Mark’s narrative of the Passion is swift and direct, almost matter of fact. Everything that needed to be set in motion has been set in motion and there is no turning back… because if this is God’s Plan nothing can stop it. Still, every participant, every observer, has a choice to make.

How did Jesus come to this point?

The high priest asked Him: “Are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed?” This is a direct question that leaves the term “Messiah” unambiguous, defining it as the son of God.

We know that in the varied literature of the Second Temple period, the concept of the Messiah was far from uniform. For instance, the community that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls used the term sons of God to denote faithful – but clearly human – servants of God. Their own specific concept of the Messiah applied to two people, one a kingly Messiah and another a priestly Messiah; both human. On the other hand, apocryphal literature of the time (an example being Enoch) used terminology that suggested the Messiah was a supernatural or pre-existent being.

The canonical Jewish scriptures, the Tanakh (our Old Testament), do not contain only one clear definition either. We have talked about this before. Many prophecies mention a descendant of David, implying a human king. Similarly, Moses told his people to expect a prophet like him (and Moses was evidently human). However, Daniel’s prophecy clearly describes the Son of Man figure as more than human, as coming down from heaven; implying that heaven was indeed his home, his natural place. This is consistent with Micah’s prophecy regarding the birth of the Messiah at Bethlehem where he refers to him as existing “from of old” (that, in itself, congruent with Daniel’s description of God, the Judge of all the Earth, as being the “Ancient of Days.”)

So, Jesus had a whole palette of possible answers that He could have given that could have left his accusers with nothing to latch onto. (For example, as He did in His reply in John 10:34.) But Jesus chose to single out Daniel’s prophecy:

And Jesus said, *I* am, and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven

We should not have expected otherwise, for we know from Mark’s gospel that He often called Himself the Son of Man; and that He acted as if He could forgive sins (which only God can do), and as if He could read the thoughts of people (which again only God can do). In fact, John’s gospel tells us that He went as far as publicly stating that “before Abraham was, I AM”.

So, even though the priests could not legally force Jesus to admit (repeat) those shocking claims in court, Jesus went ahead and, freely, gave them what they wanted: a direct declaration that He was Daniel’s Son of Man and would henceforth be reigning next to God as in Daniel’s prophecy.

The religious leaders’ choice

And the high priest’s reaction was: “See? He just blasphemed!”

But what was Jesus guilty of at that point? How could claiming to be God’s chosen supernatural anointed one be blasphemy, if the scriptures allowed that as one of the possibilities?

The answer is:

It is ludicrous! How could a carpenter’s son, a common laborer, rather than a noble descendant of David, be the chosen Messiah? How can a man that hangs around with ignorant fishermen and eats dinner with tax collectors, prostitutes, and sinners (not to mention allowing himself to be anointed by a sinful woman) be God’s holy anointed one?

It is preposterous that one who disregards the traditions of the elders and who disregards the strictest rules about the Sabbath, would claim to be the righteous one.

It is disgusting that one who claims to heal people, does so by making himself ceremonially unclean… by touching a leper or allowing himself to be touched by the woman with the haemorrhagic sickness.

It is nonsense that the God of Israel would anoint this man as the promised supernatural deliverer of Israel when the Temple guard had no problem in overpowering him, arresting him, and setting his followers on the run.

In short, they were offended at the possibility that Jesus’ words could be the true.

They declared Him guilty… and received no contradiction; no “witnesses for the defense” spoke up. There were at least 12 such potential witnesses in that garden of Gethsemane. But those fled.

Why didn’t anyone else come forward to testify?

In John’s gospel, chapter 9 (the story of the man born blind) we have evidence that the religious leaders had already stacked the odds in their favor:

John 9:18-22 The Jews therefore did not believe concerning him (the man born blind) that he was blind and had received sight, until they had called the parents of him that had received sight. And they asked them saying, This is your son, of whom ye say that he was born blind: how then does he now see?

His parents answered [them] and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; but how he now sees we do not know, or who has opened his eyes we do not know. *He* is of age: ask *him*; *he* will speak concerning himself. His parents said these things because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if any one confessed him [to be the] Christ, he should be excommunicated from the synagogue.

And also in chapter 12…

John 12:42-43 Although indeed from among the rulers also many believed on him, but on account of the Pharisees did not confess [him], that they might not be put out of the synagogue: for they loved glory from men rather than glory from God.

