Gospel according to Saint Luke, commented on verse by verse

CHAPTER 23

Luke 23.¹ Then the whole assembly stood up and led Jesus before Pilate, – Luke 23, 1-25 = Matt. 27, 1-26; Mark. 15, 1-15; John 18, 28-19, 16. – The entire assembly having stood up… A Hebraism denoting promptness. Cf. 1:39 and the commentary. «All» is an emphatic expression, the meaning of which should not, however, be rushed. It indicates at least that most of the Sanhedrin members came together to the praetorium, with the evident intention of impressing Pilate with this solemn display, and of more easily obtaining his permission to carry out the sentence they had pronounced against Jesus. On the loss of the «right of the sword,» which prompted this humiliating action by the Great Council of the Jews, see Matthew. Before Pilate. The praetorium was probably located in the Antonia Fortress. The handing over of Jesus to Pilate by the Jews is noted as a significant event in all four Gospel accounts. Indeed, this marks the beginning of a new stage in the trial (van Oosterzee); we move from spiritual jurisdiction to civil jurisdiction.

Luke 23.² And they began to accuse him, saying, "We have found this man inciting our nation to revolt and forbidding us to pay tribute to Caesar, calling himself Christ the King."« – They began to accuse him. St. Luke presents this indictment with perfect clarity, and clearly distinguishes the various grievances. This man is disdainful as well as picturesque. The Sanhedrin, in pronouncing this word, were pointing Jesus out to Pilate. They must also have emphasized the verb we found.They say they bring Jesus not as someone accused or suspected of a crime, but as someone who has confessed and been found guilty. To this superb we found Pilate will later oppose, in verses 4, 14 and 15, his own I can't find anything and that of Herod. See also in St. John, 18, 29 and following, the beginning of this negotiation so skillfully conducted on both sides. drove our nation to revoltAccording to this first charge, which is the most general and will be explained by the following two, Jesus was therefore a Mecîth, as the Jews said, a seducer who gave the people false direction, who consequently troubled them peace of the State. – Second charge: he prevents the payment of taxes to Caesar. What an infamous calumny! Cf. 20:25 and parallel passages. But they wanted to get rid of Jesus by any means possible. Now, the Sanhedrin had understood that, to win Pilate over to their views, they had to give the accusation a political slant. Jesus, claiming to be the Messiah, and the Messiah, according to the ideas then in vogue among the Jews, was to deliver his people from all Roman servitude, this grievance was capable of striking the governor. – Third charge: calling himself Christ the King. This last allegation had an appearance of truth; but the accusers maliciously distorted the meaning of the word Christ by translating it as king, with the aim of making it seem that Jesus had committed a crime of lèse-majesté against the emperor. Thus, the Jewish authorities were suddenly seized by a fine zeal for the interests of Rome. Note the resources and flexibility of their hatred. When the Savior appeared before their own bar, the Sanhedrinists gave the same title of Christ the meaning of Son of God, in order to motivate an accusation of blasphemy; now they need to prove that Jesus is a rebel: hence this transformation.

Luke 23.³ Pilate questioned him, saying, "Are you the king of the Jews?" Jesus answered him, "You say so."« – St. Luke significantly shortens the scene. See the other three accounts. According to St. John, it was inside the praetorium that Pilate questioned Our Lord. Are you the king of the Jews? There is a lot of emphasis in the name. The way Pilate clarifies the meaning of the word king, adding Jews, This is remarkable: he could hardly have been unaware of the messianic hopes of the Jews, nor of their nature. Moreover, his question and Jesus' answer are absolutely identical in all three synoptic Gospels.

Luke 23.⁴ Pilate said to the chief priests and the people, "I find no guilt in this man."« Returning to the Sanhedrin and the ever-growing crowd that had gathered in the praetorium, Pilate clearly stated his opinion on the case brought before his tribunal: "I find no criminal charge against this man." This amounted to the standard legal formula. there is doubt, This was the pronouncement made by Roman judges when the guilt of an accused person had not been proven. Four times (here, vv. 14-15, 20, 22), Pilate thus protested Jesus' innocence. This initial conclusion seems rather abrupt in the third Gospel; the details provided by St. John make it quite natural.

Luke 23.⁵ But redoubling their efforts, they said, "He is stirring up the people, spreading his teaching throughout Judea, from Galilee, where he began, even here."« – redoubling their instances. The corresponding Greek verb forcefully expresses the fear that seized the Sanhedrin when they saw that their prey was about to escape them. He rouses the people. Another very expressive verb, found only here and in Mark 15:11. The use of the present tense further reinforces the idea: "he never ceases to agitate the people." – To the simple statement of the fact, the Jews add an explanation; in order to indicate, on the one hand, the means by which Jesus was using to revolutionize the country, spreading his doctrine, On the other hand, the vast deployment of its activity, throughout Judea…The whole region was therefore troubled, according to them, by this dangerous tribune. This admission is of some value to us. The Synoptic Gospels were almost silent on the ministry of Our Lord in Judea, which it was reserved to St. John to describe in full. The rationalists have not failed to find a perpetual contradiction between the first three Gospels and the fourth: but now the most ardent adversaries of the divine Master take it upon themselves to establish harmony, asserting that Jesus had been no less active in Judea than in Galilee. cf. Acts 10:37. Where it began Indeed, it was in the northern regions of Palestine that Our Lord first began to preach regularly and consistently. (cf. 4:14). It is likely that by mentioning Galilee, the Jews hoped to further arouse Pilate's distrust: the Galileans were then a turbulent community, quite feared by Rome; no one knew this better than the current governor, who had had to contend with them. So far, that is to say, all the way to Jerusalem, to the very heart of the country. These last words undoubtedly contained a particular allusion to the triumphant entry of the Savior.

Luke 23.⁶ When Pilate heard Galilee mentioned, he asked if the man was a Galilean., The Sanhedrin had struck the right note: the name of Galilee did not ring in Pilate's ears in vain, since the governor immediately wanted to know if Jesus (this man) was from that province. All these details, vv. 5-16, are unique to St. Luke: they enrich the story of the Savior's Passion in a valuable way.

Luke 23.⁷ and having learned that he was under Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him back to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at that time. – From Herod's jurisdiction. This refers to Herod Antipas, the famous tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (cf. 3:1), provinces over which Pilate had no jurisdiction. He sent him back to Herod. This is again a technical expression of Roman law, for a guilty person arrested elsewhere is sent back to the judge of their place of origin or residence., Flavius Josephus The War Jews, 2.20.5. The motive for this dismissal is clear: everything indicates that Pilate, in ordering it, hoped to escape a serious responsibility, to free himself from a thorny affair whose difficult conclusion he foresaw. He therefore tries to have the judgment pronounced by another, for he does not yet dare to condemn a man whose innocence he has recognized, and he lacks the necessary courage to release him in the face of the crowd's demands. The context (v. 12) shows that the procurator also intended, albeit secondarily, to regain the tetrarch's favor through this act of courtesy, with whom he had been at odds for some time. Later, Vespasian showed similar consideration for Herod Agrippa. Cf. Flavius Josephus, LC 3.10.10. Who was also in JerusalemAntipas ordinarily resided in Tiberias, the capital of his kingdom; but, like Pilate, he was in Jerusalem at that time for the Passover celebrations (during those days). It is highly likely that he was staying in the Hasmonean palace, located to the left of the Temple, at the foot of Mount Zion (see Flavius Josephus). The War Jews, 2, 16, 3; Jewish Antiquities 20, 8, 11), unless he had established himself in that of his father, Herod the Great, built a little further west. It is wrong to sometimes attribute to Herod and Pilate one and the same residence (Aberle, Lichtenstein).

