71. THE OFFERING OF DRINK AT THE CROSS

each supplementing the other, then we shall have what is so glibly called a "discrepancy."

Now read the words accurately and note—

(1) The three occasions:

(a) Mark xv. 22, 23. "When they were come unto the place called Golgotha."

(b) Matt. xxvii. 34, "When they were come unto Golgotha."

(c) Matt. xxvii. 48. Mark xv. 36. John xix. 29. Six hours after the former two, in response to the Lord's cry, "I thirst."

(2) The three kinds of drink offered—

(a) 'Wine mingled with myrrh."

(b) "Vinegar with gall."

(c) "Vinegar."

(3) The three receptions:

(a) The first was refused without even tasting it.

(b) The second was first tasted and then was refused.

(c) The third was "received" after He had called for it.

Thus so far from there being any discrepancy, the absolute accuracy of the Divine word is brought clearly out.

13. The "others" crucified with Christ.—Through not reading accurately what is written in the several accounts of the Crucifixion, and being misled by tradition and the mistakes of mediaeval artists, ground has been given for objections to be made as to the truth of the Scriptures; and difficulties have been gratuitously created. The pictures and tradition give us "two" men who were crucified with Christ. In Matt. xxvii. 44, and Mark xv. 32, it is stated that they both reviled Christ: "the thieves also which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth." But in Luke xxiii. 39 it is as distinctly stated that it was only "one" of them; and that they were not "thieves," but "malefactors." Moreover, in Luke, the two were led forth, with Christ, from Pilate's presence; whereas, in Matthew and Mark, they were not brought to the place of crucifixion until after the dividing of Christ's garments.

These are adduced as obvious errors: and it is alleged that both accounts cannot be correct.

The usual defence of the accuracy of these Scriptures is to assume that both the men reviled Christ at first; but that afterward one of them repented.

But this is a pure assumption, and is not only not so stated, but is quite contrary to what is so clearly written: "One of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be the Messiah, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him saying . . . This man hath done nothing amiss" (Luke xxiii. 40, 41). But even if this were not so, and there were nothing against the assumption, there are still other difficulties which require explanation.

In Matthew and Mark they are called ὡνὸ λησταί (duo lēstai), two robbers.

In Luke xxiii. 32, they are called ὡνὸ κακοῦργοι (duo kakourgoi), two malefactors.

This also is supposed to be an inaccuracy. And so it is, if we accept the assumption of Tradition and Painting.

But if we read the accounts, as written in the Word of God, more accurately, we shall have to revise all our views which we have received from the "Traditions of Men."

(1) We start from the alleged discrepancy, and accept the two statements that there were four men crucified with the Lord Jesus—Two Malefactors and Two Robbers.

(2) These words are different; for while a Robber is a Malefactor (or evil-worker), yet an evil-worker is not necessarily a Robber.¹

(3) It is also the fact that the two Malefactors "were led with him to be put to death and when they were come (Greek, came) to the place which is called Calvary, there they crucified him and the malefactors, one on the right hand and one on the left" (Luke xxiii. 32, 33).

¹ There is a difference between κακοῦργοι (kakourgos), an evil-worker, and κακοῦργοι (kakopoios), an evil-door. The former is general, while the latter is worse, in that it is specific. Paul was treated as the former (2 Tim. ii. 9), Christ was charged with being the latter (John xviii. 39).