Passion Sunday

See commentary on Passion of Mark 14:1-15:47 in Mark 14:1-9, Mark 14:10-11, Mark 14:12-26, Mark 14:26-31, Mark 14:32-42, Mark 14:43-52, Mark 14:53-65, Mark 14:66-72, Mark 15:1-15, Mark 15:16-41 & Mark 15:42-47.

Homily 1 - 2009

The first section of today's Gospel has two main incidents: the anointing at Bethany and the institution of the Eucharist. Both incidents aim to reveal the deeper meaningsof Jesus' coming death. The Anointing highlights Jesus' clear anticipation and deliberate acceptance of death as the price of love, and an unnamed woman's recognition of that death and her loving, “over the top” response to it. The Eucharist indicates how Jesus approached his lynching as the way to open for everyone a new covenant - that is, a whole new relationship - with God.  

Notice how Mark deliberately frames both incidents: The Anointing is prefaced by the Jewish Leadership's resistance to and rejection of Jesus' way of inclusive justice and love, and concluded with Judas's betrayal of Jesus. The Eucharist is framed between Jesus' public reference to Judas's betrayal and his foretelling of Peter's denials. As you listen, you might ask yourselves: What was Mark trying to tell us by framing the events that way? 

The next section of Mark's Gospel begins with Jesus' inner struggle in Gethsemane, proceeds to his arrest, then leads on to the Jewish trial where the leadership pronounce him guilty of the capital crime of blasphemy. The section concludes with the humiliation and the dehumanisation of Jesus by the leaders, and his being roughed up by their agents. As you listen, you might ask yourselves: Did Jesus' response to his opponents come across to you as weak subservience or as self-possessed, but non-violent assertion of dignity? 

The third section begins with the Roman trial and Pilate's pronouncing of the death penalty. It is interesting to note the absence of gory detail in Mark's account. There is no description of any scourging, no description of his struggle to Golgotha (beyond the observation that Jesus didn't carry his own cross), and no details of the process of crucifixion. 

But what Mark emphasises  across the whole narrative is how Jesus' program of love was rejected by the leadership, his love and trust betrayed by Judas, his intimate friendship disowned by the male disciples who deserted him and three times denied by Peter, his non-violence mocked by the Roman military, and his integrity jeered at in turn by passers-by, by the leadership, and even by the criminals crucified with him. And, to compound all that was Jesus' feeling of being deserted even by God. You might ask yourselves: Why did Mark concentrate on people's rejection of Jesus rather than on his being physically brutalised? 

The account concluded with two theological comments: Firstly, the veil of the temple, that up till now had blocked off access to the Holy of Holies, and the special presence of God, was split from top to bottom. With the death of Jesus,  God becomes accessible to all. Secondly, the comment of the centurion about Jesus: In truth, this man was a son of God, suggests that the God who is now accessible to all is the God who is prepared to face anything as the price of unconditional love. 

Before we continue with our Eucharist, you might quietly ponder for a few moments: What might it have been about how Jesus died that led the battle-hardened centurion to see Jesus as a son of God, as the one who revealed the human face of God?

 Homily 2 - 2015

Did Jesus see himself as a Jewish king, a member of the Royal family and ultimately descended from the famous Jewish King David? We shall notice when we come to read of his trial before Pilate that he was condemned to death on the charge precisely of being king. In the Gospel passage we have just heard, as Jesus entered the city of Jerusalem, the crowd greeted him as the one who would establish once again what they called “the coming Kingdom of our father David”. Is that how Jesus saw himself? When asked by Pilate precisely that question, his reply was enigmatic, “You say so".

The Church certainly sees Jesus as King. Each year we celebrate the annual feast of “Christ the King”.

The Gospel we have just read gives us a line on Jesus’ answer. Jesus was able to read the scene well enough. The oppressed and desperate Galilean pilgrims filling Jerusalem for the annual festival of Passover were always on the lookout for someone who would mount a challenge to Roman occupation and domination. Jesus had no interest in political power. To divert their enthusiasm, and in the hope of “wising up” the thoughtful ones among them, he tried a piece of “street theatre”. It was the kind of tactic a number of well-known former prophets had tried in their ministries.

Some centuries beforehand, but fresh always in the religious memory, the prophet Zechariah had spoken of the coming Messiah [or Christ, or King – the terms all mean the same thing], who would enter Jerusalem, not mounted triumphantly on a magnificent warhorse, but on the colt of a miserable donkey. He said that this Messiah would be humble, yet would bring peace to the nations, world peace, not through political power but through the moral authority of non-violence. [Matthew, in fact, in his Gospel, actually quotes a couple of the relevant lines from Zechariah’s prophecy.]

The issue still retains its relevance. What does Christ’s kingship mean to you? and me? If not political power, what about the moral authority that should guide all human decision-making? Does Christ’s insistence on rigorous and consistent respect for human dignity have any repercussions in and relevance to the political scene? Does our appreciation of Christ’s priorities affect in any way how we elect the people to govern our country? Or do we base those decisions on quite other criteria?

Jesus’ murder was a coldly political decision, even if partly coloured with a religious veneer. It has much to say about political process – in both the civil and the religious sphere. Let us be careful not to spiritualise it beyond all practical relevance.