves capable of error, such critics are very ready to assume fallibility in the gospel writers. In the world of mathematics the man who says: “I cannot find a solution to this problem, therefore it cannot be solved,” is written off as a fool. Yet in the field of Bible exegesis there are plenty of such. Close akin to these are others who take the line: “This is the only way in which I can make any sense of this passage. Therefore this is the correct interpretation. All others are mistaken.” Of course, such attitudes are never baldly expressed in so many words, but it is often possible to detect this kind of self-confidence. Maybe there are times when it is justified, but the study of the resurrection of Jesus can hardly be reckoned as being in that category. Hence, because of the difficulty of piecing the four records together into a smooth continuous story, let conclusions be regarded as tentative.

Blending the records

The accounts of the visits of the women to the tomb near Golgotha certainly present difficulties. Some solve the problem —or, at least reduce its dimensions – by assuming that two different groups of women, each actuated by the same motive, set out early on the Sunday morning to visit the sepulchre. Thus, by applying some details to one group and some to the other, the gospels are made to yield a coherent continuous inter-woven account.

The basis of the present study, however, will be that only one group of women is involved. The tendency to resolve superficial difficulties in gospel harmonization by the slick assumption of similar but different incidents builds up its own antibodies. By the time one has got two separate anointings in Bethany, two healings at the house of the centurion, two restorations of sight to the blind at Jericho, and four malefactors instead of two, the fever is on in way out. (Yet it is necessary to insist on more than one cleansing of the temple. The evidence for this is strong, and the reason compelling; see “Passover”, HAW ch.3).

There are, however, indications of time whicr strongly suggest more than one visit to the tomb. Whereas Mark, Luke and John make it clear that it was on the Sunday morning when the women set out with this intention, Matthew has the expression: “in the end of the sabbath,” i.e. on Saturday evening. Not by any stretch of imagination or translation can this be made to mean anything different. Yet immediately Matthew goes on to confuse the picture with an expression which can only have been intended to make it more explicit: “as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week.” These words would normally mean at first light on Sunday morning. Yet the writer of this wonderful gospel was no fool. Is it likely that he would be content to set down in the same sentence words which involve a shouting contradiction? There is need to look further into this.

Frst, then, the word translated “end” (of the Sabbath) means “late in the day.” A cognate word is normally translated “evening ” The word which gives rise to “as it began to dawn” normally meant “to grow light.” Its proper application is to early morning. However, because by beginning at sunset the Jewish day was out of step with Gentile reckoning, this word came to be applied to the beginning of the Jewish day. In this way a word meaning “to grow light” came to mean “get dark”! Luke’s record of the burial of Jesus has a clear example of its usage. In a verse which unquestionably refers to Friday evening, Luke has: “And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on”(RVm: Gk. began to dawn; Luke 23:54).

Thus both of Matthew’s expressions are seen to refer to the Saturday evening when “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the sepulchre.” What a sabbath of sorrow and lamentation that was! In its earliest hours well before midnight, the whole of Jewry was eating the Passover meal. But not these, for had not Jesus himself said: “The days will come when the Bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and the;-shall they fast” (Mt. 915).

Then, as soon as the end of sabbath restrictions would allow, in the last hour of daylight they were bock at the tomb. And how natural that they should do this! It may be argued against this interpretation that Matthew’s record runs on apparently to equate this visit with that which was made to the tomb next morning. This is undeniable, and is probably to be attributed to the compression which is characteristic of the gospel (compare what is said about this in chapter 243). The only alternative would seem to be the elimination of this visit to the tomb on Saturday evening. But that can only be done by assuming that when Matthew writes ‘late on the Sabbath” (which ended at sundown on Saturday) he really means “early the next morning.” it would also require that he uses the Greek verb epiphosko (translated in the AV: began to dawn) in a different sense from which it is used in Luke 23:51. The hint of Saturday evening activity in Mark 16:1 supports the interpretation adopted here.

“When the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought [not, as in AV: had bought) sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.” That this was done on the Saturday evening as soon as the shops were open after the sabbath is put beyond doubt by the words which follow: “And very early in the morning the first day of the week they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun” (John 20:1: when it was yet dark).

It is noteworthy that Matthew omits to mention Salome. So perhaps this group of women acted in concert, Salome seeing to the purchase of the spices whilst the others made their evening visit to the tomb.

This must have been before the guard was posted there. This inference follows from the fact that when the women returned next morning they showed no concern regarding the soldiers, but only about means of access to the body: “Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?” And it is understandable that the watch would not be set until daylight had ended because in this way public attention to a very unusual procedure would be avoided. Also, during daylight hours there would, of course, be no risk of interference with the tomb, by disciples or anybody else.

The sequence of events

Thus the sequence of events would appear to have been.

1. The last hour of sabbath daylight, the two women come to see the tomb.
2. Sabbath sunset, the placing of the guard.
3. Just after sunset, the purchase of spices.
4. Before Sunday daylight, Mary Magdalene sets out to join the other women to go to the tomb to complete the anointing of Jesus.
5. Earthquake (and resurrection?) at sunrise. The fright of it probably delays the women.
6. The guard, scared, abandon the tomb and return into the city,
7. The sun is alreadr risen by the time the women arrive at the tomb.

Precisely when Jesus rose from the dead is not ascertainable. In fact, his resurrection is not described, but is first mentioned in the words of the angel. The gospels, which are content to mention the crucifixion of Jesus in a brief participial phrase – “and having crucified him” (Matthew 27:35 Gk) – make no attempt whatever at a picture of the resurrection.

There was a great earthquake, caused by the corning of the angel. “The earth which trembled with hoi rot (Matthew 27:51) at the death of Christ,” says a seventeenth century commentator, “leapt for joy at his resurrection.”

This resurrection angel was resplendent in divine glory: “His countenance was like lightning, and hi; raiment white as snow” (Matthew 28:3). With the possible exception of Daniel 10:6, this would appear to be the first time that an angel was seen in appearance different from that of an ordinary man. Yet after Jesus rose from the dead there are several descriptions similar to this (contrast Lk. 24:4, Acts 1:10 and 10:30 with Gen. 18:2 and 19:1,5; Josh 5:13 and Jud. 13:9-1 1). Is this change altogether fortuitous or without meaning? Or did the resurrection of Jesus somehow change the status of angels (Col. 1:1 6)? One would fain know more about these mysteries.

The angel of the Lord

The inevitable effect on the soldiers is vividly described: “For fear of him (not for fear of the earthquake, though there are few experiences which strike such terror in men’s hearts) the keepers did shake, and became “as dead men”, corpses guarding a corpse! This word “shake” is essentially the same as that for “earthquake.” Impressive as the heaving of the ground might be, it was nothing to the upheaval within themselves. Literally paralysed from fright, they grovelled on the ground, and later slunk away at the first opportunity — presumably when the angel went inside the tomb. It is not absurd to enquire as to the source of this information about the effect of angels and earthquake on the Roman guard. There is a hint (see p.770) that it may have been supplied to Matthew in later days by some of the soldiers themselves.

At first, the angel “rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.” (But epano above, over). The priests had taken all care to seal the tomb shut, but now here was the Almighty sealing the tomb open – by His angel sitting on the stone.

There is no hint that the great stone was rolled away to allow Jesus (at first in a state of revived mortality?) to emerge to the world outside. Then could it be that the stone was removed in order to give the disciples access to the place of interment, so that they might see for themselves the evidence that their Lord was risen? Whatever the reason, there is ground for deep thankfulness that the resurrection did take place this way. For many that stone rolled away has become a foundation stone of faith.

Notes: Matthew 28:1-4.

