J. C. RYLE'S NOTES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 19:28-37
28. After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished,
that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, I thirst. 29. Now there
was set a vessel full of vinegar; and they filled a sponge with
vinegar and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. 30. When
Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished!
And he bowed his head and gave up the ghost. 31. The Jews therefore,
because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain
upon the cross on the sabbath day (for that sabbath day was a high
day), besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they
might be taken away. 32. Then the soldiers came and broke the legs
of the first and of the other who was crucified with him. 33. But
when they came to Jesus and saw that he was dead already, they did
not break his legs. 34. But one of the soldiers pierced his side
with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. 35. And he
who saw it testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he
is telling the truth, so that you may believe. 36. For these things
were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall
not be broken. 37. And again another Scripture says, They shall look
on him whom they pierced.
28.--[After this.] When our Lord had commended His mother, Mary, to John,
I believe that the miraculous darkness for three hours came on. During
those three hours I believe our Lord said nothing except "My God, my God,
why have You forsaken Me?" As the darkness was passing away, He said, "I
thirst." This, and the two last sayings, "It is finished" and "Father,
into Thy hands I commend my spirit," were all that He said during the last
three hours. Thus three of His seven sayings on the cross were before the
darkness and four after it, or during it.
The order of the famous seven sayings was as follows:
1. "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
2. "Today shall you be with Me in paradise."
3. "Woman, behold your son. Behold your mother."
4. "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me."
5. "I thirst."
6. "It is finished."
7. "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit."
[Jesus knowing...accomplished, etc.] In order to understand this verse
aright, there is one point concerning our Lord's death that must be
carefully remembered--His death was entirely a voluntary act on His part.
In this one respect His death was unlike that of a common man, and we need
not wonder at it when we consider that He was God and man in one Person.
The final separation between body and soul, in His case, could not take
place until He willed it; and all the power of Jews and Romans together
could not have effected it against His will. We die because we cannot help
it; Christ died because He willed to die, and not until the moment arrived
when He saw it best. He said Himself, "No man takes life from Me, but I
lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to
take it again" (John 10:18). As a matter of fact, we know that our Lord
was crucified about nine o'clock in the morning, and that He died about
three o'clock in the afternoon of the same day. Mere physical suffering
would not account for this. A person crucified in full health was known
sometimes to linger on alive for three days! It is evident, therefore,
that our Lord willed to give up the ghost in the same day that He was
crucified, for some wise reason. This reason, we can easily suppose, was
to secure the fullest publicity for His atoning death. He died in broad
daylight in the sight of myriads of spectators, and thus the reality of His
death could never be denied. This voluntariness and free choice of His
death and of the hour of His death, in my judgment, lie at the bottom of
the verse before us.
Remembering all this, I believe that the sense of the verse before us must
be paraphrased in the following way: "After this Jesus, knowing in His own
mind that all things were now practically accomplished that he came into
the world to do and that it was expedient that His death should be a most
public event, in the face of the crowds assembled to view His crucifixion,
proceeded to say the last words that He intended to say before giving up
the ghost at three o'clock, and by saying them fulfilled a prophecy of
Scripture." Nothing in the details of our Lord's death, we must always
remember, was accidental or by chance. Every part of the great sacrifice
for sin was foreordained and arranged in the eternal counsels of the
Trinity, even to the words that He was to speak on the cross.
The expression "I thirst" was chiefly used, I believe, in order to afford a
public testimony of the reality and intensity of His bodily sufferings and
to prevent anyone supposing, because of His marvelous calmness and
patience, that He was miraculously free from suffering. On the contrary,
He would have all around Him know that He felt what all severely wounded
persons, and especially what all crucified persons, felt--a burning and
consuming thirst. So that when we read that "He suffered for sins," we are
to understand that He really and truly suffered.
Henry observes: "The torments of hell are represented by a violent thirst
in the complaint of the rich man who begged for a drop of water to cool his
tongue. To that everlasting thirst we had all been condemned, if Christ
had not suffered on the cross and said 'I thirst.'"
Scott observes that Christ suffered thirst in order that we might drink the
water of life forever and thirst no more.
Quesnel remarks: "The tongue of Jesus Christ underwent its own particular
torment, in order to atone for the ill-use that men make of their tongues
by blasphemy, evil speaking, vanity, lying, gluttony, and drunkenness."
The theory that Christ only said "I thirst" in order to fulfill Scripture
is, to my mind, unsatisfactory and unreasonable. His saying "I thirst" was
a fulfillment of Scripture, but He did not merely say it in order to
fulfill Scripture. St. John, according to his style of writing, only meant
that by His saying "I thirst" and having His thirst relieved by vinegar,
the words of Psalm 69:21 were fulfilled.
The Greek word that is rendered "accomplished" is the same that is rendered
"finished" in the thirtieth verse. This difference, within two verses, in
translating the same word is one of those blemishes in our authorized
version which must be regretted.
The connection of the sentence, "that the Scripture might be fulfilled," is
not very clear to my mind. Is it to be taken with the words that follow in
the verse or with those that immediately precede it? The common view
taken, undoubtedly, is to connect the sentence with "I thirst." The sense
will then be: "Jesus said 'I thirst,' so that by this the Scripture was
fulfilled." But is it necessary to make this connection? Might not the
sentence be connected with the one that precedes? The sense will then be:
"Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, so that the Scripture
was fulfilled concerning Himself said 'I thirst.'" In three other places
in St. John where the sentence occurs, "that the Scripture might be
fulfilled," the connection is with what goes before and not with what
follows. (John 17:12, 19:24-36.) Semler and Tholuck incline to take this
view. But I admit that the matter is doubtful, and it certainly is not one
of vital importance. One thing only we must remember. Our Lord did not
say "I thirst" for no other purpose than to fulfill the Scriptures. He
spoke with far deeper and stronger reasons, and yet by His speaking and
afterward drinking vinegar, a passage in the prophetical Psalms was
fulfilled.
29.--[Now there was set...of vinegar.] This would be more literally
rendered "there was lying" a vessel. In all probability this was a vessel
full of the sour wine in common use among the Roman soldiers.
[And they filled a sponge, etc.] The persons here spoken of seem to be the
Roman soldiers who carried out the details of the crucifixion. The vinegar
was theirs, and it is not likely that anyone would have dared to interfere
with the criminal hanging on the cross except the soldiers. The act here
recorded must be carefully distinguished from that recorded in Matt. 27:34,
and is the same as that recorded in Matt. 27:48. The first drink of vinegar
and gall, commonly given to criminals to deaden their pains, our Lord
refused. The second here mentioned was given, I believe (notwithstanding
what some writers say), in kindness and compassion, and our Lord did not
refuse to accept it. A sponge filled with vinegar and put on the end of a
stick was far the easiest and most convenient way of giving drink to one
whose head was at least seven or eight feet from the ground, and whose
hands, being nailed to the cross, were of course unable to take any cup and
put it to his mouth. From a sponge full of liquid pressed against the
lips, a crucified person might suck some moisture and receive some benefit.
What this "hyssop" here mentioned was is a point by no means clearly
ascertained. Casaubon speaks of the question as a proverbial difficulty.
Some think that it was a branch of the plant hyssop, fastened to the end of
a reed. This seems very improbable because of the "sponge." Dr. Forbes
Royle maintains that it was the caper plant, which bears a stick about
three or four feet long. Hengstenberg gives evidence from Talmudic writers
that the hyssop was among the branches used at the feast of tabernacles,
and that its stalk was an ell long. Like many other questions of Bible
natural history, the point must probably be left obscure. Some see deep
meaning in the mention of hyssop as the plant used in the ceremonial
sprinkling of the law of Moses (see Heb. 9:19). Hyssop, moreover, was used
at the passover in sprinkling the door posts with blood (Exod. 12:22). Yet
the allusion, to say the least, seems doubtful; nor is it quite clear how
any typical meaning can be got out of the mention of the plant in this
place.
It is very noteworthy that even in the roughest, hardest kind of men, like
these heathen soldiers, there is sometimes a tender and compassionate spot
in the breast. According to Matthew's account, the cry "I thirst" must
have followed soon after the cry "My God, my God, why have You forsaken
Me." This exhibition of great mental and bodily agony together, in my
opinion, touched the feelings of the soldiers; and one of them at least ran
to give our Lord vinegar. We should remember this in dealing with men.
Even the worst have often a soft place, if we can find it out, in their
inward nature.
