New Thoughts (02/11/13-02/19/13)
I will be saving a goodly portion of my thoughts for separate considerations of some of the people we are seeing for the last time in these verses, in particular, our two Counselors, and the centurion. Each of these men deserves our attention. However, before I look at their stories (as best we can descry them from here), there are several questions that it seems to me must be admitted and addressed when it comes to the testimonies set before us. It is highly improbable that I shall arrive at some definitive resolution to the apparent discrepancies between John’s account of the crucifixion and that of the other evangelists, and were I to claim such certitude, I should be declaring myself suspect in the extreme! Yet, I must accept this much: Somehow, these accounts are free of contradiction. Somehow, the seemingly disparate timelines and details actually fit together and present a coherent, consistent testimony.
Sabbath or Feast eve? (02/12/13)
I’m sure I have considered this first challenge in at least one of the other studies on these final days of the ministry, but the question remains: Was it a Sabbath, a Saturday, or was it the Passover? Or was it, perhaps both? The variety of phrasings that are found in describing this day on which Jesus was tried, crucified and buried could cause one to wonder. Mark and Luke, both writing for Gentile audiences, mention that this was the preparation day, and then specifically point out that this was the day before the Sabbath. It says something about the significance of the day that they actually coined a word to use for it: prosabbaton. The Sabbath would certainly indicate that seventh day on which all work was to cease. I have heard it taught that the term could also be applied to the feasts associated with high holy days such as the Passover, but I find nothing in my available texts to support such a claim.
Then, of course, we have John. Way back in John 18:28, when they first bring Jesus before Pilate, he notes how they avoided actually entering the Praetorium lest ‘they be defiled’, and so that they ‘might eat the Passover.’ For how long would entry into a Gentile’s home have defiled the Pharisee as he saw it? Perhaps a day? Perhaps a week? I honestly don’t know. But, it is clear that the Passover is still ahead, and very near at this point. Indeed, as we move into the trial before Pilate, he himself points to the Passover’s immanent arrival. “You have a custom, that I should release someone for you at the Passover” (Jn 18:39). Given that this immediately precedes the question of who to release, and that the one requested, according to Matthew, was released then and there, it would suggest the Passover is indeed very near. We would even presume it fell the next day.
But, we don’t need to presume. John tells us straight out (Jn 19:14): “Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, ‘Behold, your King!’” That is so precise a marker as to be recognized as an event emblazoned in John’s memory. Those of us of a certain age might think of it in terms of remembering exactly what we were doing – where and when – at the moment we learned that President Kennedy had been shot, or maybe that first televised scene from the moon. Or, perhaps there are other, more personal events that have left so deep a mark upon our development that they are recalled with such detail. I have to say that for my own part, I cannot arrive at an event that is so clearly etched in memory. But, then, even dealing with the death of my mother was something far less catastrophic than what John and the others went through.
John’s not done with us, though. Moving further into chapter 19, he brings us to the scene of those soldiers come to break the legs of these men on their crosses, why? “Because it was the day of preparation, so the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath” (Jn 19:31). And note this, particularly: “For that Sabbath was a high day.” And then, again, here in the closing verse of chapter 19, he tells us how Joseph and Nicodemus used this tomb near the cross because it was the Jewish day of preparation (v42), and it was growing late. Now, this becomes interesting, it seems to me, in that the same John who has been telling us how this was all happening as the Passover rapidly approached is now speaking not of the Passover but of the Sabbath, albeit a particularly significant Sabbath.
Now, let me turn back to Matthew’s account, in that section which follows immediately on that which is before us. “Now on the next day, which is the one after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate” (Mt 27:62). Bearing in mind that Matthew is writing, as we understand it, primarily for a Jewish audience, does it not seem rather odd that rather than speaking of the Passover itself, or of the Sabbath, he instead dereferences it in this way? It is, to my ear at least, a very curious turn of phrase. It is as if, in reference to December 25th, we spoke of it not as Christmas, but as the day after Christmas Eve. Why would we do such a thing? Why does Matthew do such a thing here?
