The Legal Mind

 

The Legal Mind

by DL Herring

05/23/2021

Credit for the letter to the Hebrews was traditionally attributed to Paul the Apostle. However, doubt on Pauline authorship in the Roman Church is reported by Eusebius. Modern biblical scholarship considers its authorship unknown, perhaps written in deliberate imitation of the style of Paul. Although the writer's style reflects some characteristics of Paul's writing, there are some differences. I get this from Wikipedia.

They also say, Scholars of Greek consider its writing to be more polished and eloquent than any other book of the New Testament, and "the very carefully composed and studied Greek of Hebrews is not Paul's spontaneous, volatile contextual Greek". The book has earned the reputation of being a masterpiece. It has also been described as an intricate New Testament book. Scholars believe it was written for Jewish Christians who lived in Jerusalem. Its purpose was to exhort Christians to persevere in the face of persecution. At this time, certain believers were considering turning back to Judaism (the Jewish system of law) to escape being persecuted for accepting Christ as their savior, now following this system of grace (saved by Jesus' sacrifice on the cross). The theme of the epistle is the doctrine of the person of Christ and his role as mediator between God and humanity.

If the author is not Paul but seems very much like Paul, albeit more polished, Then, perhaps, we must look to converted Jews that were at a more adept level in the law of God. Perhaps, the author was one of the Sanhedrin that followed Jesus. The author could be a person such as Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea. That was a city or area that scholars still are uncertain of. Some have placed it as far away as the area allotted to the tribe of Dan. The author definitely knew his Greek, however, Greek was widely used. Was the author, since his writing style mirrors that of Paul, actually the mentor of Paul? Who taught Paul, a Pharisee of enough rank and authority to persecute the early Christians?

Wikipedia says this. In the Christian tradition, Gamaliel is recognized as a Pharisee doctor of Jewish Law. Acts of the Apostles, 5 (written c. 80–90 CE) speaks of Gamaliel as a man held in great esteem by all Jews and as the Jewish law teacher of Paul the Apostle in Acts 22:3. Gamaliel encouraged his fellow Pharisees to show leniency to the apostles of Jesus in Acts 5:34.

Some scholars have attributed the writing of Hebrews to a student, companion, or helper of Paul. Some have claimed the authorship belongs to Priscilla. I, however, favor the mentor/teacher angle. It could well be that the book of Hebrews was a joint work based in the various expertise of Joseph, Nicodemus, and Gamaliel. The work is an effort toward Christian Jews to encourage faith under persecution and doubts. The striking feature of the writing of the book of Hebrews is the clarity of the legal mindset. Clearly, the author, or authors, knew the law of the Old Testament and could connect the dots with the emerging Christianity of the day. This clarity and expertise suggest that the writing comes from the mind of a Doctor of the Law. This will be my focus as I study Hebrews.

Hebrews Chapter One

A connection between the old and the new is found in the opening statement of the book. Hebrews chapter one, verses one and two states that the prophets of old spoke the word of God to the fathers of the Hebrew faith. It also states that the Son of God, who made the worlds and whom God has made heir of all things, spoke the word of God to the children of the Hebrew faith. The same word by the same God has been delivered to the whole Hebrew faith through both the prophets and the heir of God. The author combines the old covenant and the new covenant into a single viable synthesis.

Let us examine two details of the opening statement. First, how did God speak to the fathers? It was at different times (sundry.) Synonyms for the word sundry include 'various', 'many', 'numerous', and even 'multitudinous'. The occasions of God speaking through the prophets to the fathers were many. The manners in which the word of God was spoken by the prophets, likewise, were different (divers.) In a nutshell, the word of God went out to the fathers in and by every conceivable occasion, location, and method. We know by the history presented in the old testament that the Hebrews faltered under their covenant with God despite the many occasions of warnings and reminders. They failed to hold up their end of the bargain. Did God tire of them? Yes. Did God give up on them? No. Still holding out hope for his chosen, God sent his Son with a policy update.

The second detail is mind-boggling. The Son of God did not create the one world that we focus on. He created “worlds.” That is the plural and it speaks of multiple worlds beyond our current imagination. Worlds beside us, worlds above and below us, worlds without and within us. This second detail speaks of a power and a scope worthy of rather more respect than we offer up. Such power and scope deserve a respect that borders on reverence and fear. When Jesus spoke of having other sheep, did he mean other worlds? John 10:16, “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” Think of this in regard to the “worlds” that the Son of God made.

My thoughts on verses three through fourteen are on this wise: the author, or authors, of the book of Hebrews connects the dots between God, the Son of God, the angels of God and, by inference, mankind. Levels and ranks are presented in the order of God and Jesus as the highest ( and in this connection, again, uniting the old covenant between God and man with the new covenant between the Son of God and man) and the angels of God as below Jesus and servants to mankind. This supports the supremacy of the Son of God, as the author of the new covenant, by the testimony of God the Father, the author of the old covenant. There is, in order, a relationship between God and Jesus, a relationship between God and the angels, and a relationship between God and mankind secured through the Son of God.

Many valid points, law-of-God-wise, are made connecting the old covenant through the law passed down from Moses to the new covenant law of faith in Christ. Each point is worthy of individual scrutiny. I want to treat each point with the attention they deserve. I want to consider the full import of each statement. I may only have a thought or two on each point but, collectively, the sum shall be lengthy. I have, therefore, divided the statements made so that I may consider each one separately. I think the author, or authors, of this book, as a Doctor(s) of the Old Testament Law, express great clarity of thought in the first chapter of Hebrews. A synthesis between the old and new has been sought that makes a good case.

The relationship between God and Jesus:

Jesus is “the brightness of his (God's) glory,” Hebrews 1:3. I, personally, do not have a clear concept of the glory of God or, for that matter, of glory in general. However, I recall that the Bible portrays the glory of God in terms of brightness. Glory is something that shines. We have an instance such as the column of fire that led the children of Israel by night. Another such instance includes the burning bush of Moses. Then there is the instance where Moses' face was noticeably bright upon his return from the cleft in the rock. That is found in Exodus 34:29–35. People take note of the energy of God, a quality that is transferable – they call it glory. It is, after all, quite glorious. Consider David, the shepherd King, who wrote in Psalm 19:1, “The heavens declare the glory of God.” If we think of the stars of heaven, they are all shiny and twinkly. If we think of lightning in the sky, it is startlingly bright. The brightness of the glory of God was a quality that people saw with their own eyes. It was no idle figure of speech, then, that Jesus was the brightness of the glory of God. We recall from Matthew 17:1–8, Mark 9:2–8, and Luke 9:28–36 the transfiguration of Jesus in which he was reported to have shone with bright rays of light.

Jesus is “the express image of his (God's) person,” Hebrews 1:3. When Jesus spoke to people, he sometimes spoke of his Father. On some occasions, Jesus described God to them. How does one describe an invisibility? Here are some of the things Jesus said of God. John 4:24, “God is a spirit.” Luke 24:39, “A spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.” The common man could not see God – that is unless God decided to shine. That brightness was a sign that verified the presence and existence of God. What else did Jesus say about God? John 14:9, “Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father.”

Jesus accomplished his work through “upholding all things by the word of his (God's) power.” Hebrews 1:3. Synonyms for the word 'uphold' include confirm, endorse, sustain, validate, verify, vindicate, justify, approve, and support. Merriam-Webster states, Some common synonyms of uphold are advocate, back, champion, and support. While all these words mean "to favor actively one that meets opposition," uphold implies extended support given to something attacked. What is it that Jesus upholds? He upholds “all things” that are of God. What the worldly mindset seeks to invalidate, Jesus champions and endorses. How does he do that? He does it using the power of God – more specifically, the “word” of that power. What are some synonyms for word? Thesaurus.com provides this list: charge, injunction, edict, mandate, behest, bidding, decree, go-ahead, green light, order, command, and will. I like that last one best as it seems to fit the bill. Jesus upholds all things of God by the will of God. A name given to the Son of God is “The Word.” I think it is, therefore, appropriate to view Jesus as the command, power, and will of God.

Jesus, “by himself purged our (mankind's) sins.” Hebrews 1:3. When we speak of a person who is able to express the power of God, the concept of “by himself” shows us, in bright clarity, an empowered person. This is not a person on the outside of the work but, rather, the person central to the work. The word of God's power being communicated through Jesus may be seen as more than expression, as we normally define it. To us, expression is a mere affectation, a smaller aspect of our communication. With Jesus, that expression may be seen more as a channeling of the power of God. By the power of God coursing through his very being, Jesus, by himself, without additional assistance, worked a work that opened a path forward for the spirit in man.

Jesus took his rightful place “on the right hand of the majesty on high.” Hebrews 1:3. Upon completion of a work that no one else could effect, Jesus sat down “on the right hand of the majesty on high.” There are three parts to this statement. They are 'sat down,' 'right hand,' and 'majesty on high.' To sit down infers a rest after a labor. It also infers the assumption of a higher level. One may not sit, in this line of reasoning, unless there is a place prepared for just that. We may use our imagination to see a throne beside a throne. If we view a throne symbolically, we may see an interconnecting power between will and achievement. The second of the three parts is the position on the right hand. One may ask, why not sit on the left hand or in front? The right-hand position symbolizes, throughout scripture, one's power, might, and authority. The right hand of a warrior was usually his sword-bearing hand. The right hand of a king was usually the hand that held the scepter of sovereignty. Finally, that position of power, might, and authority was a place in close accessibility to the majesty on high. In the King James version, the word, majesty, is capitalized, showing due reverence to a quality greater than the realization of our common experience. The concept of 'on high' may likewise be viewed as a quality rather than a place. It may be seen as the supreme level of conceptualization for spiritual qualities such as goodness, rightness, and justification.

God made Jesus “so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” Hebrews 1:4. What is a name? For us, it is a written or spoken designation. A scribble or a sound. Other than something by which recognition is triggered, names on our level of experience are quite idle. However, there is a higher level at which a name may be considered to be a real expression of one's being. That is precisely what this verse points to and explains. Everything brought up in verse three is a real name. Everything you read there about Jesus is an expression of his true being. The brightness of God's glory? That was his name. The express image of God's person? That was his name. Upholding all things by the word of God's power? Purging our sins by himself? Claiming his seat on the right hand of the majesty on high? All of those are the real names of Jesus. It is a better name he has than all the angels of heaven – and for one very important reason. His name came by inheritance. Jesus was the one and only son of the almighty. The nature of the father was the nature of the son. No other entity can make such a claim, neither the angels nor mankind.

