On Easter Sunday I had the privilege of serving as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion at the 9:00 am Mass. By the time Mass began it was standing room only in the church. This was not a surprise. I bet it was the same at your parish. When it came time to distribute Communion, another person and I were asked to go to a station at the rear of the church. A line formed among those standing. At a certain point, I wondered why the line did not seem to get shorter and I realized that people were coming through the doors of the church and getting in line for Communion. After Mass, I learned that indeed people were standing three deep on the sidewalk during Mass. Because it was such a beautiful day, the doors were wide open and the music could surely be heard, but how much of the readings and homily and Eucharistic prayer did people hear?
I’ve been wondering what made them stay and what makes our brother and sister Catholics who don’t come to Mass often and maybe only at Christmas and Easter come on these feasts. On the one hand, if recent studies are correct and a majority of Catholics consider themselves as “active” if they go to Mass once a month on average, then making sure you plan to go on Christmas and Easter is a no-brainer. But for those who come infrequently, why stand on the sidewalk? Reverend Andrew Greeley, a priest of the Archdiocese of Chicago and a sociologist talks about the “sacramental imagination” that is nurtured in the Catholic mind and that like Baptism seems to leave and indelible mark and so even for the Catholic who is not practicing the faith, his world view is a Catholic worldview. Another priest pondered that maybe if a person calls themselves Christian, then at the very least they see a need to come to church on Easter to “represent” so to speak!
Always welcomed
Don’t get me wrong, I love that the congregation overflowed onto the sidewalk on Capitol Hill. What a witness to the truth that the Easter story has real meaning and continues to capture people’s imagination. When I ask “what are they thinking,” I really want to know, because if we who are serious about the New Evangelization can better understand what the pull is to come to church once or twice a year than we can use that as a starting point for helping them look more deeply at their own experience. We can better able in our preaching and teaching and conversation make a more convincing argument for how active participation in life of the church will make a real difference in every part of one’s life. Fr. Bill Byrne, the pastor, in his homily said that the story of the Resurrection does not just have meaning for a moment but rather calls for a commitment. If you believe the story, you need to make a commitment—to discipleship, to Mass, to service. How did people hear that? Are they still thinking about it today?
He knows as all of us know that it won’t be standing room only next week. When we better understand the impulse to come to church once, twice, a few times a year, we can better help our brother and sisters move from impulse to commitment. Any insights you can share with me?
When we read the various accounts of the Resurrection in the four Gospels, Acts and Pauline Epistles we can easily be puzzled by some apparent discrepancies in the details.
The Pope in his recent book, Jesus of Nazareth (Vol II) says, We have to acknowledge that this testimony [of Scripture] considered from an historical point of view, is presented to us in a particularly complex form and gives rise to many questions. (P. 242)
The Pope goes on to explain what he considers to be the reason for this complexity and apparent divergence in some of the details.
What actually happened? Clearly for the witnesses who encountered the risen Lord, it was not easy to say. They were confronted with what, for them, was an entirely new reality, far beyond the limits of their own experience. Much as the reality of the event overwhelmed them and impelled them to bear witness, it was still utterly unlike anything they had previously known. (p. 242).
The Pope then reminds us that Jesus’ resurrection was experienced by them as something far beyond the resuscitation of a corpse. Rather, Jesus had taken up a wholly new and transformed humanity that was beyond anything they could fully describe or had ever experienced.
With all this in mind we are better able to appreciate the ecstatic qualities of the resurrection accounts and appreciate why all their details do not perfectly line up. The accounts have a rather crisp, “lets get to the point” quality; especially the accounts of the first day of the appearances. Frankly, one would be surprised if every detail in the account of an astonishing event were exactly the same. One might even suspect a story that was too controlled and wonder as to a kind of brainwashing or conspiracy having taken place. But as they are, these accounts have every hallmark of the accounts of people who experienced the events truly, but, due to their ecstatic and disorienting quality, recall the details differently or emphasize different facets.