1.	The first day of the week. It was 16th Nisan, the anniversary of Gen. 8:4 and Ex. 14:20.
	Came. Remarkably, a singular verb with plural nouns, is this to put the emphasis on Mary Magdalene, or to indicate their complete unaniminity of spirit?
	The other Mary. See ch.229, and Mark 1 6:1.
2.	For, indicating that the reason for the earthquake was not either “natural causes” nor the resurrection of Jesus, but the coming of an angel of glory.
	An angel…from heaven. Apparently another pleonasm, as in 27:63 (see note), for whence else might an angel come down? Perhaps the phrase is intended to steer the reader away from reading angel as meaning a human messenger.
	The details here must have been supplied by one of the soldiers, surely; v.l la.
3.	The appearance of this angel matches in some respect that of the angel seen by Daniel in 1 0:6ff, where note:
	lightning … a guard … quaking fell upon them … they fled., in a deep sleep upon my face.
	His countenance. This word is unique in the NT, but is the exact equivalent of appearance, vision, in Dan. 1 0:1,1 8. These echoes of Daniel’s experience might suggest that whereas some of the soldiers fled in terror, others bowed in worship.

Mark 16:1.

1.	Anoint; 14:8. Edersheim says Jewish usage allowed the opening of a tomb on the third day to attend to the body. On this first day of the week believers now come to Christ with the incense of praise and the frankincense of thanksgiving.

The centurion at Golgotha had never witnessed a crucifixion like it. Against the background of earthquake and unnatural darkness this Jesus of Nazareth, instead of mouthing imprecations or self-pity, had concerned himself all the time with others round about him, and had ended with prayer and praise to the God of Israel. Meantime the centurion’s own soldiers cowered in fear, terrified by the fantastic happenings in the world of nature around them. It is little wonder that these men, for whom Jesus had prayed, concluded that he was the Son of God.

It was written in the prophets that, “though Israel be not gathered” God would yet be glorified in His Messiah when he became became “a light to the Gentiles” (ls.49 :3,5,6). Here already at the cross were the foreshadowings of such a work.

Awe-inspiring event and O. T. prophecy

Meantime Jews, who earlier had stood around fascinated by the grisly spectacle of crucified men, took themselves off to their homes in fear, “beating their breasts”, as one awe-inspiring omen after another shook their nerves and harrowed their consciences. Zechariah had prophesied: “They shall look upon Me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for an only son” (12 :10). Already that scripture was having its token fulfilment, a pale foretaste of the bitter remorse which will one day baptize Israel in sorrow when they see this crucified Jesus glorious in their midst.

In the temple, the like things were happening. At the very time that Jesus died, they began to slay the Passover lambs in the court round the altar of burnt-offering. The law of the Passover had said that the lambs must be killed “between the two evenings” (Ex.12 :6mg), a phrase which traditionally was interpreted to mean between mid-afternoon and sunset (cp.Matthew 14 :15,23, at the previous Passover). On this particular Passover, because of the supernatural darkness, there were literally two evenings, and in that period the slaying of the lambs coincided with the death of the Lamb of God.

At the same time the veil of the temple separating off the Most Holy from the Holy Place was rent from top to bottom. The point has often been made that this symbol of “Christ’s flesh” (Heb.10 :20) was destroyed by act of God—from top to bottom, and not upwards, as a man would have done it. “It pleased the Lord to bruise him: He hath put him to grief.”

But perhaps the most pointed witness of all had been, and was to be, made to the rulers. These men were still desperately uneasy concerning Jesus. Even though he were now crucified, so many strange things had happened that day which his disciples would be able to turn to good account as fulfilment of Bible prophecy, that there was still the possibility of a serious situation if this dead Nazarene were to be proclaimed—with convincing Biblical force—a divine Messiah whose very rejection had been precisely according to the declared will of God in the scriptures.

A crafty plan

With the deliberate cunning of chess players the danger was not only anticipated but met by means of a brilliant device. From the Pharisees’ point of view the situation required that any one of the ancient prophecies be plainly and demonstrably vitiated in the experience of the prophet of Nazareth, for then on this rock all the outlandish claims made on his behalf would immediately come to grief.

So with simulated ingenuousness and concern, and also with a studied ignoring of Passover defilement (Jn.18 :28), an official deputation sought audience with Pilate, and put their case. Passover Feast and Sabbath would begin in a matter of hours. It was needful, therefore according to their religion (Dt.21 :23), that the corpses of these crucified men be suitably disposed of as speedily as possible. Would the governor help them in their difficulty by commanding that the legs of the three men be broken so as to accelerate their deaths? There was little time to spare.

It has been argued that this breaking of the legs of crucified men was a normal practice, and that such treatment would accelerate death by throwing such a strain on the thorax as to inhibit breathing, thus causing the individual to die fairly quickly from asphyxia. The first of these points is quite unsupported by evidence. The second is not true—as may be readily established (as indeed it has been) by actual experiment.

To Pilate the request seemed harmless enough even though the usual Roman practice was to leave crucified men hanging until their bones were picked clean by carrion crows. What could he know about the typology of the Passover? What could he know about Messianic declarations that: “He (Jehovah) keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken” (Ps.34 :20)? Neither would it occur to him to ask why, if they had scruples about leaving a body on a cross on their sabbath, they had no scruples about the murder of an innocent man on one of their Feast Days. Or did it? However, it may be that this ready acquiescence to the Pharisees’ request was actually given by some lesser official, well bribed for the occasion, who was able to act in smaller matters with the governor’s authority (Jn.19 :22 andMk.15 :44 support such a view).

It must have been with great satisfaction that the Jews now transmitted to the centurion the order from the fortress of Antonia that the legs of the crucified men be broken. And, reluctant though that officer was to pass this instruction to his men, the order was given.

Evil intent frustrated

What was it made the soldier detailed for this unsavoury job go first to one thief, then to the other, and last of all to Jesus in the middle? And why, although trained to obey every order explicitly, did he hesitate before that middle cross, take in at a glance that Jesus was already dead, and then lower his mallet? What moved him instead to lift his javelin and make a hard thrust into the side of that corpse?

Thus not only did it stand true that “a bone of him shall not be broken,” but also the way was opened for another scripture to be fulfilled when Christ returns as the Lord of Glory: “They shall look on him (an only son) whom they pierced” (Zech.12:10).

In recording that the soldier’s spear pierced Jesus in the side John may have had also the intention to remind his readers that it was by the opening of his side that the First Adam received his Bride when he awoke from a deep sleep. Or maybe the reader of this gospel is to be reminded of the enigmatic “last words of David” when the Spirit of the Lord spake concerning the Messiah, that “he that ruleth over men must be just. . . and be filled with iron and the staff of a spear” (2 Sam.23 :7).

However, John’s emphasis goes markedly on the truth that not a bone of Jesus was broken. Once again the impressiveness of the literal fulfilment of prophecy must not be allowed to obscure the yet more important symbolic truth that those who belong to the Body of the Redeemed are One and Indivisible, as Jesus himself had prayed: “that they may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also be one in us.”

Of all the arresting and intensely significant happenings at Golgotha none seems to have been so eloquent to John the eyewitness as that flow of blood and water soaking into mother earth at the foot of the cross. Concerning this especially he felt impelled to give his own personal guarantee of truth: “And he that saw it bear witness, and his witness is true ” I saw it with my own eyes!

John’s story of the crucifixion has already given evidence of its mystical interpretation of many an otherwise insignificant detail. And here his distinctive use of two words for “true” (19 :35) shows that once again his symbolic mind is busy enriching his readers’ appreciation of the momentous happening of that Day. Any doubt on that score is set at rest by the emphatic way in which John makes allusion to this very thing in his First Epistle: “This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one” (1 John 5 :6,8). Clearly, like so much else in John’s First Epistle, this reference to water and blood looks back to the gospel narrative for its meaning. But what meaning?

It is plain that in the gospel, just as John the Baptist at the outset proclaimed Jesus as “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world”, so in the consummation of that work John the Evangelist asserted the same glorious truth by his testimony to blood and water from “the riven side.”

It has often been asserted that Jesus died of a broken heart—not in the modern figurative sense of the term, but in its most completely literal sense, namely, through rupture of the wall of the heart. This could well have been the cumulative result of the terrific emotional strain to which Jesus had been subjected and the long drawn-out physical ordeal of the past twenty-four hours.

