A NEW COMMANDMENT

Meditations on the Cross, 13

"A new commandment I'm giving you  - that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you love one another.  By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:34, 35)

These words of Jesus, spoken to his 11 disciples in the upper room on the eve of his crucifixion, are often quoted and have been paraphrased, even put to music.  (We sang them often during the 70s.)  But what was Jesus referring to when he said, " ... as I have loved you"?  Our thoughts usually go to the cross when we think of the greatness of his love - but these words were spoken before he went to the cross!

Jesus had previously often quoted Leviticus 19:18 which he referred to as the Second Great Commandment: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."  By "neighbor" of course, he was alluding to anyone who might have need of love, i.e. our fellow human beings, but in this "New Commandment" he was narrowing the field to "one another," by which he means his hearers' fellow disciples.  And he has raised the standard of love from  one's normal self-love to the love he had shown them..

I believe that John (who refers to himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved"), the author of this story and an eyewitness to the events, gives us some clues in the preceding narrative.

John tells us that at this point in time, at what is usually referred to as "the Last Supper," Jesus had full knowledge of what was going to happen to him within a few short hours. He  knew "that his hour had come that he would depart from this world to the Father ... the devil already having put into the heart of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot that he would betray him ... that the Father had given all things into his hand, and that he had come from God and was going to God ..."  (13:1-3)  And yet, though all these matters, good and bad, were occupying his mind, "... having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end!" (13:1)

And then Jesus performed a strange act.  He "... got up from supper and  laid aside his garments, and taking a towel, tied it around himself.  Then he put water into the wash basin and began to wash the feet of the disciples and to wipe them off with the towel which was wrapped around him."

I'd suppose that every eye was fixed on Jesus, as he went from one reclining man to the next, speaking strange things to one of them, Simon Peter, but otherwise silent.  Washing the feet of the dinner guests was an act usually performed by a servant, or (I'm told) if no servant were available, by each dinner guest on the next guest to arrive.  But no one had done so.  Perhaps as they entered they had been engaged in deep conversation; perhaps they had been at this time even involved in the dispute mentioned by Luke in his account (Luke 22:24ff) "as to which one of them was the greatest."

I would imagine some consternation and confusion among these twelve men.  After all they were disciples of the man who recently had ridden into Jerusalem and was hailed by the crowds as "The King of Israel."  He was the Rabbi they had followed for three years, the one they referred to as Lord.  And here he was - naked on his knees on the floor,  performing the act of a common slave!

John continues his narrative, telling of Jesus confrontation with Peter, the brief discourse on washing one anothers' feet, the prediction of Judas' betrayal.  And then the chapter comes to a climax in the words quoted at the beginning of this post.

Jesus' words and actions are loaded with symbolism.  Everything he does has significance.  Leaving aside his discourse on foot washing (a later post?) we see him in a sense, acting out a parable of his incarnation.

The Apostle Paul, in his letter to the Philippians (2:6-8) tells his readers in a beautiful piece of poetry of the preincarnate Christ:

            "Who being God in form

            did not consider equality with God something to be clung to
            but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave,
            becoming in the likeness of humans
            and being found in outward form as a man,
             he humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death
            - even death on a cross."

This I believe, is what Jesus was illustrating for them - and for us - by his actions. He had laid aside his garments at the table, as he had done at his incarnation.  He had taken the role of a slave, there in the upper room, as he had in Bethlehem.  And as he would do on the cross the next day.

And though some may disagree, I believe that there on the floor in the upper room Jesus was totally naked.  Nakedness in the Bible in some sense symbolizes shame Genesis 3 tells us that it was when Adam and Eve sinned that they first realized their own nakedness.  Was Jesus in his nakedness identifying himself with that pair in their nakedness and shame?

And the next day in Golgotha he would hang naked as the soldiers gambled over his clothing.  This was the final stage in his obedience, his shame, his humiliation.

And yes, he took on himself not only the shame, but also the guilt of those men in the upper room; and he took on our shame and guilt as well.

And he makes a demand of us, of all who have taken advantage of his grace by placing our faith in him.  We are to love one another as he has loved us.  That's quite a demand. Are we willing to "empty" ourselves, to face humiliation, to bare ourselves to one another (though not literally), for the sake of our brothers and sisters in Christ?

[Of course this isn't the end of the story.  See:  What's in a Name] 

THE SLANDERED DISCIPLE

Meditations on the Cross, 12

Though all four Gospels tell us much about the 12 men whom Jesus called as disciples and later named as apostles, we also find a much larger number who responded to His call.  The usual picture brought up to our minds is of a large crowd of bearded men accompanying Him in His travels.  However Luke in his Gospel adds to our picture.

