(Gospel of John 21:1 - 21:14)
Afterwards, Jesus appeared again to his disciples in the following manner: Several of the apostles were by the Sea of Galilee, Simon-Peter, Thomas the Twin, Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples. Simon-Peter told them he was going out fishing and the others said they would accompany him. However, when they went out in the boat, they caught nothing all night.
At dawn Jesus was standing on the beach, but they didn't recognize who it was. He called out to them, “Hey boys, haven’t you caught any fish?"
"No, we haven't," they replied.
“Cast the net off your starboard beam and you'll find some!"
They did so, but they couldn't even haul in the net, because there were so many fish in it.
The disciple that Jesus loved told Peter, "It's the Master!"
When Peter heard this, he put on his clothes (for he had taken them off) and jumped into the water, as they were only about 200 cubits from land. The other disciples came in the boat, dragging the net full of fish. When they came ashore, they found fish cooking over a charcoal fire and some bread.
Jesus told them, "Bring some of the fish you've just caught." So Simon-Peter boarded the boat and hauled the net onto the beach. It contained 153 large fish, but despite it, the net hadn't torn.
"Come and have breakfast," Jesus invited them. None of the disciples dared ask who he was -- but they knew it was the Master. Jesus took the bread and served it to them and, similarly, served them the fish.
(This, therefore, was the third instance of Jesus revealing himself before his disciples after his resurrection from the dead.)
After they had finished eating, Jesus addressed Simon-Peter and asked him, "Do you, Simon, son of Jonas, love me more than the others do?"
"Yes, Master," he replied. "You know that I love you."
"Feed my lambs," he told him and asked him again, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?"
"Yes, Master, you know that I love you," he again replied.
“Be a shepherd to my sheep," he told him, but asked, "Simon, son of Jonas, do you love me?"
Peter's feelings were hurt when Jesus had asked him a third time whether he loved him, but he responded, "Master, you know all things, so you must know that I love you."
"Feed my sheep," Jesus told him. "I tell you truly, when you were young you dressed yourself and went wherever you wanted to go, but when you become old you will stretch out your arms. Someone else will dress you and lead you where you don't want to go. (Jesus mentioned this to indicate the manner of death by which he would glorify God.) Jesus then bid him, "Follow me!"
Peter looked back at the disciple that Jesus loved (the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and asked, "Master, who will betray you?”). Peter questioned Jesus,”What will he do, Master?"
"If I wish him to stay here until I return, how does that concern you? You must follow me!" Jesus commanded.
(A rumor spread through the community of believers that this disciple would not die. Yet, Jesus did not say so, only, "If I wish him to stay here until I return, how does that concern you?”)
This is the disciple who was a witness to these events and who recorded them. (And we affirm that his account is accurate.) But there are other things that Jesus accomplished, so many that if each one were written down, I dare say the world would scarcely have room for all the books that would result.
Notes
1. The Gospel of John seems to have come to end in the last chapter, but here we have what seems like an appendix, a coda, something added on after the work had been completed. Perhaps this was a story heard by the author(s) and put it at the end of the book since it was too good to leave out (and it is). But we also have another apt concluding paragraph with the Apostle John taking credit for the authorship of the gospel.
2. The miracle of the abundant catch of fish is one of the miracles that, if it is true, must be just that, a miracle, not a misunderstanding, a parlor trick, an illusion, or an hallucination.
3. Interesting that the exact number of fish in the net is known, but the names of all the disciples present is not. Who was it that made the count and came up with 153 fish? If it were 150, one would assume it was an estimate, but 153 is precise. Does the number convey some symbolic significance or esoteric meaning? Perhaps it is like the story of the white hunter who was thrown exactly 47 yards by the tusks of a charging elephant -- he went back later with a yard stick to measure the distance.
4. Seven of the 12 apostles are present during this miracle. Among them were the sons of Zebedee, James and John. Zebedee was a prosperous fisherman who lived near the fishing town of Bethsaida on the north shore of the Sea of Galilee.
5. As is the case with the other postmortem appearances of Jesus, he acts somewhat weirdly, that is, not casually or naturally. The gospel's self-declared author, John (the disciple Jesus loved, as he continually and annoyingly refers to himself) is the one who recognizes Jesus standing on the shore. As usual, it is Peter who acts first. The "big fisherman" impulsively jumps off the boat and swims ashore in an apparent eagerness to see Jesus. (The distance was 200 cubits, about 100 yards.) The story omits any greeting they might have had for each other. Jesus simply invites them to breakfast. No one says, "Hi, Jesus. Hey, I thought you were dead!" Jesus never explains himself. The disciples know it is Jesus, but his appearance must have been altered in some way that made them have some initial doubt of it.
6. Jesus has breakfast ready, including fish. But he asks Peter to bring him some of the fish they have just caught. Did Jesus gut, bone, and cook them himself? Jesus has a charcoal fire ready. (Not a coal fire, for coal was not yet used as a fuel.) Odd that he wouldn't have a wood fire, as one would expect. Did he bring a bag of charcoal down from Heaven with him? Ah, but it was a charcoal fire over which Peter denied Jesus; therefore he must now affirm him over a charcoal fire.
7. Jesus quizzes Peter whether he loves him or not. He asks him three times, probably because Peter denied knowing him three times. Jesus sounds like a nagging wife demanding that her husband tell her he loves her. He tells Peter to feed and tend his lambs and sheep, that is, to take charge of his flock, his religious congregation. He is more or less appointing Peter as the leader of his followers. Peter is, of course, considered the first pope. The illusion to the manner of Peter's death is somewhat vague. Traditionally, Peter was crucified -- upside down - in 64 AD. The outstretched arms apparently refer to his crucifixion.
8. The Gospel of John is purported to have been written by the Apostle John, the disciple that Jesus loved. Few scholars today believe he could have been its author, or the author of Revelation and the epistles ascribed to John. Although authorities disagree as to the exact date it was written (65 AD is probably the earliest), the Gospel of John is believed to have been compiled well after the other gospels, Mark, Matthew, and Luke, (and subsequent to the death of the real John, unless he happened to have been unusually long lived). While the other three books are considered synoptic gospels, that is, they provide an overall summary of events, John highlights particular incidents. Therefore, the Gospel of John is generally conceded to have less authority as a chronicle, but, of the four canonical gospels, it is considered to possess the greatest spiritual depth.
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Monday, March 23, 2015
The Resurrection
(Gospel of John 20:1 - 20:31)
Early on Sunday morning while it was yet dark, Mary of Magdala visited the tomb and noticed that the stone had been removed from the entrance. She ran and fetched Simon-Peter and the other disciple (the one that Jesus loved). She told them, "They've taken the Master out of his tomb, and we don't know where they've put him!"
And so Peter and the other disciple went out to the tomb. Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent over and peered inside the tomb. He saw strips of linen lying on the ground, but did not enter. When Peter arrived, he went right inside. He saw the strips of linen. He also saw the cloth that had covered Jesus' head; it had been folded and was lying by itself away from the other wrappings. Then, the other disciple, the one who had reached the tomb first, went inside. He saw and was convinced. (But they still didn't comprehend that, in accordance to the Scriptures, Jesus must rise from the dead.) The disciples then went back to where they were staying.
But Mary of Magdala remained outside the tomb, weeping. As she did so, she happened to gaze into the tomb. There, she saw two beings dressed in white, one sitting at the head, the other at the foot of where Jesus' body had lain.
"Madame, why are you weeping?" they asked her.
"Because they've taken away my master, and I don't know where they've taken him," she told them. She turned to leave, but someone else was standing there. It was Jesus! But she didn't recognize him.
"Madam, why are you weeping?" he asked her. "Who is it you're looking for?"
Assuming he was the gardener, she asked of him, "Sir, if you have carried him away, please tell me where you've put him so I can go there and get him."
Jesus called to her, "Mary!"
She turned and exclaimed, "Rabboni!" (which means "teacher" in Aramaic.)
“Please don’t touch me,” Jesus warned her, “because I have yet to ascend to the Father. Go to my brethren and tell them, ‘I will be ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God’.”
Mary of Magdala went to see the disciples and announced, "I have seen the Master!" She told them what he had said.
On Sunday evening the doors of the house where the disciples were meeting were locked, for fear of the religious authorities. But Jesus appeared there and stood amongst them, saying, "Peace be with you." After that he showed them his wounded hands and side. The disciples were filled with joy when they saw the Master. Jesus again said, "Peace be with you," and "As the Father has sent me, I send you." He breathed upon them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit! If you forgive someone's sins, they will be forgiven. If you withhold forgiveness, then such forgiveness will be withheld.”
Thomas (called the Twin), one of the twelve apostles, was not with the others when Jesus appeared. They told him, "We have seen the Master." He answered, "Well, I won't believe it until I see the nail wounds in his hands, put my fingers into them, and place my hand into the wound on his side."
A week later the disciples were again in the same house and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were closed, Jesus appeared and stood among them. "Peace be with you," he declared. To Thomas he said, "Put your finger here and observe my hands. Stretch out your arm and place your hand into the wound at my side. Cast aside your doubts and --- believe!"
"My Master, my God!" Thomas responded.
Jesus said to him, "You have come to believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who have not seen and still believe."
Jesus performed before his disciples many other miracles that are not recorded in this book. But these have been written down so that you may continue to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and through that belief you may achieve in his name life everlasting.
Notes
1. Mary of Magdala come to the tomb early in the morning on Sunday. Jesus had already risen and left the tomb on Saturday at dusk. Since Jesus more than once prophesied, unambiguously, that he would spend three days and three nights in the grave, we must therefore assume that he was entombed at the end of the day on Wednesday, expiring on the cross in the mid afternoon. The following day, Thursday, the 15th day of Nisan was the first day of Passover, and the Passover seder was eaten the night before. (One must always remember that the new day begins just after sundown.) The day of crucifixion was not Friday, the day before the weekly Sabbath, but Wednesday, the day before the holiday of Passover. This misunderstanding has resulted from confused translations and the failure to realize that during the week of Jesus’ crucifixion there were, in fact, two Sabbaths. Although there are some ambiguities and inconsistencies in the gospels, the preponderance of evidence points clearly to a Wednesday crucifixion. If the three-day-and-three-night prophecy is taken seriously (and if it didn't come to pass, it surely would have been deleted from the gospel narratives), then belief in a Friday crucifixion is indefensible. The false Good Friday, an error almost two millennium in duration, continues to be observed not because it is biblical, but because it is traditional. (The lengths to which biblical apologists will go to defend a Friday crucifixion is mind-blowing, especially the insistence that three days and three nights really can fit within a time period of less than 36 hours.) Knowing that the Passover was on Thursday, it can be determined that the crucifixion occurred on Wednesday, March 24, 34 AD, not on the commonly accepted dates of 30 AD (which is too early anyway) or 33 AD, when the Passovers were on Friday evenings. Since he was preceded by John the Baptist, Jesus’ ministry would have begun after 29 AD, the 15th year of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius, when the evangelism of John the Baptist was reported to have begun (Gospel of Luke). There is sufficient time for all the gospel events to have taken place, which is doubtful if the earlier dates are accepted. And in 34 AD Caiaphas was still high priest and Pontius Pilate was still governor. The conversion of Paul, therefore, would have occurred in 35 AD, which is not too late to conform to other events of known chronology.
2. An important part of the Resurrection narrative is that the stone sealing the tomb is rolled away -- or maybe dragged away, or picked up and moved. The impression is given that the tomb opening is not that large. It is, of course, large enough to accommodate a body, but it seems that one must stoop to peer inside. Even so, the size of a boulder or dressed stone needed to block and close the entrance would have been fairly massive, too weighty for a man of normal strength to heave by himself. So, who moved the stone? Jesus, endowed posthumously with superhuman strength, or some other being or beings who had materialized inside the tomb could have moved it from the inside. Or some persons or otherworldly beings could have moved it from the outside. Or the stone could have been moved by some force acting upon it.
3. It is assumed that the stone was moved so that Jesus could exit the tomb. After he left the tomb, he didn't put the stone back, presumably to leave evidence of his departure from the grave and his resurrection. However, since Jesus was now able to materialize and dematerialize, he would not have needed to move the stone to free himself from his tomb. So the moving of the stone was strictly for show.
4. Jesus unwraps his grave clothes, the spiced linen strips in which his once dead body was wound, and leaves them lying on the ground. He removed the head cloth. For whatever reason, he doesn't discard it with the strips of linen, but folds (or rolls) it up, neatly one assumes, and places it elsewhere. This gives the impression that the resurrection was a mere reawakening, a returning to life. For instance, his grave clothes were not burned off his body in a numinous flash of light and lightning. There is no mention of a shroud and if a shroud had been laid across his body, which it might have been, it would not, like the still-controversial Shroud of Turin, have received the impression of his wounds, since his body was swathed in linen. (If the Shroud of Turin is genuine and was created in a burst of some divine energy produced during the resurrection process, as is often claimed, then the gospel accounts of a deceased Jesus undergoing normal burial procedure, being wrapped in linen, must be incorrect.)
