And all that had been commanded them they told briefly to those around Peter. And afterwards Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. (Mark 16, the so-called Shorter Ending)

In the vineyard moderate stress will push the roots deeper. Once deep roots are established significant stress can improve the quality of a vintage.

In 2005 the Bordeaux region of France experienced a serious drought on top of several years of below-average rainfall. The result is what some call the vintage of the century – with 95 years still to come. Here is how Susan McCraith, a leading wine merchant, describes the 2005 vintage:

The dry conditions of previous years had already forced the vine roots to delve deep into the soil to find nourishment and they consequently did not suffer as much from the excessively dry conditions. Over the year there was 48% less rainfall than the 30 year average. When the rain did come it was timed perfectly to encourage the budding, flowering, the veraison (where the grapes change colour) and the final ripening. Temperatures were regular and warm with lots of summer sunshine and cool nights. The lack of rain also ensured a good, healthy crop with no sign of rot.

Jesus did not resist his persecution and passion. He understood what was ahead. Jesus perceived in this the fruition of his mission. Timing is everything in the vineyard. Jesus understood it was his time.

To ripen is to die. When the grape is hard and green it is growing. Early in the season the grapes drink deeply and grow quickly. But at some point – it is different each year and for each branch – growing stops and ripening begins. Dying begins.

Everything a grape may become is present in its first budding. Despite what we seem to see, the grape does not truly grow, rather it is transformed from hard and green to luscious with taste and color. The number of buds does not change. But the contents of the buds change considerably.

The sun creates sugar, color, flavor, and character. The sun’s light and heat takes the early potential and brings it forward… or not. Too little sun and the grapes remain simple and unsatisfying. Too much heat and the grapes shrivel. A balance of heat and light is needed to reveal the complex potential there from the beginning.

For the owner of a vineyard the key decision is when full potential has been achieved. That is the moment when the grapes should be harvested. That is the perfect moment of fulfilling death.

Then Jesus began to say to them, ‘Beware that no one leads you astray. Many will come in my name and say, "I am he!" and they will lead many astray. When you hear of wars and rumours of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is still to come. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. This is but the beginning of the birth pangs. (Mark 13: 5-8)

The most serious threat to a vineyard is an infestation of phylloxera. This is a small aphid that eats away where the root and vine meet. The pest can gradually cut off all moisture and nutrients to the vine, branch, and fruit.

There are threats that would cut off my connection with the realm of God.

The vineyards most resistant to phylloxera feature sandy soil so that rainwater is quickly washed away. A dry climate also serves to minimize the threat. The less hospitable the surface – the more dependent on the depths – the healthier the vineyard.

There is much in this life that we should be happy to see drain away.

The example of Jesus encourages us to allow the rains of this realm – its worries and rewards – to wash over us quickly. Jesus enjoyed fine wine, fragrant oil, and the occasional feast, but he did not allow these superficial joys to distract him from deeper purposes and greater fulfillment. His time on the cross was surprisingly brief.

Times of spiritual drought are needed to produce the highest quality harvest.

Jesus went into the desert to confront his temptations. In a parched place he communed with Satan and through this experience dug deep into the realm of God. A life of superficial satisfactions and distractions will leave us without the deeper roots needed to survive - much less benefit from - profound drought.

Healing of dis-ease comes through reconnecting with our deepest origins.

A long-term solution to phylloxera is to graft the branch of an infected vine onto a healthy root of disease-resistant stock. The miracles of Jesus all depend on the diseased and detached "branch" being reunited with the realm of God.

Is my branch united with its intended root?

Above is a detail of demons and angels from The Fall of the Rebel Angels by Pieter Bruegel the Elder.

They said to one another, ‘It is because we have no bread.’ And becoming aware of it, Jesus said to them, ‘Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes, and fail to see? Do you have ears, and fail to hear? And do you not remember? (Mark 8: 16-18)

Jesus seldom explains his parables. The power of the technique is to evoke images and relationships largely beyond logic. The more that is done to deconstruct the images and relationships the more likely the value of the parable will be lost.

But still - if the realm of God can be compared to a grapevine’s deep source and Jesus to the vine and each of us to the branches - then we are already parts and members of the realm of God.

The kingdom of heaven is truly at hand.

If the realm of God is as a seed, then in partnership with the vine and source this branch – and every branch – can play a role in bringing forth in our fruit the realm of God on earth.

