The History and Mysteries of Lent (Part 3: Why didn't Pilate let Jesus Go?- The fascinating clue found in the Gospel of John)

Scholars and Christians alike have wondered why Pilate didn't refuse the demand of the Jews to have Jesus killed? Pilate clearly wanted to, and as Procurator of Judea he certainly had the authority to do so.  While he may have ordered Christ to be crucified at least in part out of wanting to avoid a riot, it's important to remember that Pilate wasn't remembered as someone who seemed to care much for respecting Jewish religious sensibilities. 

Soon after his arrival in 26 AD to take over as Procurator from Valerius Gratius, Pilate infuriated the Jews by marching through the streets of Jerusalem with Soldiers carrying images of the Emperor Tiberius on their standards, a clear violation of the Jewish law against images. Pilate even ordered his Soldiers to kill protestors, but the next day acquiesced and had the images removed. Later, he seized money out of the temple treasury to fund a public works project. This caused a riot, as according to the Jewish historian Josephus, the action violated both Jewish and Roman Law. 

Ultimately, Pilate was recalled to Rome to face a hearing in front of the Emperor Tiberius on allegations of alleged ruthlessness. This resulted from complaints being made to the Syrian Procurator that Pilate allegedly used too much force and caused excessive bloodshed in trying to disperse Samaritans who had gathered at the foot of Mt. Gerizim for a religious service, which for some reason had made Pilate feel threatened. However, when Pilate arrived at Rome Tiberius had died, and nothing is known for sure about him after that. What we do know though, from the Jewish sources at least, is that Pilate was a pretty harsh ruler, even by 1st century standards. 

From the Gospels however, we see a Pilate that is also a very astute politician, and the Gospel of John leaves us a fascinating clue as to why Pilate likely had Jesus put to death. During the trial, Christ initially refuses to answer Pilate's questions, and then the Gospel of John tells us the following (John 19: 10-12):

10 So Pilate said to him, "Do you not speak to me? Do you know I have the power to release you and I have the power to crucify you? 11. Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above. For this reason they who handed me over to you has the greater sin." 12 Consequently, Pilate tried to release him, but the Jews cried out, "If you release him, you are no friend of Caesar, Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar." 

Biblical Scholars have noted that the phrase "Friend of Caesar" was very pact with meaning in the ancient world. It was an honorific title bestowed upon high ranking officials of merit. During this time it was especially associated with political friends of Lucius Sejanus, who for a long time was the commander of the Praetorian Guard and a most trusted advisor to the Emperor Tiberius. During this time if you were a friend of Sejanus you were considered "A friend of Caesar's." 

Emperor Tiberius (r. 14-37 AD)

Around the time of Pilate's appointment as Procurator of Judea, Tiberius had removed himself to the Isle of Capri, and Sejanus was practically running the Empire from Rome. As Pilate was given a 10 year governorship when the usual term was only one to three years, that is very suggestive that Pilate was appointed by Sejanus and had a close relationship with him. 

Why is all this important? Well, Sejanus fell out of favor with his Emperor in 31 AD and was executed. Tiberius believed Sejanus was plotting against him to further his political ambitions even further. Sejanus's demise was so great that his memory was damned by the Roman Senate, his body hung out in public for abuse, and then thrown into the Tiber river. By 33 AD, most of Sejanus's closest friends and family had been killed. 

If the traditional date of 33 AD for the year that Christ's Passion occurred is accurate, then Pilate would have had reason to be terrified by what was said to him. The prospect of Jewish leaders sending an embassy to Rome to denounce Pilate's actions as Governor of Judea, claiming "Pilate was no friend of Caesar" since he had released a rabble rouser named Jesus who had dared to call himself "King of the Jews," a claim that would disrespected Emperor Tiberius in the region, would have placed Pilate's career and even his life, in very serious jeopardy. Especially if he was a close friend of Sejanus.

