Author: Wesley White

Now, at the feast, Pilate used to grant the people the release of any one prisoner whom they might ask for.

---

let them eat husks
this rabble can be tricked
to release the very excuse
I need to further restrict
their available options

there is no freebie
without a corresponding
consequence of obligation
the freedom of one
becomes the downfall of many

to see such machinations
is wearying to the soul
leaving us trapped
exhausted into collaboration
blind to an emperor’s nakedness

---

We almost have a reversal of the request to have Baptizer John beheaded. Will a once-awed crowd request the release of Jesus?

Regardless of a request from a third party, the action of Herod and Pilate remain their action even as attempts are made to absolve Herod by blaming Herodias and exonerate Pilate by putting the burden upon a Jewish crowd stirred to incivility by both Pilate and the chief priests.

Arguments about the historicity of this sort of amnesty during a festival continue. There are Roman citations that report it and no Jewish records that support it.

Waetjen_228–230 focuses on a narrative approach to Mark:

Although the Jewish people are free to choose for themselves whom they want Pilate to pardon—and others, such as the two bandits who were crucified with Jesus, are available!—their choice is actually limited to two individuals. This may appear to be self-contradictory, but it is determined by the design of the author. For the tradition of 15:6–15 dominates the narration of Jesus’ trial before Pilate and conveys a reenactment of a central feature of the very first Passover: divine and human preferences in the binary opposition between the Hebrews and the Egyptians….

The strategy of this piece of repertoire is, rather, to confront the addressees of the Gospel with a similar choice which they must make in their own context. As they reach this point in the story, they too must choose between Jesus and Barabbas. Each of them represents a way into the further of the Passover anticipation of a new world.

Readers are still asked whom they will release in today’s world. Would Jesus ask the release of all prisoners, even the most violent?

But Jesus still made no reply whatever; at which Pilate was astonished.

---

befuddling authority
takes no grand plan

simply stand outside
the given frame

from such a vantage
cracks are clearer

from one universe over
joy is still an option

together solid silence
remains always an option

---

Mark builds his story with related scenes. At this point, we are reminded of Herod and Baptizer John.

John was imprisoned by Herod as a threat to his administration. He brought a moral challenge to leadership regarding rules of marital relationship. Jesus extends that to other partnerships with the sick, designated unclean, and the poor and is now in the hands of Pilate.

In 6:20 we heard that Herod protected John before being caught in an extravagant offer. It offers this comment, “Herod listened to John while confused and intrigued by him.”

Pilate, here, is recorded as marveling or filled with wonder at Jesus’ unusual response of silence to the accusations made against him. Bratcher₄₇₅ indicates Pilate’s response as “almost equivalent to ‘Pilate was dumbfounded.’”

This is the same kind of marveling that the Pharisees and Herodians experienced when Jesus avoided their trap over taxes in 12:13–17.

Such wonder does not keep John safe and it will not keep Jesus safe.

This same marvel describes the response of people to the witness of the Geresene now in his right mind (5:20), Jesus at the lack of faith in his hometown (6:6), the disciples when the storm at sea was stilled ( 6:51), and Pilate again when hearing Jesus died so quickly (15:44). Crowds had a similar response when Jesus was healing and teaching (2:12, 5:42, 6:2, 7:37, 10:26). Similarly, the scribes and chief priest were astonished and frightened at Jesus’ presence (11:18) and will bring Jesus to Pilate. Marveling, being intrigued or amazed at a person is no barrier to danger. The same threat continues for those who build a defense on the basis of establishing relationships with those in power in a hope of changing policies. Whenever it suits those in power, a relationship is sacrificed to maintain the privilege they hold.

So Pilate questioned Jesus again. “Have you no reply to make?” he asked. “Listen, how many charges they are bringing against you.”

---

we are so accustomed
if there is a stimulus
there must be a reaction

when accusations rise
our defenses kick in
with any and every escape route

accusers accuse
to frame to their advantage
to cage any variant vision

acceptance of an accusation
does not require agreement
only considered breathing

---

The question remains the same: “Are you the King of the Jews?”

