The need to have a connected narrative of the last hours of the life of Jesus seems clear. How could the Jewish Messiah die? The four gospels have a closeness in presentation not present elsewhere in their accounts. This shows that the basic “word of the cross” (I Corinthians 1:18) was a story known well in the early church. The point is to make it clear that Jesus did nothing to deserve death. We again see the limits of Jesus, as even his disciples abandon him. No one in power seems willing to defend him.
The struggle of Jesus during the passion narrative was for us. It was for us that he risked this journey to Jerusalem. It was for us that he ate that last meal with the disciples. It was for us that he agonized in prayer. It was for us that he suffered upon a cross. Let us learn this story well. We will see our sin. We will see our own struggles in a new way.
As we move through the narrative, what has struck me this time is the silence of God. Most of us have had times in our lives when we would have liked God to speak or to act. God seemed to leave us to our struggles. If you have had such an experience and you still follow Jesus, you have had your way dealing with the silence of God. The cross is not unique, however, in being a deafening expression of the silence of God.
The cross is a tragic event in the long and tragic history of humanity. I am not sure how we can look at that history and not long for God to do something to end the suffering. Yet, God remains silent. In the passion narrative, we hear about violence, betrayal, sin, and death. Will Rogers said, “You can’t say civilization don’t advance. In every war they kill you a new way.” We have learned the truth of that statement in this century. General Try Sutrisno of Indonesia justified the killing of dozens of civilian protesters in November 13, 1991 by saying, “In the end, they had to be shot. These ill-bred people have to be shot . . . and we will shoot them.” Yes, the violence we see in this story is all too familiar to us.
We see violence in this story, as Jewish and Roman leaders condemn a just man to his death. You would think that we would have progressed beyond such violence. A look at the headlines of newspapers and magazines will tell you that is not the case.
The terrible events behind this week ask each of us: Are we prepared to follow God through all the events of our lives, or just the events that meet with our approval? This is a story of betrayal, injustice, cruelty, and death. We shall be tackling tough issues such as the violence within Holy Scripture, the dark side of human nature, and what a loving God does with our unloving ways.
An innocent man is about to be murdered here. In the New Testament, God is preparing another only son for a cross. How could a loving God do such a thing? Dare we speak of such horrifying reality in church? These are terrible texts. We may read them and want the story to stop. These texts remind us of our helplessness. It would be nice if we could embrace the story of Jesus but skip this part and read of Easter. Yet, we dare not do so. This part of the story tells us far too much about God and about us. A religion is no good if it will only speak on bright, sunny days, but has nothing to say for the late-night sweats, the 3:00 am nightmares. A faith that is relevant only for the orderly and calm moments of our lives is little faith at all. Fairy tales do for young children -- they help us to see our worst fears acted out, to name our unnamed terrors. Oddly, this is redemptive. More than just accurately describing our terrors, the Bible depicts a God who embraces our misbegotten cruelty. The terrible events behind this week ask each of us: Are we prepared to follow God through all the events of our lives, or just the events that meet with our approval? The demon death stalks Jesus every step of his way. His very acts of life marked him for death. Nevertheless, the good news is that he did not flinch from the murderous mob. He did not side step the terror. He came among us. He marched with us up to death -- the Place of the Skull. He embraced the terror, all the terrible, horrifying, painful ambiguity of human existence, and said, "Brothers and Sisters, I love you still."
Further, these weak, sinful disciples would become leaders of the church. What is astounding is that God has purposefully chosen the struggling, sinful, all too weak church of today to proclaim the gospel to the world.
One important conversation had taken place before this passage. Jesus picked twelve men—twelve ordinary, imperfect, unimpressive men—and bet his life upon them. They were fearful, envious, forgetful, rash, doubtful, arrogant, self-seeking and slow to understand. They were young and uneducated. They were not wealthy, nor were they from prominent families. They had little to offer. He was not surprised when one betrayed him. He was not surprised when everyone deserted him in his greatest hour of need. He went to his death before a single one understood his purpose, and no one stood by his side.
Jesus knew his disciples’ weaknesses all too well. However, he did not see their defects as roadblocks to success. Instead, he chose those men to be the ones to complete the work he came to accomplish. He gave them a great responsibility. He let them carry on the message for which he gave his life. Nevertheless, he did not leave them unprepared, unequipped, or uninspired. He clearly communicated that he viewed them as people of value and purpose, and he poured himself fully into loving them and serving them in such a way that eleven of the twelve would end up giving their own lives to serve others and spread his message.
In classic Roman and Greek literature, ordinary folk were almost invisible, unfit subjects for drama, ordinary people appearing in Greek tragedies only as baboons. However, the New Testament has a richer depiction of what it means to be a person. The story takes place entirely among everyday men and women of the common people; anything of the sort could be thought in antique terms only as farce or comedy. Yet why is it neither of these? Why does it arouse in us the most serious and most significant sympathy? Because it portrays something which neither the poets nor the historian of antiquity set out to portray: the birth of a spiritual movement in the depths of the common people. All this applies not only to Peter's denial but also to every other occurrence which is related in the New Testament. Every one of them is concerned with the same question, the same conflict with which every human being is basically confronted and which therefore remains infinite and eternally pending.[1]
The Lord's Prayer contains this phrase: "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." Why should we pray this prayer? The story of the last week of Jesus' life gives some insight into the answer. Our capacity for sin is obvious. We have no right to sit in judgment of others. Testing in life can come in many different ways. There are no guarantees what will happen as that testing comes. Will you preserve yourself through the test? Will you fall?
Everything depends on what you do to keep yourself from falling. Jesus warned the disciples of the coming test. They fall asleep. As readers, we have no right to excuse this behavior due to the meal they ate, the wine they drank, or the lateness of the hour. Because of their failure to pray, they failed the test. They desert Jesus in this hour of greatest need. Peter especially failed the test. He followed the soldiers who were taking Jesus at a distance. When they bring Jesus inside the high priest's house, Peter waits outside. In that time, he denies Jesus three times. He had failed the test. Yet, there is hope. He is a forgiven man. No matter how good we think we are such failure can happen to any of us. The good news is that even our failure does not have the last word! Rather, God is the one who has the last word. The story of Peter and the disciples does not end in defeat, but in victory. They did not become wonderful. They received forgiveness.
G. K. Chesterton's Father Brown says that people are not any good until they realize how bad they are, or might be. They need to recognize how little right they have to all their snobbery, sneering, and talking about criminals as if they were apes in a forest thousands of miles away. They need to squeeze out of their souls every last drop of the oil of the Pharisee. Brown states fact. When people tap into the fathomless wells of rage and hatred in the normal human heart, the results are fearful. "There but for the grace of God go I." Only restraining and renewing grace enables anyone to keep the sixth commandment.
At the end of Albert Camus' The Plague, at the end of the terrible, devastating plague in Algiers, the city slowly begins to recover. It looks as if the plague is over and the world is at last getting back to normal. In the last moment of the book, a rat scurries into a gutter. I have always thought it meant that this brush with evil is over. Nevertheless, always, just below the surface of things, evil awaits its time. The plague can begin again at any time.
In his last days, Jesus became an isolated man. He was in Galilee, with crowds of people around him. Many wanted to follow him. He sat down with tax collectors and sinners and ate with them. People invited him to parties. People liked to have him around. Yet, he disagreed with some important people. He disagreed with the Pharisees and Scribes about the role of the Law. They believed it revealed the will of God. He simply disregarded it. The Law was not even important enough to debate, as far as Jesus was concerned. In addition, some people believed politics was everything. They wanted to overthrow the Roman government. They believed the Messiah must help them gain political liberation. However, what they considered so important, Jesus disregarded. Jesus had a way of disturbing people. He did unexpected things.
One of the most unexpected things Jesus did was to go to Jerusalem. When he arrived, he went to the Temple. He performed what many people consider a prophetic act to destroy the temple. He at least wanted a radical reform of what happened there. Now, even those who believed in the importance of Temple sacrifice were against him.
By Thursday night, the Passover meal, Jesus knew his time on earth was at a close. He shared a final meal with his disciples. Let us look at what happens.
Jesus was so isolated that one of his own disciples would betray him.
Jesus was so isolated that his disciples argued over which of them were the greatest. At least, however, we see our own sinfulness. We are too much like them. We become so petty, even as we seek to follow Jesus. We can allow our own little desires and wishes get in the way of what is most important in life.
The sacrifice of Jesus begins this night. He offered himself to his followers and to the world as the savior. That death opened a relationship with God that has spread throughout every generation and every culture. Our sins do not have to separate us forever from God. In fact, we know that God is not gleefully rejecting us because of our sins. This sacrifice gives us the most important information we need concerning God. Yet, we become accustomed to it, that we assume the truth of it. God wants us to have a friendship with God.
Jesus prayed alone in Gethsemane. My suspicion is that Jesus faced his impending death with some fear. He shared with his disciples the message of the kingdom of God. He proclaimed that message in story and action with the people of his day. Now, as he neared the end of his life, he knew he had so much more to say. Few of his people responded to him. His work was not finished.
The guards arrested him. He went before the religious and political leaders. They judged him worthy of death. His disciples abandoned him.
The work of Jesus has not finished. We have the opportunity to join him in completing the work he set out to do. When we gather at the table of the Lord, we do so knowing our own sin and need for forgiveness. We are not here because we are perfect. We are here because we need the grace God offers here. We need the relationship with God that Jesus has made possible.
The whole community loved a priest in the Philippines as a man of God. Yet, he carried the weight of a secret sin he had committed many years before. He had repented, but still had no peace. He had no sense of the forgiveness of God. In his parish was a woman who claimed to have visions in which she spoke to Christ and Christ spoke to her. The priest was skeptical. To test her, he said, "The next time you speak with Christ, I want you to ask him what sin your priest committed while he was in seminary." The woman agreed. A few days later, the priest asked, "Well, did Christ visit you in your dreams?" Yes, Christ did," she replied. "And did you ask what sin I committed in seminary?" he asked. "Yes," Well, what did Christ say?" She responded, "I don't remember."
In Mark 14:1-2, the story of the plot of the priests, Mark introduces the passion narrative with these words. Mark identifies the time as 1two days before the Passover and the festival of Unleavened Bread. The chief priests and the scribes were looking for a way to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him; 2 for they said, “Not during the festival, or there may be a riot among the people.”
Mark 14:3-9 is the story of the anointing at Bethany. The sources are Mark, Luke 7:36-50, and John 12:1-8. Jesus 3 was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper. Why was Jesus at the home of a leper? People considered him unclean. Not only was in the home, but he sat at the table. He was having table fellowship with him, of all things! That meant Jesus fully accepted him as a person and as a potential disciple. A woman, who remains unnamed, came with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment of nard, and she broke open the jar and poured the ointment on his head, a sign of the royalty of Jesus. The anointing of the head is puzzling when we compare with Luke 7:36-50 and John 12:1-8, where the woman anoints the feet of Jesus. Given the interest of Mark in fitting the anointing story into his context of the passion narrative, it seems more likely the other two accounts more accurately reflect what happened. Why did Jesus let her do it? A woman enters the home, opens a jar of costly perfume, and pours it on the head of Jesus. In those days, people gathered perfumes from all over the world, importing them and using them on special occasions. Often they were a symbol of hope for something beyond the world. Yet, this was so much! 300 days wages were involved. 4 However,some were there who said to one another in anger, “Why was the ointment wasted in this way? 5 For this ointment could have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor.” Moreover, they scolded her. It was part of their religion to give to the poor, so what can he mean? In verses 6-9, we now come to main interest of the story, which is the saying of Jesus. 6 But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you trouble her? She has performed a good service for me. 7 For you always have the poor with you, and you can show kindness to them whenever you wish. This part of Jewish piety needs to continue, Jesus says. However, you will not always have me.[2] 8 She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for its burial. The question of historicity arises at verse 8b. Could Jesus have said this? Alternatively, could Mark have added it in light of his context for the story? The positioning of this story by Mark clearly suggests preparation for burial, which may not have reflected the historical intent at all. 9 Truly I tell you, wherever the good news is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in remembrance of her.” This nameless woman has done something that Jesus says his followers need to tell and re-tell throughout history. This woman performs an exuberant, extravagant act. Of course, the irony is that Jesus is also preparing to perform an extravagant act. Whereas the woman has wasted a large amount of precious ointment, Jesus is preparing to waste his precious life. The woman who anoints Jesus is the one who understands who Jesus is.
