John Chapter 19
2021 - I am just reading right on through this chapter, but for my own future reference, I note that John gives us a LOT of detail about what was actually said during the trials of Jesus on this day. He tells us a lot about the verbal strategies that went back and forth - on the part of the Jews it was aimed at manipulating Pilate to crucify an innocent man, and on the part of Pilate, to find a path for saving an innocent man that he was somewhat afraid of without inciting a city-wide riot while Herod was in town. So...that's another good question...why was Herod there at this time if he had no authority over Judea? There is a lot more to be understood about these events, it is just too much for one morning....so next time....
2022 - I note also that 19 is pretty much an historical narration of events. There are lessons here, perhaps, but not in the same vein as 14-18.
John says it was now, after the second questioning by Pilate, that they put the thorny crown on his head, flogged him, and mocked him. Even after this, Pilate tries repeatedly to release Jesus, to dissuade the crowd of their plans, to give Jesus back to them so they can crucify him themselves. He wants no part of it. Yet in the end, he agrees. Jesus had told him that those who delivered him to Pilate in the first place had the greater sin in his death. Perhaps this eased Pilate's conscience a bit. But he should have noted that a lesser sin is still very much a sin. A lesser part of murder is still murder.
2022 - This verse:
5 So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, "Behold the man!" [Jhn 19:5 ESV]
I do not note this verse as an apologetic for Pilate, but to understand the dynamics of this interaction between the religious and the civil governments. Pilate has Jesus brought out dressed up, beat up, and humiliated to show these people that he was no threat to anyone. Pilate is mocking the claims of the religious elite that Jesus was a threat to take over as King of Judea. Pilate wants to show them that Jesus is nothing at all. Especially not a good insurrectionist. That's what this was about. That, and John making it clear that it was not Rome that wanted Jesus dead, it was the Jews. Rome was in this case used as a tool to accomplish the will of the Jewish religious leaders.
2022 - Then this:
8 When Pilate heard this statement, he was even more afraid. [Jhn 19:8 ESV]. Isn't that something. Pilate was more open to the idea that Jesus really was the Son of God than were those Jesus came to save!
2022 - This one:
11 Jesus answered him, "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin." [Jhn 19:11 ESV]. I think Jesus is pointing at Judas here. Judas was worse than Pilate. And I think Jesus has Caiaphus, Annas, and their co-conspirators in view. They are all guilty. And I think Jesus has all Israel in view. He came unto his own...and they had him killed, as so many prophets before him were killed. Jesus is telling Pilate that these events are directed by God, part of his plan, and that God has empowered Pilate to do what must be done. Some might see this almost as an exoneration for what is about to happen. But Pilate is no more off the hook for his actions than was Judas. These events had to happen. Just the same, these people were the perpetrators of heinous acts. No matter the causes and motivations, no matter their actions were pre-determined. They did these things, as men, and they are guilty before God for all that they did. This is a principal and ought to still apply in our justice system today. I don't care about where you grew up, how your parents treated you, or what you had to do to survive. You did the crime, you alone bear the punishment for it.
2021 - This verse sort of sums it all up:
12 From then on Pilate sought to release him, but the Jews cried out, "If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar." [Jhn 19:12 ESV]. At the end of the day, civil government is controlled by politics. Those are the ultimate considerations. Perhaps only Caesar himself was free of this constraint. Both Pilate and Herod answered to higher authorities, and had to keep order to stay in power, had to comply at least somewhat with the demands of their subjects or be removed. No one wants to give up power and authority once they have it. No one wants to be humbled, disgraced, "removed", fired. And the higher up one is, the more repulsive the idea of falling, and the more one is willing to do despicable things to stay in power. It makes people compromise everything.
Possible FB post.
2022 - This verse, with many interesting terms:
13 So when Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Stone Pavement, and in Aramaic Gabbatha. [Jhn 19:13 ESV].
The word translated judgment seat is "bema". Below is a better explanation for the other two labels than I can give.
