On Line Bible Study - For the Week September 23-29, 2013

Lesson 577
As you read this listen, you can also listen to Peter Philips' (c. 1560-1628) setting: O Maria Mater.

John 19:  26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

In our previous lesson we explored some of the conversation that occurred at the foot of the cross as recorded by Mark, Matthew and Luke.  With this lesson we will explore a particular conversation recorded only by the Gospel of John.  Father Raymond Brown takes this text almost word by word as he unpacks it for us.  We begin with the word "saw".

In the Gospel of Luke we read that people came and "saw" what had taken place at the cross (23:48).  In John we read that Jesus "saw" his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby.  Though the English translation can use the same word: "saw" - they are different words in Greek.  The "saw" from Luke 23:48 - ὁράω- suggests seeing as a spectator, and perhaps from some distance.  In John 19:26 -  εἴδω - the seeing that is taking place  is "nearby" - closer, more intimate.

The "disciple whom [Jesus] loved" is the only one of the Twelve who accompanies Jesus to the cross.  Peter, following his denial, "went outside and wept bitterly" (Matthew 26:75).  Luke has Peter following, but "at a distance".  (Luke 22:54.)  Matthew and Mark tell us:  All the disciples deserted him and fled.  (Matthew 26:56; Mark 14:50.)  John tells us that "another disciple", known to the High Priest, was responsible for getting Peter into the courtyard.  We assume this "other disciple" to be the same one that is at the cross with Mary - the disciple whom [Jesus] loved.

Jesus' mother only makes two entrances in John.  She is at the wedding in Cana of Galilee (John 2).  In the exchange the exists between Jesus and Mary in that scene, Jesus notes a difference in their agenda.  Mary recognizes an immediate need; Jesus believes his time has not yet come.  In this exchange on the cross, Jesus' time has come.  His work is finished.  Now, his agenda and his mother's agenda intersect.  While some interpret this exchange to be primarily about Jesus' concern for Mary's future security, Raymond Brown suggests more subtle and far reaching theological meanings.

Perhaps there is an association being made with Eve (Genesis) and passages in Revelation.

Eve rejoices in having a son to replace the one who had been killed.  (Genesis 4:25.)  In Revelation 12, a woman "clothed with the sun" gives birth to a child who "will rule all the nations".  Satan chases the woman, but she is protected.  Ultimately the dragon (Satan) is hurled down to earth where he "makes war against the rest of her offspring..." (Revelation 12:17).  These "offspring" are identified as "those who keep God's commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus".  In other words, the woman of Revelation is the mother of the disciples of Jesus.

When considered in these terms, this new relationship between Mary and the "beloved disciple" takes on a whole new meaning.  It is not so much about Mary's future security as it is the association between Mary and the true disciples of Jesus.

In our next lesson we will reflect on the death of Jesus on the Cross.

On Line Bible Study - For the Week September 16-22, 2013

Lesson 576

At The Foot of the Cross
As Jesus was dying on the cross, the synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke) record for us some of the activity and conversation that was going on.  Assuming that Mark offers us something closer to an original source, both Matthew and Luke include Mark's record and make slight but significant contributions to the scene.

Mark 15: 29 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, 30 come down from the cross and save yourself!” 31 In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself!32 Let this Messiah, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

Power:  People who didn't necessarily know Jesus other than what they had heard about him - that is, passers-by - hurl their insults at him.  His reputation for having power to heal seems to work for others, but not for himself.  How can one who claimed to be able to destroy and rebuild the temple in a matter of three days now be so powerless to help himself?
Jesus demonstrates the most difficult kind of power - the power of self-restraint.  Whether he could have actually gotten himself off the cross we can't say; but he certainly could have behaved such that he never would have been crucified to begin with.  The true irony here is that the one whom we believe did have the power to save himself and didn't, is ridiculed by those who think they do have power to save themselves but don't.
One wonders if Jesus' ministry isn't ending just as it began - with temptation.  Were the religious leaders correct in their assessment of the crowds - would there have been true faith if Jesus had come down from the cross on his own power?

