The Spiritual Death of Jesus on the Cross, Matthew 27:45-49

We are going to look at John 19 but we will also come back to Matthew chapter 27. As we continue our study in Matthew we are in the section related to the crucifixion of Christ. Today we come to the second three hours on the cross. We have looked at the first three hours where the wrath of man was spat out, was thrown at the Lord through the reviling, the blasphemy, other things that happened during those first three hours; but it came from man, it didn't come from God. Then we come to the time from 12 noon to 3pm when darkness covers the face of the earth. This is when that divine transaction takes place, the payment for our sin. This begins with what is the 17th stage.

We looked at the first five stages, which involved the procession to Golgotha. Then we came to the first three hours, the wrath of men. One change from what I said last time. We talked about the four mockings of Jesus on the cross, and that should be changed to five. I discovered the word mocking isn't used in this section. There is mocking that takes place, and even though the word isn't used it's definitely happening. Five mockings on the cross.

We will look first at the last thing that happens before darkness comes, and that is revealed in John 19:25-27. This is the third statement that Jesus makes from the cross.

Therefore the soldiers did these things.   But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the {wife} of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” From that hour the disciple took her into his own {household.}

This tells us in this passage that there are four women and, according to John, they are by the cross. I point that out because in the Synoptics it says they were at a distance. I think that there's no contradiction here but they moved there away from their nearness to the cross. For whatever reason they moved, and so the accuracy of the other Gospel writers must not be doubted. They carefully looked, especially Luke who is a careful historian and he carefully researched what happened, so we can trust that there's no contradiction here. They were near, and then they moved away at some distance.

There are four women mentioned here. There is Mary His mother. There is the mention of the sister of Mary in John 19:25. We will see that she should be identified as Salomé who is the mother of the sons of Zebedee, James and John. Third, we see that there is another Mary who is the wife of Clopas in John (his name is Cleopas in Luke 24:18), and she's also identified as the mother of James the less and Joses or Joseph. Then Mary Magdalene. So let's look at these.

Mary His mother is standing by the cross. These four women at the foot of the cross are witnesses to not only His crucifixion, but they are witnesses to His burial, and they are witnesses to His resurrection. They are introduced here as the four women there at the cross, and it's interesting because in that culture at that time that they thought that the most unreliable of witnesses were women. You just couldn't trust what they said, "those women are flighty, they are hysterical", and you just can't pay attention to them, so it was not a trustworthy thing to rely on a woman. But that just validates what the Scriptures are teaching, because if you were going to write a fraudulent account, if you were going to make up a story out of whole cloth then you would choose the most respected people to be your witnesses of what happened. You wouldn't write a story about Jesus and have women as the witnesses because they're not reliable. That attests to the veracity of Scripture, because this is what happened. The witnesses were women and they were reliable. If a fraud were writing this, the last thing he would do is identify women as the key witnesses of the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord.

The first woman mentioned is His mother, Mary, and this is a reminder of the prophecy of Simeon in Luke chapter two. There were two, Simeon and Hannah, both very old, very ancient, and they had been given revelation from God that they will witness the Messiah. And so when Mary and Joseph bring Jesus to the temple for His dedication, as they enter Simeon comes over. The Holy Spirit somehow informs him that this is the Messiah, and we have three or four verses of his blessing upon Mary Joseph and his statements about the Lord. And in that he says to Mary, "Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel", the fall, meaning that they would not believe Him, they would reject him, and they would reject His offer of the kingdom. The rising, of course, refers to those who would respond and would be saved, and "for a sign which will be spoken against"—they will speak against him. This is what has led to the crucifixion. And then he says to her personally says, "a sword will perk pierce through your own soul also". And here she stands, the mother of the humanity of our Lord looking at the cross, looking at her firstborn who is has been tortured, beaten, and is being crucified.

We can't even imagine the thoughts that were going through her head. How much she comprehended about who he was in his mission is seen in her response when Gabriel first announces that she is going to be pregnant and give birth of the Messiah. But then later, just like others at that time, she's not real sure who He is. And we can't grasp this level of certainty and then confusion, unless we look at our own lives and we know that there are times when were absolutely certain of the truth of Scripture, and other times we are not so sure. That's part of humanity. Remember, these folks are not indwelt by the Holy Spirit. They don't have the filling of the Spirit, like we do. So there's definitely a difference in their life.