We abide in the kingdom of heaven.

We also abide in another time and place. This is often a sunny and pleasant place. But it may bring sudden frosts, pests, and plagues that threaten the fruit and branches. We are creatures of both places.

We emerge from the depths of God’s realm.

Our fruit is formed – or not – in a place where God has chosen to reign, but not to rule. Conditions encountered in this outer realm will effect the vineyard. In any particular season the branches may produce less fruit of lower quality. This does not, however, determine the potential of the vineyard.

The depth of our origin determines the potential of branch and fruit.

In the life and death of Jesus we can perceive how we are to draw on these depths and avoid dependence on other resources that may delay or impede our ability to draw life from the realm of God.

Whoever does not abide in me is thrown away like a branch and withers; such branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit and become my disciples. As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete. (John 15: 6-11)

If the realm of God is the source of the vine, and Jesus is the vine, and we are the branches of the vine how are we to understand these seed parables?

In particular, what does this tell me of the resurrection and its application to my life?

The purpose of the branches is to produce fruit. "My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples.

Pruning the branches is essential to producing the best fruit. The mid-winter or early spring clipping stimulates new growth. "He removes every branch in me that bears no fruit. Every branch that bears fruit he prunes to make it bear more fruit." (John 15:2)

Jesus explains that his words have already done the pruning. We are branches prepared for bearing fine fruit.

In the vineyard there is an inverse relationship between vigor and quality. The more vigorous the vine – well fed and well watered – the less flavorful the grape. Studies of the very best Bordeaux wines have found that the most common feature is a "relative poverty in soil nutrients." The finest wines are products of near starvation and drought.

The fruit with greatest potential is the result of branch and vine drawing from the deepest possible source. In the greatest vineyards rain is quickly drained away. The vine and branches draw their sustenance almost exclusively from far below.

In each grape – the seed of vine and branch – we taste the character of a particular time and place. Temperature, rainfall, and sunlight are influential. But the most important is the depth of the vine’s source.

If I am a branch, Jesus is the vine, and the source of the vine is the realm of God – then I can draw on very deep resources.

‘I am the true vine, and my Father is the vine-grower. He removes every branch in me that bears no fruit. Every branch that bears fruit he prunes to make it bear more fruit. You have already been cleansed by the word that I have spoken to you. Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. (John 15: 1-5)

Jesus suggests he is as a seed. Or he is the sower of God’s seed. Or he is the vine that proceeds from the seed.

Jesus is our source for - or connection to - the realm of God.

In this realm we have our origin. From this source we receive what we need to grow. Cut off from the seed we shrivel and die.

The introduction of the vine analogy – which is consistent with Mark 12 – is a helpful corollary to the seed parables.

A seed of grain is separate and depends entirely on its context. It can be a fantastic seed, but if it lands on a rock or there is no rain, tough luck.

Grapes are not alone.

A grapevine will flourish in harsh conditions. The best wines are often produced from rocky hillsides where little else would grow.

In the Medoc – one of the premier wine regions of France – the topsoil is sandy, almost a gravel. The hot dry summers would stunt or kill most grain crops.

But grapes do very well. Wine connoisseurs agree that old vines produce the best vintages in seasons that are hot and dry.

Difficult conditions encourage the vine to dig deep to find whatever moisture is available. The same conditions that would burn off a seed grain will produce the finest grapes.

Is the realm of God like a vineyard?

He also said, ‘The kingdom of God is as if someone would scatter seed on the ground, and would sleep and rise night and day, and the seed would sprout and grow, he does not know how. The earth produces of itself, first the stalk, then the head, then the full grain in the head. But when the grain is ripe, at once he goes in with his sickle, because the harvest has come.’ (Mark 4: 26-29)

If the kingdom of heaven – the realm of God – is as a seed, what should this tell us?

Perhaps we are being told that the realm of God is prolific. If the example of the natural world is analogous to the spiritual domain then there is a profound over-abundance.

The analogy may also suggest significant diversity of forms. Seeds range from the miniscule to the handful and from puffy fluffs to nutty knobs.

As Jesus made clear, no matter how good the seed it requires the right conditions to take root and flourish. One seed is better suited than another for a specific condition.

The seed is transformed when the right conditions exist. The change from seed to sprout can be explosive. The energy held within the seed bursts into the surrounding earth.

The seed can exist without the earth, but the seed cannot fulfill its purpose without earth, rain, and sun. Is the realm of God likewise?

