Meditations for Good Friday

MEDITATIONS FOR GOOD FRIDAY

INTRODUCTION

We have come here this afternoon to recall the final hours of our Lord's life upon this earth, about 2000 years ago.

As we sit and look upon the cross, our hearts and minds go back over those years and we find ourselves asking the question: 'How on earth did Jesus come to be crucified?' It is a question that the early converts to Christianity often asked. Hence so much of each of the four gospels is given over to the death of Jesus. And it is also a question that continues to haunt us throughout the centuries.

After all, it is natural to look for someone to blame, whether it be the disciple Judas, who betrayed Jesus with a kiss; or the High Priest Caiaphas, who accused Jesus of blasphemy, or the Roman Governor, Pilate, who, having washed his hands, handed Jesus over to the crowd of Jews.

Thus, Judas, Caiaphas, Pilate and the Jews have often been 'demonised', throughout history and made responsible for the death of Jesus.

However, hindsight has a wonderful way of hiding the truth from us, thereby enabling us to look back upon the past with a clear conscience, and to say, in the quietness of our own hearts, that had we been there, we would not have allowed such a thing to happen to Our Lord and Saviour.

But is that true?

I think not, for those same inward motives which were at work in Judas, Caiaphas and Pilate, are also often at work within ourselves, though we may prefer to try and hide them.

Hence, the Negro Spiritual challenges us by asking: 'Were you there when they crucified my Lord?'

During our time together this afternoon, I shall give three brief addresses on Judas, Caiphas and Pilate. I will also talk about Peter who denied Jesus at the critical time. These addresses will be followed by a period of silence to enable you, not only to reflect upon what has been said, but also to see whether they have any relevance to you in the twenty first century. The silence will then be brought to an end with a prayer, which will seek to collect our thoughts, before we sing another hymn and listen to the words of scripture.

JUDAS

(Mark 14.1-2, 10-11, 43-46)

There is no doubt that poor old Judas gets a very bad press in all four gospels.

We are only given the barest of facts concerning his life. We know that he was honoured amongst the apostles because he sat at the place of honour, beside Jesus, at the Last Supper.

He was also the Treasurer, and was naturally concerned at the apparent waste of money when the woman anointed the head of Jesus with expensive oil in the house of Simon the Leper.

He also came to an unfortunate end. Either he committed suicide by hanging himself, or else his bowels gushed out whilst in a field which he had bought with his ill-gotten gains.

However, the one fact that everyone knows about Judas is that he betrayed Jesus to the chief priests for thirty pieces of silver. A sum worth about £5 by today's standards.

Why then did Judas betray Jesus? Various answers have been given to that question over the centuries.

The gospel writers suggest that he was under the influence of the power of evil. So, St Luke says, ‘Satan entered into him', and St John says, ‘The devil had already put it into the heart of Judas lscariot to betray him.’

Elsewhere, it is suggested that he betrayed Jesus for financial gain, since he was a thief.

Others point out that, in the apocryphal book, The story of Joseph of Arimathea, Judas is described as being the son of the brother of Caiaphas, the High Priest. It is therefore suggested that Judas was never a genuine disciple of Jesus, but rather a 'plant', an 'infiltrator' or an 'under-cover agent' working for Caiaphas.

Jealousy has also been suggested as a possible motive for the action of Judas since he was never included in the inner circle of Jesus' disciples, which included only Peter, James, and John.

Or perhaps it was racial inferiority that moved Judas to do what he did in the Garden of Gethsemane, since all the disciples came from Galilee, except Judas who came from Judea.

Finally, instead of Judas being disloyal to Jesus, it is suggested that he was in fact too loyal. Let me explain. The word, 'lscariot', comes from the word, 'sicarus', and 'sicarii' were dagger bearers. These were members of a Jewish Nationalist party, who with their concealed daggers, sought to overthrow the occupying Roman forces.

It is therefore suggested that what happened in the Garden of Gethsemane was a final attempt by Judas to encourage Jesus to declare openly his intention to overthrow the Roman occupying forces. But Jesus refuses to become the person Judas wants him to become, and therefore flees from the garden a very disappointed man.

