Holy Land: Holy Sepulchre Church

May 20:  We entered the "Christian Quarter" of the Old City of Jerusalem through the Jaffa Gate this morning.  We walked to the Church of Holy Sepulchre.  Surrounding the church are small roads and alleys full of shops of all kinds of items, with some stores having really interesting and beautiful religious and non-religious artworks, souvenirs, and pricey things.  Some items are from local artisans, and some made in China which are of course cheaper.  

You can haggle in the stores.  The Muslim Quarter is full of small shops with cheaper items. Some of my companions who have eyes for beautiful reasonably priced items bought jewelry and hand-embroidered table cloths.
Of course we went around the shops only after lunch.  We spent the whole morning at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.  The original Basilica was built by Helena, mother of emperor Constantine, starting 333.  It came under Islamic control in the 7th century, and was totally destroyed under a mad Muslim ruler in 1009.  The current church was built by the Crusaders starting 1099, and enlarged through the centuries.
 
The church serves as the headquarters of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, who shares control of the building with the Latin Patriarchate (Roman Catholic), the Armenian, the Syriac, the Coptic and the Ethiopian churches and a Muslim institution under complicated arrangements. In fact, it is the Muslim institution that has to hold the key to the main door because of "the jealous possessiveness" of the different Christian churches that "watch each other suspiciously for any infringement of rights" (Jerome Murtphy O'Connor).
The complicated arrangements made the movement of pilgrims less orderly and the place less conducive to prayer.  We came in early when the crowds were thinner.  We went up a few steep steps to "Calvary Hill" on top of which was a Greek Orthodox chapel where below the altar under a glass cover was limestone rock with a crack where, it is believed, Christ's cross was erected.  There is a hole in the glass where you can insert your hand to touch the rock.  There was a crowd with no clear line and people pushing to get their chance to touch the rock.  I prayed and was not inspired to line up.
 

Scholars are 90% sure that the crucifixion and burial occurred within the complex of the church.  As to the exact places, it is strictly speaking not important. While the pushing and disorderliness can be distracting and irritating, one can also witness authentic devotion.
The "Edicule," the structure that encloses the place where Jesus’ remains were buried, also had a long line and I was not inspired to line up again.  If it was indeed Jesus' tomb, nothing of the original was left in the wake of the destruction ordered by the mad Muslim ruler, and what you find inside is a reconstruction.  

The Calvary rock, however, is still original, even though its identification as the place of the cross was partly based on the fact that the Romans erected a shrine of Venus over it, and it was believed that the Romans did it to stop pilgrimages to the place and to obliterate the memory of Christ.

We had Mass at the Crusader chapel which is beside the Mary Magdalene chapel, both chapels under the control of the Roman Catholic Church.  The Mass was short (30 minutes) but inspiring.  Another group was scheduled to use the chapel immediately after us.  The priest was a Salesian Latin American or Spaniard who serves and works with the Filipino OFWs (estimated to be 45,000) in Israel. We met some of them at the Hong Kong airport and in the Old City.

The different churches take control of the Edicule at different times.  While we were in the complex, the Greek Orthodox church took control of the Edicule for an hour in which there was an impressive procession of their clergy around it, and pilgrims could not enter.  We entered a chapel and bent into a small poorly-lit cave where there were two authentic "oven" tombs that give you an idea of what Jesus' original tomb could have looked like.

Naked Christ against the Phallus

It is unfair & offensive to put a phallus or erect penis on an image of Christ, as what was done in a controversial art exhibit at the CCP. Jesus of Nazareth did not develop or acquire a phallic mentality, which pushes males to be “big, hard & up” in their physique, thinking & attitude & which spits at what is “small, soft & down.”

Jesus taught: “unless you change & become like little children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3). He also let a desperate non-Jewish woman to broaden radically his view about his mission of being “sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” For his initial inaction to her plea for the healing of her daughter, he offered the “hard” reason that “it is not right to take the children’s bread & toss it to their dogs.”

Jesus listened to & learned from the Canaanite woman's “soft” reasoning that “even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall down from their masters’ table” (Mt 15:21-28). He let her broaden or change his mind. This is another important stage in the development of Jesus’ great faith in the heavenly Father who loves especially the downtrodden & little ones among the scattered daughters & sons of God (see also my 03 October 2010 blogpost).