If any witnesses had spoken up on His defense, they would have been excommunicated from the synagogue. That was a punishment tantamount to exile. The synagogue was the center of all social activity in the Jewish community of that day. Once excommunicated, you would lose all contact with family, friends, vendors, and customers. Think about it: The penalty for admitting you had been helped by Jesus was to be cast out of the community. No one took that risk.

The religious leaders had made their choice well before that tribunal. Even though they knew the (good) things Jesus had done, witnessed many of His miracles, they refused to accept His person.

Pilate’s choice

Mark 15:1-5 And immediately in the morning the chief priests, having taken counsel with the elders and scribes and the whole sanhedrim, bound Jesus and carried [him] away, and delivered [him] up to Pilate. And Pilate asked him, Art *thou* the King of the Jews? And he answered and said to him, *Thou* sayest.

And the chief priests accused him urgently. And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing? See of how many things they bear witness against thee. But Jesus still answered nothing, so that Pilate marvelled.

In Mark, the only hint we have of the accusations the priests made against Jesus before Pilate is Pilate’s question to Jesus: “Are you the King of the Jews?” Luke confirms this.

Luke 23: 2 And they began to accuse him, saying, We have found this [man] perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ, a king.

The religious leaders knew what they were doing. These were accusations that they knew would stand up in a Roman court.

But Roman law also required that a dispute be resolved ex aequo et bono (with fairness and common sense), even when non-Romans (peregrini) were involved. That meant that although Jesus, as a Jew, could not appeal an adverse verdict to any higher court, Pontius Pilate had complete authority to decide in his favor if he wanted. This is why he was shocked that Jesus made no attempt to get him on His side.

(And, please, note that Jesus could have defended Himself. There in Luke, the accusation about Him forbidding to give tribute to Caesar was a lie. If Jesus had contradicted it, Pilate could have called for witnesses. And we know how the appeal to witnesses utterly failed in the Sanhedrim. Yet, Jesus said nothing. I wonder if this is an extreme case of turning the other cheek. I think it is. It is extreme… but what is at stake is the future of humanity.)

Now, Pilate had no love for the Jewish leaders. There is historical evidence that Pilate abused his Jewish subjects. Luke reminds us of this when tells us in his gospel: Luke 13:1 Now at the same time there were present some who told Him of the Galileans whose blood Pilate mingled with [that of] their sacrifices. (In other words, slaughtered them while they were offering sacrifices.)

Therefore, Pilate would have welcomed an opportunity here to “stick it to” the Jewish leaders. But Jesus gave him no ammunition. So, Pilate came up with his own plan…

Mark 15:6-10 But at [the] feast he released to them one prisoner, whomsoever they begged [of him]. Now there was the [person] named Barabbas bound with those who had made insurrection with [him], [and] that had committed murder in the insurrection. And the crowd crying out began to beg [that he would do] to them as he had always done.

Pilate thought this was his opportunity… 

But Pilate answered them saying, Will ye that I release to you the King of the Jews? for he knew that the chief priests had delivered him up through envy.

But the priests had already planned for that:

Mark 15:11-14 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd that he might rather release Barabbas to them. And Pilate answering said to them again, What will ye then that I do [to him] whom ye call King of the Jews? And they cried out again, Crucify him. And Pilate said to them, What evil then has he done? But they cried out the more urgently, Crucify him.

Notice Pilate’s reaction. In his eyes, the death penalty and method of execution were in no way within the bounds of ex aequo et bono.

Mark 15:15 And Pilate, desirous of contenting the crowd, released to them Barabbas, and delivered up Jesus – when he had scourged him – that he might be crucified.

Instead of sending Jesus to be crucified directly, Pilate had him scourged first. Why? From the other gospels we know that even at this point he was having second thoughts.

His logic to go ahead and have Jesus beaten and brutally scourged may not make sense to us. But, given the finality of a death sentence, Pilate still had a chance… because physical punishment of non-Romans, even interrogation under torture, was legally allowed. So, he had the soldiers scourge Him and then…

Mark 15:16-19 And the soldiers led him away into the court which is [called the] praetorium, and they call together the whole band. And they clothe him with purple, and bind round on him a crown of thorns which they had plaited. And they began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews! And they struck his head with a reed, and spat on him, and, bending the knee, did him homage.

Given the witness of the other gospels, Pilate went that far in an attempt to get Jesus released. Maybe he was hoping that the crowd would be moved by compassion (or maybe even solidarity with a fellow Jew that was being abused by Roman soldiers) and relent. Maybe he was hoping that as a minimum they would accept that this Jesus was no threat to anyone.

