(37) THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.--This was what was technically known as the titulus--the bill, or placard, showing who the condemned person was, and why he was punished. Each Gospel gives it in a slightly different form--Mark (Mark 15:26), "The King of the Jews;" Luke (Luke 23:38), "This is the King of the Jews;" John (John 19:19), "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." The variations are, perhaps, in part, explicable on the assumption of corresponding differences in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin forms of the inscription, which reproduced themselves in the reports upon which the Gospel narratives were based. But in part also they may reasonably be ascribed to the natural variations sure to arise even among eye-witnesses, and a fortiori among those who were not eye witnesses, as to the circumstantial details of events which they record in common. On grounds of ordinary likelihood St. John's record, as that of the only disciple whom we know to have been present at the crucifixion (John 19:25), may claim to be the most accurate.

There was, apparently, a kind of rough tenderness towards the Man whom he had condemned in the form which Pilate had ordered. He would at least recognise His claims to be in some sense a King. The priests obviously felt it to imply such a recognition, a declaration, as it were, to them and to the people that One who had a right to be their King, who was the only kind of King they were ever likely to have, had died the death of a malefactor, and therefore they clamoured for a change, which Pilate refused to make (John 19:20).

Verse 37. - Set up over his head his accusation written. This was the titulus. A wooden tablet smeared with gypsum, had on it, written in black letters, the charge on which the prisoner was condemned. This, which had been hung round the criminal's neck or carried before him on the way to execution, was now affixed to the upper portion of the cross over his head. THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. The title had been prepared by Pilate (John 19:19, 22), and was conceived in terms studiously offensive to the Jews, with whom he was deeply indignant. It was written in three languages, so that all of whatever nationality might read it - in Hebrew and in Latin and in Greek (for the order, see Westcott on John 19:20); i.e. the national Aramaic, familiar to all Jews; the official Latin,understood by the soldiers and Romans; the current Greek, the dialect of Hellenistic Jews, and largely used by all classes. "These three languages gathered up the results of the religious, the social, the intellectual preparation for Christ, and in each witness was given to his office" (Westcott). The title is given by the four evangelists with some verbal variations, which are owing in part to the actual differences existing in the three versions of the inscription. They run thus: "'This is Jesus the King of the Jews" (Matthew); "The King of the Jews" (Mark); "This is the King of the Jews" (Luke); "Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews" (John). Of these titles, those given by Mark and Luke probably represent the Latin; that of Matthew, the Greek; while that of John was intended for the national population, who alone would understand the veiled sneer contained in the addition, "of Nazareth." The legend of the finding of the cross and its inscription is given by Butler, 'Lives of the Saints,' on 'The Invention of the Holy Cross.' A supposed fragment of the title is preserved at Rome, in the Church of the Holy Cross, and declared by a papal bull to be authentic. In this case infallibility has rather overstepped its limits.

27:35-44 It was usual to put shame upon malefactors, by a writing to notify the crime for which they suffered. So they set up one over Christ's head. This they designed for his reproach, but God so overruled it, that even his accusation was to his honour. There were crucified with him at the same time, two robbers. He was, at his death, numbered among the transgressors, that we, at our death, might be numbered among the saints. The taunts and jeers he received are here recorded. The enemies of Christ labour to make others believe that of religion and of the people of God, which they themselves know to be false. The chief priests and scribes, and the elders, upbraid Jesus with being the King of Israel. Many people could like the King of Israel well enough, if he would but come down from the cross; if they could but have his kingdom without the tribulation through which they must enter into it. But if no cross, then no Christ, no crown. Those that would reign with him, must be willing to suffer with him. Thus our Lord Jesus, having undertaken to satisfy the justice of God, did it, by submitting to the punishment of the worst of men. And in every minute particular recorded about the sufferings of Christ, we find some prediction in the Prophets or the Psalms fulfilled.And set up over his head his accusation written,.... The Evangelist John calls it a "title", John 19:19, and Luke, a "superscription", Luke 23:38, and Mark, the "superscription of his accusation", Mark 15:26, it was what contained the sum and substance of what he was accused, and for which he was condemned, and suffered. The Syriac and Persic versions here render it, "the cause of his death". It was written by Pilate in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, that all might read it; and by his orders it was put upon the cross, and over the head of Jesus by the soldiers. This title, or inscription, setting forth the person's crime, used to be carried before him, or put upon him, as he was led to execution (x): but here it was set upon the cross, and perhaps nailed unto it; to which the apostle seems to allude in Colossians 2:14, the substance of it was,

this is Jesus the king of the Jews. This was what the chief priests accused him of to Pilate, and about which he questioned him, and for which they desired he might be crucified; urging, that should he let him go, he could not be Caesar's friend. Hence Pilate wrote his accusation in this form, not so much in derision of Jesus; for by conversation with him he understood what sort of a king he was, as to the reproach of the Jews for crucifying him who was their king; being the person that was prophesied of in their books, as king of Zion, and whom they expected as such, though now they denied and rejected him,

(x) Lipsius de Cruce, l. 2. c. 11.