The author of the old covenant said to the author of the new covenant, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” Hebrews 1:5. Psalm 2:7. So far, the author(s) has given argumentation. Now, we come to the inclusion of witnesses and corroborating evidence. We gather this information from the site https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/corroborating%20evidence: In a court of law, corroborating evidence is used to uphold the testimony of witnesses. Three items of evidence are presented as witnesses taken from the very law that the Hebrews relied on. Item one is drawn from the book of Psalms and Identifies the begotten son of God.

The author of the old covenant said of the author of the new covenant, “I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son.” Hebrews 1:5. 2 Sam. 7:14. Item two is drawn from the second book of Samuel and identifies a promissory claim, or vow, on the part of God in regard to the person of Jesus.

The author of the old covenant said of the author of the new covenant, “And let all the angels of God worship him (Jesus.)” Hebrews 1:6. Psalm 97:7 “Adore him, all you his angels:” Deut. 32:43 "Rejoice with him, O heavens, and adore him, all ye angels." Item three is drawn from both Psalms and Deuteronomy and identifies the proper place of the angels in regard to the begotten son of God. In the law of the Hebrews, it only took two or three witnesses to establish the truth of a matter. The author(s) presents three items of corroborating evidence as the three witnesses that establish truth.

The author of the old covenant said to the author of the new covenant, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” Hebrews 1:8. Psalm 45:6. “Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” Hebrews 1:9. Psalm 45:7. “Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thy hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.” Hebrews 1:10 – 12. Psalm 102:25 – 27. Hebrews 1:8-10 continues the testimony that establishes the divinity of the heirship of Jesus based upon the exact character of his relationship with God. Heirship is defined as the position or rights of an heir, the status of being heir to something or someone, the right to inheritance. Of course, all of that had to be based in fact or truth. The author(s) established the truth of inheritance by the very proclamations in the law that were inspired by the spirit of God.

The author of the old covenant said to the author of the new covenant, “Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Hebrews 1:13. Psalm 110:1. Jesus claimed his place at the right hand of the majesty on high. That high and lofty position of heirdom is explained as part of the in-gathering of the Hebrews. Being a footstool is not an object of denigration as it may be seen to complete the throne. As authority goes, it is a matching set.

The relationship between Jesus and the angels of God:

What God said to the angels, “And let all the angels of God worship him (Jesus.)” Hebrews 1:6. Psalm 97:7 “Adore him, all you his angels:” Deuteronomy 32:43 "Rejoice with him, O heavens, and adore him, all ye angels." We get an immediate sense of order, chain-of-command-wise. Christ is greater than the angels. The angels are commanded to respond to Jesus in a particular manner. Of angels, in particular, the command uses two words. They are worship and adore. Synonyms for adore include venerate, revere, honor, glorify, exalt and worship. For an example of worship, I turn to the incident of the ten lepers in Samaria. Upon the realization of being made whole, the Samaritan turned back to worship Jesus. This particular act of worship is described in two ways. The most immediate and physical of the two was that the man fell on his face before Jesus and thanked him. This worship is also described both by the author of the gospel and by Jesus, himself. Both descriptions are equal in their identification. The author said of the Samaritan that he returned with a loud voice and glorified God. With a loud voice is to say that the action he took, he engaged in unreservedly. Jesus said as much when he noted that of the ten, only one man returned to give glory to God. So then, what is glory? On the part of the Samaritan, it was an acclamation (in a loud voice and without reservation) praising all that is great about God. Of heaven, which includes more than the angels, the command is to rejoice with him. Him who? The first begotten. Jesus. I am reminded of a phrase from Psalm 19:5, “and rejoices as a strong man to run a race.” For those of heaven, that is to be a part of the same mind, to stand with and support. I would like to bring up the wording of the first half of verse six. 'when he brings in the first begotten into the world.' I look especially to the words in and into. They give the sense of an introduction, an inclusion. What is introduced is injected. The sense is of some internal quality that is surrounded by an external quality, like a stage within a theater. The protagonist steps into the spotlight.

What God said of the angels, “Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.” Hebrews 1:7. Psalm 104:4. Angels are made a certain way and for a certain purpose. They have their own particular nature. They must know their place in the order of things. I see them like an ocean wave upon reaching the beach of God's will, and the word to them is 'thus far and no further.' While they may speak for and, in some instances like, God, their nature is their limitation. When the angel in the burning bush spoke like God, it was a flame of fire, a singular aspect. When the angel in the garden used a fiery sword to block the path of Adam and Eve, to channel them in a particular direction, it was a singular aspect of something greater than itself, and its purpose was to minister.

The author of Hebrews concludes about angels, “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?” Hebrews 1:14. They are the helpers of humanity. To those of us who will be granted to stand with the son of God as heirs of salvation, the angels are our ministers. What exactly is a minister? Of a sort, they are missionaries and shepherds. They assist us in our journey. We, like a flock of tended sheep, may not be aware of their presence or influence because of our focus on what is in front of us. There are times, however, when we become aware of being moved or of having our paths blocked. The inexplicable occurs in our lives. We are channeled. We are prepared.

The relationship between the angels of God and mankind:

Angels are meant to worship Jesus, along with mankind, as the consecrated authority of God. The angels are created spirit beings, aspects of God. Men are begotten beings that were created by a combination of flesh and spirit, aspects of God. There is something of a gulf between angels and men. Mankind has that whole corporeal addition to work through. Otherwise, men and angels are similar spirits. Our paths cross but are not the same. The path of mankind goes where the path of angels does not. Our path can lead to salvation. For the angels, salvation may be either a forbidden or previously settled matter. We do not know the particulars about angels; we may only guess. We are informed that there was a falling out among the ranks of the angels; such musings must be left for other topics.

Angels are meant to be servants of God's will toward mankind and, as spirits, may take on the nature of God (a flame of fire.) However, their inclusion in chapter one of the book of Hebrews is merely to set the stage. The author attempts to place all elements in their proper place. The preeminence goes to God and His son, who at a particular point, adopts the begotten nature of mankind for the purposes of God. Mankind is low man on the totem, having a history that requires redemption. Angels stand between the preeminence and the need for redemption as shepherds. Mankind has taken a stand apart, like the fallen angels, but has been extended an invitation back into the fold. The path that mankind must take to reach that goal is, necessarily, through the nature of the greatest of our shepherds.

The Best of John Chapter Twenty-one

 

Verses one through fourteen tell the story of the third appearance of Jesus. While other gospels expand somewhat on the activities of Jesus after his resurrection, John recounts three final appearances and leaves it at that. There are no forty days or ascension into Heaven. John's account ends with a central emphasis on the disciple whom Jesus loved. The story is as follows.

By the third encounter, Jesus had already appeared to his disciples first on the day of his rising and second one week later. That was in or around the area including Jerusalem and Bethany. By the time that Jesus met them on the final occasion, seven of the disciples had made their way all the way back to the sea of Galilee – and, I am going to assume the location was Capernaum where Peter lived and worked. The distance between Jerusalem and Capernaum is nearly seventy-nine miles and is about a four or five-day walk.

Peter is one of seven disciples listed: Peter, Thomas, Nathaniel, the two sons of Zebedee, James and John, and two other unnamed disciples. They were all hanging out together and life was returning to a sense of normalcy. Peter tells the others he wants to fish. Business as usual. Right? Are the unnamed disciples Andrew and Philip? I assume that Andrew had to be there because he was a fisherman like his brother, lived in the same town, and worked with his brother in the family business. Who was the final disciple and was he a fisherman? I went to https://www.theclassroom.com/what-were-the-professions-of-the-twelve-apostles-12083577.html for information on the professions of the disciples, finding what follows:

The Other Apostles

The Bible provides no information on the professions of Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Thaddaeus or James, the son of Alphaeus. It does provide information about Paul, who became an apostle after the death and resurrection of Jesus. He was a Pharisee and may have taught religion or worked in political office. During his missionary journeys, Paul supported himself as a tent maker according to Acts 18:1-3.

Four of the seven disciples present were bona fide fishermen. Three of them were not. Yet, all three of them hailed from the same general area and may, at the very least, have had some exposure to the fishing profession. We see in the account that there is no mentioned difficulty in those three joining in an all-nighter with Peter. Imagine being on the open waters all night, casting nets and pulling them in hour after hour. Sounds like hard work. The three just jumped in the ship with Peter with no preamble. Just your average fisherman's night out. Well, with the ministry and shared funding at an end, I guess there was nothing better for them to occupy their time with than earning a living for their families. It is recorded that Peter had a family. It is no particular stretch to imagine that the others had families. It is seen as a pattern in the gospels that Jesus allowed downtime in which the apostles returned home.

The timeline. Jesus was crucified and buried on the day of preparation – a Friday. The evening and the morning were the day of preparation. The next evening through the morning were the Sabbath, running from the evening of Saturday into the morning of Sunday. Finally, the evening and the morning were the first day of the week, running from the evening of Sunday to the morning of Monday. Jesus appeared to the disciples that evening and again one week from that day. If Peter and his fellow apostles made a four or five-day trek from Jerusalem to Capernaum in the Tuesday through Friday period after the final Sabbath of the Passover, for which they were required to be physically present, they would have arrived on or around the following weekend and rested through the Sabbath and returned to earning a living on or around pretty much three weeks to the day they first saw the risen Jesus.

Verse three follows the decision to fish by the seven men immediately entering “a ship” rather than 'the ship' or 'Peter's ship.' If Peter's family and Zebedee's family ran a joint business, a ship makes sense. They just went out and grabbed one of the ships normally available to the two families. We've seen more than seven men on one of those ships. In general terms, such ships were a minimum of 27 feet long, 7.5 feet wide, and with a maximum preserved height of 4.3 feet. They included a mast, oars, anchors, rigging, and ropes. Of a necessity, they would need room for the men and the nets with all the required space for the catch to be dumped. Whether or not there were seats, I could not say but Jesus once fell asleep in such a ship – so, perhaps.

