Third section the judgment upon the church itself second picture of judgment

They divided His garments.—“Perfectly naked did the cruciarii hang upon the cross (Artemid2, 58; Lips. De cruce 2, 7), and the executioners received their clothes (Wetstein upon this passage). There is no ancient testimony to show that there was a cloth even round the loins. See Thilo, Ad. Ev. Nicod. 10, p582.” Meyer. There Isaiah, however, also a “retrospective” prophetic view; and the Jewish custom is to be remembered, the sympathy of the heathen captain, Christ’s mother beneath the cross, etc. The garments became the property of the soldiers, after Roman usage. The outer garment was divided probably into four, by ripping up the seams. Four soldiers were counted off as a guard, by the Roman code. The under garment could not be divided, being woven; and this led the soldiers to the dice-throwing. Matthew presents the different points as a whole.

Casting lots.—For the more explicit account, see John 19:23.—That it might be fulfilled.—According to the textual criticism (see above), we are led to think these words introduced from John, “although it is worthy of attention, that ῥηθὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ προφ. belongs only to Matthew.” De Wette. One is induced, certainly, to side with the minority of witnesses in this case. The addition is supported not merely by the mode of speech used by Matthew, but also especially by the fact, that he has put the crucifixion into the Aorist participle, as though he would emphasize particularly the fact brought forward by the finite verb. And this cannot be the division of the garments in itself, but its import. Accordingly the case stands thus: either the majority of the scribes have taken objection to the expression, ὑπὸ τοῦ προφήτου, or the others have expanded the words, “they divided His garments, casting lots,” according to Matthew’s meaning. The construction shows, however, that this explanation was intended. The prophecy in the psalm is of a typical nature. Upon the misconception of the passage, Psalm 22:19, which Strauss charges home upon the Evangelist, see the author’s Leben Jesu, ii3, p1602 (German edition).

Matthew 27:36. And sitting down, they watched Him there.—The watch was set to prevent those who had been crucified from being taken down. In this case, they had a peaceful bivouac which assumed a significant meaning.

Matthew 27:37.—And they set up over His head, etc.—The circumstance that the cruciarius, according to Dio Cass54, 8, was compelled to carry a “title” stating his guilt, suspended from his neck and resting upon his breast, while being led to the place of execution, justifies the conclusion that it was the custom to set up this title also above the criminal’s head, when fastened to the cross. We learn the same from the transactions regarding this title recorded by John, who lays peculiar stress upon the double meaning and significance of the superscription, Matthew 19:20. This title, according to Matthew, was attached after the division of the clothes. The very soldiers seem to feel that the statement of the crime was not in this case the chief matter. The small, white tablet, upon which the accusation or sentence of death stood inscribed, was called titulus, σανίς, or also λεύκωμ α, αἰτία.—This is Jesus, The King of the Jews.—No other crime but this. The Jews have crucified their Messiah. He has His title of honor; they have their shame.

Matthew 27:38. Then are two robbers crucified with Him, σταυροῦνται.—At this moment, and not till then, are (present). “By another band of soldiers;” for those who crucified the Lord have seated themselves beneath the cross. This arrangement was a combination devised by Pilate. First, the crucified Jesus is decked with the title, King of the Jews; then two robbers, as the symbol of His Jewish kingdom, are crucified. This was the governor’s revenge, that the Jews had overcome him, and humbled Him in his own estimation.—Two robbers, λῃσταί.—The usual punishment for such an offence was crucifixion. They were in all likelihood no common robbers, but fanatical insurrectionists, chiliastic enthusiasts, such as are frequently met with in later Jewish history. Comp. Mark 15:7.

Matthew 27:39. But they that passed by.—Not laborers going to their work (Fritzsche, de Wette), but the people who, on the afternoon of the feast-day, were walking about outside the gate, and going toward this populous quarter, where a new town was rising. As we previously remarked, Golgotha was a rocky height, turned toward the city, forming thus a natural stage for the public exposure of the crucified. And there the citizens of Jerusalem came forth this day purposely, to walk about with pleasure.—Shaking their heads.—“Not as a sign of disapprobation, but, as we may see from Psalm 22:8—as a gesture of passionate and malignant joy: compare Job 16:4; Psalm 109:25; Isaiah 37:22; Buxtorf, Lexic. Talm. p2039.” Meyer. Query, was not disapprobation hidden under this malignant joy?