‘Listen! A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seed fell on the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it did not have much soil, and it sprang up quickly, since it had no depth of soil. And when the sun rose, it was scorched; and since it had no root, it withered away. Other seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it, and it yielded no grain. Other seed fell into good soil and brought forth grain, growing up and increasing and yielding thirty and sixty and a hundredfold.’ (Mark 4: 3-8)

The original ending of Mark has provoked several postscripts. Over the next few days I will offer my own.

The Gospel of Mark is an action adventure. It describes Jesus on the move: healing, feeding, and cleaning. He teaches by example.

When Jesus speaks in the Gospel of Mark he is almost always answering a question or trying to explain the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus regularly refers to the kingdom of heaven as something that seems small but can become substantial. A seed is probably his favorite analogy.

Jesus is realistic about seeds. The potential of most seed is lost to birds, bad soil, heat, weeds, and more.

Despite so many seeds being lost, just a few successful seeds can produce a hundred-fold.

In most cases a lively seed is the result of a dead host. The rich potential of grain is the final expression of the dying stalk. Most trees produce their fruit in the weeks just before the long-sleep of winter.

There are exceptions. Given good soil, rain, and moderate temperatures a fig tree will perpetually bare fruit.

A seed holds the potential for new life, but this potential is dormant within the seed. For the potential to be realized the seed must be eaten or buried.

In dark moisture a seed is transformed. The dormant potential is released.

When eaten the energy of the seed is transferred. When buried in the soil the energy of the seed may be amplified.

So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. (Mark 16: 8)

The Gospel of Mark is the oldest story of Jesus we have available and this is the oldest ending of the gospel. Over the next two centuries at least two, perhaps three, postscripts were added.

But the first written version of the resurrection ends in fleeing, terror, amazement, and fear. For me this reinforces the veracity of the story.

We fear what we do not expect and do not understand. Despite what Jesus and the prophets had clearly said, the resurrection was not expected. It certainly was not understood.

I have spent my entire life with the resurrection story. I still do not fully understand it. In the most important ways, I still do not expect it.

I am inclined to flee from the resurrection and its implications. What am I afraid of?

Above is a detail by Duccio from La Maesta showing the Three Women at the Tomb.

As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. But he said to them, ‘Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.’ (Mark 16: 5-7)

On at least three occasions Jesus discussed being killed and then rising again. In Mark 8:32 it is explained, "He said all this quite openly."

There is no evidence that anyone took him seriously. Even now - seeing and hearing evidence that strongly supports the claim - the first reaction is alarm.

They loved Jesus. They followed Jesus. They were chosen by Jesus. They listened carefully to his teachings. They saw his courage, compassion, and saving acts.

Jesus had explained the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. (Mark 8: 31)

Further, this was an ancient prophecy well-known in the inherited faith. "He was despised and rejected... he was cut off from the land of the living... They made his grave with the wicked..." (Isaiah 53)

But still there was no expectation - whatsoever - that Jesus would rise again. There was no understanding of what this was meant to tell us of the Kingdom of God.

What is my expectation? What is my understanding?

When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. They had been saying to one another, ‘Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?’ When they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had already been rolled back. (Mark 16: 1-4)

The three women of the cross continue with their grieving, caretaking, and witness. Their return to the tomb suggests there had been insufficient time to complete the burial rituals.

Joseph of Arimathea, the slaves, and whoever else removed Jesus from the cross have all departed. Nicodemus and his hundred pounds of aloe and myrhh does not appear in Mark.

The three women are not sure how they will roll away the stone. They apparently cannot call upon their sons or others to help. They have a task to complete, but no clear understanding of how.

Many - perhaps most - modern scholars argue the burial stories are so inconsistent because the body had probably been lost and consigned to a common grave for criminals.

Whatever the historical truth, we are told of three women - physically incapable, intellectually uncertain, emotionally distraught, and in some ways spiritually clueless - who rise early in the morning to do what they can.

Then Joseph bought a linen cloth, and taking down the body, wrapped it in the linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock. He then rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where the body was laid. (Mark 15: 46-47)

Most scholars identify this "Mary the mother of Joses", as the wife of Cleophas, an aunt of Jesus, the sister-in-law of Mary the mother of Jesus. But the gospel accounts do not all agree and it is easy to confuse one Mary with another, there are so many. If this is the wife of Cleophas, it is her first appearance in the gospels.