The seven men had labored hard through the night. It was dawn as they returned. The light was just coming up. Figures on the shore would have seemed like dark silhouettes. Having seen Jesus a week prior and having received signs, they may have considered that the Lord had gone to be with the Father. There was no recorded instance of Jesus telling them he would be back in a week. It is possible the men considered Jesus gone. Therefore, a dark figure on the shore on an early morning would have raised no flags in their thinking. They had to plan out their ministries, decide just how to proceed, and do a little fishing along the way. A man calls to them from the shore, “Children, have ye any meat?” To hear a stranger they could not make out address them as children, their first assumption may have been that it was an older man. To hear him ask if they had something to eat, they may have thought he was either a beggar or a customer. They answered simply, “no.” We must think not in terms of our own times and attitudes but in the way of the past. How would they react to each of the possibilities – to a neighbor and fellow fisherman, to a beggar, to a customer, to an elder?

Why would they have so easily been convinced that the person on the shore knew better than they or had sound advice? Well, they were still on the waters, there was little to lose. There was always a chance. Still, it depends on who they assumed they were responding to. Perhaps the town had many elderly fishermen who no longer went out but had experience the younger men felt obliged to respect. They cast their net in the advised direction and not only caught fish, which would have been enough of a surprise at that point, but they caught so many fish they could barely hold on to the net. They could not, for the weight of it, pull it into the ship. What to do? They were both excited and perplexed. They had to do some quick thinking to keep the catch. I'm sure there was a cacophony of excited chatter but in the midst of that, the disciple whom Jesus loved came to the conclusion that such a miraculous catch could only be the work of Jesus. He said as much to Peter.

When Peter heard that it was Jesus, he also became excited. Before that, he may have only wanted to get off the ship and go get some sleep. He may have been exhausted but when he heard mention of the Master, he put on his work coat and threw himself into the sea. At two hundred cubits ( 300 feet ) from land, I wonder how deep the sea was? The water ranged from wading depth nearest the shore to approximately 32 feet deep. Peter swam for shore. It is mentioned that the other disciples followed in “a little ship.” Perhaps they had a larger ship at their disposal but simply chose the smaller among the available vessels. I considered the possibility that another of the disciples had swum to shore and went back out with a smaller vessel. I considered them pulling the net to shore between them but the wording plainly places the remaining six disciples together.

Verse nine redirected my thinking. I assumed that Peter swam to shore but there is no mention of him being there when the others arrive on the ship. Now I must consider that bringing the catch to shore was the reason Peter jumped overboard. Perhaps a few others did as well. I can picture some of the men rowing. I can picture some of them in the water pulling. Perhaps, where they were, the waters were shallow enough for Peter to jump in and wade, pulling in his catch with brute force. It was a group experience to come close to shore, see a fire of coals waiting, and tie off the little ship. On the fire, they spotted fish and bread that Jesus had provided. In the process of all of that, Jesus said to all of them, “Bring of the fish which ye have caught.” They were to add some of theirs to some of his.

“Peter went up.” That is a directional statement. To my mind, it suggests Peter coming ashore from the water and standing there on his feet. Peter is seen, in the John narrative, to 'muscle in' the fish with his own hands. To me, that suggests something of the strength and stature of the man. They later counted the fish and arrived at the number one hundred and fifty-three. It is stated that the net contained “great fishes.” That reference suggests a great weight of mature fish. Further, they thought it worthy of note that the net did not break under the full weight of the catch. I take it they were surprised by the size and amount of the catch. As to the exact number of 153, many writers through the ages have considered that there might be some deep or hidden significance to the number. Many have put forth theories, assumptions, and references. I found this in Wikipedia: The code for "mental processes & intelligence" in the Dewey Decimal Classification.

For myself, I have considered, through the years, that the number nine is the number that signifies change. When you add the three numbers, 1+5+3, the outcome is 9. It should also be noted that Jesus died in the ninth hour. Nine is, therefore, a number associated with finality, and completion of one's purpose. If you take the 53 and add it to the 1, you get 54. Adding the numbers in 54 brings one back to the number 9. I mention this because I was born in 1954. I feel like these numbers are special to me as I was raised in a home with a house number of 954. The significance of numbers is an aside. I have no idea why the author thought it necessary to mention the number of fish caught.

So they pull the net in, count the fish, and add some to the fire. By this time, they are all aware that it is Jesus. The meal is ready and Jesus invites them to dine. They gather around the fire and Jesus takes bread and breaks it in a typical fashion. In short, Jesus serves them breakfast. The author states in verse fourteen that this was the third occasion where Jesus met them after his resurrection.

Verses fifteen through nineteen show us the familiar exchange between Peter and Jesus. I get the sense that they are no longer sitting. Jesus asks a question three times. 'Peter, do you love me?' Peter answers three times in the affirmative although somewhat grieved over the repetition. It is almost like Jesus asking, 'Are you sure you love me?' 'Yes, Lord. I'm sure.' 'Are you sure that you are sure?' 'I said so. I would know if I wasn't.' But – the thing about this repetition is that it has scriptural roots in the old testament law. Deuteronomy 19:15 states, “at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.” Also in Corinthians 13:1, we find, “This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” The repetitious exchange between Peter and Jesus established both the fact that Peter loved Jesus (as in a pledge) and the charge to feed the lambs/sheep that Jesus placed in Peter's care. All of the exchange seemed to be summed up in Jesus' final command to Peter. “Follow me.”

The author gives an explanation in verses eighteen and nineteen. He explained what Jesus meant when he said to Peter, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.” The author explained that those words signified the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. I have always gotten the sense of an older, feeble person who is unable to dress himself, rather than a prisoner being bound and led away. However, this was supposedly how Peter would follow Jesus. Peter was perhaps one of the older disciples and after leading the Jerusalem church for years, he would have been approaching his doddering years. It is possible that those around him in service helped him dress and made sure he got to where he was supposed to be.

There is another point about these verses that I wish to bring up. If the author was John, how does he come by such a sage explanation? Was he the disciple whom Jesus loved because he had a gift for discernment? Early Church tradition states that Peter probably died by crucifixion in the year 64 around the time of the Great Fire of Rome. Bible scholars say that the Gospel of John was probably composed between 90 and 100 CE. Word of Peter's demise may have reached the author of John long before the gospel was written. Even so, the beloved disciple may still have had qualities that brought him closer to Jesus when he was a young man. Discernment is one possibility. Another is a thirst for truth. Another is a child-like faith.

So Jesus was walking with Peter after the meal which they ate in Capernaum after they had fished all night. Peter looks over his shoulder and sees the beloved disciple following Jesus like a puppy. That the beloved disciple was following speaks of his character and personality. Peter asks what Jesus was going to have that disciple do. Let us stop ahead of Jesus' response, to ask why. Why? Why was Peter concerned with the other person? After the meal, Peter and Jesus are up walking around and engaged in conversation. Why were not the other disciples following? Perhaps they had gone home to sleep. Perhaps they still sat around the fire in conversation. Perhaps they were processing the catch. Perhaps they were showing deference to their master thinking he wanted to speak with Peter alone. Only one disciple walked behind them. It was the beloved disciple. He followed as if he did not want the Lord to get too far away. Perhaps he feared he would not be present when Jesus left for heaven. Perhaps he desired to know if there was a command for him. It is possible that some or all of the other disciples followed at a distance behind the beloved disciple. Peter's question is never fully explained. It is presented as possible jealousy, as possible truculence or obtuseness. What I get is that Peter thought he was going to his commanded duties in an immediate fashion, as if Jesus was taking him to the lambs and sheep right there and then. I see Peter as mostly curious.

Peter asks Jesus, “What shall this man do?” More or less, Jesus told Peter, 'Don't you worry about him. Focus on the path I have set for you.' The details of Jesus' response to Peter, in verse twenty-two, is 'if I decide that he wait until I come, that is not your concern.' Let us ask ourselves, just what did Jesus mean when he used the word “come?” Obviously, word got around that Jesus meant, 'until I return,' which presumes that they thought Jesus was walking, at that time, to a place where he would leave them for heaven. That presumption signifies the possibility that all the disciples followed as Jesus and Peter walked ahead and that the beloved disciple was just the closest after them. The rumor that the loved disciple would live until the return of Jesus could have had its origin in any of the disciples. However, I want to suggest the possibility that Jesus meant, in the sense of handing out commands, 'until I come to him.'

The fact that the author felt compelled to rectify the rumor, in verse twenty-three, suggests that the author and the beloved disciple were actually one and the same. The rumor was not an immediate thing. The author used the expression, “Then went this saying abroad among the brethren.” The ''brethren" speaks, in a broader sense, of the followers of Jesus. There were the seventy or seventy-two apostles, mentioned in Luke, that Jesus sent out two by two. Jesus also had a large following among the common people as well as followers among the priests and Sanhedrin.

So, maybe the beloved disciple was actually the disciple John. Maybe he had a skill in discernment and understanding which was accepted beyond his own opinion. Verse twenty-four is suggestive. The author claims that the beloved disciple (student) is the very one who is testifying about the events of the written account. He also claims that “we” know that his testimony is true. That is a shared assessment more than an opinion. By the time of the writing, there was much commonly shared experience. There was a consensus among the brethren. It is not a stretch to think that there was something special about John. It is not a stretch to think that John's special quality was the reason Jesus loved him. It is not a stretch to think that said detail was well known by many.

The gospel of John includes no forty days, ascension, or the five hundred people mentioned in Corinthians fifteen. Other gospels have Jesus ascending from the Mount of Olives near Bethany. Alternately, Jesus leads the disciples to Bethany and ascends, commanding them to stay in Jerusalem for a time. The Gospel of John has a closing statement. They had their breakfast of fish and bread. Then they were up and walking. Perhaps they were heading back to Bethany. Some facts are absent as if the author is writing to the people who knew, the people who were there. To the general audience, he leaves a closing statement. It is a statement which suggests an active period in which many things occurred. The author intimates that so many things took place in that time that many volumes could not contain the information. Someone should have written about those forty days.

There you have it. That is the end of the gospel. To be honest, this work could be fleshed out a bit. This work is little more than the personal notes I have written down in my studies. As to whether or not they could be of use to others in their studies, I may only hope. I have not tried to understand the common things. One may understand only so much from going to Bible School or church. Those are the things which the spirit defines through the Apostle Paul as the rudiments. I will close with a reference obtained from an article written by Joseph A. Cannon including a definition from the Oxford English Dictionary.

