can we tliink that God dotli write any in His book and blot it out again ? "
23. — [Then the soldiers, etc.] The soldiers having now finished their bloody work, having nailed our Lord to the cross, put the title over His head and reared the cross on end, proceeded to do what they probably always did, — to divide the clothes of the crucified criminal among themselves. In most countries the clothes of a person put to death by the law are the perqui- site of the executioner. So it was with our Lord's clothes. They had most likely first stripped our Lord naked, before nail- ing his hands and feet to the cross, and had laid his clothes on one side till they had finished their work. They now turned to the clothes, and, as they had done many a time on such oc- casions, proceeded to divide them. All four Evangelists partic- ularly mention this, and evidently call our special attention to it.
The division into four portions shows clearly that there were four soldiers employed, beside the centurion, in the work of crucifixion. Many commentators see in them emblems of the four quarters of the Gentile world. This, however, seems to me fanciful. A quaternion, a small party of four, was a com- mon division of soldiers in those days, just as " a file " of men is among ourselves. (See Acts xii. 4.)
What the four portions of garments were we are left to con- jecture. Hengstenberg thinks that they consisted of the cover- ing of the head, the girdle, the shoes, and the under garment fitting to the body. Matthew's report of the Sermon on the Mount contains a clear distinction between a coat and a cloak. (Matt. V. 40.) For these four portions the soldiers probably cast lots, in order that each one might have his part decided, and to prevent wrangling about the unequal value of the por- tions.
Others tliink that the language of St. John about the coat which was " not rent," is strong evidence that all the rest of our Lord's clothes were rent into four pieces, and that Hengs- tenberg's division of them v/ill not stand. It must be admitted that there is much probability in this. It seems very unlikely that so much should be said about this seamless garment being not rent, if the other garments had not been torn in dividing them.
Concerning the " coat " here mentioned, it is not easy to say positively what part of our Lord's dress it was.
(a) Most commentators say that it was the long inner tunic, girt about the wjiist, and reaching almost to the feet, which was the i)rincipal garment of an inhabitant of the East, — a kind of loose smock-frock with sleeves, such as any one may Bee a pattern of, in Leonardo da Vinci's famous picture of the Lord's Supper. The objection to this view, to my mind, is the grave difiiculty of explaining how such a garment could be