Audio restored with Diffio. Diffio processed the original archive recording to reduce noise and produce a cleaner listening version; the original stays available.
Speech quality score (model-estimated, SCOREQ): before 3.83 → restored 4.31
Use the player's Original switch to compare.How Diffio restores old speech recordings
When we were bro- when we broke off, we were talking about the trial of our Lord before Pilate. And I talked about the first interview where Pilate took our Lord, uh, aside, eh, into his apartments and, uh, questioned him. That was about whether our Lord was claiming to be a king or not. And our Lord explained to him, yes, he was a king, but the king that was born into this world and came into this world for the purpose of, uh, witnessing to the truth.
Uh, the second interview, which occurs in chapter nineteen, uh, was, uh, provoked by the statement of the Jews, verse 7 of chapter nineteen, we have a law, and by that law he ought to die because he made himself the Son of God. You see, the first charge that they brought against Christ was that he was a political figure, aiming at becoming king of the Jews in a political sense, and therefore raising an army to attack the Romans and to drive the Romans out.
And Pilate, uh, having examined him, saw that the charge was quite empty, and three times over made the point, I find no the charge not proven. I find no crime in him means he found the charge not proven. He wasn't guilty, therefore, of leading a political movement to attack the Romans. And therefore, Pilate, uh, said to them, you take him and crucify him yourself. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to use my Roman authority, uh, to execute a man on a charge that is false.
You take him and crucify him if you want. Pilate was an unprincipled creature, you know, uh, to say a very weak-willed man on most things, and he was giving the Jews permission now to go and uh, uh, crucify, uh, kill him if they wanted to, and and he wouldn't uh, make trouble for them because they were not supposed to execute anybody. They had to get permission, though they didn't always seek permission. When Stephen was executed, for instance, they just hustled him out of court and and and stoned him to death. They didn't ask permission. Uh, do you see? But they should have done. They had not, they didn't have the right of capital punishment under the Romans.
But Pilate is here, uh, telling them that, uh, you go ahead and, and crucify him if you want to, or execute him. Uh, I shall not do it. But the Jews answered, verse seven. they changed the charge, if you notice. Now they brought another completely different charge. We have a law, and by that law he ought to die because he made himself the Son of God. When Pilate heard this saying, he was the more afraid. Now, that might strike us moderns as being very odd that Pilate should be afraid of that, but Pilate was an old pagan, not a very knowledgeable one either, perhaps.
And the pagans did believe that sometimes there appeared on earth a, so to speak, a, a superhuman human. They called such people a theosaner, a godlike human. And you had to be very careful how you treated people like that, because they could, uh, uh, bring you unpleasant consequences, do you see? You will remember his superstition comes out in Matthew's gospel. His wife sent him a note as he sat on the judgment seat. Uh, be careful what you do with this righteous man.
I've suffered many things this night because of him in a dream. And Pilate and then determined to release him, but was overwhelmed by the priests and the crowd. So here, Pilate, uh, was the more afraid. Is this after all, a Theosener, as he would have, uh, as the Greeks would have called him? So therefore, you notice that when he took Christ aside, uh, into the palace again, uh, do you see, verse nine, he didn't ask him, are you a king? This time, his question was, where are you from?
Whence art thou? Are, in other words, are you simply an ordinary human being, or, or are you a special human being, or where are you from? Is now his concern. And Jesus gave him no answer. How could he have got it across to Pilate, I wonder? Pilate therefore said unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? Knowest thou not that I have power to release thee and have power to crucify thee? In other words, Pilate was beginning to lose his temper.
Y- you better start speaking, young man. Don't you realize I have power to crucify you and power to release you? You better start speaking. I'm asking you where you're from. And our Lord replied, Thou wouldest have no power against me except it were given thee from above. Therefore, he that delivered thee unto me hath a great, uh, me unto thee hath a greater sin. What did he mean? What did our Lord mean? He meant, of course, that this very occasion was God's arrangement.
God had given Pilate the authority to take this decision. It was given him from above. We know it from what the gospel has said, that Jesus Christ was God incarnate. What is the truth about Calvary? I came to bear witness to the truth, says Christ. What is truth, says Pilate?
Well, what is truth then? Well, truth ultimately is a person. I am the truth, says Christ. The truth of this situation, as Jesus stood before Pilate, is that God had given Pilate the authority, and the one he that stood in front of him was God incarnate. Do you believe it? Can it be true that the God of the universe, God incarnate, would come and stand before a human being and let a human being decide what to do with him.
To crucify him or release him. Gentlemen, you believe some extraordinary things, you know, if I may point it out. It's no good saying Christ prove it. Show Pilate that you are God incarnate. Well, our Lord could have done it, but the very sight of it would have shriveled Pilate to a cinder. It is a fact, gentlemen, that as you preach, as you witness, this is God incarnate putting himself before men and letting them decide what they will do with Jesus that is called the Christ.