"Rudiments" appears only twice in the Bible. Paul uses it, however, with surgical precision to describe the nature of the choice that all of us must make between the natural, carnal, or materialistic world view, or the spiritual, "in the beginning God …" perspective. Rudiment means the "first principles or elements of a subject; those points which are first taught to, or acquired by, one commencing the study or practice of a branch of knowledge." It is a "first principle; an initial step or stage." Rudiment is "the imperfect beginnings of some (material or immaterial) thing; those parts which are the foundation of later growth or development"

In my studies, in these notes, as in my mental development, I have striven to move beyond the rudiments. I have considered the rudiments to be like a glove that only shows the basic form of what exists beneath. I have striven to dig deeper and reach for the details. I have wanted a more perfect or fully realized understanding of the Bible's truth. So, I took the time, I dug deeper into the Bible praying for the help of the Holy Ghost in my quest. These are just my thoughts but if anyone reads the things I have written, I ask that you compare my thoughts to your own thoughts. We just might be on the same road.

End.

The Best of John Chapter Twenty

The first verse of this chapter takes us to the first day of the week. Nothing is mentioned of the Sabbath or of the Passover. Too many people just rush through the verse on their way to the next verse. I want to stop and ask questions. I want to study the details others rush past. One such detail is the three-day period that Jesus was in the grave. The Bible gives us a three-day period in order to make a connection between Jesus and Jonah who spent three days in the belly of a fish. Jesus was interred on the evening of the day of preparation before a High Sabbath of the Passover feast. Jewish days ran from the evening to the morning. Going to the morning of the Sabbath is only one day. Going to the morning of the day following the Sabbath is only two days. To have a full three days, Jesus would need to be in the grave from the evening of the preparation day (a Friday as the Sabbath fell on a Saturday) to the morning of Monday. Verse one has us at the first day of the week and therein lies a problem to simple logic. The Jews consider Sunday to be the first day of the week.

I will leave that for others to hash out. I want to turn my attention to Mary Magdalene, a very persistent character in the story of Jesus. She was said to be with him from the beginning of his ministry. If memory serves, Jesus' ministry began at or around the wedding at Cana. Information on Mary is limited in the Bible but every instance of her in the story of Jesus gives off the vibe that she was more important than the scriptures record. I see it in the little details like her being with Jesus' mother at the crucifixion and being present at the burial. That she was the very first to his grave after the Sabbath reeks of importance. I have to ask, where was she staying during that time? I have to ask, what state of mind was she in that caused her to be out before the sun came up? Had she lost sleep? Was she distraught? I suppose other disciples and apostles were distraught at the death of their master but none of them were up before the crack of dawn. I can picture Mary walking in the dark with a small lamp. But why her? Mary rushing to the grave at the earliest possible opportunity speaks of personal feelings that go beyond the distress of an apostle without a master.

There are four versions of Mary going to the grave and the John version is the only one that has her going alone. Still, in verse two, when she runs to Peter with the news, she uses the expression “we know not where they have laid him,” indicating a consensus rather than a solitary opinion. In the three other gospel versions, Mary goes in the company of other women. In two of the three other versions, the women have prepared spices to anoint the body of Jesus. Those two versions raise some rather serious questions. First, I must ask, how did they presume they could roll away the stone? Were two or three women sufficient to the task? Second, I must ask, why would there be a need to anoint the body of Jesus a second time? Joseph and Nicodemus are recorded in John 19:39-40 doing that at the time of the burial, “And there came also Nicodemus . . . and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred-pound weight. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen cloths with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.”

It would be great to know more of the facts. Why did Mary run to Peter, for example, and not to Andrew? Why were Peter and the unnamed disciple whom Jesus loved hanging out together? Where were they staying? Where were the other disciples? How far did Mary have to run to reach them on that dark morning? If the unnamed disciple was John – didn't he take Jesus' mother to his home? Was the mother of Jesus there somewhere? If we recall, when Jesus came down to the Passover, with those who came with him, he went to the house of his friend, Lazarus, to stay. Were he and his disciples lodging with Lazarus? Was the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene staying at the house of Lazarus? Had all of the early morning running taken place on the Mount of Olives between the Lazarus home in Bethany and the graveyard on the same Mount of Olives?

In verses three through eight, those two disciples ran to the grave but it is not mentioned, at this point, that Mary went with them. Let's take a look at the race of the two disciples. One of them was faster than the other and arrived first at the grave. What does that suggest? It might be a clue that Peter was older. It might be a clue about the disciple that Jesus loved. His racing so hard to get there speaks of the love that was reciprocated. It might speak of a deeper relationship or one that was more long-standing. If that disciple was James, the brother of Jesus, we are clued in to a deep brotherly love that speaks of more than cousins. If that disciple was Lazarus, we are clued into a long-standing love for the entire Lazarus family of whom it was recorded in the Bible that Jesus “loved” them.

So, the beloved disciple arrived first at the grave but did not go in. Perhaps he was heavily winded. Perhaps he was afraid. If it was Lazarus, perhaps it was a moment of wonder and reflection as he, himself, had risen from the dead and he found himself enthralled in the epiphany of the power of God over physical death. When Peter arrived, he went in and the unnamed disciple followed. Now, we come to details that bear the weight of credibility. Jesus rose from the dead and both disciples saw a linen cloth that the body had been wrapped in. When I say wrapped, I mean with the arms inside. I mean wrapped tightly to hold the spices close to the body. It is rather like a straight jacket in that it would be extremely difficult to get out of without assistance. The author worded it thus, “and seeth the linen clothes lie.” That suggests that the linen was still in the place where it should have been – just empty. When people pen in the little details it is because they are impressive. The face cloth is mentioned for that reason. It was not where they might have expected it to be. It was set aside – and it had been folded. How many scenarios can we imagine where the linen is where it should be but the face cloth has been folded and set aside?

That was just one of the details. This is the other detail: the beloved disciple followed Peter into the grave and saw what Peter saw first. When he saw it, he believed. Let's jump way back to a point when Jesus confided to his brothers. In chapter seven of John, Jesus walked in Galilee. For a time, he avoided travel into Judaea but the feast of tabernacles was at hand and it was one of the three feasts that required Jews to be physically present in Jerusalem. I bring this up because the unnamed disciple all of a sudden believed. Seeing is believing. Right? Well, Jesus was in Galilee with his brothers. They mocked him. They mocked his ministry and what he hoped to achieve. Obviously, they knew what that was or they would not be able to mock him. In not so many words, they told him to get off the pot. They told him, if you want to make a name for yourself, you can't do that hiding here with us – go. Show yourself to the world. Verse five of that chapter explicitly states, “For neither did his brethren believe him.” Was James that unnamed disciple?

Back to chapter twenty and verse nine. It states, “For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.” Well, what had Jesus been teaching them for three years? The core twelve disciples were steeped in such teachings. As Jews who went weekly to the Synagogue, they were familiar with all the prophecies about the messiah. They were present at occasions where Jesus raised the dead and Jesus spoke to them at length during their final meal together about his death and resurrection. Had they simply not connected the dots until they saw the empty grave? James, on the other hand, was a righteous man who later governed the early church in Jerusalem but many scholars agree that he was not initially sold on his brother being the savior.

Verse ten. “Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.” Their home? Did they live together? Did they have a rented home in or near Jerusalem? Their own home speaks to me of Capernaum where they actually owned homes but the plural is not used. The singular 'home' is written. If that was not an idiom of the writer or a mistake of the interpreter, then I am left to believe that the two men lived in the same dwelling. Peter and his brother, Andrew, lived together in Capernaum. If, however, we are not considering a long trek to Capernaum, we are left to consider a local lodging that is identified deliberately as “their own home.” It is possible that they hired a room somewhere but when the running to the grave is taken into account, it seems unlikely that they were in Jerusalem. That would have been a really long run and if Peter was an older man, he might not have done well to run such a distance.

There is, on the other hand, a real possibility that they stayed in Bethany. That was a small town or city. There may have been accommodations to be had for a coin or two. I am still at a place in my thinking where the grave location seems more likely to be somewhere close to Bethany. Although, I admit the possibility that there was some halfway point between Bethany and Jerusalem where a rich old man had built himself a garden gravesite. However, to be buried in a virgin grave set alone does not quite fulfill the prophecy that the Messiah would be buried with the rich. There could have been a private garden with graves set aside for the priests and council members but they hardly qualify as rich. I say this to point out the fact that there was a nearby graveyard with many graves of the rich and renowned. It was within walking distance.

And, then, there is this from https://alt-arch.org/en/graveyard_metropolis/

Kidron Valley Antiquities

The burial monuments in the Kidron Valley, at the foot of the Mt. of Olives, are considered the grandest and most unique of Jerusalem graves. These monuments have been recognized as part of the landscape surrounding the Old City for thousands of years. The Pillar of Absalom is in our day the most prominent edifice in the Kidron Valley, easily recognizable through its singular architecture: a round dome set on a square structure. Beside it, we find the Tomb of Benei Hezir and the Tomb of Zecharia. These tombs are excavated in the rock; their facades resemble free-standing structures, and they enclose much more space than that necessary for burial.

Verse eleven brings us back to Mary. She had followed the two disciples back to the sepulcher. After they left, Mary remained. She stood outside the open grave and cried. If she was the only one there, who recorded the event? Did Mary tell this part later? As she cried, she stooped down and peered inside the grave. She reported seeing two angels dressed in white. One sat at the head of where the body had been laid out and the other sat at the foot of the same structure. I picture in my mind a raised edifice. Joseph of Arimathaea had built the grave for himself, for a single person. There is no mention of family and, traditionally,  family was interred on top of their ancestors. Keeping the family together after death was a thing back then. The gospel of Matthew tells us that Joseph carved his grave out of rock. If he was rich, as Matthew suggests, the work was done by masons. The garden was a property that abutted a rock face. Perhaps his house sat atop the escarpment. That is just my thought.

So, two angels, dressed in white, sat on a raised rock slab. When Mary peeks inside, they speak to her. This suggests a certain size limit and possible shape. It was small and tight but with enough room for two men to step down into. If the grave had been a hole in the ground, she could have looked into it standing. She stooped down and looked in, suggesting that it was a rock face but not a very high rock face. The opening was just large enough for two men carrying a body to enter, turn around and climb up out of after placing the body. If the grave was square, it had to measure more than six feet across. It was at least deep enough for men to sit on the raised slab. That suggests an internal height of around five or six feet.