Let me also go back to his coverage of the trial. When he comes to that business with Barabbas, he writes, “Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to release…” (Mt 27:15). How ought we to understand this? Would he have actually scheduled this to occur on the day of Passover? Recall that the feast was a week-long event, with holy days marked out for the first and last days, and there would almost necessarily fall a Sabbath in between. Would he have done this on the day of preparation? Maybe. I could see how releasing a prisoner on that day would serve his purposes in maintaining the peace. What I cannot really see is why he would schedule a crucifixion on the eve of Passover, knowing that it would almost certainly wind up being cut short to avoid offense against that day, knowing that it would likely serve exactly the opposite purpose as having released a prisoner. Indeed, it would seem a most impolitic move. You have just done the crowds a favor, and now you’re going to turn around and present them with the most gruesome form of ‘justice’ known to you? Maybe it happened like that, but it seems an awful odd thing to do.
The final markers we have as to the timing of this come as the next chapters of Mark and Luke begin. Both accounts, looking now at those ladies who we just saw departing to prepare burial materials, make their way back. The Sabbath, Mark tells us, is now over (Mk 16:1). It is earliest dawn on the first day of the week (Lk 24:1), and the ladies are bringing their spices to that tomb so they can anoint Jesus as befits a proper burial.
So, we have some pretty firm anchor points from which these events must be arrayed. What seems very clear, considering all four accounts, is that Jesus was indeed executed on a Friday, and rose on a Sunday. The significance of that, and how it can be accounted as three days in the grave is a subject that has been addressed often enough, and really belongs to another point in the narrative anyway. But, it is clear that he was put in the tomb on the day of preparation for a Sabbath, a particularly significant Sabbath, but a Sabbath none the less, and that the empty tomb was found the following Sunday, after the Sabbath’s end.
So, then, when the NLT simplifies the whole matter to tell us, “This all happened on Friday”, they would seem to be on the mark. But, that leaves the curious seeming anomaly of John’s marking of the trial as being on the day of preparation for the Passover. Is it possible that the Passover feast coincided with the Sabbath that year? I suppose it’s not entirely out of the question. But, then, we have those same priests who were so scrupulous about entering the Praetorium because of the upcoming Passover feast gathered with Pilate (presumably back at his palace) on the day after Preparation day. How’s that again? If being there the day before would have defiled them, then surely being there the day of would do so!
All of this combines to suggest to me that there may indeed have been a gap of one or more days between the moment of Jesus’ sentencing and His being led forth to Golgatha. Let it be supposed, for example, that the Passover began on a Wednesday in that year, putting the trial on Tuesday. Passover would have held from that Tuesday evening through the evening of Wednesday. That leaves Thursday or Friday for the execution, but we have that pretty well localized to Friday. At any rate, the priests coming the next day would have already had their Paschal meal, and may not have had a part in that week’s temple services for the Sabbath. They are, as it were, free and clear to go deal with Pilate.
Much of this must, of course, remain supposition, at least until we are arrived in heaven where we can ask more directly. But, as I believe I remembered to say at the outset, the one certainty we may have is this: The accounts fit together to present a coherent picture. We may not understand that picture perfectly, being imperfect beings. But, as all four are assuredly telling the truth, guided by the very Spirit of Truth, the difficulties we have with piecing that picture together are not due to faulty testimony, rather to faulty understanding.
What sort of linens? (02/12/13)
The next bit of a challenge comes to us thanks to the choice of terms used to describe what Jesus’ body was wrapped in. Here, again, John seems the odd man out. The others use a term which would refer to a length of fine linen, possibly even to an article of clothing made from such. It suggests something nearer to that bed sheet mentioned in regard to the young man who had been following Jesus’s arrest out there in Gethsemene. In contrast to this, the term John uses is more specific, referring to bandages, or strips of linen. This latter form is more appropriate to the scene, certainly, indicating the sorts of wrappings that would have been employed for a standard burial.
Let me take a bit of a detour here. Looking at Mark’s account, we have two, possibly three points where the sense of ‘already’ is brought in. Twice it is a matter of syntax. As he opens the scene, he says that ‘evening had already come’. We have an Aorist Participle. It is quite often rendered with this idea of having occurred at some past time. But, it is to be noted that the past sense of the thing may only be by way of being ‘logically antecedent’. I.e. it may not really intend to indicate the flow of time at all, only the necessity, or merely the fact, of A happening prior to B.
Think of it in terms of a sentence like, “He opened the door and went through.” Logically, the opening of the door must precede the act of walking through. Temporally, the delta in time is so small as to be insignificant, and distinguishing matters of time between these two actions would be wasted energy.
