The Gospel according to Saint John, commented on verse by verse

CHAPTER 19

John 19.¹ Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged. – John 19, 1-3 = Matt. 27, 24-30; Mark. 15, 15-19; Luke, 23, 24-25. – SO. The usual logical transition. Pilate having failed in his second attempt (18:39-40) as in the first (Luke 23:6-12), he resorts this time to violence, hoping to arouse the pity of the crowd. Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged. (through his soldiers, as in "took"). See in Luke 23:22 the peculiar reasoning the governor used to decree this punishment against an accused man he considered innocent. It is clear from this, and from the entire account in John, that in Pilate's mind, the purpose of the scourging was to calm the fanaticism of the Jews and to save Jesus from death. It was as if one were calming wild beasts by showing them blood. On the cruelty of this punishment and the manner in which it was inflicted, see the note under Matthew 27:26.

John 19.² And the soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns, placed it on his head, and clothed him in a purple robe., – And the soldiers…A brutal soldiery adds further to the barbarity of the legal torture by inventing crude and cruel insults. Pilate lets it happen, still hoping to thus satisfy the hatred of the Jews and save Jesus. This was, moreover, a frequent and atrocious custom of those times: «So that insulting mockery may be added to those who perish,» Tacitus, Annals 15, 44. Having woven a crown. They wanted to parody scenes from a royal enthronement: it was the "King of the Jews" they thought they were mocking. Thorns. Probably the nabk or nebek, with its flexible branches and long, sharp thorns. See the note under Matthew 27:29. And they clothed him in a purple robe. The Greek text is even more picturesque: they threw around him… St. Matthew alone points out the exact nature of this garment, which consisted of a red soldier's chlamys, and not, as preachers so often repeat, a "rag of purple". 

John 19.³ Then, approaching him, they said, "Hail, King of the Jews," and they slapped him. – After these preliminaries comes the ceremony itself, no less horrific. St. Matthew and St. Mark recount it in more detail. approaching him This is, however, a characteristic specific to St. John, and quite graphic; one would think one was seeing these barbaric mercenaries approaching Jesus with affected gravity. They were saying: Hi…They simultaneously bent their knees in an ironic manner, Matthew 19:3. And they slapped him. An expression specific to St. John, cf. 18:22 and the commentary. The incomparable patience of Jesus.

John 19.⁴ Pilate went out again and said to the Jews, "Here I am bringing him out to you, so that you may know that I find no guilt in him."« – Pilate went out once again. For the third time, see 18, 29, 38. Here I bring it to you out. Pilate thus presented Our Lord Jesus Christ himself to the Jews, attesting that, by this act of condescension, he wanted to convince them (so that you know) that he was entirely convinced of the accused's innocence. See above, 18, 38, a nearly identical sentence; but the proud Ἐγὼ (I, me) of v. 38 is here omitted, and the arrangement of the words makes the thought a little softer: we see that the prosecutor is losing his composure.

John 19.⁵ Jesus then came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the scarlet robe, and Pilate said to them, «Here is the man.» – So Jesus went out…Everything in this passage is painfully tragic, the expressions no less than the events. It's a vivid painting. Wearing the crown of thorns and the cloak scarlet. The repetition of these already known details is clearly emphatic. Jesus, covered in wounds, blood, and spittle (Matt. 27:30; Mark 15:19), transformed by a vile mob into a caricature of a king, "not the glory of empire but the highest degree of disgrace" (St. Augustine, hl). Afflicted souls have often found peace and the resignation in this divine painting, the fishermen From it drew their repentance, and the painters their noblest inspirations (among others, Titian, Guercino, Mignard, Rembrandt). This is the man. Words of pity, by which Pilate appealed to the feelings of humanity that resonate in every human heart. Even the most cruel enemies of Jesus must have been, it seems, fully satisfied. «If it is the king you envy, now spare him; you see him thrown down, he has been scourged, crowned with thorns, dressed in theatrical garb; he has been mocked, heaped with bitter insults, and slapped: his ignominy is complete, let your anger subside.» St. Augustine of Hippo, Treatise on St. John 116, 2. In modern Jerusalem, pilgrims are shown, near the Convent of the Ladies of Sion, the arch of the «Ecce Homo,» from which Pilate is said to have shown Our Lord Jesus Christ to the Jews. Its authenticity is not certain, although it is undoubtedly a Roman monument. 

John 19.⁶ When the chief priests and the guards saw him, they cried out, "Crucify him! Crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no guilt in him."« – Pilate was strangely mistaken. «But far from calming down, their rage flared up and took on new proportions,» continues St. Augustine. It is not through cowardly concessions that one appeases the passions of an irritated crowd. The princes of the priests and the guards. The hierarchs and their servants took a bloody initiative to be more certain of leading the masses around them. They exclaimed cf. 18, 40. – Crucify him! Crucify him! This repetition betrays the full force of their hateful sentiments. So this is the Jews' response to Pilate's half-measures: the sight of the Man of Sorrows inflames them instead of calming them. To satisfy them, the work begun must be completed promptly. Pilate told them. Note the rapid pace of the dialogue in these verses (5-7). Take it yourselves. Ironic words, which we have already seen previously on the lips of the governor (18, 31). What follows contains an even more bitter sarcasm (and crucify him); for the Jews had lost the right to the sword, and moreover, crucifixion was for them an unlawful punishment. Because for me, I find no crime in him… See 18, 38, and 19, 4. Pilate thus justifies the refusal which he maliciously concealed under an apparent concession.

John 19.⁷ The Jews answered him, «We have a law, and according to our law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.» – The Jews replied to himThey fully understood that the governor was granting them only an illusory right, and yet they needed his explicit approval to achieve their goals: they were going to launch a new accusation against Jesus, hoping to obtain a death warrant. Pilate's hesitation only emboldened them. We have a law. The use of "We" is emphatic. The hierarchs are alluding to Leviticus 24:16 and Deuteronomy 18:20; they are also suggesting that Rome generally inspired in its representatives in the provinces a great respect for the laws of the conquered peoples. And according to the law he must die. Once again, although in a different way (cf. 18, 30), they want to make Pilate the mere executor of their own sentence. They define this by the following words, because he became the Son of God, In this way, the accused has gravely violated Jewish law. Since Jesus proclaimed himself the Son of God, he is a blasphemer, a sacrilege, a crime punishable by death among the Jews. How cruelly cunning these hierarchs are, shifting course according to circumstances, moving from a religious accusation (Matthew 26:65 ff.) to a political one (Luke 23:2), then back to a religious offense (in this passage), and finally to yet another political incrimination (verse 12). The expression "he made himself" is very telling. "Son of God" must be understood in a strictly metaphysical sense, and not as a synonym for Messiah; for they (the Jews) had previously accused Jesus, in vain, of claiming to be Christ the King, and it is clear that here they are pushing their point even further. 