Mary seems not at all alarmed that there were two men in the grave. She had followed the two disciples back to the grave and likely watched them enter and leave. The disciples mention nothing to her about angels. Her weeping and her emotional state seem to be such that she is not shocked to see such a sight. Moreover, she engages with them in conversation as if it was normal. Mary was emotionally distraught to an extreme degree. In fact, her degree of distress and anguish, when contrasted against that of the two disciples, is striking. Mary appears as a woman forsaken. The differences between men and women will not explain her state of mind.

Mary answers the strangers then rises and turns to leave as if it was common in her experience to see angels or strange men in a grave. When she turns, she sees Jesus but does not recognize him. She assumes he is the gardener. Jesus had been buried naked. Had he been naked, Mary might have made the connection. However, since she presumed him to be the gardener, we may take it that he was dressed. We also must assume, especially if the running back and forth was between Bethany and the graveyard on the Mount of Olives, that it was still dark or that the sun was not fully risen. What prompted Mary to turn away rather than continue her discussion with the two angels? Why do Jesus and the two angels ask the same question word for word?

Jesus asks her, “Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou?” Let us examine her response. She thinks the man she sees is a caretaker of the property. She asks a question that presumes he might have moved the body which, in turn, presumes that the burial may have been, at least in her understanding or confusion, a temporary arrangement. She pleads for the location of the body and assumes complete responsibility for it. One might even see in her response a spirit of ownership. Did she imagine she could carry the body away physically? She did not seem to care about the logistics at that point – she would deal with it somehow or the other. Look at Mary's response in a continuing examination of her state of mind. These are the facts of the story: Mary was the first there, she brought two disciples, the extreme degree of her distress is evidenced in her weeping, in her unalarmed, steadfast, and undeterred response to strangers in the grave and the presumed gardener. Mary is not the disciple weeping at the loss of her teacher, she is a woman weeping at the loss of a loved one.

Then Jesus called her name and she “turned herself.” She was not looking at him directly. It could well be that Mary was in shock, going in circles, turning first from the angels, then toward the gardener, then away and back toward when, at last, she heard her name. Fearfully, as one who cannot believe what is going on, she asks, 'Is that you?' She uses the word 'Rabbi' or master according to the narrative but those are just words – they could have been inserted. It appears that when it all became clear to Mary that she moved to touch him in some way for Jesus had to warn her off. “Touch me not,” he said to Mary. He did not just say to her, 'don't touch me,' he gave her a reason for the request. He was still in the process of ascension. Although she may have dearly wanted to embrace him, or kiss his hand, or kneel at his feet, contact would have had a negative outcome to the finalization of his reaching God from the mortal plane.

Verse seventeen. Whenever I see the word 'for' in the scripture, I automatically replace it, in my mind, with the word 'because.' In such verses, I see a reason. In such verses, I see cause and effect. When Jesus told Mary not to touch him, he gave a reason. He said to her, 'Don't make physical contact with me because I am still in the process of ascension.' If Mary desired Jesus as much as the previous verses of this chapter indicate, I'm sure she wanted to touch him – and Jesus was even more sure. However, he was in a stage of something that physical contact might undo. Instead of a quick hug and a pat on the back, Jesus turned the conversation by giving a goal, a purpose. He sent her to those she had just gone to, not for her own reasons this time, but for his.

In the message that Jesus gave to Mary to deliver, I see a connection in the thinking of Jesus. I see a way of thinking that might well be played back into the teachings of Jesus in the more personal moments between himself and his core twelve. I also see what Jesus thought of his accomplishment – that it was an achievement shared between himself and those he had taken as his own. I see, moreover, that Jesus identified with his own in every sense, not so much in a superior sense but, rather, as equal to the men he sent Mary to. He said, “my brethren,” he said, “my father and your father,” he said, “my God and your God.” He said we all made it across the finish line at the same time. He said the prize is ours to share. He said we are the same.

So Mary ran back to the disciples and told them that she had seen Jesus. There is not a distinction as in the earlier passage where Mary talked to only two disciples in their “own home.” She spoke to the assembled disciples. Where were they assembled? How far did Mary travel to reach the assembly? Was the place where they were gathered together the same place as where Mary found Peter and the unnamed disciple? No more is said at that point about the interaction between Mary and the disciples but I get the sense that they accepted the message. I get the sense that their thoughts had turned back to all that Jesus had told them about his death and resurrection. The narrative jumps to the evening of the same day. The evening is mentioned in connection to the fact that the doors were closed. The closed doors are mentioned in connection to the fact that they were hiding from the men who had crucified their Lord.

In other versions from other gospels, we get the sense that Jesus just mysteriously appeared among the men. The account in John ascribes no such mystery. It simply notes that Jesus came. Jesus was up and walking around that morning when he met with Mary and I get the sense that Jesus was up and walking around in the evening of the same day. He could have knocked. Imagine the surprise of the man who cracked the door and peeked out. I also get the sense that the process of ascension was a settled matter. Jesus spoke to them. He showed them his wounds, which suggests a possible examination by each of them to the point where they were satisfied rather than concerned, glad rather than troubled or fearful. They found the evidence of his resurrection physically credible.

Jesus gave commands to them and breathed on them, saying, receive the Holy Ghost in verses nineteen through twenty-three. He gives them their commission. It is interesting to note in these verses that the expression, “Peace be unto you,” is repeated. The author noted the repetition and used the word, 'again.' No question is asked as to why Jesus repeated himself. Personally, I wonder if there may have been a reason to say the same thing twice. I wonder if the placement of the expression, first as a greeting and second as the opening of the commission has significance we need to seek out. He came to them and said peace. He sent them and said peace. In and of itself, the expression obviously holds more significance than a simple hello-how-are-you-doing kind of thing.

Doubting Thomas was not present. There were ten disciples huddled wherever they were huddled. If they were afraid to be seen by the Jews, it stands to reason they were not hiding in downtown Jerusalem. Again, my thought is that they stayed with or near Lazarus in Bethany. It might also be possible they stayed with Joseph or Nicodemus. They were also disciples. Perhaps Joseph had a large property with a garden tomb and all of the foregoing may be seen as quite localized. Jesus came and left. Thomas returned. They told him they had seen Jesus. They told him they had inspected the wounds. They were certain. The one man who away on a supply run can not be blamed for not having the same degree of certainty as the others in the group. They had seen, he had not. That thing that Thomas said to them is not especially troubling – he simply wanted to see as they had seen. What he said does suggest that he wanted to physically inspect the wounds just as the other nine had done. It suggests that the initial nine did put their fingers in the prints of the nails and thrust their hands into the spear wound. I get the sense that they had recounted to Thomas that they had done just that.

Was Thomas denied proof? No, he was given the same proof Jesus had given the other nine. The exact application of the word 'faithless,' as spoken by Jesus does not necessarily mean that out of all the disciples that Jesus had taught for three years, Thomas was the only hold-out. The most basic meaning of the word faithless is the synonym, 'skeptical.' Thomas received an account that was second-hand. It was a thing told by other men. The problem with Thomas is the problem with all men. The message in this is that it is not in our nature to think that another man can know more than we do. We may be quite ready to receive that higher truth, we may be eager to believe – just not so much through another fallible human being. Not many of us have a natural appreciation for being told by another man, even another believer. When another man comes to me giving the impression that he knows more than I do, my first response is skepticism. This is my take, then – the message of Jesus to Thomas and to us through Thomas is that we can listen to and believe others – especially those invested with the Holy Ghost. 

The Best of John Chapter Nineteen

 

It begins thus, “Then Pilate, therefore, took Jesus, and scourged him.” Please do not overlook the word 'therefore.' It is a connector between what the Jews wanted and what Pilate did not want. It should be noted that scourge does not always mean to whip; it can mean to beat. It seems that Pilate was more interested in making a statement to the Jews rather than being complicit in their shallow plot to have Jesus killed. I say this because Pilate had already invested time and effort on Jesus' behalf. It does not seem likely that he would flip so soon and, too, we will see that Pilate, after the scourging, continues to invest himself in Jesus' defense. I also must point out that following immediately on the heels of verse one, the narrative shows a beating rather than a whipping. I see what the soldiers do, not as callous Romans being brutal but, as simply following orders. Again, who was there to record the events?

Verses two and three describe the scourging as a cursory interlude that included hitting or slapping Jesus and dressing him in a crown and purple robe – all for a visual show. Pilate wanted to shame and mock the Jews. This, also, can be included in Pilate's defense of Jesus. If that was the case – that it was ordered by Pilate, then the hitting might have been to the face for effect. Still, in all, it seems rather less extreme than the Mel Gibson movie. If Pilate believed that there was no fault in Jesus worthy of death, a flogging with a cat of nine tails seems out of place in our thinking. It had no place in the John narrative.

Verse four provides the reader with another 'therefore,' another connector between thoughts and events. Having not wanted to be a part of the Jew's plan, having found no fault in Jesus, having invested time and effort in the defense of Jesus, and having had Jesus dressed as the King of the Jews to mock and shame the Jews, Pilate 'therefore' went back out to illustrate just what he thought of the Jews and their plan. He said to them, “Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.” Pilate went to lengths to make his position clear. This was his third act of defending Jesus. He stood Jesus before his accusers dressed as the very thing they accused him of and said, in verse five, “Behold the man!” Take a good look; he is not the threat you imagine.

But the Jews, and they alone, cried out for his crucifixion. When they saw Jesus dressed as a king, they 'therefore' were angered because they held that no mere man could be the Son of God. 'Why' might be more involved than commonly thought through but that is a topic for others to take up. Here, I wish only to parade the facts that, one: Pilate found no fault in Jesus, in other words, he did not believe what the Jews said and we are presented with an image of contention between Pilate and the Jews that may have had deep roots. Two: that it was only the group of men that came from the house of Annas that demanded Jesus' death. There were no public outcries. Three: Pilate answered their demand by saying, again, you take him and crucify him because I just don't believe he deserves to die. Is this a picture of a cold and callous Procurator totally willing to crucify any and every Jew? No. Pilate had been acting and speaking in Jesus' defense. This was, in fact, the fourth occasion where Pilate defended Jesus.