Jesus became the clear opposite of the phallus when he died naked on the cross, stripped of clothes & bare of friends, as “all the disciples deserted him & fled” (Mt 26:56) & only women followers witnessed his death “from a distance” (27:55). The naked Christ on the cross is a historically true picture of the outward impotence of somebody who did not save himself, in order to save others. No wonder Paul wrote, “Christ crucified: a scandal to Jews & folly to Gentiles” (1 Corinthians 1:23).

While any image of Christ with a phallus is offensive, offended Christians ought to guard against the phallic reaction of self-righteous or arrogant rage against the artist and other blameworthy persons involved.

The exposure of genitals in an artistic work may be meaningful & not crude, vulgar or offensive. For example, an artistic depiction of a totally naked Christ dying or dead on the cross can be authentic & meaningful from the perspectives of history & theology. (See also my 31 March 2010 blog post; your comments are welcome.)

Raised in Naked Glory

In the gospel of John, the “hour” of Christ’s glory is the completion of his mission at his crucifixion, when he is stripped naked and lifted up on the cross. At his death and glorification, Jesus offers to believers his Spirit, and from his wounded side flows the living water and blood of the sacraments of baptism and the eucharist through which believers are born anew and receive eternal life.

Paul reminds us: “Don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead, we too may walk in newness of life.” (Rom 6:3-4)

During the Easter vigil in some churches throughout the world, new members will be baptized, and thus the time-honored tradition of linking Easter with baptism will go on. This linkage is beautifully described in the ancient rite of baptism by immersion.

In the early churches, candidates for baptism or catechumens shed their clothes and go down naked into a pool of water. Their nakedness and their immersion symbolize their death. The catechumens strip themselves of a former way of life. For many of them, their baptism was their death in the eyes of their pagan relatives and friends who refused to associate with them once they became Christians.

The catechumens descend into the waters, the waters that can cleanse, nourish, or kill. By their symbolic death, they experience the death of Christ. When they rise naked from the waters, they put on their baptismal robes, and then join the expectant community, which joyfully welcomes them as new partakers in the life of the Risen Lord.

In the gospel of Mark (16:1-8), when the women entered Jesus' tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side. The presence of this young man in a long garment becomes more significant if we recall the story of the arrest of Jesus in Mark 14:51-52.After Jesus was led away by armed men, Mark mentions the strange emergence of a young man wearing nothing but a linen garment. He tried to follow Jesus, but when the armed men seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.

This flight in nakedness is a graphic display of the weakness and vulnerability of the disciples, who all fled and deserted Jesus. One is reminded of these lines of a poem of Jean De La Ceppede (1548-1623):

Often I have tried to follow you, my life
Along familiar paths your mercy shows
But always, but always your several foes
Have seized me by the sheet, my strength borne off.

Jesus was disgraced, mocked and forcibly stripped. In the gospels of Mark and Matthew, Jesus was all alone to face death, bare of clothes and bare of friends. This declaration of the upright Job applies fully to Jesus: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I shall depart” (Job 1:21).

At the tomb of Jesus, the women find a young man. It seems that the young man who earlier fled in nakedness has now returned dressed in a long garment. He proclaims that Jesus has risen, and he instructs the women to tell Peter and the disciples. But the women flee in fear and say nothing to anyone (Mk 16:8). It was a shock to be told of the Vindication of Jesus (see 11 April 2009 blog entry) who is now clothed in holy power and glory.

Christ rose naked, as he left the strips of linen and his burial cloth in the empty tomb. He rose not in the nakedness of his former mortal body but in the naked glory of his risen body. As Adam of St. Victor (d. 1192) says in his hymn “Ecce Dies Celebris” (Behold, the Glorious Day!): “Christ’s flesh, once like sackcloth torn, is now a royal robe victoriously worn.”

The women and the other disciples, however, were afraid because they abandoned their master and friend when he needed them most. They disgraced themselves and revealed their naked weakness. They were ashamed of their infidelity and cowardice, and they were afraid to face the new power of Christ. Like Adam and Eve after they ate the forbidden fruit, they wanted to hide from the divine presence.

