Thomas Aquinas Commentary John 19:19-27

"And Pilate wrote a title also, and put it on the cross. And there was written, JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title therefore read many of the Jews, for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city; and it was written in Hebrew, [and] in Latin, [and] in Greek. The chief priests of the Jews therefore said to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written. The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also the coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore one to another, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my garments among them, And upon my vesture did they cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did. But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother`s sister, Mary the [wife] of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold, thy mother! And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own [home]." — John 19:19-27 (ASV)

1. The Evangelist has just told of Christ’s crucifixion; now he mentions the events that accompanied and followed it.

   First, as they relate to Pilate.

   Second, as they relate to the soldiers: the soldiers therefore, when they had crucified him, took his garments.

   Finally, he tells about Christ’s friends who were standing by: now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

   Concerning Pilate, we see the title being written on the cross, its being read, and its preservation.

2. Two things are mentioned about the writing of the title. First is the act of writing it: Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the cross. This was understandable, for it was a way of getting back at the Jews by showing their malice in rising up against their own king.

   It was also appropriate for this mystery. Just as inscriptions are placed on trophies of victory so that people will remember and celebrate the victory—let us make a name for ourselves, before we are scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth (Genesis 11:4)—so it was arranged that a title was put on the cross so that the sufferings of Christ would be remembered: remember my affliction and my bitterness, the wormwood and the gall! (Lamentations 3:19).

3. Second, he mentions the content of the title, Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews, words which are very fitting for the mystery of the cross. The word Jesus, which means Savior, corresponds to the power of the cross by which we have been saved: you will call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21). The word Nazareth, which means abounding in flowers, corresponds to the innocence of the one suffering: I am a rose of Sharon, a lily of the valleys (Song of Solomon 2:1); a flower will rise up out of his root (Isaiah 11:1). The words King of the Jews accord with the power and dominion which Christ earned by His suffering: therefore God has highly exalted him (Philippians 2:9); he will reign as king and be wise (Jeremiah 23:5); he will sit upon the throne of David and over his kingdom (Isaiah 9:7).

4. Through His cross, Christ is not just the King of the Jews, but of all people—for after we read, I have set my king on Zion, there follows, ask of me and I will make the nations your heritage (Psalms 6:8). Why then did the Evangelist write only King of the Jews?

   I answer that the Gentiles were grafted onto the abundant olive tree: and if some of the branches are broken and you, being a wild olive, are grafted in among them (Romans 11:17). Just as a graft comes to share in the abundance of the olive tree, and it is not the olive tree that acquires the bitterness of the graft, so those Gentiles who were converted to the faith were made spiritually Jews—not by a circumcision of the flesh, but of the spirit. And so in saying King of the Jews, non-Jewish converts are also included.

5. Next, we see that the title was read: this title therefore many of the Jews did read. The fact that it was read signifies that more are saved by faith in reading about the passion of Christ than were saved by actually seeing it, for these are written that you may believe (John 20:31).

   Second, the Evangelist mentions how easy this was to read. It was easy first because Jesus was crucified near the city, the place where Jesus was crucified was close to the city, where many people passed. Second, it was easy because it was written in a number of languages: it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek, so that no one would fail to know it, and because these three languages were the most widely known. Hebrew was known because it was used in the worship of the one true God; Greek was known because it was used in the writings of the wise; and Latin was known due to the power of Rome. As Augustine says, these three tongues assumed a certain dignity by being associated with the cross of Christ.

   Furthermore, the Hebrew tongue signified that theology and philosophy ought to be ruled by Christ, which is signified by Hebrew because knowledge of divine matters was entrusted to the Jews. The Greek language signified that Christ was to rule over natural philosophy, for the Greeks were engaged in speculation about nature. Latin signified that Christ will rule over practical philosophy, because moral speculation especially flourished among the Romans. And so, all thought is brought into captivity and obedience to Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5).

6. We now read that this title was not changed, when it says: then the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate: do not write: the King of the Jews.

   First, we see the Jews trying to have the title changed: the chief priests of the Jews then said to Pilate: do not write: the King of the Jews; but that he said, I am the king of the Jews. The title King of the Jews was a praise for Christ but a disgrace for the Jews, for it was a disgrace to them that they had their king crucified.

   But if the title had read, he said, I am King of the Jews, it would have been a taunting sarcasm against Christ and would have indicated his crime. This was what the chief priests wanted to do: to take away the reputation of the one they crucified, just as they had already taken away his life: I am the talk of those who sit in the gate (Psalms 69:12).

