Michael's Abbey Bible Study - Gospel of John Chapter 19

1 Pilate then took Jesus and scourged Him. This verse can be translated as "had Him scourged" or "scourged Him." They mean the same as the actions ordered by a leader are ascribed to them. It's like saying a president did something doesn't mean he did it personally. His subordinates actually did it. In the same way Pilate didn't scourge Jesus. It was done at his order by his subordinates as indicated by verse 2, and wouldn't have happened if he didn't order it.
This was not what the Jewish leaders wanted. And it is clear in chapter 18 that Pilate was convinced Jesus was innocent. Scripture doesn't say why Pilate chose to scourge Jesus. It seems likely that he was hoping that this torture and humiliation would satisfy the Jewish leaders.
2 And the soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on His head, and put a purple robe on Him; 3 and they began to come up to Him and say, "Hail, King of the Jews!" and to give Him slaps in the face. The other gospels detail that Jesus was mocked as prophet by the Jewish leaders during the trial before Caiaphas. Here is recorded that after carrying out Pilate's order to scourge Jesus the Roman soldiers mocked Him for the claim to be a king.
The motivation for this is not in scripture. The charges the Jewish leaders made against Jesus in Luke 23:2 were that he was misleading the nation, stopping them from paying taxes to Ceasar, and saying that he is the Christ, a king. This added up to insurrection against Rome trying to be king. Thus it is likely that Pilate intended this to humiliate Jesus in the spirit of those charges and make it more likely the Jewish leaders would accept this instead of execution. This view is supported by the following verses. It could also be because these charges were the worst thing a conquered people could do in the eyes of Rome, and the soldiers were giving their own justice since they knew the charges deserved death. Roman citizens had to be proven guilty, but there was no such protection for non-citizens in the conquered territories. On the other hand, Pilate could have been personally offended as the charges were an attack on his position. Even if he didn't believe they were true, that the Jewish leaders would make them was offensive.
Being born in a Roman territory did not give a person citizenship. If one of their parents were citizens they would gain it by birth. Or they could purchase citizenship in the Roman naturalization process.
4 Pilate came out again and *said to them, "Behold, I am bringing Him out to you so that you may know that I find no guilt in Him." 5 Jesus then came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate *said to them, "Behold, the Man!" Pilate was trying to avoid putting an innocent man to death. But even more than that he desperately needed to avoid a big violent incident. It seems bizarre that Pilate didn't see the hypocrisy. His treatment of Jesus in having him tortured contradicted his words saying he was innocent. He may have been sure that Jesus was innocent. If so, he had a man tortured who he knew was innocent. A wise man would have known that actions speak louder than words, and his actions said he thought Jesus was guilty. Even those not fully on board with the Jewish leaders would have been encouraged not turned away by this. Clearly the historical record is correct and Pilate didn't get his position on merit, but by cronyism.
This should not be a surprise to us either. It is no different than the actions of people today who claim to be Christians. They tell others they're not supposed to judge, when that statement is judging. They rebuke another for calling out the bad behavior and/or anti-Christian beliefs of other Christians, when they are hypocritically violating their own anti-Christian doctrine by rebuking people for rebuking people. Much worse, in saying we shouldn't call out our brother or sister they are contradicting scripture for their false and Pharisaical belief. It is wisdom to see the hypocrisy in ourselves and each other. A fool doesn't see it, especially in himself.
6 So when the chief priests and the officers saw Him, they cried out saying, "Crucify, crucify!" Pilate *said to them, "Take Him yourselves and crucify Him, for I find no guilt in Him." The Jewish leaders were not alone. They were accompanied by a large crowd of the Jewish people. In other words, they brought a mob to pressure Pilate. These were not the same people who hailed Jesus entering Jerusalem riding a donkey colt on Palm Sunday in chapter 12. Those were believers and those who were hopeful seeing the signs of the Messiah from scripture in Jesus. The mob here followed the lead of the Jewish leaders, even if it was over a cliff. Thus when the leaders shouted for the crucifixion of Jesus the mob certainly joined in as recorded in other gospel accounts.
