Mark 15:16-32

And the soldiers led him away into the courtyard of the palace, that is the praetorium, and they called together the whole cohort. 17 And they put a purple robe on him, and after braiding together a crown of thorns, they placed it around him (his head); 18 and they began to greet him, “Hail, king of the Jews!” 19 And they beat his head repeatedly with a reed and they were spitting on him and they bent their knees and worshipped him. 20 And after they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple robe and put him in his own clothes. And they led him out in order that they might crucify him. 21 And they forced one passerby coming from the field, Simon of Cyrene (the father of Alexander and Rufus), to carry his cross. 22 And they brought him to the place Golgotha, which is translated “Place of the Skull.” 23 And they offered him wine mixed with myrrh; but he did not take it. 24 And they crucified him and divided his clothing, casting lots for them to decide what each would take up. 25 And it was the third hour (nine o’clock in the morning) [when] they crucified him. 26 And there was the inscription of the charge against him, which was written: The King of the Jews. 27 And with him two bandits were crucified, one by his right and one by his left. 29 And those who passed by railed at him shaking their heads and saying, “Aha! You who could destroy the temple and build it in three days, 30 save yourself [and] come down from the cross. 31 Likewise, even the chief priests to one another with the scribes were mocking him saying, “He saved others, but he is not able to save himself. 32 The Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross that we might see and believe.” Even the ones crucified with him reproached him.

Introduction:

Mark 15:16-32 is located in the middle of the Markan passion narrative and has often been understood as an ironic portrayal of Jesus as Son of God. Each ironic image in Mark’s account is present in Matthew’s (27:27-44), but with certain additions or alterations. Luke’s account is silent regarding the mockery by the soldiers but is consistent with Mark and Matthew when it comes to the road to Golgotha and Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross. John’s account shows similarity to some of the mockery seen in Mark and Matthew, and in the event of Jesus being crucified between two criminals. But Mark 15:16-32 should be interpreted for its own particular purposes within its specific context which differs from Matthew, Luke and John’s.

Mark 15:16-32 certainly provides an account of irony in the way that the Roman soldiers unwittingly pronounce Jesus as King of the Jews, parade him around in a purple robe and adorn him with a crown. It proves to be strikingly ironic for readers of Mark’s gospel. This interpretation highlights how the Roman soldiers attempt to mock Jesus, but Mark’s readers see through such mockery as actually an ironic portrayal of Jesus’ true kingship. The interpretation of irony is strong because it is consistent with the Markan Christology of Jesus being revealed as king in the midst of suffering, humiliation, insult, and death. However, this passage about Jesus’ crucifixion and death conveys more meaning with such irony. While this perspective takes a serious approach to the consistency of the Markan Jesus as the suffering servant-king, it stops short from answering the question—why? Furthermore, it does not account for the polemical nature of Mark’s gospel as a response to Roman imperial propaganda.

The opening incipit of Mark’s gospel: “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God,” as understood in light of the historical context of Roman oppression, stands in direct confrontation to Roman ideology. Mark’s use of the term εὐαγγελίου for the Christian message stands in opposition to the Roman ideology, and places Jesus as true Son of God instead of Caesar or other imperial claims.[1] With Vespasian taking control of the Roman Empire and his rise to power, especially through his act of spreading his propaganda related signs, prophecies and playing the role of benefactor, the Christian communities spread throughout the Roman Empire may have experienced a crisis of faith. The incipit of Mark’s gospel builds the framework of the Christian response to crisis, and as the gospel narrative progresses, a Jesus who matches and outdoes the Roman imperial powers is revealed. A number of recent scholars have seen Mark as a response to Roman imperial propaganda, and my reading of Mark 15:16-32 will build on that presupposition. This matching and outdoing of the Roman imperial powers is illustrated in 15:16-32 as Mark formulates his passion narrative as a symbolic parallel to a Roman triumphal procession. A Roman triumphal procession celebrated a military victory or another momentous occasion that honored the victorious general. It often involved the presence of victorious soldiers, the presence of prisoners, reenactments of battles, exotic animals and religious elements.[2]