7. Second, we read that Pilate was insistent on keeping the title. He refused to change it because he wanted to disgrace them. He said, what I have written, I have written. This did not happen by chance; it had been arranged by God and predicted long before. Certain Psalms have the title, Do not destroy, for David, for an inscription of a title. Indeed, this Psalm especially concerns the passion: deliver me from my enemies, O my God (Psalms 58:2). And so do the two preceding Psalms: be merciful to me, O God, be merciful to me, for in you my soul takes refuge (Psalms 56:1) and if indeed you speak justice (Psalms 57:1). It was therefore foolishness for the chief priests to complain, for just as they could not destroy what the Truth had said, they also could not destroy what Pilate had written. As Augustine remarks, Pilate said, what I have written I have written, because what the Lord said, He said.

8. Now the Evangelist shows the role played by the soldiers: the soldiers therefore, when they had crucified him, took his garments.

   1. He mentions that Christ’s garments were distributed among them.

   2. We see that lots were cast for his tunic: also his coat.

   3. He leads into the pronunciation of the prophecy, at that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

9. He says, the soldiers therefore, when they had crucified him, took his garments. We can gather two things from this: the humiliation of the dying Christ, for the soldiers stripped him, which was done only to those they despised; and second, the greed of the soldiers, because they took his garments and made four parts, one for each soldier. Soldiers were a very greedy group, and so John the Baptist told them to rob no one... and be content with your pay (Luke 3:14); they send men away naked, taking away their clothes (Job 24:7).

10. In regard to the second point, he says, also his coat.

    1. His tunic is described.

    2. Lots are cast for it: they then said to one another: let us not cut it.

11. He says, also his coat, that is, they took that along with his other garments. Now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.

    He says that it was without a seam to indicate its unity. Some say this shows how valuable it was. On the other hand, Chrysostom says that the Evangelist says this to suggest that it was common and ordinary, for in Palestine the poor wear clothing made from many pieces of cloth, one sewn over another: for you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor (2 Corinthians 8:9).

12. As for the mystical interpretation, this passage can be referred to the mystical body of Christ. Christ’s garments are divided into four parts because the Church is spread over the four parts of the world: as I live, says the Lord, you will put them all on as an ornament, you will bind them on as a bride does (Isaiah 49:18).

    The seamless tunic, which was not divided, indicates charity. The other virtues are not united by themselves but by another, because all of them are directed to the ultimate end, and it is charity alone which unites us to this end. While faith reveals our ultimate end and hope directs us toward it, only charity unites us with it: and above all these put on love, which binds everything together (Colossians 3:14). The tunic is said to be woven from the top because charity is above all the other virtues: I will show you a still more excellent way (1 Corinthians 12:31); to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God (Ephesians 3:19). Or, it is woven from the top because our charity does not come from ourselves, but from the Holy Spirit: God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us (Romans 5:5).

    The tunic woven from the top can also signify the real body of Christ, because the body of Christ was formed by a higher power, one from above, by the Holy Spirit: that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20).

13. The Evangelist says that lots were cast for Christ’s tunic: they then said to one another: let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it will be. There is one way of casting lots which is a form of divination; this is unlawful because there is no necessity for it. Sometimes lots are cast to know how things should be allotted or divided; this is lawful in earthly matters but not in spiritual things. The purpose of this is to submit to God’s plan and will those matters that we cannot decide by ourselves. The lot is cast into the lap, but the decision is wholly from the Lord (Proverbs 16:33); and again, the lot puts an end to disputes (Proverbs 18:18).

14. Matthew says something different: they divided his garments among them by casting lots (Matthew 27:35).

    The reply is that Matthew does not say that they cast lots for all his garments. Indeed, while they divided some among themselves, they cast lots for his tunic.

15. Mark is still more forceful, saying, they divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take of all his clothes (Mark 15:24).

    According to Augustine, this should be understood from the words of Mark and means they cast lots for one of his garments to decide which one would take the tunic that was left over.

16. Now the Evangelist brings in the prophecy of this event: that the Scripture might be fulfilled. First, he mentions the prophecy. The prophet’s exactness is remarkable, for he foretold in detail some of the things that were done to Christ. Clearly these things did not happen by chance; thus he says, that the Scripture might be fulfilled one thing after another, which said (Psalms 22:18) that they parted my garments among them—not saying "garment," because there was more than one—and for my clothing, that is, for my tunic, they cast lots.