Luke 8:1-3:  "And it came about ... that He was going through from town to town and village to village preaching and proclaiming the Good News of the Kingdom of God, and the twelve were with Him and also some women whom He had healed from evil spirits and sicknesses:  Mary called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, Susanna, and many other women, who were providing for them out of their own means."

 

These were women, apparently all of some wealth, who like the twelve, had left all and were travelling with Jesus and providing support.  And they were there watching as Jesus was hanging from the cross.  They were there when He died.

 

Luke 24:49:  "And all His acquaintances and the women who had followed Him from Galilee, were standing at a distance watching these things."  Matthew (27:55-56) and Mark (15:40-41) also tell us of these women.  Matthew and Mark name some of these women and both tell us that Mary Magdalene was among them.   John too, tells us that she was standing "by the cross" right there with Jesus' mother and some others (John 19:25).

 

Who was Mary Magdalene, the only woman mentioned in all four gospels as being with Jesus at the cross?  I'm afraid most people who have a bit of knowledge about the Gospel stories, believe they know who she was.  She was a prostitute, right?  We've seen her in countless movies - sometimes portrayed as a sad, worn, haggard woman, sometimes as a sex-bomb, but definitely a prostitute - at least a converted one.  We've possibly even listened to sermons in which we were told that Jesus can even save someone like her!  If we look up the word "magdalene" in our dictionaries, we'd find one of its definitions to be "a reformed prostitute."

 

But where in any of the Gospel accounts is there even a hint of this former occupation?  There isn't!  Though Luke tells us that she had been demon-possessed, the context implies that the demons were a cause of some illness from which she had been healed.  There is no hint of any misbehavior on her part.  She is rather presented as a woman of means who contributed to the support of Jesus' ministry.

 

Usually in questioning those who believe the gossip about Mary, I find that she is confused and conflated with other women found in the Gospels:  the "town sinner" who had anointed Jesus' feet in Luke 7:36-50 (whose story immediately precedes the mention of Mary Magdalene); another Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus, who also anointed Jesus in John 12:1-8; and sometimes the woman caught in adultery in John 8:8-11.

 

But though Mary Magdalene's story is not that of popular mythology or Hollywood romanticism and sensationalism, it is much more exciting and definitely more important.  She is presented in all four Gospels not only as a witness of Jesus' sufferings and death, but also as a witness to His resurrection.  In fact, Mary is the first person to see Jesus after He had risen.

The four Gospel accounts present different glimpses of the events of that first Sunday morning, and it is not my purpose here to harmonize them, though it can easily be done.  John's account seems clearest and the most moving.  After reporting to the disciples that the tomb was empty and following Peter and John back to the empty tomb (John 20:1-10) Mary was left standing weeping outside the tomb (11-13a).  Looking in, she saw two angels who asked why she was weeping.

John 20:13b -16: "She said to them, 'Because they have taken away my Lord and I don't know where they've put Him!'  When she said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there but didn't know it was Jesus.

          Jesus said to her, 'Woman why are you weeping?  Who are you looking for?'

          She supposed He was the gardener and said to Him, 'Sir, if you've taken Him away, tell me where you've laid Him and I'll get Him!'

          Jesus said to her, 'Mary.'  She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, 'Rabboni' (which means 'teacher')!"

We can almost feel Mary's tears.  She had followed her Lord; she had seen Him suffer and die a horrible death; she had gone to the tomb for one final glance; she had felt the horror of finding that His body was missing.  I'm sure that after she saw Him alive, her tears did not cease but became tears of joy.

 

The story continues.  Mary announces to the others what has happened and they disbelieve at first, till Jesus appears to them.  Mary's name is not mentioned again and she disappears from the accounts - except for one final note.  Luke in the Book of Acts - his second volume - tells us that after Jesus had ascended to Heaven, "The disciples returned to Jerusalem ... they went up to the upper room where they were staying ... All these were devoting themselves with one mind in prayer continually, along with the women ..." (Acts 1:2-14).

THE TORN ROBE

Meditations on the Cross, 11

 

When Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane, He was forced to go through a series of "trials" in the night, conducted by the Jewish leaders, before being sent to Pilate.  The second of these was at the house of Caiaphas, the ruling high priest where we are told the scribes and elders were gathered along with the chief priests.  This was not a formal gathering of the Sanhedrin; that would follow.

Though Jesus had been on a hit list for quite some time, John in his Gospel lets us know that it was Caiaphas, the current High Priest, who was the one heading up the witch hunt.  John 18:14: "Now it was Caiaphas who had counseled the Jews that it was expedient that one Man should die for the people."