Salvation:  How do you define "salvation"?  What is the connection between your belief that you can take care of yourself over against the notion that you depend on God to take care of you?  How large is the gap between those two realities?  One way to stave off ethnic prejudice against the Jewish people and their religious leaders in this text is to see the universal truth hidden in plain sight.  If Jesus had never experienced physical death, could he have been a savior?  Or would he have become a dictator?  
Matthew and Luke are more explicit in their theology of the "God who suffers".
  
In Matthew 27 we read:  43 He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him; for he said, 'I am the Son of God.'

Jesus is offering a very different understanding of "God" and "Salvation" from what people in his day (and in our own) hoped for.

The Conversation:  Both of those crucified with Jesus also mock him ... except in Luke.  In the midst of the darkness of this hour, Luke offers a glimmer of light and faith.  One can't help but wonder if the words of one criminal to the other weren't intended for all of us to hear:

Luke 23:  40Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?

Might this hearken back to Luke 6:42 (and Matthew 7:5):  42 Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye.

With the plank of his own guilt front and center, Luke tells us one of those two criminals finds his way to true salvation - and even in the final hours and moments of his life, a profound blessing is received.
John has no mention of any of this in his record.  But he does give us another conversation that is worth our consideration.  That's what we will look at in the next lesson.

On Line Bible Study - For the Week September 9 - 15, 2013

Lesson 575

The Verdict
Mark 15:  15 Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barab'bas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.
Luke 23:  25 He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, whom they asked for; but Jesus he delivered up to their will.
John 19:  15 They cried out, "Away with him, away with him, crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar."
16 Then he handed him over to them to be crucified.

Jesus was guilty ... but of what?  As noted in a previous study, the one thing brought up in each of the gospels is the accusation that he claimed to be "king of the Jews".  He also claimed to be the Christ.  The charges really couldn't be made to stick such that they warranted the death sentence, but death is what awaited Jesus.

The Sentence: Crucifixion

St. John tells us Jesus "went out bearing his own cross"  (John 19:17.)  The synoptic gospels tell us he had assistance from a man from Cyre'ne named Simon.  St. Luke adds one interesting detail mentioned in neither Mark nor Matthew: Simon carried the cross behind Jesus.  Perhaps Luke was sharing this image with us to remind us of both the place and the cost of being a disciple.  St. Mark not only mentions Simon; he tells us the names of Simon's two sons (Alexander and Rufus).  Fr. Raymond Brown wonders if perhaps this family was known in the circle of Christians to and for whom his gospel is written.  Could it be that Mark wants to acknowledge - perhaps memorialize - one of their own as playing a critical role in the final hours of Jesus' life?

There is a problem, however, with the idea of Simon carrying Jesus' cross.  It was Roman practice, according to Plutarch, that "every wrongdoer who goes to execution carries his own cross to the execution site."

Another explanation for Simon carrying Jesus' cross is that following the beatings and torture, Jesus was too weak to do it himself.  This would also explain why Jesus died so quickly as to cause an expression of surprise from Pilate (recorded only by Mark).

St. Luke alone tells us a "a great multitude of the people followed as Jesus made his way to Golgotha.  And many women who bewailed and lamented him were also with him.  But as Jesus speaks to them, he makes it clear that tears shed in sympathy won't remove one from what is to come.  One is reminded of the "slaughter of the innocents" found in Matthew's gospel as part of the birth narrative.  Weep not for me, says Jesus, but for your city, and for yourselves.

Where is "Golgotha"?  While many, especially Evangelical Protestants, prefer to think of Gordon's Garden as the place of crucifixion and burial, attestation to the site is much stronger for the place now occupied by The Church of the Sepulcher.  The Greek name for "Golgotha" is Kranion - a word from which the word cranium is derived.  Whether the topography of the place looked like a skull, or the section of the city was simply called "the place of the skull", we are not certain.

Each gospel tells us Jesus was crucified between two others - "robbers" according to Mark and Matthew; "criminals" according to Luke.  No specific reference to their crime or character is mentioned by John.  Luke alone gives us the conversation between Jesus and the thief who comes to faith.  That conversation has sparked much debate as to just what it means to be a follower of Jesus ... is faith at the last minute of life sufficient for salvation?

