Skip to main content

Jesus' Robe: Purple or Scarlet?


There is some confusion about the robe Jesus wore at His Crucifixion. Many traditionalists use a scarlet or crimson robe as found in Matthew account, "They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him," (Matthew 27:28). Others take note that in other Gospel accounts the robe is purple, "So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, “Behold the man" (John 19:5). How then is this reconciled? It has to be one color or the other right? Well, there are two very simple explanations and schools of thought. The first school of thought is that Scarlet is a color of red that in the dark looks rather purple, because it does have more purple in it (see more on this later). The second argument is that there are two different robes Jesus received. When Roman guards were mocking Jesus, they placed a crown of thorns on and a scarlet robe, "They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him,and then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on his head. They put a staff in his right hand. Then they knelt in front of him and mocked him. "Hail, king of the Jews!" they said. They spit on him, and took the staff and struck him on the head again and again. After they had mocked him, they took off the robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him away to crucify him." (Matthew 27:28-31). In Roman culture red was the color of the spiritual realm, of eternity, and power, hence why Roman Centurions wore red robes, capes, and tunics. In this way the Romans were unwittingly honoring Jesus, who was about to purchase eternal life for all who believe in Him (John 6:40). Then what about the purple robe, ah this is where Apostle Luke gives us an answer, Jesus received it at Herod Antipas' court, "When Herod saw Jesus, he was exceedingly pleased. He had wanted to see Him for a long time because of what he had heard about Him, and was hoping to see some [miraculous] sign [even something spectacular] done by Him. And he questioned Him at some length, but Jesus made no reply. The chief priests and the scribes were standing there, continually accusing Him heatedly. And Herod with his soldiers, after treating Him with contempt and mocking and ridiculing Him, dressed Him in a gorgeous robe and sent Him back to Pilate. Now that very day Herod and Pilate became friends with each other—before this they had been enemies," (Luke 23:6-12) and "So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, “Behold the man!”!" (John 19:5).


The reason different Gospels record Jesus wearing scarlet or purple, depends on when they saw Jesus. If a disciple saw Jesus flogged and mocked they saw Him in scarlet (Matthew 27:28), but if someone, say the women, including His mother Mary went to Herod's court, they would have seen Jesus in purple, the same for anyone who saw Jesus return in Purple to Pontius Pilate. It is conceivable that Herod actually put his own purple robe on Jesus, because purple was and has always been for royalty, worn by emperors and kings only since antiquity. It is amazing that wither or not Herod or Roman Guards did believe in Jesus, they honored Him with the very colors of royalty, when Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Revelation 19:16). Consequently, the Christian Empire of Byzantium, founded by Constantine the Great had a room built in palaces called "The Purple Room" where emperors and empresses were born. In fact, this is where one got the term, "born in the purple" which meant to be born in purple. One wonders if the inspiration for using purple was simply the universality of purple and rule or if the Byzantines took notice of Jesus wearing a purple robe given by King Herod Antipas.

The answer according to second school of thought is that Scarlet Robe was only worn briefly (Matthew 27:31). The Romans only used it for mocking and beating Jesus. The Purple Robe was in point of fact the one probably worn longer, since it is likely Herod gave Him a precious and fine robe (Luke 24:10). Thus, all paintings of Ecce Homo are correct, since most of them have Jesus alone or a close up of Him while being mocked by Roman Guards, but the scenes of Jesus carrying the cross in red are probably not accurate, instead Jesus wore purple by this point or just his normal clothes (Matthew 27:31) which his tunic was a fine one piece garment, "Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His outer clothes and made four parts, a part for each soldier, and also the tunic. But the tunic was seamless, woven [in one piece] from the top throughout. So they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, to decide whose it will be.” This was to fulfill the Scripture, “They divided My outer clothing among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.” So the soldiers did these things." (John 19:23-25, cross ref Luke 23:34, Matthew 27:35).

This entire argument for two different robes is convincing until you examine Mark's Gospel account.  Mark's Gospel Account, "They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him," (Mark 15:17) which seems to contradict the Matthew Account, "They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him," (Matthew 27:28). This calls for a process of deduction, the majority of Gospels say the robe was purple (Luke, Mark, and John), while only Matthew uses the word scarlet. If you look at color spectrum, scarlet varies from a bright red to almost purple in hue:

And actually upon looking at Greek word in Matthew 27:28  for scarlet robe one discovers its actually crimson, made from Kermes,
"kokkinos: scarlet
Original Word: κόκκινος, η, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: kokkinos
Phonetic Spelling: (kok'-kee-nos)
Short Definition: crimson
Definition: crimson, scarlet, dyed with Kermes (coccum), the female coccus of the Kermes oak.," (Strong's Greek, Bible Hub) and Crimson by definition inclines towards purple, "Crimson is a strong, red color, inclining to purple. It originally meant the color of the kermes dye produced from a scale insect, Kermes vermilio, but the name is now sometimes also used as a generic term for slightly bluish-red colors that are between black and rose." (Wikipedia). Thus we discover there is no conflict between Matthew and the rest of Gospels because the robe is Scarlet/Crimson which is red and purple, because Scarlet/Crimson is mix of two colors. If you look at Scarlet or Crimson in the shadows it looks purple, in sunlight more reddish. So in truth the answer is Jesus wore both a red and purple robe called Crimson/Scarlet.

