Torn -- Part 1

Mark 15:38-39

For most of 15 chapters, Mark's writing has been short and sweet -- without flourishing touches or elaboration on events. Why should these two verses be any different? Simply stated yet seemingly minus connection, one verse is set at the temple with the other at Golgotha.

Compare what Mark wrote to Matthew 27:51-54 and Luke 23:44-47. Notice how the order and description of "what" and "when" slightly changed. Plus there's a doozy of a jaw-dropper in Matthew: "many bodies of the saints" previously dead "came out of the tombs and entered the holy city."

Within these three gospel accounts, no matter how it was relayed, the essence of the narrative remained the same. The curtain of the temple was torn in two; the centurion witnessed Jesus' death and had something to say about it. Two happenings with great meaning.

"And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom."

At first glance, there's one curtain at the temple's holy place. But weren't there two? From what was written in Hebrews 9:3: "Behind the second curtain was a tent called the Holy of Holies."[i] Exodus 26:31-33 shares more about this beautifully crafted tapestry. It was made "of blue, purple and crimson yarns, and of fine twisted linen; it shall be made with cherubim skillfully worked into it. …and the curtain shall separate for you the holy place from the most holy."

Once a year on the "Day of Atonement," otherwise known as Yom Kippur, the high priest entered "the most holy" -- the Holy of Holies. "For on this day atonement shall be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before the LORD."[ii] To be cleansed meant the high priest made atonement sacrifice -- such as described in Leviticus 16 -- for his sins and for those of the Jewish people.

The atonement sacrifice has been a key "faith" point for a majority of the Christian community. Two verses from Hebrews 9 stand out. "But when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come,… he entered once for all into the Holy Place, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption"[iii] along with "he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself."[iv]

In the atonement theory, the torn curtain, the Holy of Holies, Yom Kippur, the high priest, and the sacrificial blood offering link together. We are no longer separated from God, because Jesus gave "his life a ransom for many."[v] Christ's death was a divine punishment and a payment owed -- an atonement.

Was it though? Is this how it went down?

Taking a step back, let's consider the temple curtains to glean understanding.

* The first veil separated the outer court of common worshippers from the entrance into a room known as the Holy Place of the tabernacle. No one other than the priests had access to this area.

* Within the Holy Place was an inner room separated by a second veil. Only the high priest could enter this sacred space known as the Holy of Holies -- God's special dwelling place.

So, which of the two curtains was torn? Did one have more importance than the other? If the second drapery was the one that was torn -- hidden from view by the commoners -- just the priests would've seen it. We know though from Isaiah 56:7-8: "…my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples. Thus says the Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, I will gathers others to them besides those already gathered."[vi]

How powerful would it have been if the outer drapery (the first one) had been torn and was seen by all?

What if both veils were torn -- incorporating the use of a singular "curtain" to have a plural meaning? One separated the people from the priests; the other separated the priests from the high priest who had right of entry to the Holy of Holies. Then there's a witness by the people, for all of the people,… that everyone has access to God through the high priest Jesus Christ.

Which leads back to the atonement theory. Jesus sacrificed himself to atone for our sins. His blood had to be shed. He had to provide his body as an offering, to be the sacrificial lamb. This type of belief has been incessantly hammered into the minds of Christians and others.

Is that really what the first Christians believed? Or was an atonement interpretation of Jesus' sacrifice tacked on years later by writers and theologians? Was a blood sacrifice even required for atonement?

In the Bible, atonement alternatives were actually declared. Furthermore, the sacrificial system was called into question by the Old Testament prophets.

2 Chronicles 7:14 -- "If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, pray, seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land."[vii]

Isaiah 1:11-18 -- "What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? Says the LORD; I have had enough burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. When you come to appear before me, who asked this from your hand? Trample my courts no more; bringing offerings is futile;… cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the orphan, plead for the widow."[viii]

Hosea 6:6 -- "For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings."[ix]

Other Scripture references include Isaiah 55:7, Jeremiah 6:20 and 7:22-23, Hosea 14:2-3, Amos 5:21-24, Jonah 3:4-10, Psalms 51:16-17 and Proverbs 16:6 and 21:3.

One of the more familiar passages comes from the book of Micah. "Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn from my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has told you, O mortal, what is good; what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God."[x]

Yes, Christ died for us. Was that his mission though? Or was his mission to make visible the reign of God? The temple curtain being torn was use of amazing imagery -- signifying Christ reconciled us to the divine presence of God. And yet,…

There is even more to the story within these two verses written by Mark.

NEXT

Part 2 -- a beginning,… an end

---

[i] Hebrews 9:3 (NRSV)

[ii] Leviticus 16:30 (NRSV)

[iii] Hebrews 9:11 (NRSV)

[iv] Hebrews 9:26 (NRSV)

[v] Mark 10:45 (NRSV)

[vi] Isaiah 56:7-8 (NRSV)

[vii] 2 Chronicles 7:14 (NRSV)

[viii] Isaiah 1:11-18 (NRSV)

[ix] Hosea 6:6 (NRSV)

[x] Micah 6:7-8 (NRSV)

In the Darkest Valley

Mark 15:33-37

It's funny how you read a verse -- who knows how many times over the years -- and upon serious reflection, what comes to mind.