It all seemed so extravagant. Someone asked, Mark does not know who, why the perfume was not sold and given to the poor. After all, we must be practical about this. Love. Love is extravagant. People also sing, dance, and write poetry, when in love. That is the way love is. It is excessive. To someone in love, who has just bought an expensive jar of perfume, or a nice ring, the practical question, "What good did it do?" simply does not make any sense. Extravagance is simply the way one expresses love.
It seems like religion brings this kind of extravagance, this giving beyond what one might consider customary or proper. The buildings people worship in are far bigger and more extravagant than they had to be to have a meeting. People compose beautiful music and perform it; they paint beautiful pictures, and use many other creative gifts, all for the sake of worship. Some of the most beautiful buildings in the world are precisely for this purpose, for the extravagant worship of God. There is one thing like it. Love. Love is extravagant. People also sing, dance, and write poetry, when in love. That is the way love is. It is excessive. To someone in love, who has just bought an expensive jar of perfume, or a nice ring, the practical question, "What good did it do?" simply does not make any sense. Extravagance is simply the way one expresses love.
I admit that all of this is contrary to the way many of us are. We are a modest people. We have sayings like, "Everything in moderation." Love is just fine, if one does it in moderation. Yet, would it really be love? Worship of God and religion are just fine, if one does it in moderation. Yet, would such moderation be true worship? You see, extravagance in love is what one expects. It is what you do when you as a lover have a need to return love. The same is true of worship. God loves us in an extravagant way. We desire to return that love in the same way. To the practical person, worship must seem like a fantasy, an escape from the real world. Is what we do here real? For centuries, Christians have painted, sculpted, danced, and sung in their worship. In our worship, we are responding to the beauty of the Lord by directing our desire to make beautiful things into the service of God. Cathedrals direct our attention to eternity despite the plodding along of time.[3] Yet, as this passage reminds us, one extravagant act by Jesus is something to which the church always looks back. You see Jesus is preparing to perform the most excessive, extravagant act of all, the giving of his precious life.
Paulinus was bishop of Italy while the Goths conquered it. A widow came to him and said Goths had taken her son away. He disguised himself and then went to the Goth army camp. He offered to exchange places with the widow's son. Of course, they did not have to, but they did it. The son went free. The bishop became a slave and worked in the vegetable garden. Yet, the general noticed something different about him. He finally went to the bishop and said, "You are no vegetable gardener." He confessed he was a bishop in the church. It could have meant his death. Instead, the act moved the general so much that he released all of the other believers whom he had taken away. Jesus gave his life, in order to release us and give us our freedom.
Mark 14:10-11 is the story of the treachery of Judas Iscariot.[4] Without the hardened heart of the Pharaoh, there would never have been the solidifying of the Hebrew people and their deliverance. Without the unexplained, underhanded actions of Judas, the arrest and the ensuing Passion of Jesus, events would not have reflected the fulfillment of OT prophecies and the deliverance of all peoples in Christ would not have happened. 10 Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, always an unbelievable fact in the gospel story, went to the chief priests in order to betray him to them. 11 When they heard it, they were greatly pleased, and promised to give him money. He began to look for an opportunity to betray him. This text follows directly upon verses 1-2, explaining how the priests were able to arrest Jesus “with guile.” It does not explain the motivation for the treachery. One can only infer a motive, although religious leaders promise him money. Mark will give special attention to developing the Passover/Passion connection, making deliverance a common theme that ties these events together. Jesus encourages forgiveness among the disciples. He expresses concern that authorities will bring his followers before the courts unjustly (Matthew 10:17-20). The woman who anoints Jesus is the only one who understands what is taking place. The contrast between her actions and those of Judas and the authorities is further heightened. Judas is viewed as greedy, the same as in Jn. 12:6. The words of Jesus are not judgmental, but they do force Judas to take responsibility for his actions. Then, Judas is seen testifying to the innocence of Jesus, as well as bringing judgment upon the religious leaders. By taking his own life, Judas concurs with Jesus’ own statement that it would be better for the betrayer to have never been born. Judas acts as his own judge and jury.
Barth has an extensive discussion of the determination of the rejected human being. He will use Judas as an example.[5] Rejected individuals are those who isolate themselves from God by resisting their election as it has taken place in Jesus Christ. God is for them. They are against God. God is gracious to them. They are ungrateful to God. God receives them. They withdraw from God. God forgives them their sins. They repeat them as though God had not forgiven them. God releases them from the guilt and punishment of their defection. However, they go on living as the prisoner of Satan. God determines them for blessedness and for the service of God. They choose the joylessness of an existence that accords with their own pride and aims at their own honor. Rejected people exist in their own way alongside the elect. We do not fully understand the answer to the question concerning the determination of the elect if we refuse to consider the situation of these others, the rejected. What is the will of God for them? What is the purpose, the goal and content, the planned outworking and fulfillment, the meaning and order of their existence as itself an object of the divine predetermination? The rejection of humanity is the rejection borne eternally and by Jesus Christ in the power of divine self-giving. God rejects the rejection. Because this is so, the rejected human being is other than the elect. Only as such do they share as rejected people in the grace of creation and providence. They also stand in the sphere of the eternal covenant of divine grace. The election and kingdom of Jesus Christ surround them, and as such, the superiority of the love of God confronts them. This love may burn and consume them as rejected people, as is fitting; but even so, it is still to them the almighty, holy and compassionate love of God. This very love debars them from any independent life of their own alongside or apart from the life of the elect. There they stand, people who are hostile to God, ungrateful to God, withdrawing from God, repeating sins already forgiven, and therefore enslaved and cursed. We can take their existence seriously only as God takes it seriously. We do not take it seriously if we understand it other than as a shadow that yields, dissolves, and dissipates. The shadow is itself sinister, threatening, dangerous, and deadly enough. Yet, it is this within the limit set for it by God. It is more important, urgent and serious to see its divinely imposed limit than the horror that is peculiar to it within this limit. This is its divinely imposed limit, and therefore its shadow-quality, that rejected people exist in the person of Jesus Christ only in such a way that Christ assumes them into the being of Christ as the elect and beloved of God. Only in such sort that as they are accepted and received by God, they are transformed, being put to death as the rejected and raised to their proper life as the elect, holy, justified, and blessed. Because Jesus Christ takes their place, He takes from them the right and possibility of their own independent being and He gives them their own being. With Jesus Christ, the rejected can be such only in the past. No one can truly reject them anymore. Between them and an independent existence of their own as rejected, there stands the death that Jesus Christ has suffered in their place, and the resurrection by which Jesus Christ has opened up for them their own place as elect. Their distinctive determination has its root in their distinctive nature. They do not have it apart from or alongside, but with that of the elect. It indicates the meaning and purpose of the determination of the elect. It is the necessary reverse side of this determination, which we must not overlook or forget. In its ultimate range, it points to the very spot at which the proper and positive determination of the elect begins.
First, in the reality of the existence peculiar to them, it is the determination of the rejected to manifest the recipients of the Gospel whose proclamation is the determination of the elect. The rejected has not simply vanished or been destroyed. Thanks to the divine wisdom and patience, they can take different forms within the appointed limit. In this capacity, they represent the world and the individual as far as they are in need of the divine election.
Second, in the distinctive character of their existence, the rejected has the determination constantly to manifest that which the Gospel overcomes. The rejected are the people whose only witness is to themselves and their false choice as those isolated over against God, the people who at the deepest level and in the deepest sense has nothing at all to say. They are the ones who live in a false service as well as in a false liberty. They are the people who are deceived because they deceive themselves. Third, the rejected have the determination, in the distinctive limitation of their existence, to manifest the purpose of the Gospel. The rejected have no future. As those who will to be their own master, they can only achieve their own destruction. However, the purpose of the divine election of grace is to grant to those who have no future, a future in covenant with God. It is with this in view that the Gospel speaks. It is with this purpose that God turns to humanity, and that God addresses the Word of God to humanity.
Judas Iscariot is the supreme example in the New Testament of the rejected portion of humanity. The savage and sinful handing over of Jesus by Judas, in itself without justification, corresponds objectively to the handing over of Jesus into the hands of humanity that is the meaning and content of the apostolic ministry, by which the Church on earth is established and maintained. The latter handing over rectifies the mischief done by the former. Jesus receives glory as people once blasphemed Him. Yet, the New Testament does not speak only of a wrathful delivery of Jesus. It also speaks of a divine handing over. Everything positive that Christ does for humanity, so that it is a reality for humanity in Christ, and effective by faith in Christ, is rooted and grounded in the fact that Christ first gave Himself for humanity, or as in Romans 8, God handed him over for humanity. This was for us. Paul strongly emphasized this. This handing over is the eternal will of God. It did not happen by chance. It has nothing whatever to do with human tragedy or the like. It had to happen, as the will of God, and not the will of fate. From this position, which Paul so strongly advocates, we will now look back to the observations that we made regarding the other use of handing over. To begin with, it is obvious that no worse fate overtakes the Jews and Gentiles handed over by God in the wrath of God, or those Christians whose delivery to Satan receives occasional mention, than that which God caused to the divine self in the handing over of the Son. However, the more profoundly and comprehensively we attempt to formulate the sin and guilt of Judas, the more nearly his will and deed approach what neither he himself willed and did, nor the people of Israel, nor the Gentiles at whose head he finally appears. Rather, the more nearly his will and deed approach what God willed and did in this matter as the divine handing over that here took place. In the divine handing over, we find the humiliation to which God willed to give the divine self, intervening for humanity and against the rule of Satan in the world of humanity, to cleanse them from the sin against Christ of which they are guilty. We now see Judas who, at their head, incurs the guilt. The paradox in the figure of Judas is that, although his action as the executor of the New Testament is so sinful, yet as such, in all its sinfulness, it is still the action of that executor. The divine and human handing over cannot be distinguished in what Judas did, as in the genuine apostolic tradition, where the human is related to the divine handing over as to its content and subject. In the case of Judas, the apostle who perverted his apostleship and served Satan, the two coincide. As the human handing over takes place, the divine takes place directly, and the divine takes place directly as the human takes place. In Judas, live again all the great rejected of the Old Testament who already had to testify that this elect people are in truth rejected. Israel is elect in and from its rejection. Israel is elect only in the form of the divine promise given to it in the beginning and never taken away. Israel is elect finally only in the person of the One for whose sake this people could and must have its special existence. It declares that Jesus Christ died also for rejected Israel. What the result will be is in the hand of God. If we cannot answer this question, we have still to maintain that even rejected Israel is always in the open and at the same time so very unequally determined situation of the proclamation and that one cannot put forward the question of its future except in the situation. However, to say this is to say all that we need to say about the general question of the divine will and intention for the rejected, the non-elect. The answer can only be as follows. God wills that they too should hear the Gospel, and with it the promise of their election. God wills that the elect should proclaim this Gospel to them. God wills that they should appropriate and live by the hope that the Gospel gives them. God wills that the rejected should believe, and that as a believer they should become a rejected humanity elected. The rejected as such does not have independent existence in the presence of God. God does not determine them merely as rejected. They seem determined to hear and say that they are a rejected humanity elected, from their rejection, people in whom Judas lived, but whom God also slain, as in the case of Paul. They are rejected who as such are summoned to faith. They are rejected who based on the election of Jesus Christ, and looking to the fact that Christ delivered Himself up for them, believe in their election.
Mark 14:12-16 is the story of the preparation for Passover.[6] 12 On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Jews sacrifice the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, “Where do you want us to go and make the preparations for you to eat the Passover?” 13 So he sent two of his disciples, saying to them, “Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you; follow him, 14 and wherever he enters, say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher asks, Where is my guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 15 He will show you a large room upstairs, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there.” 16 Therefore, the disciples set out and went to the city, and found everything as he had told them; and they prepared the Passover meal. The story implies foreknowledge by Jesus, but it is also possible Jesus made prior arrangements. The instructions to two of the disciples are vague, but that is because Jesus does not want Judas to know when he will be alone. Luke understands the meal as a Passover Meal.
Mark 14:17-21 contains sayings on the betrayal.[7] 17 When it was evening, he came with the twelve. 18 In addition,when they had taken their places and were eating, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me.” We have here a prophecy in a narrative setting. 19 They began to be distressed and to say to him one after another, “Surely, not I?” 20 He said to them, “It is one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread into the bowl with me.The idea that Jesus could have known the mind of Judas is plausible. If so, the words would have burned themselves deeply into the oral tradition. His words give the betrayer time to reflect. 21 For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that one not to have been born.” In Bach's "Saint Matthew Passion" Judas asks the question, "Is it I?" In the traditional music, Judas asks this question alone. In Bach's version, it is whole chorus, representing all of us, who asks, "Is it I."
