xv. 1–15. The Trial before Pilate: cf. Matt. xxvii. 1–26; Luke xxiii. 1–5, 13–25; John xviii. 28–40, xix. 4–16.

1. straightway in the morning. After being taken from Annas to Caiaphas and subjected to a preliminary questioning by the latter, Jesus was brought before the Sanhedrin in the council-chamber of Caiaphas, probably at one or two o’clock in the morning, and formally tried and condemned. The Sanhedrin, having so far done their work, had adjourned. But they now assemble again at break of day, in order to consult how to bring Jesus before the Roman procurator, who alone had the power of the sword. ‘The chief priests,’ says Mark, ‘with the elders and scribes, and the whole council.’ The hierarchy, therefore, took the lead in the proceedings, but the other orders were at one with them, and what followed the consultation was the act of the whole council.

bound Jesus… delivered him up to Pilate. The Feast had begun. The risk of an outbreak when the adherents of Jesus gathered in their numbers was great. The Jewish authorities, knowing that there was no time to lose if they were to escape such dangers, took instant action, and carried off their prisoner securely bound at once to Pilate. The Evangelists give only general indications of the time—‘when morning was come’ (Matthew), ‘in the morning’ (Mark), ‘as soon as it was day’ (Luke), ‘it was early’ (John). But as Roman courts did not meet before sunrise, and gave no judgement before 6 a.m., it was probably 5 or 6 a.m. when Jesus was taken before the Roman Procurator. John states that he was led into ‘the palace’ or praetorium (xviii. 28). It is difficult to say whether the place in question was the palace of Herod the Great, a magnificent marble structure on the north side of Zion, occupied for the time by Pilate, or the fortress of Antonia or a residence near that.

Pilate. On the deposition and banishment of Archelaus in A.D. 6, Judæa was united to Syria and put under the authority of the Syrian governor or legate. But, subject to this overlordship, it was ruled immediately by a procurator sent from Rome (Joseph. Antiq. xvii. xiii. 5, xviii. i. 1, Jewish War, ii. viii. 1). The procurator lived at Cæsarea on the Sea (Acts xxiii. 23; Joseph. Jewish War, ii. ix. 2), but came up to Jerusalem at the Passover season in order to keep order. The fifth in the series of procurators of Judæa was Pontius Pilate, who succeeded Valerius Gratus in A.D. 25–26, and brought with him into Palestine his wife Procla or Claudia Procula. He is referred to, not only in the narratives of Passion Week, but elsewhere in the N. T. (Luke iii. 1, xiii. 1; Acts iv. 27; 1 Tim. vi. 13), and is named by the Roman historian Tacitus as the ‘procurator by whom, in the reign of Tiberius, Christ had been punished’ (Annals, xv. 44). His character is drawn both by Josephus (Antiq., xviii, Jewish War, ii. ix. 2 ff.) and by Philo the Jew (De Leg. 38). The latter represents him as given over, in his public life, to rapacity, corruption, ruthlessness, and all manner of oppression and wrong. The N. T. indicates the savage cruelty of his rule (Luke xiii. 1). It represents him at the same time as having something of the sense of justice proper to a Roman judge, though vacillating in purpose and not strong enough to give effect to it in opposition to the pressure put upon him by the relentless Jews. [Salmond, 1906]

asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Pilate met the Jews outside; as John explains, because they were too scrupulous to enter the palace of the heathen ruler, lest they should be defiled and so prevented from taking part in the Passover. After this first interview with the Jewish authorities Pilate entered the palace again, and summoning Jesus before him (John xviii. 33), put to him the question recorded by all the four Evangelists. How did Pilate come to put such a question to Jesus? The answer probably is that the Jews had charged Jesus with making regal claims, giving the Messianic title ‘King of the Jews’ a political meaning. This accords with the fuller statement which Luke gives of the accusation as one essentially of sedition: ‘We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king’ (xxiii. 2). The question was a private and preliminary one, and its form suggests, as Westcott thinks, ‘a feeling of surprise on the part of the questioner.’

Thou sayest: an affirmative reply, calmly given. John shews us how Jesus first asked Pilate why he put such a question to him, and then explained in what sense he claimed to be king and what manner of kingdom his was (xviii. 34–38). [Salmond, 1906]

the chief priests accused him of many things. The Jewish officials remain without, and begin to be joined by the mob (Luke xxiii. 4). After the brief, private inquiry, Pilate comes forth again, and gives the Jews to understand, as Luke (xxiii. 4) and John (xviii. 38) tell us, that he found no fault in the accused. This provokes a fresh burst of accusations on the part of the Jews, who clamour with furious insistence about his stirring up the people, ‘teaching throughout all Judæa, and beginning from Galilee even unto this place’ (Luke xxiii. 5). [Salmond, 1906]