Pilate's motivation is not clear. He definitely had a problem with executing an innocent man, although he had no problem having an innocent man tortured. To an objective person this was a contradiction. But we rationalize contradictions within ourselves as well such as denying our sin or failing to see our own lies.
7 The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God." This charge against Jesus was not against Roman law. But it still had an impact on Pilate. People in the Roman empire could believe what they want as long as they added worship of the Emperor to it. The Jews had been granted a rare exemption from Emperor worship. The Romans learned early in the occupation that enforcing Emperor worship would require a greater military operation than the conquering of Gaul, (now called France,) and Spain combined. And it wouldn't end until they had killed most of the Jews.
8 Therefore when Pilate heard this statement, he was even more afraid; Pilate knew first hand of the fanaticism of the Jews about their monotheistic beliefs. When Pilate first became governor of Judea he had acted against this and had great difficulty as a result, almost a rebellion. That was when his patron Sejanus was in power. Now that Sejanus had been executed for treason, he couldn't afford to offend them like that again. It would end his career and possibly his life.
It is difficult to truly comprehend the situation in Judea at this time for people who live in a morally mushy culture like the west today. While people get riled up and do crazy protests, they have no backbone or real conviction. They quickly melt away when faced with real opposition or actual prosecution and consequences.
For example, in 70 A.D. Ceasar came to Jerusalem in person to lead the seizure of the temple. It was one of the wonders of the world and Ceasar wanted to possess it. The Jews were no match for Roman soldiers, let alone the elite Roman soldiers Ceasar brought with him. Yet the Jews defied Ceasar and defended the temple with such ferocity that the Roman soldiers were driven into a berserker rage. The Roman soldiers made impromptu fire bombs, throwing them into the temple to burn out these who dared to oppose them. Ceasar himself tried to stop them by beating the Roman soldiers with the flat of his sword. But their rage was such they didn't even notice it. The temple was destroyed by the fire with everyone in it. This was the fanaticism that Pilate feared.
9 and he entered into the Praetorium again and *said to Jesus, "Where are You from?" But Jesus gave him no answer. It seems Pilate was confused by the reaction of the Jewish leaders to his actions against Jesus. It seems that he wrongly thought having Jesus tortured and humiliated would satisfy the Jewish leaders and calm things down. Of course trying to placate a mob does not work. Anyone with the slightest bit of wisdom and experience would know it only makes them bolder. But leaders at universities and governments today are just as ignorant and foolish as Pilate. And they have greater access to information and history than Pilate and ought to know better. But the arrogant person is convinced their own thoughts are true and real no matter the evidence against them.
Jesus told Pilate that His kingdom was not of this world in 18:36, and that He was born into this world to testify to the truth in 18:37. It may be that these words sunk in after the reaction of the Jewish leaders. This helpless Galilean didn't appear to be a threat worthy of such hatred. So he asked where he was from. It seems Pilate was questioning if this really was just a man in front of him. Jesus' silence was an inexplicable to Pilate as the behavior of the Jewish leaders.
10 So Pilate *said to Him, "You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?" When Pilate asked a question, people answered. He was the highest political and military authority in Judea. To ignore a question is rude and an insult from Pilate's perspective. This is not someone a Roman citizen would ignore, let alone someone who was from a Roman territory that didn't have the rights of citizenship. This was jarring to Pilate.
That Pilate as governor had the right to release or crucify anyone of a subjugated people without cause was not disputed, provided they were not Roman citizens. It seems likely that Pilate stated this well known fact because he was incredulous that Jesus would defy him by remaining silent. In other words, he was saying how dare you not answer me!
11 Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin." Jesus could have directly contradicted Pilate, and it would have been the truth. Instead, Jesus' reply was well worded to state the full truth but do it gently. Jesus was saying that it was the Father's will that He was under the authority of Pilate, but worded it so it also meant that Pilate's authority was from God. This both stated the truth and affirmed Pilate's authority rather than attacking it.
