And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
The third hour is the only time-stamp we have for the moment the cross was raised. It raises two questions. What hour is that on our own clock? And why does John seem to place Pilate's sentence three hours later?
Matthew and Luke tell the same scene without naming the hour.
Mark alone of the first three Gospels mentions the hour when the crucifixion began (v. 25).
Because of that one detail, we can measure the whole ordeal.
From him we learn that our Lord was six hours upon the cross. They crucified Him at the third hour (v. 25). The last three hours stand apart from the first three. Mark mentions them separately, and, above all, darkness covered the earth during them (v. 33). At the close of those hours came our Lord's memorable cry, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani" — spoken in Aramaic, and interpreted for us, "My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?"
The Jewish day started at sunrise, so we have to convert the numbers.
The day was divided into twelve hours, generally counted from sunrise to sunset. In Palestine the length varied, from ten of our hours in winter to fourteen in summer. So the summer hours were nearly half as long again as the winter ones. The hours of scripture are now usually reckoned from 6 o'clock a.m. to 6 o'clock p.m., which would make the third hour our 9 o'clock; the sixth hour our 12 o'clock; the ninth hour our 3 o'clock p.m., and so on.
Set out as a timeline, the day runs from the early council to the burial without a spare hour.
The Council meets, when it was day, for form's sake (Mark 15:1) to give Him up to Pilate. It was then early. He was crucified the third hour (Mark 15:25), nine o'clock — having been to Herod and back. From twelve to three (Matthew 27:45, and also Mark and Luke) there was darkness — that is, the sixth to the ninth hour, all counted from six in the morning. After that, He gives up His Spirit, and is laid in the tomb before six o'clock, when the Sabbath came. His Name be praised!
John's Gospel places Pilate's sentence at the sixth hour, three hours later.
This has caused much discussion and controversy. We cannot help asking: if He was crucified at the third hour, how can Pilate be giving his sentence about the sixth hour? The answer seems to be this. John is dealing with what happened before the Roman judge, so he uses the Roman reckoning, which was similar to ours. Mark reckons by Jewish custom. If this is so, all is simple. It was about 6 a.m. when Pilate's examination drew to a close, and about 9 a.m. when Jesus was crucified.
The gap between the sentence and the cross was not empty.
First we read that, after the wicked trial by furious men led on by Satan, the holy Sufferer was "scourged." That must have taken up some time. Then the soldiers took Him into the governor's headquarters, and the whole band gathered around Him. There they stripped Him of His own clothes, and put on Him a scarlet robe. There too, "twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on His head and put a reed in His right hand. And kneeling before Him, they mocked Him, saying, 'Hail, King of the Jews!'"… All this outrage and these other insults must have taken some time.
The first half of that time belonged to men; at noon everything changed.
For three hours, as He hung on the cross, this contemptuous mockery of men continued. But at the sixth hour (noon) God shut out all light, and darkness covered the land until 3 p.m… This was not only suffering at the hands of men. It was suffering from God — the full judgment that God must pour out against sin, and the judgment against our many sins as well. Absolutely alone He bore this anguish.
Mark records the act itself without a single detail of the physical horror.
We are spared the pain of details in the actual putting to death of the blessed Sufferer. It is described in the brief words: "They crucified Him." We know from other scriptures that they did it by nailing Him to the cross. The cross was then lifted up from the earth, with Him hanging on it, suspended upon the tree.
- Hour recorded. Mark alone of the first three Gospels notes when the cross was raised. That one detail lets us measure the whole day.
- Hour converted. Counting from sunrise, the third hour is our 9 a.m., the sixth is noon, the ninth is 3 p.m.
- Hour reconciled. John counts by Roman time, so his "sixth hour" is 6 a.m. The three hours in between held the sentence, the scourging and the mockery.
- Hours divided. Six hours on the cross, split at noon: three of men's mockery, then three of darkness ending in the cry of abandonment.
- Hour hidden. The act itself gets three words. Scripture spares us the details, and He bore the judgment absolutely alone.
And the superscription of what he was accused of was written up The King of the Jews.
A written notice hung over the cross of Jesus. It named the charge He died for: this man was Israel's King. Mark's wording is the shortest of the four Gospels. That raises two questions. Why do the accounts differ? And why was the only charge against Him a true one?