Then we know she has a family member there, identified by John as His mother's sister, so she's not alone. We don't know how old she is at this time, but if our Lord is approximately 30 to 35 years of age, and she's probably in her late 40s to early 50s, probably right around 50. His father Joseph had died by the time He entered into His public ministry. So Salomé is her sister. She's identified in the Mark passage when he lists the women at the cross. Notice he says they were also women looking on from afar. This is later into the three hour block of darkness, so they moved away from being right by the cross. They are listed as Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the less, and Joses, and Salome. Matthew 27:56 says, "Among them was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee."

Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James the less, and Joses are mentioned in all three passages. Mary the mother of Jesus is obviously distinct. She is mentioned in John 19 but there is one who is identified three different ways: Salomé the mother of the sons of Zebedee, and his mother's sister. This also tells us that James and John are first cousins to Jesus. This is a family affair. The third person is Mary the wife of Clopas, as he is identified in John, but he's identified in Luke 24:18 as Cleophas. She is also identified is the mother of James the less and of Joseph, so she's the mother to disciples. Cleophas is identified as a disciple, in Luke 24:13—not one of the 12.

Luke 24:13   And behold, two of them were going that very day to a village named Emmaus, which was about seven miles from Jerusalem.

On the way the Lord, somewhat having his identity cloaked, appears to them and begins to talk to them. Then were told,

Luke 24:18 One {of them,} named Cleopas, answered and said to Him, “Are You the only one visiting Jerusalem and unaware of the things which have happened here in these days?”

We don't know much about him, that's the only two times he's mentioned in Scripture. However, it's interesting, we can't say for sure, but early church tradition going back into the second century, tells us that he was the brother of Joseph. I don't know that that's true; I don't know that it's not true, but it might have been true. If it's true then you have first cousins among the disciples on his mother's side, first cousins on his adopted father side. John the Baptist was also a cousin, so this is a family affair. They're very close.

And then there is Mary Magdalene. There is a lot of confusion about Mary Magdalen. There are people from the Gnostic side who think that somehow she married Jesus, and all sorts of nonsense about her. But her second name Magdalene means that she is from the village of Magdala, which is on the Sea of Galilee's western shore.

What we know of her is that Jesus had cast demons out of her, as described in Luke 8:2. Often he is identified, I think very wrongly, as the sinful woman mentioned in Luke 7:36-50, but that has nothing to do with Mary Magdalene. We do not know really that much about her other than she is there to cross, the burial and the, the resurrection. John goes on to tell us that with these four women standing there Jesus then begins to speak and address Mary His mother, and the apostle John, who is standing there.

This is His third statement from the cross. His previous two statements have been very gracious and related to salvation. He said when He is first hung on the cross, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do". He says just prior to this, to the second thief on the cross, who said, Lord, remember me when you come in your kingdom, Jesus said, "I will be with you today in paradise", indicating the salvation of that second thief.

Here is a man who is gone through unbelievable beatings and torture and flogging. He has been reviled and ridiculed and blasphemed. He's been beaten, all kinds of things. His third statement is just as gracious as the other two, but it's not related to salvation. He is fulfilling His responsibility as a firstborn son. It is his responsibility to see that His mother is taken care of. His father is no longer there and so He is going to entrust the care of His mother to the disciple whom He loved.

John 19:26 When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” This is indicating that now John will be her son and then were told in verse 27, Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” From that hour the disciple took her into his own {household.}

We know from the end of the Gospel of John that this disciple whom Jesus loved, is the one who wrote this Gospel. He is often referred to as the disciple whom Jesus loved, and so that identifies John, and a close relationship with John. John is the youngest of the disciples, so he's the one who's most likely to live long enough to take care of Mary. Also, we know that there is a hint in the prophecy that is stated in John 21 that John will not die as a martyr as the other disciples. And so Jesus is going to entrust her care to a disciple who is going to grow and mature, but not to one of his natural half brothers because they're not believers yet, they are all unbelievers. So He's going to entrust the care of his mother to someone outside the family who is actually a nephew, who is a believer who will take care and shows care, wisdom, graciousness and responsibility on the part of a son for his mother. That ends the first three hours on the cross and we come to the second three hours on the cross, which is focusing on the payment for sin.

This takes place between 12 noon and 6pm, and these are stages 18, down through 23. These describe the events related to the spiritual death of Christ on the cross, not his physical death. We will come back and look at the events that occurred at the time He died physically and the significance of the death of Christ in its entirety on the cross. The Synoptics are united in their statement about the covering of darkness, that it is from the sixth hour, which is noon, and the ninth hour. There is darkness all over the land. Mark 15:33 says, "darkness over the whole land", and Luke 23:44 says, "over all the earth". Notice anything? Is it land or earth? In Greek it's the same word in all three verses.

