Augustinus, In Joannis Evangelium tractatus CXVII-CXXIII

Tractate 117.

On what follows, And carrying His cross for Himself, He went out to that which is called the Place of Calvary; as far as, Pilate answered: What I have written, I have written. Chap. 19, vv. 17-22.

1. When Pilate had judged and condemned Him from the judgement seat, they took the Lord Jesus Christ at about the sixth hour, and led Him out. And carrying His cross for Himself, He went out to that which is called the Place of Calvary, in Hebrew Golgotha, where they crucified Him. What is it, then, that the evangelist Mark says, Now it was the third hour, and they crucified Him (Mark 15:25), unless that at the third hour the Lord was crucified by the tongues of the Jews, at the sixth hour by the hands of the soldiers? So that we may understand that the fifth hour had already passed, and something of the sixth had begun, when Pilate sat on the judgement seat, which John called about the sixth hour: and while He was being led out, and was being nailed to the wood together with two robbers, and the things related as having been done beside His cross were being done, the sixth hour would have been completed in full; from which hour until the ninth, the sun having been darkened, the authority of three evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke, testifies that darkness came about (Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33, and Luke 23:44). But since the Jews tried to transfer the crime of having killed Christ from themselves onto the Romans, that is, onto Pilate and his soldiers; for this reason Mark, passing over that hour at which Christ by the soldiers

was crucified, the hour which had already begun to pass as the sixth, recalled rather and expressed the third hour, the hour at which they are understood to have been able to cry out before Pilate, Crucify, crucify (John 19:6): so that not only those may be found to have crucified Jesus, that is, the soldiers who hung Him on the wood at the sixth hour, but also the Jews, who cried out at the third hour that He should be crucified.

2. There is also another solution of this question, namely that the sixth hour of the day is not to be understood here, since John does not say, Now it was about the sixth hour of the day, or, about the sixth hour; but he says, Now it was the parasceve of the Pasch, about the sixth hour (ibid. 14). Now parasceve in Latin is Preparation: but the Jews prefer to use this Greek word in observances of this kind, even those who speak Latin rather than Greek. It was therefore the preparation of the Pasch. But our Pasch, as the Apostle says, Christ, has been sacrificed (1 Cor. 5:7): and if we reckon the preparation of this Pasch from the ninth hour of the night (for it was then that the chief priests seem to have pronounced the sacrifice of the Lord, saying, He is guilty of death [Matt. 26:66], while He was still being heard in the house of the high priest: whence it is fittingly understood that from then began the preparation of the true Pasch, of which the Pasch of the Jews was a shadow, that is, of the sacrifice of Christ, from the time when He was pronounced by the priests as one to be sacrificed), then certainly from that hour of the night, which is conjectured to have then been the ninth, up to the third hour of the day, at which Mark the evangelist testifies that Christ was crucified, there are six hours, three of the night and three of the day. Hence on this parasceve of the Pasch, that is, in the preparation of the sacrifice of Christ, which had begun from the ninth hour of the night, it was about the sixth hour that was passing; that is, the fifth having been completed, the sixth had already begun to run, when Pilate ascended the tribunal: for that very preparation, which had begun from the ninth hour of the night, was still going on, until the sacrifice of Christ which was being prepared should be accomplished: which was accomplished at the third hour according to Mark, not of the preparation but of the day; and the same was the sixth not of the day but of the preparation, six hours, to be sure, being reckoned from the ninth of the night to the third of the day. Of these two solutions of this difficult question, let each choose whichever he will. But he will better judge what to choose who has read what has been most laboriously argued in On the Agreement of the Evangelists (Book 3 of On the Agreement of the Evangelists, ch. 13, nos 40-50). But if other solutions of it can also be found, the consistency of the gospel truth will be the more abundantly defended against the calumnies of faithless and impious vanity. Now, having briefly treated these things, let us return to the narrative of John the evangelist.

3. And they took Jesus, he says, and led Him out: and carrying the cross for Himself, He went out to that which is called the place of Calvary, in Hebrew Golgotha, where they crucified Him. Jesus therefore went to the place where He was to be crucified, bearing His own cross. A great spectacle: but if impiety looks on, a great mockery; if piety, a great mystery: if impiety looks on, a great proof of ignominy; if piety, a great bulwark of faith: if impiety looks on, it laughs at a king bearing, in place of the rod of His kingdom, the wood of His own punishment; if piety, it sees a king carrying the wood on which He Himself was to be fixed, which

He was going to fix even on the foreheads of kings: to be despised by the eyes of the ungodly in that in which the hearts of the saints were going to glory. For to Paul, who was going to say, But far be it from me to glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ (Gal. 6:14), He commended that very cross of His, carrying it on His own shoulder; and for the lamp that was to burn, which was not to be placed under a bushel, He was bearing the lampstand (Matt. 5:15). Bearing His cross for Himself, therefore, He went out to the place which is called Calvary, in Hebrew Golgotha: where they crucified Him; and with Him two others, on this side and on that, but Jesus in the middle. These two were robbers, as we have learned from the narrative of the other evangelists, with whom Christ was crucified and between whom He was fixed (Matt. 27:38, Mark 15:27, and Luke 23:33): concerning which the prophecy had said beforehand, And He was reckoned among the wicked (Isa. 53:12).