Matthew 27:40. Thou that destroyest the temple. Following the participial form, more accurately, the destroyer of the temple (ὁ καταλύων τὸν ναόν). The popular accusation brought against Him by the citizens of Jerusalem, proud of their temple, though the false witnesses upon the trial had contradicted one another. Still, they understood that there lay in the rebuilding within three days an announcement of a delivering power, and also a claim laid to Messianic dignity: hence the summons, Save Thyself, and the parallel sentence, explanatory of the first: If Thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.—The witty mockers do not dream that He will really within three days rebuild the temple which they had destroyed. The parallelism, putting the words into poetic form, makes of the utterances a song of derision, which they improvise in their Satanic enthusiasm, as is still often observed in the East upon similar occasions.

Matthew 27:41-43. The chief priests…with the scribes.—The burghers blaspheme, for they were at first stung with feelings of disapprobation; the members of the Sanhedrin mock for they think they have achieved a perfect victory. But their mockery is no less blasphemy: and here, too, appears that poetic parallelism which makes a derisive song out of their mocking. But the mockery rises in this case to frenzy:—He saved others (forced recognition) Himself He cannot save (blasphemous conclusion). Then, He is King of Israel: ironical no doubt, and again a wicked conclusion. Finally, He trusted in God (with blasphemous reference to Psalm 22:9); and the godless conclusion, in which blasphemy against Christ passes unconsciously over into blasphemy against God, for whose honor they pretend to be zealous. Besides this, they unconsciously adopt the language of the enemies of God’s servant, Psalm 22. Thus are the statements, and even the prayers, of finished fanaticism usually filled with blasphemies. If He will have him, εἰθέλει αὐτόν:—if He has pleasure in him, after the Hebrew חָפֵּץ בּזֹ. It is worthy of note, that the mocking speech of the Sanhedrin consists of three members, while that of the other mockers presents but two.

Matthew 27:44. The robbers also, etc.—Apparent contradiction of Luke 23:39. 1. Meyer and

others: It is an actual contradiction2. Ebrard and others: It is only a general expression, indefinitely put3. The older harmonists, Chrysostom, and others: At first, both mocked; afterward, only one4. At first, both mocked, ὠνείδιζον, in so far as they demanded that He as Messias should descend from the cross. But this the one did, as a nobler chiliast (millennarian), and with a heart filled by enthusiastic hopes; the other, in a despairing spirit. Afterward, the former resigned all earthly hopes, and in his death turned to the dying Christ; the other in his despair blasphemed the dying Lamb (ἐβλασφήμει, Luke). See the author’s Leben Jesu, ii3, p1565.