Cyril maintains strongly, I must admit, that the act of the soldiers in
giving our Lord the sponge full of vinegar was not an act of kindness but
of mockery and insult. I cannot, however, agree with him. He does not
appear to distinguish between the first drink, which our Lord refused at
the beginning of His crucifixion, and the last, which He accepted, but
speaks of them as one and the same. Theophylact agrees with Cyril.
30.--[When Jesus therefore...finished.] Our Lord having now given plain
proof that He had endured intense bodily suffering, and that like any other
human sufferer He could appreciate a slight relief of thirst such as the
vinegar afforded, proceeded to utter one of His last and most solemn
sayings: "It is finished."
This remarkable expression in the Greek is one single word in a perfect
tense: "It has been completed." It stands here in majestic simplicity
without note or comment from St. John, and we are left entirely to
conjecture what the full meaning of it is. For 1800 years Christians have
explained it as best they can, and some portion of its meaning in all
likelihood has been discovered. Yet it is far from unlikely that such a
word spoken on such an occasion by such a person at such a moment just
before death, contains depths that no one has ever completely fathomed.
Some meanings there are (which no one perhaps will dispute) belonging to
this grand expression, which I will briefly mention. No one single
meaning, we may be sure, exhausts the whole phrase. It is rich, full, and
replete with deep truths.
(a) Our Lord meant that His great work of redemption was finished. He had,
as Daniel foretold, "finished transgression, made an end of sin, made
reconciliation for iniquity, and brought in everlasting righteousness"
(Dan. 9:24). After 33 years, since the day when He was born in Bethlehem,
He had done all, paid all, performed all, suffered all that was needful to
save sinners and satisfy the justice of God. He had fought the battle and
won it, and in two days would give proof of it by rising again.
(b) Our Lord meant that God's determinate counsel and fore-will concerning
His death was now accomplished and finished. All that had been appointed
from all eternity that He should suffer, He had now suffered.
(c) Our Lord meant that He had finished the work of keeping God's holy law.
He had kept it to the uttermost as our head and representative, and Satan
had found nothing in Him. He had magnified the law and made it honorable
by doing perfectly all its requirements. "Woe unto us," says Burkitt, "if
Christ had left but one farthing of our debt unpaid. We must have lain in
hell insolvent to all eternity."
(d) Our Lord meant that He had finished the types and figures of the
ceremonial law. He had at length offered up the perfect sacrifice, of
which every Mosaic sacrifice was a type and symbol, and there remained no
more need of offerings for sin. The old covenant was finished.
(e) Our Lord meant that He had finished and fulfilled the prophecies of the
Old Testament. At length, as the Seed of the woman, he had bruised the
serpent's head and accomplished the work which Messiah was engaged by
covenant to come and perform.
(f) Finally, our Lord meant that His sufferings were finished. Like His
Apostle, He had "finished His course." His long life of pain and
contradiction from sinners, and above all His intense sufferings as bearer
of our sins on Gethsemane and Calvary, were at last at an end. The storm
was over, and the worst was passed. The cup of suffering was at last
drained to the very dregs.
Thoughts such as these come to my own mind when I read the solemn phrase
"It is finished." But I am far from saying that the phrase does not
contain a great deal more. In interpreting such a saying, I am deeply
conscious that there is an inexhaustible fullness in our Lord's words. I
am sure we are more likely to make too little of them than to make too
much.
Luther remarks: "In this word, 'It is finished,' will I comfort myself. I
am forced to confess that all my finishing of the will of God is imperfect,
piecemeal work, while yet the law urges on me that not so much as one
tittle of it must remain unaccomplished. Christ is the end of the law.
What it requires, Christ has performed."
To the objection of some persons, that all things were not completely
finished and accomplished until Jesus rose again and ascended into heaven,
Calvin replies that Jesus knew that all things were now practically
accomplished, and that nothing now remained to hinder His finishing the
work He came to do.
[And He bowed His head.] This is the action of one dying. When the will
ceases to exercise power over muscles and nerves, at once those parts of
the body that are not rigid, like the bones, collapse and fall in any
direction to which their center of gravity inclines them. The head of a
crucified person would naturally in death droop forward on the breast, the
neck being no longer kept stiff by the will. This is what seems to have
happened in the case of our Lord.
May we not gather from this expression that our Lord, up to this moment,
held up His head erect, firm, steady, and unmoved even under extreme pain?
Alford remarks how this little incident was evidently recorded by an
eyewitness. The miraculous darkness must have now passed away in order to
let this movement of the head be seen.
[And gave up the ghost.] These words literally mean "delivered up the
spirit." It is an expression never used of any dying person in the Bible
except our Lord. It is an expression denoting voluntary action. He
delivered up His spirit of His own free will, because the hour was come
when He chose to do it. He had just said, after using the phrase "It is
finished," "Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit," and then He
proceeded to deliver up His spirit into the hands of God the Father. It is
the Father and none else to whom the words "He delivered up" must apply.
Augustine observes: "Not against His will did the Savior's spirit leave His
flesh, but because He would, and when He would, and how He would. Who is
there that can even go to sleep when He will as Jesus died when He would?
Who thus puts off his clothes when he will as Jesus unclothed Himself of
His flesh when He would? Who goes thus out of his door when he will as
Jesus, when He would, went out of this world?"
In death as well as in life, our Lord has left us an example. Of course we
cannot, like Him, choose the moment of our death; and in this, as in
everything else, we must be content to follow Him at an enormous distance.
The best of saints is a miserable copy of his Master. Nevertheless, we
too, as Cyril observes, must endeavor to put our souls into God's hands, if
God is really our Father, when the last hour of our lives comes; and like
Jesus, to place them by faith in our Father's keeping and trust our Father
to take care of them.
Above all, let us never forget, as we read of Christ's death, that He died
for our sins as our Substitute. His death is our life. He died that we
might live. We who believe in Christ shall live forevermore, sinners as we
are, because Christ died for us, the innocent for the guilty. Satan cannot
drag us away to everlasting death in hell. The second death cannot harm
us. We may safely say, "Who can condemn me, or slay my soul? I know well
that I deserve death and that I ought to die because of my sins. But then
my blessed Head and Substitute died for me, and when He died, I, His poor
weak member, was reckoned to die also. Get behind me Satan, for Christ was
crucified and died. My debt is paid, and you cannot demand it twice over."
Forever let us bless God that Christ "gave up the ghost" and really died
upon the cross before myriads of witnesses. That giving up the ghost was
the hinge on which all our salvation turned. In vain Christ's life and
miracles and preaching would have been, if Christ had not at last died for
us! We needed not merely a teacher, but an atonement and the death of a
Substitute. The mightiest transaction that ever took place on earth since
the fall of man was accomplished when Jesus gave up the ghost. The
careless crowd around the cross saw nothing but the common death of a
common criminal. But in the eyes of God the Father, the promised payment
for a world's sin was at last effected and the kingdom of heaven was thrown
wide open to all believers. The finest pictures of the crucifixion that
artists have ever painted give a miserably insufficient idea of what took
place when Jesus gave up the ghost. They can show a suffering man on a
cross, but they cannot convey the least notion of what was really going
on--the satisfaction of God's broken law, the payment of sinners' debt to
God, and the complete atonement for a world's sin.
The precise physical cause of the death of Christ is a very interesting
subject, which must be reverently approached, but deserves attention. Dr.
Stroud, in his book on the subject, takes a view which is supported by the
opinions of three eminent Edinburgh physicians--the late Sir James Simpson,
Dr. Begbie, and Dr. Struthers. This view is that the immediate cause of
our Lord's decease was rupture of the heart. Dr. Simpson argues that all
the circumstances of our Lord's death--His crying with a loud voice just
before death, not like an exhausted person, and His sudden giving up the
ghost--confirm this view very strongly. He also says that "strong mental
emotions produce sometimes laceration or rupture of the walls of the
heart;" and he adds, "If ever a human heart was riven and ruptured by the
mere amount of mental agony endured, it would surely be that of our
Redeemer." Above all, he argues that the rupture of the heart would go far
to account for the flow of blood and water from our Lord's die when pierced
with a spear. Dr. Simpson's very interesting letter on the subject will be
found in the appendix to "Hanna's Last Days of our Lord's Passion."
Concerning the deep question as to what became of our Lord's soul when He
gave up the ghost, it must suffice to believe that His soul went to
paradise, the place of the departed spirits of believers. He said to the
penitent thief, "Today you shall be with Me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43).