John 19.⁸ Having heard these words, Pilate was even more frightened. – Having heard these wordsThis new scene is indeed a consequence of the new accusation brought against Jesus. Pilate was even more frightened. Already deeply affected by the heavenly attitude of Our Lord Jesus Christ and by his own wife's dream (cf. Matthew 27:19), Pilate was even more so when he heard this statement from the Jews, which he interpreted, of course, according to his pagan ideas. If this majestic accused man was truly a superhuman being, the son of some deity, what terrible vengeance from the gods might one not incur by participating in his condemnation? As the proverb so aptly puts it: Unbeliever, believer. But there is a vast difference between this superstitious fear of the procurator and the sentiment Tertullian attributes to him when he writes: "Already a Christian by virtue of the intimate knowledge he had of himself." (Apol. 21). 

John 19.⁹ And going back into the praetorium, he said to Jesus, "Where are you from?" But Jesus gave him no answer. – And returning to the courtroom, cf. 18, 33. Overwhelmed by this impression, Pilate wants to question the accused again. Where are you from? The question is deliberately left somewhat vague. Understood in the ordinary way, "from where" referred to the earthly homeland of Jesus; but the governor hoped to discover, in the information the divine prisoner would give him about his origin, some details about his true nature. But Jesus gave him no answer.. What good is an answer in such a case? Cf. Matthew 7:6. Would Pilate have understood? The earlier answer, 18:37, was, moreover, sufficient. This admirable combination of the silence of Our Lord Jesus Christ and his answers marked by heavenly wisdom is not one of the least beautiful aspects of his Passion. See his similar conduct before the Sanhedrin, Matthew 26:62-64, and before Herod, Luke 23:6-12. «When he did not answer, he remained silent like a sheep (Isaiah 53, 7); when he answered, he taught like a shepherd,» St. Augustine of Hippo, Treatise on St. John. 116, 5. 

John 19.¹⁰ Pilate said to him, "Do you refuse to speak to me? Do you not know that I have the power to set you free and the power to crucify you?"« – Pilate is offended at receiving no reply. In this response, delivered in the tone of an irresponsible teacher, he brutally asserts his supreme authority to intimidate the accused. You're not talking to me. ? Me, the leading figure in the province? Do you not know? that…The governor draws Jesus' attention to the disastrous consequences of such conduct. I have the power, he exclaims proudly twice, and he presents a double alternative, to deliver you and the power to crucify you ? On the one hand, freedom, on the other, the shameful and cruel torture of the cross; he ends with punishment to produce a greater effect.

John 19.¹¹ Jesus answered, «You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore, the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.» – Jesus answered…This is the last time the Savior will speak to the governor. How he places himself above this arrogant judge! Pilate speaks only of his power: Jesus reminds him of his dependence and his responsibility. The roles are reversed, and the presiding judge himself becomes the accused. You would have no power over me. The adjective none The use of the neutral language helps to reinforce the idea. if it had not been given to you produces the same result. From above. That is to say: «by God,» cf. 3:31. The pagans themselves admitted this supremacy of God in human affairs, although they so often denied it in practice. In reality, the government of the world is a theocracy, for God will never cease to be the «king of kings,» the source of all human power, cf. 3:27; ; Romans 13, 1-7. No matter what men do, he will never abdicate, and even a despotic judge like Pilate could not use his authority outside of providential plans. That's why Because the procurator does not have absolute, independent power, but is, at this very moment and in relation to Jesus, merely an instrument in divine hands. After having so publicly affirmed, in the first part of his reply, the sovereign authority of God, Our Lord insists on the responsibility of earthly judges. The one who handed me over to you… Our Lord was referring to Caiaphas, not Judas, when he spoke these words, for it was not Judas who betrayed Jesus to the Roman governor, cf. 18:35. has a greater sin. See, concerning the crime of a majority of the members of the Sanhedrin, chapters 15, 22, and 24. After so many miracles proving the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, after so much enlightenment they had received in every way, not to believe was already a grave sin; but, moreover, they had long been plotting Jesus' death, and even then they were doing everything in their power to have him condemned to a cruel torture. As for Pilate, he was also guilty, though less grievously: abusing the powers he received from on high, he was about to allow the shedding of an innocent man's blood. 

John 19.¹² From that moment, Pilate sought to free him. But the Jews shouted, saying, "If you free him, you are not a friend of Caesar; whoever claims to be king declares himself against Caesar."« – From that moment on. Others give this word the meaning of "for this reason" (the Syriac, St. Augustine, Patrizi, Keil, Westcott, etc.), cf. 6, 66. Previously, Pilate had already made several attempts to save Jesus, but indirectly, half-heartedly. Here we are talking about supreme, more direct, repeated efforts, as expressed by the imperfect tense. searched. The Savior's response (verse 11) made him more anxious than ever, and he desperately wanted to avoid sharing in his condemnation. Pilate was trying to free him. Why didn't he do it himself, since he had full authority in that matter? But the Jews were shouting…But (in contrast) the Jews were shouting. They too redoubled their efforts, for fear that their victim might escape. If you release him…Their intelligent hatred will transform, according to the needs of the moment, the religious offense of which they accused Our Lord, into a political crime. You are not Caesar's friend. Knowing the procurator's ambition, the Jews openly threatened him with the emperor's disgrace, to whom they were quite prepared to defame him. How many men more courageous than Pilate have suddenly become cowards for a similar motive? According to Wetstein, 111, "It was said that the legates, procurators, prefects, and councilors were friends of Caesar"; but it was not to this official title that the hierarchs were referring. Releasing the prisoner, such was their thought, would be for the governor to go against Caesar's interests and risk losing imperial favor soon, that is to say, losing his position. For whoThey will develop their assertion and demonstrate its truth. He makes himself king, as was the case for Jesus, according to them. – He declares himself against Caesar. To proclaim oneself king in an established, organized kingdom was obviously to contradict, and in the most serious way, the reigning sovereign; it was to commit the crime of lèse-majesté. The "lex majestatis," as it was called in Rome, was then wielded extremely harshly by Tiberius, according to Suetonius (Tiber., c. 58). "The crime of lèse-majesté was the complement of all accusations," adds Tacitus, speaking of the same emperor (Ann. 3, 38). Thus, a simple accusation was tantamount to a death sentence. The hierarchs knew what they were saying. 

John 19.¹³ Pilate, having heard these words, had Jesus led out and sat down on his judgment seat at the place called Lithostrotos and in Hebrew Gabbatha. – Pilate, having heard…The details become increasingly numerous, as in 18:1-4; one senses that the decisive hour has arrived. The governor, intimidated by the latest threats from the Jews, seems to have now made up his mind. This time, he gives them no reply; he confines himself to a few solemn preparations before proceeding to the sentence. These words All the previous pronouncements of the hierarchs had had a strong effect on Pilate. led Jesus out. Roman law required that death sentences be proclaimed during the day and from an elevated position. (c. Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War 2.14.8). The procurator complied with all these legal formalities. And sat down. The verb would be used in the active sense according to some exegetes («he made him sit down»), in accordance with the passages 1 Corinthians 6:4; Ephesians 1:20. However, against this interpretation we can argue that St. John always uses this verb in the intransitive sense (cf. 8:2; 12:4; ; Apocalypse 3, 21; 20, 4). See also Acts 12:21; 25:6, 17. On his tribunal. The lack of an article seems to indicate that this was not a fixed tribunal, but an improvised platform consisting of a stepladder and a ceremonial chair. At the place called Lithrostrotos. This is the Greek word derived from "lapis," "sterno," and meaning "mosaics whose fragments are all cut in the shape of cubes." Mosaics were then common in wealthy Greek and Roman houses, and Josephus recounts, which is more interesting for us, that in Jerusalem the Temple Mount was paved with mosaics on the side of the Antonia Citadel (cf. Jewish Antiquities, 5.5.2). In Hebrew (cf. 5, 2; 19, 17), Gabbatha. In Hebrew letters, גבתא, meaning "high place, platform". The Hebrew name was therefore not the equivalent of the Greek name, but it designated the same place.