Matthew 27:45. Now, from the sixth hour there was a darkness, etc.—Since the third hour, or nine o’clock in the morning, Jesus had been hanging on the cross; from the sixth hour,—accordingly at midday, when the sun stood highest and the day was brightest, which also was the middle-point in His crucifixion-torments,—the darkness began. This statement regarding the time, appears to be opposed to that in John 19:14, where we read that it was the sixth hour (ὤρα ἦν ὡς ἕκτη), when Pilate pronounced sentence. If we adopt Tholuck’s view, that John follows the reckoning of time usual in the Roman forum, we obtain too early an hour. The periods of the day being reckoned especially according to the hours of prayer, 3, 6, 9, we may understand the passage thus: the third hour (nine o’clock in the morning) was already past, and it was going, was hastening on, to the sixth hour. The sixth hour was held peculiarly sacred by the Jews, especially upon the Sabbaths and the festivals. Mark’s statement is analogous, Matthew 15:25 : it was the third hour when they crucified Jesus. Mark, like Matthew, contemplates the scourging as a part of the crucifixion; and that occurred between the third and sixth hour. This cannot have been an ordinary eclipse of the sun, because the Passover was celebrated at the time of full moon. Moreover, Luke mentions the darkening of the sun after the darkening of the earth; and hence it is manifest, that he ascribes the darkness which spread over the earth to no mere eclipse; but he ascribes, on the contrary, the darkness of the sun to a mysterious thickening of the atmosphere. The Christian Fathers of the first century appeal to a statement which is found in the works of Phlegon, a chronicler under the Emperor Hadrian (Neander, p756). Eusebius quotes the very words, under the date of the 4 th year of the 202 d Olympiad: “There occurred the greatest darkening of the sun which had ever been known; it became night at mid-day, so that the stars shone in the heavens. A great earthquake in Bithynia, which destroyed a part of Nicæa.”^[FN69] Hug and Wieseler (Chronol. Synopse, p388) reject this reference, inasmuch as Phlegon speaks of an actual eclipse. But when we see that Phlegon unites that eclipse with an earthquake, we may reasonably conclude he refers to some extraordinary natural phenomenon. Still, as it is alleged that the reckonings do not agree accurately with the year of Christ’s death (either two or one year earlier, see Wieseler, p388; Brinkmeyer, Chronologie, p208), we let this reference rest upon its own merits. Paulus and others make the darkness to be such as precedes an ordinary earthquake. Meyer, on the contrary, asserts that it was an extraordinary, miraculous darkness. Without doubt, the phenomenon was associated with the death of Jesus in the most intimate and mysterious manner. But the life of the earth has something more than its mere ordinary round; it has a geological development which shall go on till the end of the world. This development is conditioned by the development of God’s kingdom, forms a parallel to the same, and agrees in all the principal points with the decisive epochs in the kingdom of God (see the author’s Leben Jesu, ii1, p312; and Positive Dogmatik, p1227). Accordingly, the death of Jesus is accompanied by an extraordinary occurrence in the physical world. But that these occurrences, as natural phenomena, were produced by natural causes, cannot be denied. For, improper as it is to represent the wonder in nature as a simple, accidental occurrence in nature, it is equally improper to set nature outside of nature herself, or to deny the natural side of the wonder in nature. This darkening of the sun is then to be connected with a miraculous earthquake, which again stood connected with the occurrence in the life of the divine Redeemer, which we are now considering. The moment when Christ, the creative Prince, the principle of life to humanity and the world, expires, convulses the whole physical world. In a similar moment of death, is nature to go to meet her glorification. When Christ was born, night became bright by the shining of the miraculous star, as though it would pass into a heavenly day; when He died, the day darkened at the hour when the sun shone in fullest glory, as though it would sink into the awful night of Sheol. Heubner, referring to the eclipse mentioned by Phlegon, says, Suidas relates that Dionysius the Areopagite (then a heathen), saw the eclipse in Egypt, and exclaimed: “Either God is suffering, and the world sympathizes with Him, or else the world is hurrying to destruction.” See also, p457, the well-known statement of Plutarch (De oraculorum defectu). Ships which were sailing toward Italy, passed by the island Paxe. The Egyptian helmsman, Thamus, heard a voice bidding him say to the paludes, when he arrived, that the great Pan was dead. The announcement of this death called forth many outcries and a sound of bitter lamentation. Many interpretations of this mysterious legend.

Over all the land.—Theophylact: κοσμικὸν δὲ ἦν τὸ σκότος, οὐ μερικόν. Meyer agrees with this interpretation and thinks that, in accordance with the miraculous character of the whole event, ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν must mean here over the whole earth, and not over the whole land (as Erasmus, Maldonatus, Kuinöel, Olshausen, Ebrard, and others take it); yet he admits that the term must not be measured by the laws of physical geography, and expresses simply the faith of popular observation.^[FN70] But the legitimacy of “the popular hyperbole” lies in this, that the Israelites used the “whole land” for the whole earth. There is a reference certainly to the whole world, though the natural phenomena may have been fully seen only in the holy land, Syria, and Asia Minor.—To the ninth hour.—Highly significant continuance of the darkness. Mere shadows of this gloom were the darknesses which accompanied the decease of Romulus and that of Cæsar. Virg. Georg. i164.

