CRITICAL NOTES
Matthew 27:27. The common hall.—Literally, the Prætorium, a word which, applied originally to the tent of the prætor, or general, and so to the headquarters of the camp, had come to be used with a somewhat wide range of meaning,
(1) for the residence of a prince or governor; or
(2) for the barracks attached to such a residence (as in Philippians 1:13); or
(3) for any house as stately. Hero (as in Acts 23:35) it appears to be used in the first sense. Pilate’s dialogue with the priests and people had probably been held from the portico of the Tower of Antony, which rose opposite the temple court, and served partly as a fortress, partly as an official residence. The soldiers now took the prisoner into their barrack-room within (Plumptre). The whole band.—The word used is the technical word for the cohort, or subdivision of a legion (ibid.).
Matthew 27:28. A scarlet robe.—A soldier’s scarf; Lat. chlamys. It was generally worn by superior officers, but its use was not confined to them. This may have been a worn-out scarf belonging to Pilate; it is different from “the gorgeous robe” (Luke 23:11), which Herod’s soldiers put on Jesus. Scarlet was the proper colour for the military chlamys. St. Mark has the less definite “purple,” St. John, “a purple robe.” Purple, however, is used by Latin writers to denote any bright colour (Carr).
Matthew 27:29. A crown of thorns.—It cannot be known of what plant this acanthine crown was formed. The nubk (zizyphus lotus) struck me, as it has struck all travellers in Palestine, as being most suitable both for mockery and pain, since its leaves are bright, and its thorns singularly strong; but though the nubk is very common on the shores of Galilee, I saw none of it near Jerusalem. There may, however, have been some of it in the garden of Herod’s palace, and the soldiers would give themselves no sort of trouble, but merely take the first plant that came to hand (Farrar).
Matthew 27:32. Cyrene.—A city in north-eastern Africa. A large colony of Jews had settled there, as in other African and Egyptian cities, to avoid the oppression of the Syrian kings (Carr). Simon.—Why, we ask, out of the whole crowd that was streaming to and fro, on the way to the place of execution, did the multitude seize on him? St. Mark’s mention of him as the father of Alexander and Rufus (see Mark 15:21), suggests the thought that his sons were afterwards prominent as members of the Christian community. May we not infer that he was suspected even then of being a secret disciple, and that this led the people to seize on him, and make him a sharer in the humiliation of his Master? (Plumptre).
Matthew 27:33. Golgotha.—The site is not certainly known, though Major Conder, R. E., who commanded the survey parties of the Palestine Exploration Fund, between 1872 and 1882, says: “It may be said to be generally agreed that the tradition preserved by the Jerusalem Jews is worthy of belief. This tradition, discovered by Dr. T. Chaplin, places the old “House of Stoning,” or place of public execution according to the law of Moses, on the top of the remarkable knoll outside the Damascus Gate, on the north side of Jerusalem. It was from this cliff that the criminal used to be flung before being stoned (according to the Talmud), and on it his body was afterwards crucified; for the spot commands a view all over the city, and from the slopes all round it the whole population of the town might easily witness the execution. Here, then, was the Hebrew place of crucifixion, and here, in all human probability, once stood the three crosses bearing the Saviour of men between the two thieves” (Primer of Bible Geography).
Matthew 27:34. Vinegar.—Wine (R.V.).—The ordinary military wine, posca. Gall.—Some bitter ingredient fitted to stupefy.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Matthew 27:27-34
Via crucis.—In Matthew 27:26 of this chapter we are told of our Saviour’s being handed over to the Roman soldiery, for the purpose of crucifixion. In Matthew 27:35, and what immediately follows, we have the crucifixion itself. In these intervening verses we are, therefore, shown Jesus on His way to the cross, and, in that connection, are asked to observe, on the one hand, how much He had to endure just previously to His death; and, on the other hand, how far He was affected thereby.