John 19.¹⁴ It was the day of Preparation for Passover, and it was about the sixth hour. Pilate said to the Jews, "Here is your king."« – The first half of this verse contains two chronological indications, intended to preserve the memory of a day and an hour so important for the salvation of the world; but these indications have given rise to exegetical difficulties. It was the day of preparation for Passover.. According to many commentators, this should be understood as the eve of Passover, the day on which the final preparations were made for the celebration of the feast, therefore the 14th of Nisan. It would then follow that, according to St. John, Our Lord Jesus Christ was crucified on that same day, the 14th, and not on the 15th as we have assumed. But this is a false deduction. As has often been repeated following Bochart (Hieroz., p. 567), "The sacred authors knew of no other Paraskeva or preparation than that of the Sabbath." In other words, the New Testament uses the name Paraskeva only to designate Friday, the day on which the Jews "prepared" everything they needed for the Sabbath, especially food. Cf. verse 31; Mark 15:42, a very explicit passage; Luke. 23, 54. This designation would not have been at all appropriate for the festivals, since they did not render all work illicit, and in particular the preparation of meals. Around the sixth hour. St. John only took care to note the hours in five places in his Gospel: 1:39; 4:6, 52; 11:9; and here. We have already said that, "a priori" and in all likelihood, he must have calculated the hours in the same way as the other evangelists, between six o'clock in the morning and six o'clock in the evening. See the note under Matthew 20:3. But then, "a great difficulty arises," St. Augustine of Hippo, Treatise on St. John, 116, 8. Indeed, "because of the testimony of the Gospel of Mark (15:25) which says: 'It was the third hour and they crucified him' (ibid.). And doesn't St. John contradict himself? He has shown us the Jews bringing Our Lord very early in the morning. Jesus Christ in the Praetorium (cf. XVIII, 25); but where to find enough facts in his narrative to fill about six hours? There are several systems of reconciliation. – 1° The number three, in St. Mark, would be a copyist's error; Γ, the sign for 3, would have been substituted for ς or F, the signs for 6. Such was the opinion of Eusebius of Caesarea in the 4th century (cf. St. Jerome, Brev. in Ps. 77). Nothing is less plausible than this opinion, which is almost unanimously opposed by the manuscripts and versions. – 2° According to other critics (Fathers Patrizi, Corluy, etc.), it is in the text of St. John that an error would have crept in, sixth instead of third. They rely on manuscripts D, L, X, Δ, etc., on Nonnus and the Chronicon Paschale; but also, with little probability, for the reason already stated. – 3° As Mr. Godet, a scholar at that time, put it, «the day, like the night, was roughly divided into four portions of three hours each. This explains why there is almost never any mention, in the entire New Testament, of anything but the third, sixth, and ninth hours, and why also… the expressions «Approximately, About» are so frequent (Matthew 27:46; Luke 23:44; John 4:6; 19:14; Acts 10:3, 9)… It is certainly permissible to take averages here, either from St. Mark or from St. John….» Since the third hour of St. Mark can extend from 6 to 10 o'clock, the sixth of St. John certainly includes from eleven to noon.” This, and another development too lengthy to cite, seems to us more subtle than real. It allows far too much leeway to resolve the difficulty. – 4. The easiest and simplest system consists of saying that St. John counted the hours from midnight to midnight, as we ourselves do. In this way, the expression Around the sixth hour This would designate approximately 5 a.m. Wieseler, in his Beitraege, p. 252, cites several facts to demonstrate that in the time of Strabo and Pliny this method of calculation had already spread in Asia Minor, and his reasoning has convinced a number of distinguished exegetes, including Messrs. Woodsworth, Macclellan, Keil, Westcott, etc. Nevertheless, the demonstration seems insufficient to us with regard to the fourth Gospel. Besides, at six o'clock, Jesus was barely being brought into the praetorium, and where, between dawn and that early hour, could one find enough time to place all the events recounted by the combined evangelists? – 5° There remains, therefore, the fifth and final system, the most difficult of all, but also the most probable, which we placed at the beginning of this short dissertation. We therefore now believe, along with most commentators (although we once held a different view; see the note under Matthew 27:45), that the numbering in St. John for the hours of the day is the same as that in the Synoptic Gospels, because we see no sufficient reason to suppose otherwise. To establish harmony with St. Mark, we adhere to the particle approximately, which leaves us some leeway; moreover, as has been noted, since St. Mark is not always perfectly accurate in his indications of time, it is in favor of St. John that the dispute must be settled here (Schanz). Here is your king, cf. verse 5. There, Pilate was moved by a feeling of pity towards Our Lord Jesus Christ; now, he thinks only of mocking and taking revenge on the Jews. 

John 19.¹⁵ But they began to shout, "Die! Die! Crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Shall I crucify your king?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar."« – But (in response to Pilate's irony) they shouted: Let him die! Let him die! Crucify him! See Luke 23:18. These barbaric cries express their hateful rage, their impatience to be done with Jesus. Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your king?” – The princes of the priests replied… This abyss of degradation was reserved for the hierarchs. The official organs of the theocracy themselves proclaim that they have deserted the faith by which the nation had lived. Rather than recognizing the messianic character of Jesus, they publicly affirm that a pagan emperor is their king. This, in fact, is the meaning of their cry: We have no other king than Caesar. They renounced all their theocratic rights and privileges, their Messiah, their religion, declaring themselves mere subjects of Tiberius. «By rejecting the kingship of Jesus, they enslaved themselves to pagan power. They cast off the yoke of Heaven to take upon themselves a yoke of flesh and blood.» (D. Mollat, SJ). God allowed them to suffer the consequences of their rejection of the Truth. They elected Caesar as their king; it was by Caesar that they were destroyed, and this during the Passover festival itself.

John 19.¹⁶ So he handed him over to be crucified. – SO…The baseness of the Jews was matched by that of Pilate. On both sides, there was a judicial murder. He handed it over to them. St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke also contain a nearly identical passage. It was to the Jews that Pilate handed Jesus over; the majority of the Jewish elite [and not the entire Jewish people] were the true executioners of Our Lord («They extorted votes by force,» Tertullian forcefully states in Apology 21): the Roman soldiers were merely the physical executors of the sentence. But Pilate, too, committed political suicide at that time; for he later lost his position, to which he had sacrificed, despite the protests of his conscience, the blood of an innocent man. See the note under Matthew 27:24.

