“Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.”

This phenomenon associated with the sufferings of Christ is mysterious. Why should it happen when it did? Why should it happen at all? It is recorded with the utmost brevity and simplicity, and without a word of explanation (which itself also is a fact needing to be explained!)

The first answer to these queries would seem to be that the gospel writers give no explanation because explanation had already been given-in the Old Testament. There are two Old Testament Scriptures which fill in the background to this impressive happening. It will not be amiss to consider them briefly.

Amos – Messianic prophet

At first sight, Amos 8 would scarcely commend itself to the student as a Messianic prophecy. Yet it presents an impressive sequence of ideas:

a.	v.8: “Shall not the land tremble for this, and every one mourn that dwelleth therein? And it shall rise up wholly as a flood.” This is earthquake, as at the crucifixion.
b.	v.9: “And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord God, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day.” Darkness, beginning at noon, “the sixth hour”!
c.	v.10: “And I will make it as the mourning for an only son (Jesus, the only-begotten Son of God,) and the end thereof as a bitter day.” With this compare Luke 23:48: “And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts…”
d.	v. 11: “A famine of hearing the words of the Lord.” Jewry first refused stubbornly to accept the proffered forgiveness of God, and then were shut out of the opportunity of accepting it. Darkness descended upon their prophets. There was no longer any “Word of the Lord” in their midst.
e.	v. 12: “And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east.” So they have, literally!
f.	v.13: “In that day shall the fair virgins and the young men faint for thirst.” With this contrast the opening of the Christian dispensation: “And it shall come to pass in the Last Days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: and on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy” (Acts 2:17,18).
g.	With these also may be aligned v.2: “And he said, Amos, what seest thou? And I said, A basket of summer fruit. Then said the Lord unto me, The end is come upon my people of Israel: I will not again pass by them any more.” What possible connection between a basket of summer fruit and such a grim pronouncement of doom? The clue is in Deuteronomy 26:1-11, which should be read carefully noting especially the word “basket” in v.2. Had Israel followed its duty to God in faithfulness, at the appropriate season of the year the temple court would have been crammed with baskets of summer fruit brought in thankfulness to God the Giver. But instead the prophet saw one basket only-in all the nation one man, and one only, who was prepared to render to God the things that were God’s. And that man —Jesus! Hence, then, the denunciation that in place of happy rejoicing and fellowship there should be death and the curse: “The end is come upon my people Israel; I will not pass by them any more. And the songs of the temple shall be howlings in that day … the dead bodies shall be many.”

In this context, items (a) and (b) —earthquake and darkness —can have only one significance: they were a drastic manifestation of heaven’s displeasure at the calculated villainy that brought about such a dreadful scene as was enacted that day at Golgotha. And as such, were they inappropriate?

A Messianic Psalm

Quite outstanding in force and clarity among the prophecies of Christ’s experience at Golgotha is Psalm 18. That the Psalm is about Jesus can scarcely be doubted in the face of the following facts:

a.	v.4: “The sorrows of death compassed me.” The Septuagint phrase is used by Peter with reference to the death of Christ, in Acts 2:24.
b.	v. 19: “He delivered me because he delighted in me” is the divine answer to the chief priests’ derisive quoting of Scripture at the Son of God as he hung on the cross. “Let him deliver him, now, if he will have him.” (Mt. 27:43).
c.	v.2: “In him will I trust” is applied to Christ in Hebrews 2:13.
d.	v.49: is applied by Paul in Romans 15:9 to the preaching of Christ’s gospel to the Gentiles.
e.	The language of v.20-24 could apply to none but Christ: “The Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands hath he recompensed me. For I have kept the ways of the Lord, and have not wickedly departed from my God . . . Therefore hath the Lord recompensed me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in his eyesight.” Only Jesus could speak with such sublime confidence of his own righteousness, and at the same time add: “I kept myself from mine iniquity” (v.23). The language fits to perfection this sinless son of God who shared so intimately the innate propensity and curse of Adam’s race.
f.	Even the title of the Psalm is consonant with this Messianic application: “A psalm of the Beloved in the day that the Lord delivered him out of the hand of all his enemies, (see Lk. 1:74), and from the hand of Sheol”-so reads the unpointed Hebrew.

The anger of God

What the gospel writers describe but do not explain in connection with the crucifixion of Jesus is described even more fully here (in verses 4-16). It also explained.

“I will call upon the Lord, who is worthy to be praised; so shall I be saved from mine enemies. The sorrows of death compassed me, and the floods of ungodly men made me afraid. The sorrows of hell compassed me about: the snares of death prevented me” (v,3-5). The sufferings of Christ on the cross are described here. At such a time Jesus, to whom prayer was as natural as breathing, turned to his Father in heaven: “In my distress I called upon the Lord, and cried unto my God: he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came before him, even unto his ears.”

The answer was immediate and awe-inspiring: “Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations also of the hills moved and were shaken, because he was wroth.” This is the earthquake described by Matthew. And, as in Amos 8, the reason for it is plainly given: “because he was wroth.” It was the anger of the Lord against the great sin of His people.

