Sermon Tone Analysis

*CHAPTER 15*

‘CRUCIFIED, DEAD, AND BURIED.’

(St.

Matt.

27:31–43; St. Mark 15:20–32a; St. Luke 23:26–38; St. John 19:16–24; St. Matt.

28:44; St. Mark 15:32b; St. Luke 23:39–43; St. John 19:25–27; St. Matt.

27:45–56; St. Mark 15:33–41; St. Luke 23:44–49; St. John 19:28–30; St. John 19:31–37; St. Matt.

27:57–61; St. Mark 15:42–47; St. Luke 23:50–56; St. John 19:38–42; St. Matt.

27:62–66.)

It matters little as regards their guilt, whether, pressing the language of St. John,a we are to understand that Pilate delivered Jesus to the Jews to be crucified, or, as we rather infer, to his own soldiers.

This was the common practice, and it accords both with the Governor’s former taunt to the Jews,b and with the after-notice of the Synoptists.

They, to whom He was ‘delivered,’ ‘led Him away to be crucified;’ and they who so led Him forth ‘compelled’ the Cyrenian Simon to bear the Cross.

We can scarcely imagine, that the Jews, still less the Sanhedrists, would have done this.

But whether formally or not, the terrible crime of slaying, with wicked hands, their Messiah-King rests, alas, on Israel.

Once more was He unrobed and robed.

The purple robe was torn from His Wounded Body, the crown of thorns from His Bleeding Brow.

Arrayed again in His own, now blood-stained, garments, He was led forth to execution.

Only about two hours and a half had passedc since the time that He had first stood before Pilate (about half-past six),d when the melancholy procession reached Golgotha (at nine o’clock a.m.).

In Rome an interval, ordinarily of two days, intervened between a sentence and its execution; but the rule does not seem to have applied to the provinces,1 if, indeed, in this case the formal rules of Roman procedure were at all observed.

The terrible preparations were soon made: the hammer, the nails, the Cross, the very food for the soldiers who were to watch under each Cross.2

Four soldiers would be detailed for each Cross, the whole being under the command of a centurion.

As always, the Cross was borne to the execution by Him Who was to suffer on it—perhaps His Arms bound to it with cords.

But there is happily no evidence—rather, every indication to the contrary—that, according to ancient custom, the neck of the Sufferer was fastened within the /patibulum/, two horizontal pieces of wood, fastened at the end, to which the hands were bound.

Ordinarily, the procession was headed by the centurion,1 or rather, preceded by one who proclaimed the nature of the crime,2 and carried a white, wooden board, on which it was written.

Commonly, also, it took the longest road to the place of execution, and through the most crowded streets, so as to attract most public attention.

But we would suggest, that alike this long circuit and the proclamation of the herald were, in the present instance, dispensed with.

They are not hinted at in the text, and seem incongruous to the festive season, and the other circumstances of the history.

Discarding all later legendary embellishments,3 as only disturbing, we shall try to realise the scene as described in the Gospels.

Under the leadership of the centurion, whether or not attended by one who bore the board with the inscription, or only surrounded by the four soldiers, of whom one might carry this tablet, Jesus came forth bearing His Cross.

He was followed by two malefactors—‘robbers’—probably of the class then so numerous, that covered its crimes by pretensions of political motives.

These two, also, would bear each his cross, and probably be attended each by four soldiers.

Crucifixion was not a Jewish mode of punishment, although the Maccabee King Jannæus had so far forgotten the claims of both humanity and religion as on one occasion to crucify not less than 800 persons in Jerusalem itself.a

But even Herod, with all his cruelty, did not resort to this mode of execution.

Nor was it employed by the Romans till after the time of Cæsar, when, with the fast increasing cruelty of punishments, it became fearfully common in the provinces.

Especially does it seem to characterise the domination of Rome in Judæa under every Governor.

During the last siege of Jerusalem hundreds of crosses daily arose, till there seemed not sufficient room nor wood for them, and the soldiery diversified their horrible amusement by new modes of crucifixion.

So did the Jewish appeal to Rome for the Crucifixion of Israel’s King come back in hundredfold echoes.

But, better than such retribution, the Cross of the God-Man hath put an end to the punishment of the cross, and instead, made the Cross the symbol of humanity, civilisation, progress, peace, and love.

As mostly all abominations of the ancient world, whether in religion or life, crucifixion was of Phœnician origin, although Rome adopted, and improved on it.

The modes of execution among the Jews were: strangulation, beheading, burning, and stoning.

In all ordinary circumstances the Rabbis were most reluctant to pronounce sentence of death.

This appears even from the injunction that the Judges were to fast on the day of such a sentence.a

Indeed, two of the leading Rabbis record it, that no such sentence would ever have been pronounced in a Sanhedrin of which they had been members.

The indignity of hanging—and this only after the criminal had been otherwise executed—was reserved for the crimes of idolatry and blasphemy.b

The place where criminals were stoned (/Beth haSeqilah/) was on an elevation about eleven feet high, from whence the criminal was thrown down by the first witness.

If he had not died by the fall, the second witness would throw a large stone on his heart as he lay.

If not yet lifeless, the whole people would stone him.1

At a distance of six feet from the place of execution the criminal was undressed, only the covering absolutely necessary for decency being left.c2

In the case of Jesus we have reason to think that, while the mode of punishment to which He was subjected was un-Jewish, every concession would be made to Jewish custom, and hence we thankfully believe that on the Cross He was spared the indignity of exposure.

