(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.
Showing posts with label Peter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter. Show all posts
Monday, March 23, 2015
Saturday, March 14, 2015
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, January 16, 2015
Jesus Foretells His Betrayal
(Gospel of John 13:18 - 13:38)
"I do not speak to all of you; I know the ones I have chosen. This is a fulfillment of the scripture that says, 'He with whom I have shared my food will turn against me.' I tell you this in advance, so that when it happens you will believe that I am the One. I tell you truly that whoever receives someone I have sent receives me, as anyone who receives me, receives the one who sent me."
Jesus then become deeply perturbed. He announced, “Truly I must tell you -- one of you will betray me!"
The disciples looked querulously at each other, wondering which one of them he meant. One of them, the disciple Jesus loved most, was reclining at the table next to him. Simon-Peter motioned to him to ask Jesus who it was he was talking about. That disciple, leaning closely to Jesus, asked of him, "Master, who is it?"
"It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread after I have dipped into the bowl," Jesus replied. Jesus dipped the piece of bread into the bowl and gave it to --- Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan took possession of him. “Do quickly what you are to do." Jesus bid him. (None at the table knew what Jesus meant; some thought that since Judas was their treasurer, Jesus was instructing him to go out and buy food for the festival or make a donation to the poor.) After Judas had taken the piece of bread, he immediately departed into the night.
After he had left, Jesus said, "Now the Son of Man has been glorified and God has been glorified through him. Since God has received glory from his son, he will give glory to his son. ... Dear children, I will be with you only a little while longer. You will search for me, but I will tell you what I told the Judean people, 'Where I am going, you cannot come.' But I am giving you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so must you love one another. Your mutual love will show to the world that you are my disciples."
Simon-Peter asked him, "Master, where are you going?"
Jesus answered, "Where I am going, you will not now be able to follow, but will do so later on."
"But why can't I follow you now, Master?" he demanded. "I'm ready to give my life for you!"
"Will you really give your life for me?" Jesus asked. "I tell you truly that the cock will not crow this morn before you have denied even knowing me -- three times!"
Notes
1. Jesus has foreknowledge of the disciple who will betray him, yet there is no explanation why he persisted in tolerating the company of a disloyal disciple. Would such a one not hinder his efforts, undermine his teachings, and bring disgrace upon the loyal followers? Why does Jesus allow, if not abet the act of betrayal, if it is not in his interests? And if it is in his interests, why should the betrayer be vilified if he is actually acting in accordance to Jesus' will?
2. Upon taking the bread, Judas becomes possessed by Satan -- metaphorically or literally? If the latter, then this simply means that Judas had just then changed sides, defected to those oppose Jesus and has become an antagonist, which is what the word Satan or Shaitan means. When Judas takes the bread and leaves their company, he departs into the night, as one would expect since they are partaking of the evening meal. The night, the darkness, is probably mentioned as a symbolic reference. Judas is leaving the light of Jesus' company and his enlightened teachings to go into the spiritual darkness.
3. The best-loved disciple, the one sitting, or rather reclining (on one’s left side) next to Jesus at the table, who is availed upon by the disciple-leader Simon-Peter to ask Jesus who the betrayer is, is not here named, but is generally thought to be John, the presumed author of this gospel. Jesus tells him the betrayer is the one who will take the piece of bread Jesus has dipped into the bowl. (Bread would have been used in lieu of dinner utensils: a piece of bread would scoop up pieces of food like a spoon or fork and convey them to the mouth or be used as a sop to soak up a sauce. What was in the bowl was not mentioned and, apparently, not of any significance, symbolic or otherwise.) Obviously this remark had to be a confidential one, not heard by the other disciples, especially by Judas, who takes the bread, presumably eats it, and then leaves. The fact that Judas departs without explanation but on what seems to be a cue from Jesus suggests that the whole act of betrayal has been contrived by Jesus.
4. Jesus prophecies the denial of Peter, but it seems only a put down of that disciple's enthusiastic support of Jesus and the claim that he would willingly die for him.