But John was not concerned with the physiological facts. Of far greater importance in his eyes were the spiritual truths that such facts proclaim. Why then did he insist so strenuously on the witness of the water ana’ the blood? What is their witness? And for what reason did he omit to expound it? Is it because he considered the meaning to be already sufficiently obvious, or is it because the ideas that cluster round these pregnant symbols of Christ are too many and too profound to be capable of adequate exposistion?

Perhaps a brief review may be attempted of some of the main ideas which associate themselves easily and naturally with the blood and water from the side of Jesus.

1.	They are often linked in Scripture with the opposing principles of flesh and Spirit, the human and the divine in Jesus. “To them gave he power to become sons of God . . . which were born, not of blood . but of God” (Jn.1 :12,13). “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee but my Father which is in heaven” (Mt.16 :17). In contrast with these: “But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (Jn.4 :14).
2.	Blood and water and hyssop were the symbols associated with the inauguration of the Mosiac Covenant at Sinai (Heb. 9:19). Here, in John 19:34,29, are the same three symbols, now signifying the bringing in of a New Covenant: “This is my blood of the New Covenant.” “As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water (i.e. from the grave)” (Zech. 9:11). It may be asked: Why should these particular symbols be elements of ratification of God’s Covenants? Because:
3.	They are Covenants with sinners—people afflicted with moral leprosy, the incurable disease. Blood, water and hyssop again combine for the cleansing of God’s lepers (Lev. 14 :6,7). In that day when Jesus died on the cross there was “a fountain opened . . for sin and for uncleanness” (Zech.13 :1). And this follows immediately after: “they shall look upon me whom they have pierced . . (Zech. 12 :10), words quoted in John’s account.
4.	Yet another symbol finds eloquent reinforcement and fulfilment in the piercing of the side of Jesus: “Behold I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that my people may drink” (Ex. 17 :6). It was with allusion to this that Jesus cried out in the temple court on the very day of the Feast ot Tebernacles which celebrated the giving of water in the wilderness: “If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and he that believeth on me, let him drink, as the scripture hath said, Out of his belly (I.e. from the Messiah, typified by the smitten rock) shall flow rivers of living water” (Jn 7:37,38).
	On another , occasion Moses was commanded to give the people water by speaking to the rock (at Kadesh, this time). Instead he smote it twice. In this particular place (Numbers 20) the Jewish Targum of Jonathan elaborates the story remarkably, telling that when Moses first struck the rock it dripped blood, and at the second blow water gushed forth! Undue emphasis should not be placed on this uninspired elaboration of Numbers 20, but its insight is certainly remarkable.
5.	But the most immediate and satisfactory interpretation of the water and blood is to be found in the Lord’s own words: “Except a man be born of water and the spirit he cannot see the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3 :5). “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (6:53,54).
	Here is plain anticipation of the two sacraments Jesus instituted —sacraments which are not really two, but one, for the meaning is fundamentally the same. Baptism, a birth out of spiritual water, is the beginning of a man’s life in Christ; by this means he is identified with the one whom he acknowledges as Saviour, Master, Lord. The Bread and Wine are the outward tokens of the grace and power by which that New Life, begun in baptism, may be maintained and matured. Hence John is able to say with palpable truth: “This is the One who comes in the water and in the blood”-that is, in baptism which begins the life in Christ, and in the Communion which maintains the life in Christ. “Not in the water only,” John persists, putting his case negatively as well as positively, “but in the water and in the blood.” Baptism by itself will achieve nothing. Its work must be consolidated and nourished by a sharing of the fulness of Christ through the life that he can impart.
	Not content with this emphasis, John underlines yet again: “And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth, for there are three that bear witness, in the earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” Probably here the Spirit which bears witness (called in 5:9: “the witness of God”) is the inspired unfolding of the work and teaching of Jesus which John has set out in his accompanying gospel. In other words John is here asserting that the Gospel he has written is not his own but the Holy Spirit’s. With these words should be compared the challenging claim that John deliberately joined on to his narrative of the stabbing of his Lord: “And he that hath seen it hath borne witness (here in this gospel), and his witness is true: and he (the risen Lord) knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.”

Thus the Spirit (in the gospel), and the water (of baptism), and the blood of Christ shed on the cross and symbolized in the wine of the sacrament do agree in one. They tell the same story. They insist on the same Truth. They are one. Christ is the body, soul, and spirit of then-all.

At this point, so Hoskyns very usefully observes, John’s narrative is so constructed that the weight of testimony depends on the two chief disciples and not on the women — this for the special benefit of Jewish readers, doubtless: “at the mouth of two witnesses’ (Dt. 19:15), and men rather than women.

Peter and John ran as they had not run since the days of boyhood on Galilean hills. Men at the north gate of the city stared at them as they went rushing past. John, more lithe and supple, and probably younger, was soon well ahead of the other. Perhaps, too, his being unembarrassed by a bad conscience made some difference. But Peter, being Peter, was probably already resolved to track down the desecrators of his Lord’s tomb and by some desperate act of reprisal make a last futile gesture of loyalty to the one he had denied.

At the tomb – different reactions

So John was at the sepulchre with a good lead With a fineness of feeling which might be expected of him, he was content, on arrival, to stand by the entrance and stoop to peer in. There was just time to take things in before he was pined by Peter breathing heavily, but one quick look was sufficient for him to realize, though with no certainty, the main fact that the body was gone. The linen wrappings were there in position, yet it seemed that there was no body inside them.

Peter had no compunction whatever about going straight into the sepulchre. He went right up to the place where Jesus had been laid and stood staring hard at the grave clothes. John joined him, and quickly saw more than he did.

“He saw, and believed. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.” These words from John’s account carry a double difficulty. The expression ‘knew not’ must surely be taken in a deeper sense: ‘they understood not’, for of course they were acquainted with the Old Testament passages which anticipated the resurrection of Jesus – the stories of Jonah and of Isaac, Psalm 16, Isaiah 53, the Passover ritual described in Leviticus 23, and so on. With the text of all, or most, of these the disciples would certainly be familiar, but it is one thing to know the words, it is a another to grasp the truth they convey. Not yet did they understand.

The sequence of ideas in this part of John’s record presents a much more tricky problem: “he saw, and believed. For as yet they knew not the Scripture.” If John had written’: ‘even though as yet they knew not…’, all would be consistent. But lack of knowledge (or understanding) of Scripture as a reason for believing hardly makes sense. For this reason many, following the fourth century Augustine, have given the words a very different application, thus: John saw the grave-clothes and believed the story brought by Mary (that the body of Jesus had been taken away), and he was the more ready to do this because the Bible prophecies concerning the Lord’s resurrection were not understood as yet.

There is, however, one simple fact which disallows this interpretation — quite apart from the not too satisfying conclusion which it leads to. The sight of the linen winding sheet supplied immediate proof that the body of Jesus had not been carried away, for who in their senses wishing to do such a thing would first go to the trouble of tediously unwrapping the corpse? The presence of those linen wrappings was the plainest possible proof that the body had not been removed by either friend or enemy. This must be John’s main reason for mentioning the fact.

A problem of interpretation

Then why that perplexing word “for”? This is not the Greek word which in such a place must mean “because.” Instead, it is a word which may carry this meaning but which can and often is added simply for emphasis, rattier in the way in which ‘truly, indeed, really, actually’, are used in modern English. For instance: “But some said, What, doth the Christ come out of Galilee?” (John 7:41 RV; the AV leaves the word untranslated). Again: “Why, herein is a marvellous thing…” (9:30). There is no lack of examples of this kind.

John’s statement is now seen to be a clear-cut declaration that it was because of what he saw that he believed Jesus to be risen, not because of what he expected: “Actually as yet they knew not the scripture…”

The circumstantial detail with which John describes what he saw in the tomb shows that he regarded it all as specially significant: “He seeth the linen clothes lie, and the napkin, that was upon his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.”