This statement would have been seen by Pilate as a threat, even if Christ died earlier, while Sejanus was still at the height of his power. But if this threat was made in AD 33 (or anytime after the fall of Sejanus in 31), Pilate would felt absolutely imperiled.  It should be noted that at the time of the Passover, Pilate would have had up to 3,000 auxiliary Roman troops at his disposal, and certainly showed little fear from the prospect of suppressing riots, both prior to and subsequent to his presiding at Christ's trial.* 

Thus, my conclusion is that it was the not so veiled threat to have Pilate denounced as being "Not a friend of Caesar's," that caused him to yield to the demands of the mob. Pilate did what most politicians did, both then and today. To stay in power he compromised his principles and let a man he believed to be innocent be put to death, then washed his hands as a meager token of protest, ultimately sealing Christ's fate. 

The rest as they is history, but it is also much more than that, it was the price that our loving God made for our salvation. 

* For further reading: See "The Death of the Messiah" by Fr. Raymond E. Brown (1994)

The History and Mysteries of Lent (Part 2: Why did Christ when on the Cross ask God "Why have you foresaken me?")

My own spiritual journey could be characterized as one of conversion, then reversion, with a couple of decades of wandering in the wilderness of doubt in between. Why? Well certain versus really challenged my faith, most of all the one found in Mark 16:34, where just before Christ's death on the cross, he says the following:

"And at three o'clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which is translated, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"


So I kept asking myself: If Christ knew he was the Son of God, and that he had to die on the cross to take away the sins of the world, to redeem humanity for God, why would he have been asking God why he had been forsaken by him? A CS Lewis quote came to mind about how Jesus Christ had to be one of three things: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. I would ask myself, "Is Christ's asking that question proof that he was just a lunatic?" 

This verse and that question were literally like a cancer attacking my faith. I tried to do some research but my initial efforts were fruitless. Hence, I spent a couple of decades wandering through life as someone who was culturally Christian, but one whose faith felt so meaningless that it was like I was just hanging on with my finger tips and about to fall into the abyss of Agnosticism. 

Ironically, this verse that nearly killed my faith is now one that affirms my faith the most! Why? Well, after doing more research and looking at the verse through the prisms of scriptural prophecy and historical context, I found the answer to my question. And an answer that is just too exciting not to share:) 

PSALM 22: The Compass that led me out of the Wilderness of Doubt. 

What I didn't know then, but do know now, is that when Christ asked that question he was quoting the first verse of Psalm 22. As historians and scripture scholars such as John Bergsma* have noted, the Psalms were not numbered back then as they are today. Instead, when a rabbi was leading a service in a synagogue and wanted to direct attention to a particular Psalm, he would read out the first verse to orient his Jewish listeners as to where in the Psalter (i.e. book of Psalms) he was reading, likely on some occasions to start them singing the Psalm. So why would Jesus call that verse out to the Jews who were watching him die? When you read it you will understand why. 

Reading Psalm 22, one realizes that any Jew present who had caught that reference would have felt like they were watching the events mentioned in that Psalm unfolding in real time. At least up to verses 22-23, where the parallels to Christ's crucifixion are out right startling! Consider the following:


8    All who see me mock me;

they curl their lips and jeer;

they shake their heads at me:

9“He relied on the LORD—let him deliver him;

if he loves him, let him rescue him."

Sound like the scene at the Crucifixion? Compare verse 9 to Matthew 27:43, where the crowd says "He trusts in God, let God deliver him now, if he desires him, for he said "I am the Son of God."

Next consider verses 15-19 in comparison to the Gospels account of Christ's crucifixion:

15 Like water my life drains away;    

all my bones are disjointed.

My heart has become like wax,

it melts away within me.

Compare: John 19:34 "One of the Soldiers pierced his side and at once came out blood and water."

16As dry as a potsherd is my throat;

my tongue cleaves to my palate;

you lay me in the dust of death.

Compare: John 19:38 " Christ says, "I Thirst." 

17Dogs surround me;

a pack of evildoers closes in on me.

