1-1-8-2 Mocking The Crucified Christ
20 " And it was the third hour and (not 'when') they crucified
Him" (Mk. 15:25) suggests they were waiting for the hour to come.
It was in their brief to do it at the third hour. It may be that they
got there a little early, and there was an agonizing wait for the third
hour. Mark 15 has so many usages of the word " and" ; circle
them in your Bible (especially AV). This is to emphasize the relentlessness
of it all, the repetition of everything, the way it droned remorselessly
on. This is a feature of the cross, which we must carry.
21 " Sitting down they watched him there"
. Mark particularly has an abnormal number of pronouns throughout the
record. The emphasis is on " he...him...his" ; also " they"
occurs more than average. The contrast is being established between the
crucified Christ and the world. If we are to identify with His cross,
it is axiomatic that there must be a thorough separation from this world
Note the comments concerning chronology. Matthew and Mark discuss the placing of the placard out of sequence, in order to emphasize how they did the Son of God to death, and then got on with splitting up His few clothes. The petty materialism of man was played out just a metre or two from the suffering Saviour, while He saw saying (repeatedly, the Greek could imply), " Father, forgive them" ; with all the pain of speech which the crucified position involved. There were four soldiers, and they each took a part of His clothing: His head covering, belt, inner coat, His sandals. Those Galilean sandals, that had walked so many miles. He went about doing good, and healing... They kneeled on His chest and nailed Him, slung the mallets back into their packs, and straight away got on with arguing about who was going to keep those worn out shoes. One wonders whether the soldier wore them or sold them. Or kept them. And we must look at our petty materialism in the light of the cross, reflecting on the power of mammon: to eclipse the vision of the cross, to silence men from speaking of the wonder of the resurrection (Mt. 28:14)- to entice a man to betray the Lord of all grace (Mt. 26:15 implies Judas' motivation was financial, first and foremost). Long hours, demanding hours, striving for well paid careers...all so we can have a nice car, a house, not a flat, in a nice area, so we can wear nice fitting clothes, so we can eat food which tickles the taste buds, rather than food which gives the basic proteins and vitamins etc. We do all this. Almost all of us. At the foot of the cross. Ignoring what it really means. And even worse: we excuse ourselves rather than admit our guilt.
The records of the writing of the inscriptions may also be out of place in order to create the picture of all the people sitting watching the Lord Jesus, with that title over Him. The other two were there, but the people all watched Jesus. He was lifted up, and He drew all men (all men's eyes, in the primary sense) unto Him (Jn. 12:32). And the cross has that same magnetism today.
26 " Those that passed by" were not only comprised
of casual passers-by who thought " Hey, there's a crucifixion, let's
go and have a look" . Golgotha was a little way out of the city.
The size of the crowd must have been considerable; " crowds came
to the spectacle" (Lk. 23:48 Gk.). It seems more reasonable that
the reference is to those who passed by, back and forth (the Greek could
imply), 'passing along' (Mk. 15:29) in front of the cross, taunting the
Lord, as if they were making a wave offering in front of the presence
of God in the crucified Christ. The connection between Ps. 22:7 and Mt.
27:39 would suggest that these 'passers-by' were there with the express
intent of taunting Him. Because His eyes were inevitably downward, it
would have been difficult for the Lord not to look at them. Their words
were exactly those of the Sanhedrin (Mt. 26:61), so presumably they came
from there- the work colleagues of Joseph and Nicodemus.
" Thou that destroyest the temple..." would have reminded Him that He was doing this to Himself, they weren't doing it to Him. He knew that the temple would be ripped apart stone by stone. And so He knew the temple of His body must be, for in that body He bore our sins on the tree. He had foretold that the tabernacle of His body would be 'taken down' as that in the wilderness was, taken apart piece by piece. In that lengthy procedure He had seen foretold the excruciating nature of His death, as every aspect of humanity was taken apart. " ...and buildest it in three days" would have taken His mind forward to that certain future. So their taunt would have aided His efforts to remain spiritual. Likewise their allusions to Ps. 22 (" He trusted in God..." ) served to steer the Lord's mind there, and to take comfort from the rest of the Psalm and the context of their mocking quotations.
Yet even in the mocking, the Lord’s Bible mind would have found some sort of encouragement. For the Lord was so clearly bearing the judgment of Israel’s sins: “All who pass along the way clap their hands at you: they hiss and wag their heads at the daughter of Jerusalem" (Lam. 2:15). And note too Jer. 48:27 (LXX 31:27): “Is Israel a laughing stock? Was she caught between thieves that you wag your head?". This is exactly the Lord’s position, between thieves, and mocked- but by Israel. These prophecies imply it was the Gentiles who would mock Israel; thus by treating the Lord as they did, they declared themselves to be no longer God’s people but Gentiles. The darkness that came down would have recalled Jer. 33:19-21- when day and night no longer follow their normal sequence, God is breaking His covenant. Israel’s condemnation would be that “even at midday you will grope like a blind man in the dark" (Dt. 28:29). And yet the Lord would have known that He was suffering for Israel, treated as an apostate Israel, and thus He was the more inspired to pray for their ultimate forgiveness and salvation, seeing He had borne their condemnation. The Lord suffered “for the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due" (Is. 53:8 RVmg.). There are therefore elements of the crucifixion sufferings of Jesus in every suffering of natural Israel.