The original nakedness of Adam and Eve involved no shame, but this innocence was lost because of lust, not lust for sex, the standing serpent, but lust for power. They wanted to be like God, being able to do everything. In contrast, the shamefully condemned and crucified Christ was raised in naked glory because, despite the adulation of crowds at his powerful deeds and words when he went around in Galilee, he emptied himself of selfish ambition and became a complete servant of God and God’s people even in the face of death on the cross.

With their abandonment of their master and friend, the disciples wrestled with their shameful nakedness, and they were only able to withstand it once they stopped blaming one another and started forgiving. Then they began to see the merciful gaze of Christ, and once they saw this forgiving look, they began to realize that Jesus was not imprisoned in the past. Christ is present, Christ is future, Christ welcomes us back. Their shameful nakedness is now covered in love, and new life is born.

Shameful nakedness does not imply that the human body is a contemptible object. The body is precious, for it offers our primary opening to others and to the world. It is through the body that we are able to develop or destroy deep relationships. Our gaze can animate or kill. Our tongues can wound or heal. Our touch can assure or deceive. Christ’s resurrection testifies to the value of our bodies, for Christ rose in a body. In the Apostle’s Creed, we proclaim our belief in the resurrection of the body.

The body is the bedrock of deep relationships, and thus, we believe that God will resurrect the body because God wants to immortalize deep relationships. In contrast to commercial advertising, the primal beauty of the body does not rest on its shape, its size, or its youth, but on its ability to produce or nourish deep relationships.

The priority of deep relationships is something that many contemporary people are neglecting especially among the middle and upper classes. They do not primarily seek and sustain expressive relationships but prioritize the accumulation of money, or prioritize workaholism in order to acquire more, consume more, and waste more. Consumerism and productivism have trivialized emotive and ethical matters such as intimate friendship, sexual relations, and the respect for wildlife. The body, friendship, sex, and wildlife are being turned into commodities.

God resurrects the body because God wants to immortalize deep relationships. Christ has been raised from the dead because he has the deepest relationship with God and others. The depth of his relationships enabled him to withstand the shameful nakedness of being cruelly stripped, mocked, and punished, while his disciples abandoned him. In clinging firmly to his deep relationships, the shameful nakedness of Jesus was converted into a lovingly shared nakedness, a powerlessness and vulnerability in solidarity with the poor, the defenseless, the excluded, human wrecks, and the refuse of the world.

When Christ resurrected covered in holy power and new life, he did not hesitate to offer the protective cloak of forgiveness to his anxious disciples. We can prepare ourselves for our Lord's warm cloak of compassion by humbly standing before him in prayer as the naked selves we truly are. Then we can pray in these words of the 12th century theologian and mystic, William of St. Thierry:

"Having cast off the garment of skins that you made for Adam to protect him from his shame and confusion, I show myself to you, naked, as you created me. Behold me, Lord, not as you have made me but as I have made myself, because I have fallen away from you."

In our commemoration of Christ’s passion, death and resurrection, let us also reflect on our nakedness, our personal vulnerabilities, limitations, and deficiencies. With the help of Christ’s Spirit, let us reflect on how we can turn our nakedness into an opening so that the nakedness of others can find sacred rest and relief in the presence of our own nakedness. Or do we prefer to exhibit the shameful nakedness of our egocentrism, anxiety or indifference?

How do we strip ourselves of our greed and selfishness so that we can practice this injunction of St. Jerome: "naked follow the naked Christ"? How do we strip ourselves especially in prayer and contemplation so that, in the words of the 14th century spiritual text, "The Cloud of Unknowing, your intent is nakedly directed to God"? How can we share this nakedness so that others will experience forgiveness, hope, justice, and the dignity of the sons and daughters of God?

Let us pray for one another and for the whole naked humanity, as we remember Christ’s naked death and the naked glory of his resurrection. May we receive the power of his new life so that we can accompany one another in our naked immersion in the river of life from which we hope everybody will rise with naked intent unto God and put on the supreme baptismal robes of final innocence and divine life.

