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.