5. Peter and the disciple that Jesus loved, presumably John, rush to the tomb, summoned by Mary of Magdala when she finds the stone has been removed from the entrance. John reaches the tomb first. Why? Well, the assumed author of the account must keep a little glory for himself. And it must be considered that Peter was a big guy and probably not as fast a runner as John was and therefore, would have gotten there last. But Peter was a rash, impetuous man, so he entered the tomb immediately without thinking. He was the apostle leader and it was his place to do so. However, it is Mary of Magdala who is able to see the risen Jesus first and not the apostles Peter and John. One may speculate as to the reason for this, but perhaps Jesus simply wasn't ready to face his disciples at that point and wanted to visit them when they were all together. Or he may have valued Mary of Magdala more than any of his disciples.
6. Looking into the tomb, Mary first sees the two beings dressed in white sitting on the place where Jesus' body had been placed. Why were they not seen before by Peter and John? Were they incorporeal and decided to reveal themselves only to Mary of Magdala? Why were they seated? Were they tired? Was the tomb too small for standing room? One assumes that the beings were from Heaven and had come to assist Jesus after the resurrection, or to facilitate the resurrection -- perhaps to remove the stone from the tomb entrance. But why would the Son of God need their assistance? Irrespective of their function, their appearance sets the stage for the revelation of the miraculous event. It suggests that Jesus, now risen, is no longer in the company of men, but of heavenly beings.
7. Mary of Magdala does not recognize Jesus when she first sees him. Is this because he has been physically altered after his resurrection, or because it is still dark and she wasn't able to get a good look at him? Jesus himself first treats her as if he doesn't know who she is, as if she is a stranger, only later addressing her by name. She is warned about touching or holding on to Jesus. Why? Is he radioactive? Will she get an electric shock? Obviously if Jesus is still inhabiting a reanimated physical body, it has been altered in some way. Or, if his spirit is manifest in an astral body that appears in all respects material, he may be fearful she will find that his body is not wholly corporeal and be freaked out. Later, though, when Jesus appears to Thomas, he has the doubting disciple touch the wounds he received on the cross. This would lead one to believe that his body was entirely physical, although Jesus feels no pain from his earthly wounds. Yet, he materializes in the presence of his disciples (he doesn't just walk in the door), something that he, despite being the self-declared Son of God, was not able or willing to do while he was alive. Is this the manifestation of a physical body or the total materialization of an astral one? If the astral body is being seen, then what has happened to the physical body? He could have just as easily have appeared before his disciples in astral form with his physical body still in the tomb, yet the gospels support the belief that Jesus appears postmortem in the same physical body he inhabited during his life.
8. A compelling question, seldom asked, is what happened to the 75 pounds of aloes and myrrh applied to Jesus' body and his grave clothes. Wouldn't he have reeked of the stuff when Mary of Magdala saw him, or did he have time to bathe? It is not mentioned how Jesus was clothed. I'm sure Mary would have noticed if he was still nude and covered with lash wounds. Did someone, the beings in white perhaps, present him with some resurrection-appropriate wardrobe?
9. Thomas, a man from the Holy Land equivalent of Missouri, does not believe the other disciples when they say they have seen the once dead Jesus alive. He is somewhat maligned in this regard. He is not doubting Jesus, he is doubting Jesus' disciples. He is merely questioning what seems preposterous and incredible. When, on his second appearance before them, Jesus allows him to examine and touch his wounds, Thomas is convinced. But Jesus does not compliment his common-sense caution, but praises those who do not need to see to believe. He and the religion promulgated under his name values faith above all: to believe without proof is nobler than believing after evidence has been presented and examined, and reasoned conclusions formed. Thomas, who evinces the skepticism of a man who thinks, who accepts nothing unquestioningly, is not the sort of sheep-like follower that Jesus is apparently seeking.
10. Jesus gives his apostles the authority to forgive or not to forgive sins, assuming what one would think would be the sole prerogative of God, or at least the Son of God. They were to be divine judges. Were the apostles faultless in their assessment of guilt? Did they have omniscient knowledge of facts or some infallible insight into the hearts of men?
11. Incidences of people, especially those suffering a sudden, traumatic death, appearing in apparently physical form after death are not uncommon. Sometimes ghostly apparitions are witnessed, but there are well authenticated cases of manifestations that are indistinguishable from a living person. These wraiths often communicate telepathically, but there are occasions as well when a total materialization allows for seemingly normal verbal communication.
12. The mystery of the resurrection, of what really happened -- whether it is a complete myth or utter fact or something between -- cannot be solved. With any mystery there are many things that are probably, but unprovably true, things which only might be true, but always a few things that can be accepted as incontrovertible fact. Here, there is nothing that can be accepted without question, nothing upon which a theory can be solidly built. For no historian contemporary with Jesus ever referred to him; there is no record of his life outside the gospels. The gospels are purportedly first-hand accounts, but we know that their authors were not the apostles to whom they were ascribed. They are, therefore, second-hand accounts at best. They were written decades after the fact. And they are religious propaganda intended to glorify its subject, indoctrinate the faithful, and convert the doubtful, not objective historical records. The gospels themselves disagree and present conflicting and incompatible accounts. In the end, the truth that Pilate inquired about cannot be known.
Early on Sunday morning while it was yet dark, Mary of Magdala visited the tomb and noticed that the stone had been removed from the entrance. She ran and fetched Simon-Peter and the other disciple (the one that Jesus loved). She told them, "They've taken the Master out of his tomb, and we don't know where they've put him!"
And so Peter and the other disciple went out to the tomb. Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent over and peered inside the tomb. He saw strips of linen lying on the ground, but did not enter. When Peter arrived, he went right inside. He saw the strips of linen. He also saw the cloth that had covered Jesus' head; it had been folded and was lying by itself away from the other wrappings. Then, the other disciple, the one who had reached the tomb first, went inside. He saw and was convinced. (But they still didn't comprehend that, in accordance to the Scriptures, Jesus must rise from the dead.) The disciples then went back to where they were staying.
But Mary of Magdala remained outside the tomb, weeping. As she did so, she happened to gaze into the tomb. There, she saw two beings dressed in white, one sitting at the head, the other at the foot of where Jesus' body had lain.
"Madame, why are you weeping?" they asked her.
"Because they've taken away my master, and I don't know where they've taken him," she told them. She turned to leave, but someone else was standing there. It was Jesus! But she didn't recognize him.
"Madam, why are you weeping?" he asked her. "Who is it you're looking for?"
Assuming he was the gardener, she asked of him, "Sir, if you have carried him away, please tell me where you've put him so I can go there and get him."
Jesus called to her, "Mary!"
She turned and exclaimed, "Rabboni!" (which means "teacher" in Aramaic.)
“Please don’t touch me,” Jesus warned her, “because I have yet to ascend to the Father. Go to my brethren and tell them, ‘I will be ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God’.”
Mary of Magdala went to see the disciples and announced, "I have seen the Master!" She told them what he had said.
On Sunday evening the doors of the house where the disciples were meeting were locked, for fear of the religious authorities. But Jesus appeared there and stood amongst them, saying, "Peace be with you." After that he showed them his wounded hands and side. The disciples were filled with joy when they saw the Master. Jesus again said, "Peace be with you," and "As the Father has sent me, I send you." He breathed upon them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit! If you forgive someone's sins, they will be forgiven. If you withhold forgiveness, then such forgiveness will be withheld.”
Thomas (called the Twin), one of the twelve apostles, was not with the others when Jesus appeared. They told him, "We have seen the Master." He answered, "Well, I won't believe it until I see the nail wounds in his hands, put my fingers into them, and place my hand into the wound on his side."
A week later the disciples were again in the same house and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were closed, Jesus appeared and stood among them. "Peace be with you," he declared. To Thomas he said, "Put your finger here and observe my hands. Stretch out your arm and place your hand into the wound at my side. Cast aside your doubts and --- believe!"
"My Master, my God!" Thomas responded.
Jesus said to him, "You have come to believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who have not seen and still believe."
Jesus performed before his disciples many other miracles that are not recorded in this book. But these have been written down so that you may continue to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and through that belief you may achieve in his name life everlasting.
Notes
1. Mary of Magdala come to the tomb early in the morning on Sunday. Jesus had already risen and left the tomb on Saturday at dusk. Since Jesus more than once prophesied, unambiguously, that he would spend three days and three nights in the grave, we must therefore assume that he was entombed at the end of the day on Wednesday, expiring on the cross in the mid afternoon. The following day, Thursday, the 15th day of Nisan was the first day of Passover, and the Passover seder was eaten the night before. (One must always remember that the new day begins just after sundown.) The day of crucifixion was not Friday, the day before the weekly Sabbath, but Wednesday, the day before the holiday of Passover. This misunderstanding has resulted from confused translations and the failure to realize that during the week of Jesus’ crucifixion there were, in fact, two Sabbaths. Although there are some ambiguities and inconsistencies in the gospels, the preponderance of evidence points clearly to a Wednesday crucifixion. If the three-day-and-three-night prophecy is taken seriously (and if it didn't come to pass, it surely would have been deleted from the gospel narratives), then belief in a Friday crucifixion is indefensible. The false Good Friday, an error almost two millennium in duration, continues to be observed not because it is biblical, but because it is traditional. (The lengths to which biblical apologists will go to defend a Friday crucifixion is mind-blowing, especially the insistence that three days and three nights really can fit within a time period of less than 36 hours.) Knowing that the Passover was on Thursday, it can be determined that the crucifixion occurred on Wednesday, March 24, 34 AD, not on the commonly accepted dates of 30 AD (which is too early anyway) or 33 AD, when the Passovers were on Friday evenings. Since he was preceded by John the Baptist, Jesus’ ministry would have begun after 29 AD, the 15th year of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius, when the evangelism of John the Baptist was reported to have begun (Gospel of Luke). There is sufficient time for all the gospel events to have taken place, which is doubtful if the earlier dates are accepted. And in 34 AD Caiaphas was still high priest and Pontius Pilate was still governor. The conversion of Paul, therefore, would have occurred in 35 AD, which is not too late to conform to other events of known chronology.
2. An important part of the Resurrection narrative is that the stone sealing the tomb is rolled away -- or maybe dragged away, or picked up and moved. The impression is given that the tomb opening is not that large. It is, of course, large enough to accommodate a body, but it seems that one must stoop to peer inside. Even so, the size of a boulder or dressed stone needed to block and close the entrance would have been fairly massive, too weighty for a man of normal strength to heave by himself. So, who moved the stone? Jesus, endowed posthumously with superhuman strength, or some other being or beings who had materialized inside the tomb could have moved it from the inside. Or some persons or otherworldly beings could have moved it from the outside. Or the stone could have been moved by some force acting upon it.
3. It is assumed that the stone was moved so that Jesus could exit the tomb. After he left the tomb, he didn't put the stone back, presumably to leave evidence of his departure from the grave and his resurrection. However, since Jesus was now able to materialize and dematerialize, he would not have needed to move the stone to free himself from his tomb. So the moving of the stone was strictly for show.
4. Jesus unwraps his grave clothes, the spiced linen strips in which his once dead body was wound, and leaves them lying on the ground. He removed the head cloth. For whatever reason, he doesn't discard it with the strips of linen, but folds (or rolls) it up, neatly one assumes, and places it elsewhere. This gives the impression that the resurrection was a mere reawakening, a returning to life. For instance, his grave clothes were not burned off his body in a numinous flash of light and lightning. There is no mention of a shroud and if a shroud had been laid across his body, which it might have been, it would not, like the still-controversial Shroud of Turin, have received the impression of his wounds, since his body was swathed in linen. (If the Shroud of Turin is genuine and was created in a burst of some divine energy produced during the resurrection process, as is often claimed, then the gospel accounts of a deceased Jesus undergoing normal burial procedure, being wrapped in linen, must be incorrect.)
5. Peter and the disciple that Jesus loved, presumably John, rush to the tomb, summoned by Mary of Magdala when she finds the stone has been removed from the entrance. John reaches the tomb first. Why? Well, the assumed author of the account must keep a little glory for himself. And it must be considered that Peter was a big guy and probably not as fast a runner as John was and therefore, would have gotten there last. But Peter was a rash, impetuous man, so he entered the tomb immediately without thinking. He was the apostle leader and it was his place to do so. However, it is Mary of Magdala who is able to see the risen Jesus first and not the apostles Peter and John. One may speculate as to the reason for this, but perhaps Jesus simply wasn't ready to face his disciples at that point and wanted to visit them when they were all together. Or he may have valued Mary of Magdala more than any of his disciples.
