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'.
No comments:
Post a Comment