INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE
Year C - 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 receiving 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 the gospel narratives 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, the Messiah/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 repeated each year by the Jewish liturgy.
JOHN 18:1-19:42. John’s interpretation of the story provides details not found in the other Gospels. We must therefore accept the scholarly view that the several 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 and with different theological purposes.
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, the study of the person and work of Christ. As the fourth and last of the Servant Songs in the Hebrew Scriptures, the passage describes vicarious suffering on behalf of others ultimately receiving 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 (an Aramaic interpretation of the biblical text ca. 2nd century CE) the sufferings fall on both Jews and Gentiles. Whereas Christian thought pressed an individual interpretation in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, 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 to 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 by crucifixion, like those of every culture, had one intent: to instill fear in the general populace. The obvious cruelty and shame of public crucifixion effectively subdued unstable and oppressed 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 were the sensitive observers in the general public to whom the passage was addressed. The unbelievable had 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 even though it was a perversion of justice. He made no protest nor uttered any deceitful blame against anyone else. The image of lambs slaughtered for the Passover feast would surely have been in the prophet’s mind.
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. Divine justice requires that sin, the breaking of divine law, and subsequent alienation from Yahweh, 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. It is not surprising that Christian theology has been fascinated for many centuries by a substitutionary interpretation of Jesus’ death on the cross.
Is it surprising, therefore, that meaning is also to be found in the tragic deaths of public servants such as police officers or soldiers who are killed in the performance of their duties? As the commemorative hymn published in 1919 by Oxford scholar, John Stanhope Arkwright, puts it: “Still stands His Cross from that dread hour to this, like some bright start above the dark abyss; still, through the veil, the Victor’s pitying eyes look down to bless our lesser Calvaries.”
PSALM 22. This psalm also became a model for the crucifixion story in earliest Christian tradition. Many of the details of that narrative were taken directly from this psalm e.g. vss. 1, 7 and 18. The latter part of 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 confirms how the earliest reflections of the apostolic community sought meaning for the crucifixion in the Hebrew Scriptures. According to the Jewish scholar, Ellis Rifkin, of Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, OH, this selective use of Hebrew scripture texts without regard for the contemporary context was a common practice of the Pharisees in Jesus’ time and later in rabbinic writings. (Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. V. 590-591.)
Scholars have detected a sharp difference in tone after vs. 21. The psalm takes 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 Christian 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. Whatever our personal interpretation of the event, 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? Theologically this is an acceptable interpretation of what we call “the cry of dereliction.” But how could this have happened to the Son of God?
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.
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.
It is difficult for us to understand why the framers of the RCL chose to begin this reading, in the Greek as well as English versions, in the middle of the sentence that introduces the quotation from Jeremiah 31:31-34. The passage thereby omits the introductory statement, “And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us, for after saying, …” (NRSV) The author’s point, nonetheless, is to reinforce the conviction that while forgiveness removes the necessity for further sacrifices, while 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 to the end the letter/sermon.
Vss. 19-20 refer 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. Some Protestant denominations would argue vehemently against the concept of baptismal regeneration/atonement. But it must be remembered that baptism is but the very beginning of one’s spiritual development, moral discernment and Christian witness. We must thereafter spend a lifetime of learning how to do what is required of us.
Our faith in the efficacy of Jesus’ sacrifice for each one of us is continually invoked and confirmed in worship. Our intent in so doing should result in love and good deeds of behalf of others (vs. 23-24). But not all of those faithful for whom this was true gathered for worship awaiting the approaching Day of the Lord when Jesus will return. Some were 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 these did not prevent him from maintaining 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 miraculously 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. Like Melchizedek, this gave Jesus 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 movie, 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 presented a Christological concern. As the Jesuit scholar J.R. Donahue wrote in his article in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (V, 645) John also had an apologetic perspective which saw the Jews more intensively as the agents of Jesus’ death. Hence, John’s Gospel has been regarded through the centuries, and particularly in the 20th century, as anti-Semitic. John also presented his version of the Passion story in a dramatic style most apparent in the trial before Pilate (30 verses in all, 18:28 – 19:16). On the other hand, Jesus’ sufferings through scourging and mocking have been softened to some extent, being described 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.
