Day 1137 - Why Do We Satisfy the Crowd?

A Bible study at Second Presbyterian Church, January 21, 2016, Chattanooga, TN.

Gospel Reading: Mark 15:1-20

After the hurried, secretive and thoroughly theologically illegal arrest and trial by the Sanhedrin, the antagonists are still faced with a problem, how to accomplish the verdict since they have no authority to do so.

Mark 15:1-5  As soon as it was morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council. They bound Jesus, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate.  ² Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” He answered him, “You say so.”  ³ Then the chief priests accused him of many things.  ⁴ Pilate asked him again, “Have you no answer? See how many charges they bring against you.”  ⁵ But Jesus made no further reply, so that Pilate was amazed.

I can’t but wonder what the chief priests wanted to talk about in this morning meeting after the outrage of the railroaded trial of the last evening that violated every principle of religious law. 

Notice the difference in focus between the religious leaders and Pilate. Pilate asked if he is the King of Jews, but the religious leaders asked if he was the Messiah, or son of God. Did they suggest this alternative wording, King of the Jews, to put Jesus in direct conflict with the Emperor? Why did Jesus obliquely answer Pilate’s first question, “Are you the King of Jews?” but refuse to respond to Pilate’s question about the many accusations of the Sanhedrin?

Mark 15:6-8  Now at the festival he used to release a prisoner for them, anyone for whom they asked.  ⁷ Now a man called Barabbas was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection.  ⁸ So the crowd came and began to ask Pilate to do for them according to his custom.

It must be admitted that there is no evidence in either Jewish or Roman law for the custom of freeing a prisoner to which the Markan evangelist alludes. (Why would Rome free an insurrectionist under any condition?)

In this melee, I cannot help but wonder who is this “crowd?” The Sanhedrin had perhaps 70 members, so that might take a big room to have the first trial, and if they all showed for Pilate’s inquiry that would comprise a reasonable crowd. Many suggest Pilate did this questioning out on a palatial veranda before a large crowd of people. It may be possible, but from the day of His entry into Jerusalem, the crowd has been solidly in favor of Jesus and the religious leaders fear the reaction of the crowd if they act against Jesus.

Have his followers fled in the face of this imminent execution by Rome?

Mark 15: 9-14 ⁹ Then he answered them, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?”  ¹⁰ For he realized that it was out of jealousy that the chief priests had handed him over.  ¹¹ But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release Barabbas for them instead.  ¹² Pilate spoke to them again, “Then what do you wish me to do with the man you call the King of the Jews?”  ¹³ They shouted back, “Crucify him!”  ¹⁴ Pilate asked them, “Why, what evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify him!”

I repeat my first question. Who is this crowd? Who is calling for the death of Jesus? Though the instrument is Rome, everything about this passage points to the Sanhedrin.

Consider the criminal’s name, Barabbas. Bar-abbas is a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew “son of(bar) the father(abba).“(Abba is a familiar term, most closely translated, “Daddy.”)

The similarity of Bar-Abbas to Son of Man/Son of God and its implicit irony that a criminal with the same name is being freed so the true Son of God can be crucified can’t be overlooked. They were willing to let the son of a father go but wanted to crucify the son of The Father.

Do you think the familiar usage, Abba/Daddy emphasizes and connects the emotional value/connection between Jesus and God as father and son in the same way as our experience of seeing one of our sons harmed or killed unjustly.

Mark 15: 15 ¹⁵ So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified.

 “Flogging” is an understated act to our modern ears. Flogging was a brutal beating, done with a multistrapped leather that had metal pieces tied to their ends. The true word is scourging. Scourging severely injured a person, leaving open, bleeding wounds and cuts to the bone. Scourging left a person severely injured and bleeding. Perhaps Pilate retained some sense of “mercy” on this unjustly condemned man, and anticipated the flogging would hasten his death? On the other hand, scourging was routine before crucifixion.

Who killed Jesus?

