Chapter Nineteen

1-16. Christ before Pilate. - 17-29. The Crucifixion of Christ. - 30-42. The Death and Burial of Christ.

John 19:1. Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged. John 19:2. The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and dressed him in a purple robe, John 19:3. and said, “Hail, King of the Jews!” and struck him on the face. (See Matt 27:26; and following; Mark 15:15 and following). Completing the accounts of the first evangelists about the flogging of Christ, John depicts this flogging not as a punishment that preceded, according to custom, the crucifixion, but as a means by which Pilate thought to satisfy the malice of the Jews, which they harbored against Christ.

John 19:4. Pilate went out again and said to them, “See, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no case against him. John 19:5. So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, “Here is the man! Pilate, having punished Christ and brought him out to the Jews with marks of blows on his face, in the crown of thorns and purple robe (cf. Matt 27:28-29), by this very act showed to the Jews the complete futility of their charges which they had made against Christ. “Is such a man to be regarded as a claimant to a royal crown?” - as it were, Pilate was saying. No, Pilate finds no serious grounds for accusing Christ of the designs attributed to him. The words “Here is the man!” can be understood in a double sense. On one hand, Pilate wished to say by this exclamation that before the Jews stood a man of complete worthlessness, to whom one could scarcely even in mockery attribute attempts to seize royal power; on the other hand, he wished to arouse compassion for Christ in those who were not completely hardened.

John 19:6. When the chief priests and the police saw him, they shouted, “Crucify him! Crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and crucify him; I find no case against him. John 19:7. The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has claimed to be the Son of God. Nothing is said about how the common people gathered before the procurator’s palace reacted to this pitiful spectacle: the people remained silent. But the “chief priests” and their “servants” loudly began to cry out that Pilate should crucify Christ (cf. John 18:40, where it is depicted that “all” cried out). Irritated by their obstinacy, Pilate again mockingly offers the Jews themselves to carry out the execution of Christ, knowing that they would not dare to do this. Then the enemies of Christ point to Pilate a new basis on which they demand Christ’s condemnation to death: “He made,” that is, “claimed to be the Son of God.” By this the Jews meant to say that Christ in his conversations with them had attributed to himself equality with God, and this was a crime for which, according to Mosaic law, capital punishment was prescribed (this was blasphemy or contempt for God, Lev 24:16).

John 19:8. When Pilate heard this, he was more afraid than ever. John 19:9. He entered his headquarters again and asked Jesus, “Where are you from?” But Jesus gave him no answer. Pilate, from the very beginning of the trial of Christ, felt a certain fear of the Jews, whose fanaticism was sufficiently known to him (Josephus. “The Jewish War,” XI, 9, 3). Now to this previous fear was added a new superstitious fear of the Man, about whom Pilate had certainly heard stories as a miracle-worker and who had become in the eyes of many Jews a subject of reverent veneration. Troubled, he takes Christ away again into his headquarters and asks him, no longer as a representative of justice, but simply as a man in whom pagan beliefs about gods, which once descended to earth and lived among people, had not entirely died out. But Christ does not wish to answer a man who was so indifferent to truth (John 18:38), does not wish to speak with him about his divine origin, since Pilate would not have understood him.

