See commentary on John 19:23-24.

John 19:24

_ _ Let us not rend it, but cast lots ... 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 — (Psalms 22:18). That a prediction so exceedingly specific — distinguishing one piece of dress from others, and announcing that while those should be parted amongst several, that should be given by lot to one person — that such a prediction should not only be fulfilled to the letter, but by a party of heathen military, without interference from either the friends of the enemies of the Crucified One, is surely worthy to be ranked among the wonders of this all-wonderful scene. Now come the mockeries, and from four different quarters: —

_ _ (1) “And they that passed by reviled Him, wagging their heads” in ridicule (Psalms 22:7; Psalms 109:25; compare Jeremiah 18:16; Lamentations 2:15). “Ah!” — “Ha,” an exclamation here of derision. “Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save Thyself and come down from the cross” (Matthew 27:39, Matthew 27:40; Mark 15:29, Mark 15:30). “It is evident that our Lord’s saying, or rather this perversion of it (for He claimed not to destroy, but to rebuild the temple destroyed by them) had greatly exasperated the feeling which the priests and Pharisees had contrived to excite against Him. It is referred to as the principal fact brought out in evidence against Him on the trial (compare Acts 6:13, Acts 6:14), as an offense for which He deserved to suffer. And it is very remarkable that now while it was receiving its real fulfillment, it should be made more public and more impressive by the insulting proclamation of His enemies. Hence the importance attached to it after the resurrection, John 2:22” [Webster and Wilkinson].

_ _ (2) “Likewise also the chief priests, mocking Him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others, Himself He cannot save” (Matthew 27:41, Matthew 27:42). There was a deep truth in this, as in other taunts; for both He could not do, having “come to give His life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45). No doubt this added an unknown sting to the reproach. “If He be the king of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him” (Matthew 27:42). No, they would not; for those who resisted the evidence from the resurrection of Lazarus, and from His own resurrection, were beyond the reach of any amount of merely external evidence. “He trusted in God that He would deliver him; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him [or ‘delight in Him,’ compare Psalms 18:19; Deuteronomy 21:14]; for He said, I am the Son of God” (Matthew 27:41-43). We thank you, O ye chief priests, scribes, and elders, for this triple testimony, unconsciously borne by you, to our Christ: first to His habitual trust in God, as a feature in His character so marked and palpable that even ye found upon it your impotent taunt; next, to His identity with the Sufferer of the twenty-second Psalm, whose very words (Psalms 22:8) ye unwittingly appropriate, thus serving yourselves heirs to the dark office and impotent malignity of Messiah’s enemies; and again, to the true sense of that august title which He took to Himself, “THE SON OF GOD,” which He rightly interpreted at the very first (see John 5:18) as a claim to that oneness of nature with Him, and dearness to Him, which a son has to his father.

_ _ (3) “And the soldiers also mocked Him, coming to Him and offering Him vinegar, and saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save Thyself” (Luke 23:36, Luke 23:37). They insultingly offer to share with Him their own vinegar, or sour wine, the usual drink of Roman soldiers, it being about the time of their midday meal. In the taunt of the soldiers we have one of those undesigned coincidences which so strikingly verify these historical records. While the ecclesiastics deride Him for calling Himself, “the Christ, the King of Israel, the Chosen, the Son of God,” the soldiers, to whom all such phraseology was mere Jewish jargon, make sport of Him as a pretender to royalty (“KING of the Jews”), an office and dignity which it belonged to them to comprehend.

_ _ (4). “The thieves also, which were crucified with Him, cast the same in His teeth” (Matthew 27:44; Mark 15:32). Not both of them, however, as some commentators unnaturally think we must understand these words; as if some sudden change came over the penitent one, which turned him from an unfeeling railer into a trembling petitioner. The plural “thieves” need not denote more than the quarter or class whence came this last and cruelest taunt — that is, “Not only did scoffs proceed from the passers-by, the ecclesiastics, the soldiery, but even from His fellow-sufferers,” a mode of speaking which no one would think necessarily meant both of them.

_ _ Compare Matthew 2:20, “They are dead which sought the child’s life,” meaning Herod; and Mark 9:1, “There be some standing here,” where it is next to certain that only John, the youngest and last survivor of the apostles, is meant. And is it conceivable that this penitent thief should have first himself reviled the Savior, and then, on his views of Christ suddenly changing, he should have turned upon his fellow sufferer and fellow reviler, and rebuked him not only with dignified sharpness, but in the language of astonishment that he should be capable of such conduct? Besides, there is a deep calmness in all that he utters, extremely unlike what we should expect from one who was the subject of a mental revolution so sudden and total. On the scene itself, see Luke 23:29-43.