Mark 14:22-25 is the story of the Last Supper. The purpose of the story is to relate what Jesus said and did in the interests of faith and worship in these last hours.[8] Yet, the idea that Jesus anticipated sharing a meal with his friends in the heavenly kingdom is quite likely. I can find no reason to doubt the historicity of this occasion and the unique interpretation Jesus gives to it.[9] Mark lets the example of Jesus speak for itself. Remarkably, the Lord, who experienced betrayal this night, provided for others when he gave his disciples bread and cup, in the context of a prayer of thanksgiving. This meal was for others. 22 While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it (the Christian theology of prayer has retained the stress on thanksgiving as the starting point and motif of prayer for this reason[10]) he broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” Therefore, the bread is no longer simply what it was before.[11] Yet debatable: to symbolize, represent, is like, conveys, means the same as, is the same as, is identical with, and so on. In I Corinthians 11:23-4, “took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you.” The tradition behind the statement in Paul emphasizes even more that the sacrifice of the life of the Jesus was for others. Mark and Matthew have no reference to a command from Jesus to the continuation of this act in remembrance of Jesus. 23 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks (the Christian theology of prayer has retained the stress on thanksgiving as the starting point and motif of prayer for this reason[12]) he gave it to them. All of them drank from it. 24 He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, (and establishes a new people of God,[13] separating them from the rest of the Jewish people by their confession of Jesus[14]) which is poured out for many. In Corinthians 11:25 reads, “In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, and “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” Mark links the cup with Jesus’ death, as in 10:39. He does not include reference to the new covenant. 25 Truly I tell you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” Mark explains Jesus’ body is the bread, the disciples participate in Jesus’ death, and the cup is the climax of the last supper because it represents Jesus’ redemptive sacrifice and anticipates his return as the Son of Man. Each occasion of the Supper of the Lord is the Messianic banquet of the revealed reign of God, the fullest form of the fellowship of Christians with the Lord now revealed to them, and an anticipation of final revelation of the inaugurated in the resurrection.[15]
Understanding the death of Jesus within the framework of the Near Eastern sacrificial system, which usually involved only animals, played a basic role in the Christian theological interpretation of Christ’s death. Eating and drinking, which the disciples did at this time with Jesus, turns into a saying of Jesus in which the disciples eat and drink at the command of Jesus.
In Jewish practice, the host of a meal gave thanks and broke bread as a way of opening the meal. This tradition, stemming from the evening before the death of Jesus, forms the basis of the Christian celebration of the Lord’s Supper and therefore of Christian worship in general. In this sense, “institution” by Jesus himself is basic to the celebration. We can no longer reconstruct with certainty the historical nature and course of the last meal that Jesus took with his disciples before his arrest on passion. The problem, comparing this passage with Mark 14:22-24 and Matthew 26:26-28, is divergence in important details. The wording is different. One cannot even be certain it was a Passover meal. Yet, when we look at the meals of Jesus in the gospels, when we particularly note the miraculous feeding in Mark 8:1-10, and note his reference in parables to the banquet, we can see the importance of the eschatological fellowship of the reign of God. We have in these meals the central symbolical action of Jesus in which he focuses and depicts the message of the nearness of the reign of God and its salvation. Not least of all, Jesus gives symbolical expression to the forgiveness of sins that he links to the acceptance of his message and granted by it, since the table fellowship that Jesus practiced removes everything that separates from God. The primary issue in table fellowship as a depiction of the salvation of the rule of God is fellowship with God and the mutual fellowship of all who share in the meal.[16]
Mark 14:26-31 is sayings on the denial.[17] 26 When they had sung the hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. 27 Jesus said to them, “You will all become deserters; for it is written in Zechariah 13:7, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’ In its original textual setting, “the shepherd” is evil, “worthless” and the one “who deserts the flock” (Zechariah 11:17a). Indeed, the ancient prophet is so wholly repelled by “the shepherd” that he declares, “May the sword strike his arm and his right eye! / Let his arm be completely withered, / his right eye utterly blinded!” (Zechariah 11:17b). Based on his unmitigated abhorrence of “the shepherd,” it makes sense for the prophet to call for the shepherd’s slaughter in his subsequent repudiation: “‘Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, / against the man who is my associate,’ says the LORD of hosts. / Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered; / I will turn my hand against the little ones’” (Zechariah 13:7). In Zechariah, “the shepherd” is a villain who deserves condemnation, but in Matthew, Jesus, the righteous one, is “the [good] shepherd.” Despite being innocent, he will be treated as a criminal and condemned to death, and when this injustice takes place the disciples flee. However, if the prophetic word from Zechariah about the shepherd is fulfilled, then it seems reasonable to expect that the entire prophecy will be realized, “And I will … refine them as one refines silver, / and test them as gold as tested. / They will call on my name, / and I will answer them. / I will say, ‘They are my people’; / and they will say, ‘The LORD is our God’” (Zechariah 13:9). In sum, Zechariah’s prophecy not only foreshadows the disciples’ flight but also offers a credible word of redemption and hope. 28 However,after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.” Mark does not provide any explicit explanation for Jesus’ remark. It is simply an enigmatic reference. Of course, except for a few instances, the ministry of Jesus has been in Galilee. After they desert Jesus at his arrest and watch the Romans crucify him, it is understandable they would to return to Galilee. For what better salve for them than to return home as they attempt to make sense of what they had just witnessed in Jerusalem. Given all this, it is no surprise that Jesus “will go ahead” of his disciples and return to Galilee. Of course, Mark anticipates 16:8. 29 Peter said to him, “Even though all become deserters, I will not.” Peter does not know himself very well. He lives with a delusion as to who he is. 30 Jesus said to him, “Truly I tell you, this day, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” If Peter lived with a delusion about himself, Jesus did not. Jesus knew Peter all too well. 31 However, he said vehemently, “Even though I must die with you, I will not deny you.” It might have been well for Peter to keep quiet, but again, he fails to humbly receive the insight of Jesus into the true Peter. Moreover,all of them said the same. Amazing! We now see that they were all delusional. They did not know themselves. They did not know what the future held. How could they make such a profession? They did not know the depth of their own weakness or of the nature of humanity. Lying to ourselves will slowly make it difficult to see the truth regarding self or others. This will lead to loss of respect and even loss of ability to love, all descending from lying to ourselves.[18] The simple act of betrayal, of handing over those closest to us to suffering, is a potential within us all. All of us have the capacity for betraying our closest friends, our best self, and God.[19] Some scholars think the story is part of a polemic against the leadership of Peter. However, the gospel tradition has carried on a polemic against all the disciples, and this will continue in the passion story. The disciples do not look like good students or followers of Jesus as the tradition presents them. Yet, their example is a reminder of our weakness. Despite claims to the contrary, no one really knows how he or she will respond in a crisis. And although Jesus knew how his disciples would react, it is impossible for any of us to know with absolute certainty whether one will abandon or deny Jesus when facing a comparable moment of testing.
For Mark and Matthew, the passion is a descent into an abyss during which Jesus himself will hesitate as he finds himself with no human support. His closest friends will betray, abandon, deny, and curse him. Jewish leaders will calumniate in the presence of the chief authorities of his people. They will use every artifice to put him to death. The representative of Roman justice will sentence him to crucifixion cynically, since he knows those who accuse him do so due to their envy.
Leaving the upper room, Jesus becomes decisively negative in outlook. The somber mood established by the opening words, “You will be scandalized.” Why such pessimism? Why juxtapose two such dire predictions, one about the disciples, the other about Peter? Despite the disciples being scandalized, Jesus would not abandon them but reassemble them as his flock. The weakness of the disciples is not an unforgiveable sin. Every moment is a possibility for living as a faithful witness or to fall away from it. Neither moment will last forever. We will make further decisions that will determine the direction of our character and discipleship. If we fail, the possibility is always present for redemption. Our self-deluded thinking, that somehow we are better looking than we really are, more charming and intelligent than we really are, this tendency to overestimate ourselves in certain areas of our lives, does not make us beyond the reach of God. Our weakness does not make us unserviceable to the rule of God, to reflect the glory of God, or distance us from the warmth of the love of God. Mark and his readers, like other early Christians, probably held Jesus’ disciples and Peter in esteem as saintly witnesses, especially if by the time of writing Romans had martyred Peter. Nevertheless, Mark uses the Gospel to stress that such witness to Jesus did not come easily or under the disciples’ own impetus. When the disciples of Jesus who had walked with him most intimately, who indeed had already begun their following of him, faced the issue of accompanying him to the cross, they experienced its scandal and even denied him. Mark is offering pedagogy of hope based on the initial failure of the most famous followers of Jesus had a second chance for them. The two predictions fit very well into Mark’s theology, which here Matthew adopts. The placing of the two predictions as transitional to the scene in Gethsemane is Mark’s arrangement to provide an introduction appropriate in tone to what follows. The arrest of Jesus at Gethsemane involved failure by his disciples, eventually specified in terms of flight, denial, and betrayal. How could one reconcile such failure with God’s plan for Jesus?
Mark 14:32-42 is the story of Jesus concerning the prayer in Gethsemane.[20] Early Christians had a tradition that before he died Jesus struggled in prayer about his fate. Hebrews 5:7-10[21] is an independent witness, referring as it does to the human life of Jesus, his offering of prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears to the one able to save him from death. God heard his prayer because of his reverent submission. Even as the Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered, thereby fulfilling his destiny or divine purpose throughout the course of his life. The passage focuses upon the relationship of Jesus with the Father, rather than the incomprehension of the disciples on which Mark focuses. The submission of Jesus to the Father is in sharp contrast to the failure of the disciples to heed the counsel of Jesus to pray. In fact, the notion of the divine will that impresses itself upon us as a power that acts upon us is a notion we may find here.[22] 32 They went to a place called Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples, “Sit here while I pray.” 33 He took with him Peter, James, and John, and began to be distressed and agitated. 34 Further, he said to them, “I am deeply grieved, even to death; remain here, and keep awake.” 35 Going a little farther, as Mark becomes deliberately dramatic here. When Jesus separates himself from the body of the disciples and then from Peter, James, and John, he symbolizes his increasing alienation from his disciples. Then Jesus threw himself on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. 36 He said, “Abba, Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me. Early Christians had a tradition that before he died Jesus struggled in prayer about his fate. They understood his prayer in terms like the hour and the cup, which in the tradition of his sayings he had used to describe his destiny in the divine plan. However, Jesus concludes yet, not what I want, but what you want. The prayer has some similarity with the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:12 and Luke 11:4, “Thy will be done.” Jesus withstanding temptation becomes an example to all in the face of their temptations. The scene of his prayer in Gethsemane has had a special place in Christian piety. Yet even within the framework of Jewish thought, the presentation of Jesus in Gethsemane could have caused problems. The Maccabean martyrs were righteous people who had died violent deaths at the hands of unjust authorities, but they had faced their fate with the resolve to give a “noble example of how to die a good death willingly and generously.” Jesus would not compare favorably with such a model unless one understood that what caused his reluctance and anguish was not simply facing struggle with Evil, the great trial that preceded the coming of the kingdom. The passage seems to have created an implicit scandal among theologians and preachers who explain away the prayers about the hour and cup so that Jesus is not really asking for deliverance from death or is not thinking of his own suffering but of all the sins of the world. 37 He came and found them sleeping; and he said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Could you not keep awake one hour? The disciples fail, Mark again identifying Peter as receiving specific criticism. 38 Keep awake and pray that you may not come into the time of trial; similar to the Lord’s prayer in Matthew 6:13 and Luke 11:4 about deliverance from temptation or the time of trial, the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” The disciples become an object lesson, a parable, similar to Mark 13:34-37,[23] with its injunction to watch rather than sleep. A man who leaves his home leaves his slaves in charge and tells them to be on the watch. Jesus then urges his hearers to keep awake, for the master of the house will come suddenly and at an unexpected time. Jesus’ withstanding temptation becomes an example to all in the face of their temptations. 39 Again, he went away and prayed, saying the same words. 40 Once more he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to say to him. 41 He came a third time and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? Enough! The hour has come; a friend betrays the Son of Man into the hands of sinners. The double prayer about the hour and the cup catches the intensity of the request. 42 Get up, let us be going. See, my betrayer is at hand.” In the last days of his life in Jerusalem as the leaders of his people showed unremitting hostility, both rejecting his proclamation and desiring to get rid of him, Jesus struggled in prayer with God about how his death fitted into the inbreaking of the rule of God. In his struggle and prayer, Jesus prayed for deliverance from the death of an outlaw at the hands of his enemies. Such a prayer will not shock those who give sufficient attention to the view Jesus and of the inbreaking of the rule of God, for it involved a massive struggle with diabolic opposition in whose arsenal death had hitherto served as a mighty weapon.