6. Looking into the tomb, Mary first sees the two beings dressed in white sitting on the place where Jesus' body had been placed. Why were they not seen before by Peter and John? Were they incorporeal and decided to reveal themselves only to Mary of Magdala? Why were they seated? Were they tired? Was the tomb too small for standing room? One assumes that the beings were from Heaven and had come to assist Jesus after the resurrection, or to facilitate the resurrection -- perhaps to remove the stone from the tomb entrance. But why would the Son of God need their assistance? Irrespective of their function, their appearance sets the stage for the revelation of the miraculous event. It suggests that Jesus, now risen, is no longer in the company of men, but of heavenly beings.
7. Mary of Magdala does not recognize Jesus when she first sees him. Is this because he has been physically altered after his resurrection, or because it is still dark and she wasn't able to get a good look at him? Jesus himself first treats her as if he doesn't know who she is, as if she is a stranger, only later addressing her by name. She is warned about touching or holding on to Jesus. Why? Is he radioactive? Will she get an electric shock? Obviously if Jesus is still inhabiting a reanimated physical body, it has been altered in some way. Or, if his spirit is manifest in an astral body that appears in all respects material, he may be fearful she will find that his body is not wholly corporeal and be freaked out. Later, though, when Jesus appears to Thomas, he has the doubting disciple touch the wounds he received on the cross. This would lead one to believe that his body was entirely physical, although Jesus feels no pain from his earthly wounds. Yet, he materializes in the presence of his disciples (he doesn't just walk in the door), something that he, despite being the self-declared Son of God, was not able or willing to do while he was alive. Is this the manifestation of a physical body or the total materialization of an astral one? If the astral body is being seen, then what has happened to the physical body? He could have just as easily have appeared before his disciples in astral form with his physical body still in the tomb, yet the gospels support the belief that Jesus appears postmortem in the same physical body he inhabited during his life.
8. A compelling question, seldom asked, is what happened to the 75 pounds of aloes and myrrh applied to Jesus' body and his grave clothes. Wouldn't he have reeked of the stuff when Mary of Magdala saw him, or did he have time to bathe? It is not mentioned how Jesus was clothed. I'm sure Mary would have noticed if he was still nude and covered with lash wounds. Did someone, the beings in white perhaps, present him with some resurrection-appropriate wardrobe?
9. Thomas, a man from the Holy Land equivalent of Missouri, does not believe the other disciples when they say they have seen the once dead Jesus alive. He is somewhat maligned in this regard. He is not doubting Jesus, he is doubting Jesus' disciples. He is merely questioning what seems preposterous and incredible. When, on his second appearance before them, Jesus allows him to examine and touch his wounds, Thomas is convinced. But Jesus does not compliment his common-sense caution, but praises those who do not need to see to believe. He and the religion promulgated under his name values faith above all: to believe without proof is nobler than believing after evidence has been presented and examined, and reasoned conclusions formed. Thomas, who evinces the skepticism of a man who thinks, who accepts nothing unquestioningly, is not the sort of sheep-like follower that Jesus is apparently seeking.
10. Jesus gives his apostles the authority to forgive or not to forgive sins, assuming what one would think would be the sole prerogative of God, or at least the Son of God. They were to be divine judges. Were the apostles faultless in their assessment of guilt? Did they have omniscient knowledge of facts or some infallible insight into the hearts of men?
11. Incidences of people, especially those suffering a sudden, traumatic death, appearing in apparently physical form after death are not uncommon. Sometimes ghostly apparitions are witnessed, but there are well authenticated cases of manifestations that are indistinguishable from a living person. These wraiths often communicate telepathically, but there are occasions as well when a total materialization allows for seemingly normal verbal communication.
12. The mystery of the resurrection, of what really happened -- whether it is a complete myth or utter fact or something between -- cannot be solved. With any mystery there are many things that are probably, but unprovably true, things which only might be true, but always a few things that can be accepted as incontrovertible fact. Here, there is nothing that can be accepted without question, nothing upon which a theory can be solidly built. For no historian contemporary with Jesus ever referred to him; there is no record of his life outside the gospels. The gospels are purportedly first-hand accounts, but we know that their authors were not the apostles to whom they were ascribed. They are, therefore, second-hand accounts at best. They were written decades after the fact. And they are religious propaganda intended to glorify its subject, indoctrinate the faithful, and convert the doubtful, not objective historical records. The gospels themselves disagree and present conflicting and incompatible accounts. In the end, the truth that Pilate inquired about cannot be known.
Saturday, March 21, 2015
The Crucifixion and Burial of Jesus
(Gospel of John 19:17 - 19:43)
Bearing the cross himself, Jesus went out of the city to a hill called the Place of the Skull (or Golgotha, in Hebrew). There the soldiers nailed him to the cross. Two others were crucified with him; they were placed on either side, with Jesus between them. Pilate had posted on the cross an inscription that read, "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Judeans." Many people were able to read the inscription because it was written in Aramaic, Latin, and Greek and the location where Jesus was crucified was just outside the city. The chief priests, though, complained to Pilate, "Don’t write ‘King of the Judeans,’ but instead, ‘He who claims to be King of the Judeans’.” But Pilate dismissed their objections. "What I have written, I have written,” he told them.
As soon as the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they helped themselves to his clothes, dividing them evenly between the four of them. Remaining was the undergarment, the tunic. This article was woven from top to bottom and, therefore, had no seam. "Let's not tear it," they decided. "Let's draw lots to see who gets it." And that's what the soldiers did, fulfilling a prophecy that said, "They divided my garments among them and drew lots for my clothing.”
Standing near the cross were Jesus' mother, Mary, her sister-in-law, Mary, who was the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. When Jesus saw his mother there with a disciple he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Madam, here is your son!” And to the disciple he said, “Here is your mother." And from that time the disciple would shelter her in his own home.
Shortly after, Jesus, knowing that all had now come to fruition said, in fulfillment of prophecy, "I'm thirsty!" A jar of vinegar was there, and so the soldiers soaked a sponge in the vinegar. They attached the sponge to the end of a hyssop branch and conveyed it to his mouth. After tasting it, Jesus proclaimed, "It is finished!" He bowed his head and expired.
As it was the day of Preparation of the Passover and the following day was to be a special holiday, the religious authorities did not want any bodies left on the crosses. They requested of Pilate that the crucified men have their legs broken and removed from the crosses. The soldiers thus came and broke the legs of one of the men who were crucified with Jesus, and then the other, but when they came to Jesus, they found that he had already died; therefore they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, causing a spurting of blood and water. (An eye witness testified to this factual event. He insists that he speaks the truth, so you can believe him.) These things occurred in fulfillment of Scriptures that prophesied, "None of his bones will be broken," and "They will gaze upon the one that has been pierced."
After this, Joseph of Arimathea, who was only a secret follower of Jesus because he feared the religious authorities, asked Pilate if he could take custody of the body of Jesus. With Pilate's permission he came and took the body away. He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who had visited Jesus by night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, a quantity weighing 100 litras. According to the burial customs of the Judeans, the body was wrapped in linen sheets soaked in spices. Near the place where Jesus had been crucified was a park and in it a new tomb in which no one had been interred. Since it was the day of Preparation before the Hebrew Passover and since the tomb was so near, they laid Jesus to rest there.
Notes
1. Golgotha, or the Place of the Skull, was just outside the Jerusalem city gates. Helena, the mother of Emperor Constantine, identified in 325 AD what has become the traditional location of Golgotha (or Calvary). Constantine built the Church of the Holy Sepulchre there; it is the Christian Quarter of the Old City. Alternative sites have been proposed, including one, on Skull Hill, north of the Damascus Gate, that was famously endorsed by the famous British General Charles George "Chinese" Gordon during his travels in Palestine in 1882, a few years before his death at Khartoum. (Gordon, an evangelical Christian and a believer in reincarnation, also asserted that the earth was enclosed in a hollow sphere with Heaven above Jerusalem and Hell above the Pitcairn Islands and that Eden was on the Seychelles in the Indian Ocean.)
2. That Jesus carried his own cross is scarcely possible. The stake and crossbar would have comprised a very serious piece of timber perhaps weighing as much as 300 pounds. Even a man of Herculean physique would find it a bit dicey carrying such a load especially after being whipped nearly to death. Stakes were usually permanently installed in the place of execution. It seems more likely that Jesus was forced to carry on his back just the crossbar, which would still weigh a 100 pounds or so. Jesus was nailed to the crossbar when he reached the site of execution. (The iron nails would eventually be removed and reused.) Then he was either hoisted to the top of the stake, or, more likely, the stake was lowered and with the crossbar attached, raised into position and secured. Best evidence suggests that the cross would have resembled a capital letter “T,” although it is not certain that the crossbar was, in fact, secured at the top of the stake. If his feet were secured, nailed or tied, or allowed to support the body with a shelf to stand on, it is possible that the nails were hammered through his hands. If not, the nails would have had to go through his wrists. The exact technique used can not be definitively determined; there were several variations on the crucifixion procedure. Victims were generally stripped naked and a man was lucky if his privates were not impaled. It was all intended to be the most excruciatingly painful, cruel, and undignified death possible. Romans reserved it mostly for slaves and rebels, and no free Roman citizen could be crucified. (That is why Paul, a Roman citizen, escaped crucifixion.) Enlightened Romans, such a Cicero, who lived a century before Jesus, deplored its barbarity and many advocated its abolition.
3. It seems credible that the soldiers might confiscate and keep for themselves the clothes of condemned criminals, but why would they want a sweaty, bloody, probably ragged tunic, the underwear of someone who was a non-Roman provincial and, in their eyes, either a criminal or a religious fanatic? Or did rags fetch so a high price on the market that Roman soldiers, who were fairly well paid, would fight over them? It is ambiguous whether lots were drawn for the clothes or if dice were thrown for them. Although dice have been around for thousands of years and comprised a popular form of gambling during the Roman Empire, their use was in fact illegal except during the Saturnalia. It seems plausible that the soldiers, rather than risk drawing the ire of their officer for what would be an infraction, would have simply drawn lots rather than using dice. (Short stick gets the dead guy's underwear!)
4. Present at the crucifixion are Jesus's mother, Mary, another Mary who was probably her sister-in-law or possibly her cousin and not her sister as most translations say. This Mary was probably also the wife of Clopas (Joseph's brother?), although this Mary and Clopas' wife could have been different people. The third (or fourth) woman there was Mary of Magdala (or Mary Magdalene), a devout follower referred to intriguingly in other gospels. She was probably from a place called Magdala, meaning "tower," although its location is not positively known. It is possible, though, that the term Magdalene could have another meaning. (It should be mentioned that this Mary is definitely not the repentant prostitute, as she has been popularly and incorrectly portrayed.) There is also present an unnamed disciple that Jesus loved. (I thought Jesus loved all his disciples.) This unnamed disciple would take Jesus' mother into his home and treat her as his own mother. Jesus apparently has no money or property to leave her, so she is reduced to having to stay with a stranger. But this is a noble gesture on Jesus’ part surely, seeing that his mother will be provided for while he is enduring a painful death on the cross. Note that when Jesus says to Mary, “Here is your son,” he is not referring to himself, but to the disciple -- who is probably meant to be John, the purported author of this gospel.
5. The two men who were crucified with Jesus are not here named. Traditionally they are thieves, career criminals, or rebels. The highly questionable 4th Century Gospel of Nicodemus identifies them as Dismas and Gestas, but it seems unlikely that their names would only be remembered centuries after the event.
6. The crucified man would endure a process of acute suffering that might take hours, or even days. Breaking the legs of the person being crucified would make him unable to support the body otherwise held up only by the nailed wrists or hands. He would then become unable to breathe and would soon die by asphyxiation. Jesus had already died, but, to make sure, a soldier throws a spear at him, piercing his side. That blood and water spurt out of the wound is, of course, miraculous and symbolic, the blood conveying atonement and the water, purification.
7. The soldier who threw the spear is unnamed in the John, but in Nicodemus he is identified as Longinus, a centurion who converted to Christianity and became a saint. Much was subsequently written of him, but he must be regarded as a strictly legendary personage. The Spear of Longinus, also known as the Holy Lance, or the Spear of Destiny, mentioned only in John, is a relic with much lore attached to it. Several candidates for the original have been revered. One, held for a thousand years in Nuremberg and Vienna, has been the center of several fascinating conspiracy theories involving the Nazis. Recent tests, though, have proven that the spear is a phony, old, but not nearly old enough to be the spear.
8. Practically every incident during the crucifixion occurs in order to fulfill some prophecy, or is it that the story is adjusted to make the prophecies seem to come true? Belief that Jesus is the Messiah partly hinges on the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, so the narrative, as propaganda, emphasizes this.