From this description, and especially from the word translated “wrapped together,” it has been argued that John was wishing his readers to infer his own conviction that the body of Jesus had come through the linen wrappings, leaving them in the shape they had taken round the corpse.

Whilst this conclusion can hardly be said to follow from the expression used in the narrative here, a consideration of a different sort provides strong support for it. My friend, Raymond Mallinder, an analytical chemist of first-rate ability and wide experience, tried the experiment of using muslin and a mixture of myrrh and aloes (as Joseph and Nicodemus had done in burying Jesus; 1 9:39), and he found that if the myrrh and aloes were used in a dry form, as powders, then weeks later the material was unchanged in character. If, however, these spices were wetted either with water or alcohol (wine), the muslin immediately became very sticky and soon set firm like a plaster cast on a broken limb.

It has been argued that since the women who came to the tomb on the resurrection morning were hoping to be able to anoint the body, they must have known that the former method of using the spices in a dry form must have been adopted at the time of interment. But this does not necessarily follow for the two Marys who attended the burial “sat over against the sepulchre” (Mt. 27:61), and therefore (most probably) would not be near enough to see whether the wrappings were wetted or not.

Symbolism

So with the limited information available, it does not seem possible to decide whether, at his coming to life again, the Lord manually divested himself of the wrappings (or was helped by angels), or whether his resurrection body with its extraordinary powers came through the cerecloths, leaving them undisturbed. The word “wrapped (folded)” in John 20:7 might be read as supporting the former conclusion. But neither this point nor any other detail available seems to be decisive. John often thought and wrote symbolically. Those who pore reverently and sympathetically over his gospel can trace this characteristic in many a place (e.g. 3:2; 13:3; 10: 22,23; 19:22; 19:34; there are a great many more). Here — who can doubt it? — is another eloquent example. That separation, so clearly seen even in the dim light of the tomb, between the head-wrapping and winding sheet round the body stamped itself on the memory of John. In years to come he treasured it as a symbolic picture of the divine appointment for the resurrection of the faithful: “Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.” (1 Cor. 15:23; cp. the distinction in Rom. 1:4; 6:4). Between the resurrection of Christ the Head and the rising again of those who are his Body there must needs be a significant space of time during which men either see and believe or are unable to see and yet believe just the same. Even the rather colourless word “place” — “in a place by itself” — may have been intended to have special significance, for very often in the Old Testament (and in several New Testament places also) this word has the specialised meaning of “A holy place, a sanctuary.” John’s theology (1 Jn. 2:1) and phrasing together suggest an extension of the symbolism.

All this the disciple whom Jesus loved saw with the inspiration of faith but dared not utter. So he went back to his own folk to brood on it, leaving a bewildered, less discerning Peter to go his own way. “Ye shall be scattered, every man to his own.” Without Jesus the disciples tended to fall apart. (And when disciples fall apart they show that they are without Jesus). Conversely, the news of his resurrection was to bring them together again (Luke 24:33).

NOTES: John 20:4-10

4.	Came first Gk: protos means first of more than two. Thus it is implied that Mary followed; v.11.
	Did outrun Peter, and in faith also.
5.	linen clothes. This assumes that Mt. 28:13 is known. Body stealers would not trouble to unwrap the body.
	Stooping down. Souter’s lexicon defines the meaning: ‘stretch forward the head to catch a glimpse; or peep; or peer in.’ Cp. its interesting use in Gen. 26:8 LXX, Jas, 1:25; and especially 1 Pet, 1:12, as though suggesting that angels had preceded the two apostles in this exciting exercise, and are still as eager (in a less literal sense).
6.	Seeth. The words used about John and Peter are different. Peter stared s.w. verses 12, 14. John saw with new enlightenment. Went into. The Gk. is emphatic: went right in.
7.	Gk- from upon his head. Contrast 11:44: Gk. perf The phrase in a place by itself suggests a special place.
	The words for wrapped and lying point to a distinction here of both appearance and meaning.
	The napkin upon (Gk.) his head was separate. Then what price the Turin shroud? The details of this passage, and also Rom. 1:4; 6:4; 1 Pet. 3:18; Mt. 3:16, suggest a Jesus immortal from the moment of resurrection.
8.	That other disciple, which came first. Why does John say this twice? is it so important? Indeed, why does he say it at all?
	believed Jesus to be risen; cp. v.25, 27, 29. In view of this economy of words, the repetition just mentioned is the more remarkable. In this verse, John is careful to emphasise that he was the first of those blessed disciples who believed without seeing (v.29). Note how conviction came to others (a) Mary; (b) the apostles,- (c) the two at Emmaus; (d) Thomas.
9.	Knew not; s.w. 13:12. Consider Mt. 16:21; 17:9-23; 20:19.
	He must rise again Gk: it is necessary: (a) because foretold in OT; (b) “raised again for our justification The word must mean- it was necessary.
10.	Unto their own home – and not go and tell all the fellow-disciples they could reach? (Mt. 28:7). Surely not so. It is more likely that this masculine plural means: ‘to their own (friends)’

The death of Jesus on the cross was altogether abnormal in a number of ways —the remarkably short time before death ensued, the loud cry immediately before the end, the flow first of blood and then of water from his side. His burial was equally unusual, for it became the personal concern of two of the leading men in the nation of Israel-Joseph of Arimathea, and Nicodemus. These present a most interesting study in character.

Secret disciple

Joseph was a rich man (Mt.) and “an honourable counsellor” (Mk ), a title which must signify that he was not only a member of the Sanhedrin, but of ”cabinet” rank he was one of the front bench. He was of Arimathea, very, probably the birthplace of Samuel —Ramathaim Zophim. Two of the gospels (Mt. Jn.) describe him as a disciple; the others say that he “waited for the kingdom of God”. John adds that he was a disciple “secretly, for fear of the Jews”. Here is one of the biggest hardships, one of the most taxing demands, that loyalty to Christ puts upon the would-be disciple facing the shame that attaches to association with Christ. The pressure exerted by social opinion against the unorthodox in that day, could be formidable, and Joseph the honourable counsellor had silted in the face of it—he was a disciple, but only secretly.

What was it, then, that stiffened his resolution to such an extent that he now came out into the open and went boldly to Pilate to ask for the body of Jesus that he might give him decent burial?

Two hints are supplied by the narrative. One, “he looked for the kingdom of God.” This should probably be translated more strongly: “he expected (as though not far away) the kingdom of God”; and in such a context this can only mean that he was persuaded that Jesus would be its King. Yet here was Jesus a lifeless bloody corpse upon which the rigor of death was already extending its cold embrace. It is a fair inference that something had happened to convince Joseph that this Jesus, crucified and stark, would nevertheless receive back the life he had given up. And in the face of this conviction, social standing and worldly circumstance went for nothing. Thus in his crucifixion Jesus united together three men, poles apart in their origins and status, men who were all happy to confess Jesus as Lord, the Lord who would rise from the dead —and this they did at the climax of his humiliation. It may well be true that at the time Jesus died on the cross the only men who were persuaded of his resurrection to eternal life were Joseph and Nicodemus and the malefactor on the cross I

But this conclusion only pushes a stage further back the mystery of Joseph’s sudden change of outlook. What was it that so convinced him that Jesus would rise from the dead, that he was now fully prepared to face the derision, contempt and ostracism of men whose good opinion he had hitherto highly esteemed?

Present at the trial?

The answer to this enquiry may lie in the trial of Jesus. One of the strangest things about the Lord’s appearance before the Sanhedrin is that although he made no attempt whatever to defend himself, and although prosecution, judge and jury were a unique combination of unscrupulous men bent on a capital sentence and nothing less, the case against the accused broke down time after time. For some reason or other the forms of legality had to be followed, even though all were bitterly hostile to the prisoner at the bar. And how was it that “their witness agreed not together”, being apparently so hopelesly inadequate that even though these wicked men feverishly sought a verdict of “Guilty”, they dared not use such unsatisfactory grounds for condemnation?

