The Gospel of Luke, Chapter 23, Part 1

Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please help to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information or DONATE HERE!

  • Christogenea Internet Radio
CHR20121221-Luke23-1.mp3 — Downloaded 2371 times

Downloads from old Christogenea website: 3,083

The Gospel of Luke, Chapter 23 - Christogenea on Talkshoe 12-21-2012

We saw Luke chapter 22 end with the mock trial of Yahshua Christ in the court of the high priests. That trial was not a real trial, but probably only served so that the Judaeans could draw up the charges which they would present to Pilate, since in Judaea at the time only the Roman authority had the lawful power to try capital offenses. The first Herod had that power, when Judaea was a kingdom. However under Herod Archelaus Judaea was reduced to the status of an imperial province and the local rulers lost that authority.

All four gospels offer quite different perspectives on the mock trial of Yahshua before the high priests. It must be noted that the four quite different perspectives of the events of both trials and the crucifixion of Christ was probably the result of the disciples being scattered after Christ was seized in the garden, which is seen at Mark 14:50. One thing that is apparent in all four gospels, however, is that there were really no charges of substance worthy of a capital or even a minor offense which could have been brought, except that the high priests and scribes cared not for justice but for expediency, so they merely invented charges. As Mark wrote in his version of the account, “56...many had testified falsely against Him, and the testimonies were not the same. 57 And some arising gave false testimony against Him saying 58 that: “We heard Him saying that ‘I shall destroy this temple made by hand and after three days I shall build another not made by hand!’” 59 Yet not even thusly was their testimony the same.” Matthew said “59 Then the high priests and the entire council sought false testimony against Yahshua, that they may kill Him, 60 yet they found not many false witnesses coming forth. But later two having come forth 61 said 'He said this: ‘I am able to destroy the temple of Yahweh and in three days I will build it!’” While on the surface the accounts seem to conflict because of the differing perspectives, in many ways they compliment and corroborate one another. Luke did not record the matters concerning the temple, but all three gospels generally agree where Luke records the high priests as having asked “67 'If You are the Christ, tell us!' And He said to them: 'If I should tell you, you shall not believe it, 68 and if I shall ask, by no means will you answer. 69 But from this time the Son of Man shall be sitting at the right hand of the power of Yahweh.'” The apostle John in his gospel did not record any of the charges which the high priests and their followers had contrived before bringing Yahshua before Pilate.

1 And rising, the whole multitude of them brought Him before Pilatos. 2 Then they began accusing Him saying “We have found Him perverting our nation and preventing giving tribute tax to Caesar, and saying of Himself to be the anointed king.”

Here it is evident from the context that even the leaders of the Judaeans knew that the destiny for the prophesied Christ was to be King of Israel, yet they denied its having materialized in their own time.

The word διαστρέφω, to pervert here, is literally to twist. The word χριστός (5547) is primarily an adjective, meaning anointed, and that is how it is used in this passage. It is not - as the King James and other versions have it - a Substantive in this passage, which is a noun, used to designate the Christ. If it were a Substantive it would have appeared with the article. Yet neither of the Greek words for anointed or king appear with the article here, and therefore χριστός is an adjective modifying the indefinite noun for king. On many occasions the King James and other versions render χριστός as Christ when it should have been rendered as anointed, as an adjective or sometimes even as a noun.

The high priests in Judaea at this time had the authority to try and punish criminals in all but capital offenses, which they were required to send to the Roman authorities. If the jews desired to have Christ tried by Pilate, then it would be for a capital offense and they would need charges worthy of such an offense. Therefore they contrived two false charges: for Christ never taught people not to pay taxes, and He never explicitly claimed for Himself to be King, in spite of the fact that others made that claim for Him.

Matthew chapter 27, Mark chapter 15, and Luke chapter 23 all begin in the same place in the general narrative, with Christ being taken before Pilate. John's record of this event begins at verse 28 of chapter 18 in his gospel, as it was later numbered. Note that the charges contrived in the court of the high priest must have been brushed aside and substituted for these charges which amount to tax revolt and insurrection which are recorded here by Luke. None of the other gospels record the charges as Luke did, however all three of the other gospels corroborate Luke's records where we see at Matthew27:, Mark 15:, and John 18:33 that when Pilate first addresses Christ, he asks Him “Are You the King of the Judaeans?”. Therefore Pilate is recorded by all as if he was responding to these charges which only Luke records.