In John 12:47-53, we read of the meeting where Jesus' death had been determined.  Jesus was perceived as such a great problem that there was felt to be a danger of the Romans acting to destroy the nation.  Better for just one to die, then all.  Hence we can understand that the trial was more like a hearing in which Caiaphas and company were determined to find some accusation with which to condemn Jesus.  Perhaps we could call it a kangaroo court.  The Defendant was already condemned to death in the minds of His judge and jury.  Their task was to justify the decision they'd already made.

Mark in his Gospel describes the inquisition (Mark 14:60-64; also see Matthew 26:62-66).  "And the High Priest stood up in their midst and questioned Jesus, 'Don't you have an answer to these who are witnessing against you?'  But He stayed silent and didn't give an answer.  Again the High Priest was questioning Him, and he said to Him, 'Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?'  And Jesus said, 'I AM! And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power - and coming with the clouds of heaven!'

          Then the High Priest tore his robes and said, 'Why do we still have need of witnesses?  You've heard the blasphemy!  What is your decision?'  And they all condemned Him as deserving of death."

At first Jesus had simply remained silent while false accusations were made against Him, but when Caiaphas questioned Him directly as to who He claimed to be, Jesus could no longer be quiet.  And His answer was incriminating!

First His reply "I AM!"  The words in Mark's Greek text are "ego eimi."  If the trial was conducted in Hebrew, His words would have been "EHYEH" - the very words that God gave to Moses when asked His name!  (Related to the name "Yahweh," the One Who Is."  See:  Exodus 3:13-15.)

Then Jesus referenced two Scriptures which were not only considered Messianic, but even pointed to His deity.

The first was Psalm 110:1:  "Yahweh said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a stool for your feet.'"  Jesus had previously used this passage in His debates with the Pharisees in the Temple just a few days before (Mark 12:35-37; Matthew 22:41-46), to point out that the hoped for Messiah would not only be the son of David - i.e., of human descent - but He would also be David's Lord - i.e., divine.

Then Daniel 7:13ff:  "As I was looking in the visions of night, I saw coming on the clouds of Heaven, One like a Son of Man.  He came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him.  And to Him was given dominion, glory and a Kingdom ... "  Jesus throughout His ministry had used the label "Son of Man" (huios anthropou in Greek, but if Jesus spoke in Aramaic, it would have been Bar Enash, the title used by Daniel) for Himself.  Though the expression could be understood as simply meaning a human being, in Daniel's prophecy it referred to a coming being Who would have both human and divine characteristics.

Was this the point at which Caiaphas finally realized that the Man whom he had been out to get was more than just a wonder-working troublemaker who was claiming to be their Messiah, as other crack pots and scoundrels had done?  I suspect that Caiaphas had finally come to the realization that Jesus was claiming to be God in the flesh!

Though many in our day, as well as in the last 2,000 years, will tell us that Jesus never claimed to be God, Caiaphas knew better.  The charge was blasphemy.  How had Jesus "blasphemed"?  He had said nothing against God.  The blasphemy charge was because of His claims to Deity!  It is not enough, however, to recognize Jesus' claims; they must be recognized as true.  It would appear that this had never occurred to Caiaphas.

Instead of recognizing the trust of Jesus' claims, Caiaphas tore his robes as a symbol of his grief and undoubtedly in his blind rage at the Man standing before him.  The tearing of one's garments was a common way of showing one's grief in that culture, as it is in many cultures today.  However, the Mosaic Law forbade this action to one person.

Leviticus 21:10:  "And the priest who is highest among his brothers on whose head the anointed oil has been poured, and who has been ordained to wear the garments, shall not bare his head and shall not tear his garments.  He shall not go in to a dead body; he shall not defile himself even for his father or mother."

Previously Caiaphas had unwittingly prophesied that " ... it is advantageous .. that one man should die for the people rather than the whole nation perish," which John interpreted to mean "that Jesus was going to die for the nation ... " (John 11:50-52)

Now for a second time, Caiaphas was unwittingly making an acknowledgment.  By tearing his robes he was signifying that the priesthood of the family of Aaron was coming to an end after 1,500 years.  Standing before him was the new High Priest who was about to become not only the Priest but the Sacrifice itself!

I wonder if Caiaphas' robes were patched back together or if he had a new set made,  It made little difference; that priesthood which Caiaphas had unwittingly shown to be over, would limp on for 35 or so years before finally coming to a close.

But as for the followers of Jesus, the Letter to the Hebrews tells us " ... we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God ... for we do not have a High Priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in every way as we are, yet without sin.

          Let us come then with boldness to the throne of grace that we may receive mercy