Barth has an extensive discussion on the theme of the judge judged in our place.[24]
Jesus prays that he will submit to the will of God rather than seek the fulfillment of what he wants. God has made us as creatures able to want. Part of what it means theologically for God to make us in the image of God is that we are able to want. Animals have needs. We have not only needs but also wants. Needs and wants relate to each other but are different. Sometimes they coincide and at other times, they do not. We all have need for food, clothing, shelter, health, transportation, and for love and attention. Needs are normal and acceptable. However, we rightly suspect our wants. Children who are always saying, "I want" are tedious. Moreover, adult wants are often crude: "I want luxury" or "I want to have an affair" or "I want you to suffer." Wants can derive from our culture or our egos. We will want them to satisfy our desire for pleasure, status, and belonging. Our wants lead us to consider what is the right auto, house, neighborhood, fashion, clothing, jewelry, and investments. Our wants shape the enhancement of life. Ralph Waldo Emerson said the needs of life are much fewer than most people realize. We need someone to love‑‑and to be loved‑‑so we may share our joys and sorrows. We need something worth doing so we can fill time and not kill it. We need faith in God that makes sense out of life.
An Amish man momentarily stopped his farming to watch a new neighbor arrive. Among the many items that came out of the delivery van were a deluxe refrigerator with a built‑in ice cube maker, a state‑of‑the‑art stereo system with a compact disk drive, a remote‑control television with VCR, and a whirlpool hot tub. The following day, the Amish man and his wife welcomed the new resident bringing a gift of homemade bread. After the usual preliminary greeting and cordial conversation, the Amish man concluded with "...and if anything should go wrong with your appliances or equipment, don't hesitate to call me...." "That's very generous of you," the new arrival interrupted. Thank you!" "No problem," the Amish man replied, "I'll just tell you how to live without them."
Mark 14:43-52 is the story of the arrest of Jesus. 43 Immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, arrived; and with him there was a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders. 44 Now, the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I will kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.” 45 Therefore, when he came, he went up to him at once and said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him. 46 Then they laid hands on him and arrested him. 47 However, one of those who stood near drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 48 Then Jesus said to them, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a bandit? 49 Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.” The passion of Jesus takes its place among the events that are part of the plan of God in order to inaugurate the rule of God. 50 All of them deserted him and fled. The blindness of the disciples to the way Jesus has chosen for himself is a way Jesus must follow to the end. They misunderstand the way they must follow and serve Jesus. They are in error concerning their own power and capacity to follow Jesus. They deny in practice when they ought to have made good on their previous professions of their desire to follow him. Of course, they do not follow him. They quarrel, fall asleep, run away, disown, and betray him.[25]
51 A certain young man was following him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth. They caught hold of him, 52 but he left the linen cloth and ran off naked. The young man who was following Jesus was a would-be disciple and so his disgraceful, naked flight is a culminating example of the failure of the disciples.
Jesus appears here as ready to meet the fate that stands before him. There is no approval here of taking up the sword, as Luther would have it. Jesus maintains his own position, renouncing violence and preferring to suffer injustice. Reaching for the sword can only provoke a violence response in which they will ultimately fall victim. One cannot defend Jesus in this way. Jesus came down on the side of protection of life.[26] The story of Jesus’ arrest becomes a fundamental statement about the use of force. Jesus backs up his teaching in the Sermon on the Mount with the deeds of the passion. This lays the foundation for real obedience: the conduct of humanity derives from that of Jesus, or, ultimately, from that of God. People repeatedly demand that God send angelic legions, visible or invisible, to eradicate all evil through the forces of heaven; God refuses. God’s pathway through history is not the conquest of all resistance; we find it instead reflected in Jesus’ way of the cross. People can never agree in their prayers about where they find the evil that deserves destruction; they turn on each other instead, each trying to get the best of the other in prayer. God refuses in principle to impose God’s will by force, seeking rather the response of faith. Faith must be as free as love, which no one can force. True faith comes into being at the very point where God is most powerless: face-to-face with the cross of Jesus. As the disciples forsook Jesus, we should note their blindness to the way Jesus has chosen for himself, a way he must follow to the end. They misunderstand they manner in which they must follow and serve Jesus. They are in error concerning their own power and capacity to follow Jesus. They deny in practice when they ought to have made good on their previous professions of their desire to follow him. Of course, they do not follow him. They quarrel, fall asleep, run away, disown, and betray him.[27]
Mark 14:53-65 is the story of the trial before the priest.[28] Scholars raise historical questions that I will deal with in footnotes. My reason is that I want to continue presenting the passion narrative in a way that helps the reader encounter the theological and spiritual truth contained in it. As readers today, we need to exercise some care. Of course, the Passion narrative will present Jesus as one innocent of the charges brought against him, thereby heightening our sense of the injustice of this moment. This trial has led to continuing hatred of the Jewish people. The Jewish people continue in world history. The Roman Empire does not, so the atrocities it committed against Jesus and his followers do not receive the same attention. The point here is responsibility for the death of Jesus rather than guilt for it.[29] 53 They took Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes had assembled. 54 Peter had followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, warming himself at the fire.
In 14: 55-59, we have the accusation that Jesus uttered anti-Temple prophecies. 55 Now, the chief priests and the whole council were looking for testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none. 56 For many gave false testimony against him, and their testimony did not agree. 57 Some stood up and gave false testimony against him, saying, 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’”[30] 59 However, even on this point, their testimony did not agree. The background of this trial is the word and deed of Jesus against the Temple. The cleansing of the Temple precincts from commerce is an action all four gospels recount. The word and action of Jesus in this regard has some ambiguity. In that act, he seems to want purified worship at the temple. Yet, Mark 11:17, while referring to the temple becoming a house of prayer, also wants it to be one for all the nations. Jesus has also prophesied that God will destroy the temple in Mark 13. The attitude of Jesus toward the Temple is nothing like that of the Essenes, who had a whole program for matters of priestly descent, sacrifice, those allowed admittance, and so on. He was not from Jerusalem or the priestly class, and so he had no stake in the continued building of the Temple and its material survival as a way of life. The Gospel writers understood the hostility of Jesus toward the Temple, when he manifested it, to be similar to that of the ancient prophets, for they cite Jeremiah 7:11 and Zechariah 14:21. Jesus engaged in a prophetic dramatic action against improprieties in the Temple and uttered a prophetic threat that the coming of the rule of God would involve destruction and rebuilding of the sanctuary. We need to read this trial in light of the word and action of Jesus. The cleansing of the temple and the prophetic words involving the destruction of the temple would lead to hostility from religious leaders in Jerusalem. It seems likely that an anti-Temple interpretation of the words and actions of Jesus would lead to the desire by Jewish authorities that he dies. They become the moving agents behind the proceedings against Jesus. Thus, it seems likely that the accusation made in the proceedings occurred something like the way Mark records it. Further, Theissen’s sociological analysis, drawing largely from incidents in the thirty-five years after Jesus’ death, points to a particular hostility between country people who idealized the Temple and the Sadducean priestly aristocracy. Did Jesus’ Galilean origins bring him into that conflict? Based on figures supplied by Josephus, Theissen estimates that some 20 percent of Jerusalem’s population depended on the Temple for livelihood, and therefore, like the priests, would have been upset with threats to it. Josephus demonstrates serious reaction to a pronouncement of woe upon the Temple in the example of Jesus son of Ananias. Overall, the attitude of Jesus toward the Temple/sanctuary may very well have been among the religious legal reasons offered to the Sanhedrin in making a case for a death sentence.
In 14: 60-61, we find Jesus as the Messiah. 60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?” 61 However, he was silent and did not answer. Again, the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah the Son of the Blessed One?” Among the historical difficulties here is that there does not appear to be a single national expectation of the Jewish Messiah. Historically, we find few references to the claim to be the Jewish Messiah.[31] We know that the followers of Jesus proclaimed Jesus as the Jewish Messiah after his resurrection. We also know the references to Jesus as the Jewish Messiah are rare in the Gospel story, and when they do occur, Jesus has an ambiguous response to the title. It also seems clear that the Romans crucified Jesus with the mocking title of “King of the Jews.” It seems clear that the ambiguity of the response of Jesus led his enemies to conclude that Jesus was a spiritual danger to the Jewish people.[32] The only sure point is that Jewish authorities handed Jesus over to the Romans for judgment as a messianic pretender and therefore as a rebel. In any case, this judgment was clearly a pretext behind which Jewish authorities hid their real reasons of why he had become unacceptable to them.[33]
In verse 62, we find the title “Son of Man.” 62 Jesus said, “I am; and in Daniel 7:13-14 we read that ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power,’ and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven.’” Jesus discloses the deepest mystery of the triumphant Son of Man. The answer Jesus gives to the High Priest is ambivalent insofar as it replies to the question of messiahship with a statement about the coming of the Son of Man. Veiled in Jesus, the outcast from Nazareth, one who renounces violence and willingly accepts execution, is appointed Lord of the entire world. In apocalyptic Jewish circles whose voice finds an echo in the non-canonical literature of the second and first centuries BC and first century AD, there may have developed a strong image of a heavenly Son of Man through reflection on Daniel 7. Given the apocalyptic bent of Jesus and his followers, it seems likely they discussed the heavenly figure that God glorifies and makes judge of human affairs. Granted the conception of Jesus of the role he himself was playing in making present the rule of God, his anticipation of another unidentified human-like figure to conclude the work seems unlikely. He had come to identify himself as the coming Son of Man.[34] Hesitancy by scholars at this point relies upon the assumption that Jesus had no “Christology.” He never considered his personal role in the coming rule of God. The phrasing we find here reflects the thinking of the church in the 60s, of course, but the mindset derives from Jesus. He put together the apocalyptic notion of the Son of Man with that of the Suffering Servant in a unique way.[35] Jewish authorities seemed to understand the threat of judgment by the Son of Man as an expression of human arrogance.[36]
In 14: 63-64, we have the accusation of blasphemy.[37] 63 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? 64 You have heard his blasphemy! What is your decision?” All of them condemned him as deserving death. From the attested meanings of the Greek word, the only likely charge involving blaspheme would have been that Jesus arrogantly claimed for himself status or privileges that belonged properly to the God of Israel alone and in that sense implicitly demeaned God. The claim to be the Son of Man would be blasphemous. Criticism of the Temple brought violent reaction, as in Jeremiah 26:6-8 and Josephus. Moltmann, (The Way of Jesus Christ, p. 161-2) thinks the messianic claim of Jesus seemed blasphemous because people regarded it as false, construing it as a blasphemous presumption. Yet, Moltmann agrees that it is hard to answer the question of how Caiaphas arrived at this conclusion. Further, Jewish leaders could conclude that Jesus was a false prophet, which would also lead the accusation of blasphemy. The fact that Jesus acted like a prophet and thus caused some to think he was one could have caused others to think he was a false prophet. The reaction to Jesus at court is a response to the threat Jesus posed to his earthly judges for their abuse of the Jewish court system. If so, Deuteronomy 17:12 comes into play, where if anyone disobeys the priest, the person must die. This view suggests that the threat of judgment by the Son of Man, even without identification of Jesus as the Son of Man, would have been enough for a death sentence as an insult to the court, based on Deuteronomy 17:12.[38]
Religious leaders who kill in the name of God is not new. It has been going on, most likely, from the beginning of human history. In this case, blasphemy is the accusation. I am reminded of a satirical piece in the Onion after 9/11/2001 that included stories titled, “Terrorists surprised to find selves in hell.” Another title was, “We expected eternal paradise for this” and “God angrily clarifies ‘don’t kill’ rule.” "Somehow, people keep coming up with the idea that I want them to kill their neighbor," God tells the Onion during a press conference near the World Trade Center. "Well, I don't. And to be honest, I'm really getting sick and tired of it." The story ends with an angry message from God: "How many times do I have to say it? Don't kill each other anymore -- ever!" Then, "witnesses" say, "God's shoulders began to shake, and he wept."[39]
I would now like to offer a summary of the history behind verses 55-64, one that many scholars would find agreement. In the last period when Jesus was active in Jerusalem, a Sanhedrin was called together to discuss what to do about him. During this session, they discussed the threat he presented to the Temple. This was probably not a courtroom trial in the technical sense of Jesus being present; but some testified to the kinds of things he said and stood for, and there was a decision that they needed to have him put to death. There is never a suggestion in the Gospels that the Jewish authorities thought of executing him themselves; they remember them only as planning to catch or arrest him without causing a disturbance. From the Gospel unanimity, eventually they gave Jesus over to the Roman governor, without a hint that his was a change of plan, we have every reason to believe that the pre-Gospel tradition envisioned this outcome from the beginning. Finally, through the help of Judas, his opponents seized Jesus in a secluded spot on the Mount of Olives and brought him to the palace of the high priest. The tradition remembers that Jesus’ disciples did not accompany him to lend support in this dark hour. Thus in the tradition Jesus was a solitary figure throughout the rest of his passion. Whether or not in the pre-Gospel tradition other Sanhedrin members were present is not clear; but there is unanimity that some of them joined the high priest I the morning, taking Jesus to Pilate in order to press the Roman governor to put Jesus to death.