This same sort of Aorist Participle is employed when Mark speaks of Joseph having bought a linen cloth. The Message, in looking at verse 46, provides, “Having already purchased a linen shroud”. Quite possibly, this is entirely accurate. After all, Joseph knew why he was going to Pilate’s palace. He may have felt quite confident as to his receiving permission to take the body down, and therefore have made this arrangement before he went. Or, it may be another case of logical antecedent. He could hardly have wrapped the body in a linen he had not yet acquired!
The third case as to do with Pilate’s surprise to find Joseph here so soon asking for the body. Isn’t he rather rushing the matter? I mean, the soldiers were only recently sent out to speed things up, and even with that, the likelihood of any of those three victims being dead already were unbelievably slim. Here, it’s not a matter of tense. There is no question of logical antecedents, although there is arguably such a question of antecedent as to the question of granting the body to Joseph. Can’t do that if He’s not dead yet. But, here there is a term not a tense: palai. It is a contrasting of past and present. It is not, I think, a matter of asking whether He’s been dead long, as some translations have taken it. It’s just surprise that He’s dead at all. Already? Really? Bring the centurion. We must have confirmation.
Well, back to those linens. That term John uses, John uses alone. There is a verse in Luke, associated with Peter’s arrival at the tomb, which speaks of the linens in which Jesus was wrapped by the same term, othoniois. But, that verse (Lk 24:12) is questioned, at least by some, as to its authenticity. A footnote in the NET suggests that those who reject the verse do so from a tendency to always reject the longer reading in favor of the shorter, assuming the shorter to be the original. Here, they would hold that the ‘manuscript evidence for omission is far too slight’. If the verse is valid, then it at least offers a second mention of the linen being strips, and in this case, from one who previously spoke of the larger sheet.
If we might just muddy the waters a bit more. John also gives us the description of Lazarus’ resurrection. In that description, he relays how Lazarus emerged from his tomb ‘bound hand and foot with graveclothes’ (Jn 11:44). And here, he uses a completely different term than is used describing the preparation of Jesus’ body. It is keiriais [2750]: merely indicating a winding-sheet, such as might be used for tying up a corpse (and here, Thayer’s is particularly apropos) “after it has been swathed in linen.” The same source does, however, note that it may be indicating those linen swathes directly in this verse. The usage of this term in Scripture is even more limited than that of othoniois, occurring only in this description of Lazarus emerging.
If I take the three things together, though, it begins to suggest that both the bandage and the larger cloth may have been involved in a typical burial. First the bandages, with their ointments and perfumes, and then the larger wrapping cloth, together with the face cloth, or soudarioo. This is certainly one possibility. However, there remains one more seeming discrepancy with John’s account which suggests to me that there is a different explanation for the two different linens described.
One visit or two? (02/13/13)
This last difference begins with the introduction of Nicodemus into the scene. Granted, he was apparently a man known to John but not to the others. Yet, it would seem that if Joseph had been helped in bringing the body from cross to grave, this might have been mentioned by at least one of the other accounts. They note which ladies were there watching, yet fail to acknowledge this one who, out of his own generosity, provided the materials to see Jesus buried honorably? That seems problematic. We do not know, with any precision, what happened to Nicodemus after this, although the rumors suggest he paid heavily for bringing his faith out in the open here. Perhaps he goes unnoted to protect what was left of his reputation? To avoid further retaliation against him and his family? It’s possible.
But, there’s another possibility, and this is suggested, as well, by Luke’s description of the event. The women followed Joseph, saw him put the body into that tomb, and also saw ‘how His body was laid’ (Lk 23:55), and on this basis, went home to prepare burial spices and perfumes. But, the arrival of the Sabbath prevented them finishing the job.
Here’s the thing: If those two ladies had observed Joseph and Nicodemus preparing the body in full, with the proper myrrh and aloe mixture, with the linen strips, they would not have found cause to go home and make preparations to do the task themselves. It is done, and it is done by two members of the Sanhedrin. Who could ask fairer than that? But, they’ve gone home to prepare because they saw how things were left at the tomb. That makes me think that Nicodemus was not there yet, which would certainly explain why the others don’t mention him. It also suggests to me that Joseph, knowing the time was short before Sabbath would come, had done what he could to honor the body with full intent of coming back later to finish the job properly. Perhaps he was even aware of Nicodemus, and the preparations that one had made.
