hands than their own. It must either be the four soldiers who were the executioners, or else it must be interpreted generally- after the manner of other places, for " He was crucified." Thus in John xvi. 2, "They shall put you out of the synagogues." In that sentence " they " cannot refer to any person in particu- lar. The simplest plan is to refer it generally to the whole party, — Jews and Gentiles together.
[And two others with Him, etc.] We know from the other Gospels that these other two were malefactors and thieves. The object of crucifying our Lord between them is plain. It was intended as a last indignity and injury. It was a public declaration that He was counted no better than the vilest crim inals.
Little as our Lord's enemies meant it, this very crucifixion between two thieves did two great things. One was, that it precisely fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy about Messiah : " He was numbered with the transgressors." (Isai liii. 12.) The other was, that it gave our Lord the opportunity of working one more mighty miracle, even in His last hours, — the miracle of con- verting the penitent thief, forgiving his sins, and opening to him paradise. If His enemies had been content to crucify Him alone, this last trophy could not have been won, and our Lord's power over sin and the devil would not have been exhibited. So easy is it for God to bring good out of evil, and to make the malice of His enemies work round to His praise.
Augustine remarks, that three very different persons hung together on the three crosses on Golgotha. One was the Saviour of sinners. One was a sinner about to be saved. One was a sinner about to be damned. (On Psa. xxxiv.)
Cyril sees in the two malefactors a type of the Jewish and Gentile Churches : the one rejected, impenitent, and lost; the other believing at the eleventh hour, and saved.
Many pious commentators remark, that even on the cross our Lord gave an emblem of His kingly power. On His right hand was a saved soul whom He admits into His kingdom ; on His left hand, a lost soul whom He leaves to reap the fruit of his own Avays. There was right and left on the cross, even as there will be right and left, saved and unsaved, when He sits on the judgment-seat, wearing the crown at the last day.
It only remains to add that the cruel punishment of cruci- fixion was formally abolished by the Emperor Constantino, to- v/ards the end of his reign. It is an awful historical fact that when Jerusalem was taken by Titus, he crucified so many Jews around the city, that Josephus says that space and room failed for crosses, and crosses could not be found in sufficient number for bodies ! Reland well remarks, " They who had nothing but ' crucify ' in their mouths, were therewith paid home in theil bodies."
3Q2 EXPOSITOKY THOUGHTb.
19. — [And Pilate wrote a title. ..cross.'] To fix a board witli an inscription over the head of the person cracified, appears to have been a well-known custom, and is mentioned as such by classical writers. Some vsay it was a board covered with white gypsum, with letters of black, and others say that the letters were red. Pilate therefore did nothing unusual. In our Lord's case it served two ends, whether Pilate meant them or not. For one thing, it proclaimed to all passers-by, all who saw the cru- cifixion, that Jesus did really suffer, that He was not at the last moment released, and another punished in His stead, and that He was not taken away by miraculous interference from His enemies' hands. For another thing, it drew the attention of all witnesses and passers-by to our Lord, and made it quite certain on which of the three crosses He huug. Without this, a person looking at three naked figures hanging on their crosses, from a little distance off, might well have doubted which of the three was Jesus. The title made it plain. That our Lord was re- garded as no common e very-day criminal, and that it was thought right to call special attention to Him, is evident from this title being put on His cross.
[Jesus. ..N'azaretli... King. ..Jews.] Pilate's reasons for choosing to place this description of our Lord over His cross, we are left to conjecture. My own decided opinion is that he worded the title as he did, in anger and vexation, and with an intention to annoy and insult the Jews. He publicly held up to scorn their King, as a poor criminal from a mean village in Galilee, a fitting king for such a people ! — Whatever his motive may have been, it was curiously overruled by God that even on the cross our Lord should be styled a " King." He came to be a King, and as a King He lived and suffered and died, though not acknowl- edged and honored by His subjects. " Nazarene " identified our Lord as the well-known Teacher from Galilee, who for three years had stirred the Jewish mind, " King " identified Him as the Person accused by the chief priests for claiming a kingdom, and formally rejected by them, on the plea that they had no king but Caosar. It was a very full and significant title.
A careful reader of the Gospels will not fail to observe, that each Gospel writer gives this title in a slightly different form, and that there are in fact four versions of it. The question naturally arises. Which is correct ? The versions do not at all contradict one another ; but that of Mark, " the King of the Jews," is much shorter than that of John. No two, in a word, are exactly alike. — In reply, it is fair to remind the reader, that the inscription was written in three languages ; and that it is far from unlikely that it was in one form in one language, and in another form in another. The one common point in all the four versions is, " the King of the Jews," and this was probably the only point that Mark, in his brief and condensed history, was taught to record. John gives the whole inscription, be- cause he alone narrates the dispute between the priests and