'Satan possession', financial greed, disloyalty, jealousy, racial inferiority and misguided loyalty have all been suggested as possible reasons why Judas betrayed Jesus. I leave it to you to decide whether any of these motives make sense.

But so far, we have only looked at the situation from the point of view of Judas. We have not looked at the situation from the point of view of Jesus.

Whether we like it or not, Jesus invited Judas, in the same way as he chose the other eleven, to be a disciple.

Now l don't know about you, but l find it very hard to believe that Jesus chose Judas in order to betray him. Likewise, I also find it hard to believe that Jesus chose Judas, knowing that he would betray him. To accept either of these suggestions is to imply that Jesus deliberately placed Judas in a position where deadly sin was inevitable.

Again, we are no further in knowing why Judas betrayed Jesus. It remains a mystery.

ooOOOoo

A few years ago, I had the privilege of being able to officially queue jump in order to see Leonardo da Vinci's mural of the Last Supper, on the refectory wall of the Dominican convent of Sta Maria delle Grazie, in Milan.

For years the painting had not been seen by the general public whilst artists sought to restore it to its original state. Hence the enormous queue.

The originality of the picture is that it does not depict the institution of the Last Supper, but rather the moment of the betrayal. The sublime figure of Jesus dominates the scene, filled with emotion and agitation.

It is said that Leonardo da Vinci used the same model for the face of Jesus as he did for Judas.

In other words, it reminds us all that we have it within us to be as Jesus, but we also have it within us to be as Judas. Each name begins with the letter 'J', and each name has the same number of letters.

So in the silence which follows, I invite you to consider to what extent you are like Jesus and to what extent you are like Judas.

Almighty God, whose most dear Son went not up to joy but first he suffered pain, and entered not into glory before he was crucified: Mercifully grant that we, walking in the way of the cross, may find it none other than the way of life and peace: through the same thy Son Jesus Christ. Amen

CAIAPHAS

(Mark 14.53-65)

'The High Priest tore his robes and said, "We don't need any more witnesses! You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" [Mark 14.63]

The decision of his fellow priests was that Jesus was guilty and should therefore be put to death.

Caiaphas was High Priest in Jerusalem from 18-36 AD. It was he who presided over the appearance of Jesus before the Sanhedrin, the ecclesiastical court of seventy. As regards the exact nature of the meeting, which took place between midnight and 5.00am the following day, scholars are uncertain. Some would say it was a Jewish trial. Others, noting the considerable number of irregularities if it was a trial, have suggested that it was a meeting of some members of the Sanhedrin with a view to forming a charge.

Clearly, as far as St Mark was concerned, trying to explain to the early converts why the Messiah came to die a criminal's death, he was anxious to show how the Jews were responsible for that death.

For our purposes, we are not interested in the details of the trial but rather what was the possible motivation behind the action of Caiaphas and his fellow priests.

Why then did they want to get rid of Jesus?

Some would say that it was out of retaliation for Jesus cleansing their Temple.

Perhaps we should look again at the incident.

Every adult Jewish male was expected to pay an annual Temple tax, the equivalent of the wages of two days for an average working man. Since all coins bore the heads of various secular rulers, it was necessary to change the money into acceptable Temple coinage, in order to avoid the charge of using graven images for a sacred purpose. Those responsible for the changing of the money charged exorbitant commissions since they had a captive market. Any surplus which they made, went into the pockets of the priesthood.

But, not only were they lining their pockets at the expense of pilgrims, they were also lining their stomachs!

Let me explain.

Only unblemished pigeons and doves were considered a worthy offering for sacrifice. Whilst these could be easily purchased cheaply outside the Temple, the Temple inspectors responsible for ensuring that such creatures were in perfect condition invariably managed to find some flaws. In order to ensure that such sacrificial creatures were acceptable it was deemed necessary to buy such creatures from the Temple stalls. And guess who owned these? None other than the father-in-law of Caiaphas. Since the Temple stall holders had the monopoly of selling suitable creatures, they could charge what they liked. In addition to this, only a small portion of each creature was used for the purposes of sacrifice, the remainder being used to furnish the tables of the priests.