The Gospel of John adds, "Nicodemus, who had first come to Jesus at night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing a hundred pounds." (John 19:39) Nicodemus appears three times in the Gospel of John. He was a wealthy Pharisee who had sought out Jesus in secret. Some associate him with Nicodemus ben Gurion, a teacher and leader mentioned in the Talmud and other near-contemporary sources.

There must have been others involved. It would have been a difficult job to remove the nails, bring the body off the cross, and carry it to a tomb. Jesus had died at three. Even if Joseph of Arimathea had received Pilate's permission as early as four, that left barely three hours to sundown. Strong arms and careful hands would have been needed to avoid further violence to the body.

None of the twelve are present. Tradition has them all in hiding. At his death Jesus depended on the courage of two surprisingly prominent men, two women of uncertain relationship, and some others absolutely unknown. There is no in-group, the twelve patriarchs of the church are all out of sight. There is no out-group, wealthy Jews, women, and - probably - slaves are the ones left to care for Jesus.

Mark is thought to be re-telling what Peter told him thirty years later. If so, we can perceive in these details Peter's mature self-criticism. We might also perceive the need and opportunity for all to serve. The cause of Jesus often depends on the courage and compassion of those on the periphery. We are often surprised by those who unexpectedly step forward to embrace and advance God's will.

Above is a detailed close-up of a portion of a linen cloth known as the Shroud of Turin.

Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time. When he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. (Mark 15: 44-45)

Jesus had died after about three hours on the cross. Most took longer. Some took days to die.

Leaving the carcass to decay and subject to scavengers was the common practice and thought to heighten the deterrent effect.

But for Pilate granting Joseph's request presented the prospect of gaining an ally within the Council. He might still benefit politically from using Jesus.

If Joseph had not been a man of influence, Pilate would have been unlikely to see him, much less accede to his request.

Both Joseph and Pilate deployed their political assets. Pilate made a gesture in hope of gaining influence. Joseph risked his future by extending charity to a criminal and a heretic.

When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. (Mark 15: 42-43)

The Gospel of John tells us that Joseph of Arimathea was a secret disciple of Jesus. (John 19:38) Matthew tells us he was a rich man. The Council of which he was a member is usually thought to be the Sanhedrin, which is further evidence that Jesus was not tried by the whole council. I would guess he was a Pharisee, but others claim he was a priest.

Some legends make him an uncle of Mary and great-uncle of Jesus. Others give him custody of the Holy Grail. One ancient - recently revived - story makes Joseph the protector of Mary Magdalene. According to many he was the founder of Glastonbury and the first to bring Christianity to Britain.

Perhaps most importantly Joseph was waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God. The Greek verb is prosdechomai. Waiting expectantly is a good translation. Literally it could be translated as "to take by the hand what is nearby." Jesus taught the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Joseph reached out and took hold of it.

More information is available from Glastonbury Abbey.

There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. These used to follow him and provided for him when he was in Galilee; and there were many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem. (Mark 15: 40-41)

John adds Mary mother of Jesus and the beloved disciple. Luke adds "a great number of the people" of Jersusalm and "all of his acquaintances." Matthew mentions the mother of the sons of Zebedee (probably Mark's Salome).

Upon the death of Jesus, Mary Magdalene - perhaps the woman with an alabaster jar (Mark 14:3) - emerges as a principal character. If, as many scholars suggest, Mary Magdalene is also the sister of Martha and Lazarus, she is among the most prominent characters in Matthew, Luke, and John. But this is the first time Mark references Mary Magdalene.

Mark was generally critical of the male disciples and largely silent regarding the female followers. But all of the gospel writers agree that this Mary was at the cross and later at the tomb.

Above is Mary Magdalene by Dante Gabriel Rossetti.

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer; and by night, but find no rest. (Psalm 22: 1-2)

What does the crucifixion teach us? What did Jesus intend it to teach?

This life - with all its troubles - is to be cherished. "Take this cup from me."

Those whom we love and who love us will - despite every good intent - neglect, betray, and deny us (as we will also). But we can - and should - continue to love.

Religious authority can be mistaken. Sincere religious belief is sometimes blind to deep spiritual truths.

Political power will be misused. What is politically practical is often inconsistent with justice.

When we make choices that challenge accepted religious, political or social norms we will be mocked, threatened, and persecuted.

We are separated from God. Separation is an unavoidable corollary of freedom.