Pilate again asked him. His conviction of the innocence of Jesus being perhaps somewhat shaken by these new and serious charges, Pilate further questions him, but elicits no reply. The governor marvels at the tranquil, dignified silence maintained by Jesus in the face of the fierce storm of accusations. He is embarrassed; and, as Luke suggests, who introduces here his report of the appearance before Herod, he catches at the mention of Galilee as the scene of the first teaching of Jesus. He asks more particularly about this, and learning from the accusers themselves that Jesus was ‘of Herod’s jurisdiction,’ he sends him on to that prince. But Herod sent him back to Pilate (Luke xxiii. 6–12). sak=

Now at the feast he used to release unto them one prisoner. Some have taken this to mean that at each of the great festivals the custom was to release a prisoner. But the reference is to the Passover feast, as John explains (xviii. 39). Of the custom itself nothing definite is known beyond what is stated here. There is no mention of it in the later Jewish writings. It is supposed by some to have originated in the Maccabean age, or even at an earlier period than that. Others think it was introduced by the Romans with a view to conciliating the Jews.

whom they asked of him. The point of the concession lay in the fact that the selection of the prisoner was left to the Jews themselves. Pilate’s second expedient for relief was to take advantage of this custom. Comparing the several narratives, we see that, when Jesus was sent back by Herod, Pilate called the Jewish authorities and the people together again (Luke xxiii. 13), and seated himself upon the judgement-seat (Matt. xxvii. 19), with the intention of declaring Jesus guiltless and ending the trial. It was the custom for the procurator, when he was to give his judg ment in a trial, to take his seat on a movable tribunal. In the present case, as we learn from John, this tribunal was set up ‘at a place called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha’ (xix. 13). Here Pilate formally declares that neither he nor Herod found any fault in the accused, and announces his intention to scourge him and then to release him. His idea probably was to set Jesus free under the custom referred to, but without consulting the people. He thought in this way not only to satisfy his own sense of justice, but to please the people by releasing a prisoner whom he imagined they would value, and to propitiate the Sanhedrin by chastising Jesus. But he pleased no one. [Salmond, 1906]

Barabbas. Some ancient authorities give the name as Jesus Barabbas. The name Bar-Abba was a common name, at least in later Judaism. Of this Barabbas nothing certain is known beyond what we gather from the Gospels, namely, that he was a robber (John xviii. 40); that he had stirred up a serious disturbance in the city and had been guilty of murder (Mark xv. 7; Luke xxiii. 19); and that at the time he was lying a prisoner along with his fellow insurgents, charged with faction and murder. He was probably one of those fierce and uncompromising patriots, known as the party of the Zealots, who hated the Roman rule with an invincible hatred, and gave constant trouble to the Roman governors and the Roman soldiery. Barabbas was guilty of the very crime, that of sedition, which the Sanhedrin tried to fasten unjustly upon Jesus. [Salmond, 1906]

the multitude… began to ask him. The people were not to be balked of their right, and Pilate thought that, as it was obviously envy of the favour and influence Jesus had won with the multitude that had induced the hierarchy to accuse him, the people were likely to choose Jesus for release. He let them have their usual right of choice, therefore, only suggesting by his question, ‘Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews?’ the selection that might please him as well as them. But in this appeal to the people he was defeated by the counter-appeal of the chief priests. We are not told how the people were induced to prefer Barabbas. But there may have been a secret sympathy with the insurgents on which the chief priests contrived to play. [Salmond, 1906]

What then shall I do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews? It was probably when he was thus unexpectedly disappointed of his hopes of a way out of his difficulty that he received the disturbing message from his wife which is recorded by Matthew (xxvii. 19). His uneasiness is increased by this, and he asks in angered perplexity what is to be done with him who was no robber or murderer, but ostensibly their king. Their answer, instigated no doubt by the chief priests, was short and sharp—’Crucify him.’ [Salmond, 1906]

Why, what evil hath he done? Expostulation was the governor’s next device. But its only effect was to make the insensate people clamour the more vehemently for the crucifixion of their King. [Salmond, 1906]