Jesus also stated that he, masculine singular, who delivered Jesus has the greater sin. It is very likely that Pilate latched onto this ascribing guilt to someone else as he was repeatedly against putting an innocent man to death. It seems he didn't notice that greater sin means that Pilate also sinned here. Who Jesus meant by "he who delivered me" is not clear. To Pilate this would seem to be Caiaphas, the high priest. However, Annas was the power behind Caiaphas. And Judas was the one who handed Jesus over. It is probable that Jesus was speaking in the abstract sense. In many passages Jesus says, "He who..." meaning anyone who does that. For example, in Matthew 12:30 Jesus says, "He who is not with Me is against Me." He is not one person, but anyone who fits that description. Thus Jesus means all who are guilty of delivering Him to Pilate have committed a greater sin than Pilate.
12 As a result of this Pilate made efforts to release Him, but the Jews cried out saying, "If you release this Man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be a king opposes Caesar." Pilate was still convinced that Jesus was innocent. And perhaps even more, was a very good man deserving of protection from the mob. The chief priests must have led the mob with the words that would argue for Jesus' crucifixion in Roman terms. The Romans wouldn't care about a local religion's blasphemy rules which was what really mattered to the Jewish mob.
13 Therefore when Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha. There is no known meaning of the word Gabbatha in Hebrew or Aramaic. This must have been a proper name rather than a noun. It may be a Hebrew adaptation of the Latin word gabata which means platter, possibly because of how the area looked.
The details included in the gospel like this verse are facts that could easily be checked as true or not. Only someone who was there or was informed by the Holy Spirit could get these things right. Fake texts don't include geographic and name convention details, or get them wrong. This made it easy for everyone at the time to see when something was false like the many false gospels. The early church knew these things In the gospel of John and the other three were correct from first hand experience and accounts. The false gospels like the gospel of Thomas got things obviously wrong and were rejected by Christians.
14 Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he *said to the Jews, "Behold, your King!" There are a few things that should be cleared up. First, in the Jewish system the new day begins at sundown. Thus the evening and night belong to the next day. Second, Passover lasts a week and is also called the feast of unleavened bread. No leaven, that is yeast, can even be in the home of a Jew for the week. This is why they only eat matzo bread for this week. The Seder meal is held the first night, and there is another gathering the last night. But the observance and feast continues every day of this week. The day of preparation is the day before by the Jewish calendar for the meal eaten at sundown. Thus to a Jew the day of preparation is on the day prior for the Seder or the Sabbath. But to our way of marking days it is on the same day. This difference in defining days and the differences in the way calendars are determined makes it easy to misunderstand the days involved in the New Testament accounts. However, from scripture and the historical record, the disciples would have prepared the first unleavened meal in the upper room on Thursday. They would have had the meal with Jesus Thursday evening, which to them was Friday. Jesus would have been arrested that evening with the interrogation by the high priests and Pilate occurring before this point, which was "about" the sixth hour of the day. If John is using the Roman time system this was around six in the morning, or if it was the Jewish system it was around noon. The Roman system is almost certain here because it would fit with the account in the Gospel of Mark with that gospel using the Jewish system, and the fact that this passage centers around Pilate's actions.
Pilate presents the scourged Jesus to the Jews as their king. This seems to be a bungled attempt to get them to accept that Jesus had been punished enough. Regardless, Pilate clearly did not understand the motivations of the Jewish leaders.
15 So they cried out, "Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!" Pilate *said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar." Pilate kept trying and failing to get the Jews to accept that Jesus did not need to be crucified. His arguments were certainly not helping. The Maccabean revolt did attempt to establish a Jewish king to replace Rome. So perhaps this was the basis of his attempt to label Jesus as their king. He did not understand that the goal was not justice, but the end of Jesus. His attempts to call him a king only played into the made up charges against Jesus.
The Jewish leaders shouting that they had no king but Ceasar was not out of loyalty to the emperor. It was merely another tactic to get rid of Jesus.
16 So he then handed Him over to them to be crucified. That Pilate handed Jesus over to the Jewish leaders to be crucified did not mean he gave them full custody and responsibility. The Roman soldiers carried out the execution as required by law. But it was under the supervision of the Jewish leaders just like the Roman soldiers that were sent to arrest Jesus were under their direction.