My question is, is this talking about the whole earth being covered in darkness, or is this just talking about the land of Israel, basically the eastern part of the Mediterranean. I believe it is localized; I don't believe it was all of the earth. Nevertheless, as we study what has been unearthed by a variety of apologists, that there were those outside of Israel in the eastern part of the Mediterranean that do make comments about a an unusual darkness that covered that end of the Mediterranean. Whether they're talking about the same event, I do have questions. There is Dionysus, a Greek scientist who lived in Egypt not that far away, who reported experiencing this darkness while he was in the city of Heliopolis. There is also a second writer, Diogenes, also a Greek scientist living in Egypt, who commented on the same darkness. About it e wrote, "Either the deity himself suffers at this moment, or sympathizes with one that does". Of course, he had no knowledge of who Jesus was or anything else, he just was commenting on the severity of this darkness.

Others have tried to identify this as a solar eclipse. In fact, there is a comment made by Flagon, who was an Egyptian as well, who makes a comment about this, identifying it as an eclipse. This was picked up by Origen later on, and used by him to substantiate as an external witness what transpired at the cross.

I mentioned this in a lesson in first Peter when we were going through apologetics, but as I was studying for this lesson I ran across a quotation from Alfred Eidersheim time who wrote a huge volume on the life and times of Jesus the Messiah, and he raises some doubt about Flagon's comment. Origen doesn't identify the year or some other things, but Eidersheim does, as he identifies as the year 29, which is four years off, also says the Flagon identifies this as having occurred in November, which is the wrong time of year. So is that is not a valid sourced to go to. Furthermore, he identifies it as a solar eclipse. It can't be a solar eclipse because it's Passover. Passover is always on a full moon. You can't have a solar eclipse when you have a full moon. For those reasons I don't think that's a valid reference, but it raises some questions about the others because they don't give enough detail in terms of year or other circumstances to be able to truly substantiate that that is the exact time when they are of when they are speaking.

However, there is another statement made by Thallas in AD 52, some 19 years after the cross. He wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean civilization from the Trojan war to his own time, and he cites another work by Julius Africanus who asserted that "on the whole world there pressed the most fearful darkness, and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea, and other districts were thrown down". This darkness, he states in his third book of his history, was "an event that was without reason, and not necessarily an eclipse of the sun". They didn't know what it was. So that may be a valid a valid witness outside of the Bible for this darkness.

But what is more important is why the darkness covered the face of the earth. Is this the face of just Israel or is it the face the world? I think it is just the face of Israel because we must understand the purpose for it. One commentary by a well-known and well respected author listed six different reasons that people have put forth for why the darkness covered the earth, and he didn't list the correct reason. I can't believe he missed that because it's a popular view. He just left it out.

Why did God cover the land in darkness? It's a time of judgment. Darkness is frequently associated with judgment in the Scripture—Isaiah 5:20; 60:20; Joel 2:10, 30, 31; Amos 9. The last three references all relate to darkness at the time of the Day of the Lord at the end of the Tribulation. Darkness indicates judgment, and there is a judgment that is taking place on the cross. During this time Jesus is judged. He is judicially separated from the Father, and the Father and imputes our sins to Christ on the cross.

Now some people and say well how does this happen? It's got to be judicial because the Trinity—Father, son and Holy Spirit—are eternally united forever. You can't separate ontologically in terms of their very being. You can't come in and separate any member of the Trinity from the whole because of their eternal union. What we have here is a judicial separation.

Let's develop this a little more. This is during the time that Jesus takes the baptism of the cup. He had prophesied that that He would when He talks to James and John. When that Salome wants to get them elevated to sit on his right and left hand in the kingdom He says, "Can they drink the cup that I will drink?" This is the cup that He is drinking. It's the call the baptism of the cup because He is being identified with the cup. And often God's judgment in the Old Testament is portrayed as God, pouring out judgment from a cup. That's the imagery that's there, and He is being identified with the wrath of God—not in His deity, but in His humanity.

Now we have to be careful when we say that because too many times it has been poorly articulated. Remember the definition of the hypostatic union, that is, the union of humanity and deity together in one person. The thirsting of Christ is evidence of His humanity. He thirsted. Deity doesn't thirst. But the united person thirsts because it's one person on the cross. You can't come in and split them, which was the error of some of the early church fathers as they were trying to figure out how the humanity and the deity of Christ related together. The person of Christ, that one person on the cross, is deity and humanity united together in one person suffers. But it is human and it is His humanity that is receiving the judgment of sin, because God doesn't substitute for human beings but humanity does. It is the humanity of our Lord that is our substitute in salvation, not deity. Deity doesn't pay for sins, humanity pays for sins; like must substitute for like. It's during this time that He is identified with our sins and receives the judgment of God. This is what second Corinthians 5:21 talks about: "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him".