3 Then Pilatos asked Him, saying “Are You the King of the Judaeans?” And replying He said to him “So you say.” 4 Then Pilatos said to the high priests and the crowds “I find not any guilt in this man.”

The gospel of Matthew supplies further dialog between Pilate and Christ at this point, where it says at 27:12-14: “12 And to that which had been brought as an accusation against Him by the high priests and the elders He answered nothing. 13 Then Pilatos says to Him: “Do You not hear how many things they testify against You?” 14 And He did not reply to him with even one word, so for the governor to wonder exceedingly.” The passage at Mark 15:4-5 corroborates this exchange which Luke did not record.

5 But they were more strongly saying that “He agitates the people teaching throughout all of Judaea, even beginning from Galilaia as far as here.” 6 Then Pilatos hearing inquired whether the man is a Galilaian. 7 And discovering that He is from the jurisdiction of Herodas, he sent Him to Herodas, he also being in Jerusalem in those days.

The Codices Alexandrinus (A), Bezae (D), Washingtonensis (W) and the Majority Text have “Then Pilatos hearing ‘Galilaia’ inquired”; the text follows the 3rd century papyrus P75 and the Codices Sinaiticus (א), Vaticanus (B), and Borgianus (T).

The word ἐξουσία (1849) is usually power or authority but here in this context it is jurisdiction, for which see Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament at ἐξουσία, 4. c. "., where he cites both Luke 4:6 and this passage.

In Luke alone, we learn that Pilate had sent Christ to Herod, and did not surrender Him to the desires of the Judaeans until Herod had sent Him back again. So from each writer we see differing aspects of the events of that day, and surely because no writer recorded those events completely, and each had different perspectives on the events formed from the things that they both saw for themselves, and that they heard from others. None of the accounts necessarily conflict, and none of them can be proven to be false. They are all merely different, because each writer had a different knowledge or placed a different emphasis on the various things which occurred that day. In retrospect, it is fortuitous that the disciples were scattered at this time, because in that manner we have these different accounts from different aspects, and each of them helps to fill in the gaps that a single account from a single perspective would not have been able to provide.

The gospel of John seems to indirectly corroborate Luke in regard to the account of Pilate sending Yahshua to Herod, however John does not actually describe such an event. Rather, John says of Pilate's initial address to the Judaeans as he first encountered them at the Praetorium: “29 Therefore Pilatos came outside to them and declared: 'What charge do you bring against this man?' 30 They replied and said to him 'If this man was not doing evil, we would not have delivered Him to you!' 31 Therefore Pilatos said to them: 'You take Him and judge Him according to your law.' The Judaeans said to him: 'It is not lawful for us to slay anyone', 32 that the word of Yahshua would be fulfilled which He spoke indicating by what sort of death He was going to die.”

Here several things may be discussed. First, this may be where the Judaeans realized that the charges they had contrived in the courtyard were not sufficient for a capital offense, although that is not supported according to the manner in which Luke presents the account. Secondly, where John has Pilate saying merely “You take Him and judge Him according to your law”, that may be the point where Luke has Christ being brought from Pilate to Herod, but which John did not fully record for one reason or another. Third, John's account elucidates for us the fact that lawfully only the Roman authorities could try capital offenses, a fact which the high priests are recorded as having recognized. If indeed the Judaeans had the ability to execute Christ, the method would have been stoning. There is an unlawful stoning of the martyr Stephen recorded in the book of Acts. However since only the Romans could lawfully execute Christ, and the Judaeans acceded to that in bringing Him to Pilate, the method would be crucifixion, and therefore John wrote “that the word of Yahshua would be fulfilled which He spoke indicating by what sort of death He was going to die.” The Romans used crucifixion as a method of execution, and forty years later crucified many who were captured during the siege of Jerusalem under Titus. The practice of crucifixion among the Persians was mentioned several times in the pages of the Greek historian Herodotus, who wrote five centuries before the time of Christ, and whose words in that matter are confirmed by inscriptions such as the famous Behistun Rock.

8 Then Herodas seeing Yahshua rejoiced exceedingly, for he was for a considerable time wishing to see Him on account of that which is heard concerning Him, and he hoped to see some sign coming from Him.