And so, he brings him out beaten, humiliated, wearing the crown of thorns and bloodied purple robe, and tells the crowd (John 19:5): Ecce homo… essentially saying:

Behold the kind of man over whom you are making such a fuss…

But Jesus’ accusers were prepared for Pilate’s every move, even if it required threatening him:

John 19:12 If thou releasest this [man], thou art not a friend to Caesar. Every one making himself a king speaks against Caesar.

Pilate gave in to their wishes.

Mark 15:20 And when they had mocked him, they took the purple off him, and put his own clothes on him; and they lead him out that they may crucify him.

Pilate made his choice.

He was convinced in his mind (if not his heart) that this was an innocent man, that the accusations were all based on the envy of the religious leaders… and that maybe even the gods were pointing that out (a) through his wife’s dream and her begging him to have nothing to do with this case (Matthew 27)  and (b) through his own superstitions: John 19:7-8 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and according to [our] law he ought to die, because he made himself Son of God. When Pilate therefore heard this word, he was the rather afraid.

But even though he had all this as evidence, plus his own conviction that the whole thing violated ex aequo et bono… What was the alternative? Would he risk a riot and his standing with Caesar on a gamble that this bloodied, powerless Jew was something more than met the eye? I think his own words came back to him:

Behold the kind of man over whom you are making such a fuss…

And he decided he was not going to make any more fuss. He, Jesus, was not worth it.

From the other gospels we know that Jesus started on the way dragging his cross but evidently after the beatings and scourging, he did not make it very far.

Mark 15:21-26 And they compel to go [with them] a certain passer-by, Simon, a Cyrenian, coming from the field, the father of Alexander and Rufus, that he might carry his cross. And they bring him to the place [called] Golgotha, which, being interpreted, is Place of a skull. And they offered him wine [to drink] medicated with myrrh; but he did not take [it].

And having crucified him, they part his clothes amongst [themselves], casting lots on them, what each one should take. And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

And the superscription of what he was accused of was written up: The King of the Jews.

That was Pilate’s last “dig” at the Jewish religious leaders. They threatened him with his King (Caesar), so that’s how he decided to humiliate them:

Behold the kind of man the Jews hold as King…

Mark 15:27-32 And with him they crucify two robbers, one on his right hand, and one on his left. [And the scripture was fulfilled which says, And he was reckoned with the lawless.]

The crowd’s choice

And they that passed by reviled him, shaking their heads, and saying, Aha, thou that destroyest the temple and buildest it in three days, save thyself, and descend from the cross. In like manner the chief priests also, with the scribes, mocking with one another, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save. Let the Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and may believe.

And they that were crucified with him reproached him.

The crowd made its choice. Sure, they were incited by the religious leaders, but it still was their conscious choice. Notice how they knew what Jesus had taught and said… Sure, it is true that they repeated it wrong (as his accusers did at the trial, about destroying the Temple) but they knew Him and His work:

He saved others; himself he cannot save.

I wonder if they are not also saying: “He refused to be the Messiah we wanted, refused to save us from the Romans, let’s see if he will save himself from them…

The Father’s choice

Mark 15:33-37 And when [the] sixth hour was come, there came darkness over the whole land until [the] ninth hour; and at the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, [saying], Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

And some of those who stood by, when they heard [it], said, Behold, he calls for Elias. And one, running and filling a sponge with vinegar, fixed it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone, let us see if Elias comes to take him down. And Jesus, having uttered a loud cry, expired.

Darkness came over the land, an unnatural darkness which surely the Jews could have connected to the plague of darkness that Moses unleashed on the Egyptians. But mercifully, it lasted only three hours, not three days. And then at its end, Jesus called out to the Father and, knowing that all had been fulfilled, He willingly gave up His life… as John told us was His right and intention:

John 10:17-18 On this account the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have authority to lay it down and I have authority to take it again. I have received this commandment of my Father.

And God the Father certified that all had indeed been fulfilled, by eliminating the permanent separation between humanity and God:

Mark 15:38 And the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom.

So clearly did the Father speak at that moment (which another gospel tells us included an earthquake) that even a Gentile, one of the very Roman soldiers that had overseen Jesus’ brutal beating, reacts with the only choice that makes sense to him:

Mark 15:39 And the centurion who stood by over against him, when he saw that he had expired having thus cried out, said, Truly this man was Son of God.

Whose choice do I make mine?

Who am I in this story?