Gabbatha = "elevated or a platform"
a raised place, elevation
"This place, in the Greek tongue, was called 'Lithostrotos'; or 'the pavement of stones', as the Syriac version renders it: it is thought to be the room 'Gazith', in which the sanhedrin sat in the temple when they tried capital causes; and it was so called, because it was paved with smooth, square, hewn stones: it was in the north part; half of it was holy, and half of it common; and it had two doors, one for that part which was holy, and another for that which was common; and in that half which was common the sanhedrin sat." (John Gill—Comments on Jhn 19:13)
"The word for 'Pavement' is found nowhere else in the New Testament [outside of Jhn 19:13], but its Hebrew equivalent occurs just once in the Old Testament, and it is evident that the Holy Spirit would have us link the two passages together. In 2Ki 16:17 we read, 'King Ahaz cut off the borders of the bases, and removed the laver from off them; and took down the sea from off the brazen oxen that were under it, and put it upon a pavement of stones.' In Ahaz's case, his act was the conclusive token of his surrender to abject apostasy. So here of Pilate coming down to the level of the apostate Jews. In the former case it was a Jewish ruler dominated by a Gentile idolater; in the latter, a Gentile idolater dominated by Jews who had rejected their Messiah!" (Arthur W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John, p. 1038)
Here is an interesting thought though...most explanations of the bema seat judgment say that sin is not in view there, because the bema seat was where athletic events were judged, and things like 1st place, 2nd place and so on were awarded. No condemnation, just a place of ranking. But now, we have a bema in a place where no athletic events ever take place. Gill says that the sanhedrin pronounced death sentences from this seat. That goes far beyond the concept of ranking. So wouldn't it be true to say that simplifying "bema" to ranking, without a really good reason to do so, is oversimplification, and may exclude possibilities that ought to still be in there? There is, after all, no denying that Jesus was sentenced to the cross from a "bema seat".
2023 - Using this reference, Strong's G968 - bema - is used only 12 times in the NT. All can be accessed here. I want to do a full on review of each and every time it is used, and compare and contrast the kind of judgment that was rendered there - if such was the case - or what other circumstances prevailed. The longer I study the "bema seat judgment" the more convince I am that it is NOT separate from the Pre-Millennial and the GWT, but takes place instead at one of those. And the obvious choice is the GWT. I just do not see anything but "very stretchy" indications of a separate bema seat judgment.
John says four women were standing near the cross - not at a distance observing as the women in Luke were described. These four were Mary his mother, Mary's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
2022 - Actually, he does not say "four". Here is the verse:
25 but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. [Jhn 19:25 ESV]. It could be that Jesus' mother's sister was the wife of Clopas, in which case there were only three women. And John. He was standing there with them. No other disciple, so far as we know, was down there at the very foot of the cross.
2024 - If three, all three were named Mary, and Mary had a sister named Mary. This seems unlikely to me. I say four, and Mary's sister is unnamed.
2023 - Remember also that John is writing about a "moment". About a time when it was just himself and these women. That does not preclude that some of them left to talk to other women further away and perhaps some of these, and others, came down later to comfort Mary, but could not bear to stay very long. You have to "feel" the horror of the foot of that cross. There were three naked men nailed to crosses down there. Naked means naked. The thieves were cursing and shouting in their suffering, using language no one wants to hear. There were Roman guards there - common guards - who were likely used to dishing out cruel treatment for no reason at all. It would have been a hard, a brave thing to be down there at the foot of the cross...and if you got yourself down there in empathy for Mary and grief for Jesus, you might not stay long. Just like it is difficult to stay in the room with someone in the hospital, when you know that each breath may be their last. It's a hard thing.
2023 - Looking at the Greek, I think one would be hard pressed to be sure who was here. We can be sure there were at least three, and at most four women. I don't know Greek, but it looks to me like either of the other two Mary's, or the fourth woman, the only one NOT named Mary, might have been the wife of Clopas. The Greek word "kai" meaning "and" appears twice in this verse. So that might mean Mary Jesus' mother and her sister, Mary Clopas' wife and Mary Magdalene. To get it down to just three, Mary Jesus' mother has to have a sister also named Mary. I don't know enough about how they did things back then to assign a probability to this. It didn't happen with men that I can tell, but I am not sure it can even be evaluated accurately. I'm going with four women, remembering that not all had to be there at the same time, and all of them might have been there at different times, maybe just one at a time to comfort Mary. I would bet there are papers written advancing reasons to believe it is this way or that way, and still, we cannot know precisely how it went.
2024 - I wonder...Could it be that Clopas was in fact Mary's brother, and Clopas' wife, Mary's sister-in-law, was also named Mary? I don't know if they did such things in Greek...but that would make it three women, all named Mary, and no weirdness with two Mary's in the same family.
John says Jesus left bearing his own cross. Simon comes in later apparently. But John does not mention Simon at all.
Only John tells us what Jesus said to Mary and John from the cross, and only John tells us he said "I thirst", and that it fulfilled scripture. After all, John was standing right there at the foot of the cross. The other writers were far away at best.