Luke 23.⁸ Herod was overjoyed to see Jesus, for he had long desired to do so, because he had heard much about him and hoped to see him perform some miracle. – Herod was overjoyed A beautiful psychological detail, which opens this new scene very well. The jaded monarch anticipates, at the sight of Our Lord, a pleasure of a particular kind. He had long desired it., desires all the more intense because they had remained unfulfilled. See 9:7 ff., the first traces of this desire of Herod. He had heard a lot about him… This motive had piqued the tetrarch's curiosity. Having learned that Jesus was a great miracle worker, this frivolous man hoped to have some "first-hand" proof, for he had no doubt that the accused was trying by all means to gain the favor of the judge on whom his fate depended.

Luke 23.⁹ He asked him many questions, but Jesus did not answer him. – He asked her many questions. It did not please the Holy Spirit, who, when inspiring sacred writers, had our benefit and not our curiosity in mind, to retain even one of the vain questions addressed by Antipas to Our Lord. Moreover, the Savior's majestic attitude sufficiently shows us the importance we should place on it. Jesus did not answer him.. Jesus had answered Caiaphas and Pilate: he did not consider Herod worthy of a single word, and he withdrew into a noble silence.

Luke 23.¹⁰ Now, the Princes of the priests and the Scribes were there, accusing him obstinately. The enemies of Our Lord do not remain silent. In this admirable scene, we see them standing, relentlessly accusing him, for they had accompanied him to the tetrarch, urged on by Pilate himself (cf. v. 15) and even more so by their implacable hatred. The Sanhedrin will be disappointed in their zeal, for Herod will pay no heed to their accusations.

Luke 23.¹¹ But Herod, with his guards, treated him with contempt, after mocking him and dressing him in a splendid robe, and sent him back to Pilate. – Yet he will take his wounded pride into account, and he will take revenge in the pettiest way for the disappointment and humiliation caused him by the divinely accused. treated him with contempt : very strong expression, literally: having reduced it to nothing. cf. Isaiah 53, 3. – With his guards. This is a hyperbolic expression, which the Syrian version accurately renders as "with his officers and guards." Following the custom of Eastern princes, who never travel without a grand display of luxury and pomp, Herod had brought a considerable retinue to Jerusalem, partly composed of soldiers. after making fun of him. The original text still uses a forceful expression. Cf. 22:63; see also 18:32, where Jesus himself used it to foreshadow the humiliating scenes of his Passion. To have dressed him in a dazzling gownThese words complement those preceding them, specifying, through a particular and characteristic detail, the nature of the outrages that Our Lord had to suffer at Herod's court. They sought to mock his royal dignity. A dazzling, luminous, brilliant robe (cf. the Syrian Peshito). It is well known that in antiquity, white garments were worn as formal attire by the most illustrious figures. cf. Acts 10:30; 26:13; Revelation 15:6; 19:8; 22:16; Tacitus, Histories 2.89; Flavius Josephus, Antiquities 8.7.3. The War Jews, 2:1:1. This robe was ironic and mocking; it was meant to signify that Herod considered Jesus a madman, since in his eyes, refusing to plead his case before him, when Jesus was facing death due to the numerous accusations brought by the Jewish authorities, was a very sure sign of mental disturbance and/or even raving madness. Herod rendered himself unworthy of understanding how God would use the Passion as an opportunity to awaken in the hearts of so many saints outpourings of love and gratitude toward Jesus, true God and true man. – Theophyl. Jesus, whose entire conduct is guided by supreme reason, and who, according to David, regulates all his speech with prudence and judgment (Psalm 111:5), thought it more advantageous for Herod to remain silent in this circumstance. Indeed, any speech addressed to someone who gains nothing from it becomes a cause for condemnation: “But Jesus did not answer him.” — St. Ambrose. Jesus remained silent and performed no miracles because Herod lacked the faith that warranted miracles, and because he himself shunned all ostentation. Perhaps Herod also represents all the wicked, who cannot see and understand. the miracles of JesusChrist, as recounted in the Gospel, is only accessible on the condition of believing in the Law and the Prophets. – Mr. Reuss, in his Gospel History, pp. 676 and 677, makes a strange observation regarding this verse, as do many other rationalists: “The insulting scenes and ill-treatment that the soldiers inflict upon Jesus are transposed by Luke to Herod’s palace, while, according to the other two authors (St. Matthew and St. Mark), all of this took place in the Roman praetorium. One of these versions is just as plausible as the other; the fact remains that there are two.” Certainly, there are two, and, this is a valuable admission, they are both very plausible; but do they contradict each other, as some would have us believe? Not at all, since they correspond to completely distinct episodes, which took place neither in the same place, nor before the same people, nor at the same time, nor in the same way. The third synoptic account relates a fact that the first two had omitted; then, in turn, it omits details presented by them. Lay historians behave in this way every day: can they be reproached for contradicting themselves?

Luke 23.¹² On that very day, Herod and Pilate became friends, from having been enemies before. – St. Luke concludes the account of the Savior's appearance before Herod with a psychological detail worthy of him: Herod and Pilate became friends, from being enemies.…There is a clear emphasis in this «that very day.» It has sometimes been thought that their enmity erupted following the incident mentioned above, 13:1; others have linked it to the secret or public denunciations that Antipas had dared to make to Tiberius against Pilate (Flavius Josephus, Ant. 18.4.5): but nothing can be determined with certainty on this point. Between the Roman governor of Judea and the tetrarch of Galilee, there were perpetual opportunities for friction; the slightest jurisdictional conflict could have violently severed relations that had never been particularly close. But now, Jesus reconciles these two men.

Luke 23.¹³ Pilate, having assembled the chief priests, the magistrates, and the people, – Having assembled the princes of the priests…A picturesque detail. Pilate had either Jesus' principal accusers (by magistrates, we must understand the other two sections of the Sanhedrin, that is, the Scribes and the notables; cf. 24:20) or the common people gathered around his tribunal, erected in the open air. He was counting on the latter for the success of the plan he had already devised to free Jesus. It was them above all whom he would try to convince and sway, still not daring to exercise his authority and pronounce a verdict of acquittal.