John 19:10. Pilate said to him, “Do you refuse to speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you? John 19:11. Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin. Pilate understood that Christ did not consider him worthy of conversation with himself, and with a feeling of wounded self-esteem pointed out to Christ that he is in his hands. But Christ says in reply to Pilate that he himself does not have power to dispose of Christ’s fate (to lay down his life and take it again—this depends only on Christ himself, John 10:17 and following; John 12:28 and following). If, however, Pilate now has the right to condemn Christ to death, it is because so was “given” (that is, appointed) to him “from above” or by God (ἄνωθεν, cf. John 3:27). Pilate vainly boasts of his right as a procurator in this case; he appears in the case of Christ as a pitiful, weak-willed, unscrupulous man, to whom precisely on account of such properties God allowed him to become the executioner of the Innocent Sufferer. Nevertheless, in Christ’s words about Pilate he is not given any justification. No, he too is guilty, though his guilt is less than that of the one who handed Christ over to Pilate. In that he condemned Christ, Pilate showed his low character, his corrupted nature, and though in performing his bloody deed he was unwittingly fulfilling the mysterious ordinances of God’s will, he personally as a judge—protector of justice—betrayed his vocation and is subject to condemnation for this. But as for the Jewish people who handed Christ over to Pilate, and especially the high priest and the priests (cf. John 18:35: “Your own nation and the chief priests handed you over to me”), Christ recognizes these people as guilty to a greater degree than Pilate, because they knew the Scriptures in which prophecies about Christ were contained (John 5:39), and on the other hand, knew sufficiently about Christ’s activity (John 15:24), which could not be said of the procurator, who stood far from those questions which had aroused hostile feelings toward Christ in the hearts of the Jews.

John 19:12. From then on Pilate tried to release him, but the Jews cried out, “If you release this man, you are no friend of the emperor. Everyone who claims to be a king sets himself against the emperor. Pilate must have liked what Christ said about him. He saw that the accused understood his difficult position and was kindly disposed toward him. Therefore it is better understood here in this sense that the expression ἐκ τούτου. Pilate with special persistence began to strive for the release of the accused, although the evangelist does not report what his efforts consisted of. This intention of Pilate was noticed by the enemies of Christ, who for their part redoubled their efforts to achieve Christ’s condemnation. For this purpose they began to threaten Pilate with a denunciation of his actions to Caesar (Tiberius) himself, who certainly would not forgive Pilate’s careless treatment of a case which touched on the question of his imperial authority: for insulting the imperial dignity, he took vengeance in the most cruel way, without regard for the high position occupied by the person suspected of this crime (Suetonius. “The Life of the Twelve Caesars,” Tiberius, 58; Tacitus. “Annals,” III, 38).

John 19:13. When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out and sat on the judge’s seat at a place called The Stone Pavement, or in Hebrew, Gabbatha. The threat of the Jews had its effect on Pilate, and he, changing his intention, again brought Christ out from his headquarters and himself sat on the judge’s seat (βῆμα). He had sat on it before, of course, at the beginning of the trial of Christ, but now the evangelist emphasizes the ascension of Pilate to the judge’s seat as something especially important and indicates the day and hour of the event. By this the evangelist wishes to say that Pilate resolved to pronounce a guilty verdict against Christ. The place where Pilate’s judge’s seat was placed, says the evangelist, was called in Greek Lithostraton (literally, a mosaic floor)—so it was called by those inhabitants of Jerusalem who spoke Greek, and in Hebrew—Gabbatha (according to one interpretation—“an elevation,” according to another—“a dish”).

John 19:14. It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; and it was about noon. He said to the Jews, “Here is your King! John says that the condemnation of Christ to crucifixion, and consequently the crucifixion itself, took place on Friday before Passover (more precisely, “on Friday of Passover,” thereby replacing the indication of the evangelist Mark—“Friday, which is before the Sabbath” Mark 15:42). By this he wished to mark the special importance of the day on which Christ was crucified. Christ, so to speak, was being prepared for slaughter (the very word “Friday” in Greek means “preparation,” and readers of the Gospel well understood the meaning of this), as a lamb was prepared the evening before Passover for the nighttime feast. “The sixth hour,” that is, the twelfth. More precisely, it would be translated “about noon” (ὡς ἕκτη). Some commentators (especially among our people, Gladkov in the 3rd edition of his commentary on the Gospel, p. 718-722) try to prove that the evangelist here counts according to Roman, not Jewish-Babylonian reckoning, that is, means the sixth hour of the morning, in accordance with the indication of the evangelist Mark, according to which Christ was crucified at the “third,” that is, according to Roman reckoning, the ninth hour of the morning (Mark 15:25). But against this assumption speaks the circumstance that none of the ancient church commentators used such a method to reconcile the accounts of the evangelists Mark and John. Moreover, it is known that at the time when the Apostle John wrote his Gospel, throughout the Greco-Roman world the hours of the day were counted in the same way as among the Hebrews, from sunrise to sunset (Pliny, “Natural History,” II, 188). It is very probable that John in this case wished to determine the time of Christ’s crucifixion more precisely than it is indicated by Mark. In conclusion, Pilate makes a final attempt to save Christ, again pointing out to the Jews that they are handing over their king to execution. “Other peoples will hear,” Pilate wants to say, “that in Judea they crucified a king, and this will serve as shame for you.”