Then follows a description of a theophany to Jesus on the cross which beggars the resources of human language: “There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it. He bowed the heavens also, and came down: and darkness was under his feet. And he rode upon a cherub and did fly: yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind; he made darkness his secret place; and his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies” (v.8-11).

Certain details here call for careful examination. First, the emphasis on darkness: “a smoke . . . darkness under his feet . . . darkness his secret place . . . dark waters and thick clouds . . .” It is this darkness which Matthew, Mark and Luke all mention with such tantalizing brevity.

Over against this repeated mention of darkness is a similar emphasis on the exact opposite: “fire . . . coals of fire . . . lightnings” (five phrases).

Light and Darkness

The paradox is resolved by the fact that the Divine Glory is at once Light to those who will receive it and Darkness to those who will not. The pillar of fire was light to the people of Israel, but darkness to the Egyptians. The plague of darkness in Egypt was no mere sandstorm but the drawing near of the glory of God in warning that drastic divine action was imminent; but to Israel it meant “light in their dwellings.” Jesus was the Light of the World, but he also spoke parables that “seeing they might see and not perceive.” He is forgiveness to those who will have him, and judgement to those who will not.

Here, then, is the explanation of the mysterious happenings at Golgotha.

The idea of an eclipse of the sun is only an ignorant guess, for it was Passover, the time of full moon when eclipse of the sun is a sheer impossibility; nor can any eclipse continue for a period of three hours.

Instead, another prophecy gives the right emphasis: “We wait for light, but behold obscurity; for brightness, but we walk in darkness . . . We stumble at noonday, as in the night” (Is. 59:9,10).

Also, the enigmatic words of Jesus, spoken six months earlier, now take on a fuller meaning: “When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he” (Jn. 8:28).

So, whilst “the whole land” shuddered under the gloom of this frightening darkness, for Jesus on the cross it meant the brightness of the Shekinah glory, the lightning of the divine energy, the brightness that no man could approach unto.

A sacrifice accepted

For all this there was a reason, a big, compelling divine reason: Because “the life is in the blood,” the blood of all sacrifices must be God’s, poured out at the base of His altar or sprinkled before the veil in His Holy Place, or in the case of the most important of all sin-offerings, brought into the very presence of God Himself and there displayed upon His mercy seat between the cherubim of glory.

Yet here, at Golgotha, the blood of Jesus was being poured out as the True Sacrifice for the sins of the people but not in the sanctuary, not in the temple court, not even in the holy city, but outside the camp of Israel. Therefore, since the blood of this all-sufficient sacrifice could not be brought into the divine presence, the divine presence came to him as he hung there a-dying — came to him in the pillar of dark cloud and flashing fire, in the “smoking furnace and flaming torch” that ratified Abraham’s covenant 2,000 years earlier.

Thus the prayer of Jesus was answered. The “brightness” of Him who shone forth from upon the cherubim brought to Golgotha the Father’s glad acceptance of a life fully and freely offered up. This was His Beloved Son in whom He was well pleased! Surely such words of encouragement were actually spoken to Jesus as his last minutes of pain and wretchedness dragged on with leaden feet? “The Lord also thundered in the heavens, and the Highest gave His voice.” When, on a former occasion the Father spake to’ His Son in audible fashion, some said: “An angel spake to him”, but others, less discerning, said that it thundered (Jn.12:29). Here at Golgotha were the same phenomena: “I have glorified My name, and I will glorify it again.”

Earthquake

But whilst to the Lord’s Suffering Servant there was approval and re-assurance, to those responsible for this ghastly crime the darkness, earthquake and storm were a terrifying concentration of divine hostility to this wilful display of stony-hearted villainy and calculated rebellion: “Then the channels of waters appeared, and the foundations of the world were laid bare at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.” Here once again earthquake, but described now in such a phrase as to suggest the way by which David won a way into the holy city (2 Sam. 5:8) —”the channels of waters.” How appropriately, then, does Matthew’s record read: “The graves were opened . . . and the saints came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city.” Only after the death and the resurrection of Jesus could those who were to be blessed in him enter into the holy city!

Thus darkness and earthquake had an element both of blessing and of judgment. The darkness shrouded the vivid brightness of the Shekinah Glory shining in glad acceptance of the sufferings of Christ; but to all the rest it meant only divine displeasure at this culmination of human wickedness in the slaughter of the Innocent. The earthquake likewise was the Lord’s rebuke because “he was wroth.” Yet through it the great redemption in Christ was foreshadowed by the opening of graves and the resurrection of saints. The Psalm proceeds to celebrate the salvation of Jesus the Saviour: “He delivered me from my strong enemy (the power of the grave), and from them which hated me (the Jews who crucified him) … he delivered me, because he delighted in me.”

The two malefactors

One last consideration. If indeed the awesome Shekinah Glory of the Lord appeared to Jesus on the cross, then what did it mean for the two men who were crucified with him? The one hung there in unbelief and blasphemy, and now he was in the very Presence of God! The other had been newborn to a faith that was altogether unique. If, indeed, Jesus did say to him: “Today thou shalt be with me in Paradise,” then here was the fulfilment of his promise!