Jesus has responded: “You said it.”

For Pilate that is not sufficient. In this court, there are only two responses, “Yes” and “No”. This fudgy, putting the question back to the questioner won’t do.

Pilate emphasizes this with, “Your life depends upon you’re answering!” To further emphasize the dire nature of the situation, Pilate reminds Jesus that there is more than this one question that puts him in danger. We might imagine him holding up a long list of accusations.

In the Greek, πάλιν ἐπερωτάω (palin eperōtaō, again demanding) helps us understand that Pilate is not a nice prosecutor. It is clear that Jesus is in a no-win position. His choice becomes to play the trial game or to be present in a way that will reveal it for the power-play it is.

This is a still needed teaching—how to evaluate the situation and respond with a choice, not a reaction.

So we will do well to attend to this verse to meet the times in our life and the life of our time that demands an allegiance that cannot be given and still claim the agency of belovedness. Moral choices abound in every direction we look. There is no avoiding them. How we respond remains important.

It is fruitful to consider the accusations that have been made against us, the reaction those accusations engendered, and the actual response we made. It is also productive to consider the accusations that could have been made against us that we know would have been deniable. Our being caught between these false and all-too-true accusations makes us vulnerable to responding with too much or too little information.

Then the chief priests brought a number of charges against him.

---

to be wrong in one instance
is to be wrong in all circumstances
every little misstep dominoes
we all fall down
unable to be put back
together again

thankfully we set wrong right
in the clearest possible terms
just say no just say yes
you’ve been carefully taught
umpteen ruling guidelines
to protect all concerned

---

There is really only one charge against Jesus—sedition, fomenting insurrection against Rome.

This sentence is one of the reasons Mark has never been accused of being an elegant writer. Literally translated it reads, “They asked [demanded] of him, the chief priests many things [or much].”

The “many things” or charges might better be understood that the chief priests brought the most persuasive case they could. This approach is based on an adverbial usage of πολλά (polla, much, strongly, insistently).

The trick for the chief priests was transforming their own religious judgment against Jesus for “blasphemy” into a political charge that would carry a death penalty. Whether that was done with a multitude of smaller accusations or one big one takes a back seat to the continuation of “false witness”—this time by the chief priests.

In today’s world, we might think about “moral injury” that leaders often fall prey to as they find themselves having to “protect” an institution by suppressing their own conscience, eventually taking on the weakest aspect of the institution they represent.

We can remember the number of attempts that had been made before Jesus’ arrest to find something they could hold against him. The first surfacing of this animus was in 2:6 when muttering began about a healing of a paralyzed man brought by his friends in terms of “He’s insulting G*D”, or blasphemy. This escalated into particular direct questions intended to trap Jesus: divorce (10:1–9), authority (11:27–33), taxes (12:13–17), resurrection (12:18–27), David (12:35–40). Eventually, by turning “child-of-G*D” into “G*D” a determination was made that Jesus had committed blasphemy.

All of this lies behind Pilate’s evaluation of how to rile the various forces against one another. In the end both Pilate and the Chief Priests understand they are serving their respective institutions.

“Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate. “It is true,” replied Jesus.

---

now we are getting to it
ye olde nub of the matter

we rule and brook no rival
any claim you make will fall

asking of nobodies is silly-talk
why claim to be a big nobody

this is just a big laugh
thanks for a levity break

time to stop this charade
claim your ordinary nobody-ness

you’re looking rough around the edges
renounce your crown get patched up

so one last chance
still say you’re my king

my judge and jury
you’ve said what needs saying

---

Pilate’s question is addressed to someone distained with mock surprise in its tone. There is nothing here to lead us away from the expected suffering and death that have been rolling along.

With the introduction of a title, “King of the Jews”, is a position of no consequence. Most recently it was the designation of the Herod family as client-leaders instituted by the Romans.

This subservience to Rome is in tension with the possibility of a King arising to lead a revolt against Rome and Caesar. Either way, the title is not really at stake here.