17 They took Jesus, therefore, and He went out, bearing His own cross, to the place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha. It is likely that Jesus was carrying only the horizontal piece of the cross at this point. The vertical shaft would have already been at the place of the crucifixion, Golgotha. However, the torture Jesus had endured a short time earlier would have left him weak from the pain and blood loss. So the other gospels record that Simon of Cyrene was made to carry it for Jesus. There was a time crunch as the crucifixion needed to be completed in time to take care of the bodies before sundown due to that being the beginning of the Sabbath, especially as this was a high Sabbath occurring during the week of Passover.
18 There they crucified Him, and with Him two other men, one on either side, and Jesus in between. Other gospels record that the two men crucified on either side of Jesus were criminals or rebels. John does not record this probably because it was an obvious fact. Rome didn't crucify random people for no reason. John also doesn't record the interaction with the criminals.
There is a false claim of contradiction between the account in Matthew where both rebels mock Jesus and the account in Luke where one criminal mocks and the other rebukes the mocking criminal, then asks Jesus to remember him. This false argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of crucifixion. This method of execution was by slow torture leading to asphyxiation. It did not happen quickly, but took hours. Hanging by the arms caused the diaphragm to lock preventing breathing. The victim had to push themselves up by their feet to breathe. This was very painful and their strength would give out leaving them unable to breathe over and over. Eventually, they would be unable to raise themselves up resulting in suffocation. Thus this slow death would give the second criminal ample time to face his coming death and change his attitude. Therefore Matthew records how it was near the beginning, and Luke records later in the process.
19 Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It was written, "JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS." Pilate had this written and put on Jesus' cross where everyone could read it. This was the charge the Jewish leaders emphasized to get Pilate to go along with the execution. And it was the term for Jesus that Pilate used in his interactions with them.
20 Therefore many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin and in Greek. It was standard Roman practice for decrees, notices and signs be written in Latin, the official language of Rome, Greek, the common language of the day, and the local language which here was Hebrew. This ensured the majority of people in the empire would be able to read it.
That this was near the city shows that it was outside the city wall. However, Roman practice was to do this in a public space usually by the road near the main gate of a city for maximum deterrent effect. Golgotha was a prominent hill where it was sure many would see it.
21 So the chief priests of the Jews were saying to Pilate, "Do not write, 'The King of the Jews'; but that He said, 'I am King of the Jews.'" The chief priests didn't have a problem listing the charge that Jesus claimed to be king of the Jews. That was the pretext for his execution. However, stating that He was the king was a completely different thing.
22 Pilate answered, "What I have written I have written." Pilate refused to change the sign. It may be that he did it out of spite for being forced to condemn an innocent man. Or it could just be that he held to the erroneous belief that a leader should never change his mind. Regardless of his motivation, this wording was insulting.
23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His outer garments and made four parts, a part to every soldier and also the tunic; now the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece. 24 So they said to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, to decide whose it shall be"; this was to fulfill the Scripture: "They divided My outer garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots." Part of the humiliation of crucifixion was the stripping of the clothing of the condemned in public. The Roman soldiers given the task of carrying out the execution were entitled to keep the clothing themselves.
All of the gospels relate this story as it is the fulfillment of Psalm 22:18. The other three give a brief summary. John is the only one who relates the detail that exactly fulfills the prophecy and includes the text as well. The first line of the Psalm 22:18 is fulfilled by them dividing his outer garments. And the second line is fulfilled by them gambling for His tunic as dividing it would destroy it.
That this was for the purpose of fulfilling the prophecy is a statement from the perspective of those experiencing the events. This was a common way of writing about it at the time. From the perspective of the writer of the prophecy and most modern readers, the prophecy was a prediction of the future event seen years in advance through the power of the Holy Spirit.
