Thomas Aquinas

After the Evangelist has treated of Christ's crucifixion, here he treats of the things that follow upon it: first, of the things that follow the crucifixion with regard to Pilate; second, with regard to the soldiers, where it says, "The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified him, took his garments"; third, with regard to the friends standing by, where it says, "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother," and so on. Now three things are set down pertaining to Pilate: namely, the inscribing of the title, the reading of the title, and the preservation of the title.

As to the first, two things are set down. First, the inscribing of the title, whence he says, "And Pilate wrote a title also, and he put it upon the cross." And this was fitting enough, that at least by this he might avenge himself upon the Jews, showing their malice, in that they had risen up against their own king. Yet it also fits the mystery; for just as in triumphs a title was placed upon the trophy showing forth the victory, because men wished to celebrate the memory of themselves — Genesis 11:4: "Let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands" — so did he ordain that a title be inscribed upon the cross, that his passion might be held in memory: Lamentations 3:19: "Remember my poverty, and my transgression, the wormwood and the gall."

Second, the tenor of the title is set down: "And it was written: Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews." These three words indeed fit well the mystery of the cross. For that he says "Jesus," which is interpreted "savior," fits the power of the cross, through which salvation was made for us; Matthew 1:21: "Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins." But that he says "of Nazareth," which is interpreted "flowering," pertains to the innocence of the one who suffers; Song of Songs 2:1: "I am the flower of the field, and the lily of the valleys"; Isaiah 11:1: "and a flower shall rise up from his root." But that he says "king of the Jews" pertains to power, to the dominion which he merited from his passion. Philippians 2:9: "Wherefore God also hath exalted him"; Jeremiah 23:5: "The Lord shall reign, and shall be wise"; Isaiah 9:7: "He shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom."

But since through the cross he is not only king of the Jews but also of the Gentiles — whence in Psalm 2:6, when he had said, "But I am appointed king by him," he adds, "Ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance" — why then did he write only "king of the Jews"? Response: it must be said that the Gentiles were brought into the richness of the olive as a wild olive, Romans 11:17. And just as the wild olive becomes a partaker of the richness of the olive, but the olive does not become a partaker of the bitterness of the wild olive, so the Gentiles converted to the faith are said to become spiritually Jews confessing, not by circumcision of the flesh, but of the spirit; and therefore by what is said, "king of the Jews," the converted Gentiles also are understood.

Consequently, when he says, "This title therefore many of the Jews did read," he treats of the reading of the title. And first the reading of the title is set down, for "many of the Jews read this title" — by which it is signified that more are saved by faith, by reading of Christ's passion, than of those who saw it. Below, in the second-to-last chapter, 31: "But these things are written, that you may believe." Second, the facility for reading is set down, and this is twofold. One is from the nearness of the place: for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, to which many flocked; the other is from the multiplicity of the writing, because it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, so that no one would be ignorant of it, and because these three languages excelled above the rest. Hebrew indeed on account of the worship of the one God; Greek on account of wisdom; Latin on account of the power of the Romans. Whence these three peoples claim for themselves a dignity in the cross of Christ, as Augustine says.

In which it is signified that through the cross of Christ there had to be subjugated and converted the devout and religious, who are signified by the Hebrew language; the wise, who are signified by the Greek; the powerful, who are signified by the Latin. Or by the Hebrew it was signified that Christ had to have dominion over theological philosophy, which is signified by the Hebrew, because to the Jews was handed down the knowledge of divine things; by the Greek, over natural and philosophical philosophy, for the Greeks labored hard over the speculation of natural things; by the Latin, over practical philosophy, because among the Romans moral science flourished the most — so that thus every understanding might be brought into captivity unto the obedience of Christ, as is said in 2 Corinthians 10:5.

But the preservation of the title is set down when it says, "The chief priests of the Jews therefore said to Pilate," and so on. And first the effort of the Jews to destroy the title is set down, whence the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate: "Write not, the King of the Jews; but that he said, I am the King of the Jews." For in this — in that "king of the Jews" is set down — is shown both a proclamation of Christ and a reproach of the Jews. For it is a disgrace to the Jews that they caused their own king to be crucified. But if it were set down: "because he said, I am the King of the Jews," this would have redounded to Christ's reproach, and would have indicated his guilt; and this they themselves intended — namely, that they might take away the fame of him crucified, from whom, while yet living, they had already taken away his life. Psalm 68:13: "They that sat in the gate spoke against me."