Crucifixion in the Roman world was a form of execution used only on slaves - it was not only a horrible physical punishment.  It also signified the epitome of shame.  This might explain the text in Paul's letter to the Philippians:

Philippians 2:7 He made himself nothing, by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likness.  8. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death - even death on a cross!

The method of crucifixion is uncertain.  Were Jesus' hands and feet nailed to the cross, or just his hands?  Was there a cross-beam or foot-rest upon which he could stand?  Jesus died quickly on the cross, leading scholars to believe there was no foot-rest.  We simply don't know all the details of the crucifixion.  What we DO know is that it was a painful death associated with those whose actions merited both shame and pain in their dying.

Each evangelist gives us a different rendering of the words of Jesus as he was dying.  Each "remembers" the event in ways that speak to their particular community; but it may well be that each in conversation with the other gives us a clearer understanding of what the Christian Community was like - what they hoped for, how they experienced their Savior, and what they both remembered and had come to believe as the first century after the birth of Jesus came to a close.

What does his crucifixion mean to you?

For a discussion of various methods used for crucifixion, this descriptive (graphic) article that appeared in the Expository Times (February, 1973) may be of interest.

On Line Bible Study - For the Week September 2 - 8, 2013

Lesson 574

The Roman Trial

Revolt was in the air in early First Century Palestine.  But Raymond Brown makes a strong case to suggest that during the adult life of Jesus, Palestine was ruled in relative peace.  St. Mark tells the story of the Roman Trial of Jesus in 15 verses.  St. John takes 27 verses.

There are four major players in the “Roman Trial” of Jesus:

·         Jesus, the accused

·         Jewish religious authorities, the accusers

·         Pilate, the judge

·         The Crowd (the jury?)

The Accusation

“Are you the “king of the Jews”?  That is the question Pilate puts to Jesus in each of the four gospels.  Matthew tells us that Pilate was aware that “it was out of envy that the religious authorities had handed Jesus over to him.”  But from the standpoint of any sort of trial, envy is not a valid platform upon which to judge a person.  It is in the Gospel of John where the strongest case is made against the accusation that Jesus coveted any sort of worldly power.  There, Jesus asserts that his kingship is not of this world.  (John 18:36.)  Whereas Jesus is silent in the synoptic gospels, it may be that the reason for his stated defense in John has more to do with the community of Christians who comprise John’s audience than with any historical fact of the trial itself.  Christianity was not a threat to civil authority in terms of wanting to overthrow governments.  However, as the texts note, blasphemy against the Jewish God – which was the Jewish reason for the religious authorities’ accusations against Jesus - was not cause for capital punishment in the Roman world (John 18:31).  It is John where we find the two accusations coming together – blasphemy: John 19:7 – He has made himself the Son of God…  and then, in John 19:12  -  "If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend; every one who makes himself a king sets himself against Caesar."  It is the second accusation that tips the balance against Jesus.

The Judge

Almost as much has been written about the character of Pilate and his role in this trial as has been written about the accusations against Jesus.  Was this a “trial” in the true sense of the word?  When we compare the trial of Jesus in the Gospels to that of Paul in Acts 24-26, the differences are startling.  Pilate consults no one.  There are no “lawyers” present (see, by contrast, Acts 24:12).  How is it that Pilate alone has the authority to make a judgment as to Jesus’ guilt or innocence?  A “trial” would be the right of a Roman citizen – which Paul was, and Jesus was not.  Jerusalem and Judea were at the edges of the Roman world, and the majority of its population were not Roman citizens.  Pilate assumes authority for himself that is characteristic of a procedure that was more summary than a trial.  Because this was a time of festival (Passover), and the atmosphere on the street was tense during such times, the procurator would take it upon himself to expedite cases such as the one the Jews brought against Jesus.  Matthew makes particular note of this in his statement that Pilate foresaw the possibility of riots – a situation he desperately wanted to avoid.  (See Matthew 27:24.)