The Codex Alexandrinus and the Majority Text both want the word rendered “time”, and order a few other words differently, and so the text of those manuscripts would be read in part: “...for he was at length wishing to see Him”. Later in the sentence those same codices have “...on account of the many things being heard”. The the text of the Christogenea New Testament follows the third century papyrus P75 and the Codices Sinaiticus (א), Vaticanus (B), Bezae (D) and Borgianus (T). The Codex Washingtonensis follows the Codex Alexandrinus in this later part of the verse, but the other manuscripts at the beginning. I note these things because it is quite evident that in many places the King James Version follows the Codex Alexandrinus contrary to the several older manuscripts, and because I have encountered many advocates of the King James Version who have hypocritically criticized the so-called Alexandrian tradition, of which the Codex Alexandrinus is the leading example. The Christogenea New Testament usually follows the Codices Sinaiticus or Vaticanus wherever they depart from the Alexandrinus.

9 And he questioned Him with many statements, but He answered him nothing. 10 Then the high priests and the scribes had stood vigorously accusing Him. 11 And belittling Him, Herodas with his soldiers then mocking Him, wrapping Him in a splendid garment returned Him to Pilatos. 12 And Herodas and Pilatos became friends with each other on that day. For formerly they were at enmity between themselves.

There was much contention between Pilate and the Judaeans, first over his plan to place the effigies of Caesar in the temple at Jerusalem, and then over the construction of an aqueduct into the city, where many Judaeans protested its being built and they were killed. While there is not much other evidence to provide a reason, many attribute these things as the cause of the enmity between Pilate and Herod the tetrarch.

While Christ would not answer charges against Him which were leveled by the high priests, as it is also described in Mark 14:60-61 of the events in the court of the priest, Christ also made no reply before Pilate concerning the charges made against Him by the Judaeans, as the passage at Matthew 27:12-14 attests, in fulfillment of Isaiah 53:7. Here Christ uttered not a word to Herod, who for a considerable time had been anxious to see Him and who in the end must have been quite disappointed at the outcome of the meeting. Herod was, as Josephus often attests, from a family of Edomite jews. Such is how Christians should treat jews, not even respecting them as persons. Yet Christ did converse with Pilate himself, as especially the gospel of John describes, when Pilate took him away from His accusers into the Praetorium and held a conversation with Him.

Isaiah 53:7: “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.”

13 Then Pilatos convening with the high priests and the leaders and the people 14 said to them: “You have brought to me this man as if He has been turning away the people, and behold, I before you inquiring found nothing with this man guilty of that which you make accusation against Him.

Earlier in the chapter the word διαστρέφω, literally to twist, was rendered as pervert. Here the King James Version renders ἀποστρέφω as pervert. Where διαστρέφω is literally to turn through or by, ἀποστρέφω is literally to turn back or from, and is therefore to turn away here. While either word may metaphorically be pervert, I chose not to render them the same.

While it is evident that none of the Gospel accounts are complete, it is also evident from all of them that the high priests had charged Christ without any evidence of substance by which to support their claims, which Pilate had realized. The dialog of Pilate continues:

15 Yet not even Herodas, for he had sent Him back to you, and behold, there is nothing worthy of death done by Him. 16 Therefore chastising Him I shall release Him.”

Herod evidently sent Christ back to Pilate without charges, and Pilate attempted to use that as a reason to free Him.

The Codices Alexandrinus (A), Bezae (D), Washingtonensis (W) and the Majority Text have “Yet not even Herodas, for I had sent you to him”; the text follows the 3rd century papyrus P75 and the Codices Sinaiticus (א), Vaticanus (B), and Borgianus (T).

Verse 17 is wanting in the Christogenea New Testament. It is found in the Codices Sinaiticus (א), Washingtonensis (W), and in the Majority Text. It is also found in the Codex Bezae (D) but does not appear until after the text of verse 19. It is wanting in the 3rd century papyrus P75 and the Codices Alexandrinus (A), Vaticanus (B), and Borgianus (T). Found in the King James Version in parentheses, which indicates a parenthetical statement and not an interpolation as many casual readers may wrongly assume, it is translated there: “(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)” Surely this seems to be a marginal note which made its way into the text of some manuscripts, and thus is the reason for the division among the earliest of the manuscripts. Verse 19 is also a parenthetical statement, and it is found in all of the manuscripts. Making the Christogenea New Testament the text of verse 17 was not considered to be a parenthetical statement of Matthew's, but rather an explanatory statement added by a later scribe, and therefore it is omitted from the translation.

