APRIL 6.] Engeription on the Cross. 279
Matt, xxxvii. 37. This is Jesus—the King of the Jews. Mark xv. 26, a+ eee —the King of the Jews. Luke xxiii. 38, we eee the King of the Jews. John xix. 19. Jesus of Nazareth—the King of the Jews.
There is then no difference, except in the two or three words preceding the inscription itself. Matthew says, "they set up over his head his accusation." What was this? Surely not of being Jesus; for all knew Him to be Jesus: no. He was accused of saying that "He was the King of the Jews." Mark says, "the superscription of his accusation was written over." What was this? "The King of the Jews." Luke says, "the superscription was written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew." The words this is, only shew that Jesus was accused of saying "He was the King of the Jews." John says, "Pilate wrote a title and put it on the cross, and the writing was "Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews." What was the title? Not Jesus of Nazareth; for that was no title; all knew Jesus to be of Nazareth. The title was—the King of the Jews. Such, then, is the harmony of the gospels in reference to this subject. The Jews did not object to it being known that the person crucified was Jesus, or that He was of Nazareth; they objected to the title. "Write not the King of the Jews (said they to Pilate), but that he said I am the King of the Jews!" Pilate had a short way with them—"What I have written I have written." The writing was correct; for it stated that they, and not the Romans, had crucified the King of Israel. They had rejected Jesus, the pure and living truth of heaven, as the ruling principle and king of their affections and thoughts—His blood was upon them and their children! they had perverted