Was Pilate wise in his decision?  Could he truly wash his hands of his involvement?  If he believed Jesus was innocent, but authorized his crucifixion out of expedience to quiet the crowd, what does that say about him as a person?

The Jury

The crowd has tremendous sway in the case against Jesus.  While this would not be true in an actual Roman trial, it was true under certain circumstances in the mid-Eastern world.  It is not, however, how the Jewish Law works.  Justice for Jews was not the result of a democratic process or popular demand.  It emanated out of the Law of God and was to be meted out evenly.  In the case against Jesus, the crowd seems to have unusual influence.  As noted above, the “jury” could make a great deal of trouble for the “judge” in the form of riots and civil unrest.

Thoughts for Reflection

How do we understand the role of the Church in civic society?

How might our honoring of civil authority come into conflict with our giving our full allegiance to a “lord” whose realm is “not of this world”?

Is it possible to “wash our hands” of responsibility for the injustices in the world that we are aware of?

How much influence does “the crowd” really have on us?

On Line Bible Study - For the Week August 26 - September 1, 2013

Lesson 573

Peter Denies ...

We will spend a moment longer at this stage (Jesus Before the Jewish Authorities).  But our focus will be on Peter.  Father Raymond Brown points out the consistent manner in which the denial of Peter is contained within the four gospels ... and yet there are excruciatingly frustrating details of disagreement.  We are gong to focus on two of the denials of Peter (not three); and we are going to limit our consideration to only one of the gospels - the Gospel of John.  There is a link to the text above (Peter Denies).

Throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus says: "I am ...":

• "I am he."  (John 4:26)
• "I am the bread of life."  (John 6:35)
• "I am the living bread".  (John 6:51)
• "I am from him."  (John 7:29)
• "I am the light of the world."  "I am the light of life."  (John 8:12)
• "I am one who testifies for myself."  (John 8:18)
• "I am he [Son of Man].  (John 8:28)
• "Before Abraham was born, I am!"  (John 8:58)
• "I am the good shepherd."  (John 10:11, 14)

For all the "I am's" of Jesus (and above is only a partial list from John's gospel), Peter's denial rings out in stark contrast.  To the question: Aren't you one of his disciples? Peter responds with an unequivocal I am not!  Jesus is so passionately for us; we are just as energetically against him.  It's not that the other gospels are sketchy on Peter's denial; it's just that in John, he is so absolute in his denial, and the language is so similar - except for that one word: not.

Perhaps the evangelist wants us to see this contrast, and to reflect on it.  Are we as certain that we would never deny Jesus?  Are we as confident that our speaking and our actions would never contradict or compromise the teachings of Christ?

Thinking for a moment of the Gospel of Luke, there is a question put to Jesus by the Council: Are you the Son of God?  Jesus replies: You say that I am ...  Perhaps we are more honest when we say Jesus is the "Son of God" than we are when we say we are his disciples.

On Line Bible Study - For the Week August 19 - 25, 2013

Lesson 572
Jesus Before the Jewish Authorities

First, we have to acknowledge that the passion of Jesus has been used to create and perpetuate anti-Jewish antagonism.
Second, we have to exercise caution with regard to any comparison between contemporary legal systems and the ancient legal traditions of both the Jewish religion authorities and the Roman provincial governments.
There is a line in Deuteronomy 17:7 that reads: The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting that person to death, and then the hands of all the people.  In the revealed tradition of the Jews, accusation, trial, and the execution of the sentence were all part of a public process.
Father Raymond Brown offers a series of questions based on how scholars have dealt with this scene:

1. Was Jesus justly and legally condemned to death by men acting in good faith, believing that Jesus was a blasphemer who had intentionally misled the people?
2. Was the Jewish trial of Jesus illegal because witnesses had been forced to perjure themselves?
3. Were Jewish religious authorities acting ignobly for political and self-protective purposes?
4. Were they men who felt forced to act improperly, convinced of Jesus guilt but unable to prove it by legal means?