9. Joseph of Arimathea, who is presumed to be a wealthy man, claims the body. He is simply identified as a secret follower of Jesus and a friend of another, Nicodemus, but a huge amount of mythic material has been attached to him -- connections to the Holy Grail, his introduction of Christianity to England, his tutoring of Jesus as a boy, and so forth. Joseph is thought by some to be the uncle of Jesus, but the author of John obviously did not think so.
10. Those crucified were usually left to rot on the cross. It would have been very unusual for one to be taken down and given a proper burial. Pilate was, according to the narrative, available to grant Joseph of Arimathea permission to do just that. Good thing, for the resurrection story would have otherwise been more complicated. It is generally assumed that the tomb granted Jesus belonged to this Joseph, but John does not say so, only that the tomb happened to be handy and Joseph purchased it. The burial was hastily arranged, and there doesn’t seem to be anything like funeral held.
11. The myrrh and aloes brought by Nicodemus for the preparation of the body weighed 100 litras, about 75 pounds (some say 100 pounds). The quantity is preposterous. One might drolly question whether Jesus could even rise from his tomb weighed down by strips of spice-soaked linen strips weighing so much. And how did all this stuff cost? Did Nicodemus have a couple slaves to carry it for him? At any rate, it would all be wasted, for Jesus’ body would not need to be perfumed.
12. Most translations say that the tomb was located in a “garden.” I have used the word “park.” In modern usage a garden is commonly a plot of ground where flowers or vegetable are grown. A park is a large area of greenery and that is what is obviously meant here.
Bearing the cross himself, Jesus went out of the city to a hill called the Place of the Skull (or Golgotha, in Hebrew). There the soldiers nailed him to the cross. Two others were crucified with him; they were placed on either side, with Jesus between them. Pilate had posted on the cross an inscription that read, "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Judeans." Many people were able to read the inscription because it was written in Aramaic, Latin, and Greek and the location where Jesus was crucified was just outside the city. The chief priests, though, complained to Pilate, "Don’t write ‘King of the Judeans,’ but instead, ‘He who claims to be King of the Judeans’.” But Pilate dismissed their objections. "What I have written, I have written,” he told them.
As soon as the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they helped themselves to his clothes, dividing them evenly between the four of them. Remaining was the undergarment, the tunic. This article was woven from top to bottom and, therefore, had no seam. "Let's not tear it," they decided. "Let's draw lots to see who gets it." And that's what the soldiers did, fulfilling a prophecy that said, "They divided my garments among them and drew lots for my clothing.”
Standing near the cross were Jesus' mother, Mary, her sister-in-law, Mary, who was the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. When Jesus saw his mother there with a disciple he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Madam, here is your son!” And to the disciple he said, “Here is your mother." And from that time the disciple would shelter her in his own home.
Shortly after, Jesus, knowing that all had now come to fruition said, in fulfillment of prophecy, "I'm thirsty!" A jar of vinegar was there, and so the soldiers soaked a sponge in the vinegar. They attached the sponge to the end of a hyssop branch and conveyed it to his mouth. After tasting it, Jesus proclaimed, "It is finished!" He bowed his head and expired.
As it was the day of Preparation of the Passover and the following day was to be a special holiday, the religious authorities did not want any bodies left on the crosses. They requested of Pilate that the crucified men have their legs broken and removed from the crosses. The soldiers thus came and broke the legs of one of the men who were crucified with Jesus, and then the other, but when they came to Jesus, they found that he had already died; therefore they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, causing a spurting of blood and water. (An eye witness testified to this factual event. He insists that he speaks the truth, so you can believe him.) These things occurred in fulfillment of Scriptures that prophesied, "None of his bones will be broken," and "They will gaze upon the one that has been pierced."
After this, Joseph of Arimathea, who was only a secret follower of Jesus because he feared the religious authorities, asked Pilate if he could take custody of the body of Jesus. With Pilate's permission he came and took the body away. He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who had visited Jesus by night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, a quantity weighing 100 litras. According to the burial customs of the Judeans, the body was wrapped in linen sheets soaked in spices. Near the place where Jesus had been crucified was a park and in it a new tomb in which no one had been interred. Since it was the day of Preparation before the Hebrew Passover and since the tomb was so near, they laid Jesus to rest there.
Notes
1. Golgotha, or the Place of the Skull, was just outside the Jerusalem city gates. Helena, the mother of Emperor Constantine, identified in 325 AD what has become the traditional location of Golgotha (or Calvary). Constantine built the Church of the Holy Sepulchre there; it is the Christian Quarter of the Old City. Alternative sites have been proposed, including one, on Skull Hill, north of the Damascus Gate, that was famously endorsed by the famous British General Charles George "Chinese" Gordon during his travels in Palestine in 1882, a few years before his death at Khartoum. (Gordon, an evangelical Christian and a believer in reincarnation, also asserted that the earth was enclosed in a hollow sphere with Heaven above Jerusalem and Hell above the Pitcairn Islands and that Eden was on the Seychelles in the Indian Ocean.)
2. That Jesus carried his own cross is scarcely possible. The stake and crossbar would have comprised a very serious piece of timber perhaps weighing as much as 300 pounds. Even a man of Herculean physique would find it a bit dicey carrying such a load especially after being whipped nearly to death. Stakes were usually permanently installed in the place of execution. It seems more likely that Jesus was forced to carry on his back just the crossbar, which would still weigh a 100 pounds or so. Jesus was nailed to the crossbar when he reached the site of execution. (The iron nails would eventually be removed and reused.) Then he was either hoisted to the top of the stake, or, more likely, the stake was lowered and with the crossbar attached, raised into position and secured. Best evidence suggests that the cross would have resembled a capital letter “T,” although it is not certain that the crossbar was, in fact, secured at the top of the stake. If his feet were secured, nailed or tied, or allowed to support the body with a shelf to stand on, it is possible that the nails were hammered through his hands. If not, the nails would have had to go through his wrists. The exact technique used can not be definitively determined; there were several variations on the crucifixion procedure. Victims were generally stripped naked and a man was lucky if his privates were not impaled. It was all intended to be the most excruciatingly painful, cruel, and undignified death possible. Romans reserved it mostly for slaves and rebels, and no free Roman citizen could be crucified. (That is why Paul, a Roman citizen, escaped crucifixion.) Enlightened Romans, such a Cicero, who lived a century before Jesus, deplored its barbarity and many advocated its abolition.
3. It seems credible that the soldiers might confiscate and keep for themselves the clothes of condemned criminals, but why would they want a sweaty, bloody, probably ragged tunic, the underwear of someone who was a non-Roman provincial and, in their eyes, either a criminal or a religious fanatic? Or did rags fetch so a high price on the market that Roman soldiers, who were fairly well paid, would fight over them? It is ambiguous whether lots were drawn for the clothes or if dice were thrown for them. Although dice have been around for thousands of years and comprised a popular form of gambling during the Roman Empire, their use was in fact illegal except during the Saturnalia. It seems plausible that the soldiers, rather than risk drawing the ire of their officer for what would be an infraction, would have simply drawn lots rather than using dice. (Short stick gets the dead guy's underwear!)
4. Present at the crucifixion are Jesus's mother, Mary, another Mary who was probably her sister-in-law or possibly her cousin and not her sister as most translations say. This Mary was probably also the wife of Clopas (Joseph's brother?), although this Mary and Clopas' wife could have been different people. The third (or fourth) woman there was Mary of Magdala (or Mary Magdalene), a devout follower referred to intriguingly in other gospels. She was probably from a place called Magdala, meaning "tower," although its location is not positively known. It is possible, though, that the term Magdalene could have another meaning. (It should be mentioned that this Mary is definitely not the repentant prostitute, as she has been popularly and incorrectly portrayed.) There is also present an unnamed disciple that Jesus loved. (I thought Jesus loved all his disciples.) This unnamed disciple would take Jesus' mother into his home and treat her as his own mother. Jesus apparently has no money or property to leave her, so she is reduced to having to stay with a stranger. But this is a noble gesture on Jesus’ part surely, seeing that his mother will be provided for while he is enduring a painful death on the cross. Note that when Jesus says to Mary, “Here is your son,” he is not referring to himself, but to the disciple -- who is probably meant to be John, the purported author of this gospel.
5. The two men who were crucified with Jesus are not here named. Traditionally they are thieves, career criminals, or rebels. The highly questionable 4th Century Gospel of Nicodemus identifies them as Dismas and Gestas, but it seems unlikely that their names would only be remembered centuries after the event.
6. The crucified man would endure a process of acute suffering that might take hours, or even days. Breaking the legs of the person being crucified would make him unable to support the body otherwise held up only by the nailed wrists or hands. He would then become unable to breathe and would soon die by asphyxiation. Jesus had already died, but, to make sure, a soldier throws a spear at him, piercing his side. That blood and water spurt out of the wound is, of course, miraculous and symbolic, the blood conveying atonement and the water, purification.
7. The soldier who threw the spear is unnamed in the John, but in Nicodemus he is identified as Longinus, a centurion who converted to Christianity and became a saint. Much was subsequently written of him, but he must be regarded as a strictly legendary personage. The Spear of Longinus, also known as the Holy Lance, or the Spear of Destiny, mentioned only in John, is a relic with much lore attached to it. Several candidates for the original have been revered. One, held for a thousand years in Nuremberg and Vienna, has been the center of several fascinating conspiracy theories involving the Nazis. Recent tests, though, have proven that the spear is a phony, old, but not nearly old enough to be the spear.
8. Practically every incident during the crucifixion occurs in order to fulfill some prophecy, or is it that the story is adjusted to make the prophecies seem to come true? Belief that Jesus is the Messiah partly hinges on the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, so the narrative, as propaganda, emphasizes this.
9. Joseph of Arimathea, who is presumed to be a wealthy man, claims the body. He is simply identified as a secret follower of Jesus and a friend of another, Nicodemus, but a huge amount of mythic material has been attached to him -- connections to the Holy Grail, his introduction of Christianity to England, his tutoring of Jesus as a boy, and so forth. Joseph is thought by some to be the uncle of Jesus, but the author of John obviously did not think so.
10. Those crucified were usually left to rot on the cross. It would have been very unusual for one to be taken down and given a proper burial. Pilate was, according to the narrative, available to grant Joseph of Arimathea permission to do just that. Good thing, for the resurrection story would have otherwise been more complicated. It is generally assumed that the tomb granted Jesus belonged to this Joseph, but John does not say so, only that the tomb happened to be handy and Joseph purchased it. The burial was hastily arranged, and there doesn’t seem to be anything like funeral held.
11. The myrrh and aloes brought by Nicodemus for the preparation of the body weighed 100 litras, about 75 pounds (some say 100 pounds). The quantity is preposterous. One might drolly question whether Jesus could even rise from his tomb weighed down by strips of spice-soaked linen strips weighing so much. And how did all this stuff cost? Did Nicodemus have a couple slaves to carry it for him? At any rate, it would all be wasted, for Jesus’ body would not need to be perfumed.
12. Most translations say that the tomb was located in a “garden.” I have used the word “park.” In modern usage a garden is commonly a plot of ground where flowers or vegetable are grown. A park is a large area of greenery and that is what is obviously meant here.
Saturday, March 14, 2015
Jesus Appears Before Pilate
(Gospel of John 18:28 - 19:16)
It was early in the morning when Jesus was taken from Caiaphas to the headquarters of the Roman governor of Judea. Those who brought Jesus did not enter the palace, since that would have made them ritually impure and ineligible to participate in the upcoming Passover celebrations. Consequently Pontius Pilate, the governor, went out outside to see them. "What charge are you bringing against this man," he asked them.
"We wouldn't have delivered him to you if he were not a felon," they insisted.
"Well then, take charge of him yourselves and try him by your own laws," Pilate told them.
"But we are not permitted to execute anyone," they declared. (This occurred in order to fulfill what Jesus had prophesied about the manner of his death.)
Pilate went back into his headquarters and summoned Jesus there to question him.
"Are you the king of the Judeans?" he asked him.
"Is that your own question or did others tell you about me?" replied Jesus.
"Am I a Judean?" Pilate rejoined. "Look, your own people, your own religious leaders delivered you to me. What is it that you've done?"
Jesus' answer was: "My kingdom is not a kingdom of this world. If it were, my followers would have fought to prevent my arrest by the Judean authorities. But no, my kingdom is not of the here and now."
"So, you are a king?" Pilate challenged.
"You say that I'm a king. But the reason I was born, the reason I was brought into the world is this: to give voice to the truth. All who love the truth credit my words."
Pilate rejoined, "What is the truth?”
Pilate immediately went out to see the Judeans again and told them, "I find no grounds for charging this man. --- But I understand it is your custom to have me release one prisoner to you during the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release this ‘King of the Judeans’?”
But they all shouted back, "No, not this man. Give us Barabbas instead!" (The Barabbas they referred to was an insurgent.)