This is the true meaning of the article "descended into hell" in the
Belief. "Hell" in that clause certainly does not mean the place of
punishment, but the separate state or place of departed spirits.
Some theologians hold that between His death and resurrection, "He went and
preached to the spirits in prison" (1 Pet. 3:19) and proclaimed the
accomplishment of His work of atonement. This, to say the least, is
doubtful. But Athanasius, Ambrose, Zwingle, Calvin, Erasmus, Calovius, and
Alford hold this view.
Concerning the miraculous signs that accompanied our Lord's death--the
darkness from twelve o'clock to three, the earthquake, the tearing of the
temple veil--St. John is silent, and doubtless for some wise reasons. But
we may well believe that they struck myriads with awe and astonishment, and
perhaps smoothed the way for our Lord's burial in Joseph's tomb without
opposition or objection.
31.--[The Jews therefore, because it was, etc.] The "Jews" in this verse,
as in many other places in St. John's Gospel, can only mean the chief
priests and leaders of the nation at Jerusalem; the same men who had
pressed on Pilate our Lord's crucifixion--Annas, Caiaphas, and their
companions.
The "preparation" means the day preceding the passover sabbath. That
sabbath being pre-eminently a "high day," or, to render the Greek
literally, a "great" day in the year, the Friday or day preceding it, was
devoted to special preparations. Hence the day went by the name of "the
preparation of the sabbath." The expression makes it certain that Jesus
was crucified on a Friday. The Jews saw clearly that unless they took
active measures to prevent it, the body of our Lord would remain all night
hanging on the tree of the cross, the law would be broken (Deut. 21:23),
and a dead body would hang throughout the sabbath in full view of the
temple and close by the city walls. Therefore they made haste to have Him
taken down from the cross and buried.
The breaking of the legs of crucified criminals, in order to dispatch them,
seems to have been a common accompaniment of this barbarous mode of
execution when it was necessary to make an end of them and get them out of
the way. In asking Pilate to allow this breaking of the legs, they did
nothing but what was usual. But for anything we can see, the thing would
not have been done if the Jews had not asked. The verse supplies a
wonderful example of the way in which God can make the wickedest men
unconsciously carry out His purposes and promote His glory. If the Jews
had not interfered this Friday afternoon, for anything we can see, Pilate
would have allowed our Lord's body to hang upon the cross till Sunday or
Monday, and perhaps to see corruption. The Jews procured our Lord's burial
the very day that He died and thus secured the fulfillment of His famous
prophecy, "Destroy this temple of my body, and in three days I will raise
it up" (John 2:19). If He had not been buried till Sunday or Monday, He
could not have risen again the third day after His death. As it was, the
Jews managed things so that our Lord was laid in the grave before the
evening of Friday and was thus enabled to fulfill the famous type of Jonah,
and give the sign He had promised to give of His Messiahship by lying three
days in the earth and then rising again the third day after He died. All
this could not have happened if the Jews had not interfered and got Him
taken from the cross and buried on Friday afternoon! How true it is that
the wickedest enemies of God are only axes and saws and hammers in His
hands, and are ignorantly His instruments for doing His work in the world.
The restless, busy, meddling of Caiaphas and his companions was actually
one of the causes that Christ rose the third day after death, and His
Messiahship was proved. Pilate was their tool, but they were God's tools!
The Romans, in all probability, would have left our Lord's body hanging on
the cross till sun and rain had putrefied and consumed it, had such a thing
been possible. Bishop Pearson says it was a common rule of Roman law not
to permit sepulture to the body of a crucified person. The burial,
therefore, was entirely owing to the request of the Jews. The providence
of God ordered things so that they who interceded for His crucifixion
interceded for His burial. And by so doing they actually paved the way for
the crowning miracle of His resurrection!
Let us mark the miserable scrupulosity that is sometimes compatible with
the utmost deadness of conscience. Thus we see men making ado about a dead
body remaining on the cross on the Sabbath at the very time when they had
just murdered an innocent living person with the most flagrant injustice
and monstrous cruelty. It is a specimen of "straining out a gnat and
swallowing a camel."
32.--[Then the soldiers came, etc.] Pilate having given his consent to the
request of the Jews, the Roman soldiers proceeded to break the legs of the
criminals and began with the two thieves. Why they began with them is by
no means clear. If the three crosses were all in a row, it is hard to see
why the two outer criminals of the three should have their legs broken
first and the one in the center be left to the last. We must suppose one
of three things in order to explain this.
(a) Possibly two of the soldiers broke the legs of one malefactor, and the
other two soldiers the legs of the other. Reason and common sense point
out that it does not require four men to do this horrid work on a helpless,
unresisting, crucified person. Thus having finished their work at the two
outward crosses, they would come last to the center one.
(b) Possibly the two outward crosses may have been rather forwarder in
position than the central one so that the sufferers might see each others'
faces. In that case the soldiers would naturally begin with the crosses
they came to first. This, perhaps, would account for the penitent thief
having read the word "King" over our Lord's head on the cross.
(c) Possibly the soldiers saw that our Lord was dead even before they came
up to Him. At any rate, they probably saw that He was still and
motionless, and thus suspecting that He was dead they did not trouble
themselves with His body but began with the two who evidently were yet
alive.
It is noteworthy that the penitent thief, even after his conversion, had
more suffering to go through before he entered paradise. The grace of God
and the pardon of sin did not deliver him from the agony of having his legs
broken. When Christ undertakes to save our souls, He does not undertake to
deliver us from bodily pains and a conflict with the last enemy. Penitents
as well as impenitents must taste death and all its accompaniments.
Conversion is not heaven, though it leads to it.
Scott remarks that those who broke the legs of the penitent thief and
hastened his end were unconscious instruments of fulfilling our Lord's
promise, "Today you shall be with me in Paradise."
How the legs of crucified criminals were broken we do not know; but it was
probably done in the roughest manner. With such tools at hand as the
hammers used for driving in the nails and the mattocks and spades used for
putting the cross in the ground, the soldiers could hardly lack
instruments. It must be remembered that a simple fracture would not cause
death. The Greek word which we render "break" literally means "shiver to
pieces." May it not be feared that this is the true meaning here?
33.--[But when they came to Jesus, etc.] This verse contains the first
proof of the mighty fact that our Lord really died. We are told that the
soldiers did not break His legs, because they "saw that He was dead
already." Accustomed as Roman soldiers necessarily were to see death in
every form, wounds of every kind, and dead bodies of every description, and
trained to take away human life by their profession, they were of all men
least likely to make a mistake about such a matter. Thus we have it most
expressly recorded that the soldiers "saw that He was dead already" and
therefore did not break His legs. Our salvation hinges so entirely on
Jesus Christ's vicarious death that a moment's reflection will show us the
divine wisdom of the fact being thoroughly proved. His unbelieving enemies
could never say that He did not really die but was only in a swoon or
fainting-fit or state of insensibility. The Roman soldiers are witnesses
that on the center cross of the tree they saw a dead man.
34.--[But one...pierced...spear.] Here we have the second proof that our
Lord did really die. One of the soldiers, determined to make sure work and
leave nothing uncertain, thrust his spear into our Lord's side, in all
probability directing his thrust at the heart as the seat of vitality.
That thrust made it certain, if there had been any doubt before, that the
body on the central cross was actually dead. They believed it from
appearance, and perhaps from touch, when they first came up to the cross.
They made it quite certain by the thrust of the spear. The body of a
person in a swoon would have given some sign of life when pierced with a
spear.
The gross inaccuracy of those pictures that represent this soldier as a
horseman is worth noticing. Our Lord's body was easily within reach of the
thrust of a spear in the hand of a foot soldier. There is no evidence
whatever that any Roman cavalry were near the cross!
The theory of Bishop Pearson that this soldier pierced our Lord's side in
anger and impatience, as if provoked to find Him dead, does not appear to
me well-founded. It is not likely that the soldiers would be angry at
finding a state of things which saved them trouble. To me it seems far
more likely that the thrust was the hasty, careless act of a rough soldier
accustomed to prove in this way whether a body was alive or dead. I have
heard it said by an eyewitness that some of the Cossacks who followed our
retreating cavalry after the famous Balaclava charge in the Crimean war,
were seen to prick the bodies of fallen soldiers with their spears in order
to see whether they were dead or alive.
Theophylact suggests that this soldier thrust the spear into our Lord's
side in order to gratify the wicked Jews who stood by.
Besser remarks most sensibly: "Even the soldier's spear was guided by the
Father's hand."