Pilate, wishing to content the multitude. At this point Matthew records how Pilate ‘took water, and washed his hands before the multitude’ (xxvii. 24), an incident which is reported only by him. This was a Jewish ceremony (Deut. xxi. 6; Joseph. Antiq. iv. viii. 16), symbolical of one’s guiltlessness in the matter of the shedding of blood. Similar symbolical rites were practised by the Greeks, only after a case of murder, not before it (Herod. i. 35; Virgil, Aen. ii. 719). It was also the custom for heathen judges when about to pass sentence to protest their innocence of the blood of the person whom they were to condemn to death (see Meyer on Matt. xxvii. 24). His fear of the Jewish mob, working on his fatal irresolution, beats down all the governor’s scruples, and at last extorts from him the irrevocable order. The Fourth Gospel, with its more detailed account, best enables us to understand how Pilate struggled against the meshes that were closing in about him. It shews us how he went once and again into the palace, and once and again faced the people; how he brought Jesus out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple garment, and called on the mob, in a last appeal to their pity, or in fierce mockery of their Messianic ideas, to ‘behold the man’; how he would have had the Jews take Jesus away and themselves crucify him; how at last they declared the real cause of their offence with him—his claim to be the Son of God; how the judge, the more afraid when he heard this, took Jesus again within and interrogated him in private; and how the long conflict between the Jewish accusers and the Roman judge ended in triumph for the former when they tried the hesitating governor with the crafty cry, ‘Thou art not Cæsar’s friend’ (John xix. 1–14).

when he had scourged him. This particular word is found in the N.T. only here and in the parallel passage in Matthew. Roman scourging inflicted suffering so terrible that often the victim died under it. The scourging before crucifixion was usually done by lictors (Joseph. Jewish War, ii. xiv. 9, v. xi. 1); but in our Lord’s case it was done by the soldiers. The sufferer was bound to a low pillar. In the Church of the Holy Sepulchre a broken porphyry column, known as the Column of Flagellation, is shewn as the pillar to which our Lord was bound. Another column with similar pretensions is shewn at Rome. [Salmond, 1906]

xv. 16–20. The Mockery of the Soldiers: cf. Matt. xxvii. 27–31; John xix. 2, 3. This incident is omitted by Luke.

16. the soldiers: Matthew explains that these were the soldiers of ‘the governor’ (xxvii. 27). Those of Herod had been mentioned by Luke (xxiii. 11). These Roman soldiers had to see to the execution of the sentence. They consisted probably of a few men with a centurion, and formed part of the band or cohort stationed in Jerusalem, no doubt in the castle of Antonia (Acts xxi. 31).

within the court: the scourging had taken place, therefore, outside in front of the palace. Jesus is now brought into the open courtyard.

the Praetorium: the word is used of the tent or head quarters of a commander in a Roman camp. But in the Gospels and the Book of Acts it means the official residence of a governor (cf. Acts xxiii. 35). Opinion is divided, as we have said, on the subject of the place in view here. Some hold that Herod’s palace was used by the Roman procurator as his official residence for the time. Josephus tells us indeed that it was so used by Florus (Jewish War, ii. xiv. 8). Others, pointing to the fact that Herod was himself in Jerusalem at the time, and noticing that the view which the Gospels give of the proceedings in connexion with the trial best accords with a position near the citadel, conclude with more probability that the Praetorium was connected with the fortress of Antonia.

the whole band. The word ‘band’ is of somewhat uncertain application. It may mean a maniple, which was the third of a cohort and consisted nominally of 200 men. But, as the ‘band’ is said to have a chiliarch or ‘chief captain’ (John xviii. 12; Acts xxi. 31), it is supposed to have the sense of cohort in the N. T. [Salmond, 1906]

with purple: or, as Matthew gives it, ‘a scarlet robe.’ Jesus had been stripped of his clothing when led forth to be scourged. His under-garments had been put on again when he was brought back into the court. Now Pilate’s soldiers, imitating the mockery practised by Herod and his men when they sent Jesus back ‘arrayed in gorgeous apparel’ (Luke xxiii. 11), put upon him in place of his upper robes a red cloak, probably the ordinary military cloak, ‘possibly a cast-off and faded rag, but with colour enough left in it to suggest the royal purple’ (Swete). This they did in ridicule of his kingly pretensions.a crown of thorns: in derisive imitation of the laurel wreath, the badge of victory, worn at times by the Roman emperors as token of military distinction or on festal occasions. This wreath was made of twisted spikes of some sort of thorn, probably the nabk tree. The precise species of thorn, however, cannot be determined with certainty. [Salmond, 1906]

to salute him. Matthew notices that a reed was put into his right hand (xxvii. 29), to represent a sceptre. [Salmond, 1906]

smote his head with a reed. The mock homage offered him was accompanied or followed by cruel blows and insults. When the soldiers had enough of outrage and brutality, they took off the red cloak and clad Jesus again in his own garments. See his prediction in chap. x. 33, 34. [Salmond, 1906]

they lead him out to crucify him. The O. T. law forbade the camp to be defiled with blood (Num. xv. 35). Naboth was stoned without (1 Kings xxi. 13). So was it with the Holy City. Stephen was stoned without (Acts vii. 58), and his Lord before him was taken outside the city to be crucified (cf. Heb. xiii. 12). It is not possible to determine with any certainty the route by which Jesus was led from the judgement-hall to the place of crucifixion. Jerusalem has passed through too many changes to enable us to trace the Lord’s course. Tradition defines it as the way called the Via Dolorosa running across the city from the fortress of Antonia to the Holy Sepulchre. But the name, if not the tradition itself, can scarcely be traced as far back as the twelfth century. [Salmond, 1906]

xv. 21–32. The incidents on the way to the Cross, and at the Cross: cf. Matt. xxvii. 32–44; Luke xxiii. 26–43; John xix. 16–26.