Each writer uses his own term for what hung over the Lord's head, and the wording is not interchangeable. One commentator draws out the distinction:
Let us note the term used by each writer, which must show what he wanted to convey to his readers. John calls it a title, Luke a superscription, Matthew His accusation, and Mark the superscription of His accusation. Now a title and an accusation are not the same thing, and neither are a superscription and an accusation. Mark makes this clear, since he uses both superscription and accusation.
Set the four accounts side by side and none of them gives every word; together they give the whole:
The inscription placed on the cross of Jesus is mentioned by all four writers, but all give it differently. Can we say they forgot this inscription? How unlikely! But compare the four accounts. Matthew: "This is Jesus the King of the Jews" (27:37). Mark: "The King of the Jews" (15:26). Luke: "This is the King of the Jews" (23:38). John: "Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews" (19:19). In full: "This is Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews." So all the writers were completely correct. Each gives the part of the inscription needed for the purpose of his Gospel.
The notice stood in three languages. One explanation ties Mark's short form to his readers:
The superscription on the cross was written in three languages. Mark's account (Mark 15:26) was likely read in particular by Roman Christians, so it would follow the Latin form, the shortest one.
No crime could be pinned on Him. So the notice over His head stated a fact instead:
They write over the cross His accusation — it was the truth as to what He was, "The King of the Jews," for what charge could there be against the all-perfect One? They put Him between two thieves, in the place of Barabbas, who was a murderer — a Substitute for him — but "this man has done nothing wrong" (Luke 23:41). Yes, this is "Jesus, the King of the Jews."
The mockery struck the nation as well as the Lord. It came as one humiliation after another:
No indignity or humiliation is spared the Lord. Having crucified Him in the place of a skull, the soldiers gamble for His clothes. In derision they pour contempt on the nation by the superscription of His accusation, "THE KING OF THE JEWS." At the same time they crucify Him between two thieves. Without knowing it they were fulfilling scripture, which said, "He was numbered with the transgressors."
The religious leaders wanted the wording softened. The governor who gave way over the life of Jesus would not give way over a sentence:
This title grates on them, however, and they want it altered. It seemed to declare that their actual king was there on the cross — which was indeed the solemn truth. Pilate gave way and wavered when the life of the holy One was at stake. He knew what he was doing when he sacrificed Him to their bitter hatred. Yet here he will not give way. God would not allow it, and the poor puppet of authority suddenly speaks with all the finality of a true ruler: "What I have written, I have written."
The words were written in scorn. They carry a weight the writers never intended:
He was the King of the Jews as none other has been or can be. That is why He did not save Himself. And so He can send out the message of salvation now and bring salvation by and by. Man in that day gave little weight to the meaning of what was written over Him in Greek and Roman and Hebrew letters: "This is the King of the Jews." If man wrote it in scorn, God will give it all its own force. God overrules the will and the anger of man to praise Him.
- Charge. Mark alone calls it "the superscription of His accusation." A title and an accusation are not the same thing, and Mark uses both words.
- Truth. The accusation was accurate. They could name no wrongdoing, so they named who He is.
- Written. The notice stood in three languages, and each writer gives the part his readers needed. Joined together they read, "This is Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews."
- Unalterable. The leaders wanted it reworded. Pilate was weak about a life but immovable about a sentence, and God would not let the testimony be changed.
- Crowned. Man wrote it in scorn, but it holds good. Because He was the King, He did not save Himself, and salvation goes out from that cross.
And with him they crucify two robbers, one on his right hand, and one on his left.
Mark adds one last touch of disgrace: men nailed the Servant of God between two criminals. Who were these men? Why were they put there? And what did God do with an insult aimed at His Son?
Mark's word means a bandit, not a small-time thief. A Bible dictionary traces the same word through the Gospels:
(λῃστής) 'robber, bandit.' Used by the Lord about those who bought and sold in the temple. Matthew 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46. When the Lord was arrested He asked if they had come out as against a robber. Matthew 26:55; Mark 14:48; Luke 22:52. The two criminals crucified with the Lord were also men of this character. Matthew 27:38, 44; Mark 15:27.