Verses seven and eight put a new spin on the story for, up until that moment, Pilate treated Jesus as an accused king who posed no threat to the Roman empire. Up until that moment, Pilate feared neither the Jews, Jesus, nor Roman sovereignty. Then, The Jews explain their case more precisely. They had a law under which Jesus deserved to die but also by their law, they could not kill him. That much still put the matter under a religious header. It seems that Pilate was more than willing to let the religious elite wrangle among themselves. Still no fear on Pilate's part and, here, we should understand that Rome and Judah had more than one connection. Pilate understood the language they communicated in. He also understood their beliefs – he had to in order to govern them. A polytheist Roman would have dismissed the religious details of the Jews and their God as so much Jewish weirdness. What the Jews said next should have in no way troubled a Roman governor. Yet, we see that when the Jews say that Jesus has made himself out to be the son of the Jewish God, suddenly Pilate was, as verse eight says, “more afraid.”

Just what kind of fear was Pilate operating under before he heard the Son of God part? Was he afraid, that is, reluctant to get entangled in matters of a foreign religion? Up until that moment, Pilate presented himself as unafraid of the Jewish machinations. He seemed in possession of himself and asserted his decision with confidence. Jesus was a king that need not concern the Roman empire. It was a religious matter – let the priests hash it out. If by “more afraid,” the author only means more reluctant, then Pilate might well have looked at Jesus and thought, 'what have you gotten me into?' On the other hand, let us view Pilate as suddenly and truly fearful when the 'Son of God' topic is dropped at his feet. What kind of man might Pilate have been to become suddenly fearful in regard to the Son of the Jewish God? Certainly, he had an understanding of their religion. He would have known about their prophecies. A religious matter of another culture would not have troubled an unbelieving Roman but, what if – he sort of believed?

He pulled Jesus back into the judgment hall for further interrogation in verses nine through eleven. As we recall, the Jews took Jesus to the judgment hall in chapter eighteen and verse twenty-eight where it is recorded that “it was early.” In chapters eighteen and nineteen, there are several short conversations between Pilate and the Jews and Pilate and Jesus – none of which would have lasted more than an hour. Also, the scourging is described as more or less a cursory extension of Pilate's argument with the Jews. Yet, by the time Pilate gives up and hands Jesus over to be crucified, the hour of the day is noted – it is the sixth hour: noon. If that was the case, the Jews had been standing just outside of the praetorium for half a day. Speaking of which, how do you imagine the structure of the building?

I imagine, to begin with, steps up to an outer porch on which the governor stood to address the Jews. The judgment seat is described as if in a different location – one called the 'pavement' – yet, near enough to the same group of Jews. If the praetorium was its own building, the Jews were standing in the street, and others might have gathered. If, however, the praetorium was an annex of another building – say, the temple – the Jews might have stood inside a courtyard where things remained relatively apart from the general population in the early morning hours. After the Jews scare Pilate, he retreats with Jesus to question him some more. Let us take a look at the line of questioning.

Pilate asks Jesus, “Whence art thou?” That is like asking 'from where' or 'from which' are you? This may be Pilate asking Jesus, 'Are you from heaven or earth?' Jesus did not answer that question and Pilate was perturbed. He asked, then, 'Why won't you answer me? You realize, don't you, that I have the power, not only to crucify but, to set you free?' Jesus answered that question, saying, “You could have no power at all against me except it were given to you from above: therefore he that delivered me to you has the greater sin.” Pilate already was comfortable with the authority given to him by Caesar. He would not need to be told about an authorizing power “above” if Jesus had meant to bring up his placement in the military chain of command. Jesus spoke to Pilate about the Jewish God whom the Jews place 'above' all else. Why would a Jewish Rabbi say such a thing to a polytheist Roman? Jesus further explains that because of the point he just made, the Jews who delivered him to Pilate had the “greater sin.” Why would a subjected Jewish citizen talk to a Roman governor about the Jewish concept of accountability? More importantly, why would Jewish talk of sin trouble a Roman with the power of life and death?

What is actually being said to Pilate by Jesus? Pilate, your power over me has been given to you by none other than God. You are guilty for your part in this but not as guilty as my own people. Recall that Pilate asked Jesus the question, “Am I a Jew?” Was that a rhetorical question? Pilate followed that question with the statement that Jesus' “own” people delivered him. In a conversation between a Jew and a Roman, the topic of Jewish 'sin' under a singular God is hardly compelling. Yet, it was because of what Jesus said that Pilate took the matter to the official judgment seat level. Up until then, Pilate had not officially spoken to the Jews. He spoke to them more as a man. His defense of Jesus may be seen as personal rather than as 'officially Roman.' It would be interesting to know if Pilate and Jesus had met and talked beforehand. It would be interesting and perhaps helpful to know if Pilate had inclinations toward the Jewish faith even if they were kept a secret. While it is not included here, other gospels record that Pilate's wife was especially troubled over her husband's involvement in the trial of Jesus. Was she a follower and, if so, did her faith influence Pilate?

Pilate's final attempts to acquit Jesus begin in verse twelve. It says, “And from thenceforth,” that is, from the point where Jesus informs Pilate of God's actions (perhaps a test) and the distribution of blame in the death of Jesus (which even Pilate can see that Jesus is deliberately not avoiding) “Pilate sought to release him.” It was Pilate's intent on the official level to release the accused prisoner. Up until this point, we see no jail time in the John gospel. The timeline quickly and smoothly proceeds from Jesus handed over to Pilate with a few words between him and the Jews, to an exchange between Jesus and Pilate in which Pilate says three things and Jesus says three things, and then to another short exchange between Pilate and the Jews in which the Jews ask for Barabbas, on to the minimal scourging and presentation of Jesus dressed in crown and robe, the reaction of the Jews, Pilate's response, the Jew's response, another exchange between Jesus and Pilate in which Pilate says two things and Jesus says one thing. All, pretty straightforward, timeline-wise.

In a final attempt to defend Jesus (and I have to ask, why would Pilate care so much about the fate of one Jew?) Pilate is shot down by the Jews, who change their tactic to political pressure. They insinuate that unless they get their way, Pilate's allegiances will be suspect. This is the point, in verse thirteen, where Pilate assumes his seat of authority. Jesus between the two parties, Pilate begins by saying, 'look upon your king.' The response of the priests is, “Away with him, away with him, crucify him.” Pilate seeks confirmation of their will and intent by asking, “Shall I crucify your king?” Even in his official capacity, Pilate seems reluctant to be the one to kill Jesus. He has made the point that, on an official level, he sees the kingship of Jesus as a non-political issue by placing the weight of accountability squarely on the shoulders of the Jews. The Jews assert that they have no king but Caesar which may, in and of itself, be a small win for Pilate's administration – something which he can hold over them.

Verse sixteen states, “Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.” The Jews took Jesus and led him away to be crucified – all they required was the sanction of the governor and soldiers to perform the crucifixion. Verse seventeen simply states that Jesus, “bearing his cross,” went to the “place of the skull” and was, as is continued in verse eighteen, crucified. As for pertinent details, there are few – only that Jesus was crucified with two thieves and Jesus in between them. There is no mention of the release of Barabbas, no mention of Simon carrying the cross for Jesus, no mourning women along the Via Dolorosa – just the bare-bones facts. Where was the place of the skull? John tells us, in verse twenty, “for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city.”

I get this from Wikipedia: All four Gospels use the Greek word kranion to describe the place where Jesus was crucified. Unlike skufion ("skull"), kranion (in English – cranium)[59] is the upper part of the skull excluding the face bones. Since the temple faced east,[60] the curtain in front of the entrance[61] of the temple would have been in direct view of those gathered on this mount at the northeast corner of the Temple Mount, just outside the city wall. And to testify that the curtain ripped at the very moment when Jesus died,[62] there must have been eyewitnesses. The Gospel of John refers to Golgotha as being very near the city, so near that all who passed by could read the inscription[19:20]. Considering also the prophecy in Psalms 69:12[69:12], his place of crucifixion would have been near enough to the gate that Jesus could hear what the people were saying about him there. And just as Eusebius comments in Onomasticon concerning Golgotha as being a hill just outside Jerusalem, north of the ancient Mount Zion[55], this hill fits his description.

Let us consider the “title” that Pilate wrote. It was a placard large enough for passing people to read. It was written in three languages – which in and of itself tells us much. Pilate understood and could write in three languages. It was a way of telling the Jews that more than the local Jews were under the governance of Rome. It was also a way to rub it in, that the Jews were killing their own prophesied king and he, Pilate, had done his personal best to avoid the death of a blameless man. The sign also suggests to me that Pilate attended the crucifixion. It is only mentioned after the fact that Jesus was on the cross between two thieves. We see, too, that Pilate was adamant about the words he had written. He wanted to lay the blame fully on the Jews.

Let us consider the soldiers that crucified Jesus. Verses twenty-three and twenty-four inform us that only four soldiers were in the detail. We know this because it is said they divided Jesus' clothing into four portions. What might Jesus have been dressed in other than the seamless coat or purple robe? Let us consider that the soldiers would not necessarily have wanted his undergarments so, as to the outer garments, if the outer garments were not ripped into four parts, there were five items of worth. One of them was the seamless coat. Why would soldiers, who wore Roman and military issue, want the clothing of a dusty rogue teacher? The answer, obviously, is that the clothing of Jesus was not common clothing. It was valuable enough that at the very least, they could have sold it.

Since there was no mention of Jesus being unclothed before his march to Calvary, it is at least possible that the purple robe was among the clothing. Small details such as these may offer greater insight. In many depictions of the crucifixion, Jesus is shown to be wearing the crown that Pilate had him dressed in. If the crown went to the cross, perhaps the purple robe did also. For that matter, how did Pilate come across a royal purple robe? Was it contraband? Did he borrow it from Herod, who lived nearby in the city of Jerusalem? As for the seamless coat, why would Jesus be dressed in such a thing?

The following information comes from https://nowthatimcatholic.com/2019/03/15/question-what-is-the-significance-of-jesus-seamless-garment/

The seamless tunic wasn’t just mentioned for its monetary value, it was also part of the liturgical vestments, that was designed by God and given to Moses in the desert of Sinai. Throughout the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, there are many mentions of linen garments that are to be worn by the priests that serve at the tabernacle, and even Ezekiel mentions several times the linen garments to be worn during Temple service.

