In the previous blog post, I mentioned the two main sources I know that claim there were five crosses on Golgotha. When I refer to “the article,” I refer to the first one, as it is more extensive than the second article, Bullinger’s appendix. But many things are mentioned in both.
Robbers and Criminals?
The article points out that Luke 23:33 states that two criminals were crucified with Him, while Matthew 27:38 and Mark 15:27 mention two robbers. These are different words, and therefore they would refer to different pairs of robbers.
But it is, of course, quite possible that Luke refers to the robbers mentioned by Matthew and Mark as criminals. Every robber is a criminal – although of course this is not the case the other way around.
the other
Luke 23:39-40 states that one of the hanged criminals blasphemed Jesus and the other rebuked him. But if there had been four crucified, shouldn’t it have said: “one of the others”? Especially since it says that initially the other crucified (all of them) blasphemed Jesus (Matt. 27:44; Mark 15:32). A question we will return to later. But the original text says: “the other” (singular).
at the same time?
The article states:
For a proper reconstruction, we must first consult Luke. He describes how the Romans crucified two criminals at the same time as Jesus, one on His right hand and one on His left.
(…)
According to Matthew, the Romans first crucified Jesus, divided His clothes, and later crucified two robbers, also one on each side.
But Luke does not describe that two criminals were crucified at the same time as Jesus:
Luke 23
33 And when they came to the place called the Place of a Skull, there they crucified him and the criminals, one on his right and the other on his left.
34 And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments.
Insert
Insert “at the same time” is to insert something that is not stated. It states that two criminals were crucified with him, one on Jesus’ right and one on his left. Whether this occurred before, after, or simultaneously is not stated; the fact is merely mentioned.
Chronological?
Both articles assume that the accounts in the Gospels are a chronological account of events. Thus, they conclude from the above verses in Luke that Jesus was crucified first, then two criminals, and then that the Roman soldiers cast lots for his garments. This would be inconsistent with the accounts in Matthew 27 and Mark 15, which first mention casting lots for His garments (Matt. 27:35; Mark 15:24) and then describe two robbers being crucified with Him (Matt. 27:38; Mark 15:27). The criminals are different from the robbers because, according to the article, they are crucified at a different time.
Factual
But is Luke’s account a chronological account? All four Gospel accounts emphasize different matters. Luke 23:33-34 is an account of events that have occurred, and Luke describes these very concisely and factually, much less extensively than Matthew and Mark. It is a statement of facts, and there are few, if any, chronological clues.
Past Tense
Furthermore, “crucified” in Luke 23:33 is in a tenseless form, but “they cast lots” in Luke 23:34 is in a past tense. It is a mention of an event that had already occurred. The second part of the verse could very well be rendered literally as: “Now they divided his garments and cast lots.” It refers back and is therefore certainly not a chronological account of the events. Therefore, there is no reason to distinguish between the robbers and the criminals: they are the same two people.
As we continue reading in Luke 23, something else stands out:
Luke 23
39 And one of the hanged criminals blasphemed him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!”
40 But the other (singular) answered and rebuked him, saying, “Even you do not fear God, though you are in the same condemnation…
Singular
It says: “the other” (singular). If there had been four fellow crucified men, Luke should have phrased this differently: for example, “one of the others” or “another.” The use of the singular makes it clear that it refers to two criminals.
It is said that one criminal addresses the other, but would it not be strange if there were a total of four crucified men, that he ignores the blasphemy of the two robbers? Why would he only address the crucified man who committed the same crime and ignore the blasphemy of the other two?
In the next blog post, we will look at John’s account.