25 Therefore the soldiers did these things. But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. The chapter and verse numbers as well as paragraph breaks were added centuries after the books of the Bible were written. This makes it much easier for us to refer to specific passages to other people. This verse is one example where the choice seems to be inappropriate. The first sentence of this verse clearly belongs with the previous two verses, not the rest of this verse. Prior to this, people referred to a passage by referring to a memorable part, or the first sentence. People memorized scripture partly out of reverence and partly out of necessity. There are notable rabbis who had memorized the entire TaNaK, what we call the Old Testament. Few homes had copies of the scriptures. Most had to go to the local synagogue to read the scrolls. Despite this, Israel was unusual in that the majority of the population was literate throughout its history. Sadly, most of our heads are so full of trivia there is no room or time for scripture.
That the soldiers did this to fulfill prophecy was the perspective of the writer and people of that time.
The sister of Jesus' mother, Mary is not discussed in scripture. Elizabeth is the only relative mentioned in Luke 1, but seems to be only a cousin because it records she is of the line of Aaron which is of the tribe of Levi, and Mary is of the line of David which is of the tribe of Judah. Intermarriage did occur between tribes, particularly between the tribe of Levi and other tribes. There is no account of Mary's sister in secular accounts. So we don't know anything about the sister that was standing with Mary.
26 When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He *said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" 27 Then He *said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" From that hour the disciple took her into his own household. The disciple Jesus loved is John, the author of this gospel. Jesus was passing on His responsibility to support His mother to John instead of one of His half-brothers.
The duty of following the fifth commandment* in Exodus 20:12 to honor your father and mother falls primarily on the oldest son. If he is unable to fulfill it, he would normally pass it on to the next eldest son. Many of us were wrongly taught in Sunday School that honor your father and mother meant obedience to their parents by children. That is absolutely wrong. It is not even for minors and it has nothing to do with obedience to parents. It is a command for adults to support their parents financially in their old age. The Pharisees taught in contradiction to this fundamental commandment giving a fraudulent loophole for a son who was angry with his father. The loophole was to give the money to the temple instead of his father as the law required. Jesus called them out for this false teaching in Matthew 15:1-9, and also their violation of the Mosaic law against speaking disrespectfully to their father and mother against the commands in Exodus 21:17 and Leviticus 20:9.
*While I have respect for most Roman Catholics and admire their diligence in teaching their children the doctrines of their church, there is an undeniable contradiction here. The Roman Catholic Church has a false version of the Ten Commandments in their catechism, which is the formal compilation of the basics of their religion that is taught to children and new converts. They omit the second commandment in Exodus 20:4-6. This is why Roman Catholics wrongly think the fifth commandment is the prohibition against murder. This is contradicted by scripture even in their own versions of the Bible. However, they are also taught that the doctrines of their church are equal to scripture, (in practice they are held as higher than scripture,) and that those outside the clergy are not qualified to interpret scripture. While I dispute those assertions, there is no interpretation needed here. It is plain to see that Roman Catholic teaching here directly contradicts scripture by omitting the second commandment and splitting the tenth commandment in Exodus 20:17 into two commandments in order to bring the total back up to ten. The Roman Catholic ninth commandment, you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, is undeniably in the middle of the tenth commandment in scripture and is not a separate commandment. The reason the second commandment is omitted is easy to understand. Roman Catholic doctrine has institutional practices that violate the second commandment's prohibition against worshiping any likeness of what is in heaven or earth by worshiping or praying to icons, statues, or anything else but God.
28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, to fulfill the Scripture, *said, "I am thirsty." There is no doubt that Jesus was extremely thirsty. He had lost a great deal of blood due to the scourging even before the crucifixion. And the pericardium, the membrane that surrounds the heart, would have filled up with fluid. But from the perspective of fulfilling prophecy, that is what Jesus was doing here.
29 A jar full of sour wine was standing there; so they put a sponge full of the sour wine upon a branch of hyssop and brought it up to His mouth. This fulfilled the prophecy in Psalm 69:21.
Twigs from the hyssop shrub were used to sprinkle blood or water in Jewish purification rituals. The Roman soldiers probably grabbed one because it was conveniently nearby. But this also points to the purification of sins being accomplished by Jesus on the cross.