And so Pilate had Jesus scourged with a whip. Soldiers fashioned a crown of twisted thorn branches and forced it upon his head. They wrapped a purple robe around him. They repeatedly accosted him, crying, "Hail, the King of the Judeans!" and slapping his face.
Pilate went out again to see the Judeans who had brought Jesus to him and told them, “I am bringing him out to you, so you will see I find no grounds for charging this man.” When Jesus appeared wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate declared, “Behold, the man himself!"
When they saw him, the chief priests and the Temple guards began to yell, "Crucify him! Crucify him!"
Pilate told them, "You take him and crucify him. I have no case against him."
The religious leaders explained, “We have our law, and according to that law he must be put to death, because he proclaimed himself to be the Son of God."
When Pilate heard this, he was more alarmed than ever and reentered his palace to questioned Jesus. "Where do you come from?" But Jesus made no response. "Why do you refuse to speak? Don't you realize that I have the power to free you and also the power to crucify you."
Jesus responded, "You would have no power over me except that given to you from above. Therefore, those that handed me over to you are guilty of the greater sin."
From then on, Pilate endeavored to have Jesus released, but the Judean religious leaders chided him, "If you let this man go, you are no ally of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king can only be an enemy to the Emperor."
After they said this, Pilate brought out Jesus to them. Pilate installed himself on a judgment seat called the Stone Pavement (or, in Hebrew, Gabbatha). It was now noon on the day of the Preparation of the Passover. "Behold your king!" he told them.
"Away with Him! Away with him! Crucify him!" they cried.
Pilate asked, "What, crucify your king?"
"We have no king but Caesar!" the chief priests professed.
And so Pilate turned Jesus over to those who would crucify him, and they led Jesus away.
Notes
1. Nothing is said here at all of Jesus' interview with the high priest, Caiaphas, whom he saw after Annas and before Pilate. It is early morning when he is taken to Pilate and noon by the time Pilate delivers Jesus to the Judean religious authorities to be crucified. The Roman governor spent all morning dealing with Jesus, yet the proceedings recounted here would not seem to have taken up much time. One wonders what more was said and done. The flogging might have been a long session and perhaps there may have been several hours from the time was Jesus was sent out to be flogged until Pilate reappeared before the Judean priests and told them a second time he had no criminal case against Jesus.
2. Pontius Pilate was the governor of the Roman province of Judaea from 26 - 36 AD. Judaea incorporated Judea, Samaria to the north and Idumea to the south, with Jesus' Galilee a separate province. Pilate was of equestrian (and not senatorial) rank. An obscure political figure, little is known of him, although there is much apocryphal biographical material in early Christian texts, as well as much speculation about the degree to which he was guilty of Christ's crucifixion. He was probably born in Italy, but there are legends that variously place his origins in Scotland, Germany, or Spain. Officially, he held the title of prefect, not the lesser title of procurator, as was once thought. His chief duties were to collect taxes and to preserve order while leaving most of the civil administration to local, indigenous institutions. He was in charge of only a small military force of about 3000 men and was answerable to the governor, or legate of Syria, who commanded the major military forces in the region. According the contemporary historian, Philo of Alexandria, he antagonized his subjects by showing insufficient respect for their religious practices and was recalled after harshly suppressing a revolt by the Samaritans. He is briefly mentioned as well by later First-Century historians, the Roman Tacitus and the Judean Josephus. But firm confirmation of his historicity awaited the discovery in 1961 of an inscribed piece of limestone called the Pilate Stone, which mentions his name in the dedication of an early First-Century building in Caesarea Maritima (on the coast, located midway between present-day Haifa and Tel Aviv).
3. The soldiers make a crown of thorns for Jesus to make him a mock king. One would imagine, the thorns, digging into his head, would have been very painful, satisfying the soldiers penchant for cruelty -- making their prisoner suffer pain as well as degradation, adding injury to insult. The purple robe, symbolizing royalty, would have been red-violet in color, not what contemporary Americans generally regard as purple (half-way in hue between red and blue, or even on the blueish side). Scarlet is used in other gospels to describe the robe, but it is likely that the same red-violet color is meant. The Roman senators edged their white robes in purple to denote their class. And the term "born to the purple" is still used -- once in awhile at least. (In ancient times this color was produced by a prized color-fast dye extracted from the murex sea snail.) It is curious that the Roman soldiers, who had no personal interest in the matter or could have had no particular animosity against Jesus, would have gone to so much trouble to mock him. Why waste a purple robe on a criminal? Was there a closet of worn and discarded royal robes handy to use for making fun of prisoners? And the crown of thorns, did they have one on hand, ready for such a purpose? Were there a lot of thorny plants growing around the palace, or did the centurion send out a detail to gather thorn branches? Did he charge one of his men, owning a pair of heavy gloves, to fashion the crown described? (Since a crown suggests something more than just a band, some time and know-how must have needed to make it.)
4. The scourging or flagellation of the Christ is an important part of the Passion drama. (But why did Pilate have Jesus whipped when he was already convinced that Jesus had violated no law, wanted to set him free, and was ready to pardon him?) Flogging was, in fact, not peculiar to the treatment of Jesus, but a mandatory part of the crucifixion execution protocol. The whip used was short handled and sported two or three long leather thongs to which lead balls or bones were fastened. The person struck not only was lacerated by the thongs, but was bruised by the balls or bones. The victim was tied to a post and while his back took the brunt of the flogging most of his body, except perhaps the hands and forearms, would be cut by the whip. This pre-crucifixion ordeal would consist of at least hundred lashes, often many more, depending on not how long the victim could endure it, but on how long the scourger could keep up his strength. (A scourgee would be out of luck if the scourgers worked in shifts, as they sometimes did.) There was no maximum number of lashes that could be administered. The flogging, if it did not actually kill the convicted man, would ensure he would be at least half dead even before he was nailed to the cross. This was, in a way, a small mercy, since the poor chap would consequently suffer less in the prolonged agony of crucifixion. --- The modern notion is that executions should be quick and painless, impersonal, even clinical. But to the ancient way of thinking that would defeat the whole purpose of the thing, which was punishment through suffering. Today, (in the few backward, barbaric places where the death penalty is still in force) the soul marked for execution is given a comparatively painless release, but must endure a lengthy trial, protracted legal appeals, and the purgatory of a decade-long incarceration on death row. The ancients eschewed such subtle psychological torment in favor of physical torture, earthy, raw, and real. A death sentence meant something in those days -- excruciating pain.
5. Pontius Pilate is portrayed inconsistently and unbelievably -- sympathetic to Jesus, mocking Jesus, afraid that Jesus might be divine, dismissive of the priests, catering to the priests. He is courteous enough to go out of his palace to see the Judean religious leaders who did not wish to enter it because by doing so it would make them ritually impure. Pilate seems diplomatic, tactful, and gracious. They are obviously pestering him, wanting him to deal with a matter he believes is either outside his authority or too trivial for him to waste his time with. But he accedes to their wishes. He takes the trouble to interrogate Jesus, twice. He fails to see that Jesus has committed any crime and tries his best to convince the Judean priests to let him go free. But since Jesus is being charged with blasphemy, a religious violation and a capital offense, and the Romans have allowed the Judeans to freely practice their faith and enforce their religious customs as they see fit, Pilate concludes it is not his right to interfere. If they want Jesus crucified, he will not stop them, especially when he is convinced by the Judean priests that it is in Rome's interest that he do so. --- Pilate seems to have an ambivalent attitude toward Jesus. He addresses him politely, seems favorably impressed with him, and is more than willing to help him. Jesus, though, is unconcerned about saving himself. He is surly to Pilate, disrespectful, and unappreciative of the consideration the governor lends him. Pilate is baffled by this and put off. In the end he probably comes to view Jesus as a harmless crank who unfortunately must come to a tragic end. While there is a case to made from his remarks and reactions that he suspects that Jesus might really be the Son of God, it is unlikely that a pagan and a Roman would come to that conclusion, especially after so brief and unrevealing an interview. He is surely in jest when referring to Jesus as "King of the Judeans" (not Jews: the term is a misnomer, anachronistic, and without meaning in the 1st Century.) By bringing out Jesus with his crown of thrones and purple robe, he continues the taunting and mockery begun by his soldiers. That he would allow and even participate in such contemptibly barbaric and extra-legal treatment of a prisoner, though, strains credibility; it is very unlikely that a Roman governor would stoop to such behavior (or bother to stoop to it). In the end, Pilate’s character is molded to suit the demands of the narrative, his role in the Passion Play. That the author of John, writing more than a hundred years after the fact, would accurately divine Pilate’s character and motivations is a bit much to expect.
6. Barabbas is sometimes termed a bandit, but rebel, revolutionary, malcontent, insurgent would be more accurate a translation. (Nothing is really known of the man, even whether he existed or not.) The custom of a prisoner release on the Passover is referred to nowhere outside the gospels. It is quite obviously a dramatic invention, the purpose of which is show the temper of the Judean religious authorities and populace who preferred to save the life of some unsavory, violent person rather than the Son of God. It is inconceivable that the Roman governor would have subscribed to such a practice, especially Pilate who was probably fed up having to cater to Judaic traditions -- even if such a tradition existed, which it did not. Roman law and its administration may have been harsh, but it was not whimsical. Everything was done by the book, even crucifixions. Also, it is not credible that the Roman governor would have appeared before a group of Judeans and solicited their input on his actions. That would have been demeaning to his position. Pilate probably had little to do with and wanted to have little to do with the high priest and the Sanhedrin, the religious council. The high priest, Caiaphas, had been approved by him, but had been originally appointed by Pilate's superior in Syria. Roman rule of Judea was at this time very low key: the Empire simply wanted its tax money and an absence of civil discord. Pilate would have spent most of time in his administrative capital, Caesarea Maritima, although it is possible he might have been in Jerusalem during the Passover to ensure there was no disorder during the celebrations.
7. Jesus claims the purpose of his life is to bring the truth to the world. Pilate asks what is the truth. When he does so he is not posing some profound, philosophical enquiry. He is not asking what the truth means, simply what Jesus' truth consists of, that is, what is his message. He does not wait for a response, though, probably fearing his ear will be bent by the rant of a fanatic.
8. The author of John records dialogue between Jesus and Pilate that could be known only to the two men. Did someone conduct a post-crucifixion interview of Pilate in which he revealed what he and Jesus talked about? Jesus could not have told his disciples, or anyone else what he said to Pilate, unless he did so after his death. If divine inspiration was the source for the content of their conversations, then why do the gospels disagree and contradict each other? In historical novels the author must invent dialogue for his characters. Is this not being done here?
9. Given the situation and his position, Pontius Pilate could hardly act differently than he did, nor, in truth, could the Judaic priests, since they could not jeopardize their position by leaving unpunished a blasphemer and false prophet, especially one who made the claim that he was the Son of God. The narrative, though, throws most of the guilt upon the Judean, Judaic religious establishment who condemned Jesus. By the time the gospels were written, decades after the death of Jesus, Christianity was emerging as a universal religion and was no longer a sect of Judaism. Gentile converts were many and were entering leadership positions in what would be the Christian Church. It was, therefore, important to separate Christianity from conventional Judaism and to cast as villains those who had rejected Jesus and adhered to conventional Judaic beliefs. "The Jews killed Jesus" would be a propaganda myth that would weigh upon a race and a religion like a curse for two thousand years.
It was early in the morning when Jesus was taken from Caiaphas to the headquarters of the Roman governor of Judea. Those who brought Jesus did not enter the palace, since that would have made them ritually impure and ineligible to participate in the upcoming Passover celebrations. Consequently Pontius Pilate, the governor, went out outside to see them. "What charge are you bringing against this man," he asked them.
"We wouldn't have delivered him to you if he were not a felon," they insisted.
"Well then, take charge of him yourselves and try him by your own laws," Pilate told them.
"But we are not permitted to execute anyone," they declared. (This occurred in order to fulfill what Jesus had prophesied about the manner of his death.)
Pilate went back into his headquarters and summoned Jesus there to question him.
"Are you the king of the Judeans?" he asked him.
"Is that your own question or did others tell you about me?" replied Jesus.
"Am I a Judean?" Pilate rejoined. "Look, your own people, your own religious leaders delivered you to me. What is it that you've done?"
Jesus' answer was: "My kingdom is not a kingdom of this world. If it were, my followers would have fought to prevent my arrest by the Judean authorities. But no, my kingdom is not of the here and now."
"So, you are a king?" Pilate challenged.
"You say that I'm a king. But the reason I was born, the reason I was brought into the world is this: to give voice to the truth. All who love the truth credit my words."
Pilate rejoined, "What is the truth?”
Pilate immediately went out to see the Judeans again and told them, "I find no grounds for charging this man. --- But I understand it is your custom to have me release one prisoner to you during the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release this ‘King of the Judeans’?”
But they all shouted back, "No, not this man. Give us Barabbas instead!" (The Barabbas they referred to was an insurgent.)