John 19.¹⁷ And they took Jesus and led him away. Jesus, carrying his cross, came outside the city to the place called Calvary, in Hebrew Golgotha, – John 19, 17-18 = Mth. 27, 31-35a Mk. 15, 20-24a Lk. 22, 26-34. – And they took Jesus. This phrase is correlative to "he delivered him to them" (verse 16a); the subject of the verb is "chief priests" in verse 15, although in reality the Roman soldiers are now the immediate actors, as we have just said. And they took him away. Immediately, because in ancient times, execution followed the sentence very closely. Jesus, carrying his cross. «Giving up joy which was set before him, he endured the cross, despising its shame,” Hebrews 12:2. He is a new Isaac carrying the wood of his sacrifice (Genesis 22:6); and, strikingly, Jesus took up the cross in the very place where Abraham’s only son laid the wood of the burnt offering, on Mount Moriah. See, on this ancient opinion, St. Melito of Sardis. On the form of the cross and the barbaric custom of making the condemned carry the instrument of his torture, see commentary on Matthew 27:32 and 35. Arrived. In verse 16, «led away» referred to the departure from the praetorium; «arrived» designates the moment when the funeral procession passed through the city gate, for Jesus «suffered his suffering outside the city gates» (Hebrews 13:12), in accordance with Jewish and Roman customs. St. John omits the incidents relating to Simon of Cyrene and the women of Jerusalem. We have briefly described the traditional Stations of the Cross in the note under Mark 15:21. Instead named Calvary (cf. Luke 23:33). At that time, it was merely a mound of land, which owed its name to the general resemblance it was found to have to a human skull. (cf. commentary on Matthew 27:33-34.) In Hebrew, Golgotha, cf. Matthew 27:22 and the commentary. We have said a word, in the same place, about the discussion that has arisen concerning the location of Golgotha.

John 19.¹⁸ That is where they crucified him and two others with him, one on each side and Jesus in the middle. – It's theto whom they crucified him. A horrible and ignominious torture, the details of which we have described elsewhere (Gospel according to St. Matthew). Everything had been horribly conspired to delay death as much as possible, even at the cost of accumulating suffering. We will add this complete text from Nonnus to what we have said about the number of nails: «He perished suspended in the air by iron nails, and stretched out by the fourfold bond of death upon the wood.» And two others with him : two ordinary criminals, according to the Synoptic Gospels. "The same punishment for all, but for different causes," St. Augustine. One on each side, to the right and left of Jesus. The Greek expression is used only here and in Acts 22:2. And Jesus in the middle. A dramatic contrast. The place of honor became, in similar circumstances, a place of deeper humiliation. Isaiah had foretold this detail, 53:12, cf. Luke 22:37. 

John 19.¹⁹ Pilate also had an inscription made and placed at the top of the cross. It read: «Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.» – John 19, 19-22 = Matt. 27, 37; Mark, 15, 26; Luke. 23, 38. – Pilate also made an inscription. It was the governor's prerogative, in his capacity as supreme judge, to compose the inscription that was affixed to the top of the cross (cf. commentary on Matthew 27:37): Pilate took advantage of his right to avenge himself on the hierarchs by humiliating them. The procurator wrote the inscription immediately after the condemnation, at the same time as the other preparations for the crucifixion were being made. A registration (without article): the technical name used by the Romans. St. John is the only one to use it. and had it put on top of the cross : «over the head of Jesus», Matthew 27:37. She carried these words By a singular divine instinct, it was necessary that the kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ be publicly proclaimed. He dies like a criminal; but he is king, and glorious king, and conquering king, even on the instrument of his torture. – The inscription, as preserved by St. John, consists of three things, namely: the name of the divine victim, Jesus, his homeland, of Nazareth  ; the crime for which he was convicted;, king of the Jews. See the note under Luke 23:38, a comparison between the variants of the inscription according to the four Gospels. 

John 19.²⁰ Many Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus had been crucified was near the city and the inscription was in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. – Many Jewsthey saw this sign. They read it to their profound confusion; many pagans must have read it too, and used it to ridicule the hopes of the Jews. Was near the city… cf. Matthew 27:33. Painters usually make a mistake by placing Jerusalem in the distance. the inscription was in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. The mention of the three languages is specific to St. Luke and St. John. Inscriptions in several languages were not uncommon in the Roman provinces at that time; they were even a necessity if everyone was to be able to read them (cf. Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 14, 10, 2). St. Augustine writes on this passage: «These three languages dominated all others here: Hebrew, because of its use by the Jews to glorify God’s law; Greek, because of the scholars of the pagans; Latin, because of the Roman domination over almost all peoples» (Treatise on St. John, 117, 4, cf. Luke 23:38 and the commentary).

John 19.²¹ But the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, "Do not write: 'The King of the Jews,' but that he himself said: 'I am the King of the Jews.'"« – THE princes of priests Jews A remarkable expression, found nowhere else. The chief priests did not have to appear en masse before Pilate; they sent him a delegation. They told Pilate… The imperfect tense denotes forceful and repeated demands. Do not put the King of the Jews …Humiliated to see a condemned man called, in front of everyone and in a virtually official manner, the king of their nation, they proposed a modification to the text of the inscription, but he himself said: I am the King of the Jews. The hierarchs continued their slander against Jesus to the very end, trying to classify him among the false Messiahs who were so numerous at the time.

John 19.²² Pilate replied, "What I wrote, I wrote."« – Pilate replied. Previously cowardly, Pilate refused in the most categorical terms to comply with this demand. He yielded on everything else, remaining inflexible on one small detail, Providence permitting him to affirm that Jesus "The Lord established his kingdom by the cross." Moreover, the procurator knew that he had nothing to fear for his private interests in this matter. What I wrote, I wrote. In Greek, two perfect tenses in quick succession, the time of the accomplished fact and on which there is no further recourse.

John 19.²³ After crucifying Jesus, the soldiers took his clothes and divided them into four parts, one for each of them. They also took his tunic, which was seamless, made of a single piece of fabric from top to bottom. – John 19, 23-24 = Matt. 27, 35-36; Mark. 15, 24; Luke. 23, 34. – The soldiers, after crucifying Jesus…After the retrospective episode of verses 19-22, the evangelist resumes the story of the final moments of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The details he has preserved concerning the division of the garments are largely new, especially those relating to the holy tunic. The soldiers refers to the squad of four soldiers who had acted as executioners for Jesus (after crucifying Jesus), cf. Acts 12:4. – They took his clothes. Indeed, "the condemned are crucified naked," the law stated. On this custom and on the distribution of the crucified men's clothing to the executioners, see the note under Matthew 27:35. And they divided it into four parts. Likely: the cloak, the veil used to cover the head, the belt, the sandals. The tunic will be considered separately, as we will see. One share for each soldier. According to the Synoptic Gospels, each person's lot was determined by lot. It was a seamless tunic. This seamless tunic, woven in one piece like those worn by priests (according to the historian Josephus), with an opening at the top for the head, was undoubtedly the work of Married, or the gift of one of the holy women who provided for Jesus' needs. It is believed to be kept in Trier. See Rohault de Fleury, Les Instruments de la Passion, p. 250.