So, the thought is this; that these two came back later. Whether or not this came about before the official start of the Sabbath or after is hard to say. However, if the ladies had time to go back into town, procure the ingredients, and then go home to prepare the mixture, there was time for two men who already had the necessary materials to come and prepare the body, or at least make a start of it. The ladies haven’t seen this, so have gone to see to it themselves. The Synoptics don’t make mention of Nicodemus and Joseph returning because they are focused on explaining why Mary was back at the grave Sunday morning. They are pushing fast to get us to that moment, that exalted moment, of the empty grave. John knows we’ve heard that before. He doesn’t need to rush to that point, and, as he has seemingly done throughout his gospel account, he sees some things that were missed in the earlier tellings, things maybe he alone was privy to, or simply things that had stuck with him more than the others.
The Message, looking at John’s report of Nicodemus, offers this way of reintroducing Nicodemus: “Nicodemus, who had first come to Jesus at night, came now in broad daylight.” While I take his point, I think the imagery of broad daylight is certainly questionable. Would it almost assuredly be known that he had come and done this thing? Oh yes! But, recall the other accounts. It was evening already. The sun was nearing the horizon in rapid fashion, and it really is pretty questionable whether they would have finished their task before the official line had been crossed into the Sabbath day.
That might seem shocking. Would these two men, steeped in the traditions of the Pharisees, esteemed colleagues on the high religious council of the Sanhedrin, and truly devout men seeking the kingdom of God and its King really have so quickly set aside concerns for the Sabbath? Could there be the least doubt in their minds that this constituted work? I think not. My first thought, in taking my notes on this passage, was that they were already taking upon themselves the penalty of a deferred Passover meal, for certainly this close handling of a dead body was sufficient to mark them unclean for the next day or two. But, then, I am at least somewhat convinced that the Passover is behind them at this point. There is only the normal, if highly honored, Sabbath observation ahead. The priests of the temple being assigned their tasks by teams, perhaps Nicodemus had no part of the official ritual this week. Joseph, so far as we know, was not a priest anyway, so had no concern in that regard.
But, bear it in mind that both men had become followers of Jesus, even if it be from a distance. There are suppositions that Joseph was one of the seventy sent out by Him, but this is speculative. Of course, most of what I’m considering here is necessarily speculative. The point is that both of these men have learned enough about Jesus and about His ministry and message to have counted the cost and found Him worth it even in death. Nicodemus, we know, has been aware of Jesus for the better part of three years. That first visit he had was two Passovers ago, very close to the beginning of Jesus actively ministering. All of this is to say that one or both of them are quite likely aware of what Jesus had taught in regard to the Sabbath, especially given how often this teaching had been done, as it were, in the faces of the Pharisees. They would have it in heart, perhaps, that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath (Mk 2:27). They were doing good for another, even if He happened to be dead at the time. That very One they were treating here had been the One to teach that point.
Add to this that they seem to have some pretty clear suspicions as to the fullness of Who He is, else why this great risk when it’s too late? They have marked Him out as Messiah, however they may understand that office. They have marked Him out as one favored by God, and even this ignominious end cannot change such standing. Do they understand better than the disciples did what Jesus had been indicating about His resurrection? Clearly that message was a matter known to the Council, as we shall see in the next passage. If this is indeed the Lord of the Sabbath, Who taught that godly action usurped the general Sabbath rule, would they really have any scruples about working past nightfall to see this honor done their Lord?
Over against this, and in no way contradicting it, we must consider the implications of some several notices that are made by the evangelists, for they point us to the application we might take home from this passage about His burial. We start with Matthew, who notes that the linens used by Joseph were clean. One would expect so, given Mark’s pointing out that he had just bought them, but Matthew is more interested in the clean aspect than the new. Matthew also makes sure we are aware that Joseph didn’t just take somebody’s tomb at random because it happened to be handy. As John tells us, it was handy, but that wasn’t really the motivating factor. It was his own. He had paid for it. He had caused it to be hacked out of the rock in the first place. He had every right to the use of it.
Luke, on the other hand, is careful to point out the fact that this tomb had not been used prior. That might seem an odd note to strike, but this is because we are inclined to view these tombs as we would view our own graves. Once in, it’s over. It’s not like you’ll be getting back out later so somebody else can take a turn. But, that’s not how it was then. First, the tomb was a temporary facility. Thus, the ointments and perfumes. It was a place for the body to decay. But, once the process of decay was complete, the bones would typically have been removed to a box, an ossuary. The tomb could thereafter be used again by some other family member. This is also why the tomb was sealed by nothing more than a stone rolled across the entrance. It was intended to be opened after sufficient time had passed. This one, though, had not experienced any prior use. It was, to take the ceremonial sense, clean.