21. they compel one passing by. Matthew tells us that this happened ‘as they came out’ (xxvii. 32), probably just as they left the gate. The man was on his way from the country, as Mark and Luke both state, and the soldiers arrested him as he was passing by and forced him to go with them. The word translated ‘compel’ is better rendered ‘impress,’ as in the R.V. margin. It is a word of foreign origin, used in particular of the couriers of the Kings of Persia, who were impressed into the monarch’s service. It came to be applied to any kind of compulsory service. It is the word that is rendered ‘compel’ also once in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. v. 41).

Simon of Cyrene. The name of the person thus impressed by the soldiers is given by all the three Synoptists, though not by John. He belonged to Cyrene in North Africa. We learn from Josephus that a body of Jews settled there in the time of Ptolemy I, and had a considerable position among the people (Cont. Ap. 4, Antiq. xiv. viii. 2). In the N.T. there are other references to this district. Dwellers in ‘the parts about’ Cyrene were among those in Jerusalem on the great day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 10); Cyrenians are mentioned in connexion with the synagogue of the Libertines (Acts vi. 9); a Lucius of Cyrene is named among the prophets and teachers of the Church of Antioch (Acts xiii. 1).

the father of Alexander and Rufus. Mark alone describes Simon thus by his sons. We infer from the statement that they became persons of some distinction in the Church. But neither of Simon himself nor of these sons do we know anything beyond what we find here. Some endeavour to identify this Alexander with one or other of the Alexanders mentioned in the Book of Acts and the Pauline Epistles, the Alexander who ‘would have made a defence unto the people’ at Ephesus (Acts xix. 33), the one introduced along with Hymenæus (1 Tim. i. 20), or the one known as ‘the coppersmith’ (2 Tim. iv. 14). But the relations of these men to Paul make this identification extremely improbable.that he might bear his cross. It is stated by Plutarch that it was the custom to make the condemned man carry his own cross, and ancient paintings shew it to have been the belief of the early Church that Jesus bore the whole cross. It is more probable, however, that only a part of it was borne, namely the patibulum, the post or upright beam, to which the transverse beam was affixed when the cross was about to be erected. Some (e.g. Keim), with less probability, think the cross-beam was all that was put upon our Lord’s back on the way. John mentions that Jesus ‘went out, bearing the cross for himself’ (xix. 17). It appears, therefore, that our Lord bore the cross at least to the city gate. There, outside the gate, his strength probably gave way, and Simon was compelled to relieve him of the painful burden. At this point Luke introduces the incident of the women of Jerusalem bewailing Jesus. [Salmond, 1906]

the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull. Matthew gives the name without the explanation, writing as he does for Jewish readers. Luke says ‘the place which is called The skull,’ omitting the Aramaic word Golgotha. John is more precise, ‘the place called The place of a skull, which is called in Hebrew Golgotha.’ This ‘place of a skull’ was rendered locus Calvariae in the Vulgate Version. We owe the word Calvary to the fact that the Old English versions followed the Vulgate in their renderings of Luke’s Gospel here. Wyclif, e.g. gives ‘the place of Calvarie.’ The name Golgotha indicates that the place was a low, bare, skull-shaped knoll or mound. It seems to have been well known. The Gospels indicate that it was outside the city, yet near it (John xix. 20), on a road leading from the country into the city (Luke xxiii. 26), and having a garden in it or, as we may rather suppose, by it (John xix. 41). But its exact position cannot be determined with any certainty. It can scarcely be the traditional Mount Calvary, which is within the city. It has been placed on the west bank of the Kidron north of St. Stephen’s Gate (so Dr. Thomson); on the hill north-east of Herod’s Gate (Sir C. Wilson, &c.); on the hill without the present wall, north-east of the Damascus Gate; on the ‘Skull Hill’ or ‘Grotto Hill,’ near the Damascus Gate, above the grotto of Jeremiah, and elsewhere. But there is no general agreement on the subject. [Salmond, 1906]

offered him wine mingled with myrrh. Matthew describes it as wine ‘mingled with gall’ (xxvii. 34). Both were stupefying potions. It was customary to offer such drugged wine to those about to undergo crucifixion, in order to make them less sensible of pain. Jesus tasted this drink (Matt. xxvii. 34), but refused it. [Salmond, 1906]