It is important to recall that the Scriptures record the things Jesus actually said and did but they are not written like history is today: Today we attempt or think we write history as an exact chronological and comprehensive analysis of an event or era. But the Scriptures are selective, story-based accounts rather than our modern journalistic approach to history. They will often collect the sayings and deeds of Jesus around certain theological themes, rather than follow an exact time line. The Gosples do not intended to be an exhaustive account of everything Jesus said and did in exact detail (cf Jn 20:30; 21:25). Rather the Evangelists select what is suited to their theological purpose. And yet, despite these distinctions, we must be clear that the gospels are historical accounts, in that they recount the things Jesus actually said and did (cf Dei Verbum # 19)
Now, for the record, there are some apparent, and also real discrepancies in the accounts. The word “apparent” is important though, because not all the discrepancies are real or substantial if we take a closer look at them. Some who wish to cast doubt on the historicity of the Resurrection often wish to make more of these differences than necessary. Many, if not most of the differences can be dealt with quite easily and we are able to ultimately stitch together a reasonably clear account of the resurrection, if we are disposed to do so.
So, lets consider some of the apparent conflicts that emerge in the accounts:
How many women went out to the tomb that morning, one (Jn 20:21) two (Matt 28:1), or three (Mk 16:1)?
Did Magdalene alone go to just Peter and John (Jn 20) or did the several women go to the Apostles (Matt 28; Mk 16)?
How many angels did they see there that morning, one (Matt 28:2; Mk 16:5) or two (Lk 24:4; Jn 20:12)?
Did the women run to the other disciples and tell what they had seen (Mt 28:8; Lk 24:9) or did they say nothing out of fear (Mk 16:8)?
Did Jesus see them first in Galilee (Mk 16:7; Mt 28:9) or in Jerusalem (Jn 20; Lk 24:36)?
Among the Apostles, did he appear to Peter first (Lk 24:34), all eleven at once (Mt. 28:16), or the eleven minus Thomas (Jn 20:24)?
Did Jesus appear to them in a room (Jn 20:19) or a mountaintop (Mt 28:16)?
Lastly, did Jesus ascend on Easter Sunday (Lk 24:50-53; Mk 16:19) or forty days later (Acts 1:3,9)?
At one level some react that some of these details are picky. Who cares really who many women went or how many angels? Perhaps, but it does not seem wise to simply dismiss the differences this way. Some of the differences ARE quite significant. For example, did Jesus appear to them first in Jerusalem? Luke and John are quite clear that he did. But why then do Mark and Matthew completely ignore this and record that the angel instructed the women to have the disciples go to Galilee where they will see him? Now, as has been stated, these differences can be addressed in a thoughtful manner, but they should not be simply dismissed as of no account.
In what follows I propose to address these differences and give possible resolutions. I am also aware, and expect to hear from some who consider any attempt to resolve these matters “simplistic.” You of course are free to propose other solutions and demonstrate how attempts at a resolution fall short. This is what comments are for. If something seems wrong state why and give evidence or an alternative point of view. So, on to possible solutions.
How many women went out to the tomb that morning, one (John 20:21), two (Matt 28:1) or three (Mk 16:1) and how many angels were there, one (Mk 16:5, Mat 28:2) or two (Lk 24:4, Jn 20:12)? One solution here is to recall that neither John’s Gospel nor Matthew’s absolutely deny that three women went to the tomb that day. They simply do not mention three whereas Mark does. John especially wishes to focus on Mary Magdalene and may have found it unnecessary to mention the others. Additionally, Matthew and Mark’s mention of one angel need not be seen as an absolute denial that there were two as described in Luke and John. Another solution is simply to acknowledge the discrepancies in the accounts but underscore the fact that the number of women and the number of angels is not the central point. The point is that the tomb was discovered empty by one or several women and they were instructed to tell the apostles what they saw and heard.
Matthew (28:8) and Luke (24:9) indicate that the women went and told the disciples of the empty tomb but Mark (16:8) says they were afraid and said nothing. True but in the verses that follow in the appendix to Mark’s own Gospel (Mk. 16:10) Mary Magdalene does in fact tell the apostles. Rather than conflicting with the other texts, Mark may merely supply additional detail about the startled nature of the women, that at first they were startled and said nothing but soon after went on, as Mark in fact says, a did tell the apostles.
