|
comparative religion >>
general articles >> an affair on golgotha >>
an affair on golgotha
THE ARREST
"Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the High Priest, who was called Caiaphas, and took counsel together in order to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. (Matthew 26:3-4)
The Gospels indicate the extent of Jesus' popularity. The priesthood feared the crowds that followed him, and his power over them. They held him in the same esteem that Herod had for John, they were afraid that he might cause an uprising against them.
"But they said, 'Not during the feast lest there be a tumult among the people.'" (Matthew 26:5 RSV)
"And he was teaching daily in the Temple. The chief priests and the scribes and the principal men of the people sought to destroy him, but they did not find anything they could do, for all the people hung on his words." (Luke 19:47-48 RSV)
"The scribes and the chief priests tried to lay hands on him at that very hour, but they feared the people…" (Luke 20:19 RSV)
Let's be realistic. If the reading of the passion story calls up visions of dark midnight meetings and secret rendezvous with the Apostles, we are sadly mistaken. The crowds spoken of here, who were in Jerusalem for the Passover, numbered in the thousands. Every room in the city and its suburbs was filled. People slept in the streets and in the fields and hills surrounding Jerusalem.
Jesus' personal following numbered in the dozens, if not more than a hundred. Those who were closest to him, including his family, women like Mary Magdelene, Mary the mother of James, Mary and Martha, Salome,* and Mary his mother; workers, self-proclaimed disciples, and the Apostles. *(The Gospel According to Thomas: Harper and Row; 1959: Pl. 9; Log 63: 30-31. "Salome said: I am Thy disciple.") And now, after his thunderous entrance into the city, crowds followed everywhere.
Jesus and the twelve were never alone and when they managed to separate themselves from the pressing crowd it was only to be a few yards away. And at every moment, eyes watched and ears listened.
In this scenario it would have been almost impossible to arrest him when he was alone, in the light of day or at night. Even when he was in Bethany in the house of Simon, many people surrounded him including Lazarus' sister, Mary, who had anointed him with oil.
In the eyes of his enemies, those who saw him as a figure of power, it had been an act of sedition. It was the symbolic anointing of a king. In the end, Pilate used the moment to embarrass and humiliate the Jews by naming Jesus, King of the Jews. The eyes of Rome, along with the Herods, the chief priests and scribes, and the zealots, were everywhere. And all of them, including the people, knew him by sight!
We are now at the hour of passion, the Passover feast, which has been the subject of continuing argument and dissertation. Though the oldest of Gospel narratives to be given fixed oral form, or to be set to writing, the Passion narrative has stirred up conjecture due to the ease with which continuing generations have changed it.
The Interpreter's Bible, is very specific concerning this practice. They note that even after the written Gospel of Mark appeared, the narrative grew with changes and additions being made to it. This volume even suspects that the writer of the Gospel modified and added to a pre-Marcan narrative. (Volume 7; Page 866)
When do we come to the end of this deception? Words are translated improperly, mistakes are made and accepted as truth, assumptions are put into print, original text is changed at the whim of non-descript, unknown individuals, and it is all left in place as though it were part of the original Gospel.
The story of the Passover meal has created controversy over the years, for many say that it was not the Passover meal that Jesus and the disciples celebrated.
If one researches, The Interpreter's Bible, the lengthy explanation can be explored, but for this work we may note, "…that the passage originally recounted the last supper of Jesus with his disciples, and that this has been rewritten by Mark as an account of a Passover meal." (Volume 7; Page 876)
All of this over a proper timing of the crucifixion. Jesus is depicted as having been crucified at the very hour of the sacrifice of the paschal lambs, which precedes the Passover by one full day. (Nisan 15) Thus, all Christian theology points to a memorialization of the Passover, which has become the Eucharist. Jesus and his disciples celebrated their last meal together, a symbolic feast, which, as the Gospels point out, included prayer, the blessings as, pronounced by the male head of the family, and chanted hymns.