[And...blood and water came out.] The remarkable fact here recorded has
given rise to considerable difference of opinion.
(a) Some, as Grotius, Calvin, Beza, and others, hold that this issue of
blood and water was a proof that the heart or pericardium was pierced, and
death in consequence quite certain. They say that the same result would
follow from a thrust into the side of any person lately dead, and that
blood and water, or something closely resembling it, would immediately flow
out. They maintain, therefore, that there was nothing supernatural in the
circumstance recorded.
(b) Others, as most of the Fathers, Brentius, Musculus, Calovius, Lampe,
Lightfoot, Rollock, Jansenius, Bengel, Horsley, and Hengstenberg, hold that
this issue of blood and water was supernatural, extraordinary, unusual, and
contrary to all experience; and they maintain that it was a special
miracle.
The question is one of those that will probably never be settled. We are
not in possession of sufficiently precise information to justify a very
positive opinion. We do not know for a certainty that the left side of our
Lord was pierced and not the right. We do not know exactly how much blood
and water flowed out, whether a large quantity or a very little. That a
miracle might take place at such a death, on such an occasion, and in the
body of such a Person, we have no right to deny. The mere facts that when
our Lord hung on the cross the sun was darkened, and when He gave up the
ghost the veil of the temple was rent in two and the rocks rent and the
earth quaked, might well prepare our minds to see nothing extraordinary in
a miracle taking place, and almost to expect it. Perhaps the safest line
to adopt is to combine both views. The thrust of the spear into the side
caused blood to flow and proved that the seat of vitality in the body was
pierced. The extraordinary and unusual flow of blood and water was a
supernatural event and meant to teach spiritual lessons.
I may be allowed to say that three eminent medical men in large practice,
whom I have ventured to consult on this verse, are all of one mind--that
any large flow of blood and water from a dead body is contrary to all
ordinary experience. Each of them, singularly enough, has expressed this
opinion independently and without any communication with the other two.
Concerning the symbolical meaning of this flow of blood and water from our
Lord's side, much has been written in every age of the Church. That it had
a deep spiritual sense appears almost certain from St. John's words in his
first Epistle (1 John 5:6-8). But what the real symbolical meaning was is
a very disputable question.
(a) The common opinion is that the blood and water symbolized the two
sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper, both given by Christ and
emanating from Him, and both symbols of atonement, cleansing, and
forgiveness. This is the view of Chrysostom, Augustine, Andrews, and a
large body of divines both ancient and modern. I cannot myself receive
this opinion. In matters like this I dare not call any man master, or
endorse an interpretation of Scripture when I do not feel convinced that it
is true. I cannot see the necessity of dragging in the sacraments at every
point in the exposition of God's Word, as some do.
(b) My own opinion is most decided that the flow of blood and water,
whether supernatural or not, was meant to be a symbolical fulfillment of
the famous prophecy in Zechariah: "In that day there shall be a fountain
opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin
and for uncleanness" (Zech. 13:1). It was a practical declaration, by fact
and deed, to all Jews that by Christ's death that famous prophecy was
fulfilled, and that now at last there was a fountain opened by Christ's
death. The moment He was dead this fountain was opened and began to flow.
Over the bleeding side of our Lord there might have been written, "Behold
the fountain for all sin." It is no small evidence to my mind, in favor of
this view, that this famous prophecy occurs only five verses after the text
immediately quoted by St. John in this very chapter, "they shall look on
Him whom they pierced" (Zech. 12:10.)
Augustine sees a type of this wound in our Lord's side, from which flowed
blood and water, in the door in the side of Noah's ark, by which the living
creatures entered in and were preserved from drowning! He also sees
another type of the transaction in the first Adam sleeping and Eve being
formed out of his side.
The opinion held by some, that this "blood and water" warrant the mixture
of water and wine in the Lord's Supper, seems to be utterly untenable. As
Musculus sensibly observes, it was not "wine and water" but "blood and
water" that flowed from our Lord's side. There is not the slightest
evidence that our Lord used water at the institution of the Lord's Supper.
That blood was the symbol of atonement and water of cleansing, every
careful reader of the Old Testament must know. The two things are brought
together by St. Paul in Heb. 9:19. The smiting of the rock by Moses, and
water flowing forth, was also typical of the event before us. Lightfoot
mentions a Jewish tradition that blood and water flowed from the rock at
first.
Henry says: "The blood and water signified the two great benefits that all
believers partake of through Christ--justification and sanctification.
Blood stands for remission, water for regeneration; blood for atonement,
water for purification. The two must always go together. Christ has
joined them together, and we must not think to put them apart. They both
flowed from the pierced side of our Redeemer."
35.--[And he who saw it testified, etc.] This singular verse, by common
consent, can only refer to St. John. It is as though he said, "The fact to
which I now testify I saw with my own eyes, and my testimony is true,
accurate, and trustworthy; and I know that I say true things in recording
the fact so that you to whom I write need not hesitate to believe me. I
stood by. I saw it. I was an eyewitness, and I do not write by hearsay."
The Greek word rendered "true" in the second place in this verse means
literally "true things."
The question arises naturally, 'To what does John refer in this peculiar
verse?' (a) Does he refer only to the issue of blood and water from our
Lord's side as a singularly miraculous event? (b) Or does he refer to the
thrust of the spear into our Lord's side as a convincing proof that our
Lord really died? (c) Or does he refer to the fact that our Lord's legs
were not broken, and that he thus saw the great type of the passover lamb
fulfilled?
I decidedly lean to the opinion that the verse refers to all three things I
have mentioned together and not to any one of them only. All three things
were so remarkable and so calculated to strike the mind of a pious and
intelligent Jew, and all happened in such close and rapid succession, that
John emphatically records that he saw all three with his own eyes. He
seems to say, "I myself saw that not a bone of the Lamb of God was broken,
so that He fulfilled the type of the passover. I myself saw a spear thrust
into His heart, so that He was a true Sacrifice and really died. And I
myself saw that blood and water came out of His side, and I beheld a
fulfillment of the old prophecy of a fountain for sin being opened." When
we consider the immense importance and significance of all these three
things, we do not wonder that John should have been inspired to write this
verse in which he emphatically tells his readers that he is writing down
nothing but the plain naked truth, and that he actually saw these three
things--the unbroken legs, the pierced side, the flow of blood and water--
with his own eyes.
Pearce and Alford think that the expression "that ye might believe"
signifies "that ye might believe that Jesus did really die on the cross."
Others decidedly prefer thinking that it means "that ye may believe that
blood and water did really flow from the side of Jesus after His death."
Others take the phrase in a general sense, "that ye may believe more firmly
than ever on Christ as the true sacrifice for sin."
36,37.--[For these things were done, etc.] In these two verses John
explains distinctly to his readers why two of the facts he has just
mentioned, however trifling they might seem to an ignorant person, were in
reality of great importance. By one of these facts--the not breaking a
bone of our Lord's body--the text was fulfilled which said that not a bone
of the passover lamb should be broken (Ex. 12:46). By the other fact--the
piercing of our Lord's side--the prophecy of Zechariah was fulfilled, that
the inhabitants of Jerusalem "should look on him whom they pierced" (Zech.
12:12).
Alford observes that the expression "they shall look" does not refer to the
Roman soldiers but to the repentant in the world, who at the time this
Gospel was written had begun to fulfill this prophecy; and that it also
contains a prophetic reference to the future conversion of Israel, who were
here the real piercers, though the act was done by the hands of others."
It is almost needless to say that the passage, like many others, does not
mean that these things were done in order that Scripture might be
fulfilled, but that by these things being done the Scripture was fulfilled,
and God's perfect foreknowledge about the least details of Christ's death
was proved. Nothing in the great sacrifice happened by chance, luck, or
accident. All was arranged as appointed, from first to last, many
centuries before by the determinate counsel of God. Caiaphas, Pilate, and
the Roman soldiers were all unconscious instruments in carrying into effect
what God had long predicted and foretold to the least jot and tittle.
Let us carefully note here what strong evidence these verses supply in
favor of a literal, and not a merely spiritual, fulfillment of the Old
Testament prophecies.
Rollock observes: "If God has ordained and said anything, it lies not in
the hands of any man to disannul it. If God shall say, "There shall not be
one bone of my anointed broken," great Cæsar and all the kings of the
earth, the King of Spain and the Pope, and all their adherents shall not be
able to do the contrary. So, in the midst of all fear and danger, let us
depend on the providence of God.