John 19:15. They cried out, “Away with him! Away with him! Crucify him!” Pilate asked them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but the emperor. The chief priests did not wish to listen to Pilate’s exhortations; they completely renounced all national aspirations for their own Jewish king; they became, or at least show themselves to be, loyal subjects of Caesar.

John 19:16. Then he handed him over to them to be crucified. So they took Jesus; John 19:17. and carrying the cross by himself, he went out to what is called The Place of the Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha. John 19:18. There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, with Jesus between them. (See comments to Matt 27:24-38 and parallel passages). Why does John not mention Simon of Cyrene? It is very probable that he wished by this to deprive of support the opinion existing among the ancient Gnostics, the Basilideans, that instead of Christ a cross was borne and was crucified by mistake Simon (Irenaeus of Lyons. “Against Heresies,” I, 24, 4).

John 19:19. Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews. John 19:20. Many of the Jews read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek. John 19:21. Then the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but rather, ‘This man said, I am King of the Jews.’ John 19:22. Pilate answered, “What I have written I have written. Regarding the inscription on Christ’s cross, the evangelist John says that the Jews were extremely displeased with it, because it did not precisely express Jesus’s crime, and yet it could be read by all those passing by Golgotha, many of whom did not even know how their “king” came to be on the cross. Pilate did not agree to the demand of the Jewish chief priests to correct the inscription, wishing, it seems, to put them in an awkward position before those who had not participated in handing Christ over to Pilate. It is very possible that John, by depicting this detail, wished to point out to his readers that God’s Providence was at work in this case through a stubborn pagan, proclaiming to the whole world the royal dignity of the Crucified Christ and his victory (Saint John Chrysostom).

John 19:23. When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and divided them into four parts, one for each soldier. They also took his tunic; now the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top. John 19:24. So they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see who will get it.” This was to fulfill what the scripture says, “They divided my clothes among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots.” And that is what the soldiers did. Regarding Christ’s time on the cross, John does not recount in detail, but portrays before the reader’s eyes four remarkable pictures. Here is the first picture—the division of Christ’s garments by the soldiers, about which only the Synoptists briefly mention. John alone reports that, first, the tunic was not divided into pieces; second, the garments were divided among four soldiers; and third, in the division of Christ’s garments was fulfilled the prophecy about the Messiah found in Psalm 21 (Ps 21:19). There were four soldiers to whom the task of crucifying Christ was entrusted, and therefore Christ’s outer garments were divided into four parts, but precisely how—is unknown. The lower garment, the tunic, as a woven piece, could not be cut into pieces, because then the entire weave would come apart. Therefore the soldiers decided to cast lots for the tunic. Possibly John, by reporting this preservation of Christ’s tunic in its entirety, wished to point thereby to the necessity of the unity of Christ’s Church (Cyprian of Carthage. “On the Unity of the Catholic Church,” 7).