They have pierced my hands and my feet

Compare: John 20:25 (Where Thomas states he will not believe Christ is resurrected until he sees where the nails pierced his body). 

18I can count all my bones.

They stare at me and gloat;

19they divide my garments among them;

for my clothing they cast lots.

Compare: Mt. 27-46, Mk. 15:24, Lk, 23:34, and John 19:24, all attesting to how the Soldiers cast lots to distribute Jesus's clothes upon his death.  

Most importantly however, the Jew who knew all of Psalm 22 by heart would have known from there that things take an unexpected and dramatic turn for the better. Let's read this all the way from verse 25 to the end and see how this Psalm ends:

25 For he[God] has not spurned or disdained

the misery of this poor wretch,

Did not turn away from me,

but heard me when I cried out.

26I will offer praise in the great assembly;

my vows I will fulfill before those who fear him.

27The poor will eat their fill;

those who seek the LORD will offer praise.

May your hearts enjoy life forever!”

28All the ends of the earth

will remember and turn to the LORD;

All the families of nations

will bow low before him.

29For kingship belongs to the LORD,

the ruler over the nations.

30All who sleep in the earth

will bow low before God;

All who have gone down into the dust

will kneel in homage.

31And I will live for the LORD;

my descendants will serve you.

32The generation to come will be told of the Lord,

that they may proclaim to a people yet unborn

the deliverance you have brought.^.

So, why did Christ ask God, "Why have you forsaken me?"  just before he died? To preach! Through His agony, He was calling to the minds of the Jews in attendance to read Psalm 22, and realize they were witnessing the prophecy of Psalm 22 being lived out before their eyes. That through Christ, God was uniting the world under His Kingship, that all generations past, present and future, would enjoy 'life forever,' through the deliverance He had brought!" As the 4th century Church historian Eusebius asks in his Ecclesiastical History, "Who could this Psalm speak to, other than Christ?"  

Psalm 22's remarkable historical prophecy.

While that should be exciting enough to end on, I can't resist adding one more historical footnote that shows how prophetic Psalm 22 really was. Scholars have noted that for the Old Testament Jews, there were four approved methods of Capital Punishment: stoning, burning, decapitation, and strangulation.** Note that none of these involve "piercing of hands and feet" such as is mentioned in Psalm 22:17. No, for that you would need a crucifixion. So hundreds of years before Christ, the author of Psalm 22, inspired by the Holy Spirit, foretold of an eternal life giving deliverance to be accomplished by capital punishment, the methodology of which would have to come from a foreign power (i.e. Rome)! 

What does all this tell me (and hopefully you)? That despite the evils and calamities (ie COVID-19) in this world, we should be assured that there is a God and that He is in control. A God who knew His plan for the Salvation of Man from the beginning, and who showed us His love by offering His Son on the cross. A God who has suffered just as we have suffered, and that the reasons He allows suffering will one day all make sense. And, most importantly of all, that just like with Christ on the cross, we have a God who will never abandon us in our times of darkest despair:)     

* Psalm Basics for Catholics, John Bergsma 

**Capital Punishment in the Bible and Talmudic Law, Haim Hermann Cohn (2008), Encyclopedia Judaica. 

The History and Mysteries of Easter (Part 1: The Origin of Lent)

Early Origins of Lent

Interestingly enough, the first historical reference to what came to be known as "Lent" is contained within the first historical reference to what we now call "Easter." In a 2nd century letter from St. Irenaeus (c.130-c. 202 AD), Bishop of Lyon, to Pope Victor (r. 189-198), he addresses a controversy the Pope was dealing with concerning the proper date for celebrating "The Resurrection of the Lord" (which later in the West became known as Easter). 



At the time, the dioceses of Asia were celebrating it around the 15th day of the month of Nisan, (on the Hebrew calendar), regardless of which day of the week this fell (this was the date affixed by the Gospel of John as the date Christ was crucified, See John 19:14; Note the other Gospels seem to affix the date as the 14th day of Nisan). This had been the tradition since the founding of the Asian Churches, and was attested to by Polycarp (c.69- c.155 AD), the Bishop of Smyrna, who claimed to have received that instruction from the Apostle John, while he served as one of John's disciples. 