It was “the third hour” — the hour of prayer, the time of the daily burnt-offering —when the actual job of crucifying was finished. The soldiers settled down to the monotony of guard duty: “then they sat down, and kept watch over him there” (RSV). But there was to be little monotony. It proved to be a day which those men talked about for the rest of their lives.

Because Golgotha was hard by the Great North Road and close to both city and temple, the crowd which stopped to stare was considerable (Lk.23:35,48), the more so because the crucified had been so much in the public eye —Barabbas’s men, and Jesus the prophet of Nazareth. Recognition of a big number of great men from their Sanhedrin standing there would also add to the grisly fascination of the scene. It is a measure of both the hatred and the anxiety of these leaders in Jewry that only a few hours before the Passover began they took the trouble to go out to Golgotha to see Jesus crucified: “They look and stare upon me” (Ps.22 :17). Would they have done that for any other man in Israel?

Their relief at seeing him now safely impaled on the cross, and enduring its agony and shame, was so great that they could not restrain their feelings. These men of consequence and power threw aside all their dignity and set the example to the rest in a sustained taunting and derision (Ps. 109:25) which would have been unbecoming even in school-boys. Matthew’s word: “reviled” also means “blasphemed”. “He saved others (and here they used a word which implied that Jesus was no better than anybody else); let him save himself (Lk. 23 :35,37,39), if he be Christ, the Chosen of God.”

Taunts provide comfort

There can be little doubt that the point of this jibe was in their allusion to the great Messianic Psalm-Psalm 89-which Jesus must fulfil if indeed he were the King of the Jews, as the inscription of his cross stated: “I have exalted one chosen out of the people. I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed (christed) him” (Ps. 89 :19,20). Yet did not these men stop to think what they were saying? For the very word which this Scripture used in their common version for “exalted” was the word familiarly employed also for crucifixion: “and I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” And did they not give a thought to the context of the passage?: “The enemy shall not exact upon him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him. And I will beat down his foes before his face (within an hour or two this became almost literally true), and plague them that hate him … He shall cry unto me, Thou art my Father, my God, and the rock of my salvation . . . Remember, O Lord, the reproach of thy servants . . . wherewith thine enemies have reproached the heels of thy Christ” (v.22,23,26,51).

Whether the priests and scribes thought of these words or not, the Crucified surely did, and found courage and strength in them; and thus the very things intended by these vengeful men to twist the dagger in the wound would have the opposite effect in the mind of their dying victim.

In yet another way their taunt would bring succour to Jesus, for the challenge: “Save thyself”, must have been deliberately based on another Scripture which only a week ago Jesus had explicitly appropriated to himself: “behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and saving himself (or, having been saved): lowly and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass” (Zech. 9 :9). That triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem must have been a great worry to the enemies of the Lord. But now they thought they had the perfect answer to his claim. Any man could pose as Messiah by staging a formal entry into the city on an ass. But let this Jesus now do the infinitely more difficult thing and “save himself.”

How little they appreciated the dramatic irony of the situation! By dying as he did Jesus was not only bringing salvation to thousands but was also saving himself: “By his own blood he entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained for himself (Gk. M.V.) eternal redemption.” And indeed, had he come down from the cross, as was doubtless within his power, he would not have saved himself.

“Let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him,” they taunted. Yet, responding to their challenge, he would have been providing the plainest possible proof that he was not the Son of God. It was the second temptation over again. Had Jesus listened to the Tempter and cast himself from the pinnacle of the temple, the outcome of such a sensational feat would no doubt have been an immediate acceptance by the people of Israel, but for wrong reasons which gave little place to the glory of God. And so also here at Golgotha.

In any case it was a false promise which they made, for on the third day Jesus provided a yet greater sign than his coming down from the cross could be, and still the truth concerning him was stubbornly shut out.

They jeeringly asked to see, that they might believe (cp. Mt.16 :4; 1 Cor.1 :22) —and by and by a sign was given (see Study 231). But in contrast, Jesus promised a special blessing on those who have not seen and yet have believed. And this acceptance of him was to be through his not coming down from the cross: “And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me.”

The mockery of the priests also took a different turn. They knew something of the unflagging emphasis which in his teaching Jesus had put on their Holy Scriptures, and they had more than once tasted his powerful handling of prophecies which he claimed to fulfil in his own person. Now was the opportunity to turn the tables on him. So with evident relish and vicious satisfaction they derisively threw at him familiar Bible phrases which came to their minds.

Especially they found Psalm 22 well suited to their purpose: “He trusted in God; (the Hebrew go/was perhaps their crude pun on Golgotha); let him deliver him now, if he will have him” —”if He wants him,” this battered crucified body.

Had they stopped to think, they would surely have hesitated before making such ribald use of divine words, for in the psalm this passage is introduced with the words: “All they that see me laugh me to scorn; they shoot out the lip, they shake the head saying . . .” All unaware, these priests were providing their own superbly accurate fulfilment of this prophecy of suffering; and were thereby supplying indisputable verification of the claims of Jesus.

