Thursday, February 20, 2014

Compelled




What a bloody mess!

In the writing of this gospel, Mark chose to not detail the physical horrors that Jesus experienced. He wanted to keep it straight-forward; for the most part, a cut-and-dried telling which would be favored by Roman readership.

* "They bound Jesus, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate."
* "Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified."

Nonetheless, what Jesus faced was atrocious. It wasn't enough he had been through the wringer with his arrest at Gethsemane, the prejudiced court trial with the Sanhedrin, a thrashing by the Temple guards, and sentenced by Pilate to be crucified. The sleep-deprived, worn-down Jesus was then flogged.

His flesh was ripped "down to the bone, causing severe bleeding. It was a beating from which prisoners often died."[i] And after this gruesome torture, further weakening his physical body beyond repair, Roman soldiers took Jesus to the courtyard of the Praetorium -- the governor's official residence in Jerusalem. There, they added insult to injury with a mock coronation.

* "They clothed him in a purple cloak."
* "After twisting some thorns into a crown, they put it on him."
* 'They begin saluting him, "Hail, King of the Jews!"'
* "They struck his head with a reed."
* "Spat upon him."
* "Knelt down in homage of him."

"It's all in good fun!" It was a parody: the royal color, the royal crown, the royal greeting, the royal scepter. Surely this "King" could take a joke -- even if he was in excruciating pain.

This repulsive narrative harkens back to Psalm 22:12-13: "Many bulls encircle me, strong bulls of Bashan surround me; they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion." Afterwards, Jesus was led out to be crucified.

"Crucified." Not unique to Christendom, this method of punishment combined execution practices from the Carthaginians, Persians and Phoenicians. What the Romans did was fine-tune it to be a slow, tortuous death for the victim. One of Rome's greatest orators, Cicero, stated crucifixion as "the most cruel and disgusting penalty," while Jewish historian Flavius Josephus called it "the most wretched of deaths."

The condemned prisoner would carry a wooden cross along a path from the Praetorium to Golgotha -- an Aramaic word meaning "skull" -- which served as a very public reminder to one and all. "This is what happens when you challenge Rome!" As Joe* pointed out to the study group, "It was the price of sedition."

Depending on the location of Golgotha, which is actually unknown although the traditional site is at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the estimated walking distance was between one-third to one-half of a mile. With a cross at six feet in length, weighing between 50 and 70 pounds, is it any wonder the extremely exhausted Jesus collapsed along the way?

"I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within my breast."[ii]

Marching along the path, four soldiers -- forming a hollow square around Jesus -- wouldn't lift a finger to help. But they also knew their captive must reach his destination, so "they compelled a passer-by, who was coming in from the country, to carry his cross."

"Compelled"  comes across too humane compared to what must have really happened in obligating the passer-by from North Africa to assist Jesus. How would you have liked it -- to be forced to participate in carrying out a man's execution -- when all you wanted to do was celebrate the Passover festival? What options did Simon of Cyrene have? He was "compelled."

After Jesus reached Golgotha, Mark continues to write the story in simple terms:
* "They offered him wine mixed with myrrh."
* "He did not take it."
* "They crucified him."
* "They divided his clothes."
* "They cast lots to decide what each should take."

The Roman soldiers had a task to accomplish -- to nail the victim to the cross. According to the Talmud, "When a person is led out to be executed he is given a glass of wine containing a grain of frankincense, in order to numb his senses, as it is written, 'Give strong drink unto him who is perishing, wine to those bitter of soul.'  -- Proverbs 31:6" (Sanhedrin 43a) With myrrh used as a narcotic, this mixed cocktail would sedate the person so they wouldn't struggle -- or at least struggle somewhat less.

Jesus refused the drink even though "my mouth is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in the dust of death."[iii] By keeping a clear head, an opportunity presents itself later for Jesus -- while on the cross -- to minister to someone in need.

As for the clothing of those crucified, the executioners would divide the victim's garments. It was their "right."

"For dogs are all around me; a company of evildoers encircles me. My hands and feet have shriveled; I can count all my bones. They stare and gloat over me; they divide my clothes among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots."[iv]

Through it all, with "evildoers" surrounding Jesus, a life-changing moment occurred for the one who was "compelled."

Three Gospels mention Simon of Cyrene aiding Jesus; however, nothing additional describes his involvement. Did he stay? Did he leave? A hint is provided in something seemingly written as a throw-away: "the father of Alexander and Rufus."