Interestingly, according to the Talmud (A collection of Jewish teachings on the Torah) a priest was divested of his divine office if he failed to wear the proper vestments, While they are clothed in the priestly garments, they are clothed in the priesthood; but when they are not wearing the garments, the priesthood is not upon them. ~BT Zevachim 17:B

But many of these references are to the vestments worn by the Levitical priests, and not necessarily reserved to the High Priest, except for a couple of places in Leviticus and Exodus. These passages go into great detail about the vestments to be worn by Aaron, who was the first High Priest of Israel, and all who follow him in that office. Part of his vestments was an under robe, to be made seamless, and to be reinforced around the neck opening so to prevent tearing, It shall have in it an opening for the head, with a woven binding around the opening, like the opening in a garment, that it may not be torn. ~Exodus 28:32

All of this is to say that the seamless garment mentioned only by John, is to point directly to the fact that Christ is the High Priest Of the New Covenant. What was alluded to by John, would later be spelled out by the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews.

“But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God. Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance since a death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant.” ~Hebrews 9:11-15

(Really the entire book of Hebrews is on this theme of Christ’s covenant being greater than the old covenant, and His priesthood greater than the old priesthood. It’s worth reading in its entirety.)

Christ the High Priest. At the very beginning of the Gospels we hear Jesus called “the lamb of God” by John the Baptist (John 1:29), He calls His own body “greater than the temple” (Matthew 12:6) and “this temple” (John 2:21), and the seamless garment designated Him as the High priest.

What does it say to us that Jesus' daily wardrobe included the seamless tunic of a High Priest? Is that how so many people recognized Jesus as a Rabbi and as a Jew? Was it the wearing of such a coat that made the sellers in the temple reluctant to fight back when Jesus overturned their tables and brought their livelihood to a standstill? Is the seamless tunic the reason the “band of men and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees” fell back in the garden from the presence of Jesus? It has been my opinion throughout my studies that Jesus was a bonafide “Rabbi.” The seamless tunic adds the weight of justification to my assumption.

The mother of Jesus being in Jerusalem is the next issue I consider. Chapter nineteen verse twenty-five tells us that Jesus' mother was present in the city of Jerusalem. We might do well to ask why. Women were not required to travel from their homes to attend the Passover in Jerusalem like the men were. We can think of Jesus attending the Passover, his disciples, his brothers even. Why would his mother have attended the Passover on the very day of his crucifixion? What might have transpired to bring her, her sister, the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene to the crucifixion of Jesus?

Let me start with Mary Magdalene. It has been recorded that Mary was with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry. She may have been a woman of substance who supported his ministry financially. She may have traveled among the disciples and could well have been present in the garden. It might also be, as I have set forth, that she was his wife and also the sister of Lazarus who lived just a few short miles away in Bethany. If Mary was his wife living at Bethany, it is no stretch to think that Jesus' mother would be welcomed there. Jesus did go to the home of Mary and Lazarus almost a full week before the Passover began. If Jesus' brothers traveled to Jerusalem, as was required for the Passover, it is no stretch to think of their mother and sisters going with them. Neither is it a stretch to think of certain family members of the disciples attending the Passover.

Some scholars place the wife of Cleophas, or Clopas, as the mother of James – with a possibility that the James noted is the brother of John. Some scholars place Clopas as the brother of Joseph. Since we see, at the cross in John's gospel, both the mother of a possible James and the disciple John, I will go with the thought that family members of the disciples were present and accessible in the city of Jerusalem during the Passover. It is only in the gospel of John that a disciple beloved by Jesus is mentioned. It is well to stop here and consider a beloved disciple at the cross of Jesus. Scholarly postulations as to the identity of the disciple whom Jesus loved is important in regard to the list of women at the cross. Who has been identified as a possible beloved disciple?

First and foremost is the disciple John. This is based on the wording in the final chapter of the gospel of John, 21:24, “This is the disciple that testified of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.” Why would Jesus specifically love this one disciple? The disciple in question entered the house of Annas freely, then got Peter admitted. If that disciple had connections within the priesthood, it may well be that Jesus loved him due to a shared love for the law of God. The fact that Peter, during the last supper, asked this beloved disciple to inquire about the identity of the traitor suggests a higher level of confidentiality shared between Jesus and the beloved disciple.

Some scholars have suggested that James, the brother or cousin of Jesus, is the beloved disciple because of family ties. Not much more is set forth except a later naming as 'James the Just.' The word, 'Just,' suggests a known and respected quality of character that may have paralleled that of Jesus. Some scholars, on the other hand, suggest that the beloved disciple was Lazarus. This is so because the use of the descriptions, “beloved disciple” and “disciple whom Jesus loved” only began to be used from the thirteenth chapter of John. Before they were used, it was noted in earlier chapters that Jesus “loved” Martha, Mary, and Lazarus. Also, Mary and Martha sent to Jesus on the behalf of a very seriously ill Lazarus, stating in chapter eleven, “he whom thou lovest” is ill. While it is recorded that Jesus ate the last supper with the listed twelve disciples, there is still a point to be made that Jesus had returned to the home of Lazarus a week before the Passover. It may well be that he ate the last supper in the home of Lazarus.

Finally, some scholars have suggested that the true identity of the beloved disciple was Mary Magdalene. They suggest that later edits to the gospels were effected to hide her identity. I get this excerpt from The Jesus Memoirs. Access the site for more information. https://jesusmemoirs.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/the-beloved-disciple-as-mary-magdalene/ .

The idea that Mary Magdalene was the beloved disciple was another option not included in Charlesworth’s survey. Yet she plays an important role in the Gospel Easter narratives and was remembered as a privileged disciple in some of the Gospels in the Nag Hammadi collection (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Philip). The major obstacles are the use of masculine pronouns for the beloved disciple, the reference to the beloved disciple as “son” in John 19:26-27, and the distinction between the beloved disciple and Mary in John 20:2-9. In Ramon K. Jusino’s thesis online, he argues that Mary Magdalene was the original leader and hero of the Johannine community, but that an editor concealed this fact and inserted new references to make it appear that the beloved disciple and Mary were distinct characters.

Let's jump back to the garden. I wish to consider a certain scenario. Jesus was arrested. The twelve disciples were scattered. John (or James,) possibly Judas Iscariot, and Peter followed to the house of Annas. That left between nine and ten disciples who had to have someplace to go. While their story is not told, it is realistic to think that they ran to people they knew and told them the news. Let us imagine that James runs to Bethany to inform Mary the sister of Lazarus. Suppose that his own mother is staying at the Lazarus' home because she is with the mother of Jesus, who is an in-law to the Lazarus family. If Jesus is arrested with only his core twelve disciples present and, then, the three Marys show up at the crucifixion – someone was responsible for informing them of current events. It is clear, from Luke 23:49, that women from Galilee came with Jesus when he went down for the Passover, stopping to stay at Bethany a week before the feast. These women would have necessarily included his mother and aunt. The women that came with him from Galilee would have included family members of the disciples. They stood at a distance observing, yet, a select few were allowed near the cross – most likely due to an immediate family relationship.

Let's think about John and Mary. John 19:26 and 27 described the presence of Jesus' mother and a disciple standing near her. It is only said that this disciple is the one whom Jesus loved. There is no actual identification. It is realistic to think that any of the core disciples who fled the arrest scene in the garden might, for fear, be standing afar off. Yet, one disciple stands with Mary near the cross. I have suggested that, of the women who stood afar off, being those who came with him from Galilee, those who were allowed near the cross were permitted that privilege due to a close family relationship. We know that Jesus' mother had a close family relationship. It is my personal opinion that Mary Magdalene had a close family relationship. The matter of the apostle John is a different story. John and his brother James, another apostle, were there with their mother, the wife of Clopas. There were also the sons of Salome.

Catholic and Orthodox traditions believed that Clopas was a brother of Joseph. Among the disciples, there were James and John, the sons of Zebedee and there were James and Matthew, who were brothers by the father Alphaeus. The lack of a positive identity for the beloved disciple is a mystery. We know that Jesus had many disciples but only twelve apostles. The core twelve, aside from being students, were messengers sent out to the world with the gospel. It is not, therefore, absolutely certain that the beloved disciple was one of the apostles. James and John were first cousins to Jesus but they had their own family. We often look at the giving of Mary to the beloved disciple as a need – as in Mary suddenly found herself without a family. However, she lived with and raised the sisters of Jesus along with his four brothers, James, Joses, Judas, and Simon. While many religious scholars, in an attempt to maintain a particular image of the Lord and the unsullied virginity of Mary, suggest that Jesus' brothers were actually cousins or half-brothers, I see no problem with Jesus having actual brothers and sisters by Mary.

Let us build up from the basics. People came down from Galilee with Jesus. He had disciples and apostles. They brought family members. Jesus' own mother came down with him. I think it likely that family members came with her. Let us say that the brother James, who later became a leader of the Christian church in Jerusalem, came with Mary. Let us also think of him as standing with his mother at the cross because the Romans limited the people there to the immediate family. It is no stretch to see Jesus give Mary to James, to reinforce, as it were, the family bond. Even to consider James as a half-brother by Joseph, the giving of Mary to James would make sense. Who else might make sense? Some of the people who followed Jesus stood afar off watching the crucifixion, others were allowed so close to the cross that they could hear Jesus speak. I have suggested that such was due to a close family association. Who was around the cross? There were the priests that led Jesus to the cross, there were the four Roman soldiers, possibly, there were the officers who had arrested Jesus and, as I have suggested, Pilate may have attended to place the placard above the cross and thus goad the Jews.

Mary comes up and, maybe not the Romans but, perhaps one among the priests recognize the mother of Jesus and allow her in. The unnamed beloved disciple, who got Peter into the house of Annas, may have gotten Mary a place close to the cross. He may also have gotten Mary Magdalene a place near the cross. If it was James, the brother of the Lord, he might have said, “This is the man's mother and wife. I am his brother.” As clearly shown in the death and resurrection of Lazarus, many of the priests, whom the author of John always referred to as “the Jews,” came to mourn his death and gave particular attention to his sister, Mary. See John 11:32 and 33. As to followers and believers of which it is written that Jesus loved, John 11:3 states, “he whom thou lovest is sick.” Verse five of the same chapter states, “Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.” So, I have to wonder if the beloved disciple is Lazarus bringing to the cross the mother and wife of Jesus – his immediate family.

How about the act of receiving a mother into your own home from that very hour? Let us view the brothers and sisters of Jesus as being from a previous marriage. They would be older than Jesus. They all would have been married and lived in their own houses – a scattered family. If Joseph was dead, as many scholars suggest, Mary, the mother of Jesus would have lived alone or, perhaps, with her sister. In that scenario, it makes sense to give her to any of the known disciples, to any of his older brothers. To me, it would make more sense for Lazarus, the brother-in-law, to take her in. Both Marys stood there, Jesus, basically, entrusted his whole family to someone he loved. To say, “Behold thy Mother” to a cousin or half-brother is the creation of a matter but to say, “Behold thy Mother” to a brother-in-law is like saying take care of your family.