I. How much He had to endure.—Much, obviously, in the first place, in the way of acute bodily pain. If the “scourging” then inflicted (Matthew 27:26) by order of Pilate, was at all like what was usual in such cases—it must have been a most terrible thing. Terrible, because of the instrument used—a thing of leather thongs, armed with many points of cruel metal or bone. Terrible, because of the manner of infliction, viz., straight down on the unprotected frame of the victim, as he stood quivering and naked-shouldered, with his hands fastened to a pillar in front. Terrible, because there was no merciful limit, as in the law of Moses, to the number of strokes. If one could describe, therefore, one would not like to describe, the amount and depth of laceration produced, and the consequently increasing agony caused by each successive descent of those thongs. We must simply remember, on this point, that what we can thus hardly bear to think of, the Master had to endure, and that the living body of the man, Jesus of Nazareth, was actually put to the torture described. Secondly, there must have been, at least, as much suffering of a mental description. These brutal legionaries evidently took no little delight in their task. To them it was a kind of sport, in which the whole cohort must join (Matthew 27:27). First, therefore, they deprive their unresisting Prisoner of His usual outermost garment, and then invest Him, in bitter mockery, with a scarlet one in its stead (Matthew 27:28). In the same spirit, they either weave together a crown of thorns (Matthew 27:29), or take one already woven (John 19:5), and thrust it on to His head. After this, they place in His hand a feeble sceptre of “reed” (Matthew 27:29), and offer Him, in contempt, the outward homage of body and lip—“bowing the knee and saying to Him, Hail, King of the Jews!” What a pleasure it is—what a safe pleasure—to mock that silent Man thus! Who ever saw such a King—such a sceptre—before? Soon, however, even these gross insults begin to weary upon them; probably because, in this instance, they are found to fail of their mark. Other, therefore, and even grosser outrages are resorted to next. Some present even go so far as to “spit” on that Holy One’s face. Others, again, with like wantonness of insult, “smite Him on the head” with the “reed” (Matthew 27:30). In every way He is despised and rejected by these hangman-like souls. Nothing do they shrink from which seems to them fitted to heap indignity on His head.
II. How far the Saviour was affected thereby.—In one way, He was so overwhelmingly, viz., as to His bodily strength. Very affecting is the evidence which is supplied us of this. It is said to have been the ordinary rule, in cases of crucifixion, that the instrument of crucifixion should be carried by the victim who was about to suffer thereon. It was part of such a man’s punishment in this way to carry his punishment with him. We find, accordingly, in one account (John 19:17) that this method of procedure was attempted at first with our Lord. But we also find, from other accounts (Matthew 27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26), that it was found impossible to go on with it. Another man’s strength, therefore, had to be “impressed” to carry the cross of the Saviour. Evidently this was because His own strength was found unequal now to the task. We say this, on the one hand, because of the well-known utter impossibility of resisting the strength of utter bodily weakness. The most iron will, the hardest heart, has to submit to its strength. And we say it, on the other hand, because we believe that the men concerned in this instance would have given way to nothing less than such irresistible strength. Evidently they see that Jesus cannot carry His cross. Evidently we see, therefore, how His previous sufferings have told on His frame. Though He has never complained of them, never resented them, never deprecated them for a moment, they have succeeded in penetrating to the very spring of His bodily life. So far as that is concerned, in fact, we may almost say of Him that He is already half dead. On the other hand, those sufferings, so far as His will is concerned, have not told on Him at all. Very significant and marked, in this connection, is the contrast we find here. Roman custom appears to have allowed one mitigation only in regard to the torture of crucifixion. The man about to die by it was allowed to partake of a mixture which was believed to have the power of making its torture more easy to bear. When those who brought Jesus to the place of crucifixion found themselves there, some among them offered Him a “cup” of this kind (Matthew 27:33-34). But such an offer is not one which He will allow Himself to accept. While He, therefore, so far respects it as to “taste” the mixture in question—and so, perhaps, make sure of its nature—He will not avail Himself of its help. The distinction seems plain. In that other matter, where He was called upon to make use of His strength, having no strength to make use of, He submitted to be helped. In this case, where He only has to endure, He refuses help, because He is able to do what is asked. The meaning, also, seems plain. Nothing shall be done by Him to diminish the bitterness of what He has to go through. On this point His will is as strong as though He had not suffered at all!