John 19.²⁴ So they said to one another, «Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be,» so that the Scripture might be fulfilled: «They divided my garments among them and cast lots for my robe.» And so the soldiers did. So they said to each other (because of the peculiarity just mentioned): Let's not tear it up, but draw lots.Sharing it would have meant destroying it, and none of the four wanted to relinquish their rights to it. so that it may be fulfilled… In this small detail, the evangelist shows us, according to his custom, the striking fulfillment of an ancient prophecy of the Holy Spirit. – This word from Scripture. This is Psalm 21, verse 19, quoted verbatim from the Septuagint translation. The quotation consists of two clauses, which repeat the same idea with a simple variation in expression, by virtue of Hebrew parallelism. – First clause: They divided my clothes among themselves. In the Greek text, it refers to the outer garments, cf. verse 23. – Second part of the sentence: and they cast lots for my tunic. In Hebrew, in the singular, it refers to the innermost garment, the tunic itself. This second part expresses a clear gradation, both within the text of the prophecy and in its fulfillment. That's what the soldiers did. A solemn repetition, to emphasize the thought. While Jesus hangs from four wounds, as Bossuet says, and long before he dies, the executioners take his clothes. – It is here that the Sanhedrin's crude insults and the touching episode of the good thief should be placed.

John 19.²⁵ Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother and his mother's sister., Married, wife of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene. – Near the cross of Jesus. According to Mark 15:40, the holy women "watched from a distance," while John shows them standing at the very foot of the cross. Is this a true contradiction, as rationalists claim? We will answer by quoting the adage: "Distinguish the times, and Scripture will agree." The two narrators are therefore not describing what took place in a single instant: having initially remained at some distance, the Savior's friends had drawn closer to his cross. They were standing. A stark contrast: the group of friends is thus opposed to that of the executioners (verses 23 ff.). His mother. Married was there courageously, enduring all the anguish foretold by the old man Simeon (Luke 2:35), in the attitude and sentiments so admirably expressed by the author of the Stabat Mater prayer. And his mother's sister, Married, Cleophas' wife. A discussion has arisen regarding this line. Should we look at Married, Are the wife of Cleophas and the sister of the Virgin Mary two distinct persons, or should they be identified? Some ancient versions (the Peshitta, the Ethiopic, the Persian) settle the question by inserting the conjunction "and" before "Mary"; but these are contradicted by all other documents. Tradition also contradicts them regarding the event itself, for it very commonly accepts the identity. The proponents, quite numerous today, of the contrary opinion object that then there would have been two sisters called Married within the same family. They are told that this has happened more than once, and that it is easy to establish some distinction using a nickname or an abbreviation; or, though less reliably, that the Holy Virgin and Married Cleophas's sisters could well have been merely sisters-in-law, or first cousins on his father's side. The second Married was the wife, and not the mother (Ewald) or the sister (Patrizi), or the daughter (Calmet) of Cleophas. Regarding Cleophas himself, or Alpheus (in Hebrew Chalpai), see the explanation in Matthew 10:3. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.11, makes him a brother of St. Joseph. The relationship of Married Cleophas's relationship with the Blessed Virgin explains that of his son, St. James the Less, with Our Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Galatians 1:19). And Mary Magdalene. The pious penitent could not miss this scene of love and generous compassion. The Synoptic Gospels also speak of Salome, mother of St. James the Greater and St. John, and of several other holy women (cf. Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40). 

John 19.²⁶ When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, «Woman, behold your son.» – Having seen his mother. What a painful blow this was to the filial heart of Jesus. But from his very sorrow he will bring forth consolation for his mother. And beside her, the disciple…John, too, remained faithful in the position of honor to which the holy affections he received, and which he himself felt so keenly, had irresistibly led him. The phrase «whom he loved» could not be omitted here, for it alone explains why Jesus entrusted his mother to St. John in preference to any other disciple (cf. 13:22 and the commentary). Jesus said to his mother. This is, in a way, his testament that Our Lord Jesus Christ is about to make. «But what can he give, naked and stripped as he is, a poor slave who no longer has anything in his power to dispose of…? Wherever he turns his eyes, Jesus sees nothing that belongs to him. I am mistaken; he sees Married and St. John, who are there to tell him: We are yours. That is all the good that remains to him; he gives it to one another.» Bossuet, Panegyric of St. John, Part 2. Women. On this term, see 2, 4 and the note. It is through a huge and inept misinterpretation that various incredulous or heterodox commentators have regarded it as a term of coldness: Jesus, they add, was thus showing his mother that he was renouncing her completely, to place himself in the hands of his Heavenly Father. But others have been able to understand it better, despite their prejudices. «From a psychological point of view,» writes Mr. Reuss, «nothing is as touching as these supreme words, addressed to a grieving mother and a beloved disciple.» And J.P. Lange rightly finds that the name «woman» was then admirably suited to the one who was the “ideal woman.” So (with a double glance from her dying eyes, one on Married, (the other on St. John) your son. We refrain from commenting on such great things. «How Jesus honors his disciple, making him his own brother. How good it is to stand near the cross, and to remain with Jesus when he suffers.» Theophylact, 111. It is quite evident, as even Protestants (Olshausen, Hengstenberg, etc.) deduce from this scene, that Married She had no other children; otherwise, Jesus would have entrusted his mother to one of them. But how many sons did she not receive with St. John? «In the person of St. John, the Virgin Married received all the elect, like the testament of Jesus Christ dying on the cross.» Noël Alexandre, hl And again: «It seems to me that a great mystery is expressed in this: for he commended us all to the care, protection, and intercession of the Blessed Virgin,» Tolet. We too, therefore, became children of at Calvary Married and the brothers of Jesus. Exegetical accuracy, however, requires that we consider this thought only as a touching adaptation, not contained in the literal meaning and relatively recent: as far as we know, this proposition, that the Blessed Virgin Married then brought all humankind into being; and that what was said to John applies to every disciple of Jesus. Consequently, although this proposition can only originate from the Gospel by extension, it is nonetheless worthy of great respect and great veneration.