St. Polycarp

The other Churches followed Rome's practice of celebrating the Resurrection on a Sunday, although differed as to which calendar should be used, which was also causing confusion (The Hebrew calendar being shorter than the other calendars in use at the time added yet another layer of complexity!). The Roman Church had always claimed to have inherited the Sunday tradition from the Apostles Peter and Paul, and held that Sunday should be the date celebrated because Christ was resurrected on a Sunday. So in the West, the first Sunday after the 15th day of Nisan was used for celebrating Easter.

Pope Victor- The first Pope from Africa

In one of the earliest documented actions taken upon the premise of Papal authority,  Pope Victor had announced his intention to excommunicate the Asian Churches unless they changed their practice to align with the Western practice. However he was talked out of this position by other bishops, including St. Irenaeus, whose letter addressing this matter has survived. In it, he recounts how Pope Sixtus handled this controversy when he met and discussed it with Polycarp (c. 120 AD). The letter states:

"The dispute is not only about the day, but also about the actual character of the fast. Some think they ought to fast for one day, some for two, others still for more; some make their day last 40 hours on end. Such variation in the observance did not originate in our own day, but very much earlier, in the time of our forefathers...."

Later he adds:

"Despite these differences they {Pope Sixtus and Polycarp} remained in communion with each other,...celebrated the Eucharist together,...and the whole Church was at peace, both those who kept the day, and those who did not."

Hence, for the time being at least, the Churches of East and West agreed to disagree on the matter, and that was that. 

The practices and celebration of what we now know as Lent grew out of the period of fasting that Christians practiced leading up to the day we now call "Easter" (or "The Great Pascha" among the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Christians).  Over time, this period came to be known as Lent due to the word being derived from the Anglo Saxon word for "springtime." However, in the early Church you see the Latin term for this fast period called "Quadragesima," which signifies it being the first day of a 40 day period. Thus, when looking at English translations of the canons of the Council of Nicaea, you see this word translated as Lent, even though this didn't become an actual theological term until the Medieval period.    

Coincidentally the term "Easter" was attributed by the 7th century English Church historian Bede, to refer to a Teutonic goddess of spring who was celebrated in springtime. Whereas in the East, the term "Pascha' derived from the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew word for "Passover" (i.e. "pesach"). 

How Did the Church arrive at a 40 day Lenten period? 

The early Church derived the practice of fasting from New Testament accounts of Christ fasting for forty days in the wilderness before his ministry (See, Luke, Ch. 4), and his encouraging the practice of fasting during his ministry (Luke 5:35). As noted above, for the first three centuries of Christianity, the number of days fasted differed amongst the Churches. In the 3rd century, we see an attempt made for uniformity (at least within the Eastern Churches) in the document known as the "Didascalia Apostolorum" (c.230 AD). Authored by an unknown bishop or bishops, it purported to set guidelines for Church practices and states this in reference to fasting in preparation for celebrating Pascha:

"...[Y]ou shall fast in the days of Pascha from the second day of the week {Monday} and you shall sustain yourselves with bread and salt and water until the ninth hour of the fifth day {Thursday}…But on Friday and Saturday fast wholly and taste nothing."

Talk about hard core! If someone tries this please let me know in the comments:)   

Anyway, by this time it appears the practice of celebrating Christ's Resurrection on the 15th day of Nisan had fallen into disuse, and East and West were united in celebrating Easter on a Sunday. Aside from this document, the historical record is sparse. However, scholars agree that at some time between 3rd century and the fourth century Council of Nicaea (325 AD), the fasting period was extended to 40 days within the vast majority of Churches. 