The placing was not accidental. One writer describes how they picked the two men, and why they gave Jesus the middle cross:
That morning they searched the prison cells of Jerusalem for the most degraded criminals the city held. They led them out to die along with Jesus. These men had been guilty of appalling crimes. That is why they chose them to hang one on His right hand and the other on His left. That is why they put Him on the centre and highest cross. They meant to proclaim by their well-considered and malicious plan that He was the worst of the three. So they heaped shame on Him, adding the deepest insult to the deepest injury.
Men would not even let Him die alone. Yet the company forced on Him could not touch what He was:
Mark, like Matthew, mentions the robbers (indeed, all do) as a testimony to the complete humiliation of God's Servant and Son on the cross. Men would not even give Him that place on His own. He was indeed alone in the grace and moral glory of the cross. But to increase its shame they crucified these two robbers with Him, one on His right hand and the other on His left.
The men who arranged this were carrying out a prophecy they had no interest in fulfilling:
No indignity or humiliation is spared the Lord. The soldiers crucify Him between two thieves. Without knowing it they were fulfilling the Scripture which said, "He was numbered with the transgressors."
Both men abused Him at first. That rules out any idea that the one later saved was the better of the two:
Scripture is completely silent about any redeeming or qualifying circumstance in the man who repented. In fact, Scripture gives us the testimony of two inspired witnesses. They prove that, right up to the moment Luke brings him before us, he was doing what his fellow on the other side was doing: the terrible work of abusing the Son of God. Now, this is God's own conclusive proof. It proves, beyond all question, that there was no difference between the two thieves. They were both condemned criminals. They were also standing on the very edge of the eternal world. And there they were both busy with the terrible sin of reviling the blessed Son of God.
after_note: DELETE-none
The insult did not stay an insult. One writer follows what became of one of these two men:
They crucified Him between two robbers in order to humiliate Him, and in this way they numbered Him with the transgressors. Mark mentions nothing more of this. But Luke 23:39-43 shows us that God's sovereign power and grace was over it. He used it to bring one of these men to genuine repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus. It also shows the solemn fact that Christ crucified is the great Divider between the lost and the saved.
The places on His right and left went to criminals, not to His own followers. One writer explains why that mattered:
But I am glad that such men as these, and not James and John, became His companions that day. In this the devil showed his lack of foresight, and in this he was outwitted. Suppose they had crucified the sons of Zebedee, one on His right hand and the other on His left. People would then have said that these two were helping Him to finish His work of redemption.
- Shame — the two beside Him were bandits, picked from the worst in the city. His enemies put Him on the middle and highest cross to mark Him as the worst of the three.
- Prophecy — the men who staged the insult fulfilled Scripture without knowing it: He was numbered with the transgressors.
- Alone — men refused Him even a solitary death, yet He remained alone in the grace and moral glory of that cross.
- Level ground — both robbers reviled Him at first. Neither was the better man.
- Divider — grace saved one of the two. Christ crucified is the line between the lost and the saved.
[And the scripture was fulfilled which says, And he was reckoned with the lawless.]
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
And they that passed by reviled him, shaking their heads, and saying, Aha, thou that destroyest the temple and buildest it in three days,
At the cross the crowd walking past turns the Lord's own words into a joke. They throw back a charge that had already failed in court — but what had He said about the temple, and why does Mark record the sneer of strangers?
These people were only walking past. Nothing forced them to get involved.
You might think that the passers-by would at least hold back from taking part in this terrible scene. But even they wag their heads, insult Him, misuse His words, and challenge Him to "save Himself, and come down from the cross."
The insult fits a pattern that runs through the whole account.
Verses 16-32 paint a vivid picture of the terrible circumstances around the crucifixion. All classes combined against the Lord. Pilate had already scourged Him. The Roman soldiers mocked Him in ways that were cruel as well as contemptuous. The ordinary people — just passers-by — railed at Him. The priests mocked Him with sarcasm. The two thieves crucified with Him insulted Him too. They stood for the criminal class, the very lowest of humanity. High-born and low-born, Jew and Gentile, were all involved. Yet in the end they were all helping to fulfil the Scriptures, though no doubt without knowing it.
The temple line did not come from nowhere. It goes back to a twisted report of something Jesus had said, and the twist is easy to trace.