5. Jesus makes clear he is leaving them to rejoin his Father in Heaven, but hints that at some future point the disciples will able to be with him there. One surmises that this would be after the resurrection of the dead and the Day of Judgment.
"I do not speak to all of you; I know the ones I have chosen. This is a fulfillment of the scripture that says, 'He with whom I have shared my food will turn against me.' I tell you this in advance, so that when it happens you will believe that I am the One. I tell you truly that whoever receives someone I have sent receives me, as anyone who receives me, receives the one who sent me."
Jesus then become deeply perturbed. He announced, “Truly I must tell you -- one of you will betray me!"
The disciples looked querulously at each other, wondering which one of them he meant. One of them, the disciple Jesus loved most, was reclining at the table next to him. Simon-Peter motioned to him to ask Jesus who it was he was talking about. That disciple, leaning closely to Jesus, asked of him, "Master, who is it?"
"It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread after I have dipped into the bowl," Jesus replied. Jesus dipped the piece of bread into the bowl and gave it to --- Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan took possession of him. “Do quickly what you are to do." Jesus bid him. (None at the table knew what Jesus meant; some thought that since Judas was their treasurer, Jesus was instructing him to go out and buy food for the festival or make a donation to the poor.) After Judas had taken the piece of bread, he immediately departed into the night.
After he had left, Jesus said, "Now the Son of Man has been glorified and God has been glorified through him. Since God has received glory from his son, he will give glory to his son. ... Dear children, I will be with you only a little while longer. You will search for me, but I will tell you what I told the Judean people, 'Where I am going, you cannot come.' But I am giving you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so must you love one another. Your mutual love will show to the world that you are my disciples."
Simon-Peter asked him, "Master, where are you going?"
Jesus answered, "Where I am going, you will not now be able to follow, but will do so later on."
"But why can't I follow you now, Master?" he demanded. "I'm ready to give my life for you!"
"Will you really give your life for me?" Jesus asked. "I tell you truly that the cock will not crow this morn before you have denied even knowing me -- three times!"
Notes
1. Jesus has foreknowledge of the disciple who will betray him, yet there is no explanation why he persisted in tolerating the company of a disloyal disciple. Would such a one not hinder his efforts, undermine his teachings, and bring disgrace upon the loyal followers? Why does Jesus allow, if not abet the act of betrayal, if it is not in his interests? And if it is in his interests, why should the betrayer be vilified if he is actually acting in accordance to Jesus' will?
2. Upon taking the bread, Judas becomes possessed by Satan -- metaphorically or literally? If the latter, then this simply means that Judas had just then changed sides, defected to those oppose Jesus and has become an antagonist, which is what the word Satan or Shaitan means. When Judas takes the bread and leaves their company, he departs into the night, as one would expect since they are partaking of the evening meal. The night, the darkness, is probably mentioned as a symbolic reference. Judas is leaving the light of Jesus' company and his enlightened teachings to go into the spiritual darkness.
3. The best-loved disciple, the one sitting, or rather reclining (on one’s left side) next to Jesus at the table, who is availed upon by the disciple-leader Simon-Peter to ask Jesus who the betrayer is, is not here named, but is generally thought to be John, the presumed author of this gospel. Jesus tells him the betrayer is the one who will take the piece of bread Jesus has dipped into the bowl. (Bread would have been used in lieu of dinner utensils: a piece of bread would scoop up pieces of food like a spoon or fork and convey them to the mouth or be used as a sop to soak up a sauce. What was in the bowl was not mentioned and, apparently, not of any significance, symbolic or otherwise.) Obviously this remark had to be a confidential one, not heard by the other disciples, especially by Judas, who takes the bread, presumably eats it, and then leaves. The fact that Judas departs without explanation but on what seems to be a cue from Jesus suggests that the whole act of betrayal has been contrived by Jesus.
4. Jesus prophecies the denial of Peter, but it seems only a put down of that disciple's enthusiastic support of Jesus and the claim that he would willingly die for him.
5. Jesus makes clear he is leaving them to rejoin his Father in Heaven, but hints that at some future point the disciples will able to be with him there. One surmises that this would be after the resurrection of the dead and the Day of Judgment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)