Mark (16:7) and Matthew (28:9) indicate, according to the angel’s instructions, that Jesus would see them in Galilee but Luke (24:36 and John 20) describe the first appearances in Jerusalem. In addressing this difference we must recall that the gospels are not written as chronological or complete histories. The evangelists selected events from among the many things Jesus said and did and may also have altered the order. John (20:30 & 21:25) explicitly states that his account is selective. Hence we ought not conclude that any one gospel completely details all the resurrection appearances. It is true Mark and Matthew speak only of appearances in Galilee. Thus these accounts might only include the angelic instructions to go to Galilee since that they did not intend to describe appearances elsewhere. In other words it is possible to speculate that the angelic instructions were more elaborate and included instructions as to being prepared to meet Jesus first in Jerusalem. Matthew and Mark however paired these details down in their accounts since they did not intend to include the Jerusalem appearances in their accounts. This may not satisfy our notions of historical accounts wherein we expect and want a complete accounting of all the details. But, as has already been noted the Scriptures simply do not record history in this way. Rather they are selective accounts that open windows on history but do not claim to exhaustively report it. Note also that Matthew and Mark are not clear as to the time frame of the appearances they describe. Luke and John however, set the first appearance in Jerusalem and are rather clear that the day is the same day as the resurrection. Hence we reasonably conclude that the first appearances took place in Jerusalem and later appearances took place in Galilee. In other words the Jerusalem appearances do not conflict with the Galilean appearances in any way. Rather they simply add details that Mark and Matthew, for reasons of their own, chose not to include. Such a conclusion is speculative to be sure. It does, however, help us to see that the accounts do not absolutely contradict each other.
Among the Apostles, did Jesus appear to Peter first (Lk 24:34), all eleven at once (Mt. 28:16), or the eleven minus Thomas (Jn 20:24)? There seems to be a good case for the fact that the Lord appeared first to Peter even though we do not have a direct account of this appearance in the scriptures. The Gospel of Luke makes mention of it, And they [the disciples traveling to Emmaus] rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them, who said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”(24:33-34). Paul also records it [The Lord] was raised the third day in accordance with the scriptures…he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time…Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles (1 Cor 15:3ff). So it seems a pretty good case can be made that Peter did see the risen Lord before the other apostles. This quote from Paul also helps us recall that the gospel accounts are selective in terms of which resurrection appearances they report. Thus, as we read the various accounts, we get from each of them only a part of the full picture (see John 20:30). According to Paul there were appearances to Peter, to five hundred disciples, and to James. The details of these appearances are left to our imagination. It also follows that we do not need to see the accounts of John and Matthew cited above as conflicting. They may well be describing different appearances.
Did Jesus appear to them in a room (Jn 20:19) or a mountaintop (Mt 28:16)? Again, we need not place these texts at odds with one another. Most likely they are describing different appearances. Since the time frame of John is clear that the appearances in the upper room took place on Resurrection Sunday and then a week later we can presume that these appearances took place first. The mountaintop appearance was in Galilee and the time frame is not clear. It may have been days or weeks later.
Did Jesus ascend on Easter Sunday (Lk 24:50-53; Mk 16:19) or forty days later (Acts 1:3,9)? At first glance the texts from Luke and Mark do seem to imply that the ascension was the same day as the resurrection. However, a closer look will show that they are rather vague as to the time frame. Mark begins the passage leading up to the ascension with the word “afterward.” How long after the previous appearance is uncertain. Luke’s passage is also vague regarding the time. However Acts (1:3,9) also written by Luke is quite specific that the time of the ascension was forty days later. Thus, Acts need not be seen to conflict with the gospel accounts; it merely supplies the details that are lacking in them. This case is made stronger when we note that Luke is generally accepted to be the author of both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles and it seems unlikely that Luke would directly contradict himself.
So here then is a short tour of some of the apparent discrepancies and possible ways to resolve them.
In the end we simply have to accept that the Gospels do not record history in the same systematic and strictly chronological manner we moderns prefer. But they DO record history. It is for us to accept the evidence and accounts as they are given. The fact is that to develop a precise time frame and blow by blow chronological description may not be fully possible. However, careful study of the texts can help somewhat in this regard.
In tomorrow’s blog I would like to propose a somewhat chronological account that attempts to weave the many strands into one narrative. Such an attempt as we will see involves some speculation given the nature of ancient historical accounts. But it can help us to sort our the many details by trying to order them. So stay tuned for tomorrow.
Just about all of the Resurrection Accounts in the Gospels present the apostles and disciples on a journey to deeper faith. In stages they come out of the darkness of despair and this world into the light of faith. Matthew’s (28:1-10) account that is read at the Easter Vigil this year, and which can also be read at Masses during the day, is no exception.
Let’s look at the Easter journey that Mary Magdalene and Mary, (likely, Mary the Mother of James and Joses) make out of darkness into light. Mark (16:1) adds that “Salome” went with them. Salome was the wife of Zebedee, and the mother of James and John. From Luke (24:10) it also appears that Joanna, wife of Chusa, Herod’s steward was with them. Hence, though Matthew only mentions the two by name, it would seem that our analysis includes these four women. As these women journey through the events of Easter Morning we see their faith deepen and brighten. In a condensed sort of way, we also see the whole life of the Christian as we, journeying in stages, come to deeper faith and a brighter vision of the paschal mystery that our life is.