Verse 65 relates the abuse and mockery of Jesus by Jewish authorities. 65 Some began to spit on him, to blindfold him, and to strike him, saying to him, “Prophesy!” The guards also took him over and beat him. Concerning the Jewish abuse and mockery of Jesus, there may lay a slapping or beating of Jesus by one or more attendants in the aftermath of his interrogation by the high priest the night of his arrest. In Deuteronomy 13: 5-6, the probability is that Jewish religious leaders suspected Jesus of being a deceiver who was leading people astray from traditional divine revelation, and therefore deserving of death. They did not enact judicial murder out of personal dislike of Jesus. They acted in good faith in regarding Jesus as a deceiver who was seducing the people into apostasy from the God of Israel along the lines expressed here. Justin still has awareness of this decisive accusation in Dialogue with Tryphyo, 69.7 and 108.1.[40] Mark 14:66-72 is the story of the denial by Peter.[41] Jesus becomes an example to inspire the whole community, while Peter is an example to warn them. Peter’s denial of Jesus is his darkest moment as a disciple. Part of what makes Peter’s denials so poignant is his staunch vow to stand beside Jesus even if all the others fail him. The threefold nature of Peter’s approaching denial finds its parallel in the failure of Peter, James and John in the Garden of Gethsemane. Unable to understand Jesus’ agony or assuage his fears, Peter, James and John simply succumb to post-meal, long-day exhaustion. We can note a woeful difference between the kinds of following Peter does now, compared to his initial, enthusiastic response to follow in Mark 1:18. Above Peter, in the rooms of the high priest, Jesus is on trial for his life. The accusers of Jesus disintegrate into a vengeful, riotous mob. 66 While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant-girls of the high priest came by. 67 When she saw Peter warming himself, she stared at him, quite likely recognizing him, since she might have seen him and the disciples with Jesus on several occasions, and said, “You also were with Jesus, the man from Nazareth.” 68 However, he denied it, saying, “I do not know or understand what you are talking about.” Moreover,he went out into the forecourt. Then the cock crowed. 69 The servant-girl, on seeing him, began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.” 70 Again, he denied it. Then after a little while, the bystanders again said to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.” Reference to Jesus as “Galilean” may suggest a potential revolutionary. 71 He began to curse, and he swore an oath, “I do not know this man you are talking about.” Peter’s third and final denial is the most damning. To invoke a curse on himself meant Peter invites destruction upon himself if his statement is not true. Thus, in this third denial, Peter does not just intentionally offend Jesus; he intentionally offends God. 72 At that moment, the cock crowed for the second time. Then Peter remembered that Jesus had said to him, “Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” The approach of dawn, though for Peter the night’s end does not mean daybreak. It means heartbreak. Peter’s own Gethsemane occurs at the edge of the high priest’s courtyard in the cold morning light. In addition, he broke down and wept.
Some denial from the man Jesus once called "The Rock." Surely, Jesus meant that nickname as a joke. We love Peter for that because many times our brash declarations of faith are also a joke.
Some polls suggest our greatest fear is the fear of failure, then the fear of loneliness, and only then is death listed. Maybe we are so afraid to fail that we retreat and do nothing. We have had our own failure and denial, our own courtyard experience. There is an encouragement here. The disciples failed. The leader of the disciples failed miserably. If people like that fail, there is comfort to us. After all, Jesus renewed his fellowship with them. In our darkest spiritual moment, Jesus is willing to renew our fellowship with him.
Really, this story is as old as the Garden of Eden. Someone asked one preacher the geographical question of where the Garden of Eden was. He responded, "215 South Elm Street in Knoxville." The person thought he was joking, but he really was not. He said it was there that he first stole a quarter out of his mother's purse and went down to the store and bought some candy and ate it, and then was so ashamed that he came back home and hid in the closet. It was there that mom found him and asked, "Why are you hiding? What have you done?" He then challenged his listeners to locate our own Eden. What happened to Adam and Eve is the story of us all.
The story of Adam and Eve certainly became alive again for Peter on that dark, cold night, as he comforted himself and denied Jesus. Our experience of life confronts us with our own dark side. That time when we betrayed our highest ideals, and discovered that there was a shadow side within us. Has that rooster crowed for you and for me? Have we experienced our own darkness? Alternatively, are we still making excuses?
The impact of the story of the denial by Peter had on the early church suggests their effectiveness. They capture the imagination. For example, they may have been very useful for Christian exhortation after Peter died the death of a martyr in the mid-60s, thus eventually giving witness to taking up the cross to follow Jesus. Yet inevitably, during the persecution, many Christians were not that brave, and both I Clem 5 and Tacitus suggest that in the persecution by Nero in which Peter died some Christians denounced others to the Romans. Was all hope lost for those who failed and denied Christ? A Peter who had once denied and later borne witness could constitute an encouragement that repentance and a second chance were possible. For that reason, it may have been important to underline the seriousness of what Peter had done. Before his arrest Jesus had warned his disciples, “Keep on praying lest you enter into trial” precisely because they were not sufficiently strong.
On New Year's Day, 1929, Georgia Tech played UCLA in the Rose Bowl. In that game, a man named Roy Riggles recovered a fumble for California. Somehow, Riggles became confused and ran 65 yards in the wrong direction. One of his teammates, Benny Lom, outdistanced him and tackled him before he scored for the opposing team. When California attempted to punt, Tech blocked the kick, which was the ultimate margin of victory. All of this happened in the first half. When they went to locker room, everyone wondered what the coach would say. Riggles put a towel around his head and cried. The coach said nothing until three minutes before half time was over. "Men, the same team that played the first half, will start the second." Everyone got up to play, except Riggles. He declared he could not go back to the field. He had ruined the coach and the university and himself. He could not face the crowd. The coach said, "Roy, get up and go on back. The game is only half over." Though Riggles went on to play a great second half, the team lost. What we need is someone to tell us that when we make a mistake, the game is only half over.[42]
All of the disciples abandoned Jesus. Two disciples betrayed him. Judas boldly went to the religious leaders, threw the money down, while Peter went out and wept silently. With Judas, the act was premeditated, calculated, even paid for. Peter's was a cowardly, spontaneous burst of emotion that profited him nothing. Judas was overcome with guilt and envisioned a Jesus who was wrathful, judgmental who would declare him to be cursed since he betrayed an innocent person. Judas blocked out Jesus' forgiving nature. He cut himself off from the healing capabilities of God's grace and, in agonizing fit of self-judgment, hanged himself. Peter must have heard himself say he would be willing to die with Jesus. He replayed the denials. Yet, he also could remember the words of Jesus that on Peter Jesus would build the church. He received a new name. Whatever Peter had just done, Jesus had assured him of a future. Judas never bothered to check the back door of grace.
Mark 15:1-11 is a story about Jesus involving Jesus before Pilate.[43] Jesus becomes a victim, in the same sense in which all of us are victims. People reject him. He receives an unfair trial. Events develop beyond his ability to control. Every human being has felt the pain of suffering at the hands of others. Yet, in his suffering, Jesus remained loyal to God. Victor Frankel famously wrote that human beings could survive the worst of conditions if they know the meaning contained in one’s life. One who has a why to live for can bear almost any how one must endure. The story of the last hours of the life of Jesus shows us that Jesus remained focused on the “why” of his life.
1As soon as it was morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council. They bound Jesus, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate. Verses 2-5 contain the initial questioning by Pilate.[44]2 Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” The charge on which they interrogated, condemned, and crucified Jesus concerned a pretension to be the king of the Jews, a title seemingly derived from that period in the 2nd and 1st century BC when Jewish kings ruled in Judea. Pilate sentenced Jesus to die on the cross on this charge. The writers are interested in making that dramatically effective as a vehicle of proclaiming who Jesus is, not in telling readers how Pilate got his information, why he phrased it as he did, or with what legal formalities he conducted the trial. He answered him, “You say so.” The evasiveness and ambiguity of the saying suggests an authentic word from Jesus.[45] However, he gave no answer when the chief priests and elders accused him of the claim. 3 Then the chief priests accused him of many things. 4 Pilate asked him again, “Have you no answer? See how many charges they bring against you.” 5 However, Jesus made no further reply, so that Pilate was amazed.
Verses 6-11 are the story of Barabbas.[46] 6 Now, at the festival he used to release a prisoner for them, anyone for whom they asked. 7 Now, a man called Barabbas was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection. 8 Therefore, the crowd came and began to ask Pilate to do for them according to his custom. 9 Then he answered them, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” 10 For he realized that it was out of jealousy that the chief priests had handed him over. 11 However, the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release Barabbas for them instead. The authorities arrested the “son of Abba,” with the personal name of Jesus, during a riot in Jerusalem. Pilate spared his life. Pilate may have extended clemency to Barabbas because there was a set custom of releasing a prisoner during Passover. This release struck Christians as ironic: The same legal issue was involved, sedition against the authority of the emperor. Although they knew Jesus was innocent, Pilate found him guilty, while he let Barabbas go free. Josephus, in Antiquities 20:208-09, 215, has such an incident of release of a prisoner, as does the Mishnah in Pesahim 8:6a. The either/or choice is made clear several times in this text between Jesus, son of Abbas, or Jesus, son of Mary and Joseph. Rather than focusing on the suffering Jesus endured, the focus shifts to the incomprehensible choice made by the blind people of the covenant.
15:12-15 has the story of Jesus given over to the Roman prefect by the Jewish authorities. Foremost among these authorities were the chief priests.[47] 12 Pilate spoke to them again, “Then what do you wish me to do with the man you call the King of the Jews?” 13 They shouted back, “Crucify him!” 14 Pilate asked them, “Why, what evil has he done?” The prefect recognized that this was not the real basis for the antagonism toward Jesus on the part of the Jewish authorities. However, they shouted all the more, “Crucify him!” 15 Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas for them. After flogging Jesus, he handed him over to his soldiers for crucifixion. Under orchestrated pressure, Pilate yielded to the will of the Jewish authorities rather than have public trouble over an issue in which he had little interest.
Mark 15:16-20 is the story of the mockery of Jesus by the soldiers.[48] 16 Then the soldiers led him into the courtyard of the palace (that is, the governor’s headquarters); and they called together the whole cohort. 17 They clothed him in a purple cloak; and after twisting some thorns into a crown, they put it on him. The thorns on his head appear in John, while Zech. 6:11 may have influenced the wording. 18 Further, they began saluting him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” In the time of this text, believers could think of Jesus as a king, even though during his life he had no such aspirations. Scripture and standard protocol that goes with investing royalty suggested the theater and details. 19 They struck his head with a reed, spat upon him, and knelt down in homage to him. 20 After mocking him, they stripped him of the purple cloak and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him. Christian charges of deicide against the Jewish people as a seal of its definitive rejection by God ought never to have arisen. The churches have rightly distanced themselves from them, even if too late, but with an expression of shame at the long and painful history of Christian relations to the Jewish people. Charges of this kind have poisoned such relations.[49]
Jesus was falsely accused of fake capital crimes that resulted in a very real, awful, capital crime committed against him, a crime that changed the world — forever. When people withhold testimony, when others give false testimony, and when no one brings corroborating evidence, authorities have committed a crime. This was no miscarriage of justice. This was a crime. Yet, this crime is precisely what God used to continuing bringing the rule of God into the world through the witness of those who continued to live in fellowship with Jesus.
Mark 15:21-41 is the story of Jesus concerning the crucifixion.
Jesus died. It was a small event. Just another execution, a diversion for the people, entertainment for an afternoon. He died and nothing changed. It was a minute victory for Roman rulers. One suspected revolutionary was dead. It was a small victory for the religious establishment. One who blasphemed the Temple is dead. Of course, it was a sizable tragedy for his followers. However, his death was barely a blip, quite forgettable, quite unremarkable, quite unexceptional. Certainly not what sociologists might describe as a generational defining moment. Of course, tragic deaths always leave scars that are profoundly personal. Sociologists will tell us that a defining moment or event can shape an entire generation. So what of Jesus' generation? When Jesus died, his generation was not defined. When Jesus died, except for some women at the foot of the cross, no one mourned. No one knew this death was exceptional. There was no press report. No news briefing. No shocked nation. Few took notice of another Jew's execution.