30 Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit. The gospels of Matthew and John make a point that Jesus gave up his Spirit, and it is implied in Luke. This emphasizes that Jesus was a voluntary sacrifice for the sins of the world, which made forgiveness available to all who believe before and after his death on the cross.
A superficial and poorly reasoned criticism is that the difference in Jesus' words between this verse and Luke 23:46 means that the gospels are fabricated. Yet when anyone who makes this claim relates a past conversation themselves they never quote every single word and sentence. They only relate those that they think are important in their telling at the time. They haven't thought this lame argument through and don't realize they are calling themselves a liar by using it. In reality, if the accounts were identical it would make the gospels less reliable and would be an indication of fabrication. The fact that they relate the events differently is excellent evidence of these being the documentation of actual eyewitness accounts.
31 Then the Jews, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. In this verse, the day of preparation refers to the requirement that all food for the Sabbath be prepared on Friday to be consumed on Saturday which begins at sundown in the Jewish system. For those raised in the west where Saturday does not begin until midnight this is easy to get confused. The Sabbath that occurred during the week of Passover or any other week-long observance was considered a high Sabbath.
Breaking the legs of a person on the cross would prevent them from being able to push themselves up to breathe. Hanging by their outstretched arms would keep their diaphragm locked, and they would suffocate quickly.
Under Mosaic law touching a dead body made one ritually unclean and if done on the Sabbath would prevent the person from participating in the Sabbath. More importantly, an executed person could not be left hanging on a tree overnight. (A cross made of wood in the ground was the same as a tree in this prohibition.) If they were not buried the same day it would defile the land. Normally the Romans would let a person die slowly on a cross, and leave their body where it could be seen for days for the deterrent effect. This was another concession made by Rome to the Jews as enacting standard policy would be taken to be a deliberate act of cursing the holy land and the Israelites. It is likely that the emphasis on heritage and ancestry in Judaism, coupled with the literacy and reporting of current events convinced Rome that the abbreviated time for crucifixion would achieve the same effect as leaving them for days in an illiterate culture. That they had to ask this every time reinforced the dominance of the Roman Empire. Critics who claim these concessions would not be allowed are not just contradicting scripture, but the secular historical accounts as well.
32 So the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first man and of the other who was crucified with Him; The criminals crucified on either side of Jesus had not been scourged. So they were still alive prior to their legs being broken by the Roman soldiers.
33 but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. They did not break the legs of Jesus as they saw he was already dead. The significance of this is in verse 36. The wording of this verse could make it seem like they just discovered the fact at the moment they came to break Jesus' legs. However, this is not the case. It is just that this knowledge had not been officially and ceremonially been recognized until now.
It is certain they knew Jesus was dead already. No one who is crucified can breathe unless they push themselves up to relieve the tension on their diaphragm. Since Jesus was no longer doing this, there is no way he could still be alive. They would have to be colossally oblivious to not know. Thus they skipped past Jesus to break the legs of the other criminal.
34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. Piercing His side provided official and incontrovertible proof Jesus was dead.
One of the criticisms of this account is that blood is listed first of the fluids that came out. Jesus' pericardial sac had filled with water, and there was very little blood left in his tissues. Most likely the water would have poured out first, followed by a small amount of blood coming from the heart. However, writers would list things in order of importance more than chronologically at this time. The blood was not just more important for life, but was ceremonially more important for purification in Judaism. And it is Jesus' blood that cleanses us of our sin. Thus the blood is listed first.
35 And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe. This verse is a statement of authentication by John. This is like someone swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on the witness stand of a trial. John was affirming that he was an eyewitness to these events, that he was giving true testimony of them, and that he did this so we as readers of his gospel will also believe.
36 For these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, "Not a bone of Him shall be broken." This is the significance of Jesus' bones remaining intact from verse 33. Exodus 12:46 and Numbers 9:12 prohibit the breaking of the bones of the Passover lamb. As Jesus was the perfect sacrifice replacing the imperfect sacrifices of animals, it was needed and appropriate for this to be the case here as well. And this fulfills the prophecy in Psalm 34:20.