Little wonder that Jesus sought to cleanse the Temple of its malpractices. Little wonder that Caiaphas, his father-in-law Annas and their fellow priests were angered at the action of Jesus and wanted to silence him because he threatened their dishonest livelihood.

And if that was not enough, Jesus also challenged some of their teaching, especially that concerning the resurrection of the dead. Whilst the Sadducees had some shadowy belief in the resurrection of the soul, they denied the physical resurrection of the body. Thus Jesus, by raising Lazarus from the dead, caused the average person to begin to question the teaching of the Church leaders. So their authority as teachers was being challenged by the action of Jesus.

But worse still, their overall position of influence over the nation was threatened.

Let me explain.

When the Jews returned from exile, they relied heavily upon the priesthood for leadership and guidance as they sought to replace the monarchy with a theocracy. The priesthood, therefore, became part of the Jewish aristocracy. As the years rolled by, the priesthood became more and more involved in the political life of the nation, often to the neglect of their religious duties.

So when the Roman Empire began to spread its tentacles of power and influence to include the Holy Land, they used the priesthood as a means of establishing their rule and authority, watched over by the Roman Procurator named Pilate. In other words, the priesthood had allowed themselves to become pawns of the Roman Empire, to whom they owed their comfortable life style.

Now all this was being challenged by an itinerant preacher from Nazareth, together with their malpractices in the Temple and some of their teaching. In short, their whole way of life was under threat.

What made matters even worse was that the whole nation was growing restless and was looking for a leader to challenge the current religious and political situation. No wonder they were anxious to see Jesus removed from influence. No wonder they began to plot his death, even though they could not agree as regards the precise charges.

At the end of the day, it was not Jesus on trial before Caiaphas, but Caiaphas and all his cronies who were on trial before Jesus.

ooOOOoo

And what of ourselves?

There is a basic human need to feel safe, from the cradle to the grave. Whenever that personal security is threatened we often hit out, sometimes in the most irrational ways.

Whilst we may not seek to crucify those who threaten our security, we do often seek to protect ourselves by character assassination. Such expressions as 'idealist', 'visionary', 'eccentric', 'inexperienced', 'misguided', 'lacks maturity', 'conservative' and ‘radical' fall very easily from our lips as we seek to discredit those who threaten us.

Character assassination may not seek to destroy by physical death. Nevertheless, it seeks to silence and to discredit those who threaten our security. In much the same way as Caiaphas and his cronies sought to discredit and silence Jesus when their future came under threat.

So as we stand before the cross, let us not be too hard on Caiaphas and his colleagues. There, but for the grace of God, go we all, when we seek to silence, by character assassination, those who threaten us.

O God, our heavenly Father, whose blessed Son before his passion cast out from the temple those who desecrated the holy place: Cleanse our hearts and minds, we pray thee, from all evil thoughts and imaginations, from all unhallowed appetites and ambitions; that in lives made pure and strong by thy Holy Spirit we may glorify thy name and advance thy kingdom in the world, as disciples of the same, thy Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen

PILATE

(Mark 15.1-15)

I often wonder who did really suffer. Jesus under Pontius Pilate, as we say in the Creed, or Pilate under Jesus?

Once the Sanhedrin, under the guidance of Caiaphas the High Priest, had managed to frame the religious charge of blasphemy against Jesus, they took Jesus to Pilate to be sentenced, since only he had the authority to pronounce the death penalty.

However, it was quickly realised that this religious charge would not impress Pilate since he was a secular governor. So they dropped it, and replaced it with the political charge of insurrection. They supported that charge by saying that Jesus had encouraged the Jews not to pay taxes to the Roman Emperor and that he was setting himself up as a king.

There can be no doubt, from a reading of the Passion narrative, that Pilate did not personally support the charge of insurrection and did not wish to pursue it. As St Mark comments, "He knew very well that the chief priests had handed Jesus over because they were jealous".