Finally to dispel all confusion and make people stop questioning the Gospels, here is some information on what constitutes purple in ancient world, "4209 porphýra – purple, symbolic of "royal status" (L & N, 1, 79.38). There were three familiar shades of purple in the ancient world: deep violet, deep scarlet (or crimson), and deep blue (WP, 2, 220). So you see then Matthew and Mark are both right, Matthew says "Scarlet robe" (Matthew 27:28) upon looking up Scarlet in Greek you get kokkino or Crimson, and Mark says "Purple robe" (Mark 15:17) which in Greek is porphyra which is scarlet or crimson! There you have it, Jesus wore Purple and Red robe called Scarlet or Crimson which in ancient world is considered Purple back then. Either way, the Greek kokkino and porphyra both come out to scarlet (crimson).

The explanation is then that Matthew and Mark are using same description, purple, but it two different Greek words: kokkino and porphyra, which are both Scarlet and Crimson in ancient world. There you have it, there is no conflict just confusion because we in 21 Century have separated Scarlet and Crimson as hues of red, when they were hues of purple in Jesus' Time. This misunderstanding is similar to how words change over periods of time, for instance gay once meant happy and silly, but now denotes a sexual lifestyle; or take for instance the word Begotten which meant "to come forth from or to come from, to arrive or leave from" as in 16th Century KJV Bible John 3:16, but now in 21 Century begotten means to beget or birth. The confusion is people keep changing meaning of words and descriptions of colors and etc.

Comments

  1. Excellent. God bless you. I wish you can help us deal with all these alleged contradictions logically just the way you've treated this.

    Muslims and sceptics are really using these contradictions to gain more ground especially in my country - Nigeria. This is why I keep searching for an unusual answers in contrast to the popular one that our Muslim friends are familiar with.

    Your answer make perfect sense.

    Once again God bless you.

    I will keep reading from your blog.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Israel’s Conquest of Canaan: The Nephilim and Giants

  Christianity Today asserts that the conquest of Canaan can be a “stumbling block” for believers. This probably is because of a foolish idea of comparing it to a modern conquest happening in our world. The truth is that God had Israel conquer Canaan because it was ruled by evil giants, “We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.” (Numbers 13:33). These are Anakim or Nephilim, the children of angels and human women, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God (angels) saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These w

Dispensationalism

John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) was a man who did two things, he took 70th week of the Book of Daniel and stretched out to the End Times, and he was the father of  Dispensationalism , a belief system that God dispenses different peoples with separate blessings and covenants. According to Darb'ys doctrine of Dispensationalism, God dispenses different covenants. There are total of seven dispensations that divide the history of man: I. Dispensation of Innocence (prior to the Fall, "Do not east of the Fruit of Good and Eve, Eden), II. Dispensation of Conscience ( You must assuage guilt and sin with blood sacrifices.) III. Dispensation of Human Government (Multiply and Subdue the world, example the Tower of Babel Gen 11:1-9, and Genesis 1:28). IV. Dispensation of the Promise (Dwell in Canaan, Jerusalem) V. Dispensation of the Law ("Obey the Law of Moses and the Prophets"). VI. Dispensation of Grace (The Church, Jesus Christ has come and died for our sins an

Jesus’ Name in Aramaic

There has been a trend to render Jesus’ name Hebrew, יֵשׁוּעַ , Yeshua. The problem is neither Christ nor his apostles, nor the Jews in 30-33 A.D. spoke Hebrew, they spoke Aramaic. A ramaic is the oldest language on earth and was the language Jesus spoke. In fact, the oldest Old Testament is the Septuagint a Greco translation around 132 B.C.E. (165 Years Before Christ)that was translated from Aramaic. The Masoretic Text, The Hebrew Old Testament most Bibles use, dates from 7th to 10th Century A.D. (Medieval Times).  This translation does not cross reference with the words of Christ in the New Testament which are Aramaic and Koine Greek.  If the Aramaic was what Jesus spoke, then by what name would have been called? Jesus’ name in Aramaic is Isho or Eesho, spelled ܝܫܘܥ . That is the name of our Lord in Aramaic! He would have heard his name in this dialect, “Hail Isho or Eesho!” as well as the Greek, Ἰ ησο ῦ ς , Iesous.  Aramaic is disappearing, only a few people are endeavo