An Extraordinary Ordinary Execution Pt 2 | Matthew 27:32-44

Scripture

• Matthew 27:32–44

About this sermon

Introduction: The wonder of God’s providence — the extraordinary work of God through ordinary means — is on display in the man who carried Christ’s cross. An ordinary man Making an ordinary trip in from the country early in the morning Coming across a seemingly ordinary procession to a Roman execution Experiencing an ordinary, though aggravating, conscription But it all leads to an extraordinary work of salvation in an entire family. They chose the father of Rufus and Alexander (Mark 15:21). God’s providence on display in the salvation of a man from Cyrene. But that was just the beginning of a glorious display of God’s sovereignty in the crucifixion of His Son. I. AN EXTRAORDINARY ORDINARY IMPOSITION (vs.32) The extraordinary ordinary imposition (Simon compelled to carry Christ’s cross) is now followed by Matthew’s description of the crucifixion. I mentioned last time that Matthew records this in a very interesting way. He gives us a description of what happened but does not trumpet the fact that there are six fulfillments of Scripture in what occurs. He records it in a way that seems so ordinary, but in fact, God was testifying in an extraordinary way to the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was and is the Messiah. II. AN EXTRAORDINARY ORDINARY EXECUTION (vs.33-44) What Matthew records here directs our attention to fulfillment of what God had promised regarding Israel’s Savior King. A. THE DRINK OFFERED (vs.33-34) They escort Jesus outside the city gates to a place called “Place of a Skull.” It was not called this because there were skulls present. Rather, it was likely called this because it was a regular place for executions. The Romans chose places for crucifixion that were prominent and well-trafficked so that each execution served as a deterrent for anyone else who might engage in similar behavior. When they arrived at the place of crucifixion, they offered Jesus something to drink. They offered Him wine mixed with “gall.” Ancient Jewish writings say that noble women in Jerusalem would offer wine mix with a narcotic to those being executed. It was meant to dull their pain by dulling their senses. R.T. France — “The drink of wine mingled with gall (‘myrrh’ in Mark) is usually understood as a narcotic to reduce the pain of crucifixion, and Sanhedrin 43 a tells us that such a drink was offered by the noble ladies of Jerusalem to those about to be executed (a practice inspired by Prov. 31:6–7).” According to this view, why didn’t Jesus take it? It would seem that He wanted to be in complete control of His senses as He suffered in our stead. But D.A. Carson offers an alternative explanation, and I think a good one. “Though this interpretation remains popular, another one is more convincing (cf. Moo, Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives, 249–52). Neither Mark nor Matthew mentions women, and both imply that the soldiers administered the drink. Moreover, that Matthew says Jesus tasted it before refusing it argues against the view that it was a customary narcotic to dull pain, for if customary, he would know what it contained. Why should he have tasted it if he would in the end refuse it? It is much better to assume that the gesture in both Matthew and Mark was not one of compassion but of torment. Myrrh may have been used with wine to strengthen the drink (TDNT, 7:458), but it has no effect on pain (cf. John Wilkinson, “The Seven Words from the Cross,” SJT 17 [1964]: 77 n.1). But myrrh tastes bitter; so a large dose of it mingled with wine would make the latter undrinkable. Whether customary or not, the drink was offered to Jesus; but it was so bitter he refused it, and, according to this view, the soldiers were amused. Mark keeps the word “myrrh” to describe the content, and Matthew uses “gall” to describe the taste and to provide a link with Psalm 69:21. In both Hebrew and Greek, the words for “gall” in Psalm 69:21 (rōʾs̆ and cholē respectively) refer to various bitter or poisonous substances. Like David, Jesus looked for sympathy but found none (Ps 69:20).” Either way it is understood, as France and Carson point out, the main thing that Matthew wants us to see is that Scripture has prepared us for this. ESV Psalm 69:20 Reproaches have broken my heart, so that I am in despair. I looked for pity, but there was none, and for comforters, but I found none. 21 They gave me poison for food, and for my thirst they gave me sour wine to drink. Something ordinary, whether a drink to dull the senses, or one more mocking act on the part of the soldiers, is an extraordinary fulfillment of Scripture