That's the truth about God, you know. It's the kind of God God is. I said this morning that the devil will never do it for you. That is the amazing truth. So there were two issues at stake. You see, was Jesus claiming to be king? Yes, he was, but in what sense king? He ought to die because he said he was the Son of God.
So now, in what sense was he Son of God? And what was he doing if he was Son of God, standing before Pilate? And making a claim that this was the authority given him by God to decide in this case. Of course, Pilate will be held responsible for the decision he took... with that God-given authority. And our Lord, when it comes to assessing the gravity of sin, since our Lord is to be the final judge, what he says on the topic is, of course, highly relevant.
He said on one occasion it will be more s- tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the judgment than for, than for you in Capernaum. How did he know? What would be more tolerable? Because he's going to be the judge. Yeah. So here he says, therefore he that delivered me to you, that is the high priest, has the greatest sin. Will surely be a sin in Pilate that in spite of all the evidence, he went against the evidence that he himself confessed Jesus was innocent and then had him crucified.
But the worst criminal in it was, of course, the high priest, who was in a position to know better than a pagan Pilate. This is the greatest sin. Yeah? Now that being so, now I go back a bit and, uh, uh, look with you at the, uh, trial of Christ. It begins in chapter eighteen and verse twelve.
So the band and the chief captain and the officers of the Jews seized Jesus and bound him, and led him to Annas first, for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, which was high priest that year. Thus begins the trial in John, and it's somewhat different, uh, from the account of the trial as given in the other three. First of all, the remark in verse fourteen: Now Caiaphas was he which gave counsel to the Jews that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. The account of that has already been given you in, uh, uh, the, uh, earlier chapter.
Uh, when he said the end of eleven, uh, that it was expedient that one man die for the people and the whole people perish not. In other words, this court was to reach its decision on the basis not of truth, gentlemen, but of expediency. There are some things that governments get up to. You know, as you know, that bribery in Britain is illegal. And if a Saudi prince should demand a bribe of a few millions in order to buy British-made airplanes, that too is illegal.
Except that the, the prosecution were told not to go further and investigate because it would be against the national interest. Expediency. This was a court based on expediency. Of course, when Pilate, uh, when Caiaphas said that, he didn't realize that his words had a deeper meaning, that one man should die for the people and the whole people perish not. John has already pointed that out, do you see, uh, when he, uh, he, he, he recorded the fact that Pilate said this, uh, and he pointed out that Pilate didn't say this of himself, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but that he might also gather together into one the children of God that are scattered abroad.
Do you see? Nowhere more, perhaps, than in the arrest crucifi- uh, trial and crucifixion of Christ, will you see the coming together of man's evil intentions and plans and motivations, and the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. God didn't make Caiaphas say it, but when he said it, it, uh, it had a double meaning, yes. From his point of view, it was expedient. And yet it was the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God that Christ should die not for that nation only, but for all the potential people of God scattered abroad upon the face of the earth.
So here, likewise. From talking about, uh, Caiaphas, therefore, the principles upon which the court was, uh, uh, uh, uh, founded. Chapter eighteen verse fifteen: Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Now that disciple was known unto the high priest and entered in with Jesus into the court of the high priest. But Peter was standing at the door outside. So the other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, went out and spoke unto her that kept the door and brought in Peter. The maid, therefore, that kept the door says to Peter.
Well, of course she said it. You're one of them too, are you? Well, why shouldn't she say it? I mean to say she knew the chap that was speaking to him. Please let in this man. He's a friend of mine, you know, he's one of us. Uh, let him in. So she let him in because she knew this chappy. And when he brought in Peter, she, of course, she said, you're one of them too, are you? And now you're going to get, uh, uh, some stories. They may look rather, uh, weak, uh, superficially, but they raise the question of evidence. Here was Peter, and this bit of evidence that moved the girl on the door to say, you're asp- you're one of his too, aren't you?
And Peter says, no. He says, I am not. Now the servants and the officers were standing there, having made a fire of coals, for it was cold, and they were warming themselves, and Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself. The high priest therefore asked Jesus of his disciples and of his teaching. You will notice that our Lord didn't reply to the first. He said nothing about his disciples. How merciful he was, that could have embarrassed Peter full sore, couldn't it?
If Christ had said, well, there's one of them, there's two of them down there, look. No. No, he didn't reply about the disciples. But he asked him about his disciples and his teaching, to which our Lord replied, I have spoken openly to the world. I ever taught in the synagogues and in the temple where all the Jews come together, and in secret I spoke nothing. Why askest thou me? Ask them that heard me what I spoke to them. But behold, these know the things that I said, which was fair enough. He's not denying that in the upper room he said a lot of things to the disciples, but he said nothing that was, uh, subversive, that was secret in the sense that he didn't mind anybody hearing it.