Why so? The biggest reason is that it coincided with the number of days Christ spent in the wilderness before he began his ministry. As stated in Luke Chapter 4, Christ fasted for 40 days to discipline himself to confront and overcome temptation. During this time Satan tempted Christ with pleasures of the flesh (suggesting he turn a stone into bread), the pleasures of possession (Satan's offering Christ all the kingdoms' of the world if he will worship him) and the pleasures of vanity (Satan's encouraging Jesus to jump off the Jerusalem temple with the knowledge that God's angels would protect him from harm). As a fascinating aside, Biblical scholar Dr. Brant Pitre has pointed out that mankind's initial ancestor, Adam, failed similar tests by eating the apple from the Tree of Knowledge (a temptation of the flesh), and did so out of a desire for knowledge (a temptation of possessions) and in wanting to be like a God (the temptation of vanity). Hence Christ succeeded where Adam failed, and this period of temptation likely served to prepare Jesus to become mankind's "New Adam," bringing mankind's salvation from the sins brought into the world by Adam, through his death and resurrection on the Cross.   

The early Christians took great inspiration from Christ's time in the wilderness and strove to imitate Christ by subjecting themselves to temptation in the hope of striving towards a greater state of holiness. Also, this was a period of tremendous growth for the Church, and this 40 day period was especially emphasized with catechumens who were learning the faith and preparing to be baptized at Easter. During this time the catechumens, their sponsors and others in their Church community would undergo extensive spiritual training together. This involved fasting, prayer, learning God's word, penance (through penitential prayer at Church services and performing confession), attending night-vigils, and almsgiving-See St. John Chrysostom, Hom. Against Jews III, 4).  

Ultimately, due to proclamations by  the 4th Century Church Councils of Nicaea (325 AD) and  Laodicea (360), the period of fasting for Lent was set at 40 days. The Early Church Fathers deemed it an important exercise in spiritual renewal to help Christians "be dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus (See Romans 6:11). The importance to which Lent was ascribed by this time is best captured by a quote of St. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, who said, "Anyone who neglects to celebrate the Forty Days Fast is not worthy to celebrate the Easter Festival" (See Festal Letters, XIX, 9).

Closing Thought: 

As much as I love St. Athanasius, my favorite quote for Lent is provided by the 9th century Byzantine abbot, St. Theodore of Studite, who said, "While fasting, let us purify our hearts, sanctify our souls, and trample down all our vices(!) (Epistolary, 1. II, ep 147). May we all approach Lent 2020 in accordance with such timeless wisdom, so that we may grow closer to Christ, and become better versions of ourselves:)  
   

Travelogue: Ascending the Scala Sancta

On 28 May 2019, my youngest daughter Trinity and I visited the famous “Scala Sancta,” better known as the Holy Stairs, or Pilate’s Stairs (in Medieval times they were generally referred to as “Scala Pilati”), in Rome. These steps are believed to have once led to the praetorium (i.e. palace) of Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, governor of the Roman province of Judea. If so, these are the steps Jesus Christ would have walked on as he was brought before Pilate by the Jewish authorities during his Passion, as related in the New Testament Gospels.

According to an ancient tradition, around 326 A.D. the Roman Emperor Constantine’s mother Helena brought them back with her to Rome following her famous relic hunting pilgrimage to the Holy Land. The steps are located across the street from the ArchBasilica of St. John Lateran, one of the four major basilicas in Rome. It serves as the cathedral church of the Diocese of Rome and serves as the actual seat of the Pope in his capacity as Bishop of Rome (i.e. Not St Peter’s in Vatican City as typically believed). The steps were originally placed within the original St. John Lateran, likely due to its status of being the ancient seat of the Papacy. The steps were moved in 1589 by Pope Sixtus V, during the period that the present St. Peter’s Basilica was being built. Also during this period St. John Lateran’s original structure was being demolished and rebuilt due to decay that occurred during the years that the Papacy had been moved to Avignon, France (1309-1376), because of conflict between the Papacy and the King of France. 


Pictures of me standing outside St. John Lateran, and just inside the outer entry way (That is the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great standing over me). 