This scenario was actually a narrative explaining the beginnings of the Lord's supper as observed in Gentile Christianity. I Corinthians 11:23-25, only refers to the night in which Jesus was betrayed. And this dialog raises more than one valid question. (The Interpreter's Bible: Volume 7; Page 876)
Historical data reveals that a Dispora Passover was once held on the eve of the 14th of Nisan, instead of the regular date of the 15th. The release of, The Dead Sea Scrolls, teaches us that there were differences in calendar used in various parts and sects of Judaism. The solar calendar was used at Qumran, and their writings indicate that the community of Essenes always celebrated Passover on Tuesdays. If Jesus and the disciples followed such a calendar, there would have been enough time both for the Sanhedrin and Pilate's activities. But it creates another problem. How could such a tradition be forgotten so completely that the Synoptic Gospels all conform to the official Jewish calendar? (Peake's Commentary on the Bible: Page 795; 693e: Matthew 26:17-19)
If one returns to pages 38, 41, 115 and 189 of the thesis, In Defense Of The Apostles' Faith, they will find examples where this same question has been asked before. It is not just one case in question, but many. How could the writers of the Gospels have been so misinformed about their own recent history and the religious practices of their own people?
There can be only two answers to this question. Either the evangelists wrote the Gospels far later than we are led to believe and these matters had long been forgotten, or that they were not eyewitnesses and were writing from a tradition that was completely foreign to the actual events. Here we have an instance where learned theologians are asking the same question as the lay-student.
Peake's Commentary on the Bible, shows us that a proper knowledge of Jewish practices belies 'intellectual' endeavors and they are pushed aside as a reckless attempt to justify the lack of understanding, or awareness, of the political and religious divisions that haunted Palestine during this period. The Passover meal and the celebrations discussed within the volumes of theological dissertation deal with the practices of the Jerusalem Jews of the first century. It is further proof of a nation divided over the priesthood and its practices.
Jesus and his followers, which include not only the disciples but those faithful who followed him on the road and his friends in Bethany, were not Jerusalem Jews, they were Galilean Jews. Their religious practices were quite different, as were the practices of the Hasidic Jews.
Julian Morgenstern states that the Galilean Jews practiced in strict conformity to Exodus 12: 1-14. Their celebration of the Passover festival began on the 14th of Nisan while the Jerusalem Jews practiced it, as they do today, on the 15th of Nisan. (The Interpreter's Bible: Volume 7; Page 572)
It was the Passover meal as Jesus would have practiced it as a Galilean Jew, a Nazarite, and a follower and expounder of the Law of Moses. That was his personal statement, and it would follow that it was also his habit. It is no more contrary than the difference in dates celebrating Easter and Christmas between the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek or Russian Orthodox Church. In this case Jesus' honoring of the Law only supports the Gospel stories, and the very important possibility that in this matter, they have not been changed.
The chronological events that follow come into line with this bit of information. What follows during the dinner itself has been altered to fit the growing doctrinal policies of Paul. That the Twelve ever considered such a doctrine is highly unlikely and is not part of the known practices of the primitive Church.
Paul's early genius prescribed sacramental acts that were eventually made part of his congregations' activities, and deeply influenced the very Gospels that the mother Church in Jerusalem attempted to protect. Paul's concept stated that Jesus' blood availed for the forgiveness of sins (Romans 3:25; Ephesians 2:13; I John 1:7) Eventually, this concept influenced Matthew and it was added to the text. (The Interpreter's Bible: Volume 7; Page 575)
Thus it is not Jesus or the Disciples who initiate the, Communion, but Saul of Tarsus, and there is no known act like it celebrated in the Jerusalem Church.
Mark's tradition is very old and can be reconciled with both Passover and habhurah practices. Jesus, as the father or host at any Jewish meal, blessed and broke the bread. (The Interpreter's Bible: Volume 7; Page 575)
What Jesus said during the meal is unimportant to this study. Much of it is drawn on Old Testament scripture and doctrine. Some of it has been added to from the writings of Paul. However, over the centuries the activities that took place that evening have become the sacramental doctrine of Christianity. (The Interpreter's Bible: Volume 7; Page 574 on Matthew 26:26-28; Page 575 on Matthew 26:30; Page 577 on Matthew 26:26:31, etc)
The very essence of the 'body and blood' envisioned in the communion service are argued daily by various sects of Christianity. The reality of this sacrament varies from those groups who perform it as a 'remembrance' and are aware that the wine, or grape juice (an argument of its own) and bread, or matzoth (another bone of contention) are just that, to those who state that they are the actual 'flesh and blood' of Jesus.