So he's making an, uh, uh, a plain statement. I was, I, I was with you in the temple, for instance, these last six days, and subject to your questioning, and in the, in front of the people. That's what I stand for. Ask them. Don't ask me, ask them. They'll give you a report of what I said. Fair enough? Let the people s- uh, say. And when he heard this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered, If I've spoken evil, bear witness of the evil, but if well, why smitest thou me?
The offer of Christ to let the people speak and say what Christ had said in his preaching to them, in the discourses in the temple, and where the priests, of course, were themselves present, for which is slapped across the mouth by an officer as that being an unsuitable thing to say in the court. I see. Um, verse twenty five. Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said therefore to him, art thou also one of his disciples?
He denied, said, I am not. And one of the servants of the high priest, being a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, says, didn't I see you in the garden? Oh, Peter denied it. And they said, you liar, Peter, and rounded on him.
No, he didn't. Gentlemen, it doesn't matter if you deny Christ. The world won't mind it. Peter denying it in the face of the plain, straightforward evidence that he himself had given them. Yeah. Peter therefore denied him again, and straightway the cock true, croo. The question of evidence.
So they led Jesus therefore from Caiaphas to the palace, to Pilate, and it was early, and they themselves entered not into the palace that they might not be defiled. What holiness they had. Uh, do you see? Pilate therefore went out unto them and says, What accusation bring you against this man? They answered and said unto him, but it was a very weak answer, wasn't it? If this man were not an evildoer, we should not have delivered him up to thee. Oh, dear, dear, dear, dear, dear. They couldn't speak, they couldn't tolerate evildoers. It looks as if Pilate had taken them off, uh, uh, on the wrong foot. They probably had made a, an earlier agreement with Pilate as to what, uh, uh, uh, was all about, and that he would have the prisoner before him, uh, very early in the morning.
But anyway, as we saw earlier today, they just couldn't stick evildoers. They wouldn't have brought him unless he was an evildoer. But at the end of the chapter, when Pilate offered them the choice, this man or Barabbas, they chose Barabbas, you see. They couldn't stick evildoers. So they chose Barabbas. Now, Barabbas was a brigand, a political activist. He'd been convicted of murder, the other gospels tell us, and was in prison. They couldn't stick evildoers.
Well, Pilate saw through them, of course. The question, therefore, of evidence. Now let's complete the story of the crucifixion. When Pilate said to them, shall I crucify your king? They replied, we have no king but Caesar. Then therefore he delivered him, him unto them to be crucified. They took Jesus therefore, and he went out bearing the cross for himself to the place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha, where they crucified him, and with him two officers on either side, one and Jesus in the midst.
And Jesus wrote a title also and put it on the cross. And there was written Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews. This title therefore read many of the Jews, for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city, and it was written in Hebrew and in Latin and in Greek. Gentlemen, that shows you that Christ was not crucified on top of a hill. You'll see. Some people have imagined that that big hill outside the Arab bus station in Jerusalem, the the cross was on top of the hill.
It wasn't, of course. Many of those that were coming by read the title, the J- the Romans, when they crucified somebody, didn't crucify them on top of a hill, they put- crucified them by the roadside, so that the people coming back from the falls could get the warning, don't behave like this or this will happen to you. And he wrote the title, and this title read many of the Jews as they came by the road, of course. He was crucified by a roadside. And the title was written in the three languages. The Hebrew might here represent Aramaic, but uh uh Latin and Greek.
People had to know Latin if they dealt with the Romans, because the Latins, uh, the Romans spoke Latin and refused to speak anything else anyway. So people had to know some Latin. And then, uh, is- uh, Palestine had been Hellenized for some centuries before Christ was born, ever since the time of Alexander the Great, who had conquered the place and set up sundry Greek cities in Palestine. The Decapolis were Greek cities. So a lot of people knew Greek. Indeed, the Jewish priests, uh, or rabbis, I ought to say, had been working on the Greek translation of the Old Testament in Palestine, fifty years before Christ, and afterwards they did, to make the Greek resemble the Hebrew a bit more.
Do you see? We know of various revisions that were done by Palestinian rabbis, getting the Greek translation nearer to the Hebrew. Lots of people knew Greek in Palestine. Our Lord himself may have occasionally preached in Greek. So it was written in Greek and Latin and Hebrew, or else Aramaic, you see, so that everybody could read it. You see, this title then read many of the Jews, and Pilate had put this Je- Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews. The chief priest of the Jews therefore said to Pilate, write not the king of the Jews, but that he said, I am the king of the Jews.
