the centurion's confession

[ewq1938]

They had an idea that he was dead. They wanted to be doubly sure.

Sure which supports an exploratory stab not a death stab.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

Sure which supports an exploratory stab not a death stab.

So say you.

 

[Erik Nelson]

That's because they didn't stab him, other soldiers did.

They all acknowledged Jesus as the son of God. How would the Centurion order? A soldier...

and why would a soldier carry out an order 2 stab. God son,

whom THEY just acknowledged as the son of God??


Mat 27:54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

 

[ewq1938]

They all acknowledged Jesus as the son of God.

No, not all of them did. One Centurion and some others with him did. There were many other soldiers that didn't. One of these went and stabbed Jesus to make sure he was dead and as someone else posted, this stab was intentional to make sure his lungs had filled with fluid making it impossible for him to still be alive as the others were.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Evidence seems to me that the centurion as well as certain of the soldiers, or at least the ones "assigned" to Jesus; knew an awful lot about prophecy, because there were several things these soldiers did deliberately because they knew these things were a fulfillment of prophecy.

John 19:
23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.

24 They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.

Now where did they get this information? Was this particular centurion and guard assigned to this crucifixion because he / they already knew this stuff? Did he / they volunteer for this crucifixion because he / they already knew this stuff? There is an interesting passage in the book of Acts; and I'll get to Pilate in a minute.

27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

(John leaves with Mary. There is no indication that there are any male disciples left at the cross.)

28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.

(This was a specific mixture that the Romans sometimes gave people to "sedate" them when they died. It wasn't very powerful, but it was used. Who ever did this, wrapped the sponge around a hyssop branch, which they probably cut off a near by bush. They were on the Mt. of Olives so there would have been plant life around them. So who's the "they" who is giving this to Jesus? It's probably either the centurialn or one of the soldiers.)

30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Jesus drinks this. Prior to this someone tried to give him vinegar with sour wine and he would not drink that.

31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.

it's after the other events and certainly is different soldiers coming to take care of the ones on the crosses.

Good catch here. The soldiers who came to break the legs were different soldiers than those already at the site. We can see this because they were sent by Pilate and Pilate would have been in the Praetorium in the Antonia Fortress; which was where Jesus's trial had been held. Remember, Antonia was a military base.

33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

Now was this one of the soldiers on site or one of them that came to the site? (Don't know?) Interesting thing though is; if you got these 3 people lined up on crosses; you'd cross the red heifer bridge to the crucifixion site. You'd come to "thief", "Jesus", "thief". Logic would dictate you'd start with the first person you come to. Note though, the soldiers don't do that either. They break the legs of both thieves before they come to Jesus. That's interesting. What did these soldiers know?

35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

Keep in mind why centurions were assigned to crucifixions. They are the ones to give the official word to the governor that those who are crucified are dead. So this "he that saw it bare record...." is probably the centurion.

36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.

37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

Now obviously verse 37 is talking about the soldiers, because they are the ones who pierced him. Yet note verse 36. These things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled. These soldiers know an awful lot about Scripture!

So yes, they stabbed Jesus to prove he was dead, because the Jewish leaders wanted them to break his legs. And they wanted his legs broken for the intent purpose of violating the prophecy that says none of his bones were broken.

Obviously though, the Romans are pretty savvy here!
"Interesting, very interesting" Sergeant Shultz - Hogan's Heroes

It's also apparent, if you know anything about how Romans usually crucified people; when you look carefully, that they crucified Jesus differently than they would have crucified the thieves.

They nailed him through hands and feet as opposed to wrists and ankles because that would have broken bones too. And to "adhere" him securely to the cross they would have tied ropes around wrists or arms.

I've also seen in historical research as to crucifixions; attaching an extra piece of wood to the cross for the person to "sit" on. Which seems a probable adaptation for Jesus because if you are going to nail the feet to the front of the cross, knees bent, there'd have to be something to support the body.

There was no "standard" way to crucify people. Some people were simply tied to the cross and historical records record that some people would be alive for days.

Now the actual method itself: the prisoner carried the cross beam and the portion of the cross that was in the ground was at the execution site already in the ground. Crosses were "assembled" post and lentil style. There would have been a notch in the cross beam to set on top of a wooden "pin" in the upright post. The crucified were not that far off the ground. Jesus's face would have been just about eye level to anyone standing at the site. This obviously facilitated a convenient way to crucify people, as all the soldiers had to do was pick up the cross beam and level it on the post.

