So what I came up with was a compilation which attempt to include it all. Along the way, we’ll stop and focus in on various subjects.
Let’s get started. We begin just after Pontius Pilate acquiesces to the crowd and gives Him up for crucifixion. For a clean version, click [here].
Mark 15:20-23, 25-26
20 And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple cloak and put his own clothes on him. And they led him out to crucify him. 21 And they compelled a passerby, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross.
22 And they brought him to the place called Golgotha (which means Place of a Skull). 23 And they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it. 25 And it was the third hour (9am) when they crucified him. 26 And the inscription of the charge against him read, “The King of the Jews.”
Mark’s account gives us a very odd detail in this passage. Why did he decide name the sons of Simon of Cyrene? What does that add to the story? Well, you wouldn’t mention obscure names in such an off-handed way like that unless your audience was already familiar with them.
Mark’s Gospel originates with the testimony of Peter, who was stationed in Rome. That would have been the original audience. It is very possible that Alexander and Rufus were members of that community. In fact, the salutations in Paul’s letter to the Romans (16:13) includes a certain Rufus. This could be the same guy.
Another detail is how Jesus rejected the wine which was mixed with myrrh. Myrrh was a painkilling drug. Jesus was purposefully rejecting the opportunity to dull the pain of the crucifixion. He intended to feel the whole thing.
John 19:20-24
20 Then many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. 21 Therefore the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but rather, ‘He said, “I am the King of the Jews.”
The priests were upset because the sign could be construed as a statement of fact. That is to say, they didn’t want anyone to think there was any acknowledgement of Jesus’ claim to be the king of the Jews.22 Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”
23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and also the tunic. Now the tunic was without seam, woven from the top in one piece.
24 They said therefore among themselves, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be,” that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says: “They divided My garments among them, And for My clothing they cast lots.” (Psalm 22:18)
Exodus 28 describes how the Jewish high priest’s garment was to be woven as one seamless continuity. John includes this detail about Jesus’ seamless garment as a way of highlighting the priestly nature of what He was doing. Namely, he is offering Himself as a sacrifice.
Matthew 27:38-44
38 Two rebels were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left. 39 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads 40 and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!”
This is a reminder of how popular lies can so easily penetrate the public mind. The people are convinced that Jesus threatened to destroy the Temple. But Jesus [never said that]. He dared his opponents to do it.41 In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. 42 “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! He’s the king of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”
One conflict between Catholics and Protestants is the proper contents of the Old Testament. In relation to this question sometimes it is asked whether the New Testament contains any references to the “extra” Catholic books. The Pharisees’ taunt is one example. It is a fulfillment of a messianic prophecy found in Wisdom 2:12-20.
For more, see here.
Luke 23: 24, 39-43
24 “And Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.’"
39 Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, “If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.”
40 But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.” 42 Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.”
43 And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”
There are some groups which attempt to build an entire doctrine of salvation out of this passage. It is used to override everything which Jesus, Paul, and Peter say about the role of Baptism. This passage does indeed need to be taken into account, but not in a way which contradicts clear teaching elsewhere.
So what does this say about the necessity of baptism? It means Jesus can give grace however He wants, and can make exceptions in exceptional circumstance. But that does not change the fact that the [Bible does teach] that Baptism is the entryway into the New Covenant and a means of saving grace for the recipient.
There is also speculation about whether Jesus’ statement has implications for the doctrine of [Purgatory]. In short, it doesn’t. It could very well be that the Good Thief had no need to go there.
John 19:25-27
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.
Catholics and Orthodox both believe Jesus was the only child born to the Virgin Mary. And as I’ve shown [elsewhere], that is also the belief of Christians from the beginning.
This passage is one of the main pieces of evidence in favor of that belief. If Mary had other children, what need would there have been to entrust her care to Saint John? None, obviously. So why did Jesus do it? Because Mary had no other children.
Except… John did not include this exchange just so we, the audience, would be assured that Mary would be well taken care of. There is also implications for all Christians. Jesus’ action of reconciling us to God brings us into His family. He becomes our brother, God becomes our father, and Mary… becomes our mother.
This is reinforced by Revelation 12, which says the woman who gave birth to the Messiah is the mother of all Christians. See [here].
Mark 15:33-35
33 At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. 34 And at the ninth hour (3pm) Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). 35 And some of the bystanders hearing it said, “Behold, he is calling Elijah.”
Here Jesus quotes the opening verse of Psalm 22. The psalm begins by describing the plight of a man who is beaten down, humiliated, and defeated. However, it ends with an affirmation that God will vindicate him – and through this vindication God will be praised by all nations. Jesus’ reference to this Psalm reminds His audience (and us) that these events are being played out before their eyes.