Both Matthew and Mark seem to describe only a one-time encounter between Christ and Pilate, before they describe the release of Barabbas. Here in Luke we see that Christ was presented to Pilate twice, once before being sent to Herod and again upon His return. While the account of John is from a quite different perspective, and it seems to support the account of Luke, where Pilate questions Christ and his accusers initially, and then speaks to Christ alone in the Praetorium before addressing His accusers once again. However language at Matthew 27:17 also seems to corroborate the account of Luke here. In that verse where he is describing the release of Barabbas, Matthew has the words “upon their convening Pilate said to them”, indicating that the events of the day were much more protracted than Matthew's short description of them seems to imply. The King James Version has at Matthew 27:17 “Therefore when they were gathered together” yet they were already gathered together and were never described as having adjourned. So why did Matthew again write “therefore when they were gathered together”? Because there was a break in the narrative which was not fully related, and it was during this break that Pilate had his private conversation with Christ in the Praetorium which is recorded by John, and it was also during this break that Christ had been sent to Herod, who only returned him to Pilate. After these things, which neither Matthew nor Mark recorded, there was this second gathering of the Judaeans, the accused Christ, and Pilate, and therefore Matthew writes “therefore upon their convening”, or as the King James Version has it “therefore when they were gathered together”.

18 But the whole multitude cried out saying “Kill Him! And release Barabbas for us!” 19 (Whom was because of a certain sedition which happened in the city, and a murder, cast into prison.)

The word αἴρω (142) is primarily to take up, raise, lift up, but is also to lift and take away, to remove, to take off, and in that sense to kill according to the Liddell & Scott Greek-English Lexicon, and so it is kill here, yet its use while there are many other verbs which literally mean kill also seems to infer that crucifixion is the expected method.

There was a fascinating story told by Wesley Swift in relation to this Barabbas, which must be addressed here. The story is found under the title of The Blue Tunic Army Of Christ and it is found in most of the archives of Swift's papers, including the one at Christogenea. I do not know if Swift originated the story or not, however I do know this: there is absolutely not one shred of Biblical or historical evidence in support of that story. In the story, Swift claims that Barabbas was the leader of an organized resistance movement which had the blessings of Christ and which served to protect Him, sort of like the National-Socialist Brownshirts of the 1920's. However Luke states rather clearly that Barabbas “was because of a certain sedition which happened in the city, and a murder, cast into prison”, Matthew states merely that Barabbas was “a notorious prisoner”, and Mark states that he was “bound with those rebels who in the sedition committed a murder.” However John tells us rather bluntly that Barabbas was a robber. There is no reason to doubt the Gospel accounts, and there is no indication that Barabbas was anything more than a common robber involved in sedition and murder, none of which Christ had anything to do with. Wesley Swift pointed out many good things concerning Scripture, and for that reason his work is worth preserving. However his many innovations, and additionally his tendency towards syncretism, allow for the propagation of a lot of error if his work is not treated with care.

20 Then again Pilatos addressed them, desiring to release Yahshua. 21 But they shouted out saying “You must crucify! You must crucify Him!”

The Codex Alexandrinus and the Majority Text have a Participle “Crucify! Crucify Him!” The Codex Washingtonensis has only “Crucify Him!” The text follows the 3rd century papyrus P75 and the Codices Sinaiticus (א), Vaticanus (B), and Bezae (D), all of which have the 2nd person Present Imperative form of the verb.

Matthew supplies us with a more complete account, where he recorded Pilate's having expressed that Yahshua was “called Christ”, and that the leaders of the Judaeans were demanding his execution because they were jealous of Him. Mark's account differs somewhat where at 15:9-10 he wrote “9 Then Pilatos replied to them saying: 'Do you desire that I shall release for you the King of the Judaeans?' 10 For he knew that on account of envy the high priests handed Him over.”

22 Then a third time he said to them “Why, what evil has He done? I found in Him nothing guilty for death. Therefore chastising Him I shall release Him!” 23 But they were pressing on with great voices demanding for Him to be crucified, and their voices prevailed.