Lets observe their journey in four stages.
Stage 1 – Disturbance at Dawn . The text says,
After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, approached, rolled back the stone, and sat upon it. His appearance was like lightning and his clothing was white as snow. The guards were shaken with fear of him and became like dead men.
Note that in this first stage, it is still quite dark. The text here says, with hope, that the new day was dawning. The Greek word however properly means as the first day “approached,” or drew on, without specifying the precise time. Mark 16:1-2 that it was very early in the morning, at the rising of the sun – that is, not that the sun “was risen,” but that it was about to rise, or at the early break of day. Luke 24:1 that it was “very early in the morning;” (in the Greek text, “deep twilight,” or when there was scarcely any light). John 20:1 says it was “very early, while it was yet dark” – that is, it was not yet full daylight, or the sun had not yet risen.
So the point is, it is still quite dark, but dawn is near! And all this creates for us who read an air of great expectation. An old Song by the Taize Community says, “Within our darkest night, you kindle a fire that never dies away!”
Next, there is a great earthquake! Sometimes God has to shake things up to open new doors and new vision. And in our life too, there are often violent shakings. But, remember, we are at the dawning of a new day. In just a few short years we’ll be with God, if we are faithful. And so it is that this earthquake is not unto destruction, but is unto the opening of the tomb that has claimed our Lord, and unto the opening of tombs that have claimed us, emotionally, spiritually, mentally and so forth. This earthquake, frightening though it may seem, serves only to draw these women deeper into the paschal mystery and toward the risen Christ.
Now, note, they haven’t seen him yet or even heard he is risen. There is only this earthquake. But it has a purpose. Yet, for now, it is barely dawn, and things are still very unclear to them..
Stage one: Disturbance at dawn
Stage Two: Declaration: Do Not Be Afraid. The text says,
Then the angel said to the women in reply, “Do not be afraid! I know that you are seeking Jesus the crucified. He is not here, for he has been raised just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay.
Note that the angel summons them to deeper faith. He exclaims, “Do not be afraid.” Now, to most of us this may merely seem a slogan; one we often hear when we are perceived by others as anxious. Frankly, when others say this to us, it is both annoying and unhelpful. But in this case, the Angel presents a basis on which their faith should grow and their anxiety dissipate.
That they should not be anxious or afraid is rooted in the Lord’s promise and in his word. The angel is reminding them that the Lord had promised to rise on the third day, and that he has done, just as he said. The Lord, who had raised others from death, and healed multitudes, has now done just exactly what he promised.
Hence, the angel summons them to grow in their faith by pondering the Word of Jesus Christ and coming to trust in his promise.
The angel also presents evidence to them, the evidence of the empty tomb. He invites them to connect the dots between the promise of Jesus and the present data of an empty tomb.
So, it’s getting brighter, by the power of God’s word and the application of that word to the present situation.
We too must journey through this stage as we become more deeply immersed in God’s Word and apply it to our present situation. As we grow in knowledge and remembrance of God’s promises and his word, our anxiety begins to flee. This happens especially when, like these women, God helps us to connect his word to what is actually happening in our life. We start to notice the empty tombs, the many signs of God’s favor and blessing. Things start to add up and we begin to connect the dots between faith and experience. And as we do this it gets brighter and our faith grows stronger.
Stage two: Declaration: “Do not be afraid!”
Stage Three – Deepening Dispatch. The text says,
Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead, and he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him.’ Behold, I have told you.”
Learn by teaching – Having been instructed in the paschal mystery, and grown deeper in their faith, the Lord sends them to inform others. An interesting aspect of teaching is that we often learn more by teaching than we ever learned merely as a student. Hence we grow in our faith as we begin to teach and testify to it. And simply the fact of teaching and witnessing causes us to grow.
But note the text, “Behold, I have told you.” The true faith is received from God, not invented by us. St. Paul says, “Faith comes by hearing.” Do NOT go and invent your own faith; that is a very bad idea! We receive the faith from God through the Church and the Scriptures approved by the Church. These women have first been instructed by God’s angel, and only after that, are they told to go and tell someone. We too, are instructed by the Church. Our Faith comes from what is heard and we pass on what we have heard.
So, these women are sent. And, as they go, we shall see that they have a great breakthrough. But prior to that breakthrough, they are sent to witness, to proclaim. And this very act for them, and for us, deepens the faith even more.