The explanation of all such difficulties could be the presence of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, one or both, at the trial. It would need only the presence of one of these, skilful in the Law of Moses, to make the enemies of Jesus realize that they could not blatantly turn the Council Chamber into a Star Chamber. The forms of law would have to be observed. And, further, when the most outrageous accusations were hurled against Jesus, it would require only the very occasional interpolation of a word from an expert lawyer such as Joseph or Nicodemus to demonstrate the contradictory nature or insufficiency of the evidence. “Joseph had not consented (s.w. Ex.23 :1) to the counsel (s.w.Ps.l :1,5) and deed of them”. And is this why Luke describes him as “a good man, and a just”? The first epithet would appropriately describe his honouring the Lord with the best possible burial; the second would apply to his unavailing stand for justice at Jesus’ trial. John’s phrase: “after this” (v.38)-i.e. after v.36,37-suggests that final conviction came by seeing one scripture after another fulfilled in spite of the efforts of the rulers.

Nicodemus

The case of Nicodemus was similar. His name is surely Greek-‘Conqueror of the people’; but if Hebrew it means ‘Innocent of blood’, innocent of the blood of Jesus. He appears at the beginning of the ministry as “the teacher of Israel” (Jn.3 :10RV), i.e. as president of the Sanhedrin, another “honourable counsellor”. He came to Jesus by night because it would be derogatory to his high office and damaging to his social standing if it were known that he had come seeking audience of the young prophet of Galilee. Nevertheless he deferred to the authority of Jesus and suffered himself to be instructed. He, the teacher of Israel, sat at the feet of an unschooled carpenter!

More than two years later he raised his voice in the council in meek protest against the illegal procedure contemplated against Jesus, only to be silenced by crude and angry colleagues. No longer was he “the teacher of Israel.” Ruthless party politics had been quick to suspect his timid sympathies with the man of Galilee, and he had been ousted from office. It was now being openly threatened that any man who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah, be he blind, beggar or front bench Sanhedrist, would be summarily excommunicated. What a thing to happen to members of the Council What a sensational piece of news this would be! How the streets of Jerusalem would hum with excitement about it!

So, although “among the chief rulers many believed on him, because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue. For they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God” (Jn.12 :42,43). Clearly these words were written with reference to men like Joseph and Nicodemus, and must be an accurate description of how things stood with them then, in the last week of the Lord’s ministry. It follows, then, that this drastic change came about in their outlook and response—their conversion, in short—took place between that time and the evening when Jesus was buried; even as Jesus had prophesied: “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all ment (all kinds of men) unto me.” It was the crucifixion which convinced both, as it had convinced the malefactor that Jesus was “the Christ who abideth for ever.” (Jn.12 :32,34). As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so was the Son of man now lifted up, and these men, believing in him at last, knew that they would not perish, but in him would have everlasting life.

So here they were, these two-honourable counsellors, truly! —humbling themselves at the foot of the cross, gladly giving homage to a dead man whose claims, when living, they had struggled desperately to hold at arm’s length. Both had found their faith when others had lost theirs. Disciples of a corpse!

One writer has pointed out what a multiplicity of twos were associated with the death and resurrection of Christ: two malefactors, two disciples to provide burial, two women watching, two angels at the resurrection, two disciples run to the tomb to verify the resurrection. Is it because “at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established”? or is there some further meaning?

Pilate grants the body

Coming to a great decision—”he took courage” —Joseph went in to Pilate to ask for custody of the body. But for this the Lord’s body might have been flung out into Gehenna (Jer.31 ;40). And how glad the chief priests would have been to have it so. But for Joseph’s riches and his high social position there would have been no access to the governor’s presence at all.

Pilate, quite astonished to, learn that Jesus was already dead within six hours of crucifixon, sought confirmation from the centurion in charge. When fully satisfied, he promptly granted the body to Joseph. Mark’s own word to describe this transaction means that he gave it as a gift, freely. There is point in this, for apparently whilst it was not unusual for the bodies of criminals to be granted to friends or relatives for disposal, it was generally expected that the procedure be helped through by means of a douceur. And Pilate was not averse to taking a bribe.

The contrast with his attitude to the chief priests should not be passed over. When they had complained about the inscription over the cross of Christ, Pilate had truculently answered: “What I have written, I have written.” Now with Joseph he is willing —nay, almost anxious-to oblige. Such was the impression made upon him by Jesus.

Thus there came about the fulfilment in remarkably detailed fashion of yet another Old Testament prophecy: “And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death” (Is.53 :9). The Nazarene, crucified between two criminals, found interment in the tomb of a rich man, instead of rotting in Gehenna. The literal translation of these words should begin: “And he gave (or appointed) his grave . . .” The unspecified subject of this sentence might be God, in which case the reference is to His inscrutable foreknowledge of all that was to transpire concerning His Suffering Servant, or-on a lower level —it might be Pilate, in which case the remarkably detailed accuracy of the prophecy is impressive; for-read thus-it anticipates that the same man who appointed that Jesus be crucified between two thieves should later decree his burial in a rich man’s tomb!

Interment

As soon as Pilate had given sanction, all was feverish but reverent haste. Joseph bought a long cerecloth of linen in the shops which were just preparing to shut for the Passover Sabbath Nicodemus brought also an immense quantity of myrrh and aloes, almost as much as was used at the interment of the famous Gamaliel II. No expense was spared. It was the funeral of a king. These two men must have had servants present (Mk.15 :46; 16 :4) to handle the body of Jesus, but if they undertook that holy task themselves, there would be no Passover for them (Num.9 :9,10).

The account of the obsequies of king Asa (2 Chr, 16 : 14) may perhaps suggest a threefold use for the spices employed: first, they were put on and between the folds of the linen in which the limbs and then the entire body was wrapped; also they were used to line the recess in which the body was laid; and, finally, some would be burned in the tomb to make it sweet and fresh.

All this, John says, was “as the manner of the Jews is to bury.” This emphasis was necessary, for the Egyptians, the great masters of the art of sepulture in ancient days, used to remove the brain and vicera before embalming the body. John is here preparing the reader for his account of the resurrection of Jesus, a resurrection that was to be complete, entire, wanting nothing. And doubtless, too, his symbolic mind saw in these facts much of significance concerning the mystical body of Christ, which is his Church.

The detailed mention of spices has pointed Old Testament associations. In Psalm 45 the king who rides in glory and in majesty is one whose garments “smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia.” This is almost to be expected, for he is one who is “anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows”, and the anointing oil prescribed in the Law had these very constituents (Ex.30 :23,24). But this anointing oil was for the priests in tabernacle and temple. Whence it follows that this king is a priest also in his own right!

The tomb was Joseph’s own, new and rock-hewn (Ex.33 :22), in Joseph’s garden hard by the place of crucifixion. “Such was our Saviour’s poverty, that as he lived in lended houses, so he was buried in a borrowed sepulchre, being rather a tenant than owner thereof” (Fuller) If the Gordon tomb is an incorrect identification (and the argument still rages), the remains of Joseph himself now rest where Jesus was laid.

The very newness of the tomb was worthy of special comment. Luke’s phrase: “wherein never man before was laid” employs a triple negative. It was the custom rather than the exception to use ancient tombs over and over again, just as in many an English churchyard a score or more of generations have been buried in the same small acre. But there is more in this. It has been pointed out that here was yet another remarkably accurate fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy: “Neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption” (Ps.16 :10). When, on the third day, the Spirit of God breathed life into the Second Adam and the angel of the Lord rolled away the stone, Jesus did not even see corruption, for his tomb was new and had never known any earlier contact with the corruption of death.