Pilate’s non-question is responded to in an equivalent fashion by Jesus—a shrug of the shoulder and dismissive, “You said it.”

Although a number of translations try to shade this response in an affirmative direction (as the one used in this blog, above), following on the heels of an “I am” statement to the Chief Priest, Pilate’s question can’t be responded to with an easy “yes” or “no”. Mann₆₃₆ says that Jesus’ reply “… is meant to say that the speaker would have posed the question differently…”

While easy to read resignation or evasion into Jesus’ response, there is also a challenge of what will be used to prove such an accusation. What in the previous 14 chapters could be pointed to that has an overtly political agenda. There are some economic challenges with pigs, camels/needles, widow’s offering, and anointing oil, none about governance (other than highlighting the virtue of service).

As soon as it was daylight, the chief priests, after holding a consultation with elders and teachers of the Law – that is to say, the whole High Council – put Jesus in chains, and took him away, and gave him up to Pilate.

---

day-break arrives
night’s clamor lessens
falsity
is acknowledged
as not sellable

in dawn’s early light
our lack of power
glistens
like it or not
we seek out what we lack

our plans shattered
it is time to plot deeper
fool’s gold
needs an alchemist
to pilot our desire

---

Meanwhile, back at the Sanhedrin, the official condemnation of Jesus back in 14:64 has found its way to bring Jesus to death—hand him over to the Roman authorities as they had exclusive rights to execution.

At the first binding of Jesus, Peter ran away and then followed at a distance. While this binding of Jesus goes on, Peter weeps and is never again directly on stage in Mark.

As the representative of the Way of Jesus, Peter’s absence means the handing over of Jesus to the Romans leaves Jesus without visible support. Sympathetic people lining the trip to crucifixion or someone to help bear the load of the cross are stories in other gospel records, not in Mark.

Daybreak brings clarity that there is not going to be a last-minute rescue by Navy Seals or Guardian Angels. There will be no plea bargain that will release Jesus, though he will be the vehicle for the release of another father’s son.

We are no longer dealing with what Jesus has done but with who he is. This question of identity runs through Mark’s story. Whether it is a wilderness scene that would tempt one away from belovedness, the being seen by inhabiting spirits of one constraint or another, the awe and wonder of crowds as person after person is healed, an inspiriting teaching, or calming of storms—Jesus’ current binding is not related to these. Pharaoh’s religious experts could match and thus discount most of Moses’ signs intended to let his people go. Religious and occupational authorities could live with Jesus’ doings. It was his being, his identity, that threatened the identities of the authorities. Without their identity as authorities, they were nothing. Their investment in their position was everything they had, much like the questioning man who went sorrowing away, not giving to the poor.

At that moment, for the second time, a cock crowed; and Peter remembered the words that Jesus had said to him – ‘Before a cock has crowed twice, you will disown me three times’; and, as he thought of it, he began to weep.

---

nature calls out time
there is no more
consequences will be reaped

every falsehood called
by the rape it is

time’s up

---

Malbon, in Anderson₄₀, sets the end of this section in a helpful comparison:

Jesus’ scene concludes with the guards taunting him to “Prophesy!” (v. 65). Peter’s scene concludes with his remembrance of Jesus’ prophecy of his denial (v. 72), an ominous echo of the earlier foreshadowing. It is sadly ironic that Peter’s noisy denial of his discipleship in order to save his life is narrated almost simultaneously with Jesus’ quiet affirmation of his messiahship, although it will lead to his death. The rhetorical juxtaposition of these scenes—characters, words, actions, setting—in the unfolding plot pushes the implied reader not only to judge the two contrasting characters but also to judge himself or herself.

If we follow this line, there is a self-judgment different from self-acquittal that comes when we remember our value system after excusing it for a time. At question is what would trigger our remembrance. One time-tested process is charting behavior with the intent to change our engagement with the world. From the “Holy Club” of the 18^thcentury is noting every expenditure and evaluating whether we are comforting ourself or improving the life of another. When that tips over to spending more on ourself than the common good, we can hear a rooster crow to remind us of a camel being threaded and our denial of the poor we can always assist.