But what would be their reaction when, an hour or two later, Jesus himself began reciting that very psalm as his own prayer of need. Without realising it these spiteful men had turned the mind of Jesus into the best channel possible—they had set him meditating in his misery and loneliness not only on the Bible’s detailed anticipation of his own wretched plight but also on its equally vigorous picture of the wondrous outcome of the sufferings of this Son of God. Thus even the malevolence of the Lord’s implacable adversaries was turned to the Glory of God.

A temple destroyed and re-built

Yet another taunt thrown at Jesus was this: “Thou that destroyest the temple and buildest if in three days, save thyself.” It was a cruel jibe, based on his own name (Mt. 27 :40,42,49).

Matthew and Mark are explicit that this came from “those that passed by,” wagging their heads (Lam. 2 :15; Ps. 22 :7). But this was the accusation which had been raked up against Jesus by the Sanhedrin (Mt. 26 :61). And now the same cynical misrepresentation came from the common people. It is probable, then, that the priests had deliberately put the story into circulation in Jerusalem that Jesus had been condemned on these very grounds. The three ideas in Mt. 27 :40,42 – destroy the temple, Son of God, King of Israel-were precisely the main lines of attack on Jesus when before the Sanhedrin (26:61,63).

Yet what had Jesus really meant? Obsessed by the magnificence of their temple these people of Jerusalem missed altogether his allusion to the tabernacle in the wilderness. When Israel journeyed in the wilderness the tabernacle was taken down, and “the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them three day’s journey, to search out a resting place for them” (Num.10 :33,34), and there the tabernacle was re-erected. The foreshadowing of the experience of Jesus is clearly discernible here. Appropriately, this passage in Numbers describes Israel’s departure from the Mount of the Law—a typical indication that the better “resting place” for the people was only to be reached by making a break with the Law given at Sinai and by following the Ark of God’s Covenant which the visible glory of the Lord constantly overshadowed. Appropriately, too, Jesus did not use the normal word for “destroy”. What he said was “Unloose, dismantle this Sanctuary…”

At the time, however, those who in vulgar scorn repeated these things were blind to what they might mean, even though the dismantling of God’s Tabernacle of Witness was going on before their eyes. Yet it may be taken as fairly certain that in later days earnest disciples, guided by the spirit of the Emmaus Bible Class, pondered this deeper significance of their risen Lord’s words and work.

This decision and despite done to the Son of God was taken up by almost all about him. The Roman soldiers saw their chance for a bit of crude fun. Taking their cue from the inscription over his head, they jeered at him as King of the Jews-yet in doing so they were jeering at the Jews just as much. And they teased the suffering thirsty man with tantalising offers of a drink from the cheap wine which was part of their ration.

Even the malefactors were goaded by their agony to vent their savage resentment against someone, so they chose him as the butt of their bitterness: “If thou be the Christ, save thyself—and us.” Indeed at this moment they cared little whether he saved himself so long as he somehow brought them the relief they were desperate for. But by and by a change came over one of them so that he became the greatest human solace Jesus knew that day.

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.

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.”

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.”

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?

“I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood”, was the horror-stricken cry of poor remorseful Judas. Innocent blood! In the Old Testament the phrase has unusually thought-provoking associations.

Here is a key to unlock hitherto unsuspected prophecies of the Messiah.

Jeremiah 19

The prophet is commanded (v.l) to “get (RV: buy) a potter’s earthen bottle”, and with this in hand to denounce the wickedness and idolatry of his comtemporaries. “Then shalt thou break it in the sight of the men that go with thee, and shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord of hosts: Even so will I break this people and this city . .. and they shall bury them in Tophet till there be no place to bury . . . Behold, I will bring upon this city, and upon all her towns all the evil that I have pronounced against it, because they have hardened their necks that they might not hear my words” (v.10,11,15).

One of the grounds of denunciation was that “they have filled this place with the blood of innocents”. Even without the hint provided by Matthew’s significant record of the words of Judas, it would be tempting to read this chapter again as a prophecy of doom against Jerusalem because of its rejection of the Son of God, and also because of the “innocent blood” of men like James and Stephen who testified in Jerusalem concerning the resurrection of Christ.

An earthen vessel used for temple purposes, once it became defiled (Lev. 15: 12), was to be smashed. Even so Israel in the time of the apostles. The message of the coming retribution was to be such as would cause ears to tingle (v.3). This sinister phrase occurs in one other place, as prelude to the revelation given through the boy Samuel of the imminent rejection of Eli’s family from the office of High-priest. So also in Jeremiah’s day (“remove the mitre, and take off the crown”), and so also after the crucifixion of the Lord’s Anointed. The prophet Caiaphas little realised how direct was the divine guidance which bade him rend his high-priestly robes at the trial of Jesus! “Being high priest that year, he prophesied”, says the apostle John.

