The Stations of the Cross

The Stations of the Cross

As a child I was brought up in a Christian tradition which saw the Stations of the Cross as a Catholic invention, something to be kept well away from. "Why, even the name Via Dolorosa cried out Roman Catholic!"

Luckily, attitudes have changed with time, and this morning (Good Friday) as I walked into my local church, the words "Stations of the Cross" greeted me on the overhead screen. So our worship today was built around this framework.

In the service today ten "stations" had been selected, covering the time between the last supper and Jesus being laid in a tomb. Each of the ten stations was biblically based with the Bible reading being an integral part of the meditation relevant to the station. The ten stations were:

1.  The Last Supper.   Mark14: 17-26.

2.  The Garden of Gethsemane.   Luke 22: 39-48, 52-53.

3.   Jesus whipped and crowned with thorns.   John 18: 33, 36-38, 19: 1-3.

4.   Pilate condemns Jesus.   John 19: 5a, 14b-17.

5.   Simon carries the cross.   Luke 23:26.

6.   Jesus meets the women of Jerusalem.   Luke 23:27-31.

7.   Jesus is nailed to the cross.   Mark 15:25-32.

8.   Mary and John at the cross.   John 19: 25-27.

9.   Jesus dies.   Luke232: 44-47.

10.  Jesus is buried.   Matthew 27: 57-61.

May I share with you the meditation at the first station?

The Last Supper (introduced by Leonardo Da Vinci's famous painting).

We adore you, O Christ, and we bless you:

Because by your holy cross you have redeemed the world.

Reading of Mark 14: 17-26.

Even my close friend whom I trusted, the one who shared my food

has turned against me.

Let us pray: Heavenly Father, your Son instituted his holy supper as our Passover feast, and gave his life for us: Unite us all by faith in him so that we who eat his body and drink his blood may pass with him from death to life. We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Amen.

Holy God,

Holy and Mighty,

Holy and immortal

Have mercy on us.

I remember how my visit to the Via Dolorosa in Jerusalem last year was somewhat of a disappointment. The main problem then, upon reflection, was that the route of the Stations of the Cross was approached as a tourist site rather than as places of meditation. The nature of the visit then did not allow for this. We entered at station V - Simoni-Cyrenaeo crux imponitur - then it was along a busy street to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Inside here, where the stations 10-14 are located, the scene resembled a crowded building site,rather than a place for quiet meditation. Another time, perhaps, this could be different.

I must admit that the quiet meditation in a country church here in my home town was much more meaningful and fulfilling than walking up the Via Dolorosa in Jerusalem. 

Following our leader up the Via Dolorosa in Jerusalem.

Laying Jesus in the tomb. A painting inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Barabbas

The Terrorist             

                From the time Jesus was taken into custody until he was finally affixed to a cross on which he died, a lot would have happened. Had this happened in 2016, the news media with their  journalists each accompanied by the most recent recording gadgetry, government record keepers and the general inquisitive public with smart phones and tablets would have recorded for posterity all possible angles of the event.

                Sure, various lines would have been blacked out because of national security. Some discussions would have remained within the four cabinet walls. Some information could not be divulged because it was part of an ongoing investigation. Some memories , interpretations and comments would have been very scrambled. But in spite of all of this, a fairly comprehensive and generally accurate report would have been aired to the public.

                But Jesus was not executed last year!

                In the early first century news dissemination such as we have here today did not exist. This fact causes many to ask, "How accurate are the details which we find in the Gospels?" And I suppose we can't blame people for asking, for example :"How was John able to report Jesus' specific words when he was being questioned by Annas after his arrest (John 18:19-23), or the conversation between Pilate and Jesus inside the palace (John 18:33-38)?"

                Similarly the more general proceedings surrounding Jesus' trial often attract a certain amount of scepticism. Many question their historicity. Hence one reads statements such as: "I judge that narrative (referring to the account of events surrounding Barabbas) to be absolutely unhistorical, a creation most likely of Mark himself." This from a biblical studies scholar, John Dominic Crossan. He details the arguments which have lead to his conclusion.

                A conclusion such as this would jar greatly on those who cannot regard anything in the Bible as other than the divine statements of God. For these people the appearance of Barabbas in the passion story, especially the nature of his appearance, is not open for questioning. One must accept as "gospel truth" what is written there. I do not intend to argue whether the Barabbas incident is historical or not. Each of the four evangelists has recorded it. Professor Crossan suggested that Barabbas was Mark's creation. The others followed Mark's lead using the story for their own purposes.