His accusers tried to use false witnesses to prove a charge that carried the death penalty. But it failed. No two of them agreed... "We heard him say," claimed two witnesses, "I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands" (Mark 14:58). What the Lord had said was this: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19). Within three days of His examination before Caiaphas, those words came true. The Jews put Him to death. They destroyed the temple of His body. On the third day He rose again. The Lord's words and the statement of these witnesses were really very different.
So the crowd is repeating courtroom gossip. He never said He would pull the building down. He said they would destroy, and He would raise — and the temple He meant was His body.
The mockers had the roles the wrong way round.
The passers-by insult Him, wagging their heads as they look at Him hanging there. Their false accusation said He was going to destroy the temple and build it up again in three days. In fact it was they who were destroying it. In a little while they will begin to see the true meaning: "In three days I will rise again."
Their timing was worse than they knew.
His words were turned against Him, not only at His trial, but in His dying moments... How little they knew that His very words were now about to be completely fulfilled!
The gesture is not a small detail. It appears in Psalm 22, the psalm that describes this death. The mockers played out the script without knowing there was one.
The "reproach of men" followed Him into this place which He had taken for men. He was "despised" even "by the people" — Israel, the nation He had been sent to in particular. Yes, He was the common mockery of everyone who saw Him. The gospels make a point of noting this wagging of the head by those passing by. They note too the very words of the psalm, used by the chief priests along with the scribes and elders to mock Him. On the surface it might look as if the government of God supplied them with this reproach. In fact they were hard, and blind to what they themselves deserved and to the holiness and mercy of God. That blindness hid from them the meaning of the scriptures they were so plainly fulfilling.
- Words twisted. The taunt repeats a charge the court had already thrown out. He said they would destroy the temple and He would raise it (John 2:19).
- Words turned back. The passers-by mock Him with His own words. Within hours those words came true in His resurrection.
- Roles reversed. They were the ones destroying the temple of His body; only He could raise it up again.
- Script unread. The head-wagging acts out Psalm 22. Hard hearts blinded them to the Scripture they were fulfilling.
- All hands guilty. Governor, soldiers, priests, criminals and passers-by, Jew and Gentile — each added a share. None of them knew they were serving God's written purpose.
save thyself, and descend from the cross.
The crowd at the cross did not just watch. They taunted the dying Man, daring Him to step down and prove Himself. Their words raise the question at the heart of the gospel. If He had the power to save Himself, why did He stay?
The abuse came from every direction.
Verses 16-32 show us in vivid detail the terrible circumstances surrounding the crucifixion. All classes combined against the Lord. Pilate had already had Him flogged. The Roman soldiers mocked Him in ways that were cruel as well as scornful. The ordinary people — just passers-by — jeered at Him. The priests mocked Him with sarcasm. The two thieves crucified with Him — the lowest of criminals — insulted Him. High-born and low-born, Jew and Gentile, were all involved. Yet the result was that they all helped to fulfil the Scriptures, though no doubt they never realised it.
You might expect people with no stake in the trial to walk on by. They did not.
It might be thought that the passers by would at least refrain from taking part in this terrible scene, but even they wag their heads, rail upon Him, misapply His words, and challenge Him to "Save Himself, and come down from the cross."
The challenge was attached to something Jesus had once said about the temple. The irony was total.
Men turned His words against Him, not only at His trial, but in His dying moments. How little they knew that His very words were now about to be completely fulfilled!
The temple He spoke of was not the building.
In fact, at that very moment they were destroying that temple, which was His body. And He would indeed raise it up, as He did in three days. He would wait for the three days: He would not save Himself and come down from the cross, as they suggested. He would willingly bear its agony for the sake of the sinful souls of men!
Commentators are clear that the demand was not beyond Him. What kept Him there was not iron.
He could have come down from the cross. It was not the nails driven through His hands and His feet that held Him there. I could only admit it if I am allowed to spell out one word on them. The nail in His right hand is L. The nail in His left hand is O. The nail in the right foot is V. The nail in the left foot is E. It was LOVE that held Him there, the love of a Saviour-God.
There is a sense in which the taunt spoke the truth, though the mockers had no idea of it. His inability was moral, not physical.