Tophet and Hinnom were to become the valley of Slaughter (v.6). That appointed destination of criminals and murderers was to witness the wholesale destruction of those who had blasphemed the Son of God and murdered him.

“And I will empty out the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place; and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies . . . And I will make this city to be an astonishment and an hissing: every one that passeth by shall be astonished and hiss, because or all the plagues thereof. And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters” (v.7-9).

It needs but small acquaintance with the curses of Deuteronomy 28 to recognize here Jeremiah’s quotation from it. And it needs equally small acquaintance with the heartrending story of the sufferings of Jerusalem’s people in A.D.70 to recognize that, however applicable these words may have been to the siege of Nebuchadnezzar’s army, they are a distinct prophecy also of the havoc and rapine wrought by the army of Roman Titus.

And all this because “they have filled this place with the blood of the innocents.”

Deuteronomy 21

Verse 1-9 give the details of procedure in a case of undetected murder in Israel.

If the body were found “lying in the field”, then elders and judges were to ascertain carefully the nearest city. The elders of this place were to comeintoa nearby wadi, and there slay a heifer. In presence of the priests they were to wash their hands over the heifer, at the same time making solemn declaration: “Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. Be merciful, O Lord, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel’s charge.”

Thus the issue was submitted to the priests: “By their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried.” This remarkable law applied, or rather, failed to be applied to the murder of Jesus.

The nearest city was, of course, Jerusalem. Its elders, specially mentioned in the gospel narratives (e.g. Mt. 27: 1), did not wash their hands (but Pilate did, thus overtly removing guilt from himself to them). And though they did not wash, the day will come when their descendants will; for many a passage in the prophets speaks of the repentance of Israel in the last days. “In that day shall be a fountain opened to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness” (Zech. 13: 1).

Nor could these elders declare: “Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it”, for they themselves buffeted him spitefully at his trial, and when he was brought to Calvary, “sitting down, they watched him there.”

And it was futile for them to pray: “Be merciful, O Lord, unto thy people Israel”, for the innocent blood could be in no wise forgiven them. Three times Messianic prophecy declared: “Pray not for this people” (Jer. 7: 16; 11: 14; 14: 11).

The word of the priests was to be decisive in judgement, as the voice of God. And their word—cynical, yet prophetic—had been: “His blood be upon us, and upon our children.” And it was, and still is.

The last two curses of Deuteronomy 27 fall respectively upon Judas and upon the priests who perverted justice and the law of God in every possible way in order to gain their fell purpose: “Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen” (Dt. 27:25,26).

Isaiah 59

This prophecy reads aptly enough as a denunciation of the demoralised nation in the prophet’s own time, but once again the key phrase “innocent blood” (v.7) gives this inspired utterance a later and more important application. Some of these details have been considered in Study 186.

1 Samuel 19

In one of the most dramatic expressions of the jealousy and hatred of Saul for David, there is enacted an impressive, and much neglected, type of the plotting of the rulers against Jesus.

Even though David had Jonathan on his side, there was no restraining Saul’s animosity: “Wherefore then wilt thou sin against innocent blood, to slay David without a cause?” (19: 5). Similarly, although there were men like John the Baptist (the name is the same as Jonathan) and wise councillors like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea to plead the cause of Jesus before the nation, it was in vain. The rulers were determined to slay “David” without a cause, for was it not written of him: “They hated me without a cause”? They went back on their resolve not to arrest Jesus at the feast, as Saul did on his promise to spare David. Instead, it was then that they crucified him.

David’s further victories over the Philistines (v.8) were but the signal for more determined outbursts of fury and jealousy against him. For what was now the third time (v.10; 18:10,11) Saul sought to pin David to the wall with his javelin, but he evaded the blow and got away. In just the same way Jesus somehow avoided being taken by his enemies (Jn. 8 :59; 10:39).

The climax of opposition to David came with a deliberately planned attempt on his life. It was a night of intense prayer by David, as Psalm 59 bears witness. With the aid of Michael he escaped to the sanctuary at Ramah, and in the morning there was found only an empty bed, o goat’s hair pillow and the teraphim.

All of these details are significant. The mention of goats’ hair is a reminder of the scapegoat on the Day of Antonement for sin. The Greek version translates “teraphim” by a word which normally means ‘tomb’ (our word cenotaph). Thus David’s escape pictures the resurrection of Christ when the angel of the Lord rolled away the stone so that the sinless Sin-Bearer might rise to new life and go to the presence of his Father. And all that remained to further confound the adversaries were an empty tomb and the symbols of mortality now left behind for ever.

The entire prayer of David in Psalm 59 (written about this bitter experience) could be cited here with reference to Jesus with an appropriateness which would be astonishing if it were not to be expected. Here are some of the verses:

“Deliver me from mine enemies, O my God: set me on high (his ascension?) from them that rise up against me . . . the mighty are gathered against me, not for my transgression, nor for my sin, O Lord … awake to visit all the Gentiles (the chief priests used Pilate and Herod the Edomite just as Saul used Doeg the Edomite . . . Slay them not, lest my people forget: make them wander to and fro by thy power … let them know that God ruleth in Jacob unto the ends of the earth … I will sing of thy power; yea, I will sing aloud of thy mercy in the morning: for thou hast been my defence and refuge in the day of my trouble.”