Stage Three: Deepening Dispatch.
There is one final stage they must attain. For they are still only able to say what others have said, they have not yet personally seen the Risen Lord. That comes next.
Stage Four: The Discovery that is Definitive. The text says,
Then they went away quickly from the tomb, fearful yet overjoyed, and ran to announce this to his disciples. And behold, Jesus met them on their way and greeted them. They approached, embraced his feet, and did him homage. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.”
Here we see an important and powerful stage that, frankly, too many Christians ignore. Note that, in this moment, they go from inference to experience. Inference is a form of knowledge based only on what others have said. But experience, includes personal witness. Experience means that I myself can personally vouch for the truth of what I proclaim. As we have seen, inference is a necessary stage of our faith (do NOT go and invent your own religion). But the Lord invites us deeper to more personally experience the truth of what the Church has always proclaimed and what her Scriptures have always announced.
Inference to experience – These women have heard from the angel, that Jesus is risen, and they receive the teaching with joy. But, on the way, on the road of their life, they come to personally meet the risen Lord Jesus Christ. Suddenly the truth of what they have been taught is made quite personal to them and experienced as real. They have gone from inference to experience. And now, they will tell not only what they have heard from others, but also how they have personally experienced it as true.
We too are invited to do the same. I need to be able to say, “In the laboratory of my own life I have come to personally experience as true all that the Church and her Scriptures proclaim.” I am now a first hand witnesses to Jesus, for I have experienced him personally in my life. I have met him in my prayer and in my experience. He is alive and real to me, and he is changing my life. I have done more than hear about the Lord, I have met him. I do not merely know about him, I KNOW him.
Stage Four: The Discovery that is Definitive.
Do you know the Lord, or do you just know about him? Have you met him, or just heard about him. On Easter Sunday morning we have observed a group of women go from the darkness of this world to the light of the normal Christian life. And what is the normal Christian life? It is to be in living, conscious contact with God in my life and to personally know the Lord of all glory. It is to be in a living and transformative relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.
Painting above The Resurrection by Annibale Carracci
Where is Christ after he dies on Friday afternoon and before he rises on Easter Sunday? Both Scripture and Tradition answer this question. Consider the following from a Second Century Sermon and also a mediation from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
An Ancient Sermon:
Today a great silence reigns on earth, a great silence and a great stillness. A great silence because the King is asleep. The earth trembled and is still because God has fallen asleep in the flesh and he has raised up all who have slept ever since the world began. . . He has gone to search for Adam, our first father, as for a lost sheep. Greatly desiring to visit those who live in darkness and in the shadow of death, he has gone to free from sorrow Adam in his bonds and Eve, captive with him – He who is both their God and the son of Eve. . . “I am your God, who for your sake have become your son. . . I order you, O sleeper, to awake. I did not create you to be a prisoner in hell. Rise from the dead, for I am the life of the dead.” [From an Ancient Holy Saturday Homily ca 2nd Century]
Nothing could be more beautiful than that line addressed to Adam and Eve: I am your God, who, for your sake, became your Son.”
Scripture also testifies to Christ’s descent to the dead and what he did: For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison….For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does. (1 Peter 3:18; 1 Peter 4:6).
Consider also this from the Catechism on Christ’s descent to the dead, which I summarize and excerpt from CCC # 631-635
[The] first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ’s descent into hell [is] that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead.
But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there [1 Peter 3:18-19; 1 Peter 4:6; Heb. 13:20]. Scripture calls [this] abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” – Sheol in Hebrew, or Hades in Greek – because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God [1 Peter 3:18-19].
Such [was] the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they awaited the Redeemer: It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior …whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.”[cf Psalms 89:49; 1 Sam. 28:19; Ezek 32:17ff; Luke 16:22-26]
Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.
[So] the gospel was preached even to the dead. The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfillment. This is the last phase of Jesus’ messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ’s redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption.
Christ went down into the depths of death so that “the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.”[1 Peter 4:6] Jesus, “the Author of life”, by dying, destroyed “him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and [delivered] all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage” [John 5:25; Mt 12:40; Rom 10:7; Eph 4:9].
Henceforth the risen Christ holds “the keys of Death and Hades”, so that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth.”[Heb 2:14-15; Acts 3:15]
GOOD FRIDAY – All through the night Jesus has been locked in the dungeon of the high priest’s house. Early this morning he was bought before a Pilate who transferred his case to Herod. Herod sent him back to Pilate who, sometime in the mid-morning, would bow to the pressure of the Temple leadership and the crowds, and condemn Jesus to a horrible death by crucifixion.