Matthew 27:46. About the ninth hour Jesus cried out, etc.—This is the only one of the “seven words” which is reported by Matthew and Mark: it is given accordingly in a pointed manner, and presented in its striking signification. Most exactly given by Mark in the vernacular Syro-Chaldaic dialect, Eloi, Eloi, etc.^[FN71] With this single exception the above-named Evangelists mention merely the loud cry of the Saviour without giving its contents. He cried out, ἀνεβόησεν; or, He shrieked with a loud and strong voice. The exclamation itself is given in its original form, as the “Talitha Cumi” and the “Abba” in Mark ( Matthew 5:41; Matthew 14:36). Σαβαχθανί, Chald. שְׁבַקְתָּנִי=Heb. עֲזַבְתָּנִי. “The citation of this exclamation in the original tongue is fully and naturally explained by the mockery of Matthew 27:47, which rests upon the similarity of sound. The Greek translator of Matthew’s Gospel was accordingly forced to retain the Hebrew words, though he adds the translation.” Meyer.—Explanation of this cry: 1. Vicarious experience of the divine wrath (Melanchthon and the older orthodox school). 2. Testimony that His political plans had failed (Wolfenbüttel Fragments). 3. Mythical, founded on Psalm 22, the programme of His sufferings (Strauss). 4. Lamentation, expressed in a scriptural statement, showing He had the whole Psalm, with its sublime conclusion, before His mind (Paulus, Schleiermacher). 5. Objective or actual momentary abandonment by God (Olshausen). 6. Subjective momentary abandonment or feeling of being forsaken by God. De Wette, Meyer. The latter says that Christ was “for a moment overpowered (!) by the deepest pain;” that “the agony of soul arising from His rejection by men, united with the torture of the body, which now surpassed endurance;” that “His consciousness of union with God was for the moment overcome by the agony.” 7. Amid the faintness, or the confusion of mind at the presentiment of approaching death, He felt His abandonment by God; and yet His spirit rested firmly on, and His will was fully subject to, God, while He was thus tasting death for every man through God’s grace (Lange’s Leben Jesu, ii3, p1573). Or the voice of conflict with death, a voice at the same time of victory over this temporal death to which humanity is subject. [We have in this exclamation an intensified renewal of the agony of Gethsemane, the culmination of His vicarious sufferings where they turned into victory. It was a divine-human experience of sin and death in their inner connection and universal significance for the race by one who was perfectly pure and holy, a mysterious and indescribable anguish of the body and the soul in immediate prospect of, and in actual wrestling with, death as the wages of sin and the culmination of all misery of Prayer of Manasseh, of which the Saviour was free, but which He voluntarily assumed from infinite love in behalf of the race. But His spirit serenely sailed above the clouds and still held fast to God as His God, and His will was as obedient to Him as in the garden when He said: Not My will but Thine be done. While God apparently forsook Him, the suffering Head of humanity, in tasting death as the appointed curse of sin and separation from His communion, Christ did not forsake God, and thus restored for man the bond of union with God which man had broken. The exclamation: My God, My God, etc, implies therefore a struggle with death which was at the same time a defeat of the king of terror, and transformed death into life by taking away its sting, and completing the atonement. Hence the triumphant conclusion of the agony in the words: “It is finished!” Comp. the Doctrinal Thoughts below. There is great consolation in this dying word. Even if God hides His face from us, we need not despair; the sun of grace is still behind the clouds of judgment, and will shine through the veil with double effect.—P. S.]

Matthew 27:47. This (man) calleth for Elijah.—Explanation: 1. Misunderstanding on the part, a. of the Roman soldiers (Euthym. Zigabenus), b. of the common Jews (Theophylact), c. of the Hellenists (Grotius). 2. Meyer, following de Wette: “A blasphemous Jewish joke, by an awkward and godless pun upon Eli.”^[FN72] If we conceive to ourselves the state of matters, we may easily assume that joking and mockery were now past (see Luke 23:48). It may be supposed that this loud cry, Eli, Eli, wakened up the consciences of the on-looking Jews, and filled them with the thought, Perhaps the turning point may now actually have come, and Elijah may appear to bring in the day of judgment and vengeance (Olshausen); and, occupied thus, they may not have heard the remaining words. It is by no means far-fetched to imagine that the Jewish superstition, after the long-continued darkness, took the form of an expectation of a Messianic appearance. At least, we may say that they sought to hide their terror under an ambiguous pun upon the words.