The conclusion of this exciting experience of David’s is equally significant. Saul sought to continue the persecution. He sent messengers to apprehend David, but these who came to curse stayed to bless. Eventually Saul came in person and became himself a changed man: “He stripped off his clothes also and prophesied and lay down naked all that day and all that night.”

Similarly, ‘Why persecutes! thou me?’ was the remonstrance addressed to the emissary of wickedness from Jerusalem, with the result that “he which persecuted in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.”

Further, the day is soon to come when the nation itself is to come into the presence of the brd’s Anointed when the tabernacle of God is with men, and then conversion will be complete, as, divested of all self-righteousness and self-reliance, the people of the King humbly prostrate themselves before him whom once they refused. Repenting of the innocent blood which they shed, they will glorify God in confession and praise.

Psalm 94,

The phrase “innocent blood” occurs in v.21. It is the second part of this psalm, where the pronouns change from plural to singular, which is palpably a prophecy of Christ.

First, however, it is to be noted, as a matter not without interest or relevance, that Psalm 93, which has verbal connections with this one, was appointed by the Jews for use in the Temple on Passover Day, whereas, according to the Jewish Calendar, Psalm 94 was sung two days previously.

Hence it follows from Mark 14 :1 that on the very day that Judas and the chief priests were concluding their evil contract, these words were being sung before the Lord in the temple, Jesus himself probably being present at the service, the only one in all that throng who realised precisely what it portended: “They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous one, and condemn the innocen* blood.”

The psalm speaks eloquently of Christ in Gethsemane: “Unless the Lord had been my help, my soul had almost dwelt in silence. When I said my foot slippeth; thy mercy, O Lord, held meup”(v.l7,18).

It is to be noted that these words make divine help in the crisis of the Lord’s conflict absolutely essential. The textual critics, slaves to a theory, who would discard the passage about Jesus being strengthened by an angel (Lk.22: 43), are proved wrong by the prophecy here which demonstrates in graphic fashion how intense was the Lord’s struggle against the power of sin. But (the psalm continues) “in the multitude of my doubts (RV) within me thy comforts delight my soul!”

There are several references here to the trial of Jesus. There is the description of certain who “stood up and bare false witness against him” (Mk. 14:57 RV), and the pathetic cry of the one who was left to face his accusers alone: “Who will rise up for me against evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?”(v.16).

“Shall the throne of iniquity which frameth mischief by law have fellowship with thee?” (v.20). This “throne of iniquity” is surely the high-priesthood; for who more than the high-priest, with his annual access to the Holy of Holies, had better opportunity of fellowship with God? But instead he and others of his kind “framed mischief by statute” (RV); they plotted against their Messiah, and sought to cover the infamy with a show of legality.

But though they might hide their iniquity from man, it could not be hidden from God. “They gather themselves together against the soul of the Righteous One, and condemn the innocent blood;” but (the Lord) shall bring upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; yea, the Lord our God shall cut them off” (v.21,23). Here is a kind of anticipatory “echo” of the priests’ own derisive words: His blood be upon us and upon our children”, in marked contrast to the declaration, stamped with all sincerity, which should have been theirs: “Be merciful, O Lord, and lay not innocent blood to thy people of Israel’s charge” (Dt.21:8).

For all their guilt, the psalm asserts the ultimate restoration of this rebel nation: “The Lord will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance” (v.14). Paul uses these very words in a burning importunity for his rejected brethen: “God hath not cast off his people which he foreknew” (Rom.11 :2). The day will yet dawn when “judgment shall return to the Righteous One” (v.15).

Jonah

“As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Mt. 12:40).

The type is reinforced in the story of Jonah by the use in the sailors’ prayer of the now familiar phrase “innocent blood”: “We beseech thee, O Lord, we beseech thee, let us not perish for this man’s life, and lay not upon us innocent blood.”

Thus Jonah was cast forth into the sea, that the lives of those with him in the ship might be spared. Remembering that the sea is used in, Scripture as a figure of the grave (e.g. Rom. 10:7), the parallel with the sacrifice of Christ can be readily perceived. In a different sense, his innocent blood is laid upon men, for it is the “sprinkling of the blood of Christ” which brings safety and salvation, as to those men of prayer in Jonah’s ship. Further, when Jonah came forth from the fish’s belly, he pursued his divine mission, proclaiming: “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.” But Nineveh repented, and it wasn’t

After Jesus came out of the tomb the message went forth through his apostles, saying (in effect): “Yet forty years, and Jerusalem shall be overthrown.” But this time there was no repentance, so it was.

Thus in half a dozen places—and there are certainly more—it has been possible to use Judas the betrayer as an unwitting (?) interpreter of Messianic prophecy.