Self-conscious separation from our origin, purpose, and ultimate ground of being is painful. We should accept and learn from this reality.

While we are painfully separate from God, we are not far from God.

Ultimately we belong to God and we can return to God.

In praise and thanksgiving the realm of God is very close at hand.

What else can we learn?

Then Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. Now when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, ‘Truly this man was God’s Son!’ (Mark 15: 37-38)

He died. It was probably a combination of blood loss and aphixiation. During crucifixion it is increasingly difficult for the lungs to operate.

He died. May my death be less painful. But whether we die slowly of hunger, or fearfully in violence, or peacefully in our sleep... the end will come.

He died. In many respects he chose this way of death. He saw it coming. He did not resist. He did not seek to dissuade those who would put him to death.

He died. He was a teacher. His teaching was remarkable for the unexpected analogy and the pithy example. His greatest lesson was his way of death.

He died. No parable was sufficient. Words could not capture the meaning. Only a dramatic example had a chance of helping us understand.

When some of the bystanders heard it, they said, ‘Listen, he is calling for Elijah.’ And someone ran, filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a stick, and gave it to him to drink, saying, ‘Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down.’ (Mark 15: 35-36)

The sound of the Aramaic for "my God" - Eloi - is similar to the Hebrew name Eliyah. Mark suggests the bystanders misunderstood Jesus.

Others were being crucified with Jesus. A bystander would hear their groans joined with the weeping of women gathered at the foot of the cross. Soldiers talking, perhaps laughing, might also be heard.

Even when the context was more condusive to hearing Jesus was often misunderstood. If Mark is right, in his last words Jesus pointed us to a well-known scripture. But many missed the clue.

Other gospels give us the sermon on the mount. The message Jesus offered there was full of paradox. At the end of his life Jesus is on another mount and chooses as his last words the opening of a profoundly paradoxical psalm.

We groan and we praise. We cry out in pain and sing our thanks. We are but worms and we are also chosen by God. We are on the edge of death and edging toward eternity. What are we to hear in this of the realm of God?

Above is Golgotha by Romare Bearden.

When it was noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. At three o’clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?’ which means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ (Mark 15: 33-34)

In agony Jesus cries out in Aramaic. In the gospels of Matthew and Mark these are his last words.

These are also the first words of Psalm 22, a song of lament and praise, pain and redemption entirely consistent with so much of Jesus' teaching.

The Hebrew for forsaken - used in Psalm 22 - has at least three characteristics: to depart or leave, to abandon or neglect, and to be let loose or set free.

With Psalm 22 as context, Jesus does not mean to say God has abandoned him. But Jesus is experiencing the freedom of being separate from God.

The price of freedom is reproach, trouble, and affliction. But even when separated from God, we reside within God's realm. In praise and trust we may still know God's justice.

You can read Psalm 22 online.

In the same way the chief priests, along with the scribes, were also mocking him among themselves and saying, ‘He saved others; he cannot save himself. Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down from the cross now, so that we may see and believe.’ Those who were crucified with him also taunted him. (Mark 15: 31-32)

The chief priests were mostly sober and rational men. Their taunt, "so we may see and believe" was meant to be ironic. But it also reflected their worldview, they believed what could be observed.

The Temple priests were mostly Sadducees. As such the priests tended to be scriptural literalists, highly skeptical of interpretation. They rejected the immortality of the soul and the possibility of life after death. They considered the Pharisee's belief in the messiah a dangerous fantasy.

The chief priests were deeply committed to their inherited faith. But for them the faith was a rational system of ritual discipline and ethical behavior that rejected any mystical realm beyond their rational apprehension.

Those who passed by derided him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!’ (Mark 15: 29-30)

In the second chapter of John, during the cleansing of the temple, Jesus says, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." This was remembered, if not understood.

I am a conservative. I would have been skeptical of Jesus during his ministry. I might have listened sympathetically. But most likely I would have seen him as impractical.

The crucifixion would have confirmed this judgment. Such a shameful and early death would have seemed proof-positive that Jesus had made a bad choice of his tactics.

I would have avoided Golgotha and would not - except perhaps to my wife - have said anything critical of Jesus. But my private thoughts would have joined in the derision.

Certainly I would not have understood that the temple to be raised in three days was the man now hanging naked and bloody on the hill outside the city.

Above is the Crucifixion of Christ by Matthias Grunewald.

