Mark 15 - My Thoughts

Next to Jesus, the most important person once we get to this part of the Gospel is almost certainly Pontius Pilate. Pilate is an interesting and somewhat mysterious figure who has been the subject of a lot of conjecture over the years, so it might be a good idea to lead off our discussion of this chapter with some thoughts and background information about Pilate.

 

Pilate, according to all of the Gospels, was the Roman Governor of Judea who (apparently reluctantly) sentenced Jesus to be crucified. We know little else about him from the Gospels. There was at one time a movement (which never became widespread) that suggested Pilate was a mythical figure who symbolized Roman authority over Judea but didn’t actually exist – that he was a kind of composite character. We do know, however, that Pilate did exist and that, as the Gospels tell us, he was the Governor of Roman Judea – the 5^th Governor of Judea, to be precise. His family is believed to have come from south central Italy. We know virtually nothing about his life before he became Governor of Judea, and little of his life after the accounts of the Gospels, although the Jewish historian Josephus tells us that he was recalled to Rome to answer for his actions after an incident involving an armed Samaritan uprising in Judea. There are few accounts of his actions as Governor of Judea, but we do know from written records that he served as Governor for about 10 years (from AD26-AD36 approximately). There is a piece of limestone that bears his name as an inscription. It’s known as the Pilate Stone, and appears to have been a monument dedicating a new temple to the Emperor Tiberius. There are also Roman coins from the era bearing his name. Both Josephus and the philosopher Philo of Alexandria write that Pilate’s relationship with the Jewish community was strained, although that may have been simply an inevitable result of Jewish resentment of the Roman occupation rather than evidence of anti-semitism on Pilate’s part. At one time Pilate was often portrayed as having been assigned to Judea because he was either incompetent or being punished for something. That, however, is almost certainly not true. If one looks at the Roman Empire of the time from a geo-political perspective you can understand why Pilate was almost certainly highly regarded by Rome. The Empire basically had three boundaries. Its northern boundary extended into Europe. Rome controlled most of the continent as far as Britain except for the lands we would now call Germany and Scandinavia. Although the Germanic tribes successfully resisted Roman occupation and there was border conflict, at the time of Jesus the Germanic tribes weren’t in a position to challenge Rome and were more of a nuisance than anything. The Empire’s southern boundary was North Africa. Rome’s fiercest historic rival had been Carthage (in what is now Tunisia) but the Carthaginian Empire had been destroyed by Rome almost 150 years before Jesus’ birth. Rome now controlled almost all of northern Africa and had the Sahara Desert as its southern boundary against the sub-Saharan African tribes. Rome’s southern boundary was therefore secure. Rome’s greatest rival at the time of Jesus was its eastern rival – the Persian Empire. Persia wanted to expand into Europe (a modern remnant of that desire is that the tip of the Thracian Peninsula in southeast Europe belongs to Turkey) and that desire often brought it into conflict with Rome. The Romans would not have appointed incompetents to govern its eastern frontier or to command its troops in the east. Although Judea wasn’t directly threatened by Persia, any Persian attack through Turkey and into Europe would have required the quick mobilization of the Roman Legions in Judea, so the idea that Pilate was incompetent lacks credibility. He was seen as competent enough to govern Judea – and the fact that Rome appointed among its best officials to that area was confirmed some 30 years later when (as we discussed a couple of weeks ago) Vespasian (commander of the Roman Legions in Judea) was made Emperor. He was then succeeded as Emperor by Titus, who had also succeeded him as commander of the Roman Legions in Judea. So the Romans appointed highly regarded people to its eastern frontier and Pilate was almost certainly highly regarded by Rome. He had not been exiled to a backwater of the Empire; he had been assigned to an important frontier outpost.