What led Pilate to do this? All the accounts make it clear that Pilate considered Jesus innocent of the charges. Matthew’s gospel indicates to us that Pilate’s own wife said, Have nothing to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him.” (Matt 27:19). Why did Pilate condemn him?
It is clear that Pilate, though a powerful man feared the crowd, and that they would riot if he did not condemn Jesus. But, at a deeper level, Pilate feared for himself and his career. It would look bad if he was unable to turn back a riot and keep the peace. He would likely lose the governorship and any chance of promotion (something that happened to him shortly thereafter anyway). So, to save himself, he condemned Jesus.
Pilate is also a portrait in vacillation. In the trial, of Jesus it quickly becomes evident that Jesus turns the tables on Pilate. He ends up putting Pilate on trial! Notice too how many times Pilate goes in and out of Praetorium (the governor’s palace). At least four times! He comes out to speak to the Jews, goes in to speak to Jesus, back out to speak to the Jews, back in to speak to Jesus. Finally, back out to condemn Jesus. He is vacillating and his physical back and forth signals his inner turmoil.
And thus, though he knows Jesus is innocent of the charges, he suppresses his conscience and hands Jesus over. He goes from vacillation to assassination!
At a more spiritual level, Pilate had wanted to avoid committing to Jesus, one way or the other. But he, like you and me, had to make a decision.
Notice particularly the question Pilate wrestles with regarding Jesus’ Kingship. He asks, Are you the King of the Jews? But Jesus will not answer. This is a question Pilate must answer. It is also a question you and I must answer. And so Jesus answers Pilate with a question, Are you saying this on your own or have others been saying this to you? In other words am I a King because you say so or are you just saying what others say?
Only Pilate can answer if Jesus is a king. Only you and I can answer for ourselves. Is he your King?
In the account of the trial before Pilate John’s Gospel contains a (likely) intentional ambiguity: But the crowd kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.” So when Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out and he sat down on the judgment seat (Jn 19:12-13)
Who sat on the Judgment Seat? Pilate or Jesus? You decide.
Who’s really on Trial here? Jesus or Pilate?
Or is it you?
For you and I have been asked a question by Jesus: Are you saying I am a King on your own, or have others merely been telling you about me? I think we need to answer him.
Here are two movie accounts of the trial. Note in the first clip that Pilate and Jesus speak in Latin. I think this is the director’s way of saying that Jesus, as God, is speaking personally to Pilate, thus he uses Pilate’s mother-tongue.
Most of us who live now think of the Last Supper in terms that are familiar to us. In our imagination Jesus and his apostles sit around a square table on chairs. Jesus is a the center and his apostles arrayed around him. The famous painting of Leonardo Da Vinci (See right) is uppermost in most modern minds when thinking of the Last Supper.
But the real Last Supper was different in many significant ways.
Some of the following I am about it present is still a matter of debate other aspects of it are undisputed.
1. Jesus and the Apostles did not sit on chairs at a table. Rather they reclined on ground or on matsand pillows, leaning on their left elbow (leaning either forward or on their left side) and eating with their right hand. Their legs were stretched out behind them. (See picture at left, click to get a bigger size) This was the typical fashion for eating in the ancient world. That they reclined to eat is made plain in the Gospel of Mark: While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, “I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me–one who is eating with me (Mk 14:18).
This setting also explains some things that seem strange to us moderns. First of all why did John lean back on Jesus’ chest to ask him a question? (Jn 13:25; 21:20) This would be strange and physically awkward in a modern upright table setting. But reclining on one’s side on a mat meant you had to lean back to talk to the person next to you. Thus, while many see the act as a tender one, it may also have had a practical dimension.
There is also explained another strange scene (to us moderns) where Jesus is reclining to eat in the home of a Pharisee and and a woman begins to anoint his feet (Luke 7:38). In a modern upright table setting this would mean she’d have to be under the table. Strange indeed! But in the ancient setting, the posture was such that one’s feet were behind and thus the woman could approach Jesus from behind and begin to anoint his feet without his prior knowledge.
2. The Place of honorin modern western settings at a typical long rectangular table is either at the center or at one end. Everyone is seated upright and facing in to the center and can generally see all the others well. However, in the ancient meal setting the table was “U” shaped, either as a half circle, or with 90 degree arms. Instead of sitting at the center of the table (as in DaVinci’s painting above) the host or honored guest sat at one corner. Further, everyone sat on one side on the outside of the table allowing the inside of the table to open for servers.