And Pilate, who was pretty fed up with the Jews by this time and wanting to get his own back on them, answered, what I have written, I have written, gentlemen. In other words, and I'm not going to change it for you or anybody else. Marvelous use of the Greek perfect, that is. What I have written, I have written, and that's that. Now, only John tells us, uh, uh, this particular episode that the Jews tried to get him to change it, and uh, he wouldn't change his writing. This is Jesus, the king of the Jews.
So here come the Jews and they try to get Pilate to change his mind and write something differently, so he wouldn't change the writing. What I have written, I have written. You should now notice that in John, the story of the crucifixion turns upon four writings. Nicely hidden from you because, uh, the translators in their reverence translate these four writings as the four scriptures. But of course, you know, of course, without my telling you, that scripture means writing. It refers to the Holy Scriptures here, of course, but they are re- writing.
Scriptura means, in Latin, writing. So there are four writings. And in John's record of the crucifixion, the crucifixion turns on the four writings. So let's read it, Twenty three. The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Jesus, took the garments and made four parts to every soldier a part. That they were entitled to do. It was part of the perks of the job. When they crucified somebody, they could share out his clothes. So they made four parts, uh, to every soldier a part.
Now notice the drama of the thing, how dramatic John's writing is. And the coat also. Poof. You see one of them, he's got the coat, and he's about to, uh, tear it in four bits. And then he changed his mind. Well, these are Roman soldiers, you know. Now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. Call your attention to that, gentlemen. It was a bit of a coat. It was woven from the top throughout.
It was the kithon. It was the main coat that a, a, a man would wear, and then it had other things around it, but the main thing was a long shirt-like affair, and it had a hole for the head to come through, you see, you put it over the head back, and it had a back and front and sides, uh, do you see? And it wasn't two bits sewed together. It was woven from the top throughout. That was a high quality coat, that was, by those standards. The idea that Jesus Christ walked around scruffy is not true. If you want to know his, his taste in clothes, listen to him in the Sermon on the Mount.
The flowers of the fields, they see. They, they, uh, don't spin, you know? But Solomon, in all his glory, wasn't dressed as good as these. The beautiful anemones and the wild flowers in Palestine. That's my father's concept of dress, as he dresses the flowers, you know. Christ wore an expensive cloak. I fancy some of the women had made it for him. And you wouldn't make anything scruffy for Christ, would you? The soldiers took it and were about to tear it in pieces when they said, you see, uh, they said therefore one to another, let us not rent it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be.
That the writing might be fulfilled. Which says, they parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. These things, therefore, the soldiers did. But you say, John, wait a minute, John, John, John, John, but the Roman soldiers didn't know anything about the writing. What do you mean that the writing might be fulfilled, these things, therefore, the soldiers did? They weren't trying to fulfill the writing, were they? No. Didn't know anything about it.
But they did what the writing said, and you will notice how they changed their minds. These were Roman soldiers. They were going to tear it in pieces, and then they changed their mind that the writing might be fulfilled. And if you say what made them change their mind, well, perhaps it was something beautiful about that garment, who knows? What the Roman, what the priests couldn't do standing on their two feet to get Pilate to change his writing.
Now the Blessed Lord hung on the cross, made the Roman soldiers change their mind to fulfill the writing about his clothes. There was then the, uh, the question of his, uh, instructions to Mary, to his mother and John the Apostle. But let's now come to verse twenty eight. After this, Jesus, knowing that all things are now finished, that the writing might be accomplished, says, I thirst. Now, there is no writing in the Psalms or the prophets where the Messiah says, I thirst.
The writing was that in his thirst they gave him vinegar to drink. That was what the writing said. And our Lord, now knowing that all things were now accomplished, now finished, there was this one writing not finished. How shall he get them to do it? He said, I thirst. And the Roman soldiers, even the squad that crucified him, had enough human compassion left.
They s- put a sponge of vinegar and put it on hyssop and brought it to his mouth. And Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, it is finished, and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. In charge, even though he's crucified, to make the Romans change their minds and fulfill his writing. The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation that the body should not remain on the cross upon the Sabbath, for that Sabbath, for the day of that Sabbath was a high day, asked of Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away.
The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first and of the other which was crucified with him. And gentlemen, you know, don't you, of course, why they would do that. Crucifixion was a ghastly death, but a, a, a, a man crucified on a cross could take three of, or two or three days to die, you know. It wasn't an immediate death. And because they had a tie, and there was a step on the wood where their feet rested, do you see, they could, though it cost enormous pain because the feet were nailed through the ankles, uh, do you see?