 

Pilate’s attitude to Jesus is fascinating. He questions Jesus, but Jesus says nothing incriminating against himself. He must, however, have been aware that Jesus had acknowledged being the Messiah before the Jewish Council and that put Pilate into a tight spot. Pilate had been serving in Judea for several years at this time and would have known the expectation of the Jews to have been that the Messiah would lead a revolt against Rome. Regardless of how Jesus answered his questions, Pilate has the testimony of the chief priests and the Council that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. Pilate, however, is probably also aware that in Jesus’ teaching he had actually seemed to promote both the paying of taxes to the Empire and co-operation with the Roman soldiers. Pilate may even have felt that Jesus could be used to Rome’s advantage. If freed he would presumably continue to teach these things and might blunt the desire for rebellion. But Pilate can’t just release him since there is eyewitness testimony against him. So Mark describes this tradition of releasing a condemned prisoner apparently to mark the Passover. Pilate offers two options: Jesus, or Barabbas, and the evidence of the Gospels is that Pilate wanted the crowds to ask for Jesus. We know little about Barabbas except that he was apparently a member of the Zealots, actively involved in organizing rebellion against Roman rule. Some have also questioned whether this actually happened, because there is no written evidence that confirms this custom. It isn’t, however, out of keeping with Roman practice. The Romans had a generally respectful attitude toward their conquered territories. They had no quarrels with local “gods” and were, in fact, willing to accept local gods into their own pantheon of gods. Their quarrels with Jews (and, later, Christians) was not because of the particular God Jews and Christians believed in, but because both Jews and Christians believed their God to be “the” God – above the pagan gods of Rome and to be exclusively worshipped. But it isn’t out of the question that at the holiest time of year for Jews, Pilate might have tried to keep the peace with the locals by offering the gracious act of releasing a prisoner of the crowds’ choosing. Pilate wanted Jesus released, and asked “Why? What evil has he done?” but the chief priests were able to manipulate the people into asking for the release of Barabbas instead, and demanding the crucifixion of Jesus. The story has the air of believability, and again combined with the other Gospel stories, portrays Pilate as a man who fully understood that Jesus was innocent and who sought to release him. Although he was quickly vilified in the Christian community, that view was not unanimous. The Ethiopian Christian church regarded Pilate as a saint, and he was also venerated by the Coptic Christin Church of Egypt. Pilate is a character who is almost as complex as Judas.

 

We’re familiar with the image of Jesus being mocked by the Roman soldiers with the purple robe and the crown of thorns as they hail him as “King of the Jews,” after which they beat him and spit on him. To me, there’s a sadness to this part of the story that’s rarely commented on, though. Jesus, throughout his ministry, had been generally co-operative with Roman soldiers. He had urged the people not to resist the soldiers, and he had even acted compassionately at times in response to requests from Roman soldiers. In the light of that history, his treatment by Roman soldiers as his life approached its end was sadly harsh.

 

The story makes clear that after the beating and with loss of blood starting from the wounds on his head from the thorns, Jesus was too weak to carry his own cross and so a man named Simon of Cyrene was “compelled” to carry it – presumably by the Roman soldiers. We know nothing about Simon. Was he sympathetic to Jesus? Or was he just a bystander watching? We don’t know. He is, however, called “the father of Alexander and Rufus.” Those names are included by Mark almost as if the reader will know who they are – perhaps suggesting that Simon’s sons (if not Simon himself) became a part of the Christian community. There are some suggestions that they became missionaries, and there is a “Rufus” mentioned by Paul in his list of greetings to the church at Rome in Romans 16:13.

 

Crucifixion was an ugly thing, and a truly ghastly way to die. Three long nails are used. We usually have an image of nails being hammered through Jesus’ palms, but this would have been unusual and not particularly effective, because the hands were generally not strong enough to offer any support once the cross was put upright and the nails would have torn through the flesh. Usually it was the wrists that were nailed, and often ropes were also used to help secure the victim to the cross to prevent too much weight from being put on the wrists. The feet (one placed on top of the other) were usually nailed to a small platform, and the body was positioned in such a way that the victim was hunched. There was obviously great pain from the nails and more blood loss from the wounds. The body was secured tightly enough that the victim couldn’t move very much – and so along with the pain from the various wounds, there was the natural cramping and spasming of the muscles that would start to occur, with the victim not being able to do what we would normally do to get some relief from that kind of pain by stretching. As time went on the victim would become weaker. Because of the position of the body breathing would become more and more difficult because the lungs would be kind of folded over as a result of the hunched position. The only way for the victim to breathe would be to every few seconds push himself up with his feet and gasp out a breath, but between the pain and increasing weakness the victim couldn’t hold that position and would go back into the hunched position until forced to try to raise himself again. Death after crucifixion didn’t come from blood loss, but usually from suffocation, as the victim finally became too weak to force himself up to gasp a breath. It is, indeed, a ghastly way to die.