27-29 This was a repeat of the second temptation: Come down
from the temple tower; throw yourself to death in Gehenna below, and perhaps
the Angels will even then save you. This had been a temptation to commit
suicide, to give up life without giving it for His friends, and hope that
somehow the Angels would save Him personally. Victory in one temptation
leads to victory again and again. All the wilderness temptations recurred
during the crucifixion. Notice how the three temptations of Jesus in the
desert are repeated in the three mockeries of Him on the cross recorded
in Matthew and Luke. The comment that the devil departed from Him “for
a season" may imply ‘he’ returned at the cross. And clearly enough, the
temptations at the end were internal, even if voiced by an external person.
30 " He saved others" would have been a reference
to Lazarus. His was a well known case among the Jews (was Lazarus there?
It would have been strange if He had not been). The Lord's mind would
have choked at the memory of dear Lazarus, Martha, Mary, the now shattered
family whom He had loved and still loved.
31 All the emphasis on save yourself was a temptation
for Him to forget us. He would have reflected that He was saving
Himself and us by staying where He was; coming down from the cross wouldn't
lead to salvation. What the flesh understands by salvation and what the
spirit understands by it are vastly different.
32 " If he desireth him" (RV). They were alluding
to the LXX of Ps. 18:19 and 91:11. God cannot be tempted, otherwise He
would have responded. 'If God likes Him', is what they were really
RV " He is the King of Israel..." - His claims to Kingship, and the claim of His placard, was a repeated jibe. It must have seemed so so incongruous that this wretchedly suffering man actually thought Himself to be a King.
" If...let him come down" may have been followed by a pause: is He going to do anything? In their hearts they must have known that He had had the ability to pull off this kind of thing. Those silent pauses must have been an agony for the Lord. There were probably many in that crowd half sympathetic to His wretched cause, who, on the surface, really might have believed if He had come down. But He had learned the lesson in the Galilee days, that impressive miracles didn't really instil faith (Pentecostals etc. still fail to realize this).
The mocking Jews fall strangely silent in the crucifixion accounts. The Lord had plainly foretold that when they had lifted up the Son of man, then they would know “that I am he", and would recognize His Divine Sonship (Jn. 8:27). There was something about the vision of Christ crucified which convicted them of their folly and of the Divinity of God’s Son. And that power burns on today.
36 The intellectuals in concentration camps were often mocked
and hated by the other inmates until they came down to their level. It
is, apparently, an almost natural reaction. It explains another concentration
camp phenomenon- that victims often cooperate with their persecutors in
crimes against other victims; the weak join with the strong to persecute
others who are weak. This, on a psychological level, helps to explain
why the later-repentant thief should speak like this. And yet the Lord
bore with him, and His patience led to the man’s conversion and salvation.
They were men at the very limit of human experience. The self respect
of Jesus would have been most unusual; the purpose of the crucifixion
process was to drive this out. He knew Who He was, and where He was going.
Josephus describes how those on trial with the threat of crucifixion hanging
over them did all that they could to appeal for mercy. The thieves probably
did this. This is why the Jews were so scandalized when the Lord refused
to answer for Himself, and then calmly stated that He was the Messiah
who would come to them in judgment at the last day (Mt. 26:64,65); He
was speaking the very blasphemy which they were trying so unsuccessfully
to convict Him of. We can be sure that they and the soldiers tried especially
hard to drive the self-respect from Him: which in His case would have
meant resigning His belief that He was the spotless Son of God.
This would explain why the soldiers mocked Him as they did, and why the onlooking Jews did so: unconsciously, they wanted to bring Him down to their level. The fact the Lord didn't descend to their level is yet another mark of the extent of His victory. It was the same temptation as 'Come down from the cross'; 'Come down to our level, the level of desperate men, just concentrating on hanging here and shifting the weight around between hands and feet, hands and feet, hands and feet...'. You know how it is when you are carrying a very heavy load. You just concentrate on carrying it. You pant and sweat and don't care if you bump into somebody or tread on a child's toy. Those men were on that level. The Lord was in the same physical situation, but somehow He rose above, He didn't descend to the animal, mindless level. Thank you, Lord, that for my sake You didn't.
Note: It has been suggested that Semitic languages employ a device called " plural of category" , whereby what one person does who belongs to a category is described using the plural. Thus " soldiers" may refer actually to only one soldier; and here " thieves" , it is suggested, is a plural of category and may only refer to one thief. I am unable to comment on the truth of this. I suspect it is a Catholic idea, used to justify their canonization of the 'repentant' thief.