Not apparent in Luke's account, in the gospels of both Matthew and Mark it is stated that the high priests persuaded, and even agitated, the crowd into demanding the execution of Yahshua and the release of Barabbas. Matthew 27:20 states “But the high priests and the elders persuaded the crowds that they should request Barabbas, and that they should destroy Yahshua.” Here in Luke the Codices Alexandrinus (A), Bezae (D), Washingtonensis (W) and the Majority Text all have the end of verse 23 to say “and their voices and those of the high priests prevailed.” The text follows the 3rd century papyrus P75 and the Codices Sinaiticus (א) and Vaticanus (B). It is evident that many of the differences among the earliest manuscripts are due to clarifications made by scribes, for better or worse, and for good or for bad.

24 And Pilatos decided to meet their demands.

The phrase is literally to produce or to make happen their demands.

25 So he released he whom because of a sedition and a murder was cast into prison, whom they demanded, and Yahshua he handed over to their desires.

The words of Luke here are very similar to those recorded in Mark (Mark 15:15). Matthew provides a fuller account: “24 And Pilatos, seeing that nothing helps, but rather a tumult arises, taking water washed the hands before the crowd, saying “I am innocent from the blood of this man! You see to it!” 25 And responding all the people said: “His blood is upon us, and upon our children!” 26 Then he released Barabbas for them, but having scourged Yahshua he handed Him over in order that He would be crucified.” (Matthew 27:24-26)

The account of Pilate's having given the Judaeans a choice between Barabbas and Yahshua is described by John quite differently, where John focuses on exchanges between Pilate and Yahshua which the other gospel writers did not record. John relates that Pilate sought to release Christ, and that he was threatened by the Judaeans if he did not relent to their desires. John 19:12 states that “From this point Pilatos sought to release Him. But the Judaeans cried out, saying 'If you should release this man, you are no friend of Caesar! Anyone making Himself king speaks in opposition to Caesar!'” If Pilate had not relented, and if a riot had happened in the city where tens of thousands of outsiders were also gathered for the feast, then he himself would have had to answer to Caesar against all of the accusations of the Judaeans. That would have been a situation he could not have won, since the life of one man – a man who was not a Roman – was simply not esteemed in contrast to the peace imposed by Roman tyranny.

At this point both Matthew and Mark record the abuse of Christ by the Roman soldiers which neither Luke nor John reported. Matthew's account reads: “27 Then the soldiers of the governor taking Yahshua into the Praetorium, the whole cohort gathered upon Him 28 and clothing Him they wrapped around Him a scarlet cloak, 29 and braiding a crown out of thorns they set it upon His head, and a reed in His right hand, and falling to the knees before Him they had mocked Him, saying 'Hail! King of the Judaeans!' 30 And spitting at Him they took the reed and beat it on His head. 31 And when they had mocked Him, they stripped Him of the cloak and clothed Him in His garments and led Him off for which to be crucified.”

26 And as they led Him away, they seized upon one Simon, a Kurenaian who was coming from the field, and placed upon him the cross to bear behind Yahshua.

Many commentators have asserted that this Simon was some sort of brown arab, or even a negro, simply because he was from Cyrene, which was in Africa. It is incredible, the lengths some people go to, and the lies they repeat without question, in order to make excuses for universalism. First, while Simon was a name found among the Greeks, it was mostly and originally a popular Hebrew name. Here Mark even mentions the names of his sons, as if they were expected to be known by his readers, and we see that they have common Greek names. Cyrene was a famous Greek settlement, on that part of the African coast adjacent to Egypt. The settlement is described by Greek historians as far back as Herodotus, and probably dates to at least the 7th century BC, prior to the start of the Persian period. Simon was with all certainty an Israelite Judaean from Cyrene, fulfilling his Scriptural obligation to appear in Jerusalem for the Passover feast.

Here Matthew and Mark both record the fulfillment of Psalm 69:21: “They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.” where Mark (15:23) saysAnd they had given to Him wine flavored with myrrh, but which He did not take.