And with him they crucified two bandits, one on his right and one on his left. (Mark 15: 27)

Crucifixion was a common legal punishment in the Roman Empire. It was used for a range of crimes extending from highway robbery to forgery to treason. The lengthy, painful, and public death was seen as an effective deterrent.

Jesus was certainly not the first innocent to be crucified. The judicial process described by the gospels was considerably more intricate for Jesus than for most. An authoritative accusation was often sufficient to send a non-citizen to death.

There were also several examples of mass crucifixion. Early in the life of Jesus, following a zealot rebellion in Galillee, over 2000 had been crucified by the Roman governor Varus. Those crucified included children.

In the gospel of Matthew both of the bandits join in mocking Jesus. But in the Gospel of Luke while one joins in the abuse the other defends Jesus and asks, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!"

To which Jesus responds, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with me in paradise." (Luke 23: 43) This bandit considered his own crucifixion deserved. Even so Jesus assured him a place in his kingdom.

It was nine o’clock in the morning when they crucified him. The inscription of the charge against him read, ‘The King of the Jews.’ (Mark 15: 25-26)

The Gospel of John adds, "Therefore many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin and in Greek. So the chief priests of the Jews were saying to Pilate, "Do not write, `The King of the Jews'; but that He said, `I am King of the Jews.' " Pilate answered, "What I have written I have written."

Michael Grant, making an historical - not a theological or spiritual - point has argued, "...every thought and saying of Jesus was directed and subordinated to one single thing, a difficult thing to put into words today: the realization of the Kingdom of God upon the earth." (Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, page 10)

This was not broadly understood during his ministry. It is very far from the focus that most of us bring to Jesus. Like the chief priests and prefect we bring our own meanings to Jesus, rather than listening carefully to what Jesus intended. Every day we can see self-proclaimed believers - including me - attach our own false claims to Jesus.

And they crucified him, and divided his clothes among them, casting lots to decide what each should take. (Mark 15: 24)

The gospel writer almost certainly intends to remind his reader of Psalm 22:

For dogs have surrounded me;
A band of evildoers has encompassed me;
They pierced my hands and my feet.
I can count all my bones.
They look, they stare at me;
They divide my garments among them,
And for my clothing they cast lots.

It is a psalm that begins in anguish and ends in praise.

Then they brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means the place of a skull). And they offered him wine mixed with myrrh; but he did not take it. (Mark 15: 22-23)

The wine with myrrh was offered as an intoxicant to lessen the pain of impaling.

Jesus demurred. There are experiences that should be fully engaged. There are pains that we are to embrace wholly.

Too often - especially with pain - we seek to delay, deny, or diminish the experience. As a result the meaning can be lessened or lost.

Physical and spiritual pain can be a great teacher. But, if so, we must be open and attentive to the teaching.

In his first miracle Jesus changed water into wine to enhance the joy of a wedding.

At the last supper Jesus shared a cup of wine as the symbol of a transformative relationship.

In his final hours Jesus refused a cup of wine that would have lessened his engagement with reality.

They compelled a passer-by, who was coming in from the country, to carry his cross; it was Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus. (Mark 15: 21)

This passer-by was almost certainly a pilgrim from Libya in Jerusalem to celebrate Passover. There is no suggestion or tradition that Simon had prior experience with Jesus.

Simon did not offer to help. We cannot be sure if he felt empathy or indifference for Jesus. Most probably he was fearful for his own safety. There is an ancient tradition that in the confusion of the day Simon was crucified.

Whatever the case Simon was certainly transformed by being in the right (wrong?) place at the right (wrong?) time.

The most crucial moments in our lives can come uninvited, unwelcome, and full of fear. No matter what we choose our lives will never be the same.

May we choose to respond with whatever love and strength we can find, even when we unwillingly - or perhaps unwittingly - contribute to profound injustice.

Then the soldiers led him into the courtyard of the palace (that is, the governor’s headquarters); and they called together the whole cohort. And they clothed him in a purple cloak; and after twisting some thorns into a crown, they put it on him. And they began saluting him, ‘Hail, King of the Jews!’ They struck his head with a reed, spat upon him, and knelt down in homage to him. After mocking him, they stripped him of the purple cloak and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him. (Mark 15: 16-20)

In the Gospel of John after Pilate asks Jesus, "Are you the King of the Jews?" (Or perhaps, "You are King of the Jews?") Jesus responds, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then my servants would be fighting... but as it is, my kingdom is not of this realm." (John 18: 36)

Pilate seeks clarification, "So you are a king?" Jesus agrees. But whether the distinction regarding realms is understood by the Prefect is not clear. For the soldiers there is but one realm - this one - and the claim of Jesus is good cause for derision.