The picture to the right is from a very early mosaic in Ravenna, probably made well before the 5th Century. At this early time, artists still had access to more of the memory of the actual practices at the time of Jesus and thus depicts the Last Supper as it was more likely arranged. Notice that Jesus is at the head of the corner and his disciples are arrayed in a sloping ark behind and sloping to his left. This was the usual setting for the ancient meal and especially something as formal as a passover meal.
It would seem however, for John to have been able to lean back on Jesus’ chest to ask him the question, that Jesus would have to been on the opposite side of the “table” from that depicted in the Ravenna mosaic. But we still get the basic point of what ancient meal settings looked like.
3. It would seem (though this is debatable) that the place of second honor was at the other end of the U shaped table on the opposite corner. This would help explain why Peter is not at Jesus’ immediate side and has to motion to John across the room to lean back and ask Jesus a question (Jn:13:24-25). Since Peter would like have had the other place of honor it makes sense that he would be across the room and unable to ask Jesus himself.
Here too the Ravenna Mosaic seems instead to picture Peter right next to the Lord, which would not comport with the likely biblical evidence that John was in fact to the Lord’s right. But the mosaic does capture well the reclining at a U shaped low table.
Thus the whole setting of the Last Supper was rather a different setting that most modern people imagine. Leaning on elbows and eating with one hand would all be very awkward to us. But I suppose they’d think what we do strange as well. Nevertheless, the ancient practice, DaVinci and modern notions notwithstanding was that people reclined to eat.
The following clip is a humorous scene from the Passion of the Christ. Mary is puzzled over Jesus making a tall table to eat at. She cannot imagine that anyone would want to eat sitting up. She says, “This will never catch on!”
Over the last month, I have been thinking about the relationship of body and prayer. At the Maryland March for Life in Annapolis, I fell in step with a woman who looked to be in her seventies’ using a cane and keeping a good pace as we walked up the long hill toward Lawyers’Mall. I wondered what made her drive through rush hour traffic to Annapolis to walk with us. Surely, her prayer would have been no less powerful had she chosen to stay at home and pray. A few days later, driving through DC, stopped at a traffic light, a young woman, standing perfectly still on the sidewalk caught my attention. Actually, the rosary she was holding is what caught my eye. Why, I thought, did she choose this spot and then I saw it. She was praying as part of the 40 Days for Life Campaign, at the Planned Parenthood Clinic. Two weeks ago, hundreds gathered in front of Health and Human Services to raise their voice in prayer and petition. Last Saturday, more than 200 young adults traced a 12 mile path through the city on the Seven Church pilgrimage in preparation for Holy Week. On Sunday, parishioners took palms and processed through parking lots, along sidewalks and into church. On Friday, at a number of parishes in the archdiocese, people will gather to follow the stations through local neighborhoods. All together, we seem to be a church in motion, on the move! Not just on the move, but on pilgrimage and more importantly, in prayer. At certain times, it just seems right to raise our minds, hearts and bodies in prayer.
In the tradition of St. Dominic
It seems right because just as we experience the presence of God through our bodily senses, our bodies themselves can be an expression of prayer. Saint Dominic, founder of the Order of Preachers teaches us that “gestures of the body powerfully dispose the soul to prayer.” The Dominican Family captured “nine ways of prayer” that were the practice of Dominic, not just in communal prayer but also as part of his private prayer. I discovered this booklet when I was a student and it has deepened my appreciation for making my posture an extension of my prayer. Dominic would have been right at home in any one of our rallies, walks or processions because pilgrimage is just one of nine ways of prayer.
Triduum Prayer
As we enter the celebration of the Triduum, we practice many of the bodily expressions of prayer. Thursday, we will be invited to kneel in adoration of the Blessed Sacrament—to watch and wait with our Lord. On Good Friday, many of us will gaze on the Stations of the Cross as we commemorate our Lord’s passion. Our priests will prostrate themselves in front of the altar and we will be invited to venerate the cross, by kneeling or kissing our touching the feet of our Lord. At the Vigil, our catechumens will kneel in the saving waters of Baptism or bend and receive the life-giving water as it is poured over their heads.