This identification has a tie-in in what Paul later wrote in Romans 16:13: "Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; and greet his mother -- a mother to me also." Mark and Paul were connecting the dots, which indicates Rufus was known by Roman citizens as a believer in Christ.

Moreover, scholars believe Simon of Cyrene played a bigger role than just carrying a cross. He was the "Simeon who was called Niger," in Acts 13:1. Laying out pieces of the puzzle: Simeon is another form of Simon; Niger is Latin for "black"; the city of Cyrene was in Africa near present-day Shahhat, Libya.

Putting this together, the Simon who entered Jerusalem was not the same when he left. Being with Jesus caused a significant shift in his life. Simon and his family relocated from Cyrene to Antioch to become part of the early church movement and where they eventually met Paul and Mark. Their paths converged.

All because Simon of Cyrene had been "compelled."

"I will tell of your name to my brothers and sisters; in the midst of the congregation I will praise you: You who fear the Lord, praise him! All you offspring of Jacob, glorify him; stand in awe of him, all you offspring of Israel!"
"To him, indeed, shall all who sleep in the earth bow down; before him shall bow all who go down to the dust, and I shall live for him. Posterity will serve him; future generations will be told about the Lord, and proclaim his deliverance to a people yet unborn, saying that he has done it."
Psalm 22:22-23, 29-31

NEXT
The inscription; stationed between two criminals; "saving"
 

[i] MacArthur Study Bible -- p. 1499
[ii] Psalm 22:14 (NRSV)
[iii] Psalm 22:15 (NRSV)
[iv] Psalm 22:16-18 (NRSV)

* Member of the study group

Friday, February 14, 2014

All About Pilate -- Part 2




Truth or fiction. "What is truth?"[i] Or maybe it's "whose" truth.

The story of Pilate -- as written -- focuses on an annual custom at Passover in which the Roman governor would grant amnesty to a prisoner. Such an act would be looked upon in favor by the Jews. And Pilate needed all the "favor" he could get.

Presented with a dilemma, the annual custom afforded Pilate with a way out. He would offer release to either a murderer or to the peaceful prophet, Jesus of Nazareth. The people's choice. Surely they would side with this Jesus who was given a hero's welcome just a few days earlier.

One would think… however that wasn't the case. While Pilate was doing his best to stay a step ahead of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish council had "persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus killed."[ii] The hero in the eyes of this stirred up crowd was the insurrectionist, Barabbas. They were drawn to a warrior rebelling against Rome; not the passive peacemaker. Who would make a better vanquisher for the people?

This uprising against "the King of the Jews" put the Roman prefect in a quandary. If a riot broke out over this situation, and if he were reported to the Emperor Tiberius Caesar, it would cost Pilate dearly. Was it worth his job to save a wronged man?

'The Jews cried out, "If you release this man, you are no friend of the emperor."'[iii]

With his primary job to keep the peace, is it any wonder Pilate chose to release Barabbas? Nonetheless, having to acquiesce to the people's adamant demand, and with disgust, Pilate 'took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves."'[iv]

Turning this story on its head,…
What if the scene with Barabbas never happened?

Historical research indicates no evidence that the Romans released prisoners at Passover. Plus given Pilate's demeanor as described in written accounts, including those of Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus, what are the odds this Roman governor would've freed an insurrectionist against Rome -- especially if a Roman life had been taken? Odds like winning the Lotto.

So, if this story wasn't factual, why did Mark deliberately concoct a fictitious scene?

Because of Rome. The author didn't write this gospel account for the Jews; he wrote it for the Romans.

Prior to the first Jewish-Roman war in 66 AD, Christianity was a small Jewish sect centered in Israel. Mark's gospel account became available (most likely) at the conclusion of the war in 70 AD. At that point, "the center of the Christian movement shifted from Jewish Jerusalem to the Graeco-Roman cities of the Mediterranean: Alexandria, Corinth, Ephesus, Damascus, Antioch, Rome. A generation after Jesus' crucifixion, his non-Jewish followers outnumbered and overshadowed the Jewish ones."[v]

If the target audience was to be Rome, how receptive to the story of Jesus would they be if Pilate was shown in a negative light? If one of their own, a Roman governor, was considered the culprit behind Jesus' death? As Joe* stated to the study group, doing so would be "bad for sales."