Second, the constancy of Pilate in preserving the title is set down, because Pilate, wishing to bring shame upon them, refused to change what he had decreed; whence it follows, "Pilate answered: What I have written, I have written." This did not happen by chance, but was long before disposed and prophesied by God. For certain Psalms are entitled thus: "Destroy not, for David, for the inscription of a title"; and this, Psalm 58, pertains especially to the passion, as is: "Deliver me from my enemies," and the two preceding: "Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me: for my soul trusteth in thee," and "If in very deed you speak justice." And therefore the chief priests cried out foolishly, because just as what the truth has said cannot be corrupted, so what Pilate wrote cannot be blotted out. For Pilate said, "What I have written, I have written," because the Lord, what he said, he said, as Augustine says.

Then, when he says, "The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified him, took his garments," he sets down the things consequent upon the crucifixion with regard to the soldiers: and first he sets down the division of the other garments; second, the casting of lots for the seamless tunic, where it says, "and the coat"; third, he brings in the prophetic foretelling, where it says, "that the Scripture might be fulfilled." He says therefore, "The soldiers, when they had crucified him, took his garments." From this we can gather two things: namely, the abjectness of Christ's death, in that they stripped him — a thing accustomed to be done only to persons cast off; and second, the rapacity of the soldiers, because they took his garments and made four parts, to every soldier a part. For this class of men is most rapacious; therefore John the Baptist said to them: "Do violence to no man... and be content with your pay," Luke 3:14; and Job 24:7: "They send men away naked, taking away their clothes."

As to the second, he says, "and the coat"; and first the description of the tunic is set down, second the casting of lots for it, where it says, "and they said, Let us not cut it." He says therefore, "and the coat," namely they took it along with those other garments. "Now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout." But he says that it was seamless, in order to show the reason for its not being divided. From which, as some say, the costliness of the tunic can be established. But Chrysostom, on the contrary, says that in saying this the Evangelist secretly insinuates the cheapness of the garment. For in Palestine there is a certain kind of garment made for the poor, woven out of many rags as it were one rag upon another: 2 Corinthians 8:9: "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that being rich he became poor for our sakes in all things."

Mystically, however, this can be referred to the mystical body of Christ; and thus the garments are divided into four parts because the Church is spread through the four parts of the world. Isaiah 49:18: "I live, saith the Lord, for thou shalt be clothed with all these as with an ornament, and as a bride thou shalt put them about thee." The seamless tunic, which is not divided, signifies charity, because the other virtues are not of themselves united, but are united through something else, inasmuch as they all agree in the last end, to which charity alone is joined. For even if faith points out the last end, and hope makes one tend toward it, nevertheless only charity joins one to it. Colossians 3:14: "But above all things have charity, which is the bond of perfection." It is said to be woven from the top, because charity is above all the other virtues. 1 Corinthians 12:31: "I show unto you yet a more excellent way"; Ephesians 3:19: "to know also the charity of Christ, which surpasseth knowledge, that you may be filled unto all the fullness of God." Or because charity is not in us from ourselves, but from the Holy Spirit. Romans 5:5: "The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, who is given to us." This can also be referred to the true body of Christ; and thus it is woven from the top, because Christ's body was formed by a higher power, namely that of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 1:20: "That which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit."

The casting of lots for the tunic is set down when he says, "They said therefore one to another: Let us not cut it, but let us cast lots for it, whose it shall be." For there is a certain lot that is divinatory; and this, because it has no necessity, is unlawful; and there is another that is divisory, and this, in worldly matters, is lawful, but not in spiritual matters — namely, that things which men are not able to divide by their own judgment, they commit to the judgment and counsel of God. Proverbs 16:33: "Lots are cast for a sign, but they are tempered by the Lord"; and of the same, 18:18: "The lot suppresseth contentions, and determineth even between the mighty." But against this it seems that in Matthew, chapter 27, it is said that they cast lots upon his garments. Response: it must be said that Matthew does not say that they cast lots over all the garments, but that while they were dividing the others, they cast a lot, namely over the tunic. Moreover Mark presses the point still further, saying, "they cast lots, what every man should take": therefore over all the portions. Response: it must be said, according to Augustine, that the words of Mark are to be understood and expounded thus: "they cast lots over them," that is, over some one of them — "what each should take," that is, which of them should take the tunic.

Consequently he sets down the prophecy of Scripture, when he says, "that the Scripture might be fulfilled." And first the prophetic foretelling is set down, in which the diligence of the prophet is noted, in that he foretold even certain incidental things to come which were to happen concerning Christ. It is also clear that the things foretold did not happen by chance. And therefore he said, "that the Scripture might be fulfilled" — namely consequently to what it had said in Psalm 21:19: "They parted my garments" — he does not say "garment," because there were several — "and upon my vesture," that is, upon the tunic, "they cast lots." Second, the fulfillment of the prophecy is set down, because "the soldiers indeed did these things": by which it is given to be understood that divine Scripture is fulfilled even in the smallest particular, Matthew 5:18: "One iota or one tittle shall not pass from the law, till all things be fulfilled"; Luke, last chapter, 44: "All things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the law, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."