Also, interestingly enough. All the gospels except for John record Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross beam. The only thing John says is "...he carried his cross....". Well, we know who's cross it is; but who is the "him" that carried it?

I've come to the conclusion that I don't think Jesus carried the cross at all. After having been awake probably at least 48 hours, Jesus was beaten pretty badly by the leaders of his own nation and then scourged by the soldiers. The typical cross beam weighed between 50 and 70 lbs.

Statistically speaking, based on male skeletons found in 1st century Jewish tombs; they estimate Jesus was probably between 4ft 11in to 5ft 3in and weighed between 110 and 130 lbs. Your typical Roman soldier being 5 ft 6 inch to 5 ft 8 inch and weighing 160 to 180 lbs. The Roman army had height restrictions. I believe one had to be 5 ft 5 inch to get in.

Pilate:
Pilate is an interesting historical figure. He was known to be very brutal and was not particularly fond of the Jews. Needless to say though, Pilate was "afraid" of Jesus and sought many times to let him go. it seems from the gospel accounts that Pilate didn't know a lot about Jesus but he did know who Jesus was. Pilate had Jesus "chastised" in hopes that would appease the Jewish leaders and then he could release Jesus.

It seems the "practice" of scourging people before crucifixion comes more out of Christian tradition than it comes out of Roman historical records. I've read varying and opposing accounts. One could be scourged as a death sentence or crucified; but not usually both.

Also it seems apparent that "chastising" someone employed a different implement than scourging to death. If they intended to kill the person they used a flagelum (sp) which contained items such as bone, rock or glass designed to tear the skin, that the person being flogged would bleed out from the injuries.

Reality is that if the Romans had really flogged Jesus the way it is depicted in "Passion of the Christ"; Jesus would have bleed out before He ever made it to the site of crucifixion.

So yes, there were quite a few unusual things about Jesus's crucifixion as far as Roman "standard practice".

 

[ewq1938]

24 They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.

Now where did they get this information?

They didn't have any such info. I think you are misreading the verse. In the verse is what the Romans said, and then what the scriptures prophesied, and ending with conformation they did what was written.

. 24 They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be:

End of what the Romans said.

that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots.

The scripture

These things therefore the soldiers did.

What they did fulfilling the scripture.

Nothing here suggests the Soldiers knew of the prophecy and intentionally caused it to become true.

These soldiers know an awful lot about Scripture!

Sorry, they didn't know anything of scripture. Roman's didn't read the Hebrew scrolls or attend teachings of Hebrew Priests. It's the writer of the gospel that knows the prophecies and recognizes the actions of the Romans as fulfilling them.

 

[The Righterzpen]

They didn't have any such info. I think you are misreading the verse. In the verse is what the Romans said, and then what the scriptures prophesied, and ending with conformation they did what was written.

. 24 They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be:

End of what the Romans said.

that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots.

The scripture

These things therefore the soldiers did.

What they did fulfilling the scripture.

Nothing here suggests the Soldiers knew of the prophecy and intentionally caused it to become true.



Sorry, they didn't know anything of scripture. Roman's didn't read the Hebrew scrolls or attend teachings of Hebrew Priests. It's the writer of the gospel that knows the prophecies and recognizes the actions of the Romans as fulfilling them.

You may be correct; yet in the Greek there is no delineation that this is more than one "sentence".

They said therefor to one another,
Let us not tear it, but let us cast lots for it, who's it might be, that the scripture might be fulfilled that said:
They divided my garments among them......

The ".... who's shall it be that Scripture might be fulfilled .... " is not separated by anything. Nor is it separated and phrased "And they did this so that Scripture....."

There is no indication that it is not one sentence; so in that case, I suppose you can argue "interpretation"?

The word there "that", used as the "connector" is a combination of two Greek words that mean "themselves who".

So, make what you want out of the verse - I guess.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Sorry, they didn't know anything of scripture. Roman's didn't read the Hebrew scrolls or attend teachings of Hebrew Priests. It's the writer of the gospel that knows the prophecies and recognizes the actions of the Romans as fulfilling them.

This is not true, there were Romans who knew the Scriptures. Luke 7:1-8 talks about a centurion who "built us a synagogue".

Somebody knew something!

 

[ewq1938]

You may be correct; yet in the Greek there is no delineation that this is more than one "sentence".

They said therefor to one another,
Let us not tear it, but let us cast lots for it, who's it might be, that the scripture might be fulfilled that said:
They divided my garments among them......

The ".... who's shall it be that Scripture might be fulfilled .... " is not separated by anything. Nor is it separated and phrased "And they did this so that Scripture....."