Did You Know…?
Some scholars would say the gospel writers also chose to emphasize the pacifist side of Jesus which would be more appealing to the Romans rather than to a Jewish nationalist who wanted Rome's downfall. "Scattered across the Roman Empire, it was only natural for the gospel writers… to adapt Jesus' words and actions to the new political situation in which they found themselves."[vi]

If "true" this scene never happened, why else did Mark include it in the gospel account? He wanted to show change is never easy, and did so by providing an opportunity of choice -- even when we know which opportunity was for the betterment of all.

Mark presented us with a selection to be made -- not with just one Jesus but with two: Jesus Barabbas and Jesus "called the Messiah"[vii] 'Barabbas is Aramaic for "son of the father." '[viii]

One Jesus -- the son of a human father; the other Jesus -- the Son of God the Father. When offered an option between the two, the crowd chose human fallibility over divinity,… war over peace,… hate over love. Gene* shared Jesus Barabbas would've been easier in which to relate.

Mark wanted the readership to understand that the people still didn't accept the Christ. The crowd preferred the Messianic conqueror of the old covenant -- that for which they were familiar -- instead of the Messiah of the new covenant. By "forcing" Pilate to make a decision against Jesus the Christ, the blame-game was shifted on to the Jewish people.

'Then the people as a whole answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!"'[ix]

Taking it a step further, who riled up the crowd to shout "Crucify him!"? The Jewish authorities. It was the Sanhedrin who wanted Jesus to die. Even so, if Matthew 27:25 is taken literally, an entire people are damned for eternity as well as their bloodline.

Misinterpretation of this story, along with misplaced emphasis on this verse, has allowed for a long history of anti-Semitism. It's absolutely ludicrous to place the blame at the feet of the Jews -- who in turn made blameless a Roman governor known for countless executions and wrongful acts.

Ultimately, who was responsible for Jesus' death? Everyone.
* The Sanhedrin and other religious leaders wanted to be rid of this thorn in their side. They believed the crucifixion of Jesus would put an end to their woes.
* The people desired someone who would restore the Promised Land to the Jews. In their eyes, that someone wasn't Jesus.
* Barabbas or no Barabbas, Pilate made the ruling. He could've made a different decision. But he didn't.
* The Roman soldiers tortured Jesus during the flogging, and gravely injured him. "An expert at wielding the scourge could literally tear the flesh from the back, lacerating muscles, and sometimes even exposing the kidneys or other internal organs."[x]
* The disciples were just as culpable for Jesus' death. Judas betrayed him, Peter denied him, and the disciples left him.

Everyone was responsible. No one left unscathed.

As for us, if involved in this chaotic nightmare of a mess,… what would we have done? Who would the story have been about?

NEXT
A horrific, mock coronation; the man who played a larger role than just carrying a cross


[i] John 18:38
[ii] Matthew 27:20
[iii] John 19:12
[iv] Matthew 27:24
[v] Zealot, Aslam -- p. 150
[vi] Zealot, Aslam -- p. 149
[vii] Matthew 27:17
[viii] Jewish Annotated New Testament -- p. 92
[ix] Matthew 27:25
[x] MacArthur Study Bible -- p. 1448

* Member of the study group

Friday, February 7, 2014

All About Pilate -- Part 1




At daybreak, the Sanhedrin "bound Jesus, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate."

As far as the Sanhedrin council was concerned, everything was going according to plan.
* Judas had provided the time and place where Jesus would be;
* A pre-arrangement -- between Caiaphas and Pilate to secure Roman soldiers -- aided in the prophet's apprehension;
* Jesus committed blasphemy in the eyes of the Jewish court, which swung the door wide open for a sentence of death.

All that remained for the "fait accompli" was Pilate's approval as "supreme judge." As the prefect of the Roman provinces of Judea, Samaria and Idumea, he had the ultimate power in ordering an execution and to make it happen.

The Jewish leaders wanted it to happen, especially under the jurisdiction of Rome. Consider the Sanhedrin could've stoned Jesus to death given their earlier ruling. Leviticus 24:16 states, "One who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death; the whole congregation shall stone the blasphemer. Aliens as well as citizens, when they blaspheme the Name, shall be put to death."

The Torah is clear. So why didn't they do this to Jesus?

By having Jesus sentenced by a Roman leader to be crucified, the Sanhedrin could wash their hands of this bloody business. Put the onus on Rome to divert all accusations against them. This method of execution would specifically place Jesus in the category of criminal or agitator, as well as create public humiliation to make his death even more prominent.

