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.