4. « And Pilate also wrote a title, and put it on the cross: and there was written, Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews. This title then many of the Jews read, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city. And it was written in Hebrew, in Greek and in Latin: The King of the Jews. » For these three languages stood out there above the rest: Hebrew, on account of the Jews glorying in the Law of God; Greek, on account of the wise men of the Gentiles; Latin, on account of the Romans, who were even then ruling over many and almost all nations.

5. The chief priests of the Jews therefore said to Pilate: Do not write, The King of the Jews; but that He said, I am the King of the Jews. Pilate answered: What I have written, I have written. O the ineffable power of the divine working, even in the hearts of the ignorant! Did not some hidden voice sound within Pilate with a certain, if it may be so called, clamorous silence, what had been prophesied so long before in the writings of the Psalms, Do not corrupt the inscription of the title (titles of Ps. 56 and 57)? See, he does not corrupt the inscription of the title; what he wrote, he wrote. But the chief priests too, who wanted it to be corrupted, what were they saying? Do not write, they say, The King of the Jews; but that He said, I am the King of the Jews. What are you saying, madmen? Why do you object to the doing of what you can in no way change? For will it therefore not be true, that Jesus says, I am the King of the Jews? If what Pilate wrote cannot be corrupted, can what the Truth said be corrupted? But is Christ king of the Jews only, or of the Gentiles too? Indeed of the Gentiles too. For when He had said in prophecy, But I have been set up as king by Him over Sion, His holy mountain, proclaiming the commandment of the Lord; lest anyone, on account of Mount Sion, should say that He was set up as king for the Jews alone, He immediately added, The Lord said to me, Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee: ask of Me, and I will give Thee the nations as Thy inheritance, and the ends of the earth as Thy possession (Ps. 2:6–8). Hence He Himself also, now speaking with His own mouth among the Jews, says: I have other sheep which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice, and there will be one flock and one shepherd (John 10:16). Why then do we wish a great mystery to be understood in this title, in which was written, The King of the Jews, if Christ is king of the Gentiles too? Because, namely, the wild olive was made a partaker

of the richness of the olive, not the olive made partaker of the bitterness of the wild olive (Rom. 11:17). For in the title that was truthfully written concerning Christ, King of the Jews, who are to be understood as the Jews, if not the seed of Abraham, the sons of the promise, who are also the sons of God? Since not those who are the sons of the flesh, says the Apostle, are the sons of God; but those who are the sons of the promise are counted as the seed (ibid. 9:7–8). And they were Gentiles to whom he said, But if you are Christ's, then you are the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise (Gal. 3:29). Christ, then, is King of the Jews, but of Jews by circumcision of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter, whose praise is not from men but from God (Rom. 2:29); of those who belong to the free Jerusalem, our eternal mother in the heavens, the spiritual Sarah, who casts the bondwoman and her sons out of the house of freedom (Gal. 4:22–31). For this is why what Pilate wrote, he wrote: because what the Lord said, He said.

Tractate 118. On these words: The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Him, took His garments, etc. Chap. 19, vv. 23, 24.

1. Let us treat in this sermon, so far as He helps us, the things that were done beside the cross of the Lord when He had already been crucified. "The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Him, took His garments and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and the tunic. Now the tunic was seamless, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore to one another, Let us not tear it, but let us cast lots for it, whose it shall be. That the Scripture might be fulfilled which says, They divided My garments among them, and upon My vesture they cast a lot." What the Jews wanted was done: not they themselves, but the soldiers who obeyed Pilate, at his judgement, crucified Jesus; and yet if we consider their wills, their plots, their effort, their handing over, and finally their clamours that extorted it, it was certainly rather the Jews who crucified Jesus.

2. But the dividing and the casting of lots for His garments must not be spoken of in passing. For although all four Evangelists mention this matter, the others nevertheless do so more briefly than John: and they obscurely, but he most openly. For Matthew says: And after they had crucified Him, they divided His garments, casting a lot (Matt. 27:35). Mark: And crucifying Him, they divided His garments, casting a lot upon them, who should take what (Mark 15:24). Luke: And dividing His garments, they cast lots (Luke 23:34). But John both said how many parts they made of His garments, that is, four, so that they might each take one. From which it appears that there were four soldiers who obeyed the governor in crucifying Him. For he says plainly, The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Him, took His garments and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and the tunic; "they took" is to be understood, so that this is the sense: They took His garments and made four parts, to each soldier a part; they took also the tunic. And he spoke thus, so that concerning the other garments no lot was cast