28. After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished,
that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, I thirst. 29. Now there
was set a vessel full of vinegar; and they filled a sponge with
vinegar and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. 30. When
Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished!
And he bowed his head and gave up the ghost. 31. The Jews therefore,
because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain
upon the cross on the sabbath day (for that sabbath day was a high
day), besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they
might be taken away. 32. Then the soldiers came and broke the legs
of the first and of the other who was crucified with him. 33. But
when they came to Jesus and saw that he was dead already, they did
not break his legs. 34. But one of the soldiers pierced his side
with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. 35. And he
who saw it testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he
is telling the truth, so that you may believe. 36. For these things
were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall
not be broken. 37. And again another Scripture says, They shall look
on him whom they pierced.
28.--[After this.] When our Lord had commended His mother, Mary, to John,
I believe that the miraculous darkness for three hours came on. During
those three hours I believe our Lord said nothing except "My God, my God,
why have You forsaken Me?" As the darkness was passing away, He said, "I
thirst." This, and the two last sayings, "It is finished" and "Father,
into Thy hands I commend my spirit," were all that He said during the last
three hours. Thus three of His seven sayings on the cross were before the
darkness and four after it, or during it.
The order of the famous seven sayings was as follows:
1. "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
2. "Today shall you be with Me in paradise."
3. "Woman, behold your son. Behold your mother."
4. "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me."
5. "I thirst."
6. "It is finished."
7. "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit."
[Jesus knowing...accomplished, etc.] In order to understand this verse
aright, there is one point concerning our Lord's death that must be
carefully remembered--His death was entirely a voluntary act on His part.
In this one respect His death was unlike that of a common man, and we need
not wonder at it when we consider that He was God and man in one Person.
The final separation between body and soul, in His case, could not take
place until He willed it; and all the power of Jews and Romans together
could not have effected it against His will. We die because we cannot help
it; Christ died because He willed to die, and not until the moment arrived
when He saw it best. He said Himself, "No man takes life from Me, but I
lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to
take it again" (John 10:18). As a matter of fact, we know that our Lord
was crucified about nine o'clock in the morning, and that He died about
three o'clock in the afternoon of the same day. Mere physical suffering
would not account for this. A person crucified in full health was known
sometimes to linger on alive for three days! It is evident, therefore,
that our Lord willed to give up the ghost in the same day that He was
crucified, for some wise reason. This reason, we can easily suppose, was
to secure the fullest publicity for His atoning death. He died in broad
daylight in the sight of myriads of spectators, and thus the reality of His
death could never be denied. This voluntariness and free choice of His
death and of the hour of His death, in my judgment, lie at the bottom of
the verse before us.
Remembering all this, I believe that the sense of the verse before us must
be paraphrased in the following way: "After this Jesus, knowing in His own
mind that all things were now practically accomplished that he came into
the world to do and that it was expedient that His death should be a most
public event, in the face of the crowds assembled to view His crucifixion,
proceeded to say the last words that He intended to say before giving up
the ghost at three o'clock, and by saying them fulfilled a prophecy of
Scripture." Nothing in the details of our Lord's death, we must always
remember, was accidental or by chance. Every part of the great sacrifice
for sin was foreordained and arranged in the eternal counsels of the
Trinity, even to the words that He was to speak on the cross.
The expression "I thirst" was chiefly used, I believe, in order to afford a
public testimony of the reality and intensity of His bodily sufferings and
to prevent anyone supposing, because of His marvelous calmness and
patience, that He was miraculously free from suffering. On the contrary,
He would have all around Him know that He felt what all severely wounded
persons, and especially what all crucified persons, felt--a burning and
consuming thirst. So that when we read that "He suffered for sins," we are
to understand that He really and truly suffered.
Henry observes: "The torments of hell are represented by a violent thirst
in the complaint of the rich man who begged for a drop of water to cool his
tongue. To that everlasting thirst we had all been condemned, if Christ
had not suffered on the cross and said 'I thirst.'"
Scott observes that Christ suffered thirst in order that we might drink the
water of life forever and thirst no more.
Quesnel remarks: "The tongue of Jesus Christ underwent its own particular
torment, in order to atone for the ill-use that men make of their tongues
by blasphemy, evil speaking, vanity, lying, gluttony, and drunkenness."
The theory that Christ only said "I thirst" in order to fulfill Scripture
is, to my mind, unsatisfactory and unreasonable. His saying "I thirst" was
a fulfillment of Scripture, but He did not merely say it in order to
fulfill Scripture. St. John, according to his style of writing, only meant
that by His saying "I thirst" and having His thirst relieved by vinegar,
the words of Psalm 69:21 were fulfilled.
The Greek word that is rendered "accomplished" is the same that is rendered
"finished" in the thirtieth verse. This difference, within two verses, in
translating the same word is one of those blemishes in our authorized
version which must be regretted.
The connection of the sentence, "that the Scripture might be fulfilled," is
not very clear to my mind. Is it to be taken with the words that follow in
the verse or with those that immediately precede it? The common view
taken, undoubtedly, is to connect the sentence with "I thirst." The sense
will then be: "Jesus said 'I thirst,' so that by this the Scripture was
fulfilled." But is it necessary to make this connection? Might not the
sentence be connected with the one that precedes? The sense will then be:
"Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, so that the Scripture
was fulfilled concerning Himself said 'I thirst.'" In three other places
in St. John where the sentence occurs, "that the Scripture might be
fulfilled," the connection is with what goes before and not with what
follows. (John 17:12, 19:24-36.) Semler and Tholuck incline to take this
view. But I admit that the matter is doubtful, and it certainly is not one
of vital importance. One thing only we must remember. Our Lord did not
say "I thirst" for no other purpose than to fulfill the Scriptures. He
spoke with far deeper and stronger reasons, and yet by His speaking and
afterward drinking vinegar, a passage in the prophetical Psalms was
fulfilled.
29.--[Now there was set...of vinegar.] This would be more literally
rendered "there was lying" a vessel. In all probability this was a vessel
full of the sour wine in common use among the Roman soldiers.
[And they filled a sponge, etc.] The persons here spoken of seem to be the
Roman soldiers who carried out the details of the crucifixion. The vinegar
was theirs, and it is not likely that anyone would have dared to interfere
with the criminal hanging on the cross except the soldiers. The act here
recorded must be carefully distinguished from that recorded in Matt. 27:34,
and is the same as that recorded in Matt. 27:48. The first drink of vinegar
and gall, commonly given to criminals to deaden their pains, our Lord
refused. The second here mentioned was given, I believe (notwithstanding
what some writers say), in kindness and compassion, and our Lord did not
refuse to accept it. A sponge filled with vinegar and put on the end of a
stick was far the easiest and most convenient way of giving drink to one
whose head was at least seven or eight feet from the ground, and whose
hands, being nailed to the cross, were of course unable to take any cup and
put it to his mouth. From a sponge full of liquid pressed against the
lips, a crucified person might suck some moisture and receive some benefit.
What this "hyssop" here mentioned was is a point by no means clearly
ascertained. Casaubon speaks of the question as a proverbial difficulty.
Some think that it was a branch of the plant hyssop, fastened to the end of
a reed. This seems very improbable because of the "sponge." Dr. Forbes
Royle maintains that it was the caper plant, which bears a stick about
three or four feet long. Hengstenberg gives evidence from Talmudic writers
that the hyssop was among the branches used at the feast of tabernacles,
and that its stalk was an ell long. Like many other questions of Bible
natural history, the point must probably be left obscure. Some see deep
meaning in the mention of hyssop as the plant used in the ceremonial
sprinkling of the law of Moses (see Heb. 9:19). Hyssop, moreover, was used
at the passover in sprinkling the door posts with blood (Exod. 12:22). Yet
the allusion, to say the least, seems doubtful; nor is it quite clear how
any typical meaning can be got out of the mention of the plant in this
place.
It is very noteworthy that even in the roughest, hardest kind of men, like
these heathen soldiers, there is sometimes a tender and compassionate spot
in the breast. According to Matthew's account, the cry "I thirst" must
have followed soon after the cry "My God, my God, why have You forsaken
Me." This exhibition of great mental and bodily agony together, in my
opinion, touched the feelings of the soldiers; and one of them at least ran
to give our Lord vinegar. We should remember this in dealing with men.
Even the worst have often a soft place, if we can find it out, in their
inward nature.