Enormous pain, but they could manage to lift themselves up to release the pressure on their rung- lungs and breathe. If you broke their legs, they couldn't raise themselves up, and therefore they died, of course. So they, uh, uh, uh, the priest wanted these, uh, three, uh, uh, court, uh, uh, prisoners, you see, to, to be, um, taken down so that they weren't up there on the day of the preparation, the Sabbath, that was a high day, religious. So they came and they broke the legs of the first, and they broke the legs of the other, and they came to Jesus, uh, and then they hesitated.
He said, go on, break his legs. You're under army, uh, uh, orders to break your legs. No, he didn't. Do you see? They break not his legs. Do you see? Uh, why not? Why didn't they? Well, because, says verse thirty six, there was this writing that had to be fulfilled. A bone of him shall not be broken. They didn't know the first thing about it.
You say, what made them change their mind? The fact he was dead already. So the fact that he was dead, the other two weren't. But the fact he died already, he said it is finished and gave up the curse. It was his fact he was dead made them change their mind. And the writing fulfilled. Mm-hmm. Oh, well then, one of them had a bright idea, just to make sure. He took his lance and placed his side, and forthwith there came bright out blood and water. Mm, good job he had a afterthought, wasn't it?
Because there was another writing that says that they shall look on him whom they pierced. And now you notice the, uh, uh, emphasis in verse thirty five, that when they pierced his side, instead of breaking his legs, there came out blood and water. And he that has seen has borne witness, and his witness is true, and he knoweth that he saith true, that you may believe. Why that fuss? Because this was the great Passover lamb.
This was no ordinary death. And of the Passover lamb it was written, you shall not break a bone. And the witness is telling you, please notice it. This was the fulfillment of the, of the, uh, uh, details of the Passover lamb, now being fulfilled in the great reality of which the Passover was but a proto. Pilate wouldn't change his writing, not for the Jews, the high priests.
Now here is the Messiah himself, the king himself, and the four writings fulfill. It is a study in itself to ask yourself, of course, what made them change their minds, actually? They didn't know the soldiers didn't know the writing. What made them, what was it about Christ that made them change their minds? I think I will have told you, when I was last with you, we went through the early chapters of John.
What relevance verses twenty five to twenty seven have to the rest of the gospel, where our Lord says to his mother, woman, behold thy son, and to John he says, son, behold thy mother. What has that got to do with anything? It's an interesting fact in and of itself. But I would have pointed out to you, so let me point it out again. That's like old men do, and you g- you ex- learn to excuse them, they repeat themselves. You'll say, but, uh, the women mentioned in the Gospel of John, that only John mentions, or at least if others mention it, they don't mention it in the same extent as John does.
There's the wedding of Cana of Galilee, the chief thing about which was the mother of Jesus was there. And he said to the woman, uh, to to Mary, what have I to do with you? So one woman, only John has that. Then there is, um, uh, uh, the woman at the well. Only John tells you about her. Then he tells you that she'd had, uh, was it five husbands? And the one you now live with is not your husband. They were, the other five were husbands, you know, but, um, I don't know whether they died or divorced her.
Divorce was pretty easy in those days. Now she was living with a man, hadn't bothered to marry him, the man you now have is not your husband. Then there's a story of the woman taken in adultery. Only John has that too. And she and the woman of Samaria sort of are twins, aren't they? The second one, a bit worse than the first. She'd been caught in the act of adultery. Yeah. Oh yes, then there was, um, as we now see, uh, uh, uh, Mary and Martha at the death of their brother.
Only John has that particular part of the story. Mm-hmm. Thy brother shall rise again, said our Lord. And then, as we've just read, there was Mary, the mother of Christ, at the death of her son. You might even get the impression that those two stories go together, wouldn't you? Mary and Martha at the death of their brother, and Mary, the mother of Christ, at the death of her son. Yeah. And then, of course, there is the, uh, Mary in, uh, chapter, uh, uh, twenty, Mary in the garden, the morning of the resurrection.
And all those stories about women, the dominant theme, one of the dominant themes in John, stress a question of relationship, don't they? At the marriage, woman, what have I to do with thee? The woman at the well, you've had five husbands, and the man on low living wood is not your husband. The woman taken in adultery, enough said, it's a question of relationship. Mary and Martha, the death of their brother, the cruel thing that death does to human relationships. Mary, the mother of Christ, at the death of her son, ah, but that's what, uh, the world does.
But the cross of Christ does. To relationships. The cross that the world gave to Christ. Uh, uh, death of, uh, uh, uh, uh, of her son, you see. And in each of these things, our Lord announces a new relationship, doesn't he? So here at the cross, woman, behold your son, son, behold your mother.