What of the nine ways of prayer might you be able to make a part of your Triduum. If you have not fasted as much or as well as you hoped, Friday is the perfect day to practice the prayer of the bodily discipline. While kneeling is the traditional form of prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, Dominic’s fifth way of prayer is to stand before the altar, perfectly erect, deeply reverent. The seventh position is a familiar one of hands raised in praise, is it an expression that you can use in personal prayer? In his eighth posture, study becomes prayer as he sits and contemplates God’s word.
As we walk with Jesus through his passion and death and as his body becomes for us the gift of our salvation, we are invited to pray in body, mind and spirit.
In some ways its been a tough year for clergy on the blogs. A lot of what I consider to be bishop bashing has been going on, and lots of wrath and venom for the Catholic clergy in general. While I expect this from the secular world, most of it of late has come from certain segments of the Catholic laity.
For many on the right, we clergy don’t take up their agenda with sufficient zeal or follow it to last detail. Hence we are a grave disappointment. For many on the left we have long been dismissed as an outdated “boys only club” with an out-dated and irrelevant doctrine.
In all this we clergy are not merely innocent victims. Though the doctrine of the Church we teach is not flawed, we who preach it are flawed. We have sins and shortcomings. Sins of omission, and of commission. I am not sure we deserve as much venom as we get, and I remain very alarmed at the open hostility to bishops who are, after all, our shepherds and fathers. My own earthly father was not perfect but I had been schooled to appeal to my father with respect and do air my differences with him privately and with deference to the fact that he was my father.
But the fact is we clergy do need your mercy and forgiveness, your prayers and understanding, your patience and encouragement and also your kind but clear rebuke. For we do fall short in many ways and are sometimes unaware or insensitive to the negative impact of our personal shortcomings.
If there ever was a golden age when the clergy were all we want them to be, I am not sure when it was. For even at the beginning the apostles showed forth sin, ineptitude, and the struggle to live perfectly the life they proclaimed. Even after Pentecost any reading of Acts or the pastoral epistles shows some divisions and shortcomings of the clergy. Paul’s advice to Timothy and Titus to be careful before laying hands on men also suggests that there had been troubles.
Wednesday of Holy Week is traditionally called “Spy Wednesday” since it is this day when Judas conspired with the Temple Leadership to hand Jesus over. He would accomplish his task the evening of the next day, but today he makes arrangements to hand Jesus over and is paid.
One way to reflect on this terrible sin is to reflect that Judas was among the first priests called by Jesus. We see in the call of the Apostles the establishment of the ministerial priesthood. Jesus called these men to lead his Church and minister in his name. But one of these priests went wrong, terribly wrong, and turned against the very one he should have proclaimed.
Among the other “first priests” we also see great weaknesses evident. Peter in weakness denied Jesus, though he repented later. All the others except John fled at the time of the passion. And so here we see the “sins of the clergy” made manifest. Christ did not call perfect men. He promised to protect his Church from officially teaching error but this does not mean that there is no sin in the Church and among those who are called to lead. The story of Judas shows that even among those who were called, one went terribly wrong.
In recent years there has been much focus on the sins of Catholic Priests who went terribly wrong and sexually abused the young. The vast majority of priests have never done such things, but those who did so inflicted great harm.
There are other sins of the clergy that have nothing to do with sexuality that may also have caused great harm. Maybe it was an insensitive remark. Perhaps it was the failure of a priest to respond at a critical moment such as a hospital visit. Whatever it might be that has caused you harm or alienation, please don’t give up on God or the on the Church. If a priest or Church leader has caused you grief or to feel alienated please know that there are other priests, deacons, and lay leaders who stand ready to hear your concerns and offer healing. Let the healing begin. Ask among your Catholic family and friends for recommendations about helpful and sensitive priests or Church leaders who can listen to your concerns, address them where possible, and offer another opportunity for the Church to reach out to you with love.
On this “Spy Wednesday” pray especially for priests. We carry the treasure of our priesthood in earthen vessels. As human beings we struggle with our own issues. We have many good days and some less than stellar moments too. The vast majority of Priests are good men, though sinners, who strive to do their very best. But some among us have sinned greatly and caused harm to the Body of Christ, as did Judas. Some of us may have caused harm to you. Please accept an invitation to begin anew.
If you have stayed away through some hurt or harm caused by any leader of the Church, strive on this “Spy Wednesday” to still find Christ where he is found. Among sinners and saints too, in the Church he founded: Perfect in her beauty as the Bride of Christ but consisting of members who are still “on the way” to holiness.
As usual, after all my verbiage, a music video offers this message better than I ever could. Allow this powerful video to move you if you have ever been hurt or know someone who has.