                Mark wrote the following (15:6-15): ⁶Now it was the custom at the Feast to release a prisoner whom the people requested. ⁷A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising. ⁸The crowd came up and asked Pilate to do for them what he usually did. ⁹"Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate, ¹⁰knowing it was out of envy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. ¹¹But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead. ¹²"What shall I do then with the one you call the king of the Jews?" Pilate asked them. ¹³"Crucify him!" they shouted. ¹⁴"Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!" ¹⁵Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

                We note from this account that -

1. Releasing a prisoner of the peoples' choice at Passover was an established custom.

2. These were volatile times and a number of terrorists were in prison at the time awaiting execution.

3. The crowd (the chief priests' a rent-a crowd) asked for the release of the terrorist Barabbas.

4. Pilate was not convinced of the guilt of Jesus. He gave the crowd a choice.

5. Pilate succumbed to the wishes of the crowd, released Barabbas and had Jesus flogged prior to being crucified.

                Matthew followed Mark's lead, however he added a number of unfortunate details. These have resulted in so much hatred throughout the centuries.

                Luke in his account does not mention the custom but has the crowd demanding the release of Barabbas and the crucifixion of Jesus. Pilate was unable to convince the people that Jesus was innocent. He granted their wish, released Barabbas and handed Jesus over to be Crucified.

John's account varies considerably from the three synoptic Gospels.

1. He writes that Pilate suggests the release of one prisoner as was the custom and proposed Jesus.

2. He makes much less of the choice between Barabbas and Jesus.

3. He does not specifically say that Barabbas was released, only that he had taken part in a rebellion.

                Mark and subsequently the other three evangelists chose to include this Barabbas episode out of all the other aspects of the "trial" which would have occurred. Why was this?  It is not there to satisfy our curiosity about what may have happened there those many years ago. Nor to satisfy the curiosity of their readers at that time. Was it such an important aspect that readers would have been denied a full understanding of what eventuated had it not been included? It has probably been included for us (and their readers) to draw some lessons from it. Looked at from this point of view it is immaterial whether the episode is historically correct or not.

                Here are a few possibilities -

1. Barabbas could truly say, "Jesus died for me." Each of us is a Barabbas in that we are sinners and so we can also say, "Jesus died for me."

2. There is a similarity here to the sacrifice of the two animals on the Jewish Festival of the Day of Atonement. Here one perfect animal was sacrificed and the other, burdened with the sins of the nation, was released.

3. Mark's Gospel was written after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. Leading up to its final destruction the city chose rebellion over unarmed protest. They chose Barabbas, the terrorist, over Jesus who preached a different approach. This story then is a symbolic dramatisation of Jerusalem's fate.

                So what does Barabbas mean? No, it's not just a story . Am I Barabbas? Am I Pilate and must, like him, make a decision? We must choose what to make of this story.

Jesus' Trial

The Trial

With Holy Week now upon us it is not unusual for conversation among members of Christian communities to turn towards those events which are recorded as having taken place during this last week of Jesus' life. So it was not especially out of left field when I asked a legal friend of mine what he made of Jesus' trial.

"Jesus' trial? You mean trials, don't you?"

So I started again: "Say, what do you think about Jesus' trials?"

 "Trials, lynch parties, kangaroo courts, court reporters, prophecy historicised. It all very confusing to me too."

"Thanks, that clears it all up for me. So what are you main problems?" I am always interested in a discussion. "You mentioned there were a number of trials. Let's start there."

"Well, if you take the Gospel accounts at face value, and not go into a number of problems which biblical scholars see in them, there are at least three trials. If "trial" is the right word."

"Three?"

"Yes, three! Looking at Mark's Gospel we read that Jesus was first taken to the high priest's place where, during the night, the chief priests, elders and teachers came together with the Sanhedrin and held what I consider a kangaroo court. Next morning the decision was reached that the death penalty should be imposed. That I see as the first trial. Then he was taken to Pilate's place where the second trial took place."

"Yes, I can see that can be regarded as two trials; but what about the third?"

"We need to go to Luke's Gospel for that. It's often forgotten when looking at Passion week. Here Luke tells us that Pilate, when he realised that Jesus was a Galilean, sent him to Herod who happened to be in Jerusalem at that time. Herod Antipas was the tetrarch ruling the Galilee region. As described by Luke, this trial was also somewhat of a sham. But it is seen as a trial."

"OK, that's three. Any more?"

"No, they are the three and when you think about it, they are interesting in themselves. You have the three seats of authority against which Jesus was campaigning - the Romans, the religious leaders and the Herodian civic ruler. So each of these three points of authority have a hand in Jesus fate. By the way, have you ever read the Gospel of Peter?"

"The Gospel of Peter? I've read the two letters of Peter, but no Gospel."

"The Gospel of Peter is not in the New Testament canon. It was mentioned early in the history of the church but sections believed to belong to this book were only rediscovered in Egypt in the nineteenth century."

"Why do you mention that?"

"Well, in this account there is mention of Jesus being questioned before all three of these rulers, Herod, Pilate and the Jewish leaders."

"You say the same three leaders, all together? Would that make four trials?"