In showing how Mark presents Jesus’ death as a Roman triumphal procession, it is necessary to examine the Latin loanwords used in 15:16-32, to weigh the historical plausibility of a purple robe, and the locale of Golgotha as “the place of the skull/head.” Then, it will be important to assess the symbolism of a crown, the mock-praise of the soldiers, Jesus walking with Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross, Jesus’ refusal of wine, and how Jesus was lifted up to be crucified between two criminals. I will examine the use of loanwords, the historical plausibility and the symbolic images in 15:16-32 and will simultaneously draw the connection to a Roman triumphal procession. By arguing how Mark 15:16-32 evokes a Roman triumphal procession, I intend to show how Mark designs this “anti-triumph” to suggest that the seeming scandal of the cross is actually an exaltation of Christ.[3]

Latin Loanwords:

After being flogged and handed over for crucifixion, Mark writes in 15:16 that Jesus is led into the courtyard of the palace. Mark then specifies the location by using the Latin loanword “πραιτώριον.” Although Boring interprets Mark 15:16-32 as an account of irony, he notes the presence of the Latin loanword πραιτώριον as a generic term for the Roman governor’s headquarters.[4] He also acknowledges that σπεῖρα corresponds to the Latin cohort (one-tenth of a Legion—about six hundred troops).[5] But beyond the acknowledgement of another Latin connection and pointing out the historical implausibility and dramatization of an entire battalion assembled to mock Jesus, Boring goes no further, and no connection to a Roman triumphal procession is made. While Boring is correct in citing that the Latin loanword πραιτώριον is a generic term that could mean any military headquarters in general (cf. Acts 23.35), Schmidt notes how the praetorium was the common designation in Rome for the location and personnel of the Praetorian Guard.[6] Mark’s specific naming of the courtyard as πραιτώριον could be incidental, but the detail that follows about the presence of ὅλην τὴν σπεῖραν (the whole cohort) reveals that this label might not be by accident. Both Boring and Maloney raise the peculiar note about an entire cohort being present, but they resolve it to hyperbole or dramatization. Although it is historically implausible that this would be the case, it was customary and vitally important for the Praetorian Guard to be present at a Roman triumph. Schmidt emphasizes that here we should consider the term πραιτώριον and ὅλην τὴν σπεῖρα as being carefully chosen to evoke a familiar occasion; namely, the gathering of soldiers as the precursor of a triumph.[7] By using Latin loanwords to specify the location and to reference the gathering of the whole cohort, Mark’s contemporaries are provided with recognizable indications of a Roman triumphal procession.

As the historical plausibility of an entire cohort is unlikely, the hyperbole of the scene instead functions to direct the readers to the precursor of a Roman triumphal procession. The historical implausibility of the purple robe and the location of Golgotha also directs readers to envision the crucifixion of Jesus as a Roman triumphal procession. Verse 17 mentions how the Roman soldiers mockingly dressed Jesus up in πορπηυρα (a purple [robe]). Boring understands the mocking of the Roman soldiers as a parody of imperial rule, because a purple robe was extremely expensive and a symbol of Roman authority and wealth.[8] Matthew, in his gospel, changes the color of the robe to scarlet, resembling the robe worn by Roman soldiers, which seems more historically plausible. However, it is unnecessary to view Mark’s purple robe as historically plausible because its purpose is better served in drawing the connection to the Roman triumphal procession.

Both Maloney and Boring highlight the historical implausibility of the purple robe. Boring also interprets the presence of the purple robe as “a note of burlesque pomposity to the mockery,” and even shows the various historical parallels to such mockery (e.g. Philo’s account of an Alexandrian crowd dressing up a mentally challenged Jewish peasant as “king,” with an improvised robe, crown and scepter), but he understands the scene as dramatic irony.[9] This image of the purple robe and Mark’s formulaic wording in v.17 is better understood as the outfit adorning a Roman triumphator. The Markan readers would have understood that wearing purple was outlawed for any person below equestrian rank.[10] Therefore, the historical implausibility of Jesus being dressed in a purple robe with a crown around his head points readers again to the symbolism of a Roman triumph and the image of a triumphator parading in purple with a crown.

Another expression of historical implausibility that points to the symbolism of a Roman triumphal procession is the location, Golgotha. Mark in v.22 calls it “Skull Place” (Κρανίου τόπος) and it has been argued that the site is named after topographical features such as holes that resembled a pair of eyes.[11] That Jesus was crucified near a skull-looking cliff did not appease some ancient Eastern traditions, and they instead held the theory that Adam was buried on Golgotha and his son Seth planted a tree upon his grave whose wood was later used to construct Jesus’ cross.[12] The historical uncertainty or even implausibility associated with Golgotha’s location makes better sense when viewed in light of a Roman triumphal procession. Schmidt argues that the name “Golgotha” may provide another allusion to the triumph. Schmidt cites the legend of how a human head was discovered on a Roman hill; then the hill was deemed as head of all Italy—and since such time, the place was named Capitoline hill (Romans call heads “capita”).[13] This alludes to the Roman triumphal procession because, as Schmidt notes, the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus (Capitolium) was the ending place of every Roman triumph.[14] The implausibility or uncertainty of Golgotha’s location is better understood in connection to the final stages of a Roman triumphal procession.