Luke 23.¹⁴ He told them: «You brought this man to me as someone inciting the people to revolt; I questioned him in your presence and found none of the crimes you accuse him of,”, – This short address (verses 14-16) is lively and very skillful. It is almost entirely characteristic of our evangelist. as inciting the people to revolt. Such had indeed been the first charge of the Sanhedrin; they even returned to it a second time, v. 5, seeing Pilate favorable to the accused.  I questioned him in front of you… The private interrogation that St. John recounts at length, 18:33 ff., does not preclude the possibility of a public inquiry. Therefore, one cannot legitimately oppose the "before you" of the third Gospel to the narrative of the fourth. See D. Calmet, hl – I found none of the crimes in him…, as in verse 4.

Luke 23.¹⁵ nor Herod either, for I sent you back to him and, as you see, nothing deserving of death has been proven against him. – Nor Herod either. New emphasis. Herod, one of your own, who is very well acquainted with your affairs. The sentence is elliptical. Nothing has been proven against him… At the tetrarch's house, nothing was done to Jesus that indicated he was judged worthy of death (D. Calmet, Fr. Luc, etc.).

Luke 23.¹⁶ "I will therefore release him after having him punished."» – After punishing him. A Greek word, which St. Luke alone uses in the New Testament (here and 16:22). On the horrible punishment of scourging, see St. Matthew. SO. A conclusion that was far from expected, after such a premise. Why punish Jesus if he is innocent? But Pilate wants to make a concession to popular favor, while at the same time hoping to spare Jesus, by this means, the harshness of a death sentence.

Luke 23.¹⁷ [Pilate was obliged, on the day of the festival, to grant them the release of a prisoner]. Several critics have questioned the authenticity of this verse, which is omitted from the famous manuscripts A, B, K, and L, as well as the Coptic and Sahidic versions, and about which there is considerable confusion in the various texts that contain it. Griesbach, Tischendorf, and Tregelles omit it as a borrowing from Matthew 27:15. Nevertheless, its presence in most ancient documents (especially in the Codex Sinaiticus) prevents us from believing it to be an interpolation. Pilate was obliged… is a phrase specific to St. Luke. St. Matthew and St. John speak of a custom; St. Mark simply mentions the fact. The one they wanted, adds St. Matthew, to show that the right of pardon was exercised by the Jews. On the day of the celebration : as in the other two synoptic Gospels, that is, at each return of the Easter solemnity. On this ancient custom, see St. Matthew.

Luke 23.¹⁸ But the whole crowd cried out, "Kill this man and release Barabbas to us!"« – The entire crowd cried out… A very strong expression. The Greek term means "unanimously." St. Matthew and St. Mark recount the pressure that the chief priests exerted on the people to obtain this infamous vote. Kill this one. Similarly, in John 19:18, it is the horrible cry of the frenzied crowds in times of trouble: "Death!" The pagans cried out in the same way when they demanded the death of the first Christians. (cf. Eusebius, History of Ecclesiastes, 4, ch. 14).

Luke 23.¹⁹ which had been put in prison because of a sedition that had taken place in the city and a murder. The evangelist briefly describes the man who had the honor of being chosen over Jesus. His description is the most complete of all. He even adds an interesting detail to that of St. Mark: "in the city." It was therefore in Jerusalem that the attempted uprising had taken place.

Luke 23.²⁰ Pilate, who wished to release Jesus, addressed them again, ²¹ But they responded with this cry: «Crucify him! Crucify him!» – Pilate harangued them again…In Greek, the verb indicates a speech proper. cf. Acts 21:40. When the uproar had somewhat subsided, Pilate tried to make some representations to the crowd concerning the monstrosity of his choice; but in vain: it was rather like throwing oil on the fire. But they replied The imperfect tense reinforces the idea. This time, the crowd refers to the kind of death it desires for Jesus, the cruel torture of the cross, commonly practiced in the Roman provinces. See also St. Matthew.

Luke 23.²² For the third time, Pilate said to them, «What wrong has he done? I have found nothing in him deserving death. So I will have him punished and send him away.» – cf. verses 4 and 14. These repeated efforts by Pilate to save Our Lord are truly remarkable, according to the insightful reflection of Luke of Bruges: «While the other evangelists carefully present the Lord’s innocence, Luke particularly emphasizes it. For the narrative of Pilate’s entire trial and all the attempts to acquit him are intended to make us understand Jesus» innocence… that it was rather for others that he had offered himself.”. 

Luke 23.²³ But they persisted, loudly demanding that he be crucified, and their clamor grew louder. – A truly dramatic description, with emphasis on most of the words. Pilate thus succeeded only in unleashing a veritable storm of protests, amidst which the words repeated a hundred times, "Crucify him," resounded like a sinister refrain. – At the end of the verse, the Greek Recepta indicates that the chief priests themselves, forgetting all decorum, mingled their murderous cries with those of the crowd. But this may well be merely an apocryphal gloss.

Luke 23.²⁴ Pilate therefore declared that it would be done as they asked. – Pilate pronounced… Pilate should have remembered at this solemn moment a fine recommendation from the Law of the Twelve Tables: «The empty words of the people do not deserve to be heard when they wish to absolve a criminal or condemn an innocent person.», Lex 12, on punishment. But on the contrary, he finally yielded shamefully. Previous experience had taught the Jews that, by insisting forcefully, one could overcome even their most obstinate will. «He feared,» says Philo, Legat. ad Caium, p. 38, “that they would send an embassy (to Rome) to denounce his acts of maladministration, his extortions, his unjust decrees, his inhuman punishments, and this fear reduced him to the greatest perplexity.” It was therefore self-interest that led him to sacrifice Our Lord with a cowardice that the Apostolic Constitutions They rightly stigmatize.

Luke 23.²⁵ He released the one they were demanding, who had been put in prison for sedition and murder, and he handed Jesus over to their will. – He released the one…Instead of simply naming Barabbas, St. Luke (and this detail is unique to him) emphatically recalls the criminal's background, the same criminal whom the Jews had dared to prefer to Jesus. (cf. v. 190; Acts 3:16). This is a striking way of highlighting the full horror of the crime he recounts. Even today, one can sense the narrator's intense emotion in these three lines. That they were demanding. As is usually the case, the imperfect tense is picturesque and marks continuity. He handed Jesus over to their will. Another forceful expression (St. Matthew and St. Mark simply write: "he handed them over"). We know what the will of the furious crowd was with regard to Jesus.