Why Was Jesus Killed?

Critical historians are in agreement that the singular incident that made the Jerusalem officials resolve to hand Jesus over to the Romans for execution was his action of driving out those who were buying and selling in the temple (Mark 11:15-18; John 2:13-19). Jesus overturned the tables of the money-changers, and he would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. The historian E.P. Sanders adds that the priests probably interpreted this action as a threat, on the part of Jesus, to destroy the temple. At the very least, Jesus warned of divine judgment against it.

In Mark 13:1-2, Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple. In his trial before the Jerusalem officials, according to Mark (14:57-58) and Matthew (26:59-61), some persons testify that they heard Jesus utter a threat to destroy it. At the foot of the cross, some passers-by insult Jesus: “So! You who are going to destroy the temple…” (Mark 15:29; Mt 27:40). In Acts 6:12-14, “false witnesses” accuse the deacon, Stephen, that they “heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place [the temple].”

For Sanders, it is highly probable that Jesus did predict the destruction of the temple, and this prediction reached the ears of the chief priests. The destruction of the temple would imply the end of the Jerusalem priesthood, for the primary social role of the priests was to offer temple-sacrifices. This destruction implied the eradication of the high “place” or the eminent social stratum that the priests occupied in Jewish society (cf John 11:47-48), for the temple provided the most prominent justification for priestly authority.

Jesus did not plan to lead a group or a mob to do the actual work of destroying the temple. His prediction showed his belief that God would soon allow the temple’s destruction. Why did he believe that it deserved to be destroyed? Below are the possible reasons:

(1) The temple diverted people away from living a life in the Spirit, a life of sensitivity to the immediate presence of the sacred through which people could worship and please God without the necessity of big buildings and complex systems of worship.
(2) The temple promoted ethnocentrism and false worship, and it would be replaced by an assembly of people with authentic faith and love in their hearts.

(3) The temple system had already been promoting harmful and self-delusive attitudes, and it provided legitimation to the unjust social system.

The first reason fits with the historical portrait of Jesus as a Spirit-filled person who wanted to help people live a life of deep love and spiritual worship of God. In John 4:21-23, Jesus declares to the Samaritan woman: “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain [Mt Gerizim] nor in Jerusalem….A time is coming and has now come when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks.” In the new heaven and new earth, when God’s Victory over viciousness and sin becomes fully visible, there will be no more temple (cf Revelation 21:22), no more massive and complex cultic structures. In Acts 7:48, Stephen asserts: “The Most High does not live in houses made by men.”

The second possible reason for divine judgement against the temple was its promotion of ethnocentrism and false worship. The temple was an institution that excluded many people. Admittance to the inner courts was restricted to Jews and only to those Jews who were ritually pure. Foreigners were threatened with death if they entered the inner courts. Jesus opposed ethnocentrism, and in his action in the temple, he quoted God’s word in Isaiah: “My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations” (Isaiah 56:7; Mark 11:17). Jesus also opposed the hypocrisy and blindness of those guardians of the temple who regarded the gold, gifts, and offerings in the temple as more important than acts of justice and mercy to the poor and the weak (cf Matthew 23:16-26).

Under the aristocratic priests, the temple promoted false worship. The chief priests and the Sadducees were indifferent to the worsening hunger in the rural areas of Judaea and the growing indebtedness and dispossession of the peasantry. The temple officials aggravated the misery of the masses by keeping a record of the debts of those who could not fulfil their economic obligations to the temple such as the temple tax, agricultural taxes, purification offerings, sin and guilt offerings, and offerings for the redemption of first-born sons and animals. In the war against the Romans in 66-70 CE, Jewish rebels took over the temple, and one of their first acts was to burn the records of debt kept there.

In the face of worsening rural conditions, the Jerusalem élite had a general attitude of business-as-usual. As long as there continued to be many burnt offerings and sacrifices in the temple, and as long as the Romans left day-to-day control of Judaea in their hands, the élite were indifferent to the accumulating burdens of the peasantry. What was worse, in the face of worsening rural conditions, the high priestly families lived lavishly in mansions, as shown by the impressive archeological remains of their Jerusalem residences (see Horsley and Silberman, 78-79).