part his garments. The clothing of the condemned was the perquisite of the soldiers on duty at executions.casting lots. Probably they had dice with them for their amusement: these would serve the purpose. John, who was an eye-witness of the scene, makes a distinction here. He speaks of the ‘garments,’ as distinguished from the ‘coat,’ as being divided into four parts, one for each man in the quaternion of soldiers. This they might do by loosening the seams. But the ‘coat’ or ‘tunic,’ which was woven of one piece, was not divided, but assigned in whole to one by lot. John adds that in this way the words of Ps. xxii. 18 were fulfilled (xix. 23, 24). [Salmond, 1906]

it was the third hour. Mark alone gives this particular note of time. John, on the other hand, says it was ‘about the sixth hour’ when Pilate brought Jesus out and took his seat for judgement (xix. 14). Various explanations of this apparent discrepancy have been given. Of these the most probable is the supposition that Mark and John here follow different modes of reckoning time, the latter having the Roman division of time in view, which would make the ‘sixth hour’ about six a.m. Dr. Edersheim is of opinion that Jesus was brought forth by Pilate at the sixth hour of the Roman calculation, and that he was led out to crucifixion at the third hour according to the Jewish reckoning, which would be the ninth of the Roman or Western reckoning (Temple Service, p. 174). But the question remains an unsettled one. In any case, however, it should be remembered that the ancients did not observe those very exact divisions of time to which we are accustomed, and that of the two statements in view Mark’s is the more definite, while John’s is the more general. [Salmond, 1906]

the superscription of his accusation. It was customary to have the cause of condemnation inscribed on a tablet, which was fastened to the prisoner or borne before him as he was led to execution. This was afterwards fastened to the cross itself, above the sufferer’s head. There were several kinds of crosses—the St. Andrew’s cross in the shape of the letter X; St. Anthony’s cross, also known as the Egyptian or the Greek cross, with the form T; and the Latin cross, which was of this shape ✝. The mention of the superscription as ‘written over,’ ‘over him’ as Luke gives it, put ‘on the cross’ as John expresses it, points to the third as the kind of cross to which our Lord was nailed. The terms of the superscription are given with certain variations in the Gospels, but in each the significant words ‘the King of the Jews,’ which indicated the real cause of offence, are found. From John (xix. 20) we learn that the title was written not only in the official Latin, but also in Hebrew and Greek. [Salmond, 1906]

two robbers: or, according to Luke, ‘malefactors.’ Not ‘thieves,’ but perhaps members of the insurgent band of Barabbas, desperate, fanatical patriots, who might be heroes in the eyes of the Jewish mob. [Salmond, 1906]

The A.V. introduces here the verse ‘And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ The documentary evidence in support of it, however, is doubtful. The quotation from Isa. liii. 12 is given by Luke at an earlier stage (xxii. 37). [Salmond, 1906]

Ha! The exclamation here is one of derision or ironical amazement. This is its only occurrence in the N.T.thou that destroyest the temple. The accusation of the two witnesses before Caiaphas (Matt. xxvi. 61; Mark xiv. 58). It had been made matter of common talk. [Salmond, 1906]

the chief priests: even these dignitaries could not restrain themselves. They too joined in the mockery, not with the crowd indeed, but passing their jeers from mouth to mouth among themselves, the scribes and elders uniting with them (Matt. xxvii. 41). The taunt in which they indulge, ‘He saved others; himself he cannot save’ (or, ‘can he not save himself?’), appears to be an echo of Psalm xxii. 8. [Salmond, 1906]

they that were crucified with him: so also Matthew. Luke refers only to one of the malefactors as railing on Jesus, and adds the rebuke administered to him by his fellow criminal, his petition to Jesus, and the answer it received (xxiii. 39–43). From Luke we learn also that the soldiers joined with others in the common, savage derision (xxiii. 36). [Salmond, 1906]

xv. 33–41. The Last Hours and the Events attendant on the Death: cf. Matt. xxvii. 45–56; Luke xxiii. 44–49; John xix. 28–37.

33. the sixth hour: so also Matthew. Luke gives it less precisely ‘about the sixth hour.’

there was darkness: Luke explains that it was due to ‘the sun’s light failing’ (xxiii. 45).over the whole land until the ninth hour: that is, from 12 noon till 3 p.m. This darkness cannot be explained either as the kind of darkness that is known to precede earthquakes, or as the result of an ordinary eclipse. An eclipse at the Paschal full moon is an impossibility. It must be understood, according to the Gospel narratives, to have been a gloom out of the ordinary course of nature, in which all that happened during the last three hours of the Saviour’s Passion was shrouded from view. How far this darkness extended is not certain. The phrase ‘over all the land’ may also mean ‘over all the earth.’ It is not easy to say, therefore, whether the statement means that the gloom covered all the land of Judæa or extended over the earth. It is most natural to take the more limited application. But on the other hand the phrase, though an indefinite one, is usually employed in a wider sense (Gen. i. 26, xi. 9; Ps. xxxiii. 8; Luke xxi. 35; Rev. xiii. 3), and it may be said that the idea of a cosmic portent suits the tone of the narrative better than that of a local gloom. [Salmond, 1906]

at the ninth hour: that is, the hour for the evening sacrifice; cf. Acts iii. 1.