as we may see; but about the tunic which they received together with the rest, but did not divide in the same way. For he goes on to explain about this: Now the tunic was seamless, woven from above throughout. And relating why they cast lot for it: So they said, he says, to one another, Let us not tear it, but let us cast lots for it, whose it shall be. It is clear, therefore, that in the other garments they had equal shares, so that there was no need to cast lots; but in that one alone they could not each have a share unless it were torn, so that they would carry off useless pieces of it; and so as not to do this, they preferred that it should come to one man by lot. With this evangelist's narrative the prophetic testimony also agrees, which he himself adds immediately, saying, That the scripture might be fulfilled which says, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture they cast lot. For he does not say, they cast lots, but, they parted; nor does he say, casting lots they parted; but, without naming the lot at all in the case of the other garments, he afterwards said, and upon my vesture they cast lot, on account of that remaining tunic. On this matter I shall say what He Himself may have granted, once I have first repelled the false charge which can arise, as though the Evangelists disagreed among themselves, by showing that the words of none of the others are contrary to the narrative of John.

3. For Matthew, by saying, They divided His garments, casting lot, meant it to be understood that the tunic too, for which they cast lot, belonged to the whole division of the garments; because in dividing all the garments, among which that one also was, they cast lots for it. Such too is what Luke says, Dividing His garments, they cast lots: for in dividing they came to the tunic, for which the casting of lots took place, so that the division of all His garments among them might be completed. And what difference does it make whether it is said, Dividing they cast lots, as Luke says, or, They divided, casting lot, as Matthew says, except that Luke, by saying lots, put the plural number for the singular, a manner of speaking not unusual in the holy Scriptures, although some codices are found to have lot, not lots? Mark, then, alone seems to have raised some question: for by saying, Casting lot upon them, who should take what, he seems to have spoken as though the lot were cast upon all the garments, not upon the tunic alone. But here too brevity causes obscurity: for it is said, Casting lot upon them, as if it were said, Casting lot when they were being divided; and this is what was done. For the division of all His garments would not have been complete unless it had become clear by lot who was also to take that tunic, so that in this way the contention of those dividing might be ended, or rather none might arise. What he says, therefore, Who should take what, since this is assigned to the lot, is not to be referred to all the garments which were divided; for the lot was cast as to who should take that tunic: and since he omitted to relate what sort of tunic it was, and how, when equal shares had been made, it alone remained, and so as not to be torn apart came to the lot, for that reason he put what he says, Who should take what, that is, who should take it: as if he were to say the whole thus

They divided His garments, casting a lot over them, as to who should take the tunic which had been left over from the equal portions.

4. Perhaps someone may ask what is signified by the division of the garments made into so many parts, and by that casting of lots for the tunic. The fourfold garment of the Lord Jesus Christ prefigured His fourfold Church, spread, that is, through the whole world, which consists of four parts, and distributed equally, that is, harmoniously, through all those same parts. For this reason He says elsewhere that He will send His Angels to gather His elect from the four winds (Matt. 24:31): and what is that, if not from the four parts of the world, East, West, North and South? But that tunic obtained by lot signifies the unity of all the parts, which is held together by the bond of charity. Now the Apostle, when about to speak of charity, says, I show you a surpassing way (1 Cor. 12:31): and in another place he says, To know also the charity of Christ, which surpasses knowledge (Eph. 3:19); and likewise elsewhere, But above all things [have] this charity, which is the bond of perfection (Col. 3:14). If therefore charity both has the more surpassing way, and surpasses knowledge, and is enjoined above all things, rightly is the garment by which it is signified said to be woven from above. And seamless, so that it may never be unstitched: and it comes to one, because it gathers all into one. Just as among the Apostles, when that very number was twelve, that is, divided into four sets of three, and all had been questioned, Peter alone answered, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God; and to him it is said, I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:15–16, 19), as though he alone had received the power of binding and loosing: whereas he both said the former as one on behalf of all, and received the latter together with all, as bearing the person of unity itself; therefore one on behalf of all, because there is unity in all. Hence here too, when he had said, woven from above, he added, throughout. If we refer this to what it signifies, no one is without a share in it who is found to belong to the whole: from which whole, as the Greek language indicates, the Church is called catholic. But in the lot, what is commended if not the grace of God? For thus in one it came to all, when the lot pleased all, because the grace of God too comes in unity to all: and when a lot is cast, it falls not to the person or merits of each, but to the hidden judgement of God.

5. Nor should anyone say that these things signified nothing good because they were done by wicked men, that is, not by those who followed Christ, but by those who persecuted Him. For what are we to say of the cross itself, which was certainly likewise made for Christ and thrust upon Him by enemies and ungodly men? And yet it is rightly understood to signify what the Apostle says, What is the breadth, and the length, and the height, and the depth (Eph. 3:18). For it is broad in the transverse beam, on which the hands of the one hanging are stretched out; and it signifies good works, in the breadth of charity: it is long from the transverse beam down to the ground, where the back and feet are fixed; and it signifies perseverance through length of time to the end: it is high at the top, where, going upwards, the transverse beam