Now, John wasn't her literal physical son, nor was she his physical mother. But this is a new relationship that Christ creates between believers, and an enormous comfort in times of persecution for the sake of the cross of Christ. And the final story is Mary in the garden and the resurrection. And when Mary clung to him, realizing it was Jesus, he said to her, stop clinging to me, Mary, but go and tell my disciples I've not yet ascended to my father.
But look how he phrased it. I do want to tell them I ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. Notice the relation thing. So this by the cross of Christ that met Ma- Martha, uh, Mary and John isn't a stray object put in that is important in its own right. But that new relationship announced at the cross where Christ was crucified. So very good, yes, that is, um, uh, thus far, so to speak.
You have some questions? Disputes? What is the significance of the Lord saying, I am first to the cross, if you're paralleling that with Exodus twelve? Oh. Well, uh, yes. Uh, the parallel with Exodus twelve is no bone of him was broken. Uh, do you see the question of I thirst is, uh, a psalm, is it not? Is it Psalm, uh, sixty nine? in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink? Now the question of whether it was a mockery or a mercy is debated.
You see, when it came to offering him the women of Jerusalem, according to Luke, I think it is, who offered him wine mingled with myrrh, which in those far off days was an attempt to alleviate the pain, to numb the system and alleviate the pain. And they offered it to him, and he put it to his lips, but then refused to drink it. He acknowledged their kindness in offering it, but wouldn't drink something that would numb the pain. But it was an ordinary custom, uh, crucifixions to have sour vinegar, sour wine at any rate, uh, uh, because the thirst was colossal, and as a mercy they off- they put, uh, uh, that sour vinegar and refreshed the lips, do you see, of the people being crucified.
Whether therefore it was a mercy or a mockery. Who, who, who knows? And I think you have to decide that, sir, in the, in the process of answering your question. I myself think that the first thing is that it was initiated by our Lord's own statement, he knowing all things were now accomplished. There was this other thing that was not yet accomplished. They had not yet given him vinegar to drink.
And therefore he, uh, said, I thirst. And in response to that, they gave him vinegar to drink. Now, some people say, but that is altogether a small thing. That would be a very artificial thing to think that our Lord said that, that, uh, uh, uh, just to get them to give him vinegar to drink. Uh, this is, this is, uh, that would be too, uh, too artificial. And so people say that he was thirsty for the salvation of men or something, or thirsting to, uh, please God. I thirst.
It so happened that they gave him vinegar to drink, and that fulfilled the scripture, but the I thirst was thirsting for the souls of men or something. Yes? What do you think yourself, sir? I haven't thought much about it, but I would maybe perhaps interpret it that way. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Well, it could be. Uh, uh, my own thinking, I, I would start, as usual, from the literal. And if he said, I thirst, and you say, well, is that literal or metaphorical? Well, I would say in the first place it was very literal.
If you had been crucified for three hours, you would, uh, run up a tremendous fever and thirst. But it could be, uh, also metaphorical, that I wouldn't deny. It could be metaphorical. I thirst to please God, I thirst for the souls of men or something, and that the soldiers thought it was literal thirst and offered him drink. But it is that offering him drink in the thirst that the psalm is talking about, isn't it? You see, the writing. Mm-hmm.
Um, why do you think, uh, that the Lord offered or established a relationship between his mother and John whenever his mother had other children, perhaps? Would it not be strange for Mary to go and live with John or stay with him later? Oh yes, the question of, uh, uh, uh, I confess I'm not well up on our Lord's relatives, eh, do you see, as the Roman Catholic Church would be, but uh, uh, maybe they weren't yet converted. But secondly, it was a question of his taking her into his own home.
And thirdly, it could have been that John was more well off than some of the others. You will notice that John in the Gospels, uh, when Christ called him, he left his father and the servants in the boat. He and his father were employees, uh, employers. They had employees working for them. They were in a bigger way of fishing than Peter was, who manned his own boat. If you see what I mean. And it may be that John was more in a position, uh, to see after her.
And thirdly, John was a young man, and he looked after her for years. And, uh, she lived with him, according to tradition, in Ephesus, when he was in Ephesus. It also, it seems to me, uh, it was no accident that our Lord said it at the cross, because, uh, one, uh, Mary had come to the cross and he was about to give up his spirit and wanted somebody to look after her, but now he was gone, so to speak.
And it was the John who leaned on his bosom, who was so near the Lord, in the Lord's affections, that had the mother, uh, uh, committed to him to look after. But secondly, the meaning of the cross. I don't know whether it is still said about here, you know, somebody says, I've got very bad rheumatism, but that's the cross that God has given me. Well, that's talking nonsense, actually. Nothing to do with the cross. The cross is what the world gives you. Jesus bore his own cross.