Symbolic Images:

The crown in v.17 symbolically represents the wreath worn by imperial figures. France rightly indicates that στέπηανος does not specifically express a “crown” of royalty, but rather a wreath of leaves, such as the ones awarded to successful athletes.[15] Boring draws the distinction between the crown of thorns being placed “around” rather than “on” his head, and such symbolism can support both the irony interpretation and the Roman triumphal procession. The divine emperor, in Boring’s understanding, was sometimes adorned with a radiant wreath that would reflect rays from his head as “Apollo-like manifestations of divinity.”[16] This connection with the festive attire of the emperor gives weight to the crown of thorns paralleling the triumphator’s headdress.

Likewise, the symbolism of the soldiers’ mock-praise in v.18 resembles the chant honoring Caesar. The interpretation of Mark 15:16-32 as ironic portrayal held by Boring and Maloney would characterize this mock-praise as ironic parody, but “Hail, king of the Jews!” reflects the customary praise of an emperor: “Ave, Caesar.”[17] The act of the soldiers bending their knees and bowing down in v.19 uses the verb προσκυνέω “to worship.” But this word often translated as “worship” is also commonly used to describe acts of homage to a social superior, [18] and therefore this mock-praise is reminiscent of the practice of Roman soldiers at a triumphal procession giving honor to the triumphator in the form of verbal praise and bowing down. The mock-praise and titles given (“King of the Jews”) to Jesus in Mark’s passion narrative certainly provide dramatic irony, as Boring, Maloney, and France would each suggest, but these interpreters stop short of drawing the connection to the Roman triumphal procession. As Jesus is viciously mocked as a royal pretender throughout the passion narrative, Mark reveals that that the mockery is actually true and that for Mark’s rhetorical purpose Jesus’ crucifixion is a Roman triumph.[19]

Mark 15:26, 29-32 shows the continuation of mock-praise after Jesus is raised up. The second round of mock-praise originates from the people, chief priests, scribes, and even those crucified on either side of Jesus. This second round mock-praise is consistent with the event of the triumphator being acclaimed as Lord, when his vice-regents would appear with him, confirming his glory, and the soldiers and people with their leaders would join in acclamation together.[20]

When the soldiers concluded their first round of mock-praise, they stripped Jesus of the purple robe, dressed him in his own clothes, and led him out for crucifixion. While there is no parallel drawn between the stripping and redressing of Jesus and the events of a Roman triumphal procession, v.20a seems to characterize the purpose of v.24, that his clothes be divided and lots cast for new ownership. The soldiers casting lots for Jesus’ clothing echoes the lament of Psalm 22:19, and other details in the crucifixion story, including Jesus’ final words in Mark’s gospel.[21] Donahue notes that the removal of the purple robe ends the soldiers’ mock ritual.[22] In line with the interpretation of a Roman triumphal procession, this could effectively mark a shift toward the next step in the procession/passion narrative.

Here the symbolic parallel with the Roman triumph resumes in v.20a with Jesus being led out (ἐξάγω), similar to the way a Roman general or emperor might be led out in a procession, and v.20b mentions that a passerby, Simon of Cyrene is forced to carry the cross of Jesus. ἐξάγω is only used once elsewhere in Mark’s gospel—8:23 in the event of Jesus leading the blind man out to perform a two-stage healing. As Jesus spits directly into the blind man’s eyes, it evokes Tacitus’ report of Vespasian healing a blind man by his saliva.[23] The Markan response to Roman imperial propaganda in 8:23 and the usages of ἐξάγω may serve to illustrate how 15:20 is also contending against Roman imperial powers by way of referencing a triumphal procession. It is unclear whether the event of the procession of the blind man out of (ἐξάγω) the village to a secluded place is a public or private event, but 15:21 carries the notion of a prolonged public procession, which is reinforced by the need for Simon of Cyrene to carry the cross.[24] Some have given Simon of Cyrene more of a focal point, asserting that the character role he plays is important because he is a functional representative of correct Markan discipleship,[25] but this appears underdeveloped in the text and inconclusive. The role of Simon of Cyrene could be understood as illustrating a prolonged public procession, that is, it can play a role in Mark’s anti-triumph.