One of the lamest criticisms by some rabidly anti-Christian atheists is that the Psalms are worship songs, not prophecy. This only shows their laughable ignorance. If they took a fraction of the time they spend dreaming up critiques that only make sense in their own heads and spent it on actual scholarly research they would find out that the psalms have many more categories than just worship, and some fall into multiple categories. This was not an invention of Christians, but has been common knowledge in Judaism hundreds of years before Jesus.
37 And again another Scripture says, "They shall look on Him whom they pierced." This is the fulfillment of the prophecy in Zechariah 12:10. It is also referred to in Revelation 1:7 regarding the second coming of Jesus.
38 After these things Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but a secret one for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate granted permission. So he came and took away His body. Joseph of Arimathea is referred to by all four gospels. He was one of the Jewish leaders in 12:42 who believed in Jesus but didn't publicly confess this as they were afraid of being put out of the temple by the Pharisees. Matthew 27:57 tells us he was a rich man. Luke 23:50-51 tells us he was a member of the council and a good and righteous man who did not agree with the plan of the Jewish leaders for Jesus. And Mark 15:43 tells us he was a prominent member of the council who was being brave to ask Pilate for the body of Jesus. It is easy to criticize Joseph for not publicly acknowledging Jesus before this. It should be noted that he was being brave here while the inner circle of 12 and all the other disciples were hiding behind locked doors in fear of the Jewish leaders.
39 Nicodemus, who had first come to Him by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight. Nicodemus is the Pharisee from chapter 3 who came to Jesus at night and declared in private that Jesus' miracles were proof he was from God. Jesus then taught about being born again, His divinity, and His death for all. It seems that Nicodemus was another of the Jewish leaders who was secretly a disciple of Jesus.
The mixture of burial spices was probably purchased already mixed from a vendor, something only a very rich man could do. The use of spices was not required, but was to cover the smell of decay and to show respect towards the deceased. The weight was 100 litras, which was a Roman measurement of weight equal to about 12 ounces. Thus this was literally about 75 pounds and many times more than was normally used for burial. It seems that five litras was the normal amount if it was used at all. This was not embalming as Jewish tradition was to allow the body to decay so the bones could be placed in an ossuary a year later. The use of such an enormous quantity was to make the burial fit for a king.
Some critics who claim the gospels contradict each other cite the account in Luke regarding the women preparing spices for anointing Jesus on Sunday morning as a contradiction of this verse. Luke does not mention the use of spices by Joseph. Luke also didn't include the participation of Nicodemus. The absence of these details are not a contradiction but a difference in what details the different authors wished to emphasize. Two facts show these accounts are actually in harmony. It was was not required to use spices at all. And the large quantity used by Joseph and Nicodemus demonstrates their purpose, to give reverence to the King of kings. Thus that the body of Jesus was already buried with spices takes nothing away from the desire of the women in Luke to also treat Jesus with reverence by adding their own work. It is likely the preparation by the women was done after sundown on Saturday as there wouldn't have been time before the Sabbath on Friday, and sundown marked the end of the Sabbath and the beginning of Sunday.
40 So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen wrappings with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. Again, the burial customs didn't require the use of the spices, although the family usually would if they could afford it. But showing reverence to a king did require it.
41 Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. John details that the tomb was close to Golgotha, the site of Jesus' crucifixion. Matthew 27:60 details that this was Joseph's own tomb he had prepared for himself. It is likely that he was a self-made rich man who was going to have his family's ossuaries moved to this more prestigious burial site.
42 Therefore because of the Jewish day of preparation, since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there. There was not a lot of time remaining with sundown fast approaching. Sundown marked the beginning of the new day and the high Sabbath. Thus Joseph's new tomb was an ideal location to move Jesus' body to.

Scripture quotations taken from the NASB © The Lockman Foundation.

If you have a question, you can find the email address to write to on the FAQ Page under the Questions FAQ.

John 18   -   Gospel of John   -   John 20

Bible Study Page   -   Michael's Abbey