No amount of rancor is going to force any theologian to assist us in dating the sacrament, but it is certainly the oldest of the acts performed among Paul's congregations. In the primitive church among Jesus' disciples, it was practiced as the, Common Meal, in which all members participated and shared. It was a meal taken with the joyous belief that they would repeat it with Jesus upon his return.
It was a meal of expectation and not the brooding, distempered 'sacrament' that Paul established and demanded that his congregations practice.
After the meal, Jesus makes a vow to the disciples. He states that he will not drink again of, "…this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you…" (Matthew 26:29 RSV)
The end of the meal has come, and Judas is gone. The Gospel stories tell us that they sang a hymn and then walked to the Mount of Olives. At that point, Jesus tells the disciples where he will meet them again. Not in Jerusalem, not in the kingdom, but in Galilee.
In answer to Jesus' admonition that all of them will desert him, Peter responds with bravado.
"Peter declared to him, "Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away." (Matthew 26:33 RSV)
When faced with the reality of extreme personal danger and death, none of us knows how he will act or who he may deny. None of the disciples left Jesus at the outset, but stood ready to defend him with drawn sword. All four Gospel stories point out only too well that even here, on the Mount, he was surrounded by the faithful and crowds of admirers, many of who were armed and would have taken up the call to defend him.
All four Gospels tell us that one in Jesus' group does take up a sword to protect him; only adding another crime to the long list of charges, armed rebellion.
"And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, and struck the slave of the High Priest, and cut off his ear." (Matthew 26:51 RSV)
"But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the High Priest." (Mark 14:47 RSV)
"He said to them, 'But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one…' And they said, 'Look, Lord, here are two swords.' And he said to them, 'It is enough.'" (Luke 22:36-38 RSV)
"Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the High Priest's slave…" (John 18:10 RSV)
It is not necessary to question the actions of others, not even Judas Iscariot, for the end of Jesus' ministry was to be determined by Pilate and the Italian cohort. Now, only the proper time keeps the priesthood from carrying out their plot.
"Judas, who betrayed him, said, 'Is it I, Master?' He said to him, 'You have said so.'" (Matthew 26:25 RSV)
"And they paid him thirty pieces of silver. And from that moment he sought an opportunity to betray him." (Matthew 26:14-16 RSV)
To even consider such a plot is incredible under the circumstances. However, why would Judas even consider doing such a thing? Mark 14:11 is an ancient tradition but would money have been enough of a motive for a disciple to betray Jesus? The Interpreter's Bible, brings up the single motive of trying to force Jesus to lead a revolt against the Romans. Perhaps he felt that Jesus could be coerced into defending himself and asserting his 'kingship' under threatening circumstances. (The Interpreter's Bible: Volume 7; Page 571)
Jesus did tell the disciples to buy themselves a sword, and one of them did use a sword against those who came to arrest Jesus. Taken along with the triumphal entry into the Holy City, and Mary's anointing, Judas' purpose becomes clear. These verses also seem to fulfill the theologian's theory. (The Interpreter's Bible: Volume 7; Page 571)
As for money, Judas was the group's treasurer, he held the purse strings and as is easily proven these men were not poor. Money would hardly have been a motive.
But at this point we must consider the bulk of biblical text, and a serious question must be asked. What was it that Judas betrayed?
Everyone, especially the priesthood, scribes, and elders, knew Jesus. He was known to the agents of Herod and to Rome, by sight. He was a familiar figure to the throngs that he taught in the Temple every day and to those who camped on the Mount with him every night. As Jesus said to those who came to arrest him:
"I sat daily with you teaching in the Temple."
They also knew where Jesus was after the evening meal and during the hours of darkness. He was watched constantly, and there were any number of people who, at any moment, knew who he was and where.