Simon of Cyrene’s carrying of the cross is symbolic because it points to the notion of a prolonged public procession, but it also might parallel more precisely with the presence of a sacrificial bull in a Roman triumph. In nearly every depiction of a Roman triumphal procession, there is an official who carries over his shoulder a double-bladed axe, and he walks alongside the sacrificial bull with the instrument of death.[26] As Simon of Cyrene wields the instrument of execution, Jesus represents the sacrificial bull of the procession. Here the parallel has shifted from illustrating Jesus as perhaps the emperor or conquering general to the sacrificial bull, but every metaphor has its limits. And additionally, the connection is drawn to present Jesus’ death as a Roman triumph—either as the emperor clothed in purple, or as a sacrificed bull, or both. This parallel provides a further representation of the triumphal procession and simultaneously shows how Jesus’ death defeats Roman power.

The symbolic representation of Jesus being offered wine mixed with myrrh in v.23 has been understood as a narcotic agent to dull the pain of crucifixion. Some have even gone so far as to assert that the offering of wine was to keep Jesus alive a little while longer simply for cruel sport.[27] But perhaps a more practical explanation is that Jesus’ refusal indicates that he desired to remain conscious throughout the entire ordeal. Although Boring accepts this meaning, he also notes that there is only minimal evidence that this mixture was used as a narcotic.[28] Perhaps instead, Mark’s intention here is to symbolize the event of a Roman triumph. During the crucial moment of a triumph before sacrifice, the expensive wine is poured out, and then the bull is sacrificed.[29] Immediately after Jesus refuses the wine, v.24 says, “And they crucified him.” These words either show the abrupt progression of the passion narrative, or they draw the connection between the triumphator refusing the wine and the bull being sacrificed immediately after.

The depiction of Jesus being crucified between two bandits reminds readers of the earlier question posed by James and John about sitting at Jesus’ left and right at the place of his glory (Mark 10:37). As the crucifixion portrays Jesus raised up and enthroned high on a cross, the irony is overwhelming. The mockery of Jesus’ kingship by the soldiers, the people passing by and the chief priests (Mark 15:17-32) unwittingly, but yet correctly identifies Jesus as Israel’s king. And the crucifixion as a mockery of enthronement turns out to be Jesus’ exaltation as God’s messianic Son, which is recognized correctly by, of all people, a Roman centurion (Mark 15:39).[30] The recognition of the Roman centurion who sees Jesus truly as the Son of God is a political statement in tandem with Mark 1:1, and it can even be understood as a compact expression of Mark’s soteriology.[31] While the irony is outstanding, the association of Jesus being elevated on a cross carries deeper meaning when understood in conjunction with a Roman triumphal parallel.

Mark’s audience would have understood that the places to the right and left of a central and elevated person signified royal enthronement (as James and John did in Mk 10:37), and even the reality that emperors were often flanked by two consuls who presided with him over the state’s affairs.[32] Schmidt notes that in 71AD, “Vespasian celebrated his triumph over the Jews with Titus beside him in the triumphal chariot and Domitian riding alongside.”[33] Following this event, it was common that a threesome of political figures would appear elevated above the admiring crowds to show solidarity and power. Therefore, Mark’s crucifixion of criminals on either side of Jesus is a symbolic parallel: as Jesus was seated (a small peg on the cross may have been utilized to give him a place to sit to somewhat relieve the strain on his arms[34]) between two criminals, so too, the triumphator was typically seated while being carried and elevated between two people.[35]

Conclusion:

The crucifixion of Jesus was a punishment reserved for detestable people like rebellious slaves, criminals, and defeated foes of the Roman Empire,[36] but it is striking how Mark draws the event of Jesus’ crucifixion and death as a Roman triumph. Although Boring, Maloney, and France each contended that the point of this passage is to highlight the ironic actions taken by the soldiers, the religious leaders, and the people, Schmidt rightfully takes the interpretation further and gives meaning as to why the ironic actions are included by the Markan author. In Mark’s passion narrative, Jesus enters into the Roman military headquarters, receives salutation by the Praetorian guard, is dressed up a purple robe and crowned, is given a prolonged public processional, and receives a climactic acclamation of the “Son of God”—one that clearly parallels the events that took place in the triumphal procession of Roman generals and emperors on their return to Rome after a great military victory.[37] As Mark indicates, in the attempt to shame and mock Jesus, the soldiers and religious leaders actually give Jesus a Roman triumph. In this manner of death, Jesus strangely appears as the celebrated conqueror and esteemed ruler. Yet realizing Mark’s passion narrative of 15:16-32 as a parallel to a Roman triumphal procession is concurrent with the reading of Mark’s gospel as a response to Roman imperial propaganda. It provides hope to those in a crisis of faith, and it clearly remains faithful to Mark’s incipit in 1:1. In such, Mark’s rhetorical purpose is revealed: he is trying to persuade or affirm to readers that Jesus is the Messiah, not despite the cross but precisely because of it,[38] and that the resurrection of Jesus demonstrates his power over Rome, as it essentially reverses a Roman execution.

 

Bibliography

Bird, M.F. “Christ” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992.

Blount, Brian K. “A Socio-Rhetorical Analysis of Simon of Cyrene: Mark 15:21 and its

Parallels.”

Dennis, J. “Death of Jesus” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Downers Grove: InterVarsity

Press, 1992

Donahue, John R. “The Gospel of Mark” in Sacra Pagina, Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2002.

France, R.T. “The Gospel of Mark” in The New International Greek Testament Commentary,

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

Gamel, Brian K. “Salvation in a Sentence: Mark 15:39 as Markan Soteriology.” Journal of Theological Interpretation 6, no. 1.

Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion Philadephia: Fortress, 1977

Maloney, Francis J. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.

Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “Golgotha” in The New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible,

Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2013.

O’Collins, Gerald G. “Crucifixion,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freeman, New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Perkins, Pheme. “Mark” in New Interpreters Bible Commentary Volume 8, Nashville: Abingdon,

Schmidt, T E. “The Crucifixion Narrative and the Roman Triumphal Procession.” New

Testament Studies 41 (1995): 1-18.

Stevenson, Peter K. “The Crucified God: Mark 15:25-39.”

Tacitus, Hist., 4.81

Winn, Adam. Lecture “Mark’s Passion Narrative and a Roman Triumph.”

 

[1] Eugene Boring, Mark: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 30.

[2] Adam Winn, Lecture “Mark’s Passion Narrative and a Roman Triumph.”

[3] T.E. Schmidt, “The Crucifixion Narrative and the Roman Triumphal Procession,” (New Testament Studies vol. 41), 1.

[4] Boring, 423.

[5] Boring, 425.

[6] Schmidt, 6.

[7] Schmidt, 6.

[8] Boring, 425.

[9] Boring, 423, 425.

[10] Schmidt, 7.

[11] Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Golgotha” The New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2013).

[12] Boring, 427.

[13] Schmidt, 9-10.

[14] Schmidt, 10.

[15] R.T. France The Gospel of Mark The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 638.

[16] Boring, 425.

[17] Boring, 425. Francis J. Maloney The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 316.

[18] France, 638.

[19] M.F. Bird “Christ” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, (Grand Rapids: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 120.

[20] Schmidt, 14

[21] Pheme Perkins, “Mark” New Interpreters Bible Commentary Volume 8 (Nashville: Abingdon, 2000), 720.

[22] John R. Donahue, “The Gospel of Mark” Sacra Pagina (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2002), 436.

[23] Tacitus, Hist., 4.81

[24] Schmidt, 8.

[25] Brian K. Blount, “A Socio-Rhetorical Analysis of Simon of Cyrene: Mark 15:21 and its Parallels,” 177.

[26] Schmidt, 8-9.

[27] Peter K. Stevenson, “The Crucified God: Mark 15:25-39,” 67.

[28] Boring, 427.

[29] Schmidt, 11

[30] J. Dennis, “Death of Jesus” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 180-1

[31] Brian K. Gamel, “Salvation in a Sentence: Mark 15:39 as Markan Soteriology” Journal of Theological Interpretation 6.1 (2012), 65.

[32] Schmidt, 13.

[33] Ibid, 14.

[34] Gerald G. O’Collins, “Crucifixion,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freeman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1:1207.

[35] Winn Lecture.

[36] Martin Hengel, Crucifixion (Philadephia: Fortress, 1977), 22-23.

[37] Bird, 120.

[38] Ibid.