In fact, He could not save Himself, not being able to think of Himself: the love which had saved others went farther and gave Himself for us. Perfect love for His Father, obedience to His commandments, His perfect love to us, hindered His saving Himself. He might have had His twelve legions of angels, but He came for others, not for Himself. If He was to save others, He could not save Himself. What marks the terrible blindness of these priests is that they quote words which, in the Psalm where His death is described just as it is described here, come out of the mouth of the godless and the wicked (Psalm 22:7-8).
The offer — believe on a Christ who steps down — is one people still make, and it would have cost them everything.
They are saying today, as they said when He was here, "Come down from the cross, and we will believe on you." What would have been the use of any of us believing on Him if He had come down from the cross? The only way He could save us was by staying there. If we receive the Lord Jesus Christ at all, we must take Him as He is: Christ crucified, the power and the wisdom of God.
- Everyone mocked. Soldiers, priests, criminals and passers-by all joined in, high and low, Jew and Gentile. Without knowing it, they were fulfilling the Scriptures.
- Blind irony. They threw His words about the temple back at Him. At that very moment they were destroying that temple — His body — which He would raise on the third day.
- He could. He was able to come down; nails were never what held Him. Love held Him there.
- He wouldn't. Love for the Father, obedience, and love for us held Him there. Saving Himself was the one thing He could not do. He came for others, not for Himself.
- So we are saved. Had He stepped down, there would be nothing to believe in. The only Christ who saves is the Christ who stayed.
In like manner the chief priests also, with the scribes, mocking with one another, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save.
The chief priests and scribes mocked Jesus while He was dying. They admitted He had saved others, then jeered that He could not save Himself — a taunt that was half lie and half truth. (The quotations below follow an older wording: "Himself He cannot save.")
Mocking a dying man is beneath ordinary decency. Who did the mocking here is the first shock of the verse.
It is not usual to mock at the sufferings of the dying. Even if it were a criminal, ordinary feelings of humanity would hold men back from such a crime. But this was the Son of God, and that made it an entirely different matter. Man had no regard for Him; nothing was too bad to heap on His holy head. We only see fully what man is when we look at the cross… And now He was on the cross, and men were mocking His dying agonies! But who? Was it the ignorant and depraved? No — it was the chief priests and scribes, the representatives of religion and learning in their day. What a tale this tells! It disproves the idea that better surroundings or education can ever put man right.
The first half of the taunt is a confession. They had watched His works and could not deny them.
Notice what they said. "He saved others." They knew His acts of power. He had cleansed the leper, cast out demons, and raised the dead. But they thought that now He was stripped of everything, that His power was gone. "Himself He cannot save." This was false. He was the mighty God, the Creator and sustainer of everything — there was no "cannot" with Him. One word from Him, and the whole pack of foes might have been sent to the pit… But they were blind to His glory.
If power was not the problem, something else held Him there. One writer finds the reason in love and obedience — and notices whose words the priests were borrowing.
In fact, He could not save Himself, because He could not think of Himself: the love which had saved others went further and gave Himself for us. Perfect love for His Father, obedience to His commandments, His perfect love to us — these kept Him from saving Himself… If He was to save others, He could not save Himself. His love and His obedience were complete. The frightful blindness of these poor priests shows in this: they quote words that Psalm 22:7-8 puts in the mouth of the godless and the wicked — the Psalm that describes His death just as we see it here.
So was it "cannot" or "would not"? Death had no claim on Him by nature.
He saved others, they said, and they could not help knowing it. Himself He would not — did not — save. No, in the sense of love and divine purpose, Himself He could not save. He laid down His life for us — there was no other way we could be saved… There was no necessity of death in the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ. Every other man had to die because of Adam; Christ did not… So He says plainly about His death: "I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again" (John 10:18). He alone of all men could say that since the world began.
The priests also offered to believe if He would come down from the cross.
The chief priests join the others in mocking the Lord. They say, "He saved others; Himself He cannot save." That was true, little as they realised it. But what they add is entirely false. They say, "Let Christ the King of Israel come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe." Faith comes by hearing, not by sight. Besides, had He come down from the cross, believing would have been pointless. We would still be in our sins.
His refusal to come down is what opened salvation to everyone.
He had come into the world to save sinners, to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself; and to do that He had to suffer and die. Nothing else would have worked… Had He saved Himself, salvation from eternal misery would have been impossible for anyone. Love led Him on. He has drained the awful cup and endured the dreadful baptism. Divine justice is satisfied, and God is glorified. Christ is no longer held back. Salvation is now free to all.