Then, when he says, "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister," etc., the third consequent thing is set down, with regard to the friends: and first the presence of the women standing by is set down; second, Christ's careful solicitude concerning his mother, where it says, "When Jesus therefore had seen his mother," etc.; third, the ready obedience of the disciple, where it says, "and from that hour the disciple took her to his own." Now the women standing by the cross are described as three: namely, his mother, and his mother's sister Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

But it must be noted that, although the other Evangelists make mention of many women standing by Christ, none makes mention of the Blessed Virgin, except John: whence from the narration of both a twofold doubt arises. The first, because Matthew and Mark say that the women stood afar off, whereas John says that they stood by the cross. To this it could be said that the women whom Matthew and Mark mention were different from those whom John mentions. But against this stands the fact that Mary Magdalene is numbered among the women whom Matthew and Mark mention, and also John. And therefore it must be said that these and those are to be understood as the same women; nor is there any contradiction in this. For "near" and "afar off" are said relatively; and nothing prevents a thing from being said, in one respect, to be far off, and in another respect, to be near. He says they were near, because they were in his sight; but far off, because there were persons in between him and the women. Or it can be said that from the beginning of the crucifixion they stood near him, so that he could speak to them; but afterward, when a multitude of mockers came upon the scene, they withdrew and stood far off. Whence John narrates what happened first, the others what happened afterward.

The second question is that John mentions Mary of Cleophas, but Matthew and Mark, in her place, Mary the mother of James, who was called the wife of Alphaeus. But to this it must be said that the Mary of Cleophas whom John names is the same as the wife of Alphaeus whom Matthew names. For she had two husbands, namely Alphaeus and Cleophas. Or it can be said that Cleophas was her father. But the fact that the women stood by the cross while the disciples had fled, having left him, commends the devout constancy of the women. Job 19:20: "My bone hath cleaved to my skin, my flesh being consumed": as if, namely, the disciples, who are signified by the flesh, had withdrawn, while the women, who are understood by the skin, clung close.

Consequently his solicitude toward his mother is set down, where it says, "When Jesus therefore had seen his mother," etc.; and first the solicitude is set down as to the care of the disciple, whom he entrusted to his mother; second, as to the care of the mother, whom he committed to the disciple, where it says, "Then he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother." As to the first, he says, "When Jesus therefore had seen his mother, and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son"; as if he were to say: "Until now I have had care of thee, and have been mindful of thee; I leave this one to thee." In which the dignity of John is shown.

But note that above, in chapter 2:3, when his mother said, "They have no wine," etc., he said, "My hour is not yet come" — namely, the hour of the passion, in which I shall suffer according to that which I have received from thee; but when that hour shall come, then I shall acknowledge thee. Whence now also he acknowledges her as mother. But to work miracles does not belong to me according to what I have received from thee, but according to what I have from the Father, the paternal generation, namely according as I am God. And note, according to Augustine, that Christ, hanging on the cross, held himself as a master in the teacher's chair. Whence he also teaches us to come to the aid of our parents when they are in need, and to have care of them, as is said in Exodus 20:12: "Honor thy father and thy mother"; and 1 Timothy 5:8: "If any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his household, he hath not the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

But against this is what is said in Luke 14:26: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." Response: it must be said that just as the Lord commands that parents be hated, so too our own soul — in which he has commanded that we love nature and hate iniquity, and whatever turns us away from God. And thus we ought to sustain our parents, to love and revere them, as regards nature; but to hate them as regards vices, and as regards that whereby they turn us away from God. As to the second, he says to the disciple, "Behold thy mother," namely that this one should serve her as a son serves his mother, and that mother should love him as a mother loves her son.

Consequently, when he says, "And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own," the obedience of the disciple is set down. And according to Bede, it must be said "to his own," and thus the sense is: "the disciple," namely John, "took her," namely the mother of Jesus, "to his own," that is, as his own mother. But, according to Augustine, as it is also found in the Greek, it must be said "to his own things": not indeed his estates, for he was of the number of those who had said, "Behold, we have left all things"; for it is said in Matthew 4:20 that James and John, having left all things, followed Jesus; but "to his own," namely his duties, by which he attended upon her diligently and reverently.