    Second, he states that the prophecy was fulfilled: so the soldiers indeed did these things. We can see from this that the divine Scripture is fulfilled even in its details: not an iota, not a jot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished (Matthew 6:18); everything written about me in the law of Moses and in the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled (Luke 24:44).

17. Third, we see the part played by the friends of Jesus: now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

    1. The Evangelist mentions the women who were standing there.

    2. He mentions Christ's concern for the care of His mother: when Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing there.

    3. He mentions the ready obedience of the disciple: and from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

18. Three women are mentioned as standing by the cross of Jesus: his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

    When the Evangelists mention the women who were standing with Christ, it is only John who mentions the Blessed Virgin. Two questions occur about this incident.

19. Matthew (Matthew 27:55) and Mark (Mark 15:40) say that the women were standing far off, while John says that they stood by the cross.

    One could say in answer that the women mentioned by Matthew and Mark were not the same as those mentioned by John.

    However, the difficulty with this answer is that Mary Magdalene is in the group mentioned by Matthew and Mark, and also in the group mentioned by John. So one should say that all were referring to the same women. But there is no contradiction. "Near" and "far" are relative, and nothing prevents something from being near in one sense and far in another. The women were said to be near because they were within sight, and they could be described as far because other people were between them and Jesus.

    Alternatively, one could say that when the crucifixion was beginning, the women were standing near Christ and were able to speak to him. Later, when a number of people came forward to taunt him, the women withdrew and stood further away. Thus, John is telling what happened at first, and the other Evangelists what happened after.

20. The other issue is that John mentions Mary of Clopas, while in her place, Matthew and Mark mention Mary, the mother of James, who is also described as Mary of Alphaeus.

    We should say about this that Mary of Clopas, mentioned by John, is the same as Mary of Alphaeus, mentioned by Matthew. For this Mary had two husbands, Clopas and Alphaeus. Or, one could say that Clopas was her father.

21. The fact that the women stood by the cross while the disciples left Christ and ran away is an expression of their unfailing affection. As Job says: my flesh is consumed, my bones cleave to my skin, where the flesh can stand for the disciples, who ran off, and the skin can stand for the women, for they stayed close to Christ (Job 19:20).

22. The Evangelist now mentions Christ’s concern for His mother: when Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing there.

    1. First we see His concern for the welfare of His disciple, whom He entrusted to His mother.

    2. Then we see His concern for His mother, whom He gave into the keeping of His disciple: after that, he said to the disciple: behold your mother.

23. As to the first, he says, when Jesus therefore had seen his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing there, he said to his mother: woman, behold, your son! He is saying: "Until now I have taken care of you and watched over you. Now, you take care of my disciple." This shows the eminence of John.

    Before, when the mother of Jesus said to him, they have no wine (John 2:3), he replied, woman, what is that to me and to you? My hour has not yet come. That is, the hour of my passion, when I will suffer by means of what I have received from you. But when that hour comes, I will acknowledge you. And now that the hour has come, He does acknowledge His mother. Yet He implies that He does not have the power to work miracles through what He received from her, but rather through what He has from the generation of the Father; that is, insofar as He is God.

24. As Augustine says, Christ hanging on the cross is like a teacher in his teaching chair. He is teaching us to help our parents in their needs and to take care of them: honor your father and your mother (Exodus 20:12); if any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever (1 Timothy 5:8).

    Why is the contrary found in Luke? If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple (Luke 14:26).

    I answer that when our Lord commands us to hate our parents and ourselves, He is commanding us to love them in their individual nature and to hate the moral evil that turns our natures away from God. This means that we must aid our parents, loving and reverencing them as human beings, but hating their moral vices and whatever in them turns us away from God.

25. As to the second, he says, behold, your mother! This is so that John will care for her as much as a son cares for his mother, and Mary is to love John as a mother loves her son.

26. The Evangelist shows the obedience of the disciple when he says, and from that hour the disciple took her to his own. According to Bede, this should be read as "as his own," so the meaning is, the disciple, John, took her, the mother of Jesus, as his own, namely, as his mother. But according to Augustine, and agreeing with the Greek text, we should read it as to his own. This does not mean to his own home, for John was one of those who said, we have left everything and followed you (Matthew 19:27). Rather, the disciple took Mary to his own guardianship, to eagerly and respectfully care for her.