John 19.²⁷ Then he said to the disciple, "Here is your mother." And from that hour the disciple took her into his home. – Afterwards He said to the disciple: Here is your Mother. This statement corresponds entirely to the previous one, with the sole difference that there is no preceding title correlative to "Woman." Jesus had given St. Peter his Church; he gives his mother to St. John. "He entrusted a virgin mother to a virgin," St. Jerome, De vir. Illustr. Let us again draw upon Bossuet, loc: "O John, I give you Married, and I give you at the same time to Mary… Married John belongs to St. John, and St. John belongs to Mary… All the tender and respectful love he had for his mother will live on in John's heart. He who turns hearts as he pleases, and whose word is all-powerful and works in them all that he says, he makes Married mother of John and John son of Married."Furthermore, Married She must already have harbored, to some extent, maternal feelings for her son's chosen disciple. Salome, who was also at the cross (note to verse 24), must have experienced a profound emotion upon hearing Jesus' words. – The evangelist adds another detail to illustrate the fulfillment of his Master's last wish: And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.. Married John and Mary had been placed under each other's protection; but, as was fitting, it was the adopted son who first played the principal role, receiving the Blessed Virgin in the house he then occupied in Jerusalem. We must not rush the interpretation of the words "from that hour" and conclude that Married John and John immediately left the cross and Calvary. It would be unnatural for them to have withdrawn before the Savior's last breath. – What a sweet and vivid memory for the beloved apostle during his long life. On the life of the Blessed Virgin from the Passion onward, see Act 1, 14. Tradition is not unanimous on several important points. According to St. Epiphanius, Haer 78, 11 (cf. Nicephus, Ecclesiastical History 2, 3), Married She is said to have lived for another eleven years in Jerusalem with St. John, and it was there that she peacefully fell asleep in the Lord (her tomb is venerated in the Kidron Valley, not far from Gethsemane). On the contrary, the Synodal Letter of the Council of Ephesus asserts that she died, aged 72, in that city where she is said to have accompanied St. John (cf. Labbe, Conc. t. 3, p. 573).

John 19.²⁸ After this, Jesus, knowing that everything was now finished in order to fulfill the Scripture, said, «I thirst.» – John 19, 28-30 = Matt. 27, 45-50; Mark. 15, 33-37; Luke. 23, 44-46. – After that In Greek, that is singular; therefore, immediately after having bequeathed his mother to St. John. Jesus, knowing : by his divine knowledge, cf. 13, 1. – That everything was now accomplished. All It refers to the entire messianic work of Jesus. So that Scripture might be fulfilled. The fulfillment here refers to the complete and full realization of the Old Testament (Scripture) prophecies concerning the Messiah. Said. It is to this verb, and not to "all was accomplished," that we connect the parenthetical phrase "so that the Scripture might be fulfilled." By pronouncing the word I'm thirsty., Jesus was not merely uttering a cry wrung from him by his cruel suffering, but he was directly intending to fulfill the ancient prophecies that specified thirst as an integral part of Christ's agony (cf. Ps. 21:16; 68:22). Indeed, this is one of the most unbearable anxieties of the crucified: the reports of physicians attest to this. – Everything in this verse is specific to St. John. See: The Passion of Jesus Christ According to the Surgeon, by Dr. Pierre Barbet, Paris, 2003, MédiaPaul editions.

John 19.²⁹ There was a vase full of vinegar there; the soldiers filled a sponge with it and, having fixed it to the end of a hyssop stalk, they brought it close to his mouth. – There was a vase there…Another special feature. The description is picturesque, cf. 2, 6. The vase was there, very close to the cross. Full of vinegar. By "vinegar" we mean "posca," the sour drink of Roman soldiers (cf. Luke 23:36). There was a supply of it for the executioners and sentries. The soldiers filled a sponge with it. and having fixed it…Our evangelist, like St. Matthew and St. Mark, describes in graphic terms how they moistened Jesus' burning lips. He uses the plural, while the other two narrators more accurately attribute this act of compassion to only one of the bystanders. at the end of a hyssop stem. The mention of hyssop is a peculiarity of St. John (St. Matthew and St. Mark speak vaguely of a reed). This plant, according to the most probable opinion, belongs to the Lamiaceae family, to the genus "Origanum". The stem is barely 30 to 50 centimeters long; which was, moreover, sufficient for the intended purpose, the crosses usually being rather low. they’'approached his mouth. St. Matthew and St. Mark add the touch of cruel irony which was prompted by the words of Our Lord: «Eli, Eli…».

John 19.³⁰ When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished," and bowing his head, he gave up his spirit. – When Jesus had taken the vinegar. Special detail. Jesus had refused the narcotic drink offered to him before he was crucified (cf. Matthew 28:34 and the commentary); on the contrary, he accepts this final refreshment. He said: It is finished, cf. Ps. 30, 6. Accomplished as above. This word was in the heart of Jesus (v. 28). Now he expresses it with his mouth. In its brevity, this formula encompasses the entire work of Our Lord Jesus Christ, foretold by the prophecies and figures of the Old Testament, and then so aptly fulfilled by him. It is at once a cry of obedience and triumph. And lowering his head. Another strikingly dramatic detail: until then, Jesus had sometimes held his head slightly higher on the cross. He breathed his last.. He handed him over, gave him back to his father, in full freedom, cf. Luke 23:46; ; Galatians 2, 10; Ephesians 5:2, 25; 1 Peter 2:23, etc. «He laid down his soul when he himself willed,» Origen. «Who can fall asleep at his own pleasure, as Jesus died at the moment he chose? Who can take off a garment when he wants, as Jesus emptied himself of his body at the hour he chose? Who can depart according to his desire, as Jesus departed from this world when he consented?» St. Augustine, Treatises on St. John, 119, 6. Therefore, how great is the error of the exegetes who, relying on the assertions of some English and German doctors, claim that Our Lord Jesus Christ died from a ruptured aneurysm. Despite the ingenious arguments used to defend this view, it cannot withstand serious scrutiny from both a pathological and theological perspective. Renowned physicians have refuted it, proving that aneurysms presuppose either advanced age or a diseased condition, which was certainly not the case for Our Lord Jesus Christ. Theologians also reject it because it contradicts what is commonly taught about the perfection of the sacred body of the God-Man. Just as Jesus did not enter this world in the manner of other men, he also departed from it in a different way from theirs—that is, not through illness. 

John 19.³¹ Now, since it was the Preparation Day, lest the bodies should remain on the cross during the Sabbath, for that Sabbath day was very solemn, the Jews asked Pilate that the legs of the crucified men be broken and that they be taken down. – Now… the Jews… The particle Gold This links a new Jewish plot to everything they had previously done against Jesus. As it was the preparation. There is no article before the Greek word corresponding to preparation "Because it was the eve of the Sabbath." See verse 14 and the commentary. This circumstance is very favorable to the opinion we have tried to defend. For fear that the bodies would remain on the cross. According to Roman custom, the bodies of the crucified remained on the cross for quite some time. It was often putrefaction that caused them to be taken down, or wild beasts and birds of prey that snatched them away: very rarely were they returned to their families. In contrast, Jewish law strictly forbade the corpse of a condemned person from spending the night on the gallows. This would have been a desecration of the Holy Land (cf. Deuteronomy 21:12 ff.; Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War 4.5.2; Philo, In Flacc.). During the Sabbath. To this general circumstance was added that of the Sabbath, and an extraordinary Sabbath at that, as the parenthesis states: because that Sabbath day was solemn. It was indeed the Saturday within the Easter octave, and the Jewish leaders were particularly keen to ensure that it was not dishonored. They had not hesitated to commit the greatest crimes, and a detail of casuistry horrified them. (cf. 18, 28) The Jews asked Pilate. This was the second request they had made to him recently, cf. 19, 21. That the legs were broken to the crucified. This torture, which the Latins called "crurifragium," was sometimes inflicted separately (cf. Suetonius, Aug., 67; Seneca, De ira, 3, 32); but it was also used to hasten the death of the condemned when there was a hurry to finish the sentence: the lack of duration in the crucifixion was then compensated for by a doubling of suffering (cf. Lactantius, Divine Institutes, 4, 26). The leg bones were broken with blows from a club; the victim soon expired in a terrible agony. Otherwise, he could live on the cross for twenty-four, thirty-six, forty-eight hours, and even up to three days and three nights. This prolongation of the torture of the cross was proverbial. «To die a slow death, to drag out one’s life, to be consumed by torment, to perish limb by limb, and to lose one’s soul drop by drop.» Seneca, Letter 101. And that we detached of their crosses.