Luke 21:37; "And every day he was teaching in the Temple, but at night he went out and lodged on the Mount called Olivet." (The Interpreter's Bible: Volume 7; Page 878)
Luke 22:39; "And he came out, and went, as was his custom to the Mount of Olives; and the disciples followed him."
"And every day he was teaching in the Temple, but at night he went out and lodged on the mount called Olivet. And in the morning all the people came to him in the Temple to hear him." (Luke 21:37-38 RSV)
The Bible tells us that Jesus' habits and whereabouts were well documented, so why would Judas' dramatized 'betrayal' even necessary? It serves nothing! And what we learn next stretches belief to a very thin line.
"While he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people." (Matthew 26:47 RSV)
There are no Roman soldiers evident in Matthew's story. The Interpreter's Bible, believes the arrest was made at night, by an armed mob, because they considered Jesus a revolutionary. They feared that he might resist them, which the Bible indicates he did, to a point. (The Interpreter's Bible: Volume 7; Page 582)
But stop and think, if they thought him a revolutionary, the members of the Sanhedrin would have had no power to arrest him. Mark, the older of the Gospels tells us that Judas came, "…and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders." (Mark 14:43 RSV)
Luke says that it was only a crowd, but John goes beyond expectation, and we must wonder if that writer did not see Jesus' problems much as we have. At least John has the proper authority go out to take one guilty of, sedition.
"So Judas, procuring a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, went there with lanterns and torches and weapons." (John 18:3 RSV)
"So the band of soldiers and their captains and the officers of the Jews seized Jesus and bound him." (John 18:12 RSV)
The band of soldiers might have been Romans, but since Jesus fell under Herod's jurisdiction and not Rome's, they were probably part of Herod's contingent. Scripture tells us that Herod was in Jerusalem during the Passover celebration, and his troop might be the more likely to turn Jesus over to the High Priest. The Roman cohort certainly would not have done so.
And an additional point may also be made here. The Romans would have never hesitated to arrest Jesus during the day, regardless of the crowds in attendance. They had spilled Galilean blood often enough under Sabinus and Pontius Pilate, and in the Temple itself. The Herodians, however, were even more terrified of Jesus' power over the multitudes than they had been of John. Herod most certainly would not have attempted such an act in broad daylight.
The further we move from the event in history, the greater the army becomes that was sent to take him. Their numbers grow and their rank increases with every moment. And in this mass of troops, with lights glowing and sabers clashing, the trampling mob goes 'stealthily' up the Mount, moving through a multitude of encamped pilgrims without causing so much as a stir in their number. Incredible!
And theologians and professional students of scripture also envision this very picture. It is noted that although Judas' 'kiss' has become a permanent part of the tradition, it is hard to understand why. Gethsemane could not be considered a desolate area at night when there were pilgrims "…all over the place." (Peake's Commentary on the Bible: Page 795; 693l; Matthew 47-56)
The only logical reason one can hope to give to this entire story is that history had to have a scapegoat! If Judas did act in the manner we have before us, he does not point out an unknown, disguised figure, and in lieu of the bulk of Biblical evidence, betrays nothing!
The arrest is made, by whom we can only conjecture. Jesus is taken to Caiaphas for a mock trial, a drumhead court. There was to be no religious accusation made against him, no sacrilegious condemnation, but only the cries of insurrectionist and revolutionary.
"In that same hour said Jesus to the multitude; 'Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the Temple, and ye laid no hold on me.'" (Matthew 26:55 RSV)
Each of the synoptic Gospels carries these words of Jesus. Obviously he knows why they did not arrest him during the day, so even now he attacks their cowardice. But the metaphor of a 'thief', or 'robber', is enlightening. The Greek word is, 'lestes', and of it, the following is noted.
The word is used by Josephus to describe revolutionists who used violent nationalism (e.g., Antiquities XX.8.5). "Jesus was not one of these…" (The Interpreter's Bible: Volume 7; Page 584)
The student who wrote this line must certainly have been ignorant of the 'hard line' Jesus openly expounded against the priesthood. Nothing more need be said on this point, the Gospels speak for themselves.
|
JESUS AND HELL