"When it was noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon."

For a full three hours, it was dark? And it was dark not just in Jerusalem,… or limited to the land of Israel,… it encompassed the whole earth. Was this caused by an eclipse? While it has that "wow" factor, the longest solar eclipse on record is slightly over seven minutes.

Okay, let's take Mark at his word; there were three hours of some serious darkness over the earth. What was the vibe? How would it be described?

Old Testament scriptures give an indication of what was encountered.

* "And if one look to the land -- only darkness and distress; and the light grows dark with clouds."[i]

* "For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its light."[ii]

* "Blow the trumpet in Zion; sound the alarm on my holy mountain! Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble, for the day of the Lord is coming, it is near -- a day of darkness and gloom, and a day of clouds and thick darkness!"[iii]

* "Is not the day of the LORD darkness, not light, and gloom with no brightness in it?"[iv]

Thick darkness; clouds; distress; gloom; no brightness. Seems ominous, overwhelmingly depressing and rather disturbing. Did Mark have something else to say,… without really saying it? As in, was this a literal darkness, or an existential darkness, or a mixture of both or whatever lies between?

When "darkness" was pondered by the study group, some of their thoughts included:

* "Death brings darkness;" -- CJ*

* "The people were living in darkness, and Jesus' mission had to go through darkness;" -- Yin*

* "Jesus was dying. The extreme from full light to dark punctuates the story even more." -- Bev*

Metaphorically, the shadow of death loomed over Jesus. He was immersed in "the darkest valley."[v] In this kind of dark, angst, alienation and rejection are sure to follow. It makes Jesus' loud cry pierce one's heart even more so.

"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

About 15 hours earlier at the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus had fervently prayed, '"Abba, Father, for you all things are possible."'[vi] Now at Golgotha on a cross, he called out to "God." From "Daddy" to "God." With his "forsaken" question, even though Jesus uttered a direct quote from Psalm 22, there was a diametric distance between the two words -- "Abba" and "God." One more intimate; the other more formal.

Other verses in Psalm 22 -- beyond Jesus' aching question -- provide further insight and descriptively layer his inner torment. "Why are you so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry by day but you do not answer; and by night, but find no rest."[vii]

Such pain. Such agony. Suffering and dying. Immeasurable, intense feelings of abandonment and anguish -- physically and spiritually.

Did these feelings of lament only apply to Jesus? What about his followers? What about others? Also, had Jesus reached a point where doubts swirled around his head? Did he experience a crisis of faith?

Not from the Jesus who was completely human and completely divine. Yet, this unbearable moment did allow Jesus to readily identify with humanity who had been separated from God. His cry tells us he knew what that isolating disconnect felt like.

Stimulating further conversation was a question asked by Jonathan*. "What was God feeling during all of this?" Whoa! God has feelings? Did God actually anguish over the suffering of Jesus?

Stated throughout Scripture, God undeniably experiences emotions such as grief, anger, pleasure, pity, love,…. Isaiah 63:9 stated how the people's distress depicted God's own. "In all their distress he too was distressed."[viii]

While we can take solace that God is with us -- "Immanuel," there is a clear distinction between God and humanity. It reminds me of 1 Samuel 16:7 -- "…for the LORD does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart."[ix] Whereas we are swayed by our emotions; God is not. Whereas our emotions are subject to time, space and conditions, God's emotions are not.

Jesus suffered, and yes,… God suffered as well. For six excruciatingly long hours, the crucified Christ stayed on the cross. At its conclusion, the Gospel of Luke reported him saying, "Father into your hands I commend my spirit."[x] 

How did he reach that point? It's similar to when Jesus had been in the Garden of Gethsemane praying. As he did then, Jesus aligned himself with God in what he had come to do. Even in darkness and despair, he firmly believed, "Yet you are holy, enthroned on the praises of Israel."[xi] He knew "Even though I walk through the darkest valley, I fear no evil; for you are with me."[xii]

And Jesus "breathed his last."

As Bev* shared, "For me, faith was born at this point. The test has come."

NEXT

The opening; the insight

---

[i] Isaiah 5:30 (NRSV)

[ii] Isaiah 13:10 (NRSV)

[iii] Joel 2:1-2 (NRSV)

[iv] Amos 5:20 (NRSV)

[v] Psalm 23:4 (NRSV)

[vi] Mark 14:36 (NRSV)

[vii] Psalm 22:1-2 (NRSV)

[viii] Isaiah 63:9 (NRSV)

[ix] 1 Samuel 16:7 (NRSV)

[x] Luke 23:45 (NRSV)

[xi] Psalm 22:3 (NRSV)

[xii] Psalm 23:4 (NRSV)

* Member of the study group

Life over Death

Mark 15:25-32

 

"It was nine o'clock in the morning when they crucified him."