Let Jesus die on a cross. Such a death would further diminish the influence Jesus had over his followers. How so? Because of the belief that crucifixion would bring a curse from God. "This Jesus isn't blessed. He has been cursed!"

Deuteronomy 21:23 -- "…for anyone hung on a tree is under God's curse."

Who better to drive the nail in the cross than Pilate? This Roman governor was "a man renowned for his loathing of the Jews, his total disregard for Jewish rituals and customs, and his penchant for absentmindedly signing so many execution orders that a formal complaint was lodged against him in Rome."[i]

Philo of Alexandria wrote of Pilate, "specifying in detail his venality, his violence, his thefts, his assaults, his abusive behavior, his frequent executions of untried prisoners, and his endless savage ferocity. He was a spiteful and angry person."[ii]

In the Jewish War 2.175-177 and the Antiquities of the Jews 18.60-62, Flavius Josephus accused Pilate of deliberately attempting to arouse hostilities by using money from the Temple to build an aqueduct for Jerusalem. While an aqueduct would be quite useful, the means to accomplish Pilate's desired objective created such animosity that the people rioted. Many were killed.

Would such a despicable and cruel man spend even a moment of time to consider the fate of Jesus? Done deal, indeed.

But… not so fast. In all four Gospel accounts, Pilate asks this question, "Are you the King of the Jews?" Why is this so important?

It indicates Pilate was previously informed of such a charge -- of Jesus being a king -- most likely by the High Priest, Caiaphas, who wanted Roman soldiers to join Sanhedrin representatives at Gethsemane. With this bit of news, the Roman prefect's interest would be piqued, for a "king" ruled over his people. And there was only one true king in Rome's eyes -- Tiberius Caesar.

Side Note -- Pilate may have also been curious if Jesus was "King of the Jews." This title had been used previously. King Herod the Great (a Jewish convert) had declared himself as such.

Jesus' reply to the Roman governor's question wasn't the one expected. "You say so."  Which Mark followed by writing: "Then the chief priests accused him of many things."

The hoped-for, easy stamp of approval for Jesus to die on a cross had surprisingly become not-so-easy. The tide had suddenly turned; thus, the onslaught of accusations. Pilate asks Jesus, "Have you no answer?" What had to take Pilate completely off-guard was the non-response. Accused prisoners would vehemently deny charges made against them. Jesus' silence had to have God-smacked Pilate.

Was the reason for Jesus' silence to fulfill prophecy? Isaiah 42:1-2; Isaiah 53:7.

Was Jesus silent because Pilate had already pronounced him as innocent? Luke 23:4 -- 'Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, "I find no basis for an accusation against this man."'

In the grand scheme of things, it's intriguing how this Roman leader deemed to be heinous and merciless would show mercy. Was Pilate toying with the Sanhedrin, to get back at Caiaphas in some manner? Had the procurator smelled the trap being set -- to put the blame on Rome as the reason why Jesus died? Or was he extremely concerned about his own neck -- already being on thin ice with the Emperor for abuse of power -- not wanting to upset the Jewish people at the Passover Feast thereby causing another deadly riot?

Each Gospel account progressively portrays Pilate in a sympathetic light. Matthew 27:1-2,11-14; Luke 23:1-16; John 18:28-38. While each trial narrative is slightly different, notice how Pilate's role is ramped up -- being "forced" to rule against Jesus. The authors of the gospels expanded upon the other's telling, working off of Mark's account.

In the Gospel of Peter (written in the second century), Jesus is condemned by Herod Antipas -- not Pilate. In the Gospel of Nicodemus (written in the fifth century), Pilate is depicted even more friendlier toward Jesus. "After the dissemination of the Gospels, Pilate was even considered a convert to Christianity, and he is honored as a martyr in the Coptic Orthodox Church; his feast day is June 25."[iii]

Yet in all of these Gospel stories, were Pilate's doubts actually exaggerated?

What could be gained in portraying Pilate as compassionate? By detaching him further from Jesus' death?

When Barabbas is added into the mix, it doesn't get any easier to figure out what's what.

NEXT
Human or Divine; war or peace; truth or fiction; passing the buck


[i] Zealot, Aslam -- p. 149
[ii][ii] Legatio ad Gaium 299-305 (translated by E.M. Smallwood)
[iii] Jewish Annotated New Testament -- p. 93