Thus, once again, the problem is provoked as to why the writers of the gospels should seize on some fulfilments of Old Testament prophecy to bring to the attention of their readers and yet should fail to emphasize others often more impressive. Isaiah 53 :9 and Psalm 16 :10, just considered, are interesting examples. It has also been observed that the gospels present a remarkable parallel between the birth and the death of Jesus. Instead of Joseph, a just man, and the birth pangs of a virgin womb by the power of the Holy Spirit, there is another Joseph, a just man, and the pangs of death leading to deliverance from a virgin tomb by the power of the Holy Spirit.

John hints at the happy coincidence that Joseph’s garden tomb should be so very near to Golgotha. Evidently the beginning of the Sabbath was almost on them as it was with little margin of time that the self-assigned task was thankfully completed. There in a garden, the Second Adam slept, that through his sleep there might come into existence his Bride-to-be.

And two of his devoted followers, Mary Magdalene and Mary the wife of Alphaeus, sat watching until the last moment when the great stone was rolled into its appointed place, and thereby they surely qualified for the high honour of being the first to see Jesus after he rose from the tomb.

Now, at last, for a short while, the Son of man had where to lay his head (Mt.8 :20). There, hidden in a cleft of the rock (Ex.33 :22; 34:6) he waited until the glory of the Lord came, proclaiming the Name of the Lord.

On Pilate’s instructions there was fastened over the head of Jesus a description of the man and his crime: “Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews.” It was one of the few opportunities Pilate had to score in a small way over these chief-priests who had so astutely bullied and blackmailed him into compounding their felony. He knew it would rankle. He meant it to. But it is not impossible that Pilate appointed that inscription believing it. Jesus had made a deep impression on him, and this may have been his way of saying: “I’m sorry, but I had to.”

Whose inscription?

As anticipated, the inscription was greatly resented, and protest was made immediately. From which fact springs an interesting inference, that either the chief priests made a special journey back into Jerusalem to seek audience and so register their protest, or else Pilate was there at the crucifixion in person. The first alternative is a measure of the high degree of priestly indignation; the second of Pilate’s abiding concern about this man Jesus.

The little word “also”, which comes in the original text here (see RV) and has been somehow ignored by King James’ translators, seems to imply that, foreseeing difficulties, the priests had already prepared an inscription of their own to put over the cross of Jesus. But Pilate would have none of that.

This protest by the priests was a gross impertinence: “Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews” (observe the subtle dropping of the definite article)). These men must have been flushed with the success that had attended their handling of both Pilate and Jesus, or they would surely have never presumed thus to dictate to their governor.

However, Pilate would not budge. Although later on (Jn. 19 :31,38) he was accommodating enough, just now regarding this he was conceding nothing. “What I have written, I have written.” And nothing through the centuries has been able to alter it. Jesus must be king of the Jews one day. This was Pilate’s unwitting prophecy. Luke uses the word grammata, which in 2 Tim. 3 :15 means “the Scriptures.” It ranks with his earlier prophecies: “Behold, the man,” and “Behold your King,” and with that of Caiaphas when he said: “It is expedient that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.”

Variant readings

Much discussion has raged over the fact that whilst all four gospels record the inscription, no two records read exactly alike. Explanation can be sought, maybe, in the added detail that it was written in Greek, Latin and Hebrew (Aramaic, the language of Palestine). According to this, Matthew, Mark and Luke each quote the inscription as it appeared in the language of the people they were writting for—Matthew in Aramaic, Mark in Latin, and Luke in Greek-whilst John combines them all. A small difficulty still remains in the addition by John of the words “of Nazareth.” It would be a mistake to overlook this, for here is a reminder of how the early days of Jesus in Nazareth were themselves an indirect fulfilment of the words of the prophets: “He shall be called a Nazarene” (Mt. 2 :23). Nazareth means “Branch”. In his crucifixion Jesus was the Branch of David grafted on to the dead wood of human nature, making it a Tree of Life. Isaiah had foretold (11 :1) that Jesus would be “the Branch out of the stem of Jesse,” the King-Priest who, filled with the spirit of the Lord, will diffuse the knowledge of God everywhere, and (after his resurrection) rally the Gentiles to himself.

The three languages also proclaim the universality of the gospel of the Cross: “And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me” (Jn. 12 :32) —not all without exception, but all without distinction of race or station, the true Catholicism (cp.Jn. 11:52).

“Nigh to the city”

This witness of Pilate’s to the kingship of Jesus had the widest possible publicity, “for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city.” What John may have meant here, even more emphatically, is: “for the Place (i.e. the Holy Place, the Temple) of the city . . . was nigh at hand” (so RVm). In other words, few out of those massive crowds going to the Temple on Passover day could miss seeing and knowing about Jesus of Nazareth.

More than this, by “the Place . . . nigh at hand” John is steering his readers yet again to Moses’ law about a man found murdered (Dt. 21:3). In that scripture, except they be washed, elders, judges, and priests were accounted responsible.

There has been much discussion as to the shape of the cross of Jesus. It is a matter of little consequence. No great issues depend upon the answer. The word for “cross” is (literally) ‘a stake’, and the Greek verb for ‘crucify’ is derived from the same root. This would seem to suggest that the cross was not really a cross but simply an upright pole. But it is a known fact that this same Greek word was used for all forms of crucifixion, and there were at least three other types of cross:

1. The T shape,
2. The St. Andrew’s cross,
3. The traditional form

Of these the first two can probably be ruled out by the fact that “they set over his head his accusation written.” There is one further line of Biblical evidence which tends to rule out the third in favour of the upright stake. “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up.” (Jn. 3:14). Ezra 6.11RV also uses this expression “lifted up.” It would suggest that crucifixion was a Persian practice long before the Romans came on the scene. Since Moses was commanded: “Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole (or standard),” it seems likely, but not certain, that the Lord’s experience was similar. And there, none too conclusively, the matter must rest.

Drugged?

Before Jesus was actually impaled on the cross, “they gave him vinegar mingled with gall.” The vinegar was wine and the gall myrrh (Mk). It is usually assumed that the myrrh was given as a narcotic. There is a passage in the Talmud which points to this interpretation. The Talmud also states that there existed in Jerusalem a society of charitable women who made themselves responsible for providing a drink of this nature for all who were condemned to crucifixion —this in obedience to the Scripture: “Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more” (Pr. 31:6,7).

The chief difficulty here is that the narcotic powers of myrrh are not very marked, so that one is left wondering why some other more potent drug was not used for this purpose. Opium, for example, was in very common use at that time. Is it possible that Mark employs the expression “myrrhed wine” not only to suggest that the drink was medicated but also in order to make more pointed allusion to the symbolic gift of the Wise Men (Mt. 2:11)? On the other hand Matthew has the word “gall” so as to establish contact with a remarkable prophecy of Messianic suffering: “They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink” (Ps. 69:21).

Whatever its purpose, by contrast with the “vinegar” offered to him later in the day, now, “when he had tasted, he would not drink.” The wording here suggests that Jesus was glad enough to take the drink that was put to his lips, but when the first taste of it told him what its purpose was, he would not have it.

It was offered him repeatedly (so the Greek verb would suggest), and as often refused. A different potion was appointed for him: “The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink if”? And to have faced crucifixion and death in a state of stupefaction would have been, in a sense, to have turned away from the cup which his Father now held out to him. In any case there yet remained work-his Father’s work-to be done, as the gospels abundantly demonstrate, and for this a clear mind was necessary.

Suffering for sin

It is surely strange that one of the most remarkable archeological findings in Israel in recent years should have gone almost unnoticed —the discovery very near Jerusalem of the remains of a man who was crucified in the first century.

The experts were able to deduce that in his crucifixion one large nail was used to transfix the back of both feet to the cross. The Achilles tendon is one of the toughest pieces of tissue in the human body. Hence the procedure.

Now it is possible to see even more relevance than ever in the gospel promise made in Eden: “Thou (the serpent) shalt bruise his heel” (Gen. 3:15).

It was now “the third hour” —nine o’clock in the morning. The actual crucifixion is described in the briefest of phrases: “Golgotha, where they crucified him.” Matthew’s gospel disposes of it in a mere participial clause: “and having crucified him, they parted his garments . . .”, as though the later activity were far more important than the former— as indeed it was, to the Roman soldiers.