Cyril maintains strongly, I must admit, that the act of the soldiers in
giving our Lord the sponge full of vinegar was not an act of kindness but
of mockery and insult. I cannot, however, agree with him. He does not
appear to distinguish between the first drink, which our Lord refused at
the beginning of His crucifixion, and the last, which He accepted, but
speaks of them as one and the same. Theophylact agrees with Cyril.
30.--[When Jesus therefore...finished.] Our Lord having now given plain
proof that He had endured intense bodily suffering, and that like any other
human sufferer He could appreciate a slight relief of thirst such as the
vinegar afforded, proceeded to utter one of His last and most solemn
sayings: "It is finished."
This remarkable expression in the Greek is one single word in a perfect
tense: "It has been completed." It stands here in majestic simplicity
without note or comment from St. John, and we are left entirely to
conjecture what the full meaning of it is. For 1800 years Christians have
explained it as best they can, and some portion of its meaning in all
likelihood has been discovered. Yet it is far from unlikely that such a
word spoken on such an occasion by such a person at such a moment just
before death, contains depths that no one has ever completely fathomed.
Some meanings there are (which no one perhaps will dispute) belonging to
this grand expression, which I will briefly mention. No one single
meaning, we may be sure, exhausts the whole phrase. It is rich, full, and
replete with deep truths.
(a) Our Lord meant that His great work of redemption was finished. He had,
as Daniel foretold, "finished transgression, made an end of sin, made
reconciliation for iniquity, and brought in everlasting righteousness"
(Dan. 9:24). After 33 years, since the day when He was born in Bethlehem,
He had done all, paid all, performed all, suffered all that was needful to
save sinners and satisfy the justice of God. He had fought the battle and
won it, and in two days would give proof of it by rising again.
(b) Our Lord meant that God's determinate counsel and fore-will concerning
His death was now accomplished and finished. All that had been appointed
from all eternity that He should suffer, He had now suffered.
(c) Our Lord meant that He had finished the work of keeping God's holy law.
He had kept it to the uttermost as our head and representative, and Satan
had found nothing in Him. He had magnified the law and made it honorable
by doing perfectly all its requirements. "Woe unto us," says Burkitt, "if
Christ had left but one farthing of our debt unpaid. We must have lain in
hell insolvent to all eternity."
(d) Our Lord meant that He had finished the types and figures of the
ceremonial law. He had at length offered up the perfect sacrifice, of
which every Mosaic sacrifice was a type and symbol, and there remained no
more need of offerings for sin. The old covenant was finished.
(e) Our Lord meant that He had finished and fulfilled the prophecies of the
Old Testament. At length, as the Seed of the woman, he had bruised the
serpent's head and accomplished the work which Messiah was engaged by
covenant to come and perform.
(f) Finally, our Lord meant that His sufferings were finished. Like His
Apostle, He had "finished His course." His long life of pain and
contradiction from sinners, and above all His intense sufferings as bearer
of our sins on Gethsemane and Calvary, were at last at an end. The storm
was over, and the worst was passed. The cup of suffering was at last
drained to the very dregs.
Thoughts such as these come to my own mind when I read the solemn phrase
"It is finished." But I am far from saying that the phrase does not
contain a great deal more. In interpreting such a saying, I am deeply
conscious that there is an inexhaustible fullness in our Lord's words. I
am sure we are more likely to make too little of them than to make too
much.
Luther remarks: "In this word, 'It is finished,' will I comfort myself. I
am forced to confess that all my finishing of the will of God is imperfect,
piecemeal work, while yet the law urges on me that not so much as one
tittle of it must remain unaccomplished. Christ is the end of the law.
What it requires, Christ has performed."
To the objection of some persons, that all things were not completely
finished and accomplished until Jesus rose again and ascended into heaven,
Calvin replies that Jesus knew that all things were now practically
accomplished, and that nothing now remained to hinder His finishing the
work He came to do.
[And He bowed His head.] This is the action of one dying. When the will
ceases to exercise power over muscles and nerves, at once those parts of
the body that are not rigid, like the bones, collapse and fall in any
direction to which their center of gravity inclines them. The head of a
crucified person would naturally in death droop forward on the breast, the
neck being no longer kept stiff by the will. This is what seems to have
happened in the case of our Lord.
May we not gather from this expression that our Lord, up to this moment,
held up His head erect, firm, steady, and unmoved even under extreme pain?
Alford remarks how this little incident was evidently recorded by an
eyewitness. The miraculous darkness must have now passed away in order to
let this movement of the head be seen.
[And gave up the ghost.] These words literally mean "delivered up the
spirit." It is an expression never used of any dying person in the Bible
except our Lord. It is an expression denoting voluntary action. He
delivered up His spirit of His own free will, because the hour was come
when He chose to do it. He had just said, after using the phrase "It is
finished," "Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit," and then He
proceeded to deliver up His spirit into the hands of God the Father. It is
the Father and none else to whom the words "He delivered up" must apply.
Augustine observes: "Not against His will did the Savior's spirit leave His
flesh, but because He would, and when He would, and how He would. Who is
there that can even go to sleep when He will as Jesus died when He would?
Who thus puts off his clothes when he will as Jesus unclothed Himself of
His flesh when He would? Who goes thus out of his door when he will as
Jesus, when He would, went out of this world?"
In death as well as in life, our Lord has left us an example. Of course we
cannot, like Him, choose the moment of our death; and in this, as in
everything else, we must be content to follow Him at an enormous distance.
The best of saints is a miserable copy of his Master. Nevertheless, we
too, as Cyril observes, must endeavor to put our souls into God's hands, if
God is really our Father, when the last hour of our lives comes; and like
Jesus, to place them by faith in our Father's keeping and trust our Father
to take care of them.
Above all, let us never forget, as we read of Christ's death, that He died
for our sins as our Substitute. His death is our life. He died that we
might live. We who believe in Christ shall live forevermore, sinners as we
are, because Christ died for us, the innocent for the guilty. Satan cannot
drag us away to everlasting death in hell. The second death cannot harm
us. We may safely say, "Who can condemn me, or slay my soul? I know well
that I deserve death and that I ought to die because of my sins. But then
my blessed Head and Substitute died for me, and when He died, I, His poor
weak member, was reckoned to die also. Get behind me Satan, for Christ was
crucified and died. My debt is paid, and you cannot demand it twice over."
Forever let us bless God that Christ "gave up the ghost" and really died
upon the cross before myriads of witnesses. That giving up the ghost was
the hinge on which all our salvation turned. In vain Christ's life and
miracles and preaching would have been, if Christ had not at last died for
us! We needed not merely a teacher, but an atonement and the death of a
Substitute. The mightiest transaction that ever took place on earth since
the fall of man was accomplished when Jesus gave up the ghost. The
careless crowd around the cross saw nothing but the common death of a
common criminal. But in the eyes of God the Father, the promised payment
for a world's sin was at last effected and the kingdom of heaven was thrown
wide open to all believers. The finest pictures of the crucifixion that
artists have ever painted give a miserably insufficient idea of what took
place when Jesus gave up the ghost. They can show a suffering man on a
cross, but they cannot convey the least notion of what was really going
on--the satisfaction of God's broken law, the payment of sinners' debt to
God, and the complete atonement for a world's sin.
The precise physical cause of the death of Christ is a very interesting
subject, which must be reverently approached, but deserves attention. Dr.
Stroud, in his book on the subject, takes a view which is supported by the
opinions of three eminent Edinburgh physicians--the late Sir James Simpson,
Dr. Begbie, and Dr. Struthers. This view is that the immediate cause of
our Lord's decease was rupture of the heart. Dr. Simpson argues that all
the circumstances of our Lord's death--His crying with a loud voice just
before death, not like an exhausted person, and His sudden giving up the
ghost--confirm this view very strongly. He also says that "strong mental
emotions produce sometimes laceration or rupture of the walls of the
heart;" and he adds, "If ever a human heart was riven and ruptured by the
mere amount of mental agony endured, it would surely be that of our
Redeemer." Above all, he argues that the rupture of the heart would go far
to account for the flow of blood and water from our Lord's die when pierced
with a spear. Dr. Simpson's very interesting letter on the subject will be
found in the appendix to "Hanna's Last Days of our Lord's Passion."
Concerning the deep question as to what became of our Lord's soul when He
gave up the ghost, it must suffice to believe that His soul went to
paradise, the place of the departed spirits of believers. He said to the
penitent thief, "Today you shall be with Me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43).