Pope Sixtus V moved the steps so they would ascend to the Church of St. Lawrence, better known as the “Sancta Sanctorum” (i.e. Holy of Holies), which served as the personal chapel of the early Popes. Each step was individually removed and carried in procession, the top step first, which was placed to serve as the bottom step in the new location. This process was continued in the same fashion so the steps leading up to the Sancta Sanctorum are now in inverse order from their original placement.

Pictures taken inside the Sancta Sanctorum, the chapel of St. Lawrence situated at the top of the Holy Stairs.

The Sancta Sanctorum, is one of only two surviving structures from the original St. John Lateran complex, and is across the street from the new St. John Lateran. It’s designation as the “Holy of Holies” is due to it’s housing a reliquary box that at one time contained the bones of at least 13 saints, including the heads of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and St. Agnes, a teenage girl martyred for refusing to marry and desiring to remain a consecrated virgin for Christ, killed during the Emperor Diocletian’s persecution of Christians, around the year 304 A.D. This chapel was originally constructed in the 8^th century but was rebuilt in 1278 and is the basic structure that exists today.  


Arguments against the authenticity of the stairs point out that the marble appears to be Italian and not Palestinian in origin, and that it is likely Pilate’s palace was destroyed when Rome was sacked in AD 70. Arguments for the Authenticity point out that recent archeological evidence shows that the Romans had a habit of constructing civic buildings out of materials imported from Italy all throughout their empire. This practice served as a means to signal to the locals that they were living under Roman rule. Moreover, even if the Palace was leveled, it wouldn’t necessarily mean the stairs were also destroyed. The Catholic Legal Beagle would love to do a deep dive on the merits of these arguments and perhaps even write a book on the subject, but alas it will likely have to wait until I am retired.

Regardless of their disputed origin, I found ascending the steps of the Scala Sancta with my daughter to be a very moving experience spiritually. At the time we were there, we were able to go up the steps on their original marble surface. This had not been allowed since 1723, when Pope Innocent XIII placed wood over the marble to protect it from pilgrim wear and tear. The steps had just been renovated and were left uncovered for two months during the Feast of Pentecost, so pilgrims could enjoy the original experience of going up the 28 marble steps in silence and on their knees. 

Along the sides and at the tops of steps are many beautiful 16^th century frescoes intended to encourage reflection on the Passion. On the second, eleventh, and twenty-eight steps are areas that show rustic looking stains that have been traditionally associated as being caused by Christ’s blood. I brought a rosary I had obtained in Jerusalem with me and touched it on each of the steps, all while contemplating Christ’s sufferings and his appearance before Pilate, as detailed in the Gospels. If sort of felt like a trial transcript running through my head. Feeling as though I could be on the very steps Christ actually walked on during his Passion, and where indisputably Christian's had ascended for over 1,000 years to contemplate Christ's sacrificial death and resurrection, was truly unforgettable.



As I ascended to the top and stood up on my aching knees, I looked down on all the pilgrims coming up behind me. Many were praying or reciting the rosary, some were even weeping. In that mix were people of all ages and nationalities; all strangers yet all united as children of God; even those who in that moment may not have considered themselves to be believers in the faith. I think for a non-Christian to choose to participate in that experience reflects a degree of uncertainty in their lives about the nature or even existence of God, and a yearning to find answers, even if in that moment they are not conscious of that yearning.


 Ultimately the experience helped give me better perspective about how Christ offered himself as a  sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world; to provide all of humanity with the grace of redemption and the means to escape from being in bondage to sin; how Christ served as the ultimate and perfect sacrifice, those previously provided in the temple and according to the Old Testament being insufficient other than for foreshadowing and pointing to the sacrifice that was to come. A perfect sacrifice accomplished by a loving God who deigned to become man, in order that He  suffer and die to show all of humanity what it truly means to love, and indeed to show us how very much we are loved, by God.😊

In closing I want to encourage everyone who gets the opportunity to visit and ascend the Scala Sancta, but don’t wait for the wood to be removed as you could end up waiting another 300 years!