The religious leaders had heard Jesus’ words (His commands) and witnessed His actions BUT those did not fit their ideas or expectations of the Messiah. Based on that, believing that they knew better, believing that their wisdom was sufficient to discern the Truth, they decided He could not be the Messiah, and they rejected Him.

Pilate was an astute man. He knew his power, and he knew the motivations of those religious leaders as they came to him accusing Jesus. He could have saved Jesus if Jesus had only defended Himself. But Jesus did not defend Himself. Pilate still could have exerted his power to choose what he knew was right. But at what price? It would have been too much trouble… and for what? Would it have been worth the risk? What’s in it for me? Not enough? Then it is best to play it safe.

The crowd expected a Messiah that would solve all their problems. We know that from John’s telling of the feeding of the five thousand and the conversations that followed after that on the other side of the Sea of Galilee. Because Jesus had miraculously fed 15,000 people, that was enough qualification for them to make Him King. But Jesus berated them for that. He told them: verily, verily, I say to you, Ye seek me not because ye have seen signs, but because ye have eaten of the loaves and been filled. Work not [for] the food which perishes, but [for] the food which abides unto life eternal, which the Son of man shall give to you; for him has the Father sealed, [even] God. (John 6:26-27)

This crowd that was following Him everywhere certainly knew what He taught and had seen His miracles. They were not short of proof that He was who He claimed to be. They knew He had power. The problem was that they wanted Him to use His power on their behalf; according to their plans. And when Jesus didn’t; when His triumphal entrance into Jerusalem ended anticlimactically; when He did not lead them on a victorious war against the Romans, they turned on Him.

But how could they do that? What about all the miracles they had witnessed? What about all the proof? Well, not all of them had experienced personally those miracles. They may have witnessed many… but the people who experienced them, whose lives were changed by those miracles, were the few that humbly came to Jesus in desperation.

When you think about it, that was a minority in that crowd. Because that is as it would be today: the majority of that crowd must have consisted of curiosity seekers: people willing to look in and listen in but just as willing to walk away after being entertained… never hanging back and asking Jesus what those parables meant… never getting close enough to risk being singled out and told to pick up your cross and follow Him.

That bulk of the crowd had no personal stake on the success of this itinerant preacher, at least not on His terms. And if He was not going to deliver to them what they wanted then they were more than willing to teach Him what kind of power the crowd has.

The Father had a plan; a plan He and the Son agreed upon before the beginning of time. We may not like it… But what are we going to do? It’s not like we can create another universe to live in. Our choice is to accept it or reject it.

Rejecting is easy because we get used to living our lives ignoring the voice of the Father. Accepting is the difficult choice because it implies that we accept the verdict about the bankruptcy of our ways and choose to repent. It requires that I bow down in humility and accept the Father’s Love on His terms. And then, that’s all it takes. That is why the Father made His choice.

What do you think?

Have you scrutinized the story of Jesus in order to reach a decision? Could He be who He said He is? He claimed to be the Son of God, the Judge of all the Earth. And He claimed to have come to Earth to offer all of us a way out of that Judgment. Of course, to accept His way out, implies accepting what He came to tell us about ourselves: that He knows better; that we are lost, self-condemned, without Him. Accept that Truth, and we accept Him… Deny that Truth, and we reject Him. That was the religious leaders’ choice.

Or maybe you just know a little bit about Jesus… Yet, what you have heard sounds good. It is all about love and helping others. On face value that sounds like a worthy way of life. But there are plenty of people out there that will tell you, “Don’t be so hasty”. They’ll tell you: “Haven’t you read the Old Testament? It is all about an angry God… and Jesus claims that that is His Father. And besides, how do you even know that what is written in the New Testament is true, and not just propaganda? Don’t you know there are other gospels that were suppressed?”

How do you decide which voice to listen to? You know the answer, right? Like with every other field of knowledge, we have to put in the time to read the sources, analyze the data, learn to recognize logical fallacies… in short it takes work to sift through the voices to find the Truth. It is doable…  But what’s in it for me? What if I do all that work and it turns out in the end I don’t believe in Jesus? How have I gained anything? Now, if He were to defend Himself, show up, do some miracle, make it obvious that He is who he said He is, well, then I would.  That was Pilate’s choice.

I hope you don’t tell me you are part of the crowd… because the crowd, throughout the history of humanity, has proven itself time and again to be little more than a selfish mob. We want what we want. And we will back you up if you promise to give us what we want. But if not, well, take a hike! Someone better will come along. That was the crowd’s choice.

Who am I in this story?

Three very human choices… or the Father’s perfect choice.

I get to choose. You get to choose.