This is the true meaning of the article "descended into hell" in the
Belief. "Hell" in that clause certainly does not mean the place of
punishment, but the separate state or place of departed spirits.
Some theologians hold that between His death and resurrection, "He went and
preached to the spirits in prison" (1 Pet. 3:19) and proclaimed the
accomplishment of His work of atonement. This, to say the least, is
doubtful. But Athanasius, Ambrose, Zwingle, Calvin, Erasmus, Calovius, and
Alford hold this view.
Concerning the miraculous signs that accompanied our Lord's death--the
darkness from twelve o'clock to three, the earthquake, the tearing of the
temple veil--St. John is silent, and doubtless for some wise reasons. But
we may well believe that they struck myriads with awe and astonishment, and
perhaps smoothed the way for our Lord's burial in Joseph's tomb without
opposition or objection.
31.--[The Jews therefore, because it was, etc.] The "Jews" in this verse,
as in many other places in St. John's Gospel, can only mean the chief
priests and leaders of the nation at Jerusalem; the same men who had
pressed on Pilate our Lord's crucifixion--Annas, Caiaphas, and their
companions.
The "preparation" means the day preceding the passover sabbath. That
sabbath being pre-eminently a "high day," or, to render the Greek
literally, a "great" day in the year, the Friday or day preceding it, was
devoted to special preparations. Hence the day went by the name of "the
preparation of the sabbath." The expression makes it certain that Jesus
was crucified on a Friday. The Jews saw clearly that unless they took
active measures to prevent it, the body of our Lord would remain all night
hanging on the tree of the cross, the law would be broken (Deut. 21:23),
and a dead body would hang throughout the sabbath in full view of the
temple and close by the city walls. Therefore they made haste to have Him
taken down from the cross and buried.
The breaking of the legs of crucified criminals, in order to dispatch them,
seems to have been a common accompaniment of this barbarous mode of
execution when it was necessary to make an end of them and get them out of
the way. In asking Pilate to allow this breaking of the legs, they did
nothing but what was usual. But for anything we can see, the thing would
not have been done if the Jews had not asked. The verse supplies a
wonderful example of the way in which God can make the wickedest men
unconsciously carry out His purposes and promote His glory. If the Jews
had not interfered this Friday afternoon, for anything we can see, Pilate
would have allowed our Lord's body to hang upon the cross till Sunday or
Monday, and perhaps to see corruption. The Jews procured our Lord's burial
the very day that He died and thus secured the fulfillment of His famous
prophecy, "Destroy this temple of my body, and in three days I will raise
it up" (John 2:19). If He had not been buried till Sunday or Monday, He
could not have risen again the third day after His death. As it was, the
Jews managed things so that our Lord was laid in the grave before the
evening of Friday and was thus enabled to fulfill the famous type of Jonah,
and give the sign He had promised to give of His Messiahship by lying three
days in the earth and then rising again the third day after He died. All
this could not have happened if the Jews had not interfered and got Him
taken from the cross and buried on Friday afternoon! How true it is that
the wickedest enemies of God are only axes and saws and hammers in His
hands, and are ignorantly His instruments for doing His work in the world.
The restless, busy, meddling of Caiaphas and his companions was actually
one of the causes that Christ rose the third day after death, and His
Messiahship was proved. Pilate was their tool, but they were God's tools!
The Romans, in all probability, would have left our Lord's body hanging on
the cross till sun and rain had putrefied and consumed it, had such a thing
been possible. Bishop Pearson says it was a common rule of Roman law not
to permit sepulture to the body of a crucified person. The burial,
therefore, was entirely owing to the request of the Jews. The providence
of God ordered things so that they who interceded for His crucifixion
interceded for His burial. And by so doing they actually paved the way for
the crowning miracle of His resurrection!
Let us mark the miserable scrupulosity that is sometimes compatible with
the utmost deadness of conscience. Thus we see men making ado about a dead
body remaining on the cross on the Sabbath at the very time when they had
just murdered an innocent living person with the most flagrant injustice
and monstrous cruelty. It is a specimen of "straining out a gnat and
swallowing a camel."
32.--[Then the soldiers came, etc.] Pilate having given his consent to the
request of the Jews, the Roman soldiers proceeded to break the legs of the
criminals and began with the two thieves. Why they began with them is by
no means clear. If the three crosses were all in a row, it is hard to see
why the two outer criminals of the three should have their legs broken
first and the one in the center be left to the last. We must suppose one
of three things in order to explain this.
(a) Possibly two of the soldiers broke the legs of one malefactor, and the
other two soldiers the legs of the other. Reason and common sense point
out that it does not require four men to do this horrid work on a helpless,
unresisting, crucified person. Thus having finished their work at the two
outward crosses, they would come last to the center one.
(b) Possibly the two outward crosses may have been rather forwarder in
position than the central one so that the sufferers might see each others'
faces. In that case the soldiers would naturally begin with the crosses
they came to first. This, perhaps, would account for the penitent thief
having read the word "King" over our Lord's head on the cross.
(c) Possibly the soldiers saw that our Lord was dead even before they came
up to Him. At any rate, they probably saw that He was still and
motionless, and thus suspecting that He was dead they did not trouble
themselves with His body but began with the two who evidently were yet
alive.
It is noteworthy that the penitent thief, even after his conversion, had
more suffering to go through before he entered paradise. The grace of God
and the pardon of sin did not deliver him from the agony of having his legs
broken. When Christ undertakes to save our souls, He does not undertake to
deliver us from bodily pains and a conflict with the last enemy. Penitents
as well as impenitents must taste death and all its accompaniments.
Conversion is not heaven, though it leads to it.
Scott remarks that those who broke the legs of the penitent thief and
hastened his end were unconscious instruments of fulfilling our Lord's
promise, "Today you shall be with me in Paradise."
How the legs of crucified criminals were broken we do not know; but it was
probably done in the roughest manner. With such tools at hand as the
hammers used for driving in the nails and the mattocks and spades used for
putting the cross in the ground, the soldiers could hardly lack
instruments. It must be remembered that a simple fracture would not cause
death. The Greek word which we render "break" literally means "shiver to
pieces." May it not be feared that this is the true meaning here?
33.--[But when they came to Jesus, etc.] This verse contains the first
proof of the mighty fact that our Lord really died. We are told that the
soldiers did not break His legs, because they "saw that He was dead
already." Accustomed as Roman soldiers necessarily were to see death in
every form, wounds of every kind, and dead bodies of every description, and
trained to take away human life by their profession, they were of all men
least likely to make a mistake about such a matter. Thus we have it most
expressly recorded that the soldiers "saw that He was dead already" and
therefore did not break His legs. Our salvation hinges so entirely on
Jesus Christ's vicarious death that a moment's reflection will show us the
divine wisdom of the fact being thoroughly proved. His unbelieving enemies
could never say that He did not really die but was only in a swoon or
fainting-fit or state of insensibility. The Roman soldiers are witnesses
that on the center cross of the tree they saw a dead man.
34.--[But one...pierced...spear.] Here we have the second proof that our
Lord did really die. One of the soldiers, determined to make sure work and
leave nothing uncertain, thrust his spear into our Lord's side, in all
probability directing his thrust at the heart as the seat of vitality.
That thrust made it certain, if there had been any doubt before, that the
body on the central cross was actually dead. They believed it from
appearance, and perhaps from touch, when they first came up to the cross.
They made it quite certain by the thrust of the spear. The body of a
person in a swoon would have given some sign of life when pierced with a
spear.
The gross inaccuracy of those pictures that represent this soldier as a
horseman is worth noticing. Our Lord's body was easily within reach of the
thrust of a spear in the hand of a foot soldier. There is no evidence
whatever that any Roman cavalry were near the cross!
The theory of Bishop Pearson that this soldier pierced our Lord's side in
anger and impatience, as if provoked to find Him dead, does not appear to
me well-founded. It is not likely that the soldiers would be angry at
finding a state of things which saved them trouble. To me it seems far
more likely that the thrust was the hasty, careless act of a rough soldier
accustomed to prove in this way whether a body was alive or dead. I have
heard it said by an eyewitness that some of the Cossacks who followed our
retreating cavalry after the famous Balaclava charge in the Crimean war,
were seen to prick the bodies of fallen soldiers with their spears in order
to see whether they were dead or alive.
Theophylact suggests that this soldier thrust the spear into our Lord's
side in order to gratify the wicked Jews who stood by.
Besser remarks most sensibly: "Even the soldier's spear was guided by the
Father's hand."