 

Between the hours of 9 am and 12 noon, three gospel accounts are similar in their telling -- outside of five verses in Luke which differ on the demeanor of the crucified criminals flanking Jesus. The fourth gospel -- John -- skips all of this and instead emphasizes the inscription put on the cross of Jesus.

 

'The inscription of the charge against him read, "The King of the Jews."'

 

From the moment Jesus left the governor's residence on his long, agonizing walk to Golgotha, endless numbers of people saw Jesus' "crime" which had been written on a board. Upon his arrival at the Place of Skulls, that board was nailed to the cross. Yet, what offense was this -- "The King of the Jews"?

 

As reported by the gospels, Pilate was put into an untenable position. Jesus was no enemy of the state; he hadn't committed a vile crime; nevertheless, the prefect was forced to sentence an innocent man to death. The verdict had to be placed on a sign for all to view. That was the standard.

 

With this inscription, was Pilate's intent to mock Jesus -- like so many others were doing?

 

Belittle Jesus or not, the governor had a chance to get under the skin of the Sanhedrin who had caused him a great deal of trouble. With this charge, he chose to mock… the Jewish authorities.

 

The concern of the Jewish leaders over this matter was documented in the Gospel of John. Imagine their outrage. One can sense, by his response, Pilate relishing the moment. "What I have written I have written." Basically, "Deal with it."

 

Someone else though had to deal with it. Jesus. Ridicule, scorn and hate were spewed at him. Among the taunts was "You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days,…"

 

Is that what Jesus really said? Mark 13:2 had Jesus proclaiming, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another." While up for interpretation, the destruction mentioned by Jesus wasn’t specifically to be done by his hands.

 

How about after he cleared the temple of money changers? 'The Jews then said to him, "What sign can you show us for doing this? Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."'[i]

 

Like an accident where witnesses have differences of opinion as to who did what, implication was inserted -- a twist to the words that Jesus would be the demolition man as well as the restorer. What Jesus actually meant -- "The sign for my clearing the temple is… I may die at your hands, but in three days, I (this temple) will return -- body and soul" -- was incomprehensible. Thus, the true meaning of his words fell on deaf ears.

 

And the taunts hurled at the crucified Christ continued: "Save yourself, and come down from the cross!" "He saved others; he cannot save himself."

 

The chief priests and scribes goaded Jesus; their words dripping with sarcasm. "Give us a miracle!" "Help us in our unbelief!" "We know these past three years the focus of your ministry has been on the people, but this time make it about you, Jesus."

 

There’s such a paradox in this gut-wrenching scene. He had saved others – or so it had been declared by the weak and lowly. Could Jesus actually save himself? This question stirred up quite a bit of discussion leading to a unanimous agreement that indeed Jesus could've saved himself.  

 

If that was the case, why did he choose to remain on the cross? Bev* stated, "Jesus' mission was more important to him than his suffering." Although he knew all roads converged in Golgotha for this appalling moment, Jesus also knew his death would not be the end.

 

Consider if he had stepped down off of that cross. What would've happened to his message of Good News? Would it have meshed with who he was and what he previously shared in ministry? How would he have been perceived by the doubting people and Jewish authorities? Would their minds have changed? Would they have believed him then?

 

Using our earthly values, he might have "lived" but his divine message would've "died." By staying on the cross though, he did save himself and saved us -- by separating himself from all of the other so-called "messiahs." His death would not put an end to his life. He was the Messiah of the New Covenant.

 

Taking it a step further in this scene, not following what was recorded in Mark and Matthew, the Gospel of Luke offers hope in relation to one of "the least of these." Of the two crucified criminals next to Jesus, one derides him; the other however chides his cohort in crime and expresses compassion for the Christ.

 

'"We indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong." Then he said, "Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom."'[ii]

 

The gospel account regarding the criminal could've stopped there. Our sympathy would've gone to the condemned man with a heart of gold who saw the truth when others were so blind. But it doesn't end there, which becomes even more impactful.

 

Think back to what happened earlier,… what if Jesus had accepted the offer of a drink to numb his senses from the intense pain he was experiencing? "And they offered him wine mixed with myrrh; but he did not take it."

 

By keeping a clear head, even while nailed and hanging on a cross -- beaten, bleeding, suffering, exhausted -- Jesus ministered to this dying lawbreaker. "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise."[iii] Forgiveness and mercy poured out of him to touch this man’s life in an astounding way.

 

During those three hours, someone did experience a miracle. Forsaken by others, the condemned captive was set free.

 

NEXT

Darkness and Light; Anguish and Abandonment

---

[i] John 2:18-19 (NRSV)

[ii] Luke 23:41-42 (NRSV)

[iii] Luke 23:43 (NRSV)

 

* Member of the study group

Compelled

Mark 15:16-24

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