It is this sort of remembrance that will lead to Peter’s “break down” or “throwing of himself to the ground” or “beating upon himself”—all images of unclean spirits exiting. This remembrance is a beginning of a cleansing, changing process introduced as Jesus left the wilderness—change your ways; trust good news.

Peter has finally awoken from his Gethsemane sleep and the nightmare of impotence at Jesus’ arrest. We are back to the instruction for wakefulness when we sleep-walk through trying times when an abomination of desolation is installed where it ought not be.

But he said to them, “I swear that I do not know the man you are talking about! May God punish me if I am lying!”

---

o so angry
at getting caught
not getting our way
there is no stopping
a fume and fuss

when fantasy shards
of deep dreamtime
come suddenly apart
they writhe and contort
explosive in their pain

---

The curse or punishment Peter is claiming, is against himself—“May I be accursed.”

The Greek ἀναθεματίζειν (anathematizein, to devote to destruction) is an extreme statement that is not only meant to put one literally in danger if not true but to be emotionally compelling, so one is seen as sincere. Peter has pulled out a big stick, probably said in a big voice.

First, Peter claims to be willing to take whatever punishment is meted out for lying. He may well have figured out that, given G*D’s mercy, this would be small potatoes compared with what he would have to live with as a betrayer.

Second, Peter calls upon G*D as a witness to the veracity of his response.

These uses of G*D are familiar responses in every age and system, whether family, religious institution, or governing politics.

This is the third denial of Peter. Denial by denial, feeling more and more trapped and moving further away from Jesus whom he followed before this night and after Jesus’ arrest, Peter escalated his responses from avoidance to vehemence.

At this point we may remember the many people who were healed by Jesus and asked to keep silence about their healing and Jesus’ part in it. They were not able to stay silent but started and continued to blab it wherever they were and to whoever was around. Contrast this with Peter who, when directly asked about his relationship with Jesus, was adamant in denying any connection with Jesus.

Readers may also return to Gethsemane to wonder what prayer Peter might have prayed that would have kept him from getting into the pickle of his present circumstance. Does Mark’s story of Jesus require a lonely wilderness valley at the cross as well as after baptism and during ministry?

Is there anything Peter could have done to express his solidarity with Jesus, not left Jesus on his own and connected Jesus on the cross with Peter as well as with a darkened Creati*n and absent G*D?

But Peter again denied it.

Soon afterward the bystanders again said to him, “You certainly are one of them; why you are a Galilean!”

---

put off
put off
put off

no matter how long
another opportunity
to not put off

put on
put on
put on

again and again
even enemies offer
revealed insight

put away
put away
put away

every excuse
to cover past
missed honor

put here
put here
put here

outworn strategies
polished fabrications
a simple yes

---

Now it is more than one servant who is asking about Peter. There is no more room or time—true colors must be shown.

JANT₉₂ uses an interesting phrase in discussing these verses about Peter.

… Mark ironically conveys that Peter’s “self-acquittal” is occurring simultaneously with Jesus’ conviction.

Peter and the disciples had been taught the way of deaconing. Associated with this is the problematic phrase, “self-denial”. For a significant, long-term, purpose we are willing to put ourself in service on behalf of another or some larger group of others. The dramatic image is that of choosing crucifixion if that comes to be the consequence of being a deaconing angel in a wilderness.

Such self-denial needs to be very careful for the temptation will be to unnecessarily call a crucifixion down upon one’s self to be a witnessing martyr. This short-cut is actually a “self-acquittal” that expects a privileged entrance to whatever fantasy of “heaven” one has come up with. There is no virtue in self-acquittal.

Peter began this series of denials by saying he didn’t understand the question about knowing Jesus. Now he moves on to deny that he knows the other disciples. This is the way of denial—one more denial is always needed. “Self-acquittal”, or denial of one’s self, never seems to get to the bottom of the questions being asked.

This is not the self-denial that Jesus spoke about in terms of serving one another for it only serves as a false defense of self.