Such would have been truly un-Jewish.3

Three kinds of Cross were in use: the so-called St. Andrew’s Cross (×, the /Crux decussata/), the Cross in the form of a T (/Crux commissa/), and the ordinary Latin Cross (+, /Crux immissa/).

We believe that Jesus bore the last of these.

This would also most readily admit of affixing the board with the threefold inscription, which we know His Cross bore.

Besides, the universal testimony of those who lived nearest the time (/Justin Martyr, Irenœus/, and others), and who, alas! had only too much occasion to learn what crucifixion meant, is in favour of this view.

This Cross, as St. John expressly states, Jesus Himself bore at the outset.

And so the procession moved on towards Golgotha.

Not only the location, but even the name of that which appeals so strongly to every Christian heart, is matter of controversy.

The name cannot have been derived from the skulls which lay about, since such exposure would have been unlawful, and hence must have been due to the skull-like shape and appearance of the place.

Accordingly, the name is commonly explained as the Greek form of the Aramæan /Gulgalta/, or the Hebrew /Gulgoleth/, which means a skull.

Such a description would fully correspond, not only to the requirements of the narrative, but to the appearance of the place which, so far as we can judge, represents Golgotha.

We cannot here explain the various reasons for which the traditional site must be abandoned.

Certain it is, that Golgotha was ‘outside the gate,’a and ‘near the City.’b

In all likelihood it was the usual place of execution.

Lastly, we know that it was situated near gardens, where there were tombs, and close to the highway.

The three last conditions point to the north of Jerusalem.

It must be remembered that the third wall, which afterwards surrounded Jerusalem, was not built till several years after the Crucifixion.

The new suburb of Bezetha extended at that time outside the second wall.

Here the great highway passed northwards; close by, were villas and gardens; and here also rockhewn sepulchres have been discovered, which date from that period.

But this is not all.

The present Damascus Gate in the north of the city seems, in most ancient tradition, to have borne the name of St. Stephen’s Gate, because the Proto-Martyr was believed to have passed through it to his stoning.

Close by, then, must have been the place of execution.

And at least one Jewish tradition fixes upon this very spot, close by what is known as the Grotto of Jeremiah, as the ancient ‘place of stoning’ (/Beth haSeqilah/).

And the description of the locality answers all requirements.

It is a weird, dreary place, two or three minutes aside from the high road, with a high, rounded, skull-like rocky plateau, and a sudden depression or hollow beneath, as if the jaws of that skull had opened.

Whether or not the ‘tomb of the Herodian period in the rocky knoll to the west of Jeremiah’s Grotto’ was the most sacred spot upon earth—the ‘Sepulchre in the Garden,’ we dare not positively assert, though every probability attaches to it.1

Thither, then, did that melancholy procession wind, between eight and nine o’clock on that Friday in Passover week.

From the ancient Palace of Herod it descended, and probably passed through the gate in the first wall, and so into the busy quarter of Acrs.

As it proceeded, the numbers who followed from the Temple, from the dense business-quarter through which it moved, increased.

Shops, bazaars, and markets were, indeed, closed on the holy feast-day.

But quite a crowd of people would come out to line the streets and to follow; and, especially, women, leaving their festive preparations, raised loud laments, not in spiritual recognition of Christ’s claims, but in pity and sympathy.a

2 And who could have looked unmoved on such a spectacle, unless fanatical hatred had burnt out of his bosom all that was human?

Since the Paschal Supper Jesus had not tasted either food or drink.

After the deep emotion of that Feast, with all of holiest institution which it included; after the anticipated betrayal of Judas, and after the farewell to His disciples, He had passed into Gethsemane.

There for hours, alone—since His nearest disciples could not watch with Him even one hour—the deep waters had rolled up to His soul.

He had drunk of them, immersed, almost perished in them.

There had He agonised in mortal conflict, till the great drops of blood forced themselves on His Brow.

There had He been delivered up, while they all had fled.

To Annas, to Caiaphas, to Pilate, to Herod, and again to Pilate; from indignity to indignity, from torture to torture, had He been hurried all that livelong night, all that morning.

All throughout He had borne Himself with a Divine Majesty, which had awakened alike the deeper feelings of Pilate and the infuriated hatred of the Jews.

But if His Divinity gave its true meaning to His Humanity, that Humanity gave its true meaning to His voluntary Sacrifice.

So far, then, from seeking to hide its manifestations, the Evangelists, not indeed needlessly but unhesitatingly, put them forward.3

Unrefreshed by food or sleep, after the terrible events of that night and morning, while His pallid Face bore the blood-marks from the crown of thorns, His mangled Body was unable to bear the weight of the Cross.

No wonder the pity of the women of Jerusalem was stirred.

But ours is not pity, it is worship at the sight.

For, underlying His Human Weakness was the Divine Strength which led Him to this voluntary self-surrender and self-exinanition.

It was the Divine strength of His pity and love which issued in His Human weakness.

Up to that last Gate which led from the ‘Suburb’ towards the place of execution did Jesus bear His Cross.

Then, as we infer, His strength gave way under it.

A man was coming from the opposite direction, one from that large colony of Jews which, as we know, had settled in Cyrene.1

He would be specially noticed; for, few would at that hour, on the festive day, come ‘out of the country,’2 although such was not contrary to the Law.

So much has been made of this, that it ought to be distinctly known that travelling, which was forbidden on Sabbaths, was /not/ prohibited on feast-days.3