I want to question the vinegar. Was vinegar at the cross a common accessory? I get this next bit of information from the site Old Dominion University. Check out their link for more information: https://ww2.odu.edu/~lmusselm/plant/bible/gall.php. Some gospel accounts give us vinegar mixed with gall while other gospel accounts give us wine mixed with myrrh. According to this site, the concoction was commonly used by the Romans to help those on the cross endure the cross longer. A concoction of wine or vinegar mixed with a plant that had a narcotic effect was customarily used during crucifixion. The plant, due to its extent throughout the Middle East and its long history of use, has been identified as poison hemlock.

Jesus died just after receiving the vinegar mixed with gall. When did Jesus die? Wikipedia states, In Mark 15:25 crucifixion, takes place at the third hour (9 a.m.) and Jesus' death at the ninth hour (3 p.m.). However, in John 19:14 Jesus is still before Pilate at the sixth hour. Scholars have presented a number of arguments to deal with the issue, some suggesting a reconciliation, e.g., based on the use of Roman timekeeping in John, since Roman timekeeping began at midnight and this would mean being before Pilate at the 6th hour was 6 a.m., yet others have rejected the arguments. Several scholars have argued that the modern precision of marking the time of day should not be read back into the gospel accounts, written at a time when no standardization of timepieces or exact recording of hours and minutes was available, and time was often approximated to the closest three-hour period.

If Jesus was handed over for execution around noon and died around three in the afternoon, that argues for a far shorter crucifixion. It seems reasonable that the time of death arrived later. The Jews were concerned with the time. It was the preparation before the Sabbath, mentioned explicitly in John as a 'High Sabbath.' The Jews wanted to get it over with and go home. They asked Pilate, another reason I think Pilate was there, to have the legs of the prisoners broken to speed things along. The soldiers broke the legs of the other two men but not Jesus. See verses thirty-two and thirty-three of chapter nineteen. They saw that he was already dead so they did not bother to break the legs. Instead, one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side and there came out blood and water.

Before I move on to the issue of blood and water, I would like to examine the difference between a regular Sabbath and a High Sabbath. As the Jewish culture has rocked along through the ages, Sabbaths have pretty much been a regular Saturday event to the day. Saturdays have been continuous through the ages. On the other hand, High Sabbaths have been explained as feast Sabbaths that coincide with the regular Sabbaths. Such an explanation necessarily includes the fact that not all feast Sabbaths coincided with the regular Sabbaths. On that particular feast, both Sabbaths in the week-long feast fell on a Saturday. Without accurate data, Jesus could have been crucified on the Friday before either Sabbath. Was Jesus rushed through a hasty crucifixion before the feast began or was he detained and crucified days later on the second preparation day? I will leave that as an open question.

On the matter of blood and water, significant symbolic importance is customarily attached to the wording. I have read that there is an actual medical condition where the heart is surrounded by a sack of clear fluid but I wish to speak more about the religious importance of blood and water to the Jews. To speak of them separately, starting with blood, Leviticus 17:11 states, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” That explains the restriction on eating blood. It was ordained for a special purpose. Atonement was obtained exclusively through blood. Every Israelite was keenly aware of the significance of blood. The symbolism of life through the blood of a sacrificial lamb was not wasted on the Jewish psyche. Blood had another symbolic significance as well.

Birth and blood are inextricably linked in all conscious thought. First John 5:6 says, “This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood.” In the epistle of First John, we see that the very eternal life of God was robed in human flesh. According to John, there was a widespread belief that Jesus had only "appeared" and therefore did not come in the flesh – also known as the incipient Gnosticism. Wikipedia explains the term as follows: This spiritualizing of the resurrection sprang from the idea of the necessarily evil nature of all material substance. This idea immediately led to the conclusion of the essentially evil nature of the human body, and that if man is to rise to his true nature, he must rid himself of the thraldom, not of sin, but of the body. This contempt for the body led to the denial of the resurrection in its literal sense; and all that Christ had taught on the subject was explained only, in an allegorical sense, of the resurrection of the soul from sin.

Water was also symbolic of life and of birth, as in the breaking of the water. However, water took on the additional significance of cleanliness and purity through washing and baptism. Water came to be associated with the higher nature in man – the spirit – while blood remained as the life of the flesh. Looking at the symbols of blood and water in concert, we are asked to understand the fullness of life in circuit. God was born by water and blood, in the flesh, to save flesh by the reality of the spirit-filled flesh. Jesus, as the sacrificial lamb that realized atonement for the spirit in man, poured out salvation not only through the blood but also through the water. I can see salvation as realization.

The reality of God and man was captured in the image of God in man through the concerted action of both flesh and spirit as symbolized in the blood and the water that poured forth from Jesus' wound. Just so the reader may be certain, the author officially bears record of the event, as a faithful witness, and of the scriptural associations. Prophets of old foretold of the very event the author faithfully recorded: no broken bones but a piercing instead; lots cast for the vestments; and a tomb among the rich.

Who was Joseph of Arimathaea? He was a secret disciple of Jesus. He feared being found out by “the Jews.” He ran in the company of Nicodemus, who was a member of the Sanhedrin. He had a home nearby and, near that home, he had a nearby tomb. Arimathaea is tentatively identified with places far from the site of the crucifixion. Where Joseph originally haled from is not germane to this writing. The points I have listed above will suffice to give us an idea of who he was.

To continue with Joseph's identity, let us return to the crucifixion and the people who attended. There were the four Roman soldiers and, as I have surmised, possibly Pilate, himself. There were the leaders of the Sanhedrin who accused Jesus. There possibly were some of the officers who participated in the capture of Jesus – however, as we have seen, the process of getting Jesus to the cross took the leaders of the Jewish faith all of the morning and the event continued toward the evening. It is reasonable to think that non-essential people were dismissed early on. Aside from the family members in attendance, the greater part of those present were the major players within the religious order. They were members of the Sanhedrin, High Priests, lesser priests, Pharisees, etc. The coming and going of those particular people is as understandable as the aides of the Prefect coming and going. It was acceptable for the members of the Sanhedrin, those who did not accuse Jesus and may have been secret followers, to wander in. It is my point, here, to assert that both Nicodemus and Joseph were members of the religious elite who followed and supported Jesus.

We must also ask the overlooked questions. Why did Joseph ask for the body? Was that not the place of blood relatives? Was this Joseph related to Jesus? Did he ask for the body based solely on his agreement with the teachings of a man without rank? Did he ask for the body out of sympathy for the poor family of the man? Of course, it was a matter of the Jewish psyche that Jews should not be left to hang overnight – even base criminals were taken down. It was important to the Jews, in a legal sense, that an honorable burial be offered. That being said, could it have possibly been a decision based on the principle that Jesus was one of their own? Let us take into consideration the fact that Pilate had been dealing with the Sanhedrin all day and at the end of the day, perhaps in his own thinking, he turned over the body to the same group that had accused him. One other matter to keep in mind is that the burial of Jesus was a joint work between Joseph and Nicodemus. It seems to have been an act done in the spirit of honoring one who had served.

Let's take a look at verses forty-one and forty-two. The author provides information about the burial site of Jesus. We already have been informed that Jesus was crucified outside the walls of Jerusalem. It was on a hill shaped like the top of a bald head. The author tells us that the site of the crucifixion was near a garden and in the garden was a sepulcher. A thing we have already investigated was the Mount of Olives. It had a garden and a graveyard. The graveyard on the Mount of Olives was a place where the rich and men of renown were buried. I ask, therefore, how many garden/graveyards are we dealing with in the narrative of the crucifixion.

There is little hard evidence for Joseph but the four gospels make claims about him. He was rich, he was a disciple of Jesus, he was a member of the council who was looking for the Kingdom of God. Does that last part indicate great age? Perhaps. He considered the topic of his own death closely enough to build a tomb for himself. That tomb was in a garden. Was the garden his – as part of his property? As a senior member of the council, did he live in a really nice and gardeny spot close to Jerusalem? There were just himself and Nicodemus, another old council member, to carry the body to the tomb. The information that the tomb was nearby is an important clue. What does it say about him that he, along with Nicodemus, was prepared to touch a dead body in contradiction to Jewish law? He would have been unclean for the seven days of the great feast. If the two men had servants to carry the body and carried it to the graveyard on the Mount of Olives, near or appended to the garden and, perhaps, Joseph's property, that would qualify as nearby being about a thirty-to forty-five-minute walk.

There is a possible connection between Joseph and Jesus as the Marys are recorded as being present at the burial. Wikipedia says, 'Christian tradition represents Mary as a widow during the adult ministry of her son. Joseph is not mentioned as being present at the Wedding at Cana at the beginning of Jesus' mission, nor at the Passion at the end. If he had been present at the Crucifixion, he would under Jewish custom have been expected to take charge of Jesus' body, but this role is instead performed by Joseph of Arimathea.' According to legend, after the burial, the council leaders became angry with Joseph, beat him, and sent him away. Joseph stayed with Gamaliel. Gamaliel was a great teacher of Judaic law who taught Paul. There is a tentative connection between Gamaliel and Jesus that I found in an article from Wikipedia.

'Various pieces of classical rabbinic literature additionally mention that Gamaliel sent out three epistles, designed as notifications of new religious rulings, and which portray Gamaliel as the head of the Jewish body for religious law. Two of these three were sent, respectively, to the inhabitants of Galilee and "the Darom" (southern Judea), and were on the subject of the first tithe. The third epistle was sent to the Jews of the diaspora, and argued for the introduction of an intercalary month.

Since the Hillel school of thought is presented collectively, there are very few other teachings which are clearly identifiable as Gamaliel's. There is only a somewhat cryptic dictum, comparing his students to classes of fish:

A ritually impure fish: one who has memorized everything by study, but has no understanding, and is the son of poor parents

A ritually pure fish: one who has learned and understood everything, and is the son of rich parents

A fish from the Jordan River: one who has learned everything, but doesn't know how to respond

A fish from the Mediterranean Sea: one who has learned everything, and knows how to respond.

As we recall, Jesus used the expression – 'fishers of men'.