A great deal of often-intense debate has centered on the question of the responsibility for Jesus’ execution. Some say the story of Jesus’ condemnation and execution is unreliable. Since crucifixion is a non-Jewish form of execution, his trial and death must have been entirely at the discretion of the Roman authorities. The argument continues that it was the Roman governor, not the Jewish council, that condemned Jesus to death; that is, that the trial and execution of Jesus “were exclusively Roman.” However, most scholars today agree that Jewish authorities collaborated with Roman authorities in having Jesus put to death. This would certainly be consistent with groups such as the Herodians and Sadducees who irreligiously courted Rome’s favor.

The debate certainly raises the question, “Why was Pilate willing to go along with the Jewish religious leaders' desires?” Was he weak and wavering? Or was he deflecting blame?

Jerusalem was always in a heightened security by Rome during Passover because of its history of militant action by Jewish zealots against Rome. Did Pilate fear unrest, harbor doubt or was he toying with the Sanhedrin?

Zealots stirred the pot of the political and social setting of Jewish Palestine in the time of Pilate, so Pilate might be reluctant to execute in such a public and provocative manner a popular prophet from Galilee, whose many followers were present in Jerusalem. It could very well have instigated a riot, the very thing Pilate hoped to avoid. If Jesus had no military intentions, then he was little more than a pest. A beating and some jail time would suffice. But no, the ruling priests wanted him dead.  At the same time Pilate and Rome used the religious leaders to keep the crowds quiet. In a Jewish religious perspective, the religious leaders were prostitutes to Rome in a degrading, even blasphemous situation.

It was quite a conundrum; the priests wanted Jesus dead but feared the crowd. Pilate probably did not particularly care to have Jesus crucified but the ideas expressed by Jesus did represent a threat to Rome. Both sides could achieve their ends but blame the other for it if necessary. Everyone had a someone to please.

Mark 15:16-20  Then the soldiers led him into the courtyard of the palace (that is, the governor’s headquarters); and they called together the whole cohort.  ¹⁷ And they clothed him in a purple cloak; and after twisting some thorns into a crown, they put it on him.  ¹⁸ And they began saluting him, “Hail, King of the Jews!”  ¹⁹They struck his head with a reed, spat upon him, and knelt down in homage to him.  ²⁰ After mocking him, they stripped him of the purple cloak and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him.

From Craig Evans, Word Bible Commentary, Mark Vol. 34B: “The mockery (by the soldiers) mimics aspects of the Roman triumph in which Caesar was hailed as emperor and received homage." The purple cloak, the crown of thorns in place of the normal crown of ivy/laurel, the reed with which Jesus is struck on the head, and the bowing in mock homage are all components of the apparel worn and homage received by the Roman emperor, who at the triumph wore a purple robe and laurel wreath and held a scepter.  Being dressed in purple would also recall the attire of Hellenistic kings of an earlier period.

Whether or not  the writer of Mark edited the event, especially the mockery, to correspond more closely with Roman imperial traditions, it is probable that this story approximates what actually happened to Jesus, and sets the stage for the reversal of this mockery by the centurion at the tomb.

Reflection

The two trials of Jesus emphasize the close collaboration of the Jews and Rome. Jesus was a threat to both.

There are some painful reversals in this passage. The Chief Priests and Sanhedrin were fearful of a negative reaction of the people to Jesus.  Rome was fearful of the trouble of riotous Jews during Passover. In the appearance before Pilate one wonders exactly how many people were present and who they were?

Is this a small group of priests who had just convicted Jesus in an illegal religious trial, or have the crowds suddenly turned against Jesus?

I am inclined to think three “crowds” were involved, one was the crowd of the Sanhedrin and the other was the array of Roman forces standing with Pilate. Both cultivated relationship to further power, the highest Roman virtue, and the antithesis of the highest Christian virtue, humility. They only sought to achieve their end without having to accept the blame for it.

Where was the third and only crowd that matters, the many followers? I suspect they scattered in the face of Roman power as Jesus said they would (Mark 14:27-30).

Does this passage cause us to ask if we also have followed the crowd and scattered when asked if we stand with Jesus? Does it cause us to wonder if we have worked with others to achieve a desired, but less than honorable end by being able to defer blame to the other? Does it remind us of the times we have gone along with the crowd (or fled in fear) in spite of knowing we would be suborning an injustice by the crowd?