This brevity and simplicity of phrase in describing the physical experiences of Jesus is in marked contrast with the purple style which modern reporting would adopt for such an occurrence. All through the gospels, and in this section especially the restraint and complete absence of all striving after effect is such as to set these writings in a class by themselves. Yet each reader, if this curse of “hanging on a tree” was for his sake, is under a moral obligation to fill in for himself his own understanding and appreciation of the pain and torment, the wretchedness and shame of it all. The mind instinctively recoils from the contemplation of such hard inhuman cruelty to “the Altogether Lovely.” Nevertheless, it is a mental task that should not be evaded, that there might be clearer realization just how foul is the foulness of sin in those whom Jesus came to save from its dominion.

See Jesus, then, stripped of his garments, so that, amongst all the other curses of humanity, he might share the shame of Adam’s nakedness. (Gen. 3:8-11). See him flung down, not too gently, and stretched out weary and sore on the rough contraption that was to be his gibbet. See him held there, a soldier kneeling on one arm, whilst his fellow callously, almost casually, hummers a nail through first one palm, and than the other, and last of all through his feet also. Imagine the searing, angry pain, more savage at each repeated blow of the hammer. See the crimson trickles of blood, in which is the Life, meandering away to be lost in the dry soil. See the face of the Crucified distorted with pain as the cross with its burden is clumsily brought upright. Imagine the sickening jar in hands and feet as the cross thuds into the socket prepared for it in the ground, but especially hear the brief, earnest prayer that mingles with the stream of oaths and imprecations proceeding from the other crosses: ”Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

The shame of it

Then followed one endless hour after another of searing pain, dull ache and torturing thirst, all competing for dominance in the unutterably weary mind of the sufferer. Yet when the Bible alludes to the crucifixion of Jesus it is never in terms of the agony of the experience but the shame of it all:

“Jesus . . . endured the cross, despising the shame” (Heb. 12:2).

“The reproach of Christ. . . (Heb. 11:26).

“Let me not be ashamed, O Lord; for! have called upon thee: let the wicked be ashamed …”(Ps. 31:17).

“Let not them that wait on thee be ashamed for my sake (RV: through me) . . . for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face . . . They that sit in the gate speak against me, and I was the song of drunkards . . . Thou hast known my reproach, and my shame, and my dishonour. . . Reproach hath broken my heart, and I am full of heaviness. ..”(Ps. 69:6,7,12,19,20).

Numbered with transgressors

In John’s description of the crucifixion there is a remarkable redundancy of phrase: “. . they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.” This was doubtless intended to be meaningful. These men were rebels against the established order, and here was Jesus in their midst with the title of King, as though he were a king among rebels. And so indeed he has been throughout the centuries. This triple crucifixion was doubtless so arranged, with Jesus on the centre cross, by command of Pilate. It was his way of declaring to Jewry: ‘Your precious Barabbas should be here.’

It has been, conjectured, with fair probability, that some time during that Passover day Barabbas must have gone out to Golgotha impelled by a strong natural curiosity to see this man through whose death he himself, against all expectation and all deserving, had suddenly been given life and freedom. What Barabbas might well have said to himself then, the disciple in every generation can also say with much more truth as he reads the crucifixion story: ‘That man hangs where I should be. He, undeserving, suffers the punishment which is my due. Through him I am saved from death and given liberty.’

But John’s words also draw attention to the central Bible truth concerning Jesus that “he was numbered with the transgressor:” (Is. 53:12), which words are explicitly quoted in Mark’s gospel at this point. It is a pity that modern editors of the text, following their own theories about the manuscripts, have chosen to omit the words, when there is such strong evidence in their favour.

The way in which John writes here may be taken as a subtle indication that he associated this prophecy with the crucifixion. Yet Jesus himself appropriated the same words to a different circumstance (Lk. 22:35-37)-the fact that his disciples would henceforth be reckoned offenders against society, and himself the worst of all.

Yet in neither case-Mark or Luke-can it be said that this prophecy of the Suffering Servant of Jehovah is given its true application. Only too obviously its real intention ii to stress the complete one-ness of Jesus with those whom he came to save. “Numbered with the transgressors” —the words are Isaiah’s equivalent of the fine familiar phrases in Hebrews: “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same … in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren .. . For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted” (2:14,17,18).

But of course the gospels are not in error in their use of the Isaiah passage. Clearly the disciples had come to see Jesus’ crucifixion along with two malefactors as emblematic of the deeper more valuable truth concerning himself. And the rest of his experience with these two men goes to confirm strongly this impression. As they showed themselves for what they were — the one a railer and blasphemer, the other rising to a matchless confession of a faith which received its assurance of everlasting blessedness- so also will all who claim to have died with Christ. In the day of his glory they will find themselves at his left hand or at his right, gnashing their teeth or marvelling at the loving kindness of the Lord.

This crucifying of Jesus between two thieves makes a powerful contrast with an earlier incident in his ministry. It was when Jesus “set his face stedfastly to go to Jerusalem” and when the disciples “thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear” that the sons of Zebedee came nsking “that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory” (Mk. 10:37). After all, they were the Lord’s cousins, his nearest of kin among all who had confessed discipleship. So was not this honour theirs by right? The answer of Jesus was another question: “Can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” Their answer-a blithe confident affirmative.

But now one of the two was present, close to the cross, and must have thought with shame of that conversation. This, then, was the cup that Jesus had spoken of. Could they drink of that? And could they substantiate a claim to deserve being at his right and his left in his kingdom if they were not there in his agony and humiliation also where now the two suffered and cursed?

“Father, forgive them”

At this time, however, Jesus was concerned with neither thieves nor disciples nor himself, but with the Roman soldiers meting out such torture to him: “Father, forgive them; they know not what they do.” The Greek verb implies that the prayer was repeated several times.

That this prayer was for his Roman crucifiers and not for the Jews who rejected him is made clear, first, by the lucid sequence of pronouns in Luke 23:34, and also by the words of the Lord’s own parable: “This is the heir: come, let us kill him . . . They perceived that he had spoken this parable against them” (Lk. 20:14,19). The Lord’s words in another place confirm that these Jewish leaders certainly knew what they were doing: “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloke for their sin … If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father” (Jn. 15:22,24).

“I wot that through ignorance ye did it” (Acts 3:17) seems to tell a different story; but not really, for this word agnoia is used frequently in LXX for a sin done in blameworthy ignorance. So Peter was not excusing the crucifixion of Jesus. The rulers, knowing enough of the truth about Jesus, might have known a great deal more but for their own obduracy.

In any case the prophetic Scriptures, in so many things the guide and stay of the Son of God, had plainly bidden him three times over: “Pray not for this people, neither lift up cry nor prayer for them, neither make intercession to me: for I will not hear thee” (Jer. 7:16; 11:14; 14:11). At least two of these three passages have an unmistakably Messianic context (7:11 = Mk.ll:17; 7:13 = Mt. 23:37; ll:19=is. 53:7,8; 14:12 = Rev.6:4,5,6,8).

Prayer answered

If, then, it was for the soldiers who crucified him that Jesus prayed and not for his Jewish rejectors it may surely be taken us certain that such a prayer offered at such a time by such a Man would be heard by the Father and the response that he sought granted him. These men were forgiven the dreadful thing which they had done.

But since it is a cardinal truth in God’s plan of redemption that forgiveness of sins comes only through faith in Christ (even for those also who died under the Old Covenant: Rom. 3:24-26; Heb. 9:15), then is it not to be expected that the answer to the prayer of the crucified Jesus meant that ultimately these Gentile executioners were to come to a fuller knowledge of the Nazarene and to acceptance of his service in lieu of Caesar’s?