And so Pilate had Jesus scourged with a whip. Soldiers fashioned a crown of twisted thorn branches and forced it upon his head. They wrapped a purple robe around him. They repeatedly accosted him, crying, "Hail, the King of the Judeans!" and slapping his face.
Pilate went out again to see the Judeans who had brought Jesus to him and told them, “I am bringing him out to you, so you will see I find no grounds for charging this man.” When Jesus appeared wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate declared, “Behold, the man himself!"
When they saw him, the chief priests and the Temple guards began to yell, "Crucify him! Crucify him!"
Pilate told them, "You take him and crucify him. I have no case against him."
The religious leaders explained, “We have our law, and according to that law he must be put to death, because he proclaimed himself to be the Son of God."
When Pilate heard this, he was more alarmed than ever and reentered his palace to questioned Jesus. "Where do you come from?" But Jesus made no response. "Why do you refuse to speak? Don't you realize that I have the power to free you and also the power to crucify you."
Jesus responded, "You would have no power over me except that given to you from above. Therefore, those that handed me over to you are guilty of the greater sin."
From then on, Pilate endeavored to have Jesus released, but the Judean religious leaders chided him, "If you let this man go, you are no ally of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king can only be an enemy to the Emperor."
After they said this, Pilate brought out Jesus to them. Pilate installed himself on a judgment seat called the Stone Pavement (or, in Hebrew, Gabbatha). It was now noon on the day of the Preparation of the Passover. "Behold your king!" he told them.
"Away with Him! Away with him! Crucify him!" they cried.
Pilate asked, "What, crucify your king?"
"We have no king but Caesar!" the chief priests professed.
And so Pilate turned Jesus over to those who would crucify him, and they led Jesus away.
Notes
1. Nothing is said here at all of Jesus' interview with the high priest, Caiaphas, whom he saw after Annas and before Pilate. It is early morning when he is taken to Pilate and noon by the time Pilate delivers Jesus to the Judean religious authorities to be crucified. The Roman governor spent all morning dealing with Jesus, yet the proceedings recounted here would not seem to have taken up much time. One wonders what more was said and done. The flogging might have been a long session and perhaps there may have been several hours from the time was Jesus was sent out to be flogged until Pilate reappeared before the Judean priests and told them a second time he had no criminal case against Jesus.
2. Pontius Pilate was the governor of the Roman province of Judaea from 26 - 36 AD. Judaea incorporated Judea, Samaria to the north and Idumea to the south, with Jesus' Galilee a separate province. Pilate was of equestrian (and not senatorial) rank. An obscure political figure, little is known of him, although there is much apocryphal biographical material in early Christian texts, as well as much speculation about the degree to which he was guilty of Christ's crucifixion. He was probably born in Italy, but there are legends that variously place his origins in Scotland, Germany, or Spain. Officially, he held the title of prefect, not the lesser title of procurator, as was once thought. His chief duties were to collect taxes and to preserve order while leaving most of the civil administration to local, indigenous institutions. He was in charge of only a small military force of about 3000 men and was answerable to the governor, or legate of Syria, who commanded the major military forces in the region. According the contemporary historian, Philo of Alexandria, he antagonized his subjects by showing insufficient respect for their religious practices and was recalled after harshly suppressing a revolt by the Samaritans. He is briefly mentioned as well by later First-Century historians, the Roman Tacitus and the Judean Josephus. But firm confirmation of his historicity awaited the discovery in 1961 of an inscribed piece of limestone called the Pilate Stone, which mentions his name in the dedication of an early First-Century building in Caesarea Maritima (on the coast, located midway between present-day Haifa and Tel Aviv).
3. The soldiers make a crown of thorns for Jesus to make him a mock king. One would imagine, the thorns, digging into his head, would have been very painful, satisfying the soldiers penchant for cruelty -- making their prisoner suffer pain as well as degradation, adding injury to insult. The purple robe, symbolizing royalty, would have been red-violet in color, not what contemporary Americans generally regard as purple (half-way in hue between red and blue, or even on the blueish side). Scarlet is used in other gospels to describe the robe, but it is likely that the same red-violet color is meant. The Roman senators edged their white robes in purple to denote their class. And the term "born to the purple" is still used -- once in awhile at least. (In ancient times this color was produced by a prized color-fast dye extracted from the murex sea snail.) It is curious that the Roman soldiers, who had no personal interest in the matter or could have had no particular animosity against Jesus, would have gone to so much trouble to mock him. Why waste a purple robe on a criminal? Was there a closet of worn and discarded royal robes handy to use for making fun of prisoners? And the crown of thorns, did they have one on hand, ready for such a purpose? Were there a lot of thorny plants growing around the palace, or did the centurion send out a detail to gather thorn branches? Did he charge one of his men, owning a pair of heavy gloves, to fashion the crown described? (Since a crown suggests something more than just a band, some time and know-how must have needed to make it.)
4. The scourging or flagellation of the Christ is an important part of the Passion drama. (But why did Pilate have Jesus whipped when he was already convinced that Jesus had violated no law, wanted to set him free, and was ready to pardon him?) Flogging was, in fact, not peculiar to the treatment of Jesus, but a mandatory part of the crucifixion execution protocol. The whip used was short handled and sported two or three long leather thongs to which lead balls or bones were fastened. The person struck not only was lacerated by the thongs, but was bruised by the balls or bones. The victim was tied to a post and while his back took the brunt of the flogging most of his body, except perhaps the hands and forearms, would be cut by the whip. This pre-crucifixion ordeal would consist of at least hundred lashes, often many more, depending on not how long the victim could endure it, but on how long the scourger could keep up his strength. (A scourgee would be out of luck if the scourgers worked in shifts, as they sometimes did.) There was no maximum number of lashes that could be administered. The flogging, if it did not actually kill the convicted man, would ensure he would be at least half dead even before he was nailed to the cross. This was, in a way, a small mercy, since the poor chap would consequently suffer less in the prolonged agony of crucifixion. --- The modern notion is that executions should be quick and painless, impersonal, even clinical. But to the ancient way of thinking that would defeat the whole purpose of the thing, which was punishment through suffering. Today, (in the few backward, barbaric places where the death penalty is still in force) the soul marked for execution is given a comparatively painless release, but must endure a lengthy trial, protracted legal appeals, and the purgatory of a decade-long incarceration on death row. The ancients eschewed such subtle psychological torment in favor of physical torture, earthy, raw, and real. A death sentence meant something in those days -- excruciating pain.
5. Pontius Pilate is portrayed inconsistently and unbelievably -- sympathetic to Jesus, mocking Jesus, afraid that Jesus might be divine, dismissive of the priests, catering to the priests. He is courteous enough to go out of his palace to see the Judean religious leaders who did not wish to enter it because by doing so it would make them ritually impure. Pilate seems diplomatic, tactful, and gracious. They are obviously pestering him, wanting him to deal with a matter he believes is either outside his authority or too trivial for him to waste his time with. But he accedes to their wishes. He takes the trouble to interrogate Jesus, twice. He fails to see that Jesus has committed any crime and tries his best to convince the Judean priests to let him go free. But since Jesus is being charged with blasphemy, a religious violation and a capital offense, and the Romans have allowed the Judeans to freely practice their faith and enforce their religious customs as they see fit, Pilate concludes it is not his right to interfere. If they want Jesus crucified, he will not stop them, especially when he is convinced by the Judean priests that it is in Rome's interest that he do so. --- Pilate seems to have an ambivalent attitude toward Jesus. He addresses him politely, seems favorably impressed with him, and is more than willing to help him. Jesus, though, is unconcerned about saving himself. He is surly to Pilate, disrespectful, and unappreciative of the consideration the governor lends him. Pilate is baffled by this and put off. In the end he probably comes to view Jesus as a harmless crank who unfortunately must come to a tragic end. While there is a case to made from his remarks and reactions that he suspects that Jesus might really be the Son of God, it is unlikely that a pagan and a Roman would come to that conclusion, especially after so brief and unrevealing an interview. He is surely in jest when referring to Jesus as "King of the Judeans" (not Jews: the term is a misnomer, anachronistic, and without meaning in the 1st Century.) By bringing out Jesus with his crown of thrones and purple robe, he continues the taunting and mockery begun by his soldiers. That he would allow and even participate in such contemptibly barbaric and extra-legal treatment of a prisoner, though, strains credibility; it is very unlikely that a Roman governor would stoop to such behavior (or bother to stoop to it). In the end, Pilate’s character is molded to suit the demands of the narrative, his role in the Passion Play. That the author of John, writing more than a hundred years after the fact, would accurately divine Pilate’s character and motivations is a bit much to expect.
6. Barabbas is sometimes termed a bandit, but rebel, revolutionary, malcontent, insurgent would be more accurate a translation. (Nothing is really known of the man, even whether he existed or not.) The custom of a prisoner release on the Passover is referred to nowhere outside the gospels. It is quite obviously a dramatic invention, the purpose of which is show the temper of the Judean religious authorities and populace who preferred to save the life of some unsavory, violent person rather than the Son of God. It is inconceivable that the Roman governor would have subscribed to such a practice, especially Pilate who was probably fed up having to cater to Judaic traditions -- even if such a tradition existed, which it did not. Roman law and its administration may have been harsh, but it was not whimsical. Everything was done by the book, even crucifixions. Also, it is not credible that the Roman governor would have appeared before a group of Judeans and solicited their input on his actions. That would have been demeaning to his position. Pilate probably had little to do with and wanted to have little to do with the high priest and the Sanhedrin, the religious council. The high priest, Caiaphas, had been approved by him, but had been originally appointed by Pilate's superior in Syria. Roman rule of Judea was at this time very low key: the Empire simply wanted its tax money and an absence of civil discord. Pilate would have spent most of time in his administrative capital, Caesarea Maritima, although it is possible he might have been in Jerusalem during the Passover to ensure there was no disorder during the celebrations.
7. Jesus claims the purpose of his life is to bring the truth to the world. Pilate asks what is the truth. When he does so he is not posing some profound, philosophical enquiry. He is not asking what the truth means, simply what Jesus' truth consists of, that is, what is his message. He does not wait for a response, though, probably fearing his ear will be bent by the rant of a fanatic.
8. The author of John records dialogue between Jesus and Pilate that could be known only to the two men. Did someone conduct a post-crucifixion interview of Pilate in which he revealed what he and Jesus talked about? Jesus could not have told his disciples, or anyone else what he said to Pilate, unless he did so after his death. If divine inspiration was the source for the content of their conversations, then why do the gospels disagree and contradict each other? In historical novels the author must invent dialogue for his characters. Is this not being done here?
9. Given the situation and his position, Pontius Pilate could hardly act differently than he did, nor, in truth, could the Judaic priests, since they could not jeopardize their position by leaving unpunished a blasphemer and false prophet, especially one who made the claim that he was the Son of God. The narrative, though, throws most of the guilt upon the Judean, Judaic religious establishment who condemned Jesus. By the time the gospels were written, decades after the death of Jesus, Christianity was emerging as a universal religion and was no longer a sect of Judaism. Gentile converts were many and were entering leadership positions in what would be the Christian Church. It was, therefore, important to separate Christianity from conventional Judaism and to cast as villains those who had rejected Jesus and adhered to conventional Judaic beliefs. "The Jews killed Jesus" would be a propaganda myth that would weigh upon a race and a religion like a curse for two thousand years.
The Arrest of Jesus
(Gospel of John 18:1 - 18:27)
After he had finished praying, Jesus departed with his disciples, crossing the brook in the Valley of Kidron and entering the olive orchard that lay on the other side. This was a place known well to the betrayer Judas, for Jesus had met there with his disciples many times. Therefore, Judas came there, accompanied by a detachment of Roman soldiers and Temple guards given to him by the chief priests and Pharisees. They entered the grove carrying torches and lanterns -- and weapons.
Jesus, who was aware of what was about to happened, stepped forward and asked them, "Who is it you're looking for?"
"Jesus of Nazareth," they responded.
"I am he," Jesus told them.
Judas, who had betrayed Jesus, was standing amongst them. When Jesus identified himself, they all stepped back and fell to the ground. Jesus asked them again, "Who are you looking for?"
Again they said, "Jesus of Nazareth."
"I already told you I am he," Jesus said. "Since I'm the one you want, let these others go." (He did this to fulfill his claim that he lost none of those given to him by the Father.)
At this point, Simon-Peter, who was carrying a sword, drew it and with it attacked a slave of the high priest, slashing off his right ear. (The name of this slave was Malchus.)
But Jesus bid Peter, "Sheath your sword! Should I not drink from the cup the Father has offered me."
At the behest of their commander, Jesus was then arrested and tied up by the soldiers and the Temple guards. They brought him first to Annas, the father-in-law of the priest for that year, Caiaphas. (Caiaphas was the one who had advised the religious leaders that it was better that one man die for the people.)