27 And there followed Him a great multitude of people and of women mourning and lamenting Him. 28 Then turning to them Yahshua said: “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children, 29 because behold, the days are coming in which they shall say ‘Blessed are the sterile and the wombs which have not brought forth and breasts which have not nursed!’ 30 Then they shall go on to say to the mountains ‘fall on us!’ and to the hills ‘cover us!’ 31 because if they do these things to the moist wood, what happens to the dry?”

The sayings of Christ recorded here in verses 27 through 31 are only attested by Luke. The words “they shall go on” are from a form of the Greek word ἄρχω (757) is literally “to begin”, Thayer says at ἄρχω 2., “having begun from some person or thing (and continued or continuing) to some person or thing”, where he cites Matthew 20:8, John 8:9, Acts 1:22, and I Peter 4:17 as examples. So in this context ἄρχω to continue, where the Christogenea New Testament has rendered it to go on. The word is used similarly at 18:3 and Acts 1:1.

Language appearing in verse 30 here is similarly found at Isaiah 2:19, Hosea 10:8, and Revelation 6:16, although the contexts are different and the passages not at all related. Revelation 6:15-16, from the King James Version: “15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; 16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:” While that passage was a prophecy concerning the fall of Rome, history surely repeats itself because men fail to accept its lessons.

Concerning verse 31 where it says “because if they do these things to the moist wood, what happens to the dry?” In the 9th edition of the Liddell & Scott Greek-English Lexicon it is found under the adjective ὑγρός (5200), which literally means moist, that it can also mean “of persons or their tempers, facile, pliant, easy”. The word ξηρός (3584) is its antonym and literally means dry but also of persons or things may mean “withered...austere...harsh” in certain contexts.

32 And they also brought two other criminals with Him to be killed. 33 And when they came to a place called the Skull, there they crucified Him and the criminals, one on the right and one on the left.

All four gospel writers agree on the place of the crucifixion, although only Matthew and Mark give both the Hebrew name Golgotha and the Greek meaning supplied here by Luke. The word κρανίον (2898) is skull. The name Calvary in the King James Version is a word created from the Latin calva, which is a skull. Golgotha (Γολγοθᾶ, 1115) is from a Hebrew word (found at Strong’s Hebrew #1538), gulgoleth, meaning skull. All four gospel writers also attest that Christ was crucified with two others, men who were robbers, one on His right and one on His left.

34 And casting lots they divided His garments.

Here there is another major early departure among the manuscripts. The Codices Sinaiticus (א), Ephraemi Syri (C), and the Majority Text, and also the Codex Alexandrinus (A) which varies slightly, all insert a sentence before verse 34 as it appears here. The subject of the sentence is obviously the Roman soldiers who were assigned the actual execution of the task at hand, and the sentence reads: “And Yahshua said ‘Father, forgive them. For they do not know what they do.’” The 3rd century papyrus P75 and the Codices Vaticanus (B), Bezae (D) and Washingtonensis (W) do not have the sentence. The oldest manuscripts here are the papyrus P75(3rd c.), the Codex Sinaiticus (4th c.), and the Codex Vaticanus (4th c.). Here in the Christogenea New Testament translation of Luke the Codex Vaticanus has been the most consistently followed of the group, and is deviated from on only a few occasions where the evidence is consistent with all or most of the others and where combined with other factors it is outweighed, for no one manuscript should be considered to be perfect. Yet in this passage support for the reading of the Codex Vaticanus is plentiful among manuscripts nearly as old, and the one older papyrus. The Codices Alexandrinus and Washingtonensis, which so often agree elsewhere, are divided here. The Codex Sinaiticus seems also to be victim of several other lengthy interpolations in Luke, such as those which appear in the King James Version as 22:43-44 and 23:17. The Novum Testamentum Graece (NA27) also includes the passage concerning the Roman soldiers here in its text, but marks it as doubtful. Like the questionable passage found in Luke at 22:43-44, this passage does not appear in the other gospels.

John describes the parting of Yahshua's garments at length, where he states “23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Yahshua, took His garments and they made four parts, a part for each soldier, and the shirt. Now the shirt was seamless, woven altogether from the top. 24 Therefore they said to one another: 'We shouldn’t tear it, but we should cast lots for it, whose it shall be', that the writing would be fulfilled: 'They divided My garments among themselves and cast lots for My clothing'. So therefore the soldiers did these things.”

CHR20121221-Luke23-1.odt — Downloaded 775 times