Several times, Pilate admits that he can find no charge to bring against him. Pilate was no fool. He knew deep down that Jesus was innocent. So he tried to keep his yard arm clear by passing the responsibility to Herod. However, when that failed he tried to take advantage of the Passover custom and release Jesus in exchange for Barabbas. When that did not work, he literally washed his hands of the whole matter and handed Jesus over to the crowd to deal with him.

Why then did Pilate, the Roman Procurator, or Sub Governor to the Governor of Syria, condemn an innocent man?

According to St Matthew, it was in order to avoid a riot. There is undoubtedly some truth in this. After all, the Roman forces formed a very small part of the population of Jerusalem at the best of times. At Passover time, this was made even worse with the addition of some two and a half million pilgrims. In fact, this was the reason why Pilate had left his summer residence in Caesarea in order to be on hand in case there was any trouble.

St Mark on the other hand, suggests that Pilate wanted to satisfy the crowd. And there is no doubt that this fickle crowd were delighted with his decision.

St John suggests that Pilate was seeking to avoid political blackmail. After all, the Jews had said that, ‘lf you release this man, you are not a friend of Caesar. In other words, there was the very real possibility that the Jewish leaders would report him to Rome for disloyalty. This was a political risk he could not afford to take.

However, in order to fully understand the reason for Pilate's action, or inaction, it is necessary to dig a little bit more into his past.

Judea was a seed bed of violent anti Roman feeling. The only way that the small occupying force of the Roman Empire could survive, was by exercising delicate diplomacy. Hence they permitted the Jews to practice their religion, provided it did not disturb the peace.

However, Pilate was insensitive to this delicate political situation. This may reflect his comparative youthfulness for such a responsible appointment, since he was only 31 years old.

There is no doubt he moved from one political blunder to another.

For instance, when he had first arrived in Jerusalem to take up his appointment, he failed to remove the Emperor's image from his standard. This obviously caused offence to the resident Jewish population since it smacked of idolatry.

Pilate then decorated the walls of his palace in Jerusalem with golden shields bearing the name of Caesar. This smacked of Caesar worship. This so incensed the local Jewish community, that they wrote to Tiberius, Governor of Syria, to complain. He ordered their instant removal.

Perhaps his greatest blunder was his use of the Temple fund to pay for the building of an aqueduct for Jerusalem. There is no doubt that there was a need for additional water, especially at the times of the big religious festivals. And there is no doubt that the Jews would have supported him, if only he had asked before taking the money.

Even after the death of Jesus, he continued to blunder his way along until he was recalled to Rome.

The irony of the whole situation is this: the one time he tried to do the right thing, and avoid upsetting the political apple cart, is the one thing for which he is universally remembered, namely the crucifixion of Jesus.

ooOOOoo

Some have accused Pilate of being anti-Semitic. Some have accused him of being political naive. We would all, I suggest, accuse him of lacking the courage of his conviction by seeking to pass the buck, rather than accepting responsibility for his own actions.

However, in this he is not alone. For we too are often as guilty in refusing to accept full responsibility for our own actions. We too much prefer to "pass the buck" and blame other people for our own mistakes and failures, and thereby wash our own hands of any sense of responsibility.

But part of Christian maturity is about learning to accept responsibility for ourselves, and not to behave in an infantile way by blaming others.

I am reminded of some words of Sister Joan Chittister to her Benedictine community. She says: 'If you are not committed to your adulthood, if you are just coming in and going out, letting others take care of the ragged edges of our life together, then you will forever see the problem in someone else. If you want to know if you are committed to your adulthood, ask yourself, “ln the last three things that bothered me in this community, whom did I blame?"’

So, who do you blame for your mistakes? Your parents? Your school? Your boss at work? Your husband? Your wife? Your children? Your work colleagues? Or your friends?

As we look at the Cross upon which Our Lord was so unjustly crucified, ask yourself that same question: ‘ln the last three things that bothered me, whom did I blame?'

Stop washing your hands of your own personal responsibility. The buck stops here, with you!

Soul of Christ, sanctify me,

Body of Christ, save me,

Blood of Christ refresh me.