Jesus cried with a loud voice: the cry was rather a shout, the strong note of a conqueror, than the feeble voice of one exhausted. The strength or loudness of the voice of the dying Jesus is noticed also by Luke in the case of his final utterance from the cross (xxiii. 46).

Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? The cry is given by Mark in the vernacular, with a translation for the benefit of his Gentile readers. At this crisis in his sufferings, when mental agony is more than all his physical pain, Jesus expresses his sense of anguish in the words of the sufferer in one of the great Messianic psalms (Ps. xxii. 1). It cannot be explained simply as the recoil of nature from the pangs of dissolution, or as the bitter feeling of being abandoned by men. It is the cry of one who has lost for the time the sense of fellowship with God—the cry of conscious innocence struggling with this unexampled experience, in utter darkness clinging to faith and trusting itself to God, but unable to say Father, bereft for a season of the gladness of realized fellowship. It is the note of an experience too deep for us to fathom, and possible only to one standing in a relation different from ours to man and his sin, and to God and His grace. This is the only cry from the cross that is recorded either by Matthew or by Mark. That there were other six we learn from Luke and John. The most probable order in which these cries occurred is this:— (1) The prayer for the forgiveness of his enemies (Luke xxiii. 34).
(2) The promise to the penitent robber (Luke xxiii. 43).
(3) The charge to Mary and to John (John xix. 26, 27). These three before the darkness. Then during the darkness: (4) this cry of desertion (Matt. xxvii. 46; Mark xv. 34). And after the darkness these three: (5) the exclamation ‘I thirst’ (John xix. 28). (6) The declaration ‘It is finished’ (John xix. 30). (7) The final commendation of his spirit to God (Luke xxiii. 46). [Salmond, 1906]

Behold, he calleth Elijah. Not an innocent misunderstanding, surely, of his cry, but a fresh insult, a poor, unfeeling attempt at banter, taking advantage of the similarity in Hebrew or Aramaic between the word for God and the name of the prophet. The point of the cruel witticism lay in the connexion which Elijah had with the Messiah in popular belief. [Salmond, 1906]

filling a sponge full of vinegar. From Luke we see that a similar drink had been offered earlier by the soldiers in mockery, and had been refused by Jesus (xxiii. 36). Now one of those standing by runs to give him something to relieve his thirst. Deadly thirst added to the awful pangs of crucifixion. The drink offered at this point was ‘vinegar,’ that is to say, the sour wine drunk by the common soldier and the labourer in the field (Ruth ii. 14). John tells us that a vessel of this was ‘set there,’ whether for the soldiers’ use or expressly for the relief of the sufferers. It is said that not unfrequently a drink of this kind was kept at hand for the purpose. On this occasion a sponge was dipped in the wine, and put upon a reed, a stalk of hyssop to wit, and ‘brought to his mouth’ (John xix. 29). The hyssop was a wall-plant, perhaps the same as the caper, which was used in certain ritual observances (Lev. xiv. 4 ff.; Num. xix. 6 ff.; see also the references to it in Ps. li. 7; Heb. x. 19 ff.).Let be; let us see whether Elijah cometh to take him down. According to Matthew it is those standing by, ‘the rest,’ who said this. According to Mark it is the man who ran with the sponge, and on his lips the ‘let be,’ which expressed mockery as uttered by the others, might mean, ‘let me have my way with this.’ John says ‘they put a sponge,’ as if the act was not that of one but of several. The divergences in the accounts may reflect the confusion and excitement caused by the cry in the darkness. It is possible that while one spoke and acted in compassion, the others spoke and acted to the end in derision. [Salmond, 1906]

uttered a loud voice. All the Synoptists notice the loud cry uttered by Jesus when dying. The voice in view here is no doubt the cry, ‘Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit,’ as preserved by Luke (xxiii. 46).gave up the ghost. ‘Yielded up his spirit’ (Matt.), ‘bowed his head, and gave up his spirit’ (John); terms pointing, along with ‘the loud voice,’ to a death which was a voluntary laying down of life. [Salmond, 1906]