In an article, "The Last Man Standing," in the March/April 2006 issue of the Biblical Archaeological Review, Prof. Ben Witherington III, of Ashbury Theological Seminary, in Wilmore, Kentucky, made a cogent argument that the author of the Fourth Gospel, or at least the tradition behind the very distinctive narrative, can be traced to Lazarus of Bethany. His reasoning rests on the words of Jesus from the cross to "the disciple whom Jesus loved" to take Mary, the Mother of Jesus, into his care.
Witherington concludes his article: "Scholars have often wondered why it is that the Fourth Gospel is so different from the other gospels. Perhaps being brought back from death changes a person’s worldview. Where others might see a void in the empty tomb, the Beloved Disciple saw its pregnant meaning. It meant that God’s "yes" to life was louder than death’s "no." He had seen it on yet another occasion. What had happened to him had now happened to Jesus as well."
Throughout John’s narrative, Jesus knew what was to happen to him and he accepted it willingly. Instead of giving cryptic responses or silence to his interrogators, he interrogated them. Even Pilate was reduced to a powerless official representative of the powers of this world over which Jesus triumphed. As described in words attributed to him in his last discourse at the Last Supper and prayer, Jesus’ behaviour under such stress modeled the sacrificial love of the one who lays down his life for his friends. All of the above made John’s narrative more of a reflective interpretation than a report of what may have happened.
Preaching Points.
It is important to remember that when we present the crucifixion narrative liturgically and homiletically in Good Friday worship and in Lenten Bible study, we often treat it as 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. For John, the crucifixion is not a tragic tale about a man who suffered unjustly, but only part of the story of the victorious and sovereign Christ, Son of God and Lord of lords, who though once dead is living still.
In his book on the death and resurrection of Jesus, (The Resurrection: History and Myth. Doubleday, 2008) Geza Vermes, points out that Jews of Jesus’ time regarded death as the final state (cf. Ecclesiastes 4:2-3; Job 14:10-12). The Romans and the Jewish religious authorities, especially Pilate and Caiaphas, also thought that in executing Jesus, they had ended his insurrection for all time. Some of our liturgical practices in remembering the crucifixion tend to emphasize the darkness of the momentous event. We convey as similar meaning in solemn music, a crown of thorns and a purple drape on the cross, extinguishing black candles decorating the sanctuary, stripping the table of all decorative liturgical accoutrements.
If the alternate lesson from Hebrews 4 & 5 is used, it would be wise to consider the multiple meanings in English that translate the single Hebrew word kippur. In that language the root word from which it derives is kaphar which means to cover. English synonyms to kippur used in the OT include blotting out, smear, rub, wipe, cleanse, purify and remove. In my Hebrew dictionary, there is a note to kippur which adds “specifically, with bitumen.” That creates a mental image of paving an urban parking lot that covers up a lot of corruption.
According to the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (IDB) in English there are five different English translations for kippur. Atonement may mean purge, cover, ransom, substitute, or expiate. The IDB also reports that it is possible to ritually atone for sin without kippur by renouncing punishment or intercession (IDB. V.80-81). In the NT- KJV expiation occurs only once in Romans 5:11 and propitiation three times in Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:2 and 4:10, yet these terms dominate the theology of many conservative Christians. Thus the alternate synonyms came into play in most other English versions “to declare that in Christ is that which overcomes the estrangement between man and God …. The NT declares that in Christ and his death all that man needs in order to find his sins forgiven and his life reconciled to God, in him is that which can cancel out the ill effects of sin, release man from the burden of guilt, and grant him peace with God.” (IDB. I.311)
-30-