Considerations such as these almost require the remarkable conclusion with which all the synoptists round off their narrative of the Lord’s earthly life. As Jesus died, the centurion in charge of the squad stood facing him (Mk.), as though in some way fascinated by this dying man. Yet in his years of service he must have seen many men die, not a few of them by crucifixion. Evidently what he had witnessed this day—the demeanour and words of Jesus, and the darkness and earthquake (the anger of God)-had made a mighty impression on his mind-and not on his mind only, but also on the soldiers doing duty with him (Mt. 27:54). These rough men had begun by joining in the mockery of Jesus (Lk. 23:36), but now officer and men alike “feared exceedingly”, and said: “Certainly this man was righteous” (Lk.), that is, “innocent” (RSV). More than this, they “glorified God”, for they also said: “Truly this man was the Son of God” (Mk.). To translate “a Son of God”, as some of the modern versions do, is an attempt to bring the meaning down to what is evidently deemed to be the limited comprehension of an ignorant Gentile. But in every other place in the gospels the identical anarthrous phrase means “the Son of God.” If the Greek phrase had read “a son of the gods,” this weaker translation might have been justified.

Was it not remarkable that a Roman should go so far as to say “This man was the Son of God”? He had seen and heard enough that day to be led to confess: “This was a good man/’or: “This was a remarkable man,” or even: “This was a holy man”; but why “The Son of God”? This centurion had been on duty earlier when the priests shouted at Pilate: “He ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God”; and also he had heard Jesus say: “Father, forgive ‘hem they know not what they do.”

There is also a fair likelihood that he and his men had heard and understood the Lord’s reciting of Psalm 22 (Study 232) especially these words “Thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother’s breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother’s belly” (v.9,10). so there is nothing improbable about the fulness of conviction which his confession appears to express.

Some readers may also find special meaning in the connection of Roman soldiers gambling for the garments of Jesus and the words of faith: “If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole” (Mt. 9:21).

Such a remarkable accumulation of detail about these soldiers at the cross develops in the mind of the thoughtful reader a half-expectation that somehow these men must ultimately have been brought by God to a fuller knowledge of the Truth in Christ and to personal acceptance of the forgiveness of sins which is possible only in him. Certain considerations suggest the likelihood of this.

The centurion and soldiers on duty at Golgotha would also be the men set to guard the tomb of Jesus, for did not Pilate say: “Ye have a watch”? (Mt. 27:65). It was these men who had the best evidence of all that Jesus rose from the dead (Mt. 28:2-4). And it was only some of them (28:11) who took the bribe of the Jewish rulers. The effect on the others was evidently different.

Again, is it just coincidence that the man through whom the outreach of the gospel of salvation to Gentiles was to be divinely demonstrated was “a centurion … a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house”? Here, evidently, was an officer, now retired from service, having a settled home and a retinue of household servants and also “devout soldiers who assiduously adhered to him” (Acts 10:7). Whilst there is nothing in the narrative in Acts to link Cornelius specifically with the centurion who was at the cross, all the details and circumstances are such as would fit most harmoniously with what the gospels record. It was even possible for Peter to say to Cornelius and those with him: “That word (concerning Jesus) ye (already) know”, and this with a fulness of detail which is not readily accounted for.

The identification of these two centurions with one another can hardly be regarded as proven; yet there is a marvellous fitness about this, that the last hours of Jesus should see the conversion not only of Simon of Cyrene and of the crucified thief, not only of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea, but also of the firstfruits of the Gentiles as well.

“Golgotha” is from the Hebrew “gulgoleth” (skull; it is turned into New Testament Greek as “kranion” (cranium) and in the Latin Vulgate becomes “Calvaria.” The last of these names has found its way into the English Bible and into common use simply through the influence of the Bible of the church of Rome. It should therefore be used specially by those who have strong sympathies with Rome.

Assumption that the name is descriptive led General Gordon to identify the spot, and his conclusion is fairly commonly accepted. Sir Ambrose Fleming (Vict. Inst. 1930) has this: “Part of this cliff (at Jeremiah’s Grotto’) when seen from the front has a most remarkable resemblance to a human skull; there are the holes forming the eye sockets, and a broken nose, and a slit which resembles a mouth. When once it has been pointed out, it cannot possibly be overlooked. This skull-formation is certainly not an artificial construction and not of very recent date, and if it has existed for 1900 years there is nothing more likely than that a place showing such a curious characteristic would come to be called “Skull Hill”, or “the place of a skull”, by persons familiar with it … There is an ancient tradition that it was called also “the place of stoning.”

There is other appropriateness about this identification. The Law commanded that the burnt offering be slain on the north side of the altar (Lev. 1 :11), and the ashes of the sin-offering were to be poured out “without the camp” (Lev. 4 :12; Heb. 13 :11). Thus there is point in the use here of the word “place” (maqom) which commonly has the meaning of “a sanctuary, an altar, a holy place.”

The name Golgotha itself is intended to be read with symbolic meaning. Matthew’s phrasing seems to imply this: “a place called Golgotha, that is to say, the place of a skull.” Yet Matthew wrote for Jews who would not need to have the name interpreted for them. What then is its symbolic meaning? At least four possibilities present themselves:

1. Wordsworth has suggested that the original meaning was: “The skull of Goliath.” Certainly Nob, to which David brought Goliath’s head (1 Sam. 17 :54; 21 :9) was in the immediate vicinity of Golgotha, if not identical with it. And the entire episode lends itself readily to interpretation as a type of Christ’s greater victory. Thus: After some outstanding achievements against those who ravaged the flock, he-an eighth son, and despised by his brethren-came from Bethlehem at his father’s command, leaving his sheep, in order to fight the great Enemy alone. He put aside all human help and support, and with the first (Gen. 3 :15) of five stones bruised the adversary in the head. This success rallied the Lord’s people behind him, and they now added their onslaught and victory. In answer to enquiry: “Whose son is this?” the leaders can only reply: “We cannot tell” (Mt. 22 :41-44). He is the son of Jesse (=”God exists’), and he has for his prize a king’s daughter (Ps. 45 :14) and freedom for his oppressed people. Thereafter the men who were close kin to the Enemy become his choicest followers (2 Sam. 15:18,19).
2. The close connection with the name Gilgal suggests “the rolling away of the reproach of Egypt” (Josh. 5 :9; Col. 2 :11,12), which again was itself only part of another elaborate type of redemption. A people redeemed out of bondage were baptized “in the cloud and in the sea.” Given God’s law, they experienced a long wilderness pilgrimage before reaching their inheritance. The Jordan ( = “that which goes down”) the barrier to their progress, was divinely cut off at Adam, and they came into the Land with the Ark of God’s covenant two thousand cubits ahead of them, and then in their midst. Twelve stones were left in Jordan and twelve fresh stones were erected or the bank. Circumcision rolled away the reproach of Egypt. The manna ceased, being no longer necessary. With the blowing of Jubilee trumpets and a sevenfold circuit (cp. the Trumpets of Revelation), there came earthquake and irresistible victory over the stronghold of the Enemy. And in all this they were helped by their brethren whose own inheritance was not in the Land itself.
3. Or, yet again, in view of the use in the gospels of Hosea 10 :8,9; “They shall say to the mountains, Cover us; and to the hills, Fall on us. O Israel, thou hast sinned from the days of Gibeah (Gabbatha),” the Gilgal allusion may be to Hosea 9 :15: “All their wickedness is in Gilgal (Golgotha); for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of my house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters.”
4. Quite differently, “Golgotha” may be intended to suggest the wheels (galgal of the cherubim chariot of the Lord: Ez. 10:2,6,12,13, (an impressive context!) and Dan. 7:9 (Jesus had used v. 13 about himself at his trial: Mt. 26:64). This suggestion is the more apt because of the Psalm 22 quotation derisively thrown at Jesus on the cross by the chief priests: “He trusted in the Lord that he would deliver him,” is, in the original, “He rolled himself (Heb. gol) upon the Lord” (Ps. 22:8).

Which of these ideas was intended by the early church to be associated with the name Golgotha?