You'll notice he never, it is never said he took it up. The cross was what the world gave him. Not a burden such as we all bear, and some of us have different burdens to bear, but the cross is the world's enmity to Christ. It was by the cross, it was the world's hostility and crucifixion of Christ that was robbing Mary of her son. It was fellowship in the cross of Christ that made, uh, the, uh, uh, John so suitable to take Mary.
You should remember also that the others had forsaken him and fled. This is only a suggestion, and I wish I could do it and can't, but I've had to go time to time. The chapters of the trial and crucifixion of Christ are some of the longest in the New Testament, and there are four of them. And if you say, why has the Holy Spirit given such, so much space in the Gospels to that?
Because of the importance of the event. But how lovely it would be to be able, gentlemen, from time to time, to be able to stand up amongst the Lord's people and expound the details of the cruc- arrest and crucifixion. Sometimes in Thanksgiving, we tend to stress the physical suffering. The hammer blow, uh, swung low, and so forth and so forth, you know? The physical sufferings of Christ. But what actually of the Gospels? This suggests to me that this account of the crucifixion by John is very carefully written.
Not just to describe, well, he was crucified, and that was a horrible death. Look at the way John has integrated it with this question of the writing and Pilate's writing, and the four writings that were fulfilled. And if that is John's writing about the crucifixion, what is Matthew saying? Or Mark, for that matter. Not to speak of Luke. Have they each their own, or are they ditto repeato? Mm-hmm.
And one more question. What, what do you think Pilate actually thought of Christ in the end of it all? Did he have a spack in any regard? Well, we, we know it because the text says so, and three times over in John, that Pilate found the charge against Christ to be unfounded. And certainly unproven. Not true. That is the charge that Christ was a political Messiah. This was a common thing in Israel, you see. You had from time to time, uh, zealots.
And the thing, uh, the people that started the war in AD sixty six that led eventually to the capture of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in AD seventy by the Romans. These were hot-headed extremists who eventually were able to force the hand of the high priests and so forth because they had so much influence with the people, do you see? And from the point of view of the high priests and whatnot, they were doing very well under the Romans, the high priests. They were very wealthy men. They ha- uh, and they, they got enormous dues out of the temple, did the high priests, do you see?
And they were hobnobbing with Roman emperors and things like that. They were of that level. Do they doing very well under the Romans. The extreme right wing, however, were against the Romans and wanted to lead a revolt against them. And of course, the high priests and company would try to restrain them. They made out, perhaps they partly thought it, who knows, but they made out that Jesus was another of these hot-headed extremists, who, when all the thousands of people were gathered in Jerusalem, would start a riot on purpose for political reasons, do you see?
And uh, uh, uh, uh, and so that's this they communicated to Pilate, but Pilate saw that it was quite false, you see. So that is, uh, to answer your question, that is the first thing to be said about Master Pilot. Pilate. Mm. You sometimes think of him as maybe having a sort of respect for the dignity Oh, yeah. of the person, uh, for, which would have set him apart from other people that would have been brought into the Oh, well, yes, yes.
He certainly, yes, he certainly had that respect. Um, it, you see, uh, he from John's thing, when he heard that he claimed to be Son of God, and Pilate wouldn't have understood that except in pagan terms. You see, he was the more afraid. On the other hand, he was an unprincipled brute, you know, was Pilate. Uh, do you see, he, uh, gave way to the priests because they had him blackmailed. He tried to get his own back on them by writing, this is the king of the Jews. On the other hand, uh, do you see, um, uh, he did allow them to crucify Christ.
In Matthew's account and Luke's account, uh, uh, before Pilate, Pilate wanted to release him. He knew that for envy they had delivered him up, but the voices of them and of the crowd prevailed. It was liable to be a, a, a, a riot in Jerusalem if he let Jesus go. For the priests had worked on the crowd, and they were shouting their heads off. And a riot in Jerusalem, Pilate could not have afforded it, politically speaking. Pil- uh, uh, Tiberius Caesar at Rome would want to know what on earth he was doing, letting a riot occur, do you see?
I- Israel, Jerusalem, uh, and Samaria, and Jerusalem in particular, uh, was a, a, a, a very disliked province by the Romans, and particularly by the Roman governors. Very difficult to manage. It was liable to explode at any time. Mm-hmm. So really it was expediency on Oh. Oh yes, exp- oh yes, yes. Oh yes, it was, yeah. Yes, yes, yes. And of course, as I said, they, according to John, they blackmailed him. You see in verse, eh, eighteen, Mark or chapter eighteen, verse four, it says, these who are knowing all things come upon him.
