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.