Simon-Peter and another of the disciples followed Jesus. Since that other disciple was acquainted with the high priest, he was allowed enter the courtyard of the high priest, while Peter was left standing outside the gate. But the aforementioned disciple spoke to the woman who watched the gate and availed upon her to let Peter in. The porteress then asked Peter, "You're not one of his disciple's, too, are you?"
"No," he replied, "I am not."
Because it was cold, a charcoal fire had been lit and the household slaves and guards stood around it, warming themselves. Peter did likewise.
Meanwhile, the high priest (sic) was interrogating Jesus concerning his disciples and his teachings.
Jesus answered, "I have spoken openly to the world, always teaching in the synagogues and in the Temple, places where Judeans regularly congregate. I have said nothing in secret. But why do you ask me. Ask those who heard me speak. They know what I said to them."
When he said this, one of the guards standing near Jesus slapped him alongside the face and berated him, "Is that the way you answer the high priest?"
Jesus protested. "If I said anything untruthful, you must prove it. But if I'm speaking the truth, then why are you beating me?"
Annas then had Jesus bound and sent him to see Caiaphas, the current high priest.
Simon-Peter was still warming himself by the fire. One of the others there asked him, "You're not one of his disciples, too, are you?"
Peter denied it, insisting, "No, I'm not."
One of the high priest's household slaves, who happened to be a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, questioned him further, "Didn't I see you at the olive orchard with Jesus?"
Again Peter denied Jesus. At once a cock began to crow.
Notes
1. Judas had apparently left the dinner and gone straight to the authorities, the Judean religious authorities, not the secular Roman government. Apparently he had offered to bring in Jesus, arrest him for them provided he would be given a detachment of guards and soldiers. He knew where Jesus might be, in the olive orchard of Kidron (just east of Jerusalem). He found him there. Judas was not the one to arrest Jesus, but he hovered in the background and let the armed men do the dirty work.
2. Jesus, by going to a place familiar to Judas, was obviously making no attempt to avoid arrest, but was willingly submitting himself to it. This is confirmed when he is about to be arrested and says, “Should I not drink from the cup the Father has offered me.” The arrest almost seems like a set-up arranged by Jesus. (In which case, Judas is not a traitor at all, but was doing his master’s bidding.)
3. When Jesus first responds to the soldiers and identifies himself, they step back and fall to the ground. Why? Were they somehow awed by a man who has consistently been described as very ordinary? If they were cowed or moved to reverence, why did they then not demur to tie him up?
4. Jesus asks that the disciples not be arrested but remain free. He does so not out of any concern for the health and well being of his disciples, but merely to give the appearance of fulfilling some supposed scriptural prophecy. There is no evidence that anyone had any intention of arresting his disciples.
5. Simon-Peter, acting either out of instinct or from a poorly conceived plan, decides to take violent action to prevent the arrest of his master. He draws his sword and slashes off the ear of a slave. It is a rather feeble and ineffectual display of bravado. One wonders if the slave was even armed. In any case, the violence ceases when Jesus indicates he will submit to arrest. The hot-headed Peter sheaths his sword. No concern is expressed for the plight of the earless slave who was probably just doing what he was told.
6. It seems incongruous that one of the disciples would carry a sword. Wasn't Jesus a preacher of peace? Why would arms be carried by a follower of the Son of God, who could surely guard his crew from any danger through whatever sort of miracle was demanded? Why would any be necessary? Surely a sword would not, on the outskirts of Jerusalem be need for protection against wild animals or even be the proper weapon to do so. Modern sensibilities make one suspicious of men of God who pack heat. In all times and places the religious rarely bear arms; Friar Tuck of Robin Hood's crew, a skilled swordsman, is one of the few exceptions that spring to mind, and he was a part of a band of thieves.
7. The name used for the commander of the soldiers is chiliarch, who would be the commander of a thousand men. This is patently absurd. A thousand men would not crowd into an orchard to arrest one unarmed man. Probably the author of John was ignorant of Roman military terms or he wanted exalt the reputation his Messiah by claiming that it took what would be for us a very large battalion to bring him in. If the latter is the case, one may ask how many other gross exaggerations have made it into the narrative.
8. When he is arrested, Jesus is bound, probably nothing more elaborate than having his hands tied with a rope or strip of cloth. Apparently the restraints were at some point unfastened, since after his interrogation session with Annas, he is bound again and taken to see Caiaphas. It is likely, then, that when was Jesus as struck by Annas’ guard, his hands were free. Significantly, Jesus did not strike back, nor did he turn the other cheek, but naturally complained about his unfair treatment.
9. It is historically accurate that Annas, a high priest, was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest, but the author of John evinces an incomplete understanding of Temple practices of the time. As has been mentioned before, high priests were not chosen on a yearly basis. Caiaphas served as high priest for almost twenty years, holding the office under Pontius Pilate's governorship. The narrative refers to Annas as a high priest. Technically, he was a former high priest, but might have been called high priest as a courtesy title. Annas could probably be described as a high priest emeritus and probably had considerable clout even during his son-in-law's term. It seems a presumption and a breach of protocol, however, that he should see and question Jesus before the current high priest had done so. And why Jesus was brought to him and not to Caiaphas first is an unanswered question. (Caiaphas was out to lunch -- or rather, breakfast?) Peter and the other disciple go to house of Caiaphas, probably not aware that Jesus had been taken instead to Annas’ house. It is possible, though, that Annas and Caiaphas, being in-laws, might have lived in the same residence or in adjacent homes, or had offices in the same building.
10. Jesus is insufficiently respectful to Annas and merits a slap on the face for his cheekiness. He is not uncooperative, but expresses an attitude of defiance that obviously did not set well with the religious authorities. There is, of course, a history of animosity between the two parties.
11. Peter famously denies Jesus three times. (The third denial might be excusable: if he admitted to cutting off an ear, he would place himself in legal jeopardy.) He has the courage to draw and use his sword, but is a coward about admitting his relationship to Jesus, a man now in trouble with the law. Why would he not boast about being a follower of the Son of God? Did he have doubts? Was he just thinking about his own hide? If so, why did he bother to follow Jesus in the first place and go to seek him when he was arrested? Peter gives the impression, at least at this point in his life, of being an impulsive man of bold bluster who is, at heart, a weasel.
12. It is interesting that the name of the slave whose ear was lopped off by Peter is given, but not the name of the disciple who accompanies him when they seek information about Jesus’ arrest.
After he had finished praying, Jesus departed with his disciples, crossing the brook in the Valley of Kidron and entering the olive orchard that lay on the other side. This was a place known well to the betrayer Judas, for Jesus had met there with his disciples many times. Therefore, Judas came there, accompanied by a detachment of Roman soldiers and Temple guards given to him by the chief priests and Pharisees. They entered the grove carrying torches and lanterns -- and weapons.
Jesus, who was aware of what was about to happened, stepped forward and asked them, "Who is it you're looking for?"
"Jesus of Nazareth," they responded.
"I am he," Jesus told them.
Judas, who had betrayed Jesus, was standing amongst them. When Jesus identified himself, they all stepped back and fell to the ground. Jesus asked them again, "Who are you looking for?"
Again they said, "Jesus of Nazareth."
"I already told you I am he," Jesus said. "Since I'm the one you want, let these others go." (He did this to fulfill his claim that he lost none of those given to him by the Father.)
At this point, Simon-Peter, who was carrying a sword, drew it and with it attacked a slave of the high priest, slashing off his right ear. (The name of this slave was Malchus.)
But Jesus bid Peter, "Sheath your sword! Should I not drink from the cup the Father has offered me."
At the behest of their commander, Jesus was then arrested and tied up by the soldiers and the Temple guards. They brought him first to Annas, the father-in-law of the priest for that year, Caiaphas. (Caiaphas was the one who had advised the religious leaders that it was better that one man die for the people.)
Simon-Peter and another of the disciples followed Jesus. Since that other disciple was acquainted with the high priest, he was allowed enter the courtyard of the high priest, while Peter was left standing outside the gate. But the aforementioned disciple spoke to the woman who watched the gate and availed upon her to let Peter in. The porteress then asked Peter, "You're not one of his disciple's, too, are you?"
"No," he replied, "I am not."
Because it was cold, a charcoal fire had been lit and the household slaves and guards stood around it, warming themselves. Peter did likewise.
Meanwhile, the high priest (sic) was interrogating Jesus concerning his disciples and his teachings.
Jesus answered, "I have spoken openly to the world, always teaching in the synagogues and in the Temple, places where Judeans regularly congregate. I have said nothing in secret. But why do you ask me. Ask those who heard me speak. They know what I said to them."
When he said this, one of the guards standing near Jesus slapped him alongside the face and berated him, "Is that the way you answer the high priest?"
Jesus protested. "If I said anything untruthful, you must prove it. But if I'm speaking the truth, then why are you beating me?"
Annas then had Jesus bound and sent him to see Caiaphas, the current high priest.
Simon-Peter was still warming himself by the fire. One of the others there asked him, "You're not one of his disciples, too, are you?"
Peter denied it, insisting, "No, I'm not."
One of the high priest's household slaves, who happened to be a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, questioned him further, "Didn't I see you at the olive orchard with Jesus?"
Again Peter denied Jesus. At once a cock began to crow.
Notes
1. Judas had apparently left the dinner and gone straight to the authorities, the Judean religious authorities, not the secular Roman government. Apparently he had offered to bring in Jesus, arrest him for them provided he would be given a detachment of guards and soldiers. He knew where Jesus might be, in the olive orchard of Kidron (just east of Jerusalem). He found him there. Judas was not the one to arrest Jesus, but he hovered in the background and let the armed men do the dirty work.
2. Jesus, by going to a place familiar to Judas, was obviously making no attempt to avoid arrest, but was willingly submitting himself to it. This is confirmed when he is about to be arrested and says, “Should I not drink from the cup the Father has offered me.” The arrest almost seems like a set-up arranged by Jesus. (In which case, Judas is not a traitor at all, but was doing his master’s bidding.)
3. When Jesus first responds to the soldiers and identifies himself, they step back and fall to the ground. Why? Were they somehow awed by a man who has consistently been described as very ordinary? If they were cowed or moved to reverence, why did they then not demur to tie him up?
4. Jesus asks that the disciples not be arrested but remain free. He does so not out of any concern for the health and well being of his disciples, but merely to give the appearance of fulfilling some supposed scriptural prophecy. There is no evidence that anyone had any intention of arresting his disciples.
5. Simon-Peter, acting either out of instinct or from a poorly conceived plan, decides to take violent action to prevent the arrest of his master. He draws his sword and slashes off the ear of a slave. It is a rather feeble and ineffectual display of bravado. One wonders if the slave was even armed. In any case, the violence ceases when Jesus indicates he will submit to arrest. The hot-headed Peter sheaths his sword. No concern is expressed for the plight of the earless slave who was probably just doing what he was told.
6. It seems incongruous that one of the disciples would carry a sword. Wasn't Jesus a preacher of peace? Why would arms be carried by a follower of the Son of God, who could surely guard his crew from any danger through whatever sort of miracle was demanded? Why would any be necessary? Surely a sword would not, on the outskirts of Jerusalem be need for protection against wild animals or even be the proper weapon to do so. Modern sensibilities make one suspicious of men of God who pack heat. In all times and places the religious rarely bear arms; Friar Tuck of Robin Hood's crew, a skilled swordsman, is one of the few exceptions that spring to mind, and he was a part of a band of thieves.
7. The name used for the commander of the soldiers is chiliarch, who would be the commander of a thousand men. This is patently absurd. A thousand men would not crowd into an orchard to arrest one unarmed man. Probably the author of John was ignorant of Roman military terms or he wanted exalt the reputation his Messiah by claiming that it took what would be for us a very large battalion to bring him in. If the latter is the case, one may ask how many other gross exaggerations have made it into the narrative.
8. When he is arrested, Jesus is bound, probably nothing more elaborate than having his hands tied with a rope or strip of cloth. Apparently the restraints were at some point unfastened, since after his interrogation session with Annas, he is bound again and taken to see Caiaphas. It is likely, then, that when was Jesus as struck by Annas’ guard, his hands were free. Significantly, Jesus did not strike back, nor did he turn the other cheek, but naturally complained about his unfair treatment.
9. It is historically accurate that Annas, a high priest, was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest, but the author of John evinces an incomplete understanding of Temple practices of the time. As has been mentioned before, high priests were not chosen on a yearly basis. Caiaphas served as high priest for almost twenty years, holding the office under Pontius Pilate's governorship. The narrative refers to Annas as a high priest. Technically, he was a former high priest, but might have been called high priest as a courtesy title. Annas could probably be described as a high priest emeritus and probably had considerable clout even during his son-in-law's term. It seems a presumption and a breach of protocol, however, that he should see and question Jesus before the current high priest had done so. And why Jesus was brought to him and not to Caiaphas first is an unanswered question. (Caiaphas was out to lunch -- or rather, breakfast?) Peter and the other disciple go to house of Caiaphas, probably not aware that Jesus had been taken instead to Annas’ house. It is possible, though, that Annas and Caiaphas, being in-laws, might have lived in the same residence or in adjacent homes, or had offices in the same building.