 

The Romans are said to have offered Jesus a drink of wine mixed with myrrh before they crucified him. This was a type of sedative. Given how ghastly crucifixion was, you might wonder why the Romans would bother with a sedative. But this was not an act of compassion for the victim – it was to make the job of the soldiers easier. You can imagine that an unsedated victim would thrash violently in pain as nails were pounded through his flesh and make the job more difficult. Once the sedation wore off – after the cross was erected – there was no more sedation offered. Jesus is said to have been offered sour wine on a sponge to drink. That appears to be primarily a result of the crowds mocking his thirst, since it wouldn’t be very satisfying. In Mark’s version of the story, Jesus’ last words are recorded to have been “Eloi, eloi, lama sabbachthani.” (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) The fact that Mark records the actual Aramaic words gives this part of the story a sense of authenticity. The crowds mistake his words and think he is crying out for Elijah – apparently mistaking “eloi” for “Elijah.” Jesus’ sense of being forsaken by God at this moment has been commented upon by many. A traditional argument has been that this was the moment that Jesus takes upon himself the sin of the world and since sin is commonly seen as that which separates us from God and since Jesus himself is always portrayed as personally sinless, this would then be the first time that Jesus has ever felt separated from his Father – and so his natural response is confusion and perhaps even fear. Some dispense with the theological argument and just suggest that Jesus’ pain and suffering overwhelm him at this point and blind him to God’s presence. It is soon after these words that Jesus dies and the curtain of the temple is recorded by Mark as having been torn in two. Other Gospels add other events (the sky turning dark and an earthquake) but Mark includes only this. The curtain of the temple was what separated the main part of the temple from what was known as the Holy of Holies – the place where the altar was located and where the priests made sacrifices for the people. Only the priests were allowed in this part of the temple, and it was believed to be where God was actually present; it was God’s dwelling on earth. The tearing of the curtain is a symbolic way of saying that whatever separates humanity from God has been torn away by Jesus’ death; that we now, through Jesus, have direct access to God without the need for the mediation of a priest. The story affirms that while the 12 have scattered, the women have remained and were watching. Mark specifically mentions Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and Salome. Other Gospels offer different lists. John’s Gospel specifically mentions Mary, the mother of Jesus, being present as Jesus died – which offers a heart-wrenching image as we imagine his mother watching this gruesome scene play out. The place of Jesus’ death was called “Golgotha” – the place of the skull. There’s no definitive explanation of why it was called that. Some suggest that there was a local tradition that this was the place where Adam’s skull was buried; some suggest that the hill was actually in the shape of a skull; some suggest that this was simply a place of mass execution that the Romans used and that bodies were often left to rot, with skulls being scattered in the area.

 

Finally, Jesus’ body is claimed by a man named Joseph of Arimathea, who arranges for its burial in a tomb. Joseph was apparently a member of the Council (presumably the Council that had condemned Jesus.) Joseph’s act is certainly generous. Mark describes him as bold, however. I question that to an extent. It wasn’t particularly bold of him to ask Pilate for Jesus’ body, since Pilate himself has already been portrayed as sympathetic to Jesus, and since the Romans would likely be happy to be rid of the body anyway. Nor was his decision to go to Pilate in the evening, after dark and so during the Sabbath, particularly bold since that was the safest time for him to do with without being seen by the Jewish officials. The chapter then ends with the note that “Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where the body was laid,” probably to make the point that they knew exactly where to go once the Sabbath was over in order to anoint the body.