[And...blood and water came out.] The remarkable fact here recorded has
given rise to considerable difference of opinion.
(a) Some, as Grotius, Calvin, Beza, and others, hold that this issue of
blood and water was a proof that the heart or pericardium was pierced, and
death in consequence quite certain. They say that the same result would
follow from a thrust into the side of any person lately dead, and that
blood and water, or something closely resembling it, would immediately flow
out. They maintain, therefore, that there was nothing supernatural in the
circumstance recorded.
(b) Others, as most of the Fathers, Brentius, Musculus, Calovius, Lampe,
Lightfoot, Rollock, Jansenius, Bengel, Horsley, and Hengstenberg, hold that
this issue of blood and water was supernatural, extraordinary, unusual, and
contrary to all experience; and they maintain that it was a special
miracle.
The question is one of those that will probably never be settled. We are
not in possession of sufficiently precise information to justify a very
positive opinion. We do not know for a certainty that the left side of our
Lord was pierced and not the right. We do not know exactly how much blood
and water flowed out, whether a large quantity or a very little. That a
miracle might take place at such a death, on such an occasion, and in the
body of such a Person, we have no right to deny. The mere facts that when
our Lord hung on the cross the sun was darkened, and when He gave up the
ghost the veil of the temple was rent in two and the rocks rent and the
earth quaked, might well prepare our minds to see nothing extraordinary in
a miracle taking place, and almost to expect it. Perhaps the safest line
to adopt is to combine both views. The thrust of the spear into the side
caused blood to flow and proved that the seat of vitality in the body was
pierced. The extraordinary and unusual flow of blood and water was a
supernatural event and meant to teach spiritual lessons.
I may be allowed to say that three eminent medical men in large practice,
whom I have ventured to consult on this verse, are all of one mind--that
any large flow of blood and water from a dead body is contrary to all
ordinary experience. Each of them, singularly enough, has expressed this
opinion independently and without any communication with the other two.
Concerning the symbolical meaning of this flow of blood and water from our
Lord's side, much has been written in every age of the Church. That it had
a deep spiritual sense appears almost certain from St. John's words in his
first Epistle (1 John 5:6-8). But what the real symbolical meaning was is
a very disputable question.
(a) The common opinion is that the blood and water symbolized the two
sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper, both given by Christ and
emanating from Him, and both symbols of atonement, cleansing, and
forgiveness. This is the view of Chrysostom, Augustine, Andrews, and a
large body of divines both ancient and modern. I cannot myself receive
this opinion. In matters like this I dare not call any man master, or
endorse an interpretation of Scripture when I do not feel convinced that it
is true. I cannot see the necessity of dragging in the sacraments at every
point in the exposition of God's Word, as some do.
(b) My own opinion is most decided that the flow of blood and water,
whether supernatural or not, was meant to be a symbolical fulfillment of
the famous prophecy in Zechariah: "In that day there shall be a fountain
opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin
and for uncleanness" (Zech. 13:1). It was a practical declaration, by fact
and deed, to all Jews that by Christ's death that famous prophecy was
fulfilled, and that now at last there was a fountain opened by Christ's
death. The moment He was dead this fountain was opened and began to flow.
Over the bleeding side of our Lord there might have been written, "Behold
the fountain for all sin." It is no small evidence to my mind, in favor of
this view, that this famous prophecy occurs only five verses after the text
immediately quoted by St. John in this very chapter, "they shall look on
Him whom they pierced" (Zech. 12:10.)
Augustine sees a type of this wound in our Lord's side, from which flowed
blood and water, in the door in the side of Noah's ark, by which the living
creatures entered in and were preserved from drowning! He also sees
another type of the transaction in the first Adam sleeping and Eve being
formed out of his side.
The opinion held by some, that this "blood and water" warrant the mixture
of water and wine in the Lord's Supper, seems to be utterly untenable. As
Musculus sensibly observes, it was not "wine and water" but "blood and
water" that flowed from our Lord's side. There is not the slightest
evidence that our Lord used water at the institution of the Lord's Supper.
That blood was the symbol of atonement and water of cleansing, every
careful reader of the Old Testament must know. The two things are brought
together by St. Paul in Heb. 9:19. The smiting of the rock by Moses, and
water flowing forth, was also typical of the event before us. Lightfoot
mentions a Jewish tradition that blood and water flowed from the rock at
first.
Henry says: "The blood and water signified the two great benefits that all
believers partake of through Christ--justification and sanctification.
Blood stands for remission, water for regeneration; blood for atonement,
water for purification. The two must always go together. Christ has
joined them together, and we must not think to put them apart. They both
flowed from the pierced side of our Redeemer."
35.--[And he who saw it testified, etc.] This singular verse, by common
consent, can only refer to St. John. It is as though he said, "The fact to
which I now testify I saw with my own eyes, and my testimony is true,
accurate, and trustworthy; and I know that I say true things in recording
the fact so that you to whom I write need not hesitate to believe me. I
stood by. I saw it. I was an eyewitness, and I do not write by hearsay."
The Greek word rendered "true" in the second place in this verse means
literally "true things."
The question arises naturally, 'To what does John refer in this peculiar
verse?' (a) Does he refer only to the issue of blood and water from our
Lord's side as a singularly miraculous event? (b) Or does he refer to the
thrust of the spear into our Lord's side as a convincing proof that our
Lord really died? (c) Or does he refer to the fact that our Lord's legs
were not broken, and that he thus saw the great type of the passover lamb
fulfilled?
I decidedly lean to the opinion that the verse refers to all three things I
have mentioned together and not to any one of them only. All three things
were so remarkable and so calculated to strike the mind of a pious and
intelligent Jew, and all happened in such close and rapid succession, that
John emphatically records that he saw all three with his own eyes. He
seems to say, "I myself saw that not a bone of the Lamb of God was broken,
so that He fulfilled the type of the passover. I myself saw a spear thrust
into His heart, so that He was a true Sacrifice and really died. And I
myself saw that blood and water came out of His side, and I beheld a
fulfillment of the old prophecy of a fountain for sin being opened." When
we consider the immense importance and significance of all these three
things, we do not wonder that John should have been inspired to write this
verse in which he emphatically tells his readers that he is writing down
nothing but the plain naked truth, and that he actually saw these three
things--the unbroken legs, the pierced side, the flow of blood and water--
with his own eyes.
Pearce and Alford think that the expression "that ye might believe"
signifies "that ye might believe that Jesus did really die on the cross."
Others decidedly prefer thinking that it means "that ye may believe that
blood and water did really flow from the side of Jesus after His death."
Others take the phrase in a general sense, "that ye may believe more firmly
than ever on Christ as the true sacrifice for sin."
36,37.--[For these things were done, etc.] In these two verses John
explains distinctly to his readers why two of the facts he has just
mentioned, however trifling they might seem to an ignorant person, were in
reality of great importance. By one of these facts--the not breaking a
bone of our Lord's body--the text was fulfilled which said that not a bone
of the passover lamb should be broken (Ex. 12:46). By the other fact--the
piercing of our Lord's side--the prophecy of Zechariah was fulfilled, that
the inhabitants of Jerusalem "should look on him whom they pierced" (Zech.
12:12).
Alford observes that the expression "they shall look" does not refer to the
Roman soldiers but to the repentant in the world, who at the time this
Gospel was written had begun to fulfill this prophecy; and that it also
contains a prophetic reference to the future conversion of Israel, who were
here the real piercers, though the act was done by the hands of others."
It is almost needless to say that the passage, like many others, does not
mean that these things were done in order that Scripture might be
fulfilled, but that by these things being done the Scripture was fulfilled,
and God's perfect foreknowledge about the least details of Christ's death
was proved. Nothing in the great sacrifice happened by chance, luck, or
accident. All was arranged as appointed, from first to last, many
centuries before by the determinate counsel of God. Caiaphas, Pilate, and
the Roman soldiers were all unconscious instruments in carrying into effect
what God had long predicted and foretold to the least jot and tittle.
Let us carefully note here what strong evidence these verses supply in
favor of a literal, and not a merely spiritual, fulfillment of the Old
Testament prophecies.
Rollock observes: "If God has ordained and said anything, it lies not in
the hands of any man to disannul it. If God shall say, "There shall not be
one bone of my anointed broken," great Cæsar and all the kings of the
earth, the King of Spain and the Pope, and all their adherents shall not be
able to do the contrary. So, in the midst of all fear and danger, let us
depend on the providence of God.
Postingan