John describes the breaking of the thieves' legs, but notes that Jesus was already dead. John also tells us about the spear. He would surely have heard this part from Mary, since he took her into his own house after Jesus died. John may have gotten a number of details from Mary over the years. And, even more obviously, John was standing right there with Mary, right at the foot of the cross, when all these things happened. Maybe he and Mary were allowed into Pilate's inner chambers also, as Jesus was questioned. This would make some sense.
John says that Joseph asked for the body, took it down, and wrapped it in linen. But he also adds that Nicodemus came and brought 75 pounds of mixed myrrh and aloes, and bound Jesus in the linen with the spices. None of the others imply that this happened. Mary and John, though, may have been right there and known first hand how the body was handled. As John's gospel is written much later, this may have been the first time these details were repeated.
2022 - This verse:
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. [Jhn 19:41 ESV]. Does this not imply that Golgotha was very near the tomb? Did a quick search on Google maps and then Duck Duck Go. Not much available on where Golgotha was. So hard to say it was near Gethsemane. We always picture Golgotha as a hill. Why? Do we know that? "A hill called Mt. Calvary"? Where did that come from?
In the Harmony, there is a footnote that says Golgotha means "skull" in Aramaic, and Calvary means "skull" in Latin. The Harmony footnote goes on to say that the "Church of the Holy Sepulchre" cannot have been Golgotha, because it is well within the city walls. It goes on to say that there is growing agreement that it was the north end of the Temple hill, whose rounded summit and southern face with holes in the rock, looks at a little distance much like a skull. "This place fulfills all the conditions". And I suppose it would, since Gethsemane is just right there. So that would mean that Jesus died very near the place where Abraham laid Isaac, where the death angel stopped in David's Day, and where Solomon built the Temple. That would be very...satisfying...if all those things happened at that same place.
But why do we think it had to be on a hill? I didn't find anything in any of the gospels that indicate it was on a hill. I would think it more likely to be near a road so passersby could see and respect the authority of Rome because it was in their power to crucify.
2023 -
I found this map, and many others, by Googling "Jerusalem in the Time of Christ", and choosing "maps". This one was at https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=Jerusalem+in+the+time+of+Christ&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conformingtojesus.com%2Fimages%2Fwebpages%2Fjerusalem_in_jesus_time_map_1.jpg
Note that two places are identified as possibly the site of the crucifixion. One on the west, the other on the north. No one put Calvary on the east side between the temple and Gethsemane. I don't know where the "Garden Tomb" they show tourists to Jerusalem is located. Jesus was the scapegoat. The sins of all mankind were laid on him, as on the scapegoat, and he was "run out of camp" to the wilderness. No scripture says Jesus was crucified on a hill. This seems to favor the west or north location, both of which are in sight of a nearby road. I would really like to go there, and decide for myself based on first hand information, which spot seems more likely to me, realizing that we really do not know.
Here is another thing. On the east side of Jerusalem is the Kidron Valley. That is where all the false gods, idols, Asherim and so forth were taken to be burned and discarded. I don't think that's where they'd have taken Jesus to be crucified. More as the scapegoat than as an idol.
2025 - Let's put a few items together...First, John tells us that this new tomb was "nearby". Since there was a tomb there - and it was meant for someone's burial - it would have been part of an existing cemetery. Was Gethsemane and the Mount of Olives already a cemetery at that time, or did that come later, after the NT was written? Here is another interesting verse: 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid. [Mar 15:47 ESV]. Why would Mark tell us this? Why was it important? Perhaps because Jesus was laid in a tomb of nearby convenience and not in a tomb in the "usual" cemetery. Because he wasn't put to rest in the cemetery where those of the 1st Quarter, or even the second, were buried, but in a place where the outliers of that city at that time were buried. A secondary cemetery, near the road where crucifixions took place. I don't think it tells us anywhere that the tomb belonged to either Joseph of Arimithea (why would he have had a tomb in Jerusalem anyway, he was from Arimathea?) or to Nicodemus, who was a rich man, part of the council, and who would have had a nice central spot in the main cemetery of Jerusalem. There is much to say that Jesus was never buried in the "garden tomb" that so many are shown these days. That is not where I would go and look.
2025 - Hmm...I pulled up Google Earth and looked at the locations of both the Garden Tomb, popular with tourists, and of the Church of the Sepulchre. Neither of these places is East of the Temple on the Mt. of Olives. So I had that completely and utterly wrong. No one apparently thinks the Tomb was over there. Comparing the map above with Google Earth, matching scales and then measuring from the current Temple Mount to the two sites show as possible locations of Jesus' tomb on the map above, I would say either could be correct. We might really know...which is amazing to me. We really might know where he was buried, and it really does fit with what we know today about the Temple Mount, the Mt. of Olives, and where crucifixion would likely have taken place.