Matthew’s account of the trial of Jesus has a detail of special significance: “Then Judas. . . when he sow that he was condemned, repented himself. ..” This word “saw” must surely mean that Judas was present at the trial, and saw with his own eyes all that took place. It is true that a secondary meaning is possible: that he gathered or understood that Jesus was condemned. But even this would require that Judas had spent those hours in close proximity to the Council. The word “then” supports this conclusion.

Either way, this seems to be psychologically all wrong. The natural inclination of such a traitor would be to remove himself as far as possible from the scene of his evil work as soon as the money had been paid over. The explanation which best harmonizes with the other details of the trial is that the thirty pieces of silver were only a token payment. The rest of the bribe, the main part of it, was to be for Judas’s help in the role of chief witness for the prosecution. The reason why the Jewish leaders found their case against Jesus so inadequate, and liable to collapse altogether, is best explained by the traitor’s last-minute refusal to go through with this part of the deal.

If this hypothesis is correct—and it explains so much that is otherwise rather odd about the trial-then the interesting problem arises: What brought about this change in Judas? And to this the best answer available appears to be that the witness Jesus gave about himself at the trial (Mt. 26: 61,64) brought a sudden flood of understanding into the mind of Judas, so that all at once he realised that Jesus as the sanctuary of God wouldbe “destroyed” and “raised again”, that he would sit as God’s right hand, and that he would come again in judgment. Such a realisation suddenly illuminating his mind must have brought into the soul of this wretched man a misery past description.

The reaction described in the gospel would be inevitable: “He repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver.” It is idle to say, as has been so often said, that this was unrepentant remorse (if there be such a thing). Pharaoh, Saul and Ahab were genuinely sorry for their misdeeds (Ex.9 :27; 1 Sam.15 :24; 1 Kgs.21 :27); and the word used of Judas, though not the normal New Testament word for repentance, is certainly used with the same meaning (e.g. in Mt. 21: 29,32; 2 Cor. 7:8; Heb 7:21).

Repentance

Then where lay the vital difference between Judas and Peter, for the sin of the latter (Mt. 26; 69-74) was surely not appreciably worse than that of his fellow-disciple? The answer lies in their different estimate of Jesus. Peter knew his lord well enough to realise that, if only he were in his presence again, the sin would be forgiven. But Judas, believing more definitely than Peter did at that time that Jesus would rise again, could not bear the thought of meeting his Master again. “Mine iniquity is greater than can be forgiven” (Gen. 4: 13 RVm). Grievously underestimating the grace of Christ, as also did the unworthy servant in the parable (Mt. 25; 24), he went away and destroyed himself.

But first he made his confession: “I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood.” It was a confession carrying with it the clear implication that the claims made by Jesus during his ministry and just now at his trial were true. He was the Messiah. And though slain he would rise again and ascend to heaven. And in due time he would come again “on the clouds of heaven.” Poor wretched creature, that this belated confession of faith did not also include faith enough to believe that even this great sin of his might be forgiven by so gracious a Lord!

Suicide

His desperation and misery found little comfort from the priests to whom he now returned: “What is that to us? See thou to that.” Even these hard selfish worldly men would scarcely have been so unconsoling to one who had been their close associate in evil, unless they had felt strong resentment against him. The hypothesis advanced earlier, that Judas was to have been chief witness for the prosecution but at the last minute let them down, harmonizes with this situation perfectly.

The rough words: “See thou to that,” may be just a callous shrugging off of the traitor’s desperation. But, literally translated, the tense is a future: “Thou shalt see to that,” with the possible meaning: “If any trouble arises with the Roman authorities over this, we shall make surethatthe blame is pinned on you/’Such would certainly be a natural reaction if indeed Judas had let them down. But to this frantic man with his new realisation of the truth about Christ, their words: “You shall answer for it,” would sound worse than a death sentence, for to whom would he have to answer but to a “Son of man, coming in the clouds of heaven.”

Judas’s utterly distraught frame of mind comes out clearly in the remarkable incident which ensued: “He cast the pieces of silver down in the temple.” Literally the passage reads: “in the sanctuary”. This detail seems to imply that the chief priests, intercepted in the temple area on their way to Pilate at the castle of Antoia, retreated to the porch of the sanctuary itself in an attempt to escape from the unwelcome attentions of this frantic man whom they despised. But he followed them even there, and threw the blood money after them. The picture of those unclean coins rolling across the floor of the holy place is a fascinating one, as also is that of august dignified rulers scrambling here and there to gather up the evidence of their own complicity.

Meantime Judas left them abruptly and rushed away (Mt. “he cleared out”-LXX usage: “he fled”), and hanged himself. The grim scene had been enacted a thousand years before in prototype (2 Sam. 17:23). And some years later Pilate also committed suicide (so saysEusebius).

Later on, the ghastly details about Judas were rehearsed by Peter (Acts 1 :18). But it is possible to read Peter’s story differently: “And becoming downcast (with remorse), he burst into the midst (of the chief priests), and poured forth (s.w. Jn. 2 :15) all his feelings.” Read in this way the two narratives match each other.