- Mockers exposed — The jeering came from the leaders of religion and learning. Nowhere do we see what man really is as fully as at the cross.
- Half admitted — "He saved others" was a fact they could not deny. They granted His saving power even while they sneered.
- Half denied — "Cannot" was false about His power. One word from Him could have ended the scene, but they were blind to whose voice it was.
- Half true — Love for His Father and for us made self-rescue impossible; He could not save Himself and save us too.
- Result received — Had He saved Himself, no one else could be saved. He stayed, justice is satisfied, and salvation is now free to all.
Let the Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and may believe. And they that were crucified with him reproached him.
At the cross the scorn is united. The religious leaders taunt the dying Saviour, and the two criminals beside Him join in. Their words offer a bargain: come down, and then we will believe. Yet their mockery hides a truth deeper than they knew.
The leaders meant "He saved others; He cannot save Himself" as proof of failure. Writers point out that the word "cannot" was true. It was just not true for the reason the mockers supposed.
As has often been the case, the very reproach which they cast upon Him is His glory. In a way their spite never dreamed of, it was true: "He saved others; Himself He cannot save." But that "cannot" was not weakness or inability. It was divine love.
Nothing forced Him to stay there. One writer traces that "cannot" back to His own choice and to what our salvation required.
He would not — did not — save Himself. In the sense of love and divine purpose, He could not save Himself. He laid down His life for us — there was no other way we could be saved... Death was no necessity in the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ. All other men must die because of Adam. Christ did not have to.
The chief priests taught Scripture for a living. Yet no prophet had ever named the proof they demanded.
They acknowledged His works done for others, yet refused to admit the claims those works established... They rejected what the word of God would have led them to look for, and asked for a sign which no prophet had authorised them to expect. It was right to link the King's presence with a display of power. It was wrong to expect Him to use that power to save Himself.
Their offer sounds reasonable: give us something to see, and we will believe. Commentators answer on two levels. They show how faith really comes, and what salvation would be left if He had done what they asked.
The chief priests join with others in mocking the Lord. They said, "He saved others; Himself He cannot save." This was indeed true, though they hardly realised it. But what they add is completely false. They say, "Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross that we may see and believe." Faith comes by hearing, not by sight. Moreover, had He come down from the cross, belief would have been in vain. We should still be in our sins.
Their promise was worthless. His resurrection later gave them a far greater proof, and they paid to hide it.
In their wicked glee, they promise to believe on Him if He would come down from the cross and so prove Himself to be the King of Israel. Sadly, when a mightier proof is given them by His resurrection from the dead, they could bribe the Roman soldiers to hide the dreaded truth.
The mockery reached further than the one man on the cross.
The Jewish nation had to be humbled, and the soldiers mocked the whole nation in mocking its King... What comes out especially here is the humiliation of the King of Israel.
Mark records that both criminals reviled Him. That detail matters. One of them changed, and the change came without the proof the priests demanded.
The spirit of unbelief was so complete that even the men crucified with Him had time to turn round and add to His sufferings. They did it in the middle of their own dying agonies. Mark does not mention the conversion of one of these robbers. Luke does. We know that the one who was converted did not ask Him to come down from the cross. He owned Him as the King before the kingdom comes, believing without seeing... The chief priests gloried over these same circumstances as the defeat of Jesus. The thief gloried in them as deliverance for his own soul.
Writers hear that same demand from people who want Christ without the cross.
They would like Christ without a cross; they would like a gospel without blood... They are saying what the Jews said to Him when He hung upon the cross — "Come down and we will believe on you"... We know that if He had come down from the cross, it would be no use believing on Him. What use would He have been to us if those hands He stretches out to us were not nail-pierced hands?
- Cannot — "Himself He cannot save" was true, but it was the "cannot" of divine love, not of weakness.
- Chose — death had no claim on Him; He would not save Himself so that He could save others.
- Condition — they set terms for faith. They asked for a sign no prophet ever promised.
- Come down — had He obliged them, faith would have had nothing to rest on; we would still be in our sins.
- Contrast — both robbers mocked. One ended up owning Him as King from his own cross, believing without seeing.