One might also ask whether this is a legitimate cry of agony of Christ’s part. Some have gone as far as suggesting Jesus really was forsaken by the Father. The Catholic Catechism states:
"Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned. But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God 'did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all', so that we might be "reconciled to God by the death of his Son". – CCC 603
John 19:28-30
28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst!” 29 Now a vessel full of sour wine was sitting there; and they filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on hyssop, and put it to His mouth.
John records precisely what type of branch was used. Why? This is yet another reference to the Old Testament. This is the same type of branch proscribed in Exodus 12 to spread the blood of the Passover lamb.30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.
Whole theologies are built on this one saying – and not all of it is warranted. What, exactly, is finished when Jesus utters this cry? Well, on a most basic level, Jesus’ time on the cross is finished. The sacrifice had been made.
On a more general note, one can say Jesus’ earthly ministry was completed at this point. On a grander scale, one could say the entire purpose of the Old Testament Law and prophets had been fulfilled. Catholic theologian Scott Hahn asserts that Jesus’ consumption of the wine actually finished the Last Supper meal which was begun the night before. Read about that more [here].
Matthew 27:51-56
51 And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom.
Now, the tearing of the Temple veil is another significant event, but the Bible never spells out its meaning. Catholics are familiar with this passage being used to oppose practically everything we do – from offering the Mass to asking others to pray for us!
Here are five meanings which Catholics can get on board with.
1. This symbolized the ending of the dispensation of Old Testament Temple sacrifices.
2. The veil was a barrier between the inner sanctum of the Temple and the place where people worshipped. This rending could represent a new closeness between for God and his people.
3. It could likewise mean the pathway to Heaven had been opened.
4. The rending of one’s garment was a sign of distress and mourning in ancient Hebrew culture. This could be a sign of God mourning.
5. Hebrews 10:20 refers to Christ’s flesh as a veil. This could be symbolic of Christ’s body being broken on the cross.The earth quaked, rocks were split, 52 tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53 And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.
As for the people rising from the dead… I don’t know what to say about that.54 The centurion and the men with him who were keeping watch over Jesus feared greatly when they saw the earthquake and all that was happening, and they said, "Truly, this was the Son of God!" 55 There were many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him. 56 Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
This passage also affects the debate about whether Mary had other children. Sometimes non-Catholics will cite Mark 6:3 to show that Jesus had “brothers”. The passage actually names them: James, Joses, Judas, and Simon.
However, we see in the above passage that two of these “brothers” are mentioned yet again. And as it turns out, they are the sons of a different Mary. That means these "brothers" are actually just close relatives.
John 19:31-35
31 Because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. 32 Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him. 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs.
Sometimes people get confused about the day of the week on which Christ was crucified. This passage makes it clear it happened on a Friday, the day before the Sabbath.
The breaking of the victim’s legs would dramatically hasten their death during crucifixion. Here John includes another detail about Jesus’ bones not needing to be broken. This once again evokes the Passover lamb, which could not have any broken bones.
34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. 35 And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe.
There are three meanings we can draw from this event. The first is that John was assuring us, as an eyewitness, that Jesus had truly been killed.
We can also see a meaning which (again) ties Jesus’ Passion to the Passover. During the Passover there would have been thousands of lambs being sacrificed in the Temple. The vast quantities of blood would be washed with water out a portal in the side of the structure.
An outside observer would have seen a flood of blood and water flowing from the side of the Temple. Thus, the piercing of Christ’s side reminds us that Jesus is the Lamb of God - and His body is the true Temple, the place where God dwells on this earth.
Lastly, in Genesis we are told how God crafted Eve from the side of Adam while he is asleep. Likewise, Jesus – the new Adam – has His side opened while He slept. The blood and water symbolize the waters of Baptism and the blood of the New Covenant. These are the two elements which bring the Church, the bride of Christ, into being.
Luke 23:50-53
50 Now there was a virtuous and righteous man named Joseph who, though he was a member of the council, 51 had not consented to their plan of action. He came from the Jewish town of Arimathea and was awaiting the kingdom of God. 52 He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 53 After he had taken the body down, he wrapped it in a linen cloth and laid him in a rock-hewn tomb in which no one had yet been buried.
This is another note of historicity in the text. If one considers the animosity which existed between the Jewish hierarchy and the Christian community, there would have been no reason to make up a detail about a member of the Sanhedrin burying Jesus. So why is it recorded there? Because that’s what happened.
Matthew 27:60-61
60 Then he rolled a huge stone across the entrance to the tomb and departed. 61 But Mary Magdalene and the other Mary remained sitting there, facing the tomb.
And thus we close with the silent vigil kept by the women. Their mourning would end in a most unexpected way on Sunday morning.
No comments:
Post a Comment