Water from the side of Christ, wash me.

Passion of Christ, strengthen me.

O good Jesus, hear me.

Within your wounds hide me.

Let me never be separated from you.

From the power of darkness defend me.

In the hour of death, call me

and bid me come to you,

that with your saints I may praise you

for ever and ever. Amen

PETER

(Luke 22.54-62)

The Lord turned his head and looked straight at Peter, and into his mind flashed the words that the Lord had said, 'You will disown me three times before the cock crows today'. And he went outside and wept bitterly. St Luke 22.61-62

Only nine hours earlier, Peter had protested to Jesus in the Upper Room: 'Lord, I am ready to go to prison, or even die for you.' Now he refuses to admit even knowing Jesus.

This very human story could only have come from Peter himself, for there was no one else there to witness the incident. No matter how embarrassed he later felt when he recalled this incident, Peter was still prepared to share it with his friends, and subsequently with the church through the centuries.

It is a story of human weakness in the face of adverse circumstances. Why did Peter change his mind so quickly? Why did Peter the 'brave' so easily become Peter the 'coward'? Why did he deny Jesus so readily?

Perhaps it was out of fear? After all, Jesus had been arrested and it was not unreasonable for him to think that he too might be arrested as one of his friends.

Perhaps he was ill prepared? After all, he had only been a follower of Jesus for a comparatively short time - three years at the most, and was therefore not ready to ‘nail his colours to the mast'.

Perhaps he felt unsure of himself? After all, he was amongst strangers in that courtyard. His Galilean dialect had already marked him out as a stranger. Therefore, in the presence of sophisticated city people, this ordinary Galilean fisherman chose to remain silent and hide in the crowd.

Or, perhaps, he was angry and disappointed with Jesus?

After all, he and he alone had sought to defend Jesus at the time of his arrest. In fact he had cut off a person's ear with his sword. Instead of receiving well-deserved praise in the struggle which followed, he had received a rebuke from Jesus and been told to put his sword away.

Fear, unpreparedness, uncertainty, anger and disappointment - all these are natural human reactions and may well have contributed to Peter's denial of Jesus. But before we are tempted to throw the first stone, let us remember that he and he alone of the twelve disciples was prepared to follow Jesus after his arrest, albeit from a distance.

We have tried to look at the situation from the point of view of the person concerned. Let us now look at it from the point of view of Jesus.

As in the case of Judas, we are again faced with the question: did Jesus make a mistake when he invited Peter to join the apostolic band?

After all, he was just an ordinary fisherman, with little or no education. It is doubtful whether he could even read and write because he uses Mark to record his reminiscences. Psychologically, he had an erratic and unpredictable temper. He was given to emotional bursts of enthusiasm and despair. In fact, it is extremely unlikely that he would have ever got through a selection conference for the ministry today, let alone be recommended for ordination.

And yet like Judas, Jesus chose him to be a member of the apostolic band. We can only conclude that Jesus was more interested in his potential than his pedigree. He was much more interested in what Peter was capable of becoming than in what he was.

When one considers Peter's subsequent ministry in the life of the early church, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, including his eventual martyrdom in Rome, we can only conclude that Jesus did not make a mistake.

This is not to say that he was not disappointed with him at times, not least when he looked at him after he had denied Jesus three times. Nevertheless, in spite of this shameful downfall, Peter made good in the end and was not too proud to share his personal embarrassment and humiliation with others. He is therefore a source of encouragement and hope to us who may deny Christ in our life of discipleship.

The cockerel is the symbol often used in connection with Peter. The cockerel reminds us of his cocksureness which so easily evaporated in the face of trouble. We know only too well that pride comes before a fall in our own lives.

The cockerel reminds us of Peter's need to be watchful. Again, we too need to be always to be on our guard against denying Jesus, especially by the lives we live or by our silence.

Finally, the cockerel welcomes in the rise of a new day. It reminds us that it is never too late to turn over a new leaf and start again. For Peter, this happened on Easter Day, and there is no reason why Easter Day cannot mark a new beginning in our life of discipleship.