the veil of the temple. The temple had two veils or curtains, one before the Holy Place, and another before the Holy of Holies. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, speaking of the tabernacle, mentions ‘the second veil’ (ix. 3). The curtain intended here is no doubt the one before the Holy of Holies, which was made ‘of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen’ and adorned with figures of cherubim (Exod. xxvi. 31; Lev. xxi. 23). The rending of the veil is reported by all three Synoptists. For the figurative application of the ‘veil’ see Heb. vi. 19; for the mystical sense of the rent veil see Heb. ix. 20. Matthew records the quaking of the earth, the rending of the tombs, and the rising of many saints (xxvii. 51, 52). [Salmond, 1906]

the centurion. Tradition gives him the name Longinus. He was the officer in charge of the quaternion of soldiers. Probably he came from Cæsarea, where also the devout ‘centurion of the band called the Italian band’ was posted (Acts x. 1).that he so gave up the ghost. The A.V. reads that ‘he so cried out, and gave up the ghost’; but on inadequate documentary evidence. The way in which Jesus died was something entirely foreign to all the experience this soldier had had of similar deaths. It made so great an impression upon him that he confessed this sufferer to be no ordinary Jew, but ‘a righteous man’ (Luke), ‘the Son of God’ or ‘a Son of God’ (Matthew and Mark). This confession may not mean the distinct acknowledgement of Jesus as the Messiah; but it expresses the centurion’s sense of something out of the ordinary course, something supernatural in the sufferer whose death he had witnessed. The title ‘Son of God’ may have been taken by the soldier from the report of the accusation laid against Jesus (Matt. xxvii. 40). Matthew notices that ‘they that were with him watching Jesus’ joined in the confession that this was ‘the Son of God,’ and adds that this acknowledgement was made under the influence of the fear excited by the ‘earthquake and the things that were done’ (xxvii. 54). [Salmond, 1906]

also women. According to Matthew, ‘many women.’ These were the faithful women from Galilee. Apart from the jeering mob, at some distance from the cross, they gazed upon the Sufferer and the scene with deeper feelings by far even than the centurion. Three are mentioned by name in the first two Gospels.

Mary Magdalene: so called doubtless from the place to which she belonged, probably the Magdala, now el-Medjel, on the western side of the Sea of Galilee and at the southern end of the district of Gennesaret. She had been delivered from seven demons, and had become a follower of the Healer, ministering to him of her substance (Luke viii. 2, 3; cf. Mark xvi. 9). She is introduced here for the first time by Mark.

Mary the mother of James the less (or, the little) and of Joses. Matthew and Mark both speak of this Mary as the mother of James and Joses. John speaks of her as ‘the wife of Clopas’ (xix. 25). Many take Clopas to be the same as Alphæus, and so make this Mary the mother of the Apostle James, the second James in the lists of the Twelve. But the identification of Clopas with Alphæus is doubtful. In ancient Church history mention is made of a Clopas, who was the brother of Joseph, the Virgin Mary’s spouse, and father of the Symeon who was president of the mother church of Jerusalem after the death of James the Just (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 11, 22, 32; iv. 22). The term applied to the James noticed here, ‘the less’ or ‘the little,’ is taken by some to mean ‘the younger.’ But usually it expresses the idea of stature, not of age. It is used e.g. to express the fact that Zacchæus was ‘little of stature’ (Luke xix. 3).and Salome. The name Salome was borne by several members of the Herodian house. In this connexion it is given only by Mark, and by him it is left unexplained, probably as being a name well known in the circle of the friends of Jesus and not shared by any other woman in that circle. Matthew describes the person here in view, not by her name, but as ‘the mother of the sons of Zebedee’ (xxvii. 56). In the Fourth Gospel the women standing by the cross of Jesus are described as ‘his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene’ (John xix. 25). This leaves it uncertain whether ‘his mother’s sister’ and ‘Mary the wife of Clopas’ are two distinct persons or one and the same individual. On the whole the probability is that the Mary of James the less and the Mary of Clopas are to be understood as the same person, and that the woman so designated was the Virgin Mary’s sister. [Salmond, 1906]

many other women. Looking on the cross were not only these faithful Galilean women who had been constant in their loving attendance upon Jesus, and are mentioned here by name, but also a band of others of less note who had followed him on his last journey to Jerusalem. Of the former band Luke in his earlier narrative mentions other two by name—‘Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna’ (viii. 2; cf. xxiv. 10). With this group of women Luke mentions also ‘all his acquaintance’ (xxiii. 49). [Salmond, 1906]

xv. 42–47. The Burial of Jesus: cf. Matt. xxvii. 57–61; Luke xxiii. 50–55; John xix. 38–42.