So we have Jesus buried in clean linens in a clean tomb. If my previous theorizing is correct, then those clean linens only indicate the first, temporary clothing of the body for burial. But, they might, I suppose have been reused as an outer wrap when he and Nicodemus finished the job. I’m guessing not, however. They may have been clean when first Joseph took the body from the cross, but they would not have stayed thus for long. The primary point that all four men seem to be driving home is that all the religious proprieties and legal proprieties were observed. No law was broken in seeing this Man buried, and indeed, every law was honored and upheld. (I will reserve the possibility of that Sabbath ‘violation,’ but Jesus had long since demonstrated that this was no violation of Law, only hidebound tradition.)
Finally, we see those two Maries, whose devotion to Jesus and sorrow at His passing had led them to stay later than the others, to wait upon Him even in death. If they had observed Joseph, then they had to have been there at the cross still, while he went to Pilate, waited for the centurion to be interviewed, bought his linens, and returned. That takes time. And they are still not satisfied. They follow him from the cross to the grave, apparently not making themselves known to Joseph, but watching, seeing what is being done for Jesus, seeing where He is being lain, and then determined to make sure He is honored in death as He deserved to be honored in life.
They are so concerned by what they perceive as a bit of a botched job, that they head home to gather up and prepare the necessaries for a proper interment. Yet, even they stop as Sabbath falls, “according to the commandment,” as Luke tells us. Why they who had been with Jesus more closely would see the Sabbath as more binding than those who had followed from afar (assuming this is the case) is not too difficult to discern, I think. Those two, Joseph and Nicodemus, were both men of some power and station. Were they observed and brought up on charges of violating the Sabbath, they would have the standing and the savvy to make their case. Mary and Mary, on the other hand, may have been women of substance, but they were not women of any particular standing. If they were seen out in the graveyard after hours on the Sabbath, they could be all but assured of repercussions of a most serious and insurmountable nature.
It seems to me, however, that the combined picture presented by these little notices gives us a more general lesson that we can take to heart in our own day. That lesson consists of the very simple statement that faith still observes the Law. All of those we see acting in these moments between cross and grave are acting from faith, great faith! It takes great faith to risk one’s all for something so seemingly insignificant as seeing to a proper burial. The dead man can’t know, can he? And if he did, what complaint could he offer? But, that One Who has died, He taught that not so much as one least jot or tittle would pass from the Law of Moses. He made certain His own understood this: The Law was not done away with. The Law still holds and indeed, He Himself upheld the Law – even uplifted the Law to restore its magnificence. It was not slavish subservience to an unyielding, unmerciful Law, for this the Law never was. Neither was it the then-current habit of ticking of the checklist of tradition’s minutia, and calling that observance of the Law. No, His was a full-throated observance, a perfect observance. And, His followers had not missed this point.
We see it the more after the Resurrection, in the picture Luke provides us of the early church. The Apostles were back at Temple daily. They did not abandon the old any more than Martin Luther had thought to abandon the Catholic Church. They sought merely to restore it to its fullness. Even those thoughts may be more than the Apostles intended. They intended merely to observe the Law, as God intended, as Jesus taught, and as Faith even to this very day requires.
Faith is not an excuse. Faith is not a replacement. Faith is not license to worship God any old way we please and assume it’s fine. No. Faith is reliance upon God as the Author and Finisher. Faith looks to Him for direction in every aspect of life, let alone in every aspect of worship. Faith sees the Law in its beauty, knowing it as something God has written not only on tablets of stone, and not only as printed words upon a page, but has written in living letters upon the tablets of our hearts. Faith speaks the Law in our minds, instructs us on its application to every situation, even as Jesus taught in His own ministry. Faith, knowing that the Law describes the very character of God, can do nothing else but honor that Law, observing it to our fullest capacity!
Faith is not an excuse. Faith is not a replacement. Faith is not license to worship God any old way we please and assume it’s fine. No. Faith is reliance upon God as the Author and Finisher. Faith looks to Him for direction in every aspect of life, let alone in every aspect of worship. Faith sees the Law in its beauty, knowing it as something God has written not only on tablets of stone, and not only as printed words upon a page, but has written in living letters upon the tablets of our hearts. Faith speaks the Law in our minds, instructs us on its application to every situation, even as Jesus taught in His own ministry. Faith, knowing that the Law describes the very character of God, can do nothing else but honor that Law, observing it to our fullest capacity!