"So your question what I make of Jesus' trial (or trials) is not so easily answered."

"OK, I give up. But what about the verdict?"

"Don't get me started there! Let's leave it at he was crucified, and the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate, was the head man in Judea at the time.

Jesus was arrested and taken to Caiaphas, the high Priest, for his first trial. A relief on a wall at the site of Caiaphas's palace.

Peter's Denial

The Rooster

                If among Christian circles one mentions the rooster crowing, or as the King James Version has it "the cock crowing", one can be confident that the same event recorded in the Bible will come to mind. That event concerns Peter's threefold denial of his connection to Jesus at the residence of the high priest, Caiaphas. A quick check of Strong's Concordance of the Bible - his John 18:15 reference being the KJV - indicates that the only occurrence of "cock crowing" is associated with Peter's denial of Jesus. It make sense then that all minds end up here.

                This is also one of those Bible episodes which has captured the imagination of the non-Christian population and had become part of our cultural vocabulary. Most people can quote that 'before the cock crows you shall deny me' ; or is it 'before the cock crows you shall deny me thrice'; or is it 'before the cock crows twice you shall deny me thrice'? Whatever. There is something instilled in the back of memories. (My New International Version of the Bible has chosen to go with rooster rather than cock so I shall follow their lead.

That pesky rooster at the Church of St Pierre en Gallicante in Jerusalem. Well he woke Peter up to what he had done!

                Zeroing in on the rooster's crowing in Jerusalem I finished up at the Church of Saint Pierre en Gallicante. Why there? This church (St Peter and the Rooster Crowing) is built over the generally accepted site of the residence of the high priest, Caiaphas. The church is controlled by a French Roman Catholic order, the Assumption Fathers, and so has retained its French title.

                This church then is the logical site at which to remember that fateful evening when Peter got into the passion story for all the wrong reasons.

                Let us look at Mark's account (14:53-54 and 66-72): ⁵³They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, elders and teachers of the law came together. ⁵⁴Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire.   ....    ⁶⁶While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came by. ⁶⁷When she saw Peter warming himself she looked closely at him. "You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus," she said. ⁶⁸But he denied it. "I don't know or understand what you're talking about," he said and went into the entryway. ⁶⁹When the servant girl saw him there , she said again to those standing around," This fellow is one of them." ⁷⁰Again he denied it. After a little while, those standing near Peter said, "Surely you are one of them for you are a Galilean."⁷¹He began to call down curses on himself, "I don't know this man you're talking about." ⁷²Immediately the rooster crowed the second time. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken to him: 'Before the rooster crows trice you will disown me three times.' And he broke down and wept.

                What is immediately recognised is that this account of Peter's denial acts as a Markan frame on the account of Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin here in the home of the high priest. The text can be divided as follows:

Mark 14:53-54   Story 1a                Peter follows his Lord to the high priest's house.

Mark 14:55-65   Story 2                  Jesus is questioned and clearly states who he is.

Mark 14:66-72   Story 1b               Peter is questioned and denies knowledge of Jesus.

                Looked at together, the contrast between the reactions of Peter and Jesus is very marked. Peter is questioned (three times indeed!) and fails dismally. Jesus is questioned and boldly, in the face of his opponents, answers "I am" to the high priest's question of who he was.

"I don't know him." Peter warming himself beside the fire in the courtyard of the high priest, Caiaphas.

Many might question the historicity of this episode. How could these details be known? How could it be known what went on inside the walls of Caiaphas' house? Would Peter himself be likely to broadcast his involvement? Leaving aside this debate, the importance of the story for the reader is its metaphorical meaning - the message it should convey to those who heard it. These are those initial readers of Mark's Gospel but also all others leading up to us today.

                Yes, we are reading Mark's words 2000 years after they were written. Even in his wildest imagination Mark would not have realised that this would be the case. He was writing purely for his audience at that time. (The biblical scholars are unsure about who they might have been or indeed where they might have lived.) In presenting these incidents in the way which he has he surely is directing a message specifically for these readers.

                Persecution of Christians had been going on from the very first. Initially this was by the Jewish authorities and then by the Romans. One can assume that Mark's readers, circa 70AD, would have been targeted by the Romans. This story of Peter and Jesus depicts the choices that could be made - bold confession or denial in the face of persecution..

                But that does not leave us, the readers of today, out of the equation. We today are often faced with the same challenge, although repercussions of making a positive confession would be much less drastic and life threatening than that faced by Mark's readers.

                Finally a personal example. Sitting in the golf club house after a round we were discussing this and that. I mentioned that I would be away for a few weeks because I was going on a pilgrimage to Israel.

                "What, are you one of those Bible Bashers?"

                "Well, not so much a Bible Basher, whatever you might mean by that, but a simple Christian who accepts Jesus as his Saviour."

                "Oh."

                And the topic changed to politics. Everyone still plays golf with me.