The field “purchased with the reward of iniquity” was the potter’s field which has been identified as a bed of clay at the south-east corner of the valley of Hinnom (note Jer. 19:1,2).Here at the end of thecity remote from Golgotha this poor wretch came to his untimely end, and presumably his grisly remains would ultimately be slung out into Gehenna.

Aceldama

Later on, when the excitement of that Passover had died down somewhat, the chief priests took counsel what should be done with the thirty pieces of silver. This money had probably been diverted from the temple treasury, for if it had come out of their own purses they would have had few scruples about pocketing it again. But now it would not be lawful to put this tarnished silver into the treasury. The conscience which they evinced was doubtless genuine, for human nature is capable of strange quirks. These men thought nothing of a gross distortion of justice in order to rid themselves of a troublesome adversary, yet over details such as this (and also their refusal to enter Pilate’s judgement hall on Passover Day, and also having a corpse on a cross on the ensuing sabbath John 18: 28 and 19: 31) they could hardly be too punctilious. Yet there was no sign of conscience when they called the money ‘the price of blood’. Amongst themselves they spoke without any dissimulation, but instead with a crude brutal frankness.

So, it was some time later, after the suicide of Judas, when the potter’s field again came into the real estate market at a give-away price, that they decided to buy it with the carefully hoarded thirty pieces of silver—a useful piece of land “to bury strangers in”.

This burying place, bought (in effect) by Jesus, thus provided a place where strangers-Gentiles!—might sleep and rise again in God’s Holy City. How different from the use to which Judas had put it! “Hath not the Potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?” The Gentiles who died in Jerusalem would mostly be those believing in the God of Israel. In the course of the next forty years these must have included a big proportion of Gentile Christians. And they sleep in ground bought by the death of Jesus and which by rights belongs to him. It was only princes of the house of Judah who were buried inside the walls of Jerusalem (so 2 Chr. 24:16 seems to imply).

Nor were these things done in a corner, for by common consent that spot changed its name. It was no more “the potter’s field”, but instead, Aceldama, a title which means both “field of blood” (Judas’s suicide) and “the field of silence”. By those who later knew the place only as a cemetery the latter would be the accepted meaning. But disciples of Jesus would always translate that name as “the field of blood”, because purchased with blood money.

Zechariah or Jeremiah?

There is still one problem regarding the death of Judas to be considered. Matthew 27: 9 reads: “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom they priced away from the children of Israel; and gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me.”

But these words are not to be found in Jeremiah. Instead they occur in Zechariah 11:12, 13. Thus is created one of the best-known problems of the New Testament text. Widely varying explanations have been advanced:

1. That Matthew originally wrote “Zechariah” and that the ascription of this quotation to Jeremiah is a scribal error. This is a prime example of “if the facts don’t fit the theory, so much the worse for the facts;” for out of the mass of manuscripts only two or three (and they of little repute) read “Zechariah”.
2. Simple lapse of memory on Matthew’s part. This, of course, involves the deplorable assumption either that the Holy Spirit had no part in the composition of the gospels, or — almost, if not quite as bad — that the Holy Spirit’s guidance of Matthew did not cover mere accuracy as to facts. It also involves another assumption, vetoed by all the rest of this gospel, that Matthew was, extraordinarily careless in the assembling of his material.
3. Another explanation puts emphasis on the word “spoken.” The suggestion is that Matthew knew that, although the passage about the thirty pieces of silver was included in a written prophecy of Zechariah, it was originally spoken by Jeremiah. The double difficulty here is the complete lack of supporting evidence and the fact that Zechariah 11: 12,13 appears to “belong” to the prophecy where it is found. Also, the same phrase comes in verse 35 with reference to a prophecy which was certainly written.
4. A different approach suggests that Matthew 27: 9,10 is really a combination of Zechariah 11 with allusion to Jeremiah’s purchase of a field for money (Jer.32 :7-10), and that Jeremiah’s name is appended to the quotation because the key word “field” comes in Jeremiah 32 and not in Zechariah 11. But it has to be noted that Jeremiah’s field was in Anathoth, and cost him seventeen shekels of silver, not thirty.
5. Discussing this problem, Sir Isaac Newton decided that Matthew knew what he was about and that therefore Zechariah 11 was written by Jeremiah. This conclusion is most likely to be the correct one. A fair amount of evidence exists for believing that Zechariah 9-14 is by a different author from ch.1-8, For instance, more than thirty similarities of language and idea can be traced between i§ Jeremiah’s prophecies and the second half of what is known today as “Zechariah”, Also, in Zechariah 9-14 there are passages which are extremely difficult to associate with the time of the return from Babylon, but which become much more intelligible when read against the background of the evil days in which Jeremiah lived. So perhaps there is something to be said for the correctness of Matthew’s record after all.

Notes: Mt. 27:3-10

3.	Thirty pieces of silver. Matthew is the only writer to mention this precise sum of money. How did he know? Does Acts 6:7 explain?
5.	In the temple; Gk. naos. Not “into”, as RV gives it.
7-10	are best regarded as a parenthesis describing what happened some time later.
8.	The field of blood. Note the emphasis on “blood” in v. 4,6,8,24,25.