Too often the realm of Jesus is confused for our current realm. The result is absurdity, confusion, and tragedy. Jesus was not - is not - a reformer. His goal is more radical than reform. For Jesus our loyalty to the current realm must be replaced. Our ultimate loyalty is to another place. In this realm those who would be with Jesus are always aliens.

In many churches the stations of the cross commemorate the path to crucifixion. The first station is the condemnation by Pilate. An online version of the stations is available from the College of the Resurrection. Above is the Mocking of Christ by Giotto.

But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release Barabbas for them instead. Pilate spoke to them again, ‘Then what do you wish me to do with the man you call the King of the Jews?’ They shouted back, ‘Crucify him!’ Pilate asked them, ‘Why, what evil has he done?’ But they shouted all the more, ‘Crucify him!’ So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified. (Mark 15: 11-15)

Pontius Pilate is unusual in the gospels for his questions. What do you wish me to do? Why, what evil has he done? What have you done? (John 18: 35) Are you the King of the Jews? (Matthew 23:3)

The questions are disinterested. He is not asking Jesus to heal. He is not asking a question that might lead to a newly profound personal insight. Pilate is not using his questions to trap Jesus. The Prefect is asking the sort of questions that any reasonable person might ask. But disinterested questions are unusual.

In response to one of Pilate's questions the gospel of John has Jesus reply, "Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice." Pilate responds with yet another question, "What is truth?" (John 18: 38) Many have read this as an inauthentic and sneering retort to Jesus.

None of the gospels mention a translator. It is very unlikely that Pilate was speaking Aramaic. It is more likely that Pilate and Jesus were speaking to each other in Greek.

The gospel has Pilate ask "What is alethia (truth)?" The Greek suggests, how do we see, what is light, what is revealed? I do not hear a sneer in the Prefect's question. Rather, I hear the resignation that might be in the tone of a blind man asking, "How can I see what you see?"

Pilate believed that truth was beyond his reach. Instead, it was standing beside him.

Now at the festival he used to release a prisoner for them, anyone for whom they asked. Now a man called Barabbas was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection. So the crowd came and began to ask Pilate to do for them according to his custom. Then he answered them, ‘Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?’ For he realized that it was out of jealousy that the chief priests had handed him over. (Mark 15: 6-10)

The Roman Prefect determined that Jesus presented no threat to his authority. He then attempted to use the charges against Jesus to his political advantage.

According to Luke's gospel since Jesus was a Galilean Pilate sent Jesus to Herod for disposition. This gesture of deference was well-received. "Now Herod and Pilate became friends with one another that very day; for before they had been enemies with each other." (Luke 23: 12)

Herod - also finding nothing offensive in Jesus - sent him back to the Prefect. Then Pilate attempted to curry the crowd's favor by releasing him in a very public gesture of rebuke to the religious establishment. Pilate may well have been thinking of the crowd's triumphal reception of Jesus just a few days earlier.

The Romans were expert at ruling through the manipulation of contending forces. Don't let any group become too powerful. Don't totally alienate any group that has real power. Play them off one another. Position your own authority as the decisive element.

Pilate had, however, misread the attitude of the crowd - or perhaps the influence of the religious establishment - and his attempt to separate the crowd from the Temple leaders was not successful. The Romans also tended to be realists. If the tactic is not working give it up.

In the end Pilate's indifference to Jesus - whether man or prophet - combined with the religious establishment's offended self-righteousness, and the crowd's readiness to be manipulated to produce the death sentence. If any one element - political indifference, religious self-righteousness, or mass psychology - had been otherwise the innocence of Jesus might have prevailed.

Given the history of humankind Jesus may well have been confident of his forthcoming death. But this does not mean God had removed the possibility of humans making just choices. On that Friday long-ago all of the parties made predictable choices that reflected a narrow sense of immediate self-interest. And so it remains most often for us.