John 19:25. Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. John 19:26. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, “Woman, here is your son. John 19:27. Then he said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home. Here the evangelist portrays another picture which presents a sharp contrast to the first: Christ entrusts his Mother to the care of his beloved disciple. How many women stood at the cross? Some commentators say three, others—four. The latter opinion seems more probable, because it would be unnatural to suppose that the evangelist began to name precisely by name the sister of the Holy Mother of God, while he did not name the Mother of Christ herself by name. Meanwhile, it is very natural to suppose that the evangelist mentions four women standing in pairs, of whom the first two he does not name by name (and this explains the double use of the particle “and”). Regarding Mary Magdalene and Mary the wife of Clopas, see comments to Matt 20:20; Luke 8:2. But who was the sister of the Holy Mother of God? There is nothing improbable in the assumption (which Zahn makes) that John here has in mind his own mother, whom, like himself, he does not name by name out of modesty. With such an assumption, it becomes very natural why John and James had aspirations to a special role in Christ’s Kingdom (Matt 20:20 and following) and why the Holy Mother of God was entrusted specifically to John, who was thus a close relative of Christ. Although the Holy Virgin could have found shelter with the sons of Joseph, but they were not close to her in spirit with her Son (John 7:5) and consequently also with her. Why does Christ call his Mother simply a woman? On one hand, by this he shows that henceforth he belongs to all people, that the natural bonds which had thus far bound him to the Holy Mother, are now dissolved (cf. John 20:17), and on the other hand, he expresses to her his compassion precisely as to a bereaved woman. John then took the Holy Virgin with him so as to take her to the house of his father in Capernaum—such, of course, was his intention at that time. But this intention was not fulfilled, and John with the Holy Virgin remained in Jerusalem until her death, after spending about three weeks in Galilee following Christ’s resurrection, where he went by Christ’s own command (cf. Matt 26:32).

John 19:28. After this, when Jesus knew that all was now finished, he said (in order to fulfill the scripture), “I am thirsty. John 19:29. A jar full of sour wine was standing there. So they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a branch of hyssop and held it to his mouth. John 19:30. When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished.” And bowing his head, he gave up his spirit. Here the evangelist portrays before us the third picture—a picture of the death of the Crucified Christ. “After this,” that is, after Christ had fulfilled his filial duty toward his Mother. “Knowing that all was now finished,” that is, knowing that all that was fitting for him to accomplish in his earthly life had been brought to completion. “So that the scripture would be fulfilled, he says: I am thirsty.” Some commentators (for example, among our people, Bishop Michael) interpret the expression “so that the scripture would be fulfilled” as referring to the verb “he says” and conclude that the evangelist sees in Christ’s exclamation “I am thirsty” a precise fulfillment of the prophecy contained in the Psalm: “In my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink” (Ps 68:22). But such a conclusion is difficult to accept, first, because in the quoted passage from the Psalm there is no expression “I am thirsty,” and second, because the Greek expression, translated into Russian as “so that the scripture would be fulfilled,” could more rightly be replaced by the expression “in order that it would be brought to completion” (the verb τελειοῦν is used, not πληροῦν); therefore the plausible opinion of Zahn is that here the evangelist wishes to say that although “it was finished,” yet one final thing was still lacking in which all the writings of the Old Testament should find their completion (“so that the scripture would be fulfilled”)—namely, the death of Christ. But the death of Christ appeared to his own consciousness and to the consciousness of the apostles as a free and conscious surrender into the hands of God the Father of Christ’s life, as a voluntary deed of Christ’s love for humanity (John 10:11). Therefore, tormented by an awful thirst which in those who were hanging on the cross clouded consciousness, Christ asks to drink so as to obtain relief even for a few moments and with full consciousness to breathe his final breath. And only John reports that Christ, having refreshed himself with vinegar, said: “It is finished,” that is, for him there is no longer any debt which would tie him to life (Exod 12:22).