And what, what's the all things? Is it, it's something, or is it just, uh, the thing that was going to happen as in the details, scripture get told that people do stuff to him, or was it actually all that? Oh, well, uh, uh, yes, I would, I would, uh, uh, think that the all things, uh, that were coming upon him, uh, that he, uh, uh, knew. He, he says it even here in John, uh, the cup that my Father has given me shall I not drink in? Do you see, even in John, in the other three gospels, you have his agony in the garden.
John doesn't mention that in the g- his agony in the garden, but his prayer in the garden in the other three, uh, faced, uh, surely the agony of being made sinful. Uh, you hear it in his prayer, and nowhere more than in Mark's account of his prayer. You tempt- tempt me to say many things. But, uh, Mark begins the whole story of the Passover and the arrest and crucifixion by saying that, uh, the high priests, uh, uh, determined to take him by guile.
That is Mark's, um, uh, let me find it here... somewhere. Yes, chapter fourteen of Mark, verse one. After two days was the feast of the Passover and the unleavened bread, and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him with subtlety, the revised version say, Greek, with, with guile and kill him.
And Mark deduces that, as you see from verse two, Mark fourteen two, for they said, not during the feast, lest haply there shall be a tumult of the people. Because throughout that week, the people came early in the morning to hear him in the temple. Some of them rejoiced when he confounded the priests and the Pharisees, and the people were for him. And our Lord, uh, eventually turned on the authorities and said, I was daily with you in the temple. Why didn't you arrest me then? Why do you come here in the garden with swords and staves as if you're about to meet a, a, a, a, a, a rebellious gang of soldiers or something?
Why didn't you take me in the temple when, when the priest, the people would have helped you? No, of course they didn't. They to- they decided not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people. So they're going to wait till after the feast was over and then arrest him. And Mark is pointing out their guile. If you follow Mark's account of what happened, do you see, was it, uh, uh, uh, and the supposed sincerity of all of them. When Peter himself said, Lord, if it were necessary, I would go with you to prison and to death.
Was he sincere? Oh yes, I'm ready, Lord. Oh, well, I don't know about these others, but I'm ready, Lord. I mean, if I have to die, I... Yes, I'm prepared to die. Sincere? As far as he knew, you say, yes, as far as he knew he was sincere. But he found he didn't have to. There was a way of getting out of it, and he took it. He's changed his mind when he comes to his epistle, you know.
He says it's better if the will of God so will that you suffer. Now you contrast Peter with his saying, oh yes, yes, I, I face this, I could prison him to death for you, with our Lord's attitude in Gethsemane. According to Mark, he prayed. Not just let this cup pass from me. He prayed, uh, do you see, Abba Father. In Mark, notice the two words, Abba, that's Aramaic. Now we translate it into Greek for you.
Abba Father. Dear Father, you love me. Let this cup pass from me. Abba Father. All things are within your power. Let this cup pass from me. We mustn't say he was being insincere, just heightening the effect when he eventually gave in. Like people say, oh, Mr. Smith, come and play the piano. No, no, I know good, I can't play very much, do you see? But then the hostess prefers on them, and he goes and plays the piano, and he's beyond concert standard, the man is, but, you know, that heightens the effect a bit, doesn't it, when he first refused.
Our Lord wasn't like that, meant what he said. Father, you love me. Let the cup pass. It's within your power, Father. Let it pass. Meant what he said. If you suppose our Lord came dancing into the Garden of Gethsemane, I enjoy this. Well, think again. The very prospect of being made sin for us, the holier he was, the less he would want to do it.
Nevertheless, not what I will. What would thou wilt? The question of sincerity, therefore, in Mark's account is one of its leading ideas, surely. Why? Whereas in Matthew, one of Matthew's emphases is our Lord's self-control. Do you see? When Peter came into the garden, he drew his sword. Uh, he got so excited that the aim was very bad.
I don't think he meant to cut the man's ear off, he meant to cut his head off. Uh, in his excitement, he missed and only cut the man's ear off, you see. Our Lord said, put up your sword into his sheath. They that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Uh, don't you realize? Think you not that I could now call to my father, and he would give me twelve legions of angels, each with their sword. And again, we have to take him to mean what he said. Wasn't pretending. If he had called, the Father would have sent the angels.
That's what he says. And why didn't he call? He could have called. We mustn't say, oh, but he couldn't. What he added was, if I called, he would send them. But then, how should the scripture be fulfilled? You imagine having twelve legions of angels at your command and refraining from using them when you could have used them, and doing it because the scriptures must be fulfilled.
His tremendous self-control. And that's only one of the things, but that- that- that's Matthew. You won't find that in Mark, nor Luke, nor John, for that matter. But that's what I mean. It would be marvelous, wouldn't it, to get an understanding of the issues at stake in the, uh, i- each gospel in the two great chapters on the arrest, trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ.