How admirable, therefore, and how affecting, also, is the picture before us! So much so in both ways, that one can hardly determine in which way the most! Perhaps, however, the story is most affecting when we look back at it from this point. For then we see, as we have said, how much the Saviour’s previous sufferings must have told on His strength, and what a long and wearying fever of torture He must have already gone through. On the other hand, there is, perhaps, most to admire here when we look forward from this point. Much of His previous suffering, if we may not say most, was in the way of anticipation. The worst of all, however, in that way remains still to be faced; and faced, moreover, in that extreme bodily weakness which has Him now in its grasp. Yet He neither shrinks from it now, nor allows it to be mitigated in any degree. The less He is physically able, the more He is morally determined, to encounter it all. Never, it is said, was there any sorrow like that coming then upon Him! Never any human being at once less fit, and more ready, to face it! Is there anything in the way of fortitude to go beyond this?
HOMILIES ON THE VERSES
Matthew 27:29. The crown of thorns.—Reflect on:—
I. The fact.—
1. He was and is a King.
2. His Kingship was attained through sorrow.
3. His reign was begun in sorrow.
II. The explanation.—This may be reached in some degree by observing three things:—
1. The nature of Christ’s sorrow.—
(1) In His Divine nature He was holy, and He came into a world of sin.
(2) In His human nature He was one with His fellow-men without sharing their love of sin and bluntness of conscience. He bore the world’s sin, and it broke His heart.
2. The spirit in which Christ bore sorrow.—His suffering was a supreme act of sacrifice. In it He offered Himself to God (Hebrews 9:14).
3. The purpose of Christ’s sorrow.—He suffered from sin that He might destroy sin.
Practical lessons.—
1. Repentance.
2. Grateful reverence.
3. Submission.—W. F. Adeney, M.A.
The mockery of Christ.—The Jews mocked Christ’s offices.
I. His prophetical office.—“Prophesy who smote Thee.”
II. His priestly office.—“He saved others,” etc.
III. His kingly office.—“Hail, King of the Jews.”—Richard Ward.
Matthew 27:32. The cross enforced or chosen.—Here we have Simon and Christ: one compelled to bear the cross, the other choosing to bear it. And I want you to notice that whilst it is probable there is some cross or other which every one of us is compelled to carry, there is a cross which we may choose to carry; and there are a few simple lessons which may be learnt from the contrast.
I. There is always something accidental about the cross which one is compelled to carry.—We name one or two of these crosses, and we find they bring to view the mere accidents of life.
1. Sickness.
2. Absence of success in the work of life, or in some special work which has been undertaken.
3. The powers of their life are felt by some to be so limited, that it is the very smallness of faculty which seems to be a cross, and a great cross.
4. How many men are not content with the position they occupy!
II. When we have now to speak of the cross which may be chosen, we are coming to the life indeed, getting below the mere surface of things. We may see three principles, learning from the life of our Saviour, in such a cross.
1. It is one chosen from love to some others than ourselves.
2. It is borne in quiet submission to the will of the Father.
3. It springs from hatred of sin and sorrow for sin.
Lessons.—
1. Sometimes the cross which is not compelled to be borne may be put down. There is no merit in bearing a cross, so far as the mere bearing is concerned.
2. The cross which we are really compelled to carry we may choose to carry.
3. The cross goes with the bearing of it. We choose it, would rather not have it away, and it gradually ceases to be a cross. The cross of Christ becomes His throne.—T. Gasquoine, B.A.