Luke 23.²⁶ As they led him away, they seized a man named Simon, from Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, and they laid the cross on him, to carry it behind Jesus. – Luke 28:26-32 = Matthew 27:31-34; Mark 15:20-23; John 19:16-17. Without mentioning the scourging, nor the particular outrages that the soldiers inflicted upon Our Lord (see the parallel accounts), St. Luke goes directly to the painful episode of the Way of the Cross, about which he has a long and important section (vv. 27-32). – The preparations for the execution had not taken much time. Immediately after the sentence, while the cruel scenes in the praetorium were taking place, the guards had been chosen and provided with their provisions for the rest of the day: the procession thus set off promptly. No doubt, according to the barbaric custom of those times, the august victim was subjected to insults and blows all along the way ("They will pierce you with spears when you walk carrying your cross").«, (Plautus Most. 1, 1, 53). On the interesting legend of the Wandering Jew, which is connected with this event. They arrested a man named Simon of Cyrene…The other Synoptic Gospels use the legal term "requisition." See in Matthew for details concerning this right of requisition and the person of the Cyrenaean. Who was returning from the fields. This circumstance has often been cited as a serious objection to the view of those who place the date of the Savior's death on the 15th of Nisan, that is, on the great day of Passover: but the text only says that Simon was returning from the fields, not that he had been working there. Carrying the cross behind Jesus. Most painters and some exegetes (Cajetan, Lipsius, van Oosterzee, Wordsworth) conclude from this account, whose form is unique to St. Luke, that Jesus was not completely relieved of his cross; he would even have continued to carry its heaviest part, and his entire relief would have consisted in the fact that the Cyrenian lifted its base. But this is a misinterpretation of the words "behind Jesus," which must be taken absolutely, as is clear from the parallel passages in St. Matthew and St. Mark ("to carry his cross"). This was already the opinion of St. Jerome, in Matthew 27:32, and of St. Ambrose, in his account of Luke 1. 10, 107. From the assistance attributed, though necessarily, to Our Lord Jesus Christ by Simon of Cyrene, the ancient Gnostics concluded that the latter had been crucified in Jesus' place. Cf. St. Irenaeus, ad Haer. 1, 23; St. Epiphanius, Haer. 24, 3. – On the form of the cross, see St. Matthew. Curious traditions once circulated concerning the nature of the wood from which it was made. According to Bede the Venerable, the inscription was boxwood, the shaft cypress up to the inscription, the crossbar cedar, and the upper part pine. William Durand asserts that the base was cedar, the shaft cypress, the crossbar palm, and the head olive. A popular legend claims that the entire cross was made of aspen wood, and that this, it adds, is the source of the perpetual rustling of the tree's leaves (cf. Smith, *De Cruce*, 3, 13, states that it was oak, a tree quite common in Palestine; but conscientious microscopic examination of several relics of the True Cross (notably by M. Decaisme, member of the Institute, and by M.P. Savi, professor at the University of Pisa) shows that the instrument of Jesus's torture was made of pine wood. See M. Rohault de Fleury's *Mémoire sur les Instruments de la Passion*, pp. 61-63, 359 and 360).

Luke 23.²⁷ However, he was followed by a large crowd of people and women who beat their breasts and lamented over him. – This verse and those that follow up to the 31st describe a moving scene that only our evangelist has preserved. He was followed by a large crowd…Capital executions have always attracted crowds. It must also be remembered that Jerusalem was overflowing with people at that time because of Passover, and that the condemned man was the «prophet,» famous far and wide for his teachings and miracles. And women… If the multitude mentioned above contained a number of enemies of the Savior and many curious people, it also contained pious and compassionate people who, despite the express prohibition of the Talmud (“They did not weep for him when he was led to his execution”, Bab. Sanhedr., f, 42, 2. 27, 31), courageously showed their sympathy for the divine condemned one. Women He points out that they were not weeping for some crucified Jesus. It is wrong to have sometimes identified them with the Galilean saints who usually accompanied Our Lord (cf. v. 55), for, according to the words of Jesus himself, they lived in Jerusalem. It is not certain that they were already Christians in the strict sense. – They wept aloud, they beat their breasts, Fr. Luc. The association of these two verbs provides us with a concrete representation of the violent expressions of grief among the Eastern Christians.

Luke 23.²⁸ Turning to them, Jesus said, «Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children, – Turning towards them. A picturesque detail, evidently from an eyewitness, perhaps one of the holy women. None of them could have forgotten the gentle expression in Jesus' eyes, nor his pale, bloodied face. Jesus said… This is perhaps the only word the Savior uttered between his condemnation to death and his crucifixion; at least we possess no other. It is grave, solemn, for it concerns entirely the impending ruin of the Jewish capital. Daughters of Jerusalem… A well-known metaphor, according to which the inhabitants of a city were called its sons or daughters in Hebrew. cf. Song of Songs 1, 3; Isaiah 3, 16, etc. – Don't cry over me… “If you knew the evils that threaten you, and that are destined to befall your city, … yourselves and your children, you would save your tears to lament your own misfortunes,” D. Calmet. Several of these compassionate women were able to witness the horrors of the war Roman and the siege of Jerusalem, that is to say the terrible reprisals following the Sanhedrin's refusal to recognize the coming of Christ the Messiah, in the person of Jesus.

Luke 23.²⁹ For behold, the days are coming when they will say, “Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed.”. ³⁰ Then men will begin to say to the mountains: Fall on us, and to the hills: Cover us. – In these two verses, Jesus lists the reasons for «weeping for yourselves.» He says that days are approaching when the greatest human blessing, motherhood, will be regarded as a terrible misfortune (v. 29), and when a violent death, provided it is sudden, will be considered an enviable fate (v. 30). Blessed are the barren.The deprivation of children had once been presented by the prophet as a curse (cf. Hosea 9:14). At the beginning of the third Gospel, 1:25, we heard Saint Elizabeth thank God for ending her "disgrace" by giving her a son. And now, three times in quick succession, Jesus repeats this strange and new beatitude. But there are days of anguish and misery when a woman is indeed happy not to have children; and such must have been precisely those to which Our Lord alludes in his terrible prophecy. Did we not then see Jewish mothers devour the fruit of their own womb? (cf. Flavius Josephus) The War of the Jews, 6, 3, 4. That is why the "blessings of the breasts and of the mother's womb" promised in ancient times by Jacob, Genesis 49, 25, now cease to be blessings.

Luke 23.³⁰ Then men will begin to say to the mountains: Fall on us, and to the hills: Cover us. – Tell the mountains…These words are taken from the prophet Hosea, 10:8, in whom they already depicted a scene of horrific despair. One could not express by means of a stronger image the desire to escape, through a sudden end, from intolerable calamities: thus St. John in the Apocalypse, 6, 16, he puts it on the lips of the reprobate. cf. Isaiah 2, 10. The historian Josephus recounts, The War Jews, 6, 9, 4, that the inhabitants of Jerusalem, hoping to escape the horrors of the siege, took refuge in large numbers in the sewers and underground passages of the city, where their corpses were later found by the thousands.

Luke 23.³¹ For if we treat green wood this way, what will we do with dry wood?» – The Savior justifies the implicit threats of the two preceding verses through a striking comparison. If we treat green wood in this way…The idea seems so clear, despite its figurative language, that it is difficult to understand the hesitations of several exegetes on the subject. As is generally accepted, green wood (this word appears only in this passage of the New Testament) is generally the tree still standing, still alive, bearing flowers and fruit; dry wood, on the other hand, is the tree that has been cut down long ago, stored for firewood. Just as the latter symbolizes the fishermenTo the parched, barren soul, likewise the first represents the righteous, like a tree planted by the waters, which yields its fruit in its season, and whose leaves never fall. See also Ezekiel 20:47 (cf. 21:3-4). Now here, according to the immediate application, Jesus is the righteous one par excellence, represented by the green wood, while sinful, unrepentant Israel is the withered trunk that offers no further hope of harvest. If, therefore, Jesus suffers such punishments despite his innocence, what should the Jews not expect, whose malice cries out for vengeance to heaven? See 1 Peter 4:17, the same thought, though more general, and expressed without imagery. – The divine Master returns to his majestic contemplation. On the road to Calvary, he had essentially spoken the same language as during his recent triumphal procession (cf. 19:41-44); but the city where God made man was murdered was deaf. – On the pious tradition concerning Saint Veronica (or Berenice), who was said to be one of the compassionate women mentioned by St. Luke, and who is said to have wiped the holy face of the Savior with her veil, see the Acta Sanctorum, Feb., vol. 3, p. 451 ff.; Rohault de Fleury, loc. cit., p. 245 ff.