Legal systems are complicated.  We could easily get lost in the nuts and bolts surrounding questions of identity and authority.  What exactly happened after Jesus was seized?  Exactly who comprised the Sanhedrin?  How were they convened?  What was their authority?  What was the relationship between the Sanhedrin and Roman authorities?
St. Luke tells us Jesus was first taken to the home of the high priest where he was questioned, mocked and beaten.  Only later was he taken to the "council".
St. John reports that Jesus was first taken to the home of Annas, who was the father-in-law of the high priest.  He was questioned there, and then sent - bound - to Caiaphas for further interrogation.  There is no mention of a "council" or the Sanhedrin.
  One thing seems certain, and is consistent in the Biblical record: the time between accusation, verdict, sentencing, and the execution of the sentence regarding Jesus was brief.  Whether the Sanhedrin was a "preliminary hearing", or functioning as a legal arm of the Jews under the umbrella of Roman legal authority, it didn't take those gathered much time to arrive at their conclusion.
Regardless of whether the motives were pure on behalf of the people, or self-protective to save their own skins, the charge is stated consistently throughout by way of the question:  Are you the Christ?  Are you a king?
The gospels have an agenda.  The question boomerangs back on those asking it.  Who do you say I am?  Everything Jesus has said and done now enters the narrow point in the hourglass of his life.  Not only does Jesus have to be crystal clear about his identity; we do, too.

On Line Bible Study - For the Week August 12 - 18, 2013

Lesson 571

Scene Two: The Arrest.

Judas.  A tragic figure.  He is mentioned 22 times in the Christian Testament.  Father Raymond Brown makes an interesting observation.  In the Gospel tradition, remembering that Mark is chronologically the earliest of the four, note the frequency of reference to Judas:

1.      Mark mentions Judas 3 times.  (3:19, 14:10, 14:43.)

2.      Matthew mentions Judas 5 times.  (10:4, 26:14, 26:25, 26:47, 27:3.  He is also listed among the 12 in 13:55, but with no reference to his act of betrayal.)

3.      Luke/Acts mentions Judas 6 times.  (6:16, 22:3, 22:47, 22:48.  Acts 1:16-17, 1:25.)

4.      John mentions Judas 8 times.  (6:71, 12:14, 13:2, 13:26, 13:29, 14:22, 18:2, 18:3.)

Fr. Brown wonders if this doesn't suggest an interest in Judas that grew over the decades as the gospel story came together, represented by the increase over time of the mention of Judas.

Did Judas “betray” Jesus, or “hand him over”?  Is there a difference?  Recalling that Jerusalem and surrounding areas were busy during the time of the feast, and recalling that Jesus managed at other times to evade the crowd, Judas agrees to do two things (Brown).  He knows where Jesus will be, so he can lead the authorities to him.  And, in a crowd, he can quickly pick Jesus out, assuring a valid identification.

Swords.  Such irony.  The “Prince of Peace” is arrested in the midst of the threat of increased violence.  The crowd came with swords and clubs; the followers of Jesus were armed (?).  With tempers fueled by a curious mix of fear and self-righteousness, the situation was extremely volatile.  Would that the authority of Jesus – and his word to “Put away your sword” (Matthew and John), and his even stronger command – “No more of this!” (Luke) – would that his word might ring in the streets of Cairo and the halls of America’s congress.  It is hard to imagine Jesus being anything but thoroughly disgusted with the United States’ arsenal of weapons.  In Luke’s telling of the arrest, Jesus doesn’t just give a command; he reverses the effect of violence.  That is both the example to us and the way for us – We must say: No more! to the violence in this world; but we must also be diligent now to reverse the effects of the violence that erupts every day.

Abandonment.  What happened to the impulse to stand their ground and fight?  The disciples of Jesus, so ready at first to draw their sword, are now looking to put as much distance between themselves and Jesus as possible.  It’s not likely that Jesus wanted them to put away your sword and then run away as fast as they could.  So frightening has the present and future become, and so toxic is it to be in proximity to Jesus that it is preferable to be naked.  Being “naked” in the Bible is never a good thing.  Is this what it has come to?  Are we like the proverbial emperor, refusing to acknowledge just how naked our sin is to the world?  Jesus takes hold of us, and we run.  Indeed, he 'stands his ground' - armed with nothing but love.