John 19:31. Since it was the day of Preparation, the Jews asked Pilate to have the legs of the crucified men broken so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the sabbath, for that sabbath was a day of great solemnity. John 19:32. Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who had been crucified with him. John 19:33. But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. John 19:34. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out. Here the evangelist portrays the fourth and final picture. The representatives of the Sanhedrin asked the procurator to have the bodies of the crucified removed before the approaching Sabbath, since the law of Moses required that the body of a criminal who had been hung on a tree should not remain there overnight, but should be buried on the very day of execution (Deut 21:22-23). The Jews were all the more anxious to fulfill this law because the Sabbath coincided with the Passover feast. For this purpose it was necessary to kill the condemned men who were hanging on the cross (their legs were broken). Pilate agreed to this, and the soldiers who came to the place of execution soon finished the two condemned men who were hanging on either side of Christ. Jesus, however, they noticed was already dead and left him untouched. Only one of the soldiers, probably wishing to preclude any possibility of the burial of a half-dead man, struck Christ in the side with a spear. This blow, which pierced Christ’s heart, was to extinguish the last spark of life, if any still flickered in Christ’s heart. The evangelist, in mentioning this event, wished to prove the reality of Christ’s death in opposition to those heretics who (chiefly Cerinthus) said that Christ did not die on the cross because his body was only a phantom. In this connection, the evangelist points to a remarkable circumstance that took place when Christ’s side was pierced. From the wound caused by the spear blow “came out” (more correctly—“came forth”) “blood and water.” The evangelist mentions this, first, as an extraordinary phenomenon, since blood and water do not flow from a dead body when it is pierced, and second, he wishes to show here that through Christ’s death believers received blood, which cleanses from inherited sin, and water, which in the Old Testament Scripture appears as a symbol of the grace of the Holy Spirit (see Isa 44:3). The latter thought John repeats also in his first Epistle, saying that Christ, as the true Messiah-Redeemer, came or appeared “by water and blood” (1 John 5:6).

John 19:35. (He who saw this has testified so that you also may believe. His testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth.) “And he who saw it has borne witness...” According to the explanation of the Church Fathers (Saints John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria), the evangelist here speaks of himself, and out of humility, as in other places, does not call his name directly. He insists that his testimony is entirely true in view of the fact that in his time there was sometimes great distrust of the accounts of miraculous events from the life of Christ (see Luke 24:11; 2 Pet 1:16). Finally, on account of his reports of the miracles that took place at the time of Christ’s death, of which he alone speaks, he could have been suspected of wishing to enhance his authority before the other writers of the Gospels, and therefore he declares in advance that his only purpose in this was to establish faith in Christ in his readers.

John 19:36. For these things occurred so that the scripture might be fulfilled, “None of his bones shall be broken. John 19:37. And again another passage of scripture says, “They will look on the one whom they have pierced. The evangelist has just said that his desire to witness to the remarkable outflow of blood and water from Christ’s side is to establish faith in readers in Jesus Christ. Now, for the greater strengthening of their faith, he points to the fact that in the said event, as well as in the non-breaking of Christ’s legs (in the Greek text it says: ἐγένετο ταῦτα—these events occurred, not “this occurred”), were fulfilled two prophecies of the Old Testament: the typical ordinance regarding the Passover lamb (Exod 12:46) and 2) the prophetic word of Zechariah (Zech 12:10). Just as in the case of the Passover lamb, it was forbidden to break the bones, so also in the case of Christ the bones remained completely whole, although one could have expected that they would certainly be broken, as they were with the robbers crucified with Christ. In this—the evangelist wishes to say—it turned out that Christ was the true Passover Lamb, through whom people are saved from eternal death, as once the Hebrew firstborn were saved from temporal death by the blood of a simple Passover lamb. As for the prophecy of Zechariah, who spoke of how the chosen people of God would in time look with repentance upon Jehovah, whom they themselves had pierced, the evangelist, without entering into detailed explanations, only notes that this prophecy, incomprehensible to the reader of the book of Zechariah, became comprehensible to one who looked upon the pierced by the spear Christ: henceforth they will look with faith upon the One who was pierced, that is, (the Jews, and in part the pagans, represented by the Roman soldiers) will reverently acknowledge in Christ their Redeemer, who pours forth upon people the regenerating grace.