There is no indication that it is not one sentence; so in that case, I suppose you can argue "interpretation"?

The word there "that", used as the "connector" is a combination of two Greek words that mean "themselves who".

So, make what you want out of the verse - I guess.

Clarke:

The words are taken from Psa_22:18, where it appears they were spoken prophetically of this treatment which Jesus received, upwards of a thousand years before it took place!
But it should be remarked that this form of speech, which frequently occurs, often means no more than that the thing so fell out that such a portion of Scripture may be exactly applied to it.


Gill:

let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be, that the Scripture might be fulfilled: not that they knew anything of the Scripture, or had any intention of fulfilling it hereby, but they were so directed by the providence of God, to take such a step; whereby was literally accomplished the passage in Psa_22:18

 

[ewq1938]

This is not true, there were Romans who knew the Scriptures. Luke 7:1-8 talks about a centurion who "built us a synagogue".

Somebody knew something!

Doesn't indicate the soldier knew of any prophecies. He built a synagogue and was nice to the Jews.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Doesn't indicate the soldier knew of any prophecies. He built a synagogue and was nice to the Jews.

Doesn't prove that he didn't either!

 

[The Righterzpen]

Clarke:

The words are taken from Psa_22:18, where it appears they were spoken prophetically of this treatment which Jesus received, upwards of a thousand years before it took place!
But it should be remarked that this form of speech, which frequently occurs, often means no more than that the thing so fell out that such a portion of Scripture may be exactly applied to it.


Gill:

let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be, that the Scripture might be fulfilled: not that they knew anything of the Scripture, or had any intention of fulfilling it hereby, but they were so directed by the providence of God, to take such a step; whereby was literally accomplished the passage in Psa_22:18

Yet, these are these people's opinions. Are they correct?

Do we really know what these Romans soldiers knew or didn't know? Because we don't have accounts from the Roman records that are that specific.

Although we do have some interesting anecdotal trends that arose in the Roman army in the 1st century.

Acts 10:1-5 records Cornelius (who also was a Roman centurion) as a "devote man who feared God..."

 

[ewq1938]

Doesn't prove that he didn't either!

That's not the best way to look at things though. I think it's better to go by what the bible does say and not assume things where it is silent.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

That's not the best way to look at things though. I think it's better to go by what the bible does say and not assume things where it is silent.

Yes. If we assume things where it is silent we could imagine most anything. Maybe Jesus and his disciples were visited by aliens. Maybe Jesus had a pet cat. Maybe...

 

[ewq1938]

Yet, these are these people's opinions. Are they correct?

I posted them because I believe they are correct.

Do we really know what these Romans soldiers knew or didn't know? Because we don't have accounts from the Roman records that are that specific.

We know the Roman's were pagans so there is more evidence to suggest they had no interest in Hebrew prophecies and I suspect the Jewish leadership wouldn't teach them anyways.

Acts 10:1-5 records Cornelius (who also was a Roman centurion) as a "devote man who feared God..."

Yeah there was Cornelius but the text is silent on his knowledge of prophecy.. The majority would not have shared his beliefs though.

 

[The Righterzpen]

That's not the best way to look at things though. I think it's better to go by what the bible does say and not assume things where it is silent.

So assuming these centurions who the Scriptures state specifically as (in the very least) having favorable relations to the Jewish nation (both of whom were probably proselytes); had no understanding of prophecy is a better position than assuming they did? When "the Scripture is silent". How does that make "better sense"?

 

[The Righterzpen]

Maybe Jesus had a pet cat. Maybe..

Hey, gotta keep them desert rats out of the carpentry shop some how! LOL

Jesus probably did live with domesticated animals. Most people did.

 

[ewq1938]

So assuming these centurions who the Scriptures state specifically as (in the very least) having favorable relations to the Jewish nation (both of whom were probably proselytes); had no understanding of prophecy is a better position than assuming they did?

Yes. I think it's error and misreading of the scriptures to suggest the soldiers knew of the Hebrew prophecies regarding Christ and self fulfilled them such as gambling with his clothes and piercing him etc.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Yes. I think it's error and misreading of the scriptures to suggest the soldiers knew of the Hebrew prophecies regarding Christ and self fulfilled them such as gambling with his clothes and piercing him etc.

Yet if you don't know what they knew, how can you say that?

 

[ewq1938]

Yet if you don't know what they knew, how can you say that?

It's more sensible then assuming Roman troops knew the Hebrew prophecies. I have never heard a scholar or biblical teacher that thinks they did.