Jesus did change the course of history, that we now realize. But at the time, who knew? Who cared? The disciples did not know. They had fled and returned to their former occupations, hauling nets, collecting taxes, pounding nails, trying to forget, trying to blend in, trying to hide. Religious leaders did not know. Many rejoiced that an agitating rabble-rouser was eliminated. They were anxious to get on with Passover. The political leaders did not know. They just wanted to get rid of that troublemaker and keep peace in an unimportant Roman province. "Keep the peace" equaled "keep their jobs." The people did not know. They were thoroughly disillusioned. The soldiers did not know. They gambled for his clothes. The thief beside him did not know. He taunted Jesus as he hung dying on the cross.
Do we know? Do we understand choosing the cross can be for us the defining moment of our spiritual lives? Have we encountered Christ in a way that affirms that Jesus was not just a good man, not just someone who showed us how to love one another, but as the Savior who died on this day, Good Friday, in a specific time and place, died for the sins of the world?
We will have no deep understanding of Christianity without reflecting upon the Cross. Yet, the cross and resurrection have a close bond in the gospel accounts. It seems consistent with the thought that one builds real hope on the far side of despair.[50] Such joining of them is chronological in that occur close in time. Yet, the joining is also theological. Paul will not refer to death, cross, death on the cross, or word of the cross without implying resurrection. He will refer to resurrection, glory, or splendor of the Father in a way that includes the death in shame that precedes it.[51]Throughout the story of the trial and crucifixion, we see humanity at its worst. Yet, from the standpoint of the word of resurrection, we see the excellence, glory, and beauty of the act of God. From the standpoint of resurrection, the cross removes any impediments that would hinder us from having anything but the enjoyment of such self-giving love now and forever. Our understanding of the atonement needs to prepare us to be ready for that intimacy.[52] From the standpoint of resurrection, the cross is a splendid theater of the incomparable goodness of God. The glory of God shines forth from the cross. Of course, if we have to eyes to see, we will see the glory of God in all things God has made. Yet, it shines brightly in the cross, at least from the standpoint of resurrection. We see the sin of humanity, but we also see God blotting out that sin and redeeming humanity.[53]
The Christian doctrine of sin arises out of reflection upon what the cross says about us. It frees us from delusion about our perfectible. We are still active in improving self and world, but we acknowledge that our expectations should be modest. In fact, modesty in expectations is a sign that we have awakened from the dream of perfection. We believe in redemption, but we do not believe in flawlessness. Thus, the point of this teaching is not total depravity, basic wickedness of humanity, or an incapacity for goodness in humanity. Rather, it teaches us that sin and evil are unnatural, a disorder, and a perversion. We are creations of a good God. What has perverted itself can also experience the miracle of redemption.[54]
Sin shows itself in the fact that we are self-deceiving people who find it difficult to tell the truth about ourselves. In the cross, we see a mirror of who we are. On this day, God tells us the truth about ourselves, the whole truth. We deceive others God sent God’s only Son to us, to embrace us, to show us the way, and we responded with, “Crucify him!” Today is a day for honesty, honesty made possible through the crucified one who says, even from the cross, “I love you still.” We believe in our basic goodness. We do the best we can. We present a well-polished face to others. Such efforts to deceive others are a reflection of what we have deluded ourselves into thinking we are.[55] Our sin is more incurable because we do not view ourselves as sinners.[56] Our inclination is toward hypocrisy, which is an empty image of righteousness. We will not have clear knowledge of self until we see the meaning of the cross.[57] We learn something else as we ponder the cross. We come upon a great irony of self-deception. Self-deception often arises out of our desire to be good and moral people. People who take their moral commitments seriously are the one who appear to be most prone to deceive themselves about their moral commitments.
In the movie Schindler's List, I thought that the most horrifying episode was the scene toward the beginning of the movie when they were bringing Polish Jews into the concentration camp. They lined people up, and made them stand in rows before clerical, accountant people who, with typewriters before them, registered the prisoners. It was so horrifying because it was so ordinary. They were just doing their jobs, just typing in information on government forms. They just registered people for their certain deaths in the camp. It was one thing to see evil done by the soldiers, the guards at the camp. However, it was quite another thing to see evil done by ordinary, everyday people sitting before typewriters.
We rightly ponder the goodness and perversity of humanity. Robert Jay Lifton suggests an answer with the concept of doubling - that is, a division of the self into two functioning wholes, each of which acts as an entire self. Although there are some similarities between doubling and multiple personality disorder, doubling is a milder psychological condition that permits an otherwise well-integrated person with a conscience to engage in heinous criminal activity. It permits an individual to engage in evil with- out violating his or her conscience.
Lifton developed the concept of doubling in connection with a study of the doctors who worked for Himmler's SS during the Second World War. These physicians engaged in medical experiments sponsored by the Nazis for ideological and military purposes. Among their other responsibilities, these doctors also had to make determinations about which of the Jewish prisoners arriving at the death camps would be assigned to work programs and which would be consigned to the gas chambers. The doctors supervised the mass executions, and in some cases personally executed individuals with lethal injections. What began as a racial eugenics program involving sterilization procedures in 1933 progressed to a program of euthanasia in 1939 and eventually became the "Final Solution" for the racial and political undesirable. The doctors conveniently erased the border between healing and killing. Lifton calls it the "healing-killing paradox."
One important strategy that these medical people employed to carry on with their tortures was "technicizing" - that is, translating all their activities into technical tasks that could be measured by ordinary standards of efficiency. One SS doctor told Lifton, "Ethics was not a word used in Auschwitz. Doctors and others spoke only about how to do things most efficiently, about what worked best." They managed to adopt this strategy not by eliminating their consciences as such but rather by transferring them to the state. They subjected their consciences to Auschwitz criteria for what is good: duty to the fatherland, loyalty to their professional colleagues, improvement of living conditions at the death camps, and efficiency of operations. They subordinated the deaths of millions of innocent people to these ends, thereby freeing the consciences of their original selves.
Elsewhere in their lives, these medical people were living family members, responsible in their community, supportive of culture, appreciative of music and opera. They were the pillars of society, the ostensible shepherd of our civilization.[58]
Verse 21 contains the story of Simon of Cyrene.[59] The irony of one man carrying the cross of another enhances the veracity of this story. 21 They compelled a passer-by, who was coming in from the country, to carry his cross; it was Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus, likely remembered because he and his sons became Christians. Yet, The Gospel of Peter does not mention it, and John 19:17 says that Jesus carried his own cross.
Mark 15: 22-27 contain the setting of the crucifixion. 22 Then they brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means the place of a skull). Golgotha more likely stood upon the traditional site rather than more modern theories. 23 They offered him wine mixed with myrrh; but he did not take it. The surprise is that Roman officers offer wine, for in the background are family, friends, or pious helpers. For Mark the offer of wine is another test that Jesus must endure. Matthew makes the first connection with Ps 69:22. Thus, in Matthew, readers would think of the just man abused by his enemies. In the earliest tradition, it is likely that there was one offering of wine in mockery of Jesus’ thirst on the cross. 24 They crucified him. The practice began with the Persians, Hellenistic world, and Carthaginians. With Rome, it was primarily a punishment applied to the lower classes, slaves, and foreigners. As Roman armies began to interfere in Judea, crucifixion of Jews became a matter of policy, e.g., the governor of Syria crucified 2000 Jews in 4 BC. In the first century, Jesus is the first Jew whom we know the Romans to have crucified. Otherwise, Josephus records no crucifixions of Jews during the first part of the Roman prefecture in Judea, AD 6-40, though there are many in 44-60. The cross may have been 7 feet high. It is likely that his crucifixion was with nails through the wrist area and in the feet. They divided his clothes among them, casting lots to decide what each should take. The evidence favors complete nudity on the cross. 25 It was nine o’clock in the morning when they crucified him.[60] 26 The inscription of the charge against him read, “The King of the Jews.” If the Romans intended crucifixion to deter crime, it would be useful to have the specificity of the crime publicized. This was a public event and anyone could read it. 27 Further, with him, they crucified two bandits, one on his right and one on his left. Their presence illustrates the indignity to which crucifixion subjected the innocent Jesus.
Mark 15: 29-32 contain the story of activities at the cross involving the mockery of Jesus. Crucifixion was a public event producing a chastening effect on observers, and so we can be certain that there were people around the cross of Jesus. The most certain to have been present are the soldiers, as well as passersby, and members of the Sanhedrin who had promoted the death of Jesus.[61] 29 Those who passed by derided him, shaking their heads and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, 30 save yourself, and come down from the cross!” 31 In the same way the chief priests, along with the scribes, were also mocking him among themselves and saying, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. 32 Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down from the cross now, so that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also taunted him. With his entire life, he has done precisely what scorn onlookers heaped on him for: he has trusted in God, thus keeping the first commandment. That he does so even more fully in his death those who mock him do not understand. They refuse to trust in God; therefore, they demand proof from God, and demand to have it now, that is, when they find it necessary. Therefore, they are blind to the fact that in this very place and at this very moment, when they think God is absent, he is present. Because of the supposed arrogance of making himself equal to God, Jewish authorities wanted him put to death. Death exposed his finitude as distinct from his alleged equality with God. It was a punishment for the sinner and his delusion of being the equal to God. It showed his finitude. The light of his resurrection revealed that he had not deserved the death of a sinner. This means that in truth he suffered in our place as sinners. He suffered a fate he did not deserve, even while those who killed him deserved such a death.[62]
Mark 15: 33-37 contain stories of the last events and death. 33 When it was noon, darkness came over the whole land[h] until three in the afternoon. 34 At three o’clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, taken from Psalm 22:1, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”[63] 35 When some of the bystanders heard it, they said, “Listen, he is calling for Elijah.” 36 Someone ran, filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a stick, and gave it to him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down.” 37 Then Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last.
As to the physical reasons for the death of Jesus, no evidence exists that the evangelists personally knew anything about that matter. One could carry out such discussion of it simply by employing the best of medical knowledge to determine how any crucified person is likely to have died. The recent study by Zugibe, a medical examiner and pathologist, comes close to that goal. He has challenged the asphyxia theory of LeBec, Barbet, and others by contending that the experiments on which they drew consisted of men hung with their hands almost directly over their heads. He has conducted experiments with volunteers whose arms in simulated crucifixion spread out at an angle of 60 or 70 degrees to the trunk of the body, and no asphyxia resulted. He contends that shock brought on by dehydration and loss of blood is the only plausible medical explanation for the death of the crucified Jesus. Obviously, the various medical commentators have reached no certitude; and while experiments in actual crucifixion may be the only way to come to higher probability, we trust that this barbarism is now safely confined to the past.
At this point in the story of Jesus, we need to ponder the silence of the Father in the suffering of the Son. The nature of divine action can be difficult to express. The problem arises in part because of the silence of God while creation and human history is so full of suffering. The silence of God in the presence of so much evil and suffering always makes the denial of the lordship of God over creation a possibility. The absurdity of suffering and wickedness provide material enough for atheism when it comes to the postulate of a loving and wise Creator. The primary reason for this is the silence of God in the presence of so much suffering. The debatable quality of the affirmation of the reality of God is something any theology must maintain throughout its presentation. Yet, human beings show a capacity for wanting to hear a divine word in the presence of so much suffering. Such a divine word would need to come in a unique revelatory moment in history. If we cannot locate a divine word in history, then we have to reckon with the divine silence over human life and history. The cross is a reminder that we may hear only silence.[64] The crucifixion alone writes a human “No” over the life of Jesus. Since he spoke of the nearness of God, the crucifixion offers a “No” from God. The silence of God is deafening in the crucifixion. In fact, a struggle all religions have is what they do with the silence of the divine while humanity suffers. Jesus is one more human being who suffers profoundly while hearing the silence of God. The silence of God as Jesus suffers upon the cross is deafening. It brings the deity of the Father and the power of the life-giving Spirit into question. The silence of the Father at this moment in the life of Jesus is a parable of the silence of the Father to all human suffering. In many ways, suffering reminds us that we are little more than small, trembling, and weak animals that decay and die. For me as a follower of Jesus, the whole story of Jesus, which includes resurrection and the gift of the Spirit, shows us that God brings good out of evil. If God has a reality that means anything, God must be able to do that. The various interpretations of the cross are all attempts to show how God brings good out of evil. They have their basis in resurrection. Yet, we must go there too rapidly. We need to face the painful reality that the cross of Jesus discloses. If we properly consider the cross of Jesus of Nazareth in its historical reality, we see a major objection to the reality of God. One who dedicated his life to his heavenly Father faces opposition, trial, torture, and a cruel end of his life. Given the way Jesus lived his life, the cruelest aspect of the end of his life was the silence of God. God appears to have forsaken him in that moment. Jesus affirms that God has abandoned him. The cross invites us to ponder a painful reality. Death could bring only silence, emptiness, nothingness, and loss.
