INNTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE

Year A - GOOD FRIDAY

ISAIAH 52:13-53:12. This traditional reading from the unknown prophet of Israel’s Babylonian exile quickly became the model for early Christian interpretation of Jesus’ Passion. As the fourth and last of the Servant Songs in the Hebrew scriptures, it describes vicarious suffering on behalf of others which receives it reward in divine vindication. This was seen as Israel’s role in bringing God’s plan and purpose to the world.

PSALM 22. This psalm also became a model for the crucifixion story in Christian tradition. Many of the details of that narrative were taken directly from this psalm e.g. vss. 1, 7 and 18.

HEBREWS 10:16-25. This passage contains references to the end of traditional Jewish practices of sacrificial worship and the Christian interpretation of the death of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of God’s revelation and covenant with Israel.

HEBREWS 4:14-16; 5:7-9. (Alternate) This passage compares the suffering and death of Jesus to Jewish religious practices related to Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. It proclaims that Jesus’ death and resurrection accomplished once and for all the necessary atonement for our sin.

JOHN 18:1-19:42. Modern media accounts of the Passion reflect the tendency to create a single narrative about the crucifixion as if such a compendium was possible. These usually reflect a particular theological

position about the meaning of Christ’s death on the cross.

From the Gospels themselves, it is not possible to create a harmonized version that is convincingly cohesive. John’s version of the story provides details not found in the other Gospels. We must therefore accept the scholarly view that the several gospel authors had access to differing oral traditions of what may actually have happened. All of the gospels gives us a very moving story from different points of view.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS.

ISAIAH 52:13-53:12. This traditional reading from the unknown prophet of Israel’s Babylonian exile quickly became the model for early Christian interpretation of Jesus’ crucifixion. It has also shaped that part of Christian theology called Christology about the person and work of Christ. As the fourth and last of the Servant Songs in the Hebrew scriptures, it describes vicarious suffering on behalf of others which receives it reward in divine vindication. This was seen as Israel’s role in bringing God’s plan and purpose to the world. However, it was not until the beginning of the Christian era that Jews began to think of the Messiah as suffering, and then only in an extensively qualified manner. For instance, in the Targum of Isaiah, the sufferings fall on both Jews and Gentiles. Whereas Christian thought pressed an individual interpretation, Jewish thought maintained a collective theory that Israel itself was the Servant who suffered.

At the beginning of this passage at 52:13, Yahweh speaks of the future exaltation of the Servant despite the horrible suffering he was the endure. Early Christians desperately seeking to understand the cross and resurrection of Jesus quickly seized on the subsequent vss. 14-15. The Roman system of capital punishment, like those of every culture, had one intent: to instill fear in the general populace. The obvious cruelty of public crucifixion effectively subdued unstable societies throughout the empire.

Ch. 53:1-3 turns the attention to the tragedy of the situation. The “we” of vs. 1 cannot be identified but presumably are the sensitive observers in the general public to whom the passage was addressed. The unbelievably has happened. This ordinary person, the Servant, disfigured and despised, supposed to have been stricken by Yahweh, has suffered for their sins, not his own (vss. 4-6).

Attention shifts once more in vss. 7-9 to the manner in which the Servant bore the afflictions laid on him. As silently as a sheep led to slaughter, he endured his lot though it was a perversion of justice. He made no protest nor uttered any deceitful blame against anyone else.

Again in vs. 10, attention shifts to the Servant’s vindication. His self-sacrifice benefits many. Behind all that has happened in this tragic situation stands the purpose of Yahweh. Divine justice and mercy come together as the Servant’s offspring bring his legacy to light. Sin must be punished and righteousness rewarded.

The essence of substitutionary sacrifice lies behind these verses. Sin must be atoned for, but the divine-human relationship sustained. The Servant’s sacrifice effectively does this by fulfilling Yahweh’s purpose. This motif can also be found in the sufferings of Israel’s great prophets like Jeremiah and Hosea. No amount of scholarly discourse can set aside the supreme significance of this passage for Christian faith in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Is there also meaning to be found here in the tragic deaths of public servants such as police officers who are killed in the performance of their duties?

PSALM 22. This psalm also became a model for the crucifixion story in Christian tradition. Many of the details of that narrative were taken directly from this psalm e.g. vss. 1, 7 and 18. The latter vs. 18 appears in all four gospels – Matt. 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; and John 19:23-24. If proof is needed, this surely clarifies how the earliest tradition sought meaning for the crucifixion in the Hebrew scriptures.

Scholars have detected a sharp difference in tone after vs. 21 which take the form a very personal lament. The remaining vss. 22-31 becomes a hymn of thanksgiving for deliverance. As it now stands, the whole psalm can be approached by worshippers as an appropriate way to view the cross on Good Friday. Inevitably we are saddened by the tragic death of such a person as Jesus of Nazareth. We can also rejoice and gratefully celebrate that he died for us.

Did Jesus actually feel forsaken despite his experience of intense praying and being strengthened in Gethsemane? Humanly speaking, how else could he accomplish his mission of closing the gates of death for all creation except by being totally excluded himself from the presence of God in death? Did he sacrifice his divine nature at this point?

The final words of vss. 19-21 offer a way out of such a terrifying dilemma. The whole psalm is in essence a soulful prayer. Particularly intense pleas for help and trust in God lift the psalm from the tragic despair of the foregoing verses to the realm where only thanksgiving and global witness seem appropriate responses to the final revelation of God’s will to save to the uttermost.