John 19.³² So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first man, and then of the other who had been crucified with him. – So the soldiers came… (Pilate having granted this time a request that seemed legitimate to him). The most likely opinion is that these soldiers formed a new squad, sent expressly for the "crurifragium." It is said, in fact, that they "came"; moreover, verse 33 contains an observation that could hardly apply to those who had carried out the crucifixion; finally, they were undoubtedly not equipped with the special instruments used to break legs. And They broke the legs of the first one, then the other one.. It is quite natural that the operation began with the criminals crucified to the right and left of Jesus. Two or more soldiers approached the crosses at the outermost points, so as to then meet at the central one, from which Our Lord was hanging. These details are quite vivid and come directly from an eyewitness. 

John 19.³³ But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. ³⁴ But one of the soldiers pierced his side with his spear and immediately blood and water flowed out. – But when they came to Jesus, seeing him already dead, they did not break his legs. It would have been a pointless act, since the “crurifragium” was specifically intended to hasten death. But one of the soldiers. He is called "Longinus" in the Roman Martyrology (March 15). Painters are quite wrong to depict him on horseback; their error stems from the gigantic dimensions that have been unjustly attributed to the cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ. See, in Baronius, Annals ad ann. 34, n. 125, the numerous legends attached to St. Longinus. According to Bartholinus, De latere Christi, c. 6, there was, in a church near Lyon, a tomb bearing this inscription: "Here lies he who pierced the side of the Savior with a lance." With his spear. In Latin, lancea; in Greek, λόγχῃ. Several critics trace the origin of the name «Longinus» to this Greek word, cf. Calmet, Comment., hl – Him pierced the side. St. Augustine offered a striking commentary on the Vulgate's expression "to open" his side (Treatise 120 on St. John, 2). "To pierce, to pierce": a verb used only in this one passage of the New Testament. Moreover, we will see below, in 20:27, that the spearhead produced a wide opening in Jesus' sacred breast, since St. Thomas was able to insert his entire hand. From which side was the blow struck? At first glance, it would seem more natural to suppose that it was from the left side, since the soldier, standing before the cross, held the spear in his right hand. The Ethiopian translation and the apocryphal Gospels of the Infancy Narratives and Nicodemus, on the contrary, assert that it was the right side that was pierced, and this ancient belief must have had some historical basis. Several authors have expressed both opinions, saying with Prudence (De passione Chr., hymn. 8): Passing from one side to the other, water and blood flowed. See Calmet and Cornel. a Lapide, hl The soldier's aim was to make death completely certain, as is done by what is called the "coup de grâce". And immediately… From the way St. John notes the following detail, we see that he found it very extraordinary; however, nothing proves that he attributed a miraculous character to it (Origen, Theophylact, Euthymius, Meyer, Alford, Keil, etc.). Blood and water came out of it.. These two liquids, blood and water, flowed simultaneously from the gaping wound, yet remained distinct to the eyes of witnesses. By "water" we must understand lymph, which in fact contains nine parts water out of ten; not, however, "serum" separated from "cruor," for that would have indicated the beginning of decomposition, which could not possibly have occurred. From this detail doctors concluded that the pericardium, the membranous sac that envelops the heart, must have been touched by the lance, regardless of which side the blow struck. – In the blood and water that flowed from the side of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Fathers found the most touching symbols. They saw in it sometimes the Church formed «from the side of the sleeping Christ,» just as Eve was born «from the side of Adam» (Apollinaris of Laodicea, Tertullian, Theophylact, St. Augustine, etc.), sometimes the double baptism «of water and blood» (Tertullian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Cyprian, St. Jerome, etc.), sometimes and most often the two sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist (St. John Damascene, St. Augustine, Euthymius, etc.). «Through this a great and ineffable mystery was accomplished: for «blood and water flowed out.» It was not without reason or by chance that these two springs flowed from the opening of the Savior’s sacred side: it is from them that the Church was formed. Those who are initiated, those who have received holy baptism, understand well what I am saying: they who have been regenerated by water, and who are nourished by this blood and this flesh. It is from this blessed and fruitful source that our mysteries and sacraments flow, so that when you approach our awesome cup, you may come to it as if you were to drink from this sacred side,» St. John Chrysostom, Homily on St. John 85, 3. It is largely to perpetuate the memory of this mystery that the Church instructs her priests to add a few drops of water to the wine of the holy sacrifice. In the Romano-Lyonnaise liturgy, the celebrant recites at the same time a prayer, the beginning of which is: "From the side of our Lord Jesus Christ came forth blood and water for the redemption of the world.".

John 19.³⁵ And he who saw it testifies to it, and his testimony is true, and he knows that he speaks the truth, so that you also may believe. – The one who saw him. After pointing out the fact, St. John insists in the most solemn terms on its undeniable reality. The narrator, he says, had been an eyewitness (cf. 1 John 1, 1-3), and the truth of his testimony cannot be doubted. It is indeed in this way, indirectly, that our evangelist speaks of himself in his narrative, cf. 1:37-40; 13:23-26; 21:7, 20-24. He testifies to this, and his testimony is true.. Ἀληθινή (truthful), one of St. John's favorite words, does not only mean "true," but "endowed with all the qualities required to be good," cf. 1:9; 8:16. And he knows that he is telling the truth. The pronoun emphasizes the idea again. He, who saw it with his own eyes, knows better than anyone what guarantees his testimony offers. So that you, too, may believe. «You» refers to the readers; St. John would like their faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ to be as lively and strong as his own, and it is precisely for this purpose, he says, that he presents them with his eyewitness testimony. His testimony was indeed of the greatest value; not so much, as has been said, to testify against the Docetists that Jesus possessed a real, material body, or to prove that Christ truly died and truly rose again (cf. Ps. 15:16), but rather to emphasize the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies related in verses 36 and 37 («for these things have come to pass,» verse 36). – The evangelist returns elsewhere, and in no less solemn terms, to this precious detail of the Passion. 1 John 5, ⁶ This is the same Jesus Christ who came by water and blood; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. ⁷ For there are three that bear witness [in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Spirit, and these three are one. ⁸ And there are three that testify on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three agree.