10. Jesus is insufficiently respectful to Annas and merits a slap on the face for his cheekiness. He is not uncooperative, but expresses an attitude of defiance that obviously did not set well with the religious authorities. There is, of course, a history of animosity between the two parties.
11. Peter famously denies Jesus three times. (The third denial might be excusable: if he admitted to cutting off an ear, he would place himself in legal jeopardy.) He has the courage to draw and use his sword, but is a coward about admitting his relationship to Jesus, a man now in trouble with the law. Why would he not boast about being a follower of the Son of God? Did he have doubts? Was he just thinking about his own hide? If so, why did he bother to follow Jesus in the first place and go to seek him when he was arrested? Peter gives the impression, at least at this point in his life, of being an impulsive man of bold bluster who is, at heart, a weasel.
12. It is interesting that the name of the slave whose ear was lopped off by Peter is given, but not the name of the disciple who accompanies him when they seek information about Jesus’ arrest.
Friday, March 6, 2015
Jesus' Prayer
(Gospel of John 17:1 - 17:26)
After saying these things, Jesus gazed heavenward and made this prayer: "Father, the time has come to glorify your son so that he may in return glorify you. You have given him charge of all humanity so that he might bestow life everlasting upon those whom you have given him. And this is the path to life everlasting, to acknowledge you, the one true God, and Jesus, the Messiah you have sent down to earth. I have brought you glory here on earth by completing the task you assigned to me. And now, Father, glorify me with you with that glory we shared before the world began!
"I have made your name known to those of this world that you have chosen for me. They belonged to you and you gave them to me. And they have kept faith with you. Now they realize that all I have been given has come from you. The message you have given me I have taught them. They have accepted that message and know the truth that I have come from you and believe that it is you who has sent me.
"My prayer is not for the world, but only for those you have given me, because they belong to you. All who are mine are yours, and all who are yours are mine. Glory has come to me because of them. No longer will I remain in the world. But they will do so, while I will be coming to be with you, Holy Father. Keep those you have given me faithful to your name, so that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them I protected in your name those you had given me, and I kept them faithful so that none of them were lost to you -- save the one who was ordained to be lost to perdition in order that the Scriptures might be fulfilled.
"I am coming to you now, but I say these things here on earth so that they may know amongst themselves the full measure of my joy. I have given them your message, but the world has hated them because it is not of this world, just as they hate me because I am not of this world. I do not ask you to take them out of the world but to protect them from the evil of the world. They do not belong to it, as I do not belong to it. Sanctify them with the truth, for your message is the truth. As you have sent me into the world, I have sent them out into the world. For their sakes I sanctify myself that they may be sanctified by the truth.
"I pray not only for them, but for those who may come to believe in me through them, so that they all can be as one. As you, Father, are in me and I in you, may they also be one with us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me, I have given to them, so that they may be as one, as we are. May I be in them and you in me in complete unity, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them just as you have loved me. And, Father, I want those who you have sent to me to be with me where they can witness my glory, the glory that you bestowed upon me because you loved me before the creation of the world.
"Righteous Father, the world does not know you, but I do, and they know you have sent me. I have made your name known to them and will continue to do so in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."
Notes
1. In early religions prayer usually took place in a certain location, a temple, a shrine, before a statue or image of the god, the idea being that the spirit of the god inhabited or visited or monitored the activity at a venue sacred to him. One went to the temple to pray to the god as one went to the palace to petition the king. Here, Jesus does not seem to be at any particular holy place when he addresses the Father with his prayer. There is, of course, a presumption that he has a direct pipeline to God, that whenever he calls upon him, his father, the deity will hear him. This concept has been adopted by nearly all modern religions: prayers are thought to be heard regardless of where they are uttered or how. This presumes an all-knowing and ever-engaged deity. However, since the deity not only hears all, the question must be asked whether he listens only when he hears his name being specifically invoked and responds only when he is directly appealed to. Why, in this instance, does Jesus find it necessary to make his prayer, submit his requests, when the Father, God, not only knows his heart, knows his thoughts, but is a part of him? It makes sense only if the prayer, audible, one would think, was uttered for the benefit of the disciples, who are rather condescendingly referred to only as "they."
2. It is clearly stated and stated several times that the disciples of Jesus were given to him by the Father. Why Jesus was not capable of picking his own followers is unanswered. And one wonders if this seemingly obtuse lot, so often portrayed as mere stooges, was the best the Father could muster -- but that is perhaps another point. The number of disciples is not specified in this gospel and only a few of the traditional 12 apostles are mentioned here by name. Those referred to are doubtless the followers who regularly traveled with him and were present at the Last Supper (during which the traitorous disciple Judas Iscariot made his mysterious exit).
3. Jesus' major obsession, referred to here several times, is his insistence in the belief that he was sent by God. Obviously, if this is accepted as fact, then everything Jesus says is true and everything he does is right. Although it seems to have been a tough sale at times, the disciples have been induced (or is it conned) into believing that this is the case and, therefore, are to be sanctified for their faith (or gullibility).
4. One of Jesus' tasks given to him by the Father was to convert and keep faithful the disciples that were chosen for him. He was successful in doing so except in the case of the unfaithful disciple Judas -- but he didn't count, because, per Scriptural prophecy, there had to be one follower who would betray the Messiah. The presence of the Betrayer seems to be a necessary element in the Passion drama -- and is so in similar myths.
5. The prayer is vague and contradictory on several points. The annoyingly repetitive declaration of everybody being "in" everyone else is ambiguous. It is already established that Jesus was a part of God and existed before the creation of the world, but the disciples are wholly men and not gods. How can they aspire to be equal to God? Yet, Jesus asserts that he is "in" them. What that means is an open question, but it is typical of the sound-good, but basically meaningless jargon commonly employed in most religious and philosophical discourse. (Maybe it means simply that everyone is on the same page.) Also, there is some confusion as to whether the disciples are of the world or not and what the glory so often spoken of is. (The glory may be Jesus' transfiguration and ascent to Heaven after his crucifixion, but, at times, it seems to mean something other than that.)
6. Jesus suggests that he is sacrificing himself, allowing himself to be crucified, in order to sanctify his disciples, whatever that may mean. This is at odds with conventional Christian doctrine that contends that Jesus died for the atonement of mankind's sins.
7. Jesus declares that the world does not know the God that created it. The deity has apparently done a poor job of promoting himself. And Jesus' coming to earth has only managed to inform a dozen or so people about him. Yet, that seems to be hailed as a great success. (Having said that, it must be commented that after the death and martyrdom of Jesus, evangelizing will pick up considerably.)
8. Jesus describes his Father, God, as being righteous. The term seems superfluous. How can he fail to be righteous, since it is he who apparently determines what is right and what is wrong, and his actions and character define what must be regarded as “righteous”?
After saying these things, Jesus gazed heavenward and made this prayer: "Father, the time has come to glorify your son so that he may in return glorify you. You have given him charge of all humanity so that he might bestow life everlasting upon those whom you have given him. And this is the path to life everlasting, to acknowledge you, the one true God, and Jesus, the Messiah you have sent down to earth. I have brought you glory here on earth by completing the task you assigned to me. And now, Father, glorify me with you with that glory we shared before the world began!
"I have made your name known to those of this world that you have chosen for me. They belonged to you and you gave them to me. And they have kept faith with you. Now they realize that all I have been given has come from you. The message you have given me I have taught them. They have accepted that message and know the truth that I have come from you and believe that it is you who has sent me.
"My prayer is not for the world, but only for those you have given me, because they belong to you. All who are mine are yours, and all who are yours are mine. Glory has come to me because of them. No longer will I remain in the world. But they will do so, while I will be coming to be with you, Holy Father. Keep those you have given me faithful to your name, so that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them I protected in your name those you had given me, and I kept them faithful so that none of them were lost to you -- save the one who was ordained to be lost to perdition in order that the Scriptures might be fulfilled.
"I am coming to you now, but I say these things here on earth so that they may know amongst themselves the full measure of my joy. I have given them your message, but the world has hated them because it is not of this world, just as they hate me because I am not of this world. I do not ask you to take them out of the world but to protect them from the evil of the world. They do not belong to it, as I do not belong to it. Sanctify them with the truth, for your message is the truth. As you have sent me into the world, I have sent them out into the world. For their sakes I sanctify myself that they may be sanctified by the truth.
"I pray not only for them, but for those who may come to believe in me through them, so that they all can be as one. As you, Father, are in me and I in you, may they also be one with us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me, I have given to them, so that they may be as one, as we are. May I be in them and you in me in complete unity, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them just as you have loved me. And, Father, I want those who you have sent to me to be with me where they can witness my glory, the glory that you bestowed upon me because you loved me before the creation of the world.
"Righteous Father, the world does not know you, but I do, and they know you have sent me. I have made your name known to them and will continue to do so in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."
Notes
1. In early religions prayer usually took place in a certain location, a temple, a shrine, before a statue or image of the god, the idea being that the spirit of the god inhabited or visited or monitored the activity at a venue sacred to him. One went to the temple to pray to the god as one went to the palace to petition the king. Here, Jesus does not seem to be at any particular holy place when he addresses the Father with his prayer. There is, of course, a presumption that he has a direct pipeline to God, that whenever he calls upon him, his father, the deity will hear him. This concept has been adopted by nearly all modern religions: prayers are thought to be heard regardless of where they are uttered or how. This presumes an all-knowing and ever-engaged deity. However, since the deity not only hears all, the question must be asked whether he listens only when he hears his name being specifically invoked and responds only when he is directly appealed to. Why, in this instance, does Jesus find it necessary to make his prayer, submit his requests, when the Father, God, not only knows his heart, knows his thoughts, but is a part of him? It makes sense only if the prayer, audible, one would think, was uttered for the benefit of the disciples, who are rather condescendingly referred to only as "they."
2. It is clearly stated and stated several times that the disciples of Jesus were given to him by the Father. Why Jesus was not capable of picking his own followers is unanswered. And one wonders if this seemingly obtuse lot, so often portrayed as mere stooges, was the best the Father could muster -- but that is perhaps another point. The number of disciples is not specified in this gospel and only a few of the traditional 12 apostles are mentioned here by name. Those referred to are doubtless the followers who regularly traveled with him and were present at the Last Supper (during which the traitorous disciple Judas Iscariot made his mysterious exit).
3. Jesus' major obsession, referred to here several times, is his insistence in the belief that he was sent by God. Obviously, if this is accepted as fact, then everything Jesus says is true and everything he does is right. Although it seems to have been a tough sale at times, the disciples have been induced (or is it conned) into believing that this is the case and, therefore, are to be sanctified for their faith (or gullibility).
4. One of Jesus' tasks given to him by the Father was to convert and keep faithful the disciples that were chosen for him. He was successful in doing so except in the case of the unfaithful disciple Judas -- but he didn't count, because, per Scriptural prophecy, there had to be one follower who would betray the Messiah. The presence of the Betrayer seems to be a necessary element in the Passion drama -- and is so in similar myths.
5. The prayer is vague and contradictory on several points. The annoyingly repetitive declaration of everybody being "in" everyone else is ambiguous. It is already established that Jesus was a part of God and existed before the creation of the world, but the disciples are wholly men and not gods. How can they aspire to be equal to God? Yet, Jesus asserts that he is "in" them. What that means is an open question, but it is typical of the sound-good, but basically meaningless jargon commonly employed in most religious and philosophical discourse. (Maybe it means simply that everyone is on the same page.) Also, there is some confusion as to whether the disciples are of the world or not and what the glory so often spoken of is. (The glory may be Jesus' transfiguration and ascent to Heaven after his crucifixion, but, at times, it seems to mean something other than that.)
6. Jesus suggests that he is sacrificing himself, allowing himself to be crucified, in order to sanctify his disciples, whatever that may mean. This is at odds with conventional Christian doctrine that contends that Jesus died for the atonement of mankind's sins.
7. Jesus declares that the world does not know the God that created it. The deity has apparently done a poor job of promoting himself. And Jesus' coming to earth has only managed to inform a dozen or so people about him. Yet, that seems to be hailed as a great success. (Having said that, it must be commented that after the death and martyrdom of Jesus, evangelizing will pick up considerably.)
8. Jesus describes his Father, God, as being righteous. The term seems superfluous. How can he fail to be righteous, since it is he who apparently determines what is right and what is wrong, and his actions and character define what must be regarded as “righteous”?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)