Matthew 27:48-49. One of them ran and took a sponge.—The word of Jesus: I thirst, had immediately preceded this Acts, as we learn from John; and, succeeding the cry: Eli, marks that Christ was now conscious of having triumphed. Under the impulse of sympathy, one ran and dipped a sponge in a vessel of wine which stood there (the ordinary military wine, posca); and then fastening the sponge upon a hyssop-reed, which when fully grown is firm as wood, gave it to the Lord to drink. (See Winer, art. Hyssop.) According to John, several were engaged in this act. According to Matthew, the rest cry out to the man who was offering the drink, Wait (come), let us see whether Elijah will come to save Him. According to Mark, the man himself cries, Wait, etc.—an accurate picture of the excitement caused by the loud cry of Jesus. The one party seem to see in this act a disturbance of the expectation; the others see in it the fulfilment of the request, and a refreshment to support life till the expectation should be fulfilled. De Wette thinks the offer was ironical; but he confounds the second with the first draught. His view, too, is opposed by Christ’s reception of the second drink. Christ drank this draught, 1. because the wine was unmixed; 2. because now the moment of rest had come.

Matthew 27:50. Jesus cried again, κράξας.—The last words,—not those recorded in John 19:30, but those in Luke 23:46 : “Father, into Thy hands,” etc. Meyer is disposed, without ground, however, to find in these words a later tradition, arising from Psalm 31:5.^[FN73] Paulus’ assumption of a merely apparent death needs no refutation.

[As to the order of the seven words from the cross, the harmonists are not entirely agreed. The most probable order is that adopted by Stier, Greswell, Andrews, and others: Before the darkness: 1. The prayer of Christ for His enemies2. The promise to the penitent robber3. The charge to Mary and John. During the darkness: 4. The cry of distress to His God. After the darkness: 5. The exclamation: “I thirst.” 6. “It is finished.” 7. The final commendation of His spirit to God. Ebrard puts (3) before (2), Krafft (4) before (3).—P. S.]

Matthew 27:51. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain.—Full development of an earthquake, which was mysteriously related to the death of Jesus, and yet was quite natural in its progress. The rending asunder of the veil was a result of the convulsion, although the earthquake is mentioned afterward. Such is ever the case in an earthquake: its approach is marked by such fixed signs as the shaking of houses, etc. Meyer holds that neither the earthquake nor the darkness were natural. But nature and spirit do not in the Scriptures pursue different roads; here nature is conditioned by spirit. An Earthquake, which is not natural, is a contradiction. Moreover, the veil which was rent was that before the Holy of Holies (הַפָּרֹכֶת, Exodus 26:31 sq.; Leviticus 16:2; Leviticus 16:12), and not before the Holy Place. See Heubner, p459, for the refutation of this assumption of Michaelis.^[FN74] This rending was a result of the convulsion, and at the same time a sign of the removal of the typical atonement through the completion of the real atonement, which ensures us a free access to God, Hebrews 6:19; Hebrews 9:6; Hebrews 10:19. For the mythical embellishment of this fact, in the Evang. sec. Hebr, see Meyer. [It is simply the exaggerating statement quoted by St. Jerome in loc.: “In. Evangelio, cujus saepe facimus mentionem (he means the Gospel of the Hebrews), superliminare Templi infinitae magnitudinis fractum esse atque divisum legimus.” This exaggeration, which substitutes a thick beam of the temple for the veil, presupposes the simple truth as recorded by Matthew. Meyer fully admits this event as historical (against Schleiermacher, de Wette, and Strauss), and assigns to it the same symbolical significance as Lange and all the orthodox commentators. Comp. Hebrews 9:11-12; Hebrews 10:19-23. There is neither a prophecy of the Old Testament, nor a Jewish popular belief, which could explain a myth in this case. The objection of Schleiermacher, that the event could not be known except to hostile priests, has no force, since the rumor of such an event, especially as it occurred toward the time of the evening sacrifice, would irresistibly spread, and since “a great company of the priests” were converted afterward, Acts 6:7.—P. S.]

Matthew 27:51-52. And the rocks were rent.—Progress of the miraculous earthquake: the firm foundation of the holy city begins to split.