Mark 15: 38 is a story of external effects of the crucifixion. 38 The curtain of the temple ripped in two, from top to bottom. All the phenomena described in the gospels represent a theological interpretation of the import of the death of Jesus, an interpretation in the language and imagery of apocalyptic.
Mark 15: 39-41 contain stories of the reactions of those present.[65] 39 Now, when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was God’s Son!” 40 There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. 41 These used to follow him and provided for him when he was in Galilee; and there were many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem.
What does it mean that Jesus died for us? You know the story. Religious people abandoned him. Civil authorities abandoned him. The disciples abandoned him. God abandoned him, even while he yet believed in God. Why? There is a story of an old man in India. He sat down in the shade of an ancient banyan tree. Its roots stretched far into the swamp. It was not long until he noticed a commotion where the roots entered the water. Concentrating his attention, he saw that a scorpion had become helplessly entangled in the roots. He reached down to set the scorpion free. Nevertheless, each time he touched the scorpion, it would lash his hand with its tail, stinging him painfully. Finally, his hand was so swollen he could no longer close his fingers, so he withdrew to the shade of the tree to wait for the swelling to go down. When he sat down, a young man was standing above him, laughing at him. "You're a fool," said the young man, "wasting your time trying to help a scorpion that can only do you harm." The old man replied, "Simply because it is in the nature of the scorpion to sting, should I give up my nature, which is to save?" The cross says the nature of God is to save.
Mark 15:42-47 is the story of the burial of Jesus.[66] Jewish sensitivity would have wanted the body down before the Sabbath. 42 When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time. 45 When he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. 46 Then Joseph bought a linen cloth, and taking down the body, wrapped it in the linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock. He then rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he laid the body.
[1] Eric Auerbach wrote Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature, (pp. 37-38).
[2] Bultmann said the story is historical in verses 3-7.
[3] (Father Timothy Healy, SJ, "In Defense of the Washington Cathedral," The Washington Post, April 17, 1983).
[4] Some scholars consider this story fiction, in that no one can verify whether the incident occurred.
[5] Barth, Church Dogmatics II.2 [35.4] 449-506.
[6] The parallel between 11:1-6 and 14:13-16 suggests the same author. Bultmann believes the story is legend.
[7] Bultmann says it was originally separate from v. 22-25. Some scholars can find little of historical value here. I am disagreeing with that assessment. The Jesus Seminar notes that the words attributed to Jesus here assume betrayal has already happened.
[8] Bultmann believes it is a cult legend formed in Hellenistic circles. Taylor believes the vocabulary, style, and ideas are Jewish. It is Palestinian in origin. For the Jesus Seminar, Christian elements overlay the story.
[9] Schnackenburg
[10] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Volume 3, 208.
[11] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 295.
[12] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Volume 3, 208.
[13] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 433.
[14] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 465
[15] Barth, Church Dogmatics III.2 [47.1] 502.
[16] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 283-6.
[17] Taylor says the story derives from the reminiscence of Peter. However, few scholars would agree. The wording of this scene reflects what scholars diagnose as Mark’s style. It is not surprising, therefore, that some would regard the two predictions and even the third, about the betrayer, as Mark’s creations. If the predictions in some form antedated both Mark and John, what is their historicity? The idea of three predictions concerning Judas, disciples, and Peter seems artificial. The evangelists do not present any of these predictions as shrewd guesses. Mark presents all three as indicating Jesus’ knowledge of the divine plan.
[18] Inspired by —Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov (Random House, 2003), 55.
[19] Inspired by —Henri Nouwen, Bread for the Journey (Zondervan, 2006), 71.
[20] For Taylor, the passage is vivid, showing it comes from Peter.
[21] In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8 Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; 9 and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him, 10 having been designated by God a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.
[22] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 381.
[23] Mark 13:34 It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his slaves in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch. 35 Therefore, keep awake-- for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or at dawn, 36 or else he may find you asleep when he comes suddenly. 37 And what I say to you I say to all: Keep awake."
[24] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.1 [59.2].
[25] Barth Church Dogmatics II.2 [35.3] 439.
[26] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.3 [71.5] 632.
[27] Barth, Church Dogmatics II.2 [35.3] 439.
[28] The Jesus Seminar believes the Judean trial was most likely a fabrication. Jesus’ followers were not present. For them, the version in Thomas 71 is most primitive, but it is a fragment. In v. 62, none of Jesus’ disciples were there, thus, the words are the work of the writer. Note that the elements of parallel structure in Mark and John, such as Jesus to the high priest’s aule, nighttime interrogation of Jesus by one of the chief priests and abuse of him, and denials by Peter during the same night, are part of a Pre-Mk account of that night.
[29] A fundamental issue is the concept of imperium. In the life of Jesus, Antipas, the son of Herod the Great, was tetrarch from 4BC to AD 39 or king in popular parlance. Title of procurator and praefectus. The first part of this surmise has now been confirmed for Pilate by the discovery of an inscription in which he designates himself as praefectus Iudaeae. Their power to capital sentences is in dispute. All mention the Sanhedrin. Our history thus far has portrayed a Gerousia or Sanhedrin in Jerusalem dominated by the chief priests, with other priests, wealthy nobles or elders, and Pharisees. This assembly, administrative and judicial, had responsibility in religious and some secular matters. Before AD 6 the ruler had dealt with and through this body, at times being reproached by it over matters of justice, at times ordering it to accomplish what he wanted. Is there evidence that such a situation continued in the first century AD and thus in Jesus’ time. The situation just described certainly matches the picture given by the NT of the Sanhedrin procedures relating to Jesus, Stephen, and Paul. When we turn to Josephus, we find a similar picture of the Sanhedrin. A minority of scholars would go to the Mishna, though the material comes from a later period. In terms of the Sanhedrin membership and meeting place, the high priest convened Sanhedrin members who were available. Josephus does not invite us to think of a fixed body regularly in session. Still, were there members of the Sanhedrin in the sense of a list of known people who constituted it? Rather than assigned members, we may have to think of the expected attendance of representatives of particular groups when a Sanhedrin was called. In short, we cannot be sure where the Sanhedrin usually met at the time of Jesus’ death, but a place adjacent to rather than in the Temple may be more correct. What was the dominant influence on a Sanhedrin? In literature written before AD 100, when the Sanhedrin does sentence to death, there is little evidence of court-like procedures to protect the defendant. Nevertheless, as a quasi-legislative and executive body with interests that we would call religious and political hopelessly intertwined, a Sanhedrin when called often acted according to what seemed prudent and expeditious. The Gospels attribute the Sanhedrin action against Jesus largely to the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes. Presumably, some of these scribes would have been Pharisees, learned in traditions that applied the written Law often in more lenient way. Moving beyond these general issues, we encounter the contention that the Sanhedrin would have had to judge capital cases according to Pharisee rules. The theory of Morton Smith explaining this difference has gained considerable following: When Josephus wrote the later work, he was anxious to gain from the Romans a recognition of and commitment to incipient rabbinic authority in Palestine. This was the period after the destruction of Jerusalem during the Jewish Revolt when the rabbinic school at Jamnia was emerging as the major force in Palestinian Jewish life. Since to some extent the Pharisees were the intellectual forerunners of the rabbis, and had gained some favor with the Romans, Josephus desired to portray the Pharisees as having bee most influential for some two centuries. To return to our survey of Pharisee influence, even at the time of the Jewish Revolt in the late 60s, it is not clear that the Pharisees were a dominant voice, although they were active in political issues, especially in the person of Simon, son of Gamaliel I, who negotiated with the Romans for power. Their dominance in Palestine came only with Yohanan been Zakkai and the movement to Jamnia from Jerusalem; it was the son of Simon, Gamaliel II who became head of the Jamnia academy government, of the thought to have been recognized by the Roman with the proviso that there be no support for subversion. In terms of the trial of Jesus, we need to consider the main conflicts between the Gospel accounts and rabbinic law as found in the Mishna. It is likely that the Jews were not allowed to execute criminals. The procedure of the Jewish authorities in dealing with Jesus of Nazareth as described in the Gospels can scarcely be considered unusual; Josephus describes almost the same procedure thirty years later in dealing with Jesus son of Annanias. In Sanhedrin 43a, ancient Jews thought that their ancestors were involved in an even responsible for the death of Jesus. Celsus and Trypho both admit that Jews participated in the sentencing of Jesus. The Gospels all record such involvement only 30 years after the death of Jesus. Contrary to some modern scholars, one wonders how such a fiction could have been created. When the Jewish, Christian, and pagan evidence is assembled, the involvement of Jews in the death of Jesus approaches certainty. In a case concerning Galileans, Josephus reports that the procurator Tiberius Alexander crucified two sons of Judas, who had led an earlier revolt. In the case of Jesus son of Ananias who cried out against Jerusalem and the sanctuary, Jospehus reports that the Jewish leaders arrested him and handed him over to the procurator Albinus. The first case, which entailed no Jewish legal action against the crucified, exemplifies Roman treatment of political revolutionaries; the second case, which had strong Jewish involvement, exemplifies combined Jewish/Roman treatment of a religious figure who was a public concern. It is no accident that the treatment of Jesus of Nazareth described in the Gospels resembles the second rather than the first. Given the conclusion just reached, the issues of responsibility and guilt are inevitable. Reading the Gospels will convince most that at the least, although troublesome, Jesus was a sincere religious figure who taught truth and helped many, and that therefore crucifying him was a great injustice. Believers in the divinity of Jesus will have a magnified sense of injustice, which at times has been vocalized as deicide. Since by their very nature the Gospels are meant to persuade, the Passion Narrative will arouse resentment toward the perpetrators of the injustice. As for the Roman perpetrators, Rome ceased to function as a world power some fifteen hundred years ago, and so anger toward Pilate for having made a mockery of the vaunted Roman reverence for law and justice has no ongoing effects. Unto this day, however, the Jews as a people and Judaism as a people and Judaism as a religion have survived; and so the observation that factually Jewish authorities and some of the Jerusalem crowds had a role in the execution of Jesus - and execution that Christians and many non-Christians regard as unjust - has had an enduring effect. Note that religious people could have disliked Jesus. In Jesus’ time, such opposition often led to violence. There is plenty of evidence that Jews hated and killed one another over religious issues. The issue is one of responsibility, not guilt. The religious dispute with Jesus was an inner Jewish dispute.
[30] The Jesus Seminar says the words of Jesus in v. 58 could be words of Jesus. There are still two questions. First, is it historically likely that such an attitude perceived as anti-Temple entered into the desire of the authorities that he die? Second, is it historical that the saying of Jesus about the sanctuary received citation in a Sanhedrin proceeding against him? The likelihood of the first is easier to evaluate. It is nigh-certain that the high priesthood was the moving agent on the Jewish side in the final proceedings against Jesus; and if one has to explain what disturbed that group about Jesus, something that one could interpret as presenting a danger to the Temple/sanctuary would be the most plausible factor. All this suggests a modest phrasing of what at its core has historical probability: Something done and or said by Jesus prognostic of Temple/sanctuary destruction was at least a partial cause of the Sanhedrin’s decision that led to his death.
[31] To the sparsity of the fewer than thirty references in three hundred years should be added the fact that although Josephus describes all sorts of historical figures, such as prophets, would-be kings, priests, agitators, in the first century, he never calls one of them a Messiah. If we take at face value later rabbinic references, they tell us that Rabbi Aquiba hailed Simon ben Kosiba as the Messiah in 130 AD, but before him in these centuries there seems to be no identifiable Jew hailed a kingly Messiah other than Jesus of Nazareth. There was not a single national expectation of the Messiah.
[32] The basic historical question is: Was Jesus called the Messiah before his resurrection, and if so by whom and with what acceptance by him? I shall mention a number of theories but in evaluating them we must take three points into account. Two of these points are facts; the third is a very strong probability. First fact: after the resurrection of Jesus the followers of Jesus called him the Messiah with astounding frequency. Second fact: the scenes in the Gospels in which anyone addresses or acknowledges Jesus as the Messiah are very few. Complications mar the acceptance of that title by Jesus. Third probability: the Romans crucified Jesus on a charge involving his being or claiming to be the King of the Jews. During the lifetime of Jesus, some of his followers thought him to be the Messiah, that is, the expected anointed king of the House of David who would rule over the people of God. Jesus, confronted with this identification, responded ambivalently because associated with that role were features that he rejected, and also because God had yet to define the role that he would play in the kingdom beyond what he was already doing. Such an indefinite and ambivalent answer could have constituted the basis on which his enemies gave him over to the Romans as would-be king. However, the title of Jesus as Son of God as applied to Jesus before his death is unlikely. It was insight received by his followers with his resurrection.