John 19.³⁶ For these things happened so that the Scripture might be fulfilled: «Not one of his bones will be broken.» – Because these things have been done…: The facts contained in verses 33 and 34. St. John will point out a marvelous and providential coincidence. As we have just said, the particle «for» falls on the words «so that you may believe» in the preceding verse. So that the Scripture might be fulfilled The verb πληρωθῇ (fulfilled), used in the analogous passage 13:18, and so often in the first Gospel (cf. Matt. 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 13:14), expresses the fulfillment of an isolated prophecy; above, verse 28, we read τελειωθῇ (see the note). None of his bones will be broken. Some exegetes believe this text is borrowed from Psalm 33:21: «He guards every bone (of the righteous): not one will be broken.» Most ancient and modern scholars find it in the two passages Exodus 12:46 and Numbers 9:12, relating to the Passover lamb, which was a type of the Messiah (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:7). See also John 1, 29:36, where Jesus is called the Lamb of God. According to these injunctions of the Pentateuch, the greatest care was taken not to break the bones of the Passover victim; the Talmud even prescribes severe penalties for this, such as flogging. It was considered an insult to God to mutilate a victim sacrificed in his honor in this way. 

John 19.³⁷ And it is written elsewhere: "They will look on the one they have pierced."« – And it is written elsewhere as well.…This refers to Zechariah 12:10, where the Messiah is directly mentioned: the Rabbis themselves agree on this, see Juccoth 52a, cf. Revelation 1:7. The quotation is quite free and differs from either the Hebrew or the Septuagint. They will watch : glances of regret and desire, a sign of an impending conversion. The one they pierced. This last word was the main one for St. John. In Greek, they pierced deeply, an expression stronger than in verse 34 (it appears only twice in the New Testament, here and in Revelation 1:7). The Alexandrian translators greatly softened the thought (the one they defied). See in Zechariah 12:6-14, the very forceful continuation of this beautiful passage.

John 19.³⁸ After this, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate for permission to take away the body of Jesus. And Pilate gave his consent. So he came and took away the body of Jesus. – John 19, 38-42. = Matt. 27, 57-61; Mark. 15, 42-57; Luke. 23, 50-56. – After that serves as a transition. Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus. In the Greek, with two articles, to emphasize the character already so well known from the Synoptic Gospels: Joseph, a rich, influential man, a member of the Sanhedrin (cf. 12:42), where it is explicitly stated that several members of the Sanhedrin believed in Jesus. On the situation in Arimathea, see the commentary on Matthew 27:57. Who was a disciple of Jesus…The reason why he approached the governor. The words but in secret contain a kind of retrospective restriction. Until then, Joseph, even more so than his colleague Nicodemus, had kept his feelings toward Jesus hidden. A certain human respect held him back (out of fear of the JewsBut the death of the divine Master strengthened his courage instead of shaking it: "having dared," says St. Mark, he came to ask Pilate for permission to take the body of Jesus in order to bury this sacred body. And Pilate allowed it. Cicero recounts (In Verr. 5, 45, 51) that sometimes this permission cost enormous sums; Pilate was generous, "allowing Joseph to take the body," as St. Mark 15:45 relates. So he came. He hastened to Calvary, and either in person or by directing this delicate operation, he took the body of Jesus (repetition which has a painful effect). The cross was lowered (Act. Pilati), then laid on the ground (Quintil. Declam. 6, 9); the nails were then conveniently pulled out (c. Tryph. 108; "to unnail crosses", Seneca, Vit. Beata, 19; etc.). 

John 19.³⁹ Nicodemus, who had first come to Jesus at night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about one hundred pounds. – Nicodemus, who had come the first time. St. John is the only one to mention the part Nicodemus played in the burial of Our Lord. Also a member of the Sanhedrin, Nicodemus knew Joseph and his feelings towards Jesus: they joined together for this courageous work. find Jesus at night. See 3, 2 and the commentary. Currently, he does not hesitate to openly display his feelings as a devoted disciple. The first time It recalls the first interview and the intimate revelations of Jesus. At that moment, Nicodemus must have easily understood the meaning of the mysterious ascension of the Son of Man like the bronze serpent (cf. 3:14). Bringing… a mixture of myrrh…Details specific to the fourth Gospel. The myrrh, which had been brought to Jesus' cradle (Matthew 2:11), also perfumed his tomb. It is an aromatic gum provided by the "Balsamodendron myrrha". And aloe. Another fatty and resinous substance that gave off a pleasant odor was found in the wood of the "Aquilaria Agallochum," a plant native to India. These perfumes were pulverized and sprinkled on the shrouds and bandages that wrapped the dead (see verse 40). A certain quantity was also burned on braziers or censers. About one hundred pounds. Since the "pound" was equivalent to 453 grams (cf. 12:3), this amounted to an enormous, truly princely quantity, more than 45 kilograms (2 Chronicles 16:14); but this very abundance was intended to better honor the sacred body of the Master. Furthermore, this embalming was only temporary because of the proximity of the Sabbath (cf. Luke 23:54): it could be completed twenty-four hours later; in the meantime, the accumulation of perfumes was thought to preserve the holy remains.

John 19.⁴⁰ So they took the body of Jesus and wrapped it in linen cloths with the spices, according to the Jewish burial custom. – So they took… Verse 38 showed us Joseph working alone; Nicodemus now acts in concert with his friend. And they wrapped him up in cloths, cf. 11:44 and the commentary; Luke 24:12. The Synoptic Gospels here speak only of the "sindon" or large shroud that enveloped the entire body; the ὀθόνιον, on the other hand, were strips of cloth, with each limb wrapped separately. With herbs as explained in verse 39. according to the burial practices used by the Jews. This detail is added for non-Jewish readers. The Israelites, like the Egyptians and all ancient peoples, had their own special funeral customs; the details of these are not well known. The corresponding Greek verb bury is only used here and Matthew 26:12.

John 19.⁴¹ Now in the place where Jesus was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. – After recounting the embalming of Jesus, St. John speaks of the tomb where he was laid. Now, in the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden. Special feature. The diagrams of the Holy Sepulchre. The distance between the tomb and the place where he was crucified was approximately 30 meters. And in the garden a new tomb. This new tomb, hewn from the rock (cf. Matthew 27:69), belonged, as did probably the garden, to Joseph of Arimathea. Where no one had yet been placed, cf. Luke 23:53. These words emphasize the important idea already suggested by the adjective "new". The resurrection The fact that Jesus was buried was more perfectly established if it were demonstrated that "In this monument, no one before him and no one after him was buried," St. Augustine of Hippo, hl.

John 19.⁴² It was there, because of the Jewish Preparation Day, that they laid Jesus, because the tomb was nearby. – That's it. in this new and unoccupied tomb. Because of the Preparation of the Jews. That is to say, because of the great haste caused by the approaching Sabbath rest. See verse 31 and the corresponding note. Because the tomb was near. We only had a few steps to take, and this tomb was suitable in any case. They laid Jesus down. The other three evangelists end their account of Christ's burial with a similar formula.