Fresh Look at Matthew: Matthew 27, Overview 4
-->
One must read all four accounts of the
passion, and many scholars have made concordances or harmonies of these
passages to show the complete time line.
Matthew leaves out some of the trial’s going back and forth. John tells more of the dialogue between Pilate
and Jesus. Matthew says that both
thieves reviled Jesus, although Luke tells us one repented, in his own
manner.
That does not eliminate what Matthew says; undoubtedly the one thief started by reviling but the hours on the cross changed his mind. Pilate is responsible for the sign over Jesus’ head, which the religious leaders did not like.
Still, we only get the facts of the cross as God would let us have, and the historical fact of it must be placed in theological and prophetical context; otherwise it’s just a tragic story of a person being unjustly killed by the Romans, who were brutal. That’s why I balk at movies or depictions that I “just have to see” (a la Mel Gibson) to understand the cross. One must study the whole Bible to understand the cross, not just watch sadistic portrayals of it. I feel strongly about this. Drama is not theology. Depiction is not salvation.
That does not eliminate what Matthew says; undoubtedly the one thief started by reviling but the hours on the cross changed his mind. Pilate is responsible for the sign over Jesus’ head, which the religious leaders did not like.
Still, we only get the facts of the cross as God would let us have, and the historical fact of it must be placed in theological and prophetical context; otherwise it’s just a tragic story of a person being unjustly killed by the Romans, who were brutal. That’s why I balk at movies or depictions that I “just have to see” (a la Mel Gibson) to understand the cross. One must study the whole Bible to understand the cross, not just watch sadistic portrayals of it. I feel strongly about this. Drama is not theology. Depiction is not salvation.
Comments