[33] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 313-4.
[34] We cannot widely attest to the title outside those circles and hence leaving relatively sparse traces, but an image that could well have appealed to Jesus and his early Christian followers because of their own strong apocalyptic bent. In apocalyptic Jewish circles of the first century AD the portrayal in Daniel 7 had given rise to the picture of a messianic human figure of heavenly preexistent origin whom God glorifies and makes judge. Geza Vermes points to the targumic evidence that “son of man” was used as a circumlocution for “I”. The position of Bultmann, Hahn, Todt, and Fuller, namely, that Jesus did use the title of a future figure who would come to judge but that this figure was not Jesus himself, has lost much of its following.
[35] Hidden behind an attribution to the early church is often the assumption that Jesus had no Christology even by way of reading the Scriptures to discern what anticipated the way he fit into the plan of God. Can one really think that credible? As we reflect upon the historicity of this verse, Jesus could have spoken of “the Son of Man” as his understanding of his role in the plan of God precisely when he faced hostile challenges reflecting the expectations of his contemporaries. Inevitably the Christian record would have crossed the t’s and dotted the I’s of the scriptural background of his words. Even though all of Mk 14:61-62 receives its phrasing in the Christian language of the 60s, there is reason to believe that we may be close to the mindset and style of Jesus himself.
[36] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 363-4.
[37] Many suggest, however, that crucifixion was not the appropriate penalty for blaspheme, and that nothing Jesus said at the trial was itself blasphemous. Stoning was the Lev 24:16 penalty for blasphemy. However, note that one like Stephen was not turned over to the Romans, stoning was losing its popularity as a penalty due to the increasing belief in the resurrection, and Josephus notes modern adapting of the stoning penalty. It is not possible for the claim to Messiah or Son of God to be considered blasphemous. The claim to be Son of Man could be such. However, the key may be in the destruction of the sanctuary. It is plausible that besides acting symbolically to cleanse the Temple, Jesus spoke prophetically about imminent Temple destruction because of the hostility shown by the Jerusalem authorities to his proclamation of the reign of God. However, in none of the parallels cited above involved the accusation of blasphemy. We need to consider the historicity of the charge of blasphemy. Is it historically possible that in AD 30 Jewish authorities concluded that Jesus was a blasphemer and for that reason wanted his death? In summation, it is possible that the main blasphemous charge against Jesus, especially in the mind of religious Jews, was that he was a false prophet; but once again, the evidence falls far short of establishing this point. If in his lifetime Jesus acted in prophetic ways and criticized the Temple, he could have been judged blasphemous. If the saying of the story in Mark 14:61-64 is authentic, it could suggest that the reaction to Jesus at court is a response to the prophetic threat Jesus offered to his earthly judges for their abuse of the Jewish court system.
[38] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Volume 2, 337, 341.
[39] --Religion News Service, "Satirical paper's serious message," The Washington Post, October 6, 2001, B9.
[40] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Volume 2, 340
[41] The majority of scholarship attributes a factual basis to the denials. The dominant argument for this position is that Christians would scarcely have invented a story that brought disgrace on one of their most prominent leaders. A number of scholars deny or seriously doubt the historicity of Peter’s denying Jesus, including Bultmann, Klein, and Linneman. Sometimes they do this by challenging the main argument used to support factuality, namely, that Christians would not have invented a scene so unfavorable to Peter. If one accepts that Peter’s denials were a disgrace, could they not have been invented as anti-Petrine propaganda? The earliest form of a consecutive passion account presumably mentioned the betrayal of Jesus by Judas and the failure of the disciples. Included in the latter by way of example could have been a brief mention of Peter’s particular failure in denying that he was associated with Jesus when challenged by a woman servant at a fire in the aule of the high priest were Jesus had been taken. The separating out of this denial by Peter into a self-standing narrative would have come later as Peter’s role in Christianity became more visible. These last observations lead us from a discussion of the historical value of the tradition underlying the stories of the denials to the more important issue of the impact of those tales on the Passion Narratives of the different Gospels.
[42] Haddon W. Robinson, "A Little Phrase for Losers," Christianity Today, October 26, 1992, 11).
[43] Some scholars consider that the idea that all the elders in Jerusalem became involved in a plot against Jesus as an exaggeration. However, we have enough external evidence that it is likely that Jesus was brought to Pilate. Raymond Brown analysis of the story. The different atmosphere in Judea/Palestine between the preAgrippa and postAgrippa periods must be emphasized. Too often the final years before the revolt with their seething discontent and zealot terrorism have been thought characteristic of th earlier period in which Jesus lived. This has facilitated the creation of the myth that Jesus was a political revolutionary, either the Che Guevara type gathering a band of armed followers, or the Gandhi type practicing and encouraging nonviolent rresistance. Such an impression has been furthered on the popular level by meida hype, since the view of Jesus as an advocate of Jewish or peasant liberation can be presented with enthusiasm and does not require radio, newspaper, or TV presenters to take a stance about Jesus’ religious claims that might offend viewers. There are fourteen times when lestes is used, half of which are in the passion narrative. Barnabas is one, while Jesus says he is not. Of major importance, however, is the fact that we have no evidence in the Roman prefecture of Jesus’ lifetime that lestai were equivalent to revolutionaries. There were charismatic leaders, messiahs, would-be kings, prophets and charlatans, bandits, sicarii, and zealots. Pilate may have had the prefect Sejanus as a patron. If so, he would have been more confident of Rome’s backing in 30-31, who died in 33 as a result of falling out of favor with the emperor Tiberius. Sejanus may have strongly antiJewish, as Philo reports. Pilate was involved in 25 with the Iconic Standards, in 39-31 with the issue of coins with pagan cultic symbols, in ? with the Aqueduct riot, in 28-29 with bloodied Galilean sacrifices, in 31 with the Golden shields, and in 36 with a Samaritan prophet. It would be a reasonable conclusion that the Herodian Palace on the western hill was the dwelling place of Pilate and other prefects, as over against the Fortress Antonia. The limited NT evidence suggests the same place where Pilate and Jesus meet. Christian tradition began in the twelfth century as the Fortress Atonia as the place where the trial took place. The archaeological evidence gathered earlier in this century also suggested the fortress. This is no longer the case. In terms of the Roman trial, we must be cautious about the NT reports. What the Gospels narrate has the goal of dramtizing the religious meaning of the condemnation of Jesus. More important, as might be expected from the character and goal of the Gospel accounts, practically no legal details of Pilate’s trial of Jesus are in fact reported. This is similar to what Josephus says about Roman trials. A general principle of maintaining order in a subject province rather than a specific law may have governed the treatment of a noncitizen such as Jeuss. In retrospect, of course, one can find a relationship between that general principle and Roman laws against treason; but it would be wrong to imagine that the prefect consulted law books time he had to deal with a provincial accused of a crime. The presence of a hostile crowd is a frequent ingredient in accounts of a condemnatory trial.
[44] In verses 2-5, Raymond Brown offers analysis of the initial questioning by Pilate. There is an historical nucleus in that Pilate sentenced Jesus to die on the cross on the charge of being “the King of the Jews.” The writers are interested in making that dramatically effective as a vehicle of proclaiming who Jesus is, not in telling readers how Pilate got a vehicle of proclaiming who Jesus is, not in telling readers how Pilate got his information, why he phrased it as he did, or with what legal formalities he conducted the trial.
[45] Jesus Seminar
[46] Bultmann believes the story of Barabbas is pure legend. Raymond Brown offers that it is likely that a real man “son of Abba,” and with the personal name Jesus was arrested during a riot in Jerusalem but spared by Pilate. Was clemency extended to Barabbas because there was a set custom of releasing a prisoner during Passover? The conclusion can only be that there is no good analogy supporting the historical likelihood of the custom in Judea of regularly releasing a prisoner at the feast of the Passover as described in three Gospels. A man with the name of Barabbas was arrested in a roundup after a riot that had caused some deaths in Jerusalem. Eventually he was released by Pilate when a feast brought the governor to Jerusalem. Eventually he was released by Pilate when a feast brought the governor to Jerusalem to supervise public order. Presumably this took place at the same time that Jesus was crucified, or not far from it, or at another Passover. In any case, this release struck Christians as ironic: The same legal issue was involved, sedition against the authority of the emperor. Although they knew Jesus was innocent, he was found guilty by Pilate, while Barabbas was let go.
[47] Raymond Brown says that Jesus was given over to the Roman prefect by the Jewish Sanhedrin authorities, foremost among whom were the chief priests. The charge on which he was interrogated and ultimately condemned and crucified concerned a pretension to be the king of the Jews, a title seemingly derived from that period in the 2nd and 1st cent. BC when Jewish kings ruled in Judea. According to the tradition Jesus did not bother to deny this charge, keeping silence except for a vague “You say so.” The prefect recognized that this was not the real basis for the antagonism toward Jesus on the part of the Jewish authorities, but under orchestrated pressure Pilate yielded to the will of those authorities rather than have public trouble over an issue in which he had little interest.
[48] Some scholars consider this a product of Christian imagination long after the event. The thorns on his head appear in John, while Zech. 6:11 may have influenced the wording. In the time of Mark, believers could think of Jesus as a king, even though during his life he had no such aspirations. Scripture and standard protocol that goes with investing royalty suggested the theater and details. Although we might have difficulty determining such an event actually occurred, everything recorded here could have happened.
[49] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 343.
[50] John Keats
[51] Gerard S. Sloyan.
[52] Dennis Kinlaw, Let's Start With Jesus. Thanks to Rev. Jeff Coleman, The Highlands UMC, Gainesville, Georgia, for passing this on to us.
[53] John Calvin, Commentary on John 13:31.
[54] – Walter Wink, “The Gladsome Doctrine of Sin,” The Living Pulpit, October–December 1999
[55] Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man, Vol. 1, pp. 186–188
[56] – Augustine, The Confessions, Book 2
[57] John Calvin (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I, Chapter 2, pp. 37–38.)
[58] (Ted Peters, Sin: Radical Evil in Soul and Society [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989]. pp. 205-206.)
[59] I rejected the theories that Simon the Cyrenian was invented as a person (he never existed) or as a role (he existed as the father of Alexander and Rufus but was fictionally aggrandized as having helped Jesus). The contention that this invention was in order to supply in the crucifixion narrative the example of a disciple who denied himself, took up the cross, and followed Jesus is weak, since in no Gospel does Simon volunteer or take up a cross of his own, and in Mk/Mt he does not follow behind Jesus. The contention that the invention was meant to supply an eyewitness for the crucifixion also falters, for Simon is never mentioned again in the NT, and so is not claimed to have been present and watching during the crucifixion. Paradoxically the anomaly of one person carrying another’s cross increases the odds that Simon was a historical figure, remembered because he or his sons became Christians. John’s seemingly deliberate omission of his role through the insistence that Jesus carried the cross by himself probably reflects Johannine Christology wherein Jesus laid down his own life under no human duress and with no human help. The absence of the attractive figure of Simon from the Gospel of Peter may reflect the anti-Jewish thrust of that apocryphon.
[60] It is more likely that Jesus hung on the cross until early afternoon, rather than Mk’s 9AM.
[61] This makes it likely that Joseph of Armathea is an historical figure. The most difficult to verify for the historian would be the comments from the others who were crucified and of his friends and family.
[62] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 374.
[63] Brown believes that Jesus let out a loud scream from the cross, possibly “My God.”
[64] (Rahner, Hearer of the Word: Laying the Foundation for a Philosophy of Religion 1994, 1941), Part III.
[65] Roman soldiers were there, but it is impossible to know what they said. It is likely that some Galilean women observed the crucifixion from a distance, and later visited the tomb.
[66] Bultmann thinks the historical character of the account is clear. The Jesus Seminar says the burial of Jesus is historical. They think the burial by Joseph from Arimathea is probable. The reason is that a Christian fictional creation from nothing of a Jewish member of the Sanhedrin who does what is right is almost inexplicable, given the hostility in early Christian writings toward Jewish authorities responsible for the death of Jesus. Moreover, the fixed designation of such a character as “from Arimathea,” a town very difficult to identify and reminiscent of no scripture, makes its invention by the tradition unlikely. The clothing used at the burial is possible, but not verifiable.
No comments:
Post a Comment