The magnificent rituals in the temple blinded the élite into thinking that, as long as the rituals continued to be magnificent, and as long as the élite themselves felt that they were ritually pure and holy, all would be well with the rest of Jerusalem and Judaea, and systematic attempts were not necessary to help lighten the burdens of the peasantry. Jesus saw what most of the élite no longer could see: the temple system promoted harmful and delusive attitudes.

Because of his prophetic pronouncements and actions especially about the destruction of the temple, Jesus was perceived to be a threat to the social power of the Jerusalem élite. Jesus’ actions suggested strongly to the high priest that he was a dangerous agitator at such a risky period as Passover. At that time, Passover was a pilgrimage festival and one of the three festivals that all male Jews were supposed to attend each year in Jerusalem (see Deuteronomy 16:16). The spread of the Jewish population, both inside and outside Palestine, meant that fulfilling all three obligations was no longer possible. Nevertheless, a lot of people attended each of the major festivals, and Passover was the most popular. Although Jewish law required only males to attend, many men brought their wives and children.

Sanders estimates that Jerusalem accommodated about 300,000 to 400,000 pilgrims during Passover. The large crowds meant that the festivals were possible occasions for civil unrest. Thus, the Roman governor, who usually stayed in the coastal city of Caesarea, would come to Jerusalem with extra troops for the occasion. Passover was always a risky event, as Jewish crowds gathered to celebrate their liberation from Egyptian oppressors, while they were aware that they were presently under Roman imperial rule.

The high priest would have been informed that Jesus was being hailed as a king by some people during his joyful entry into Jerusalem. That in itself would have been a serious cause for concern, for to allow some Jew to be acclaimed king could provoke the Romans to suspect that the high priest was allowing the agitation of a rebellion against Roman rule. The Roman governor would hold the high priest ultimately responsible for any breakdown of peace and order in Jerusalem. Also, if a riot broke out because of a carpenter who had pretensions to kingship, the Romans would be provoked to intervene militarily, and this in turn would provoke patriotic Jews to fight back. Such a situation could easily spin out of control, and many Jews could get killed.

The aristocratic priests had Jesus arrested. There is no agreement as to what exactly happened after the arrest and before the crucifixion itself. Some historians think that a trial before the Sanhedrin, the formal council of the high priest, could not have happened as related by Mark (14:53-65) and Matthew (26:57-68), for it was against Jewish law to hold a trial at night. In Luke, the trial was held “at daybreak” (22:66-71). In John’s account (18:19-24), there was no trial but an interrogation by Annas, the former high priest and the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the reigning high priest.

A brief consultation between Caiaphas and Pilate either before or after the arrest of Jesus would have been enough to secure his execution. Caiaphas was the longest-reigning high priest during the 1^st century. Since from the year 6 CE onwards the Romans appointed and could easily replace the high priest, the lengthy reign of Caiaphas (18-36 CE) implied that he had good relations with the Romans.

According to Martin Hengel (Crucifixion in the Ancient World, 1977), crucifixion as a penalty was widespread in antiquity. It was a political and military punishment. The Romans inflicted it on political rebels and criminals from the lower social strata such as rebellious slaves and rural bandits. By the public display of a naked victim at a prominent place, crucifixion represented the utmost humiliation of the crucified. This shameful spectacle was aimed not only to deter others from rebellion and crime but also to magnify the power of the ruler who approved the execution. The shame was aggravated further by the fact that, quite often, the victims were never buried. It was standard practice to leave the hanging corpse to serve as food for wild beasts, scavenger dogs, and birds of prey.

Jesus and two others were taken outside the walls of Jerusalem, nailed to crosses, and left to die. It seems that a few of his female disciples watched from a distance (Mark 15:40), while his other disciples were in hiding. After the shameful execution of Jesus, his remains might have been buried hastily by some of his sympathizers or even by his enemies (cf Acts 13:28-29).

Sources Consulted:

Horsley, Richard and Neil Asher Silberman. The Message and the Kingdom: How Jesus and Paul Ignited a Revolution and Transformed the Ancient World. New York, 1997.

Sanders, E.P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. London, 1995.