John 19:38. After these things, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, though a secret one because of his fear of the Jews, asked Pilate to let him take away the body of Jesus. Pilate gave him permission. So he came and removed his body. John 19:39. Nicodemus, who had at first come to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds. John 19:40. They took the body of Jesus and wrapped it with the spices in linen cloths, according to the burial custom of the Jews. John 19:41. Now there was a garden in the place where he was crucified, and in the garden there was a new tomb in which no one had ever been laid. John 19:42. And so, because it was the Jewish day of Preparation, and the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there. In reporting here of the removal from the cross and the burial of Christ, John adds to the accounts of the Synoptists (Matt 27:57-60; Mark 15:42-46; Luke 23:50-53) certain additions. Thus, he alone mentions the participation of Nicodemus in Christ’s burial (regarding Nicodemus see John 3). This secret follower of Christ brought a huge amount of aromatic substances, namely, a mixture of myrrh and aloe wood (cf. Mark 16:1), in order to anoint abundantly both the body and the funeral wrappings of Christ; by this, evidently, Nicodemus wished to express his great reverence for Christ. There is, however, also probability to the opinion (expressed by Loisy) that John wished by this mention of two prominent representatives of Jewry to show that in their persons all Jewry paid the final honors to its King. Also, only John observes that Christ’s tomb was located in a garden. Is he not hinting that this garden should become a new Eden, where the risen new Adam—Christ—should appear in his glorified human nature, just as the ancient Adam once entered life in the garden? Finally, only John observes that Christ was buried in a garden near the place of crucifixion because it was the Jewish day of Preparation. By this he wishes to say that Joseph and Nicodemus hastened with the burial of Christ so as to complete it before the approach of the Sabbath. If they had carried Christ’s body somewhere farther from Golgotha, they would have had to encroach upon part of the Sabbath and violate the rest of the Sabbath day. * * * Notes It is hardly possible to see here an indication of the time from which Pilate became concerned with releasing Christ, because Pilate had been trying to achieve this even before (John 18:31). A stone pavement. Some commentators (for example, Loisy) translate the verb ἐκάθισεν standing here with the expression “he seated,” that is, Jesus, in order to present him as an actual king, seated before his subjects. Although such a translation is grammatically permissible, accepting it is hindered by the consideration that Pilate hardly would have dared such a rash act: he had just been accused of insufficient concern for the honor of Caesar’s name, and if he now seated a criminal against the exclusive power of Caesar on the judge’s seat, he would thereby give the Jews cause for greater accusations. In the Syrian translation of Matthew’s Gospel the word Gabbatha is precisely translated by the Greek expression τρύβλιον—dish (Matt 26:23). To explain the discrepancy between the evangelists Mark and John, one should take into account that the ancients reckoned time only approximately. And it is hardly possible to suppose that John would have noted the hours of Christ’s sufferings with precision, at which he was present. Even less could this be expected of the Apostle Peter, on whose account, according to tradition, Mark wrote his Gospel. In view of this, approximately the order of events of Christ’s last day of life can be determined as follows: a) at midnight Christ was brought to the court of the high priest and underwent a preliminary interrogation first by Annas, then by Caiaphas, and some members of the Sanhedrin were present at the latter; b) for some time afterwards—about two hours—Christ spent in prison in the house of the high priest; c) early in the morning—about the fifth hour—Christ was brought before the Sanhedrin, from where he was sent to Pilate; d) after the end of the trial before Pilate and Herod and after a second trial before Pilate, Christ was handed over to be crucified; according to Mark, this was at the third hour by Hebrew reckoning and in our terms—at the ninth. But taking into account the later account of John, according to which Christ was crucified approximately at the sixth hour, it should be said that the third hour or, more precisely, the first quarter of the day had already ended, and the sixth hour had begun, and the second part of the day had started, in which (closer to its end, as it is seen from John’s words) Christ’s crucifixion was accomplished (John 19:14). Then e) from the sixth (or, in our terms, from the twelfth) hour until the ninth (until the third hour in the afternoon in our reckoning) there was darkness, and about three o’clock in the afternoon Christ gave up his spirit. The removal from the cross and burial were completed, of course, by sunset, since the night that began with sunset belonged to the approaching Sabbath, when nothing could be done.