42. even was now come: that is, the first or early evening, the time immediately before the end of the Jewish day; cf. Deut. xxi. 22 ff.

because it was the Preparation: that is, the preparation for the sabbath. It was the eve of the sabbath. The word ‘Preparation’ had become a technical term, used of Friday.

that is, the day before the sabbath. Matthew, writing for Jews, gives the term ‘the Preparation’ without note or comment. Mark, having non-Jewish readers in view, gives the meaning of the technical term. The mention of the Preparation is introduced in explanation of the action of Joseph. The Fourth Gospel states that the Jews had already taken action with a view to having the body removed before the sabbath entered (John xix. 31). [Salmond, 1906]

there came Joseph of Arimathæa. Ancient Christian writers identified this Arimathæa with the Ramathaim-Zophim in the hill-country of Ephraim to which Elkanah belonged (1 Sam. i. 1); which again is identified by some with er-Ram, a place some miles to the north of Jerusalem, though Eusebius, the Church historian, placed it near Lydda. Others identify it with Rama in Benjamin (Matt. ii. 18).

a councillor of honourable estate. A member of the Sanhedrin, that is to say, and one of high position in the body, or, as the word may also mean, a dignified councillor, a man of noble bearing; Matthew speaks of him as ‘a rich man’ (xxvii. 57). The Gospels tell us further that he was a disciple of Jesus (Matt. xxvii. 57), a secret disciple (John xix. 38), and that he was ‘a good man, and a righteous’ who had not consented to the ‘counsel and deed’ of the Jewish court in condemning Jesus (Luke xxiii. 50).

looking for the kingdom of God: so also in Luke. He belonged to the class of devout, believing, expectant Jews represented also by Simeon (Luke ii. 25), of whom there were not a few in Jerusalem itself (Luke ii. 38).

boldly went in unto Pilate: the impression produced by the death of Jesus made the secret disciple, who feared the Jews, courageous enough to face Pilate and ask a favour of him. It made him rise superior also to the risks of ceremonial separation. To take part in a burial meant defilement for seven days, and inability to take part in the Passover feast (Num. xix. 11; Hag. ii. 13; see Geikie, ut sup. ii. 576).asked for the body of Jesus. It was the Roman custom to leave the bodies of the executed hanging for a length of time exposed to sun and rain and the attacks of beasts and birds of prey. In the more merciful Jewish law it was expressly ordered that the body of one hung upon the tree should not be left exposed all night, but should be taken down and buried on the day of suspension (Deut. xxi. 23). [Salmond, 1906]

Pilate marvelled if he were already dead. Usually the crucified died a lingering death, their sufferings lasting from a day and a half to three days. From John we learn that the legs of the robbers crucified with Jesus were broken at the request of the Jews, in order to hasten death before the sabbath began, but that Jesus was found to be dead already (xix. 31–33). The Procurator was so surprised at the intimation of the speedy demise that he felt it necessary to make sure of the fact by inquiring of the centurion in charge. [Salmond, 1906]

granted the corpse to Joseph: the word rendering ‘granted’ conveys the idea of liberality in giving. It is used only once again in the N.T., in 2 Pet. i. 3. In this case at least Pilate asked neither bribe nor price, but gave freely, impressed, it may be, by the petitioner’s character and standing, or having some knowledge of him. [Salmond, 1906]

wound him in the linen cloth. Taking the sacred body down from the cross, in which task he would probably have assistance, he wound it carefully in a piece of fine linen, ‘a clean linen cloth,’ says Matthew (xxvii. 59), that is, linen yet fresh and unused. John adds that Nicodemus, Joseph’s fellow councillor, also came, bringing with him ‘a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pound weight’ (xix. 39). Nicodemus, therefore, probably assisted Joseph in the removal of the body from the cross, and the two councillors placed the spices in the folds of the linen cloth, and binding it with strips of cloth made it ready according to the Jewish custom for burial (John xix. 40).

laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of a rock. Sepulchral chambers of this kind are found in numbers on the south, west, and north-west of Jerusalem. This tomb had been constructed by Joseph for his own burial (Matt. xxvii. 60); it was new and had never been used (Matt. xxvii. 60; Luke xxiii. 53; John xix. 41); and it was situated in a garden near where Jesus had been crucified (John xix. 41).he rolled a stone: it was usual to close the tomb in this way; cf. John xi. 38. Matthew tells us that the stone was sealed at the request of the Jews and had a guard set over it (xxvii. 64–66). [Salmond, 1906]

And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses. Luke speaks generally of ‘the women, which had come with him out of Galilee,’ as following (xxiii. 55). They sat ‘over against the sepulchre,’ as Matthew notices (xxvii. 61). Thus they were in a position to see what took place. They ‘beheld the tomb,’ observing ‘where he was laid’ (Mark), and ‘how his body was laid’ (Luke). Knowing where they could find the sacred body when the sabbath was past, they went their way, but only to return with the spices and ointments needed for the performance of the last sad rites (Luke xxiii. 56). [Salmond, 1906]