It is His humanity, not His deity that receives that imputation of sin. It is a judicial act and a judicial separation from God, and separation from God is how we define the concept of spiritual death. It's not the physical death of Jesus on the cross; it is His spiritual death. When He is separated from the Father judicially, because He becomes sin judicially in our place and for us. That is the transaction on the cross and this is completed before He dies physically. In fact there some other things that happen here that are quite interesting, just little hints of that must be explained and understood in terms of what I'm teaching here.

So Jesus is paying the penalty for sin, our spiritual death before he dies physically that takes us all the way back to what was taught many times in Genesis chapter 2, where it was said, "You can eat from any fruit any tree in the garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And if you eat from that you will die". That wasn't physical death; that's spiritual death. That's what happened immediately. When God came to walk in the garden after they ate of the fruit they ran and hid, they were separated from the Father. What God outlines in Genesis chapter 3 with regard to the hostility between the woman and the serpent, the serpent crawling on the ground, the power struggle between the wife and the husband, the fact that thorns and thistles will come forth from the earth, and man will earn his living now by the sweat of his brow, are all consequences of spiritual death. The last thing that is stated is from the dust you came, to dust you will return. That's physical death. Physical death is the last. It's the greatest it's the most significant of the consequences of spiritual death.

But those are the consequences, not the penalty. The penalty is separation from God. And so what I say when we go through the Lord's table every time is that the cup is a picture of shed blood, which is a picture of death—not physical death but spiritual death, the time when He pays the penalty for sin on the cross. This is seen even more in the next statement, the fourth statement from the cross.

Matthew 27:46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?” that is, “MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?”

This is taken from Psalm 22:1, My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? Far from my deliverance are the words of my groaning.

At this time in history there were no chapter divisions in the Bible, no verse divisions. If you talked to a Jew at that time about the 22nd Psalm, he wouldn't know what you were talking about. You would refer to that Psalm as Eli, Eli Lama, Sabachthani. That's the title of the psalm, just like the title of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible is bereshith. That's the very first word in Genesis 1:1, so the title of the book was "in the beginning". Now, if Jesus is said to have said, Eli, Eli Lama, Sabachthani, it's very likely He didn't just quote that. What the writer is saying is, He quoted that psalm. He recites the entire Psalm 22, with all of its messianic prophecies. It's the second most important messianic prophecy in the Old Testament, second only to Isaiah chapter 53. The words there in both Greek and Hebrew indicate something's leaving something behind, deserting something, forsaking. It can have the context of just every day events, somebody leaves somebody, abandon something, or it can have a judicial connotation of being forsaken legally. It could be used in the case of a divorce or desertion or abandonment, and that is what is used here. Again it emphasizes that there is a judicial separation that takes place between the Father and the Son.

The other thing that we should note here, because for many years a number of pastors have mistakenly stated this, that when Jesus said, My God, My God, My God, the first time is the Father, My God, the second time is the Spirit, and He is being abandoned by the other two members of the Trinity. You may have heard that.

However, when you go on to read it and it says, "Why have you forsaken me", the "you" is not a second person plural. He is not saying, "My God, my God, why have y'all forsaken me?" He saying my God, my God, why have you (singular) forsaken. He's talking to God the Father because God the Father is the Judge. He's not talking about God the Holy Spirit because God the Holy Spirit is sustaining Him throughout this time on the cross. It is important to make those distinctions and correct maybe some misunderstanding.

Then we come to the 20th stage, the reaction of the bystanders, and this is really the eighth mocking that takes place. Some of those who stood there, when they heard him say Eli, Eli Lama, Sabachthani said, "He's calling for Elijah". They didn't think Eli is calling, My God, but that He was calling for Elijah.

Matthew 27:48 Immediately one of them ran, and taking a sponge, he filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink. [49] But the rest {of them} said, “Let us see whether Elijah will come to save Him.”

That's the mocking. "Well, you know he thinks Elijah is going to save Him, just wait, don't give Him anything to drink." That's the eighth mocking and what is interesting here is why would they mistake Eli. Maybe they think it's a shortened form of Elijah, and that is because in pop Judaism, Judaism on the street with just this misinformed, ill-informed, and as confused as pop Christianity that flows through the pews of most churches in America. Nobody takes enough time to really read what the text says. And they didn't read what the text said, they just had this common view that Elijah is going to be coming back before the Messiah comes, and before the end, that it has something to do with, you know, pop eschatology. That's what they're thinking: He's calling upon Elijah; Elijah will show up. This will bring the end of the world and He'll get rescued from the cross. That's how they've misunderstood this with in their popular misinformed eschatology.