As soon as it was morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council. They bound Jesus, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate. Pilate asked him, ‘Are you the King of the Jews?’ He answered him, ‘You say so.’ Then the chief priests accused him of many things. Pilate asked him again, ‘Have you no answer? See how many charges they bring against you.’ But Jesus made no further reply, so that Pilate was amazed. (Mark 15: 1-5)

The Gospel of Luke provides a slightly different chronology and a specific set of charges. According to Luke 27 the Chief Priests told the Roman Prefect, "We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that He Himself is Christ, a King."

What the accusers authentically - if inaccurately - perceived as blasphemous to God, they twisted into a charge of political sedition. Those making the charges were confident that Jesus was misleading the nation. Jesus had admitted to being the Son of Man. Given the common understanding of the Messiah role this could be honestly characterized as a king. The issue of taxes was at best over-reaching, but the accusers may well have convinced themselves that this too was true.

I perceive that Jesus was hauled before an "executive committee" of the Sanhedren. This was not the whole council, but it was a smaller set recognized as having authority to act on behalf of the council. While this group was probably predisposed against Jesus, there was enough concern for due process and quality of evidence that, according to the gospel accounts, if Jesus had said nothing there was insufficient cause for action.

But when Jesus claimed to be the Son of God this was profoundly offensive. They were sure that under their laws he deserved to die. But they no longer had authority to put a criminal to death. The Roman's had taken away this authority and held it for their own purposes. I expect someone or maybe two or three were assigned to draft an indictment that could be taken to the Romans.

It was now very late. They had been up all night. They were convinced of their own righteousness and the guilt of Jesus. They drafted charges that translated their authentic concerns into a framework that would best persuade the Roman Prefect to take action consistent with what they were certain represented a just outcome.

What I read seems very familiar to me. These are not self-consciously evil men exulting in treacherous action. Rather, these are men jealous of their honor and propriety. They are scrupulous in their understanding of right and wrong. They are committed to operating within the bounds of a system which they perceive as being committed to justice and truth.

They are also convinced of their own righteousness. When we reduce the adversaries of Jesus to the simply evil we are being inattentive to scripture, unfair to them, and - most importantly -way too easy on ourselves.

Above is Christ before Pilate by Duccio di Buoninsegna.

While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant-girls of the high priest came by. When she saw Peter warming himself, she stared at him and said, ‘You also were with Jesus, the man from Nazareth.’ But he denied it, saying, ‘I do not know or understand what you are talking about.’ And he went out into the forecourt. Then the cock crowed. And the servant-girl, on seeing him, began again to say to the bystanders, ‘This man is one of them.’ But again he denied it. Then after a little while the bystanders again said to Peter, ‘Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.’ But he began to curse, and he swore an oath, ‘I do not know this man you are talking about.’ At that moment the cock crowed for the second time. Then Peter remembered that Jesus had said to him, ‘Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.’ And he broke down and wept. (Mark 14: 66-72)

In Sunday School classes and Passion Plays this moment is nursed for every bit of pathos.

But what were Peter's options? This was clearly not the time and place for a stirring public defense of Jesus.

The safer and more honest choice might have been to depart upon first being recognized.

But in staying Peter finally came to a crucial spiritual insight.

Before this horrible night there is very little evidence that Peter understood his fears. After this night Peter is much more self-aware.

By taking responsiblity for his own choices and remembering the words of Jesus he began a new journey of spiritual growth.

It is often our failures - much more than our success - that opens our hearts and minds to God.

Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, ‘Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?’ But he was silent and did not answer. Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?’ Jesus said, ‘I am; and “you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power”, and “coming with the clouds of heaven.” ’ Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, ‘Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his blasphemy! What is your decision?’ All of them condemned him as deserving death. Some began to spit on him, to blindfold him, and to strike him, saying to him, ‘Prophesy!’ The guards also took him over and beat him. (Mark 14: 60-65)

Blasphemy is a charge that - until recently - seemed consigned to another time and place. A combination of tolerance and indifference had softened Western culture's sense of the blasphemous.

The Greek - blasphemos - is slander and abuse aimed at anyone. In what way did the Chief Priest perceive that the response of Jesus was insulting to God?

Standing before the Chief Priest was a poor Galilean peasant. He was either too cowardly or too stupid to defend himself against contradictory charges. But he did claim to be the Son of God.

At the very least this was contrary to the Chief Priest's own vision of God. As he participated in the ceremonies of the Temple the Chief Priest was not worshiping the father of a peasant.

We are often insulted when our preconceptions are threatened. Rather than reconsider our preconceptions we are more likely to attack the perceived threat.