The Text: Page 37.20-38.21 Chapter 15.1-20
• Read the text aloud to each other.
Discussion Questions:
• Compare and contrast Jesus’ trial before Pilate with his trial before the Sanhedrin (14.53-65).
• Discuss all the things we can learn about these central actors in this story:
o Chief priests, elders, scribes and Council
o Pilate
o Crowd
o Soldiers
• Mark describes Jesus as ‘delivered’ to Pilate. This word ‘delivered’ (sometimes translated as ‘betray’) is used many times in Mark (1.14; 3.19; 4.29; 9.31; 10.33, 13.9, 11, 12; 14.10, 11, 14, 21, 41, 42, 44; 15.1, 10, 15). What does Mark want us to understand about Jesus’ ‘delivery’ to death?
• Discuss everything we can learn about Barabbas. What does the name Barabbas mean (see Mark’s explanation of Bartimaeus’ name in 10.46)? Why was Barabbas in prison? Discuss the irony of the leaders’ and crowd’s choice of Barabbas the nationalistic revolutionary and rejection of Jesus the King of the Jews.
Application reflections
• In what ways does Jesus’ model of submission to his father’s will by submitting to his ‘delivery’ to crucifixion?
• How are we as Jesus’ followers to respond to political/nationalistic power politics and the consequent mockery and devaluation of human life?
Pray
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Barabbas is not a 'name' per se', -it is an Aramaic appellation, the meaning of which is: Bar = Son + Abba = Father (as in 'the Father of us all' or, 'God', if you will).
It is assumed that he was in prison -allegedly for his participation in the insurrection (without proof, much less, evidence), -he said nothing to anybody, nobody said anything to him -he is there, like a potted plant of poison ivy and, because of a 'custom' (never before or since exercised) is enigmatically switched with "Jesus Christ" for release. Nobody knows who he is, where he came from or where he went after his 'release'.
And, oh, by the way... his name, written in the original Greek Gospel according or attributed to Matthew (27:17) is "Jesus", -but that his name [Jesus] was removed or omitted from the Latin 'translation' (around 384 c. e.) of the same text and most of the subsequent 'translations' thereafter... leaving us (later people) with "Barabbas" only.
'Irony'? There is no 'irony', 'They' knew what 'they' were doing, -'we' don't have a clue. (Thank you Saul of Tarsus).
Thanks for your comment on Barabbas. Allowing a biblical author to define their own content is the most basic hermeneutical principle (see Let The Author Speak in Resources). Mark does define what he wants us to understand about Barabbas in this context: the prefix bar means son of (10.46); Abba means father (14.36); Barabbas was imprisoned for murder along with other insurrectionists (15.7). Interpretation of Mark’s text should begin with these supplied facts, move to the immediate context of this pericope, surrounding context of this section, then to Mark’s narrative as a complete work, and only then to gospel harmonization, and even later to source criticism.
Irony – not to be confused with humor – is a significant literary tool used extensively by Mark as well as by many biblical authors. The success of Israel’s religious leadership choosing a murdering rebel with the nom de guerre of son of the father and rejecting the anointed son of God is indeed a tragic irony.
Like you I find many of Mark’s themes restated and developed by Paul, particularly in Romans.
Thanks again for your comment.
Post a Comment