And we have seen a couple of passages back earlier in Matthew 17:9-13, where they also demonstrate the same kind of misunderstanding and misidentification of Elijah when it was related to John the Baptist. So this is their reaction, they are just mocking Jesus. It's not too different from what was said earlier, "He saved others, now let Him save Himself". They just keep running that same basic theme.

Then we come to the 21st stage, the fifth statement from the cross. John 19:28, After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, to fulfill the Scripture, said, “I am thirsty.”

Something interesting happens here. The three hours are up; Jesus has paid the penalty for sin. How do we know that? We will come back to this in the next statement, but John says, "knowing that all things were now accomplished". In the Greek this is the word TETELESTAI, which means it's finished; it's complete. This is the same word Jesus uses a couple of verses later when He says, "It is finished". John uses that word twice so that you get the point that at this point that everything had transpired to complete the transaction of payment for sin.

Something else has taken place here. When we go back to the quote from Psalm 22, Jesus calls upon God. He says, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" The interesting thing is, throughout Jesus' ministry He referred to God as His Father over 150 times, and of those there were at least 45 times it's "My Father". Jesus has that personal relationship with God the Father, but here is the only time he refers to him as "My God", showing that that fellowship, that intimacy is broken, because of spiritual death.

That's going to change now. We will see that it's over with. John makes the statement that it has been completed, and now Jesus speaks again. From the time that He talked about Mary to John He hadn't said anything. He cried out to God in the fourth statement, and now in the fifth statement He is going to talk, and He says, "I thirst". This indicates the true humanity of Jesus. It also indicates that He is physically on the cross. What do I mean by that? The heresy developed by the early second century called docetism, and it is from the Greek word DOKEO, which means to appear. And they said Jesus was of really physical, He was a Gnostic form and wasn't physically dying because He couldn't physically die; it just appeared that He did.

This shows us that that the true humanity of Jesus was on the cross and He thirsted. So it's it gives us another example that Scripture recognizes that humanity of crosses of Jesus is on the cross.

And then they give him vinegar. Matthew 27:48 Immediately one of them ran, and taking a sponge, he filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink.

The word there is really vinegar. This was not the same as that what was offered to him at the beginning with the mixture of myrrh or gall; that was used as an as an anesthetic to dull the pain. This is not the same. This was typically a drink that Roman soldiers would have in order to quench their thirst, and this is what is given to Jesus. It is offered for Him to drink, and He does. That's why there's this vessel. John 19:29 says there's a vessel full of this sour wine or vinegar sitting there. They filled a sponge with sour wine, put it to His mouth.

Then we come to the sixth statement. John 19:30 Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.

When Jesus had received the sour wine he drank it. Why did he drink it after all of this? His mouth is probably parched. He's thirsty. He is getting ready to make one the most significant statements of all history. He has something to whet His whistle, as it were, to get rid of the dry mouth, and He can yell out TETELESTAI—it's accomplished; it's paid in full.

We have discovered through archaeological remains of documents that, on receipt, when someone paid the bill, what they would stamp on it was TETELESTAI—paid in full; it's done. He is still alive physically. It was accomplished. TETELESTAI is a perfect tense verb that means it has already been accomplished. When He says it, it's completed. So it's not, it is being accomplished or, it is being finished. Any kind of continuative idea is no longer present. It has already been completed with results that will go on forever. And so twice the apostle John uses this word so that we get the point that the death of Christ isn't something that it goes on and on and on. That totally negates the whole idea in a Roman Catholic mass were Jesus is re-crucified each time the mass takes place. No, it is completed; it is finished; it's done; nothing can be added to it; nothing helps.

That's why the gospel is, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ alone. It's not believe and do something better. You can't help it; you can't add something. In fact, if you add something to the gospel, you destroy the gospel. There's no salvation in faith plus. Anything you add to faith destroys faith because then you're relying on something other than Christ alone for salvation and His sufficient work on the cross.

That's with sufficient means. It was enough because it was paid in full. What we learn from Colossians chapter 2:12-14 is that when that happens, the financial transaction is the canceling of the debt against us, so that our sin is canceled, we are forgiven—all mankind. That sin debt is canceled. What remains, though, is that we have to trust in Him and believe on Him, and that is why it is incumbent upon every person to make that decision to believe in Jesus or you will not have eternal life.

Slides