It is difficult to know why the framers of the RCL chose to begin this reading in the middle of the sentence that introduces the quotation from Jeremiah 31:31-34. The author’s point, nonetheless, is to reinforce the conviction that while forgiveness removes the necessity for further sacrifices, yet the need remains to respond to Christ’s sacrifice with sound ethical behaviour. Indeed, this selective quotation from the prophet serves as an introduction to the moral exhortations which continue from this point to the end the letter/sermon.

Vss. 19-20 refers directly to the functions of the high priest of the temple on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). On that greatest of Jewish feasts, and only on this one occasion each year, the high priest would enter the Holy of Holies to sprinkle the blood of the sacrificial lamb on the ark of the covenant. This liturgical action had the effect of cleansing the whole of Israel from sin and renewing their covenant relationship with God. This author

regarded the self-sacrifice of Jesus symbolized in our baptism (vs. 22) as replacing once and for all the need for this annual ritual of atonement.

Our faith in the efficacy of Jesus’ sacrifice is continually confirmed and invoked in worship. Our intent in so doing should result in love and good deeds (vs. 23-24). But not all of the faithful for whom this is true gather for worship awaiting the approaching Day of the Lord when Jesus will return. Some are habitually absent and need further encouragement. Would this be one of the reasons why some preachers are said to make a habit of thundering from the pulpit at those designated as Easter Christians?

HEBREWS 4:14-16; 5:7-9. (Alternate) This passage also compares the suffering and death of Jesus to the ritual performed by the Jewish high priest on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. It proclaims that Jesus’ death and resurrection accomplished once and for all as the final, necessary atonement for our sin. The emphasis is not placed on the ritual but on the sinless nature of the one performing it.

Jesus alone is qualified to atone for our sin because he alone is able to sympathize with us who constantly face temptations which prevent us, but did not prevent him from having a perfect faith relationship with God.

The second part of this reading refers directly to Jesus’ experience in Gethsemane where he prayed to be relieved of his impending doom. This author perceived that experience correctly as one more temptation, although not the last he faced, all of which caused him intense suffering. His final temptation was to respond to the scurrilous cries of the crowd watching his crucifixion that he come down from the cross to save himself. Through his faithful obedience strengthened by his prayers in Gethsemane and on the cross, he became the source of salvation for all who follow and obey his commandment to love as he loved us.

He suffered so intensely for the simple reason that he did not deserve to die a criminal’s death and felt totally abandoned by God.

The final words of this reading – “a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek” - may bring a good deal of puzzlement to the minds of those who hear them. Melchizedek was the priest-king of Salem (Jerusalem) who provided a cultic feast for Abraham (Gen. 14:18-20) and then blessed him. This gave him greater status than either Abraham, his brother Aaron, recognized as the first high priest of Israel, and Levi, his descendant, all of whom were mortals. Mentioning him here served to reinforce in the minds of the audience the superiority of Jesus in his salvatory function. In Heb. 7:1-3 we read that Abraham subjected himself to Melchizedek alone and that this Canaanite priest-king whose name means “king of righteousness and peace” has no parents or genealogy, “but resembling the Son of God remains a priest forever.” In short, Jesus sacrifice on the cross makes him superior to all others from whom we may derive hope of salvation.

JOHN 18:1-19:42. Modern media accounts of the Passion reflect the tendency to create a single narrative about the crucifixion as if such a compendium was possible. These modern renditions of the story usually reflect a particular theological position about the meaning of Christ’s death on the cross. One of the most recent and variant narratives is Gibson’s *The Passion of the Christ.*

It is not possible to create from the Gospels themselves a harmonized version that is convincingly cohesive. John’s version of the story provides details and a theological purview not found in the other Gospels. We must therefore accept the scholarly view that the several gospel authors had access to differing oral traditions of what may actually have happened. All of the gospels give us a very moving story from different points of view.

John’s perspective has some notable characteristics. True to the theme of his whole gospel narrative, he presents a Christological concern. As the Jesuit scholar J.R. Donahue wrote in his article in *The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible* (vol. 5, 645) John also has an apologetic perspective which sees the Jews more intensively as the agents of Jesus death. Hence, he has been regarded through the centuries, and particularly in the 20^th century, as anti-Semitic. John also presents his version of the Passion story with a dramatic style most apparent in the trial before Pilate (30 vss. in all, 18:28 – 19:16). On the other hand, Jesus’ sufferings through scourging and mocking have been softened to some extent, being detailed in only two verses (19:2-3). This has the effect of making the Passion less degrading but heightens its significance as the hour of his glorification and the return of the Word made flesh to the Father who is Spirit as the prelude to the sending of the Paraclete.

Throughout John’s narrative, Jesus knows what is to happen to him and he accepts it willingly. Instead of giving cryptic responses or silence to his interrogators, he interrogates them. Even Pilate is reduced to a powerless official representative of the powers of this world over which Jesus triumphs. As described in words attributed to him in his last discourse at the Last Supper and prayer, Jesus’ behaviour under such stress models the sacrificial love of the one who lays down his life for his friends.

All of the above makes John’s narrative more of a reflective interpretation than a report of what may have happened. Nonetheless, when we present it liturgically and homiletically in Good Friday worship and in Lenten Bible study, we treat it a history rather than theology. Perhaps we neglect the point that for Jewish and Gentile audiences, Jewish authors - and Jesus himself - did theology by telling stories.

-30-