Luke 23.³² And two criminals were also brought in to be put to death with Jesus. This detail, too, is unique to St. Luke. Perhaps these two other men had been part of the band led by Barabbas, as has often been surmised; they were Zealots who, under the guise of patriotism, freely practiced brigandage and theft. Now, the cross was the usual punishment for criminals of this kind. (cf. Flavius Josephus) The War Jews, 2, 13, 12; Petronius, Satyricon, 3.

Luke 23.³³ When they arrived at the place called Calvary, they crucified him there, along with the criminals, one on the right, the other on the left. Luke 2333-46 = Matthew 27:34-50; Mark 15:27-37; John 19:18-30. – The other three evangelists give the Hebrew name for the famous hill (Golgotha); St. Luke simply translates it into Greek (Skull). On this name, see St. Matthew. They crucified him there. According to a Talmudic fable (Gem. Bab., Sanh. 6), Jesus was first stoned according to the prescriptions of Jewish law, and the Romans only attached a lifeless body to the cross. The torture suffered by the divine Master was considered so humiliating that the Fathers more than once had to answer objections raised by Jews and pagans against his messianic dignity or his divine nature. «Someone may perhaps say: If he was God and if he wanted to die, why did he not at least choose an honorable kind of death? Why the cross in particular? Why an infamous torture unworthy of an honest man, even a guilty one?» (Lactantius, Divine Institutes, 4, 26). But, in the beautiful words of St. Ambrose:« We have already seen the trophy of the cross. Let the triumphant one mount his chariot, and on the triumphal cross let him hang the spoils of the world's captives. The once despised cross has become a glorious ornament, which kings themselves wish to adorn their diadems with, and which the brave wear on their breasts as a sign of honor. As well as criminals…The four evangelists noted this detail, the ignominious nature of which we have indicated elsewhere (Gospel of St. Mark). An ancient tradition assigns the right-hand place to the good thief and the left-hand place to the bad. – «Three crosses, one next to the other,» wrote St. Augustine, Letter 93, alias 48; “on the first we see the criminal who was saved, on the second the criminal who was condemned, on the middle one Christ who absolves the one and condemns the other. Outwardly, what could be more similar than these three crosses? But what could be more dissimilar than the men bound to their arms?”

Luke 23.³⁴ But Jesus said, «Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.» Then they divided his clothes among themselves by casting lots. – The first hemistich of this verse (Jesus said… they do) is missing from manuscripts B and D, as well as from the Coptic and Sahidic versions; but this omission must be purely accidental, since it is found everywhere else. It is cited by St. Irenaeus and by the Clementine Homilies, 10, 20. Father, forgive them…These words were undoubtedly spoken at the very moment the nails pierced the sacred flesh of Jesus. Under the pressure of pain, the gentle Victim broke her majestic silence once more, not to complain, but to forgive her executioners. «This was the first of Jesus» words during his agony. Humanity has counted them. There are seven, marked by an infinite elevation, strength, tenderness, and gentleness. These seven words conclude the life of Jesus as the eight Beatitudes had opened it, with the revelation of a grandeur that is not of this earth. Only, here there is something more beautiful, more heartbreaking, more poignant, more divine.« Bougaud, Jesus Christ, 2nd ed., p. 548. Of the seven last words of the dying Christ (sung in sublime music by famous composers, especially Haydn), three, including this one, have been preserved for us only by St. Luke, three others only by St. John, and the seventh is common to the versions of St. Matthew and St. Mark. Here they are, with their probable order: 1. Luke 23:34, »Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing”; 2. Luke 2343, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”; 3. John 19:26-27, “Woman, behold your son… Behold your mother”; 4. Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”; 5. John 19:28, “I thirst”; 6. John 19:30, “It is finished”; 7. Luke 23:46, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” These concern the enemies of Jesus. the fishermen penitents, Married and the beloved disciple, the inner anguish of the divine patient, his physical sufferings, his work, and his heavenly Father. The first and last begin with the filial appellation of "Father." St. Bernard charmingly names them "the seven evergreen leaves that Our vine produced when it was raised on the cross." ». – Forgive them"He was already asking forgiveness for those from whom he was receiving insults. For he did not consider that it was by them that he was dying, but for them,” St. Augustine, Tractate 31 in John. Scholars differ on the application of the pronoun “their.” According to some (Kuinoel, Ewald, Plumptre, etc.), it specifically refers to the Roman soldiers who acted as executioners. We prefer to agree with the majority that it generally refers to all the enemies of Our Lord, and especially to the Jews who were the true instigators of his death. We thus obtain a broader and deeper meaning for this loving statement. This also appears to have been the interpretation of St. Peter and St. Paul, who make a clear allusion to it, the former in a speech recorded in the Book of Acts, 3:17, the latter in his second letter to the Corinthians, 2:8. Because they don't know what they're doing.. Jesus thus strongly justifies and supports his request for forgiveness. It has always been accepted, before God as before men, that ignorance usually diminishes the malice of sin. Now, the Jews, at least most of them, certainly did not understand the full enormity of the crime committed in crucifying Our Lord. They did not think they were putting their Messiah and their God to death, although their error was far from being free of sin. Then sharing his clothes. See the fuller details in St. John, 19, 23-24. The condemned, before being tied to the tree of the cross, were stripped of their clothes, which Roman law assigned to the lictors or those who performed their office.

Luke 23.³⁵ The people stood there watching. The rulers joined him in mocking Jesus, saying, "He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ, the chosen one of God."« – And the people stood there, watching. A picturesque detail, characteristic of St. Luke, which recalls the prophecy of Zechariah 12:10: «And they will look on me, the one they have pierced.» Cf. Psalm 21:17. The chiefs were laughing. The Sanhedrin, and not simply the chief priests. The Greek word is very forceful. Cf. 16:14 and Psalm 21:8, in the Septuagint translation. The words with him, Omitted by the best manuscripts (B, C, D, L, Q, X, Sinaiticus) and by several versions (Coptic, Syriac), it could well be merely a glossema. The mass of the people thus seems, according to St. Luke, to have remained silent at the foot of the cross. Apart from the Sanhedrin, those Jews who insulted Our Lord were mostly passersby, according to the first two Synoptic Gospels. He saved others… There are slight variations between the three accounts, which is perfectly natural, since the insulters did not all use exactly the same language. If he is the Christ, the chosen one of God. The addition of the epithet elected (cf. Isaiah 42:2), the use of a pejorative pronoun, are peculiarities of St. Luke. Even today, the Talmud grossly insults Our Lord, whom they refer to by the nickname thaloui (the hanged man), often adding some vulgar imprecation. As for Christians, they call them the servants of the hanged man. 

Luke 23.³⁶ The soldiers also mocked him, approaching and offering him vinegar, saying: ³⁷ «"If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself."» – This detail has been preserved only by St. Luke. Following the example of the Jews, the Roman soldiers who were standing guard around the three crosses began to insult Jesus. Approaching him and offering him vinegar. «This is very different from the potion of wine with myrrh offered to Jesus before he was put on the cross (Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23), and from the vinegar presented to him after he cried out, »I thirst« (John 19:28ff., Matt. 27:48; Mark 15:36).» D. Calmet, hl. By «vinegar,» we must understand “posca,” a mixture of water and vinegar, which was then the common drink of Roman soldiers. If you are the king of the JewsThe insult of the harsh praetorians is merely an echo of that of the priests; however, it presents a characteristic nuance: "King of the Jews" instead of "Christ." To all these insults, Jesus always responds only with his silence. "She could have spoken. The tortures of crucifixion did not cloud the intellect, did not paralyze the organs of speech. History records crucified individuals who, for hours on end, gave free rein to their pain, their rage, or their despair, sometimes cursing their enemies and spitting on them (Seneca, *De Vitae Beatae*, 19), sometimes protesting to the very end against the iniquity of their sentence, sometimes imploring with a humility abject the pity of the spectators (Flavius Josephus, The War (of the Jews, 4:6:1), sometimes addressing the multitude from the cross, as from a tribunal, and reproaching them for their vices and weaknesses (Justin, 22:7). But Jesus only spoke to encourage, to bless, or to console himself by entrusting his anxieties and his soul to his Father. His nobility never wavered for a moment.

Luke 23.³⁸ Above his head was an inscription in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew characters that read: "This is the king of the Jews."« – The title of King of the Jews, The derisory gift given to Our Lord by the soldiers reminds St. Luke of a fact he had not yet mentioned, and which he inserts here. On this tablet, see St. Matthew. In Greek, Latin, and HebrewThe authenticity of these words is fairly well guaranteed despite their omission in B, L, Sinait, and some other versions. They contain valuable information, for which we owe it to St. Luke and St. John (19:29). The three languages in which the inscription was written were those of the three most civilized nations of the time: Latin, the language of strength; Greek, the language of eloquence and wisdom; and Hebrew, the language of true religion, thus bearing witness to the kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. “This was a sign that the most powerful among the pagans, like the Romans, the wisest, like the Greeks, and the most religious, like the Hebrews, were to be subjugated by Christ the King,” Theophylact, 111 (cf. this passage from the Talmud: “There are three languages, Latin for the war"Greek for eloquence, and Hebrew for religion" (Midrasil Tillin, 31, 20). The inscription had been written in Latin because it was the official language of the judge who had pronounced the sentence; then it was translated into Greek and Hebrew (more precisely, into Syro-Chaldean) because these were the languages used in Palestine. This is the king of the Jews. The words of the title vary slightly in each Gospel, although the essential elements are preserved identically everywhere: Matthew 27:37: «This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.» Mark 15:26: «The King of the Jews.» John 19:19: «Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.» It is quite probable, as has often been conjectured, that these nuances reflect the diverse forms the inscription took in each of the three languages. St. Mark would have retained the Latin title, because the brevity of its wording is entirely reminiscent of the style of Roman inscriptions; St. John the Hebrew title, because he mentions, in accordance with Jewish custom, the country of the crucified Christ alongside his name; and finally, St. Luke (or St. Matthew) the Greek title. (According to others, it is St. Luke who provides the Latin inscription. Cf. Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 307). Drach, The Hebrew Inscription of the Title of the Holy Cross, Rome 1831. Rohault de Fleury, Memoir on the Instruments of the Passion, p. 183 ff. – Pilate thus affirmed it in a completely providential manner: «God reigned through the cross.» Cf. Psalm 46:10, according to the Septuagint version; Tertullian adverbially of Mark 3:19, etc.

Luke 23.³⁹ But one of the criminals who were hanged on the cross was insulting him, saying, «Since you are the Christ, Save yourself and save us. » – One of the criminals… was insulting him. The imperfect tense denotes repeated blasphemies. St. Matthew and St. Mark recount in summary fashion that Jesus was also outraged by the criminals crucified beside him; St. Luke presents this moving scene at length, which is one of the gems of his Gospel. On the apparent antilogy of the accounts, see St. Matthew. Since you are the Christ. Some ancient manuscripts (B, C, L, Sinait) give an interrogative meaning to the phrase: "Are you not the Christ?" This is the third time the same insult has appeared (cf. vv. 35-37); but here it regains its Jewish character, since the two thieves were Israelites. Note also the significant addition save us.

Luke 23.⁴⁰ But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, you too, condemned as you are to the same punishment? – Jesus remains silent; but suddenly he finds a fervent defender. His best friends have abandoned him: though some of them begin to timidly approach Golgotha, they dare not raise their voices in his favor; the good thief protests against the last mockery uttered, and makes a fine defense of the suffering Christ. You too…with emphasis. Aren't you in a particular situation that should make you more reserved than others? – Condemned to the same torture (the same torture as Jesus). Like him, you will soon die; therefore, you must think about divine judgment.

Luke 23.⁴¹ "For us, it's justice, because we're receiving what our crimes deserve, but he did nothing wrong."» – Following this word of rebuke, we find another which is at once a humble confession and a magnificent praise of Jesus. For us, it's justice. Even rationalists admire this beautiful detail. It is so rare to see a condemned man generously accept his sentence in a spirit of expiation. But he didn't do anything wrong.In Greek, literally, nothing is out of place, "nothing that is not fitting for a good man," according to Maldonat's apt paraphrase. cf. 2 Thessalonians 32. This is a very subtle and forceful way of asserting that Jesus was entirely innocent. If he had done nothing that was merely improper, then all the more so nothing that deserved death. This verdict of acquittal, compared with those of Pilate and Herod, is significant. On what did the good thief base this remarkable testimony? Perhaps on his prior knowledge of Our Lord Jesus Christ (without, however, needing to admit, as Grotius, Michaelis, etc., arbitrarily did, that he was a temporarily misguided disciple of the Savior); but Jesus' conduct from the beginning of the Way of the Cross could have sufficed to demonstrate his complete innocence to the trained eye of a criminal.

Luke 23.⁴² And he said to Jesus, «Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom.» The good thief now turns to Our Lord and addresses Him with a humble and sublime prayer: «Do not forget me.» This is all he asks, certain, moreover, that if Jesus deigns to remember him, it will be with a feeling of kindness, and also, according to the following words (when you have arrived in your kingdom), with perfect efficacy. The supplicant could not proclaim his belief in the messianic character of Jesus in more formal terms: the kingdom to which he alludes is none other than that of Christ, mentioned so frequently in the Holy Gospels and in the Talmuds. A truly admirable act of faith, given the circumstances in which Our Lord then found himself. «The thief did not despise the one who hung with him on a cross,» St. Augustine, Sermon 23, 2. But this great sinner had received from Jesus, in a short time, the most precious teachings. «The cross was a school for him; there he received the Master’s teaching; And the gallows where the Savior was suspended became the pulpit from which he gave his instructions.» Ibid., Sermon 234, 2. Cf. the similar words of the Savior, Matthew 25:31: «When the Son of Man comes in his glory.» “Kingdom” therefore does not directly and immediately refer to heaven.

Luke 23.⁴³ Jesus answered him, «Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.» Jesus remained silent in the face of the blasphemies hurled from all sides against his divine person; but he gave the sweetest response to the prayer of the repentant thief. We see him appear as heavenly king, promising a place in paradise, just as he had appeared earlier as a priest, when he interceded for his executioners (v. 34), and even before that as a prophet, when he exhorted women of Jerusalem (vv. 28-31). – The words Truly, I tell you accentuate, in the usual way, the certainty of the promise. The adverb Today does not depend on "I tell you," but begins a new proposition. Although "Roman Catholic exegetes" have almost unanimously protested, from the time of Theophylact to the present day, against this connection, which they say renders thought "insipid and weak" (Maldonatus), Mr. van Oosterzee unjustly reproaches them for supporting it. His bias becomes revolting when he adds that they act in this way "to weaken as much as possible the proof constantly drawn from this text against the dogma of purgatory" (Evangel. Lucae, 3rd ed., p. 387). – To the more or less distant date that the good thief had set (when you arrive…), Jesus opposes this "today," which he emphasizes emphatically. No, not only on the day of my coming, but today itself, in a few hours. There is a new emphasis in the pronoun with me, From which theologians rightly conclude that the soul of Our Lord descended into limbo immediately after his death. cf. 1 Peter 3:18 ff. You will be with me in paradise. To have a true understanding of the promise made by Our Lord to the good thief, we must examine the meaning of the word Paradise at that time. This noun, introduced into the Hebrew language in the form of Pardes (Song of Songs 4, 13; Ecclesiastes 2, 5; Nehemiah 2, 8), and, around 400 years before Christ, in the Greek language, from which the Latin, French, and other equivalents of the word paradise derive, is certainly not of Semitic origin. Ancients and modern scholars are almost unanimous in linking it directly to the Persian language. See Xenophon, Anabas. 1, 2, 7; 4, 9, etc.; E. Renan, Langues sémitiques, p. 153. It means garden, park, like related words pardès in Armenian and paradèça in Sanskrit. The Septuagint also used it. Genesis 2, 8, 15; 3, 23, to translate the first part of the phrase gân Edên, the Garden of Eden, which they called the "garden of delights." From there, the Jews gradually came, through a very natural association, to give the same name of paradise to the place where the souls of the righteous reside while awaiting the resurrectionIn this sense, in Jewish theology, paradise is no different from the "bosom of Abraham" that we described above (16:22), and it is likewise opposed to Gehenna. This, according to most of the Fathers and the best exegetes (Maldonatus, Cornelius Lapidus, etc.), is the application that Our Lord makes of it: it is therefore the imminent entry into the "limbo of the patriarchs" that is promised to the good thief. This name evoked before him, to console him amidst his horrible sufferings, the sweet images of peace and rest in God. In early Christian literature, 2 Corinthians 12:4; Revelation 2:7, the word heaven The word appears to designate heaven itself, and it is in this elevated sense that our European languages have incorporated it. The following stanza, engraved on Copernicus's tomb, contains a beautiful allusion to the passage we have just explained: "I do not ask for a pardon like Paul's, nor a grace like Peter's, but I pray fervently that you may grant me the grace you gave to the thief on the cross." The lesson that emerges from this scene is infinitely precious: there is no repentance too late. But, add the masters of the spiritual life, let us be careful; the Bible presents us with only this single example of a man who converted on the point of death. – The good thief is honored as a saint in the Latin Church. We read in the Roman Martyrology, March 25: «Of the holy thief of Jerusalem who, after confessing Christ, merited to hear him say: Today you will be with me in paradise ». The Apocryphal Gospels do not imitate this wise restraint. Going back thirty years, they tell us that when the Holy Family was fleeing to Egypt, they were attacked by two thieves named Dismas and Gestats (or perhaps Titus and Dumachus): the latter wanted to treat them brutally, while the former, on the contrary, protected them. The Christ Child is said to have then foretold to them the drama of Calvary as it has just unfolded before our eyes. (See Brunet, The Apocryphal Gospels, 2nd ed., pp. 77, 78, 102, 243.) The Gospel of Nicodemus, chapter 27, explicitly recounts the good thief's entry into Limbo. See also the Acta Sanctorum, under March 25.

Luke 23.⁴⁴ It was about the sixth hour, when darkness covered the whole land until the ninth hour. ⁴⁵ The sun grew dark and the veil of the temple was torn in two. – The sixth hour That is to say, around noon. Then a strange phenomenon occurred that lasted until Jesus' last breath, until 3 p.m.: Nature seemed to be veiled in mourning during the agony of its creator. "When he suffered, the whole world had compassion on him." », Clem. Recognit. 1, 41. «The elements deserved to receive such behavior from fate, to grieve at his death as they had rejoiced at his birth,» Sedulius, Paschal. 5, 16. See St. Matthew. – The sun was darkened (detail specific to St. Luke). Yet it was the time of day when the sunlight is most brilliant, and at this time of year, it already shines on Palestine with a vigor comparable to that which it has in our country in June. «The sun has given you a sign,» we can say more accurately than Virgil. The explanatory variant in the Sinaitic manuscripts, B, C, L, etc., of the Coptic and Sahidic versions, «the sun failed,» was already known to Origen, who rightly rejected it. The veil of the temple was torn. This second miracle took place only after the death of Our Lord, as is clear from the more precise accounts of St. Matthew and St. Mark. St. Luke dates it a few hours earlier, in order to group together the various miracles by which God the Father bore witness to his Son at those solemn moments. See St. Matthew for the meaning of this symbolic event. Jewish worship was now finished: soon the total destruction of the Temple would proclaim it even more eloquently. «The veil of the Temple was torn apart, as if to lament the imminent destruction of this place,» Clem Recog. 1, 41.

Luke 23.⁴⁶ And Jesus cried out with a loud voice, «Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.» And when he had said this, he breathed his last. Passing over various incidents reported by the other evangelists, St. Luke leads us directly to the fatal denouement. The great cry of Jesus, which he mentions along with St. Matthew and St. Mark, was distinct from the words "Father, I commit my spirit…", an act of filial trust by which the Savior ended his mortal life. He borrowed the expression from Psalm 30, verse 6, except for the gentle title of Father which he added to the sacred text. He expired. It is remarkable that none of the evangelists uses the common phrase: "He died." They all wanted to emphasize the complete freedom with which the dying divine breathed his soul. The way in which St. Luke connects the phrase "saying this" to "he breathed his last" proves that there was no significant interval between the "Father, I forgive..." and Jesus' last breath. This is the appropriate place to recall a striking reflection by Plato. In his Republic, Book 2, he has Socrates say to Glaucus that the perfectly righteous man, if he ever appeared among men, would surely be bound in chains, flogged, tortured, and finally crucified. Here, Jesus, the truly perfect man, fulfilled this vague premonition of paganism, just as he completely accomplished the luminous oracles of the Jewish prophets.

Luke 23.⁴⁷ The centurion, seeing what had happened, glorified God and said, "Surely this man was righteous."« Luke 23, 47-49 = Mth. 27, 51-56 Mk. 15, 38-41. – The centurion That is to say, the Roman captain who had been in charge of the triple crucifixion. St. Luke mentions several good centurions in his writings, besides this passage: 7:2; Acts 10:1; 22:26; 27:43. What had happened. St. Matthew and St. Mark provide further details. «When he saw the earthquake…» says the former; «when he saw how he had breathed his last,» writes the latter. He glorified God This is a special detail. The centurion gave glory to God through the entirely Christian confession we are about to hear. Certainly this man was right. In the other two accounts, he formally attributes to Jesus the title of Son of God. Reconciliation is sometimes achieved by supposing that he pronounced these two judgments in turn, and sometimes by admitting, following St. Augustine, in Consensus of the Gospel, Book 1, Chapter 20, that St. Luke transformed the phrase to explain to his readers in what sense a pagan could affirm that Jesus was truly the Son of God. According to the Gospel of Nicodemus, Chapter 11, the centurion was named Longinus. A tradition, already cited by St. John Chrysostom but without guaranteeing its veracity, has him die a martyr for Christ. According to other documents, he became Bishop of Cappadocia. See the Acts of the Sanctuaries under March 15; Cornelius, Book 11.

Luke 23.⁴⁸ And all the multitude that had gathered for this spectacle, considering what had happened, went back beating their chests. – The details of this verse are specific to St. Luke. The entire multitude. This implies a considerable turnout. Beating his chestBy this sign of mourning and sorrow, the Jews confessed, albeit belatedly, their regret for the death of Our Lord Jesus Christ. cf. Act 2, 36-37; Isaiah 53.

Luke 23.⁴⁹ But all of Jesus' friends kept their distance, with women who had followed him from Galilee and were contemplating all of this. – All the friends of JesusOur evangelist alone has preserved this detail; but the other two synoptic Gospels, like him, mention the presence of the holy friends of the Savior, even taking care to name the principal ones: Married Madeleine, Married, mother of St. James the Less, Salome. See also 8, 2-3. – contemplated all of this. A picturesque detail, also specific to St. Luke. What feelings animated these close disciples at that time? Their faith was wavering, their hopes dimmed; at least their love still burned brightly.

Luke 23.⁵⁰ Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the council, a good and righteous man, ⁵¹ who had not given his assent either to the plan of others, nor to their actions, he was from Arimathea, a city of Judea, and he too was waiting for the kingdom of God. Luke 2350-56 = Matthew 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; John 19:38-42. – The four evangelists agree that Joseph of Arimathea played the leading role in the Savior's burial. On the title of council member, that is to say, in all probability, from the Sanhedrin, cf. commentary. St. Mark. St. Luke alone highlights the moral character of Joseph through the words good and just man. He alone also takes care to state, in emphatic terms, that the noble senator had not played the slightest part in the death of Our Lord. By "design" he means the capital sentence; the "acts" were the various measures taken to carry out this sentence. – On Arimathea, see St. Matthew. – He was also waiting… (cf. 2:25 and the commentary). Likewise, St. Mark. St. Matthew explicitly states that Joseph was a disciple of Jesus.

Luke 23.⁵² This man went to Pilate and asked him for the body of Jesus., The boldness of the act (cf. Mark 15:43) has, so to speak, been conveyed through the concise, rapid style of the four narrators. History records several supplicants of this kind who paid for their generous action with their lives. (cf. Eusebius, Martyrs, p. 11.) According to the apocryphal Acts of Pilate (B, ch. 11), the Jews imprisoned Joseph of Arimathea for this reason.

Luke 23.⁵³ and having taken him down, he wrapped him in a shroud and laid him in a tomb hewn out of the rock, where no one had ever been laid before. – St. Luke, like St. Mark, uses the technical term descended (cf. Tertull. Apol. 21, S. Just. v. Typh. 108, Senec. Vit. Beat. 19). – He wrapped her in a shroud.. This refers to the main burial cloth; the evangelist will speak later, in 24:12, of other secondary cloths. Cf. John 20:6-7. A tomb carved from the rock. The Greek verb appears only in this passage of the New Testament. Where no one had been put. This circumstance, recorded only by St. Luke and St. John, has a providential purpose: to show that it was indeed Jesus, and not someone else, who emerged resurrected from the tomb.

Luke 23.⁵⁴ It was Preparation Day and the Sabbath was about to begin. – The day of preparation. Mark 15:42 explains this Greek expression by referring to a half-Hebrew noun that designated Friday. On that day, the Jews "prepared" everything necessary for the Sabbath, the rest of which was inviolable: hence the name Paraskeva, or preparation. The witches' sabbath was about to begin. Literally: the Sabbath began to shine. And yet it was evening. Thus, according to various authors, it should be understood here either as the glow of the stars, or even (Kuinoel) as that of the seven-branched lamps lit on Friday evening in all Israelite homes to celebrate the arrival of the Sabbath. But it is much more accurate to see in this expression a simple metaphor, by which what directly applies only to the beginning of the natural day is applied to the beginning of an artificial day (for example, the Sabbath, which began in the evening).

Luke 23.⁵⁵ Women who had come from Galilee with Jesus, having accompanied Joseph, considered the tomb and how the body of Jesus had been laid in it. – Women They had “closely followed” Joseph and the funeral procession. – See verse 49. St. Matthew and St. Mark mention them by name. Married Madeleine and the other Married, mother of St. James the Less. – They considered the tomb… Graphic details, specific to St. Luke in this form. Cf. St. Mark: «they observed where it was placed».

Luke 23.⁵⁶ So they returned home and prepared spices and perfumes, and on the Sabbath day they rested, according to the commandment. This verse explains the end of the previous one. We see why the holy women had looked so carefully at where in the tomb the sacred body of Jesus was placed (Jewish tombs usually contained several niches or cavities in which the bodies were placed): it was because they intended to return soon to complete his burial as soon as the Sabbath rest was over. Having returned to the city and to their homes, They prepared spices and perfumes . The second of these nouns indicates perfumes in liquid form, while the first, which is more general, refers to dry and solid substances. According to Mark 16:1, the purchase of spices took place only on Saturday evening. Combining the two accounts, we can say that the pious Galilean women, not having had time to obtain everything they desired on Friday, completed their supply of perfumes after the Sabbath. The reconciliation thus occurred without the slightest violence. – «They kept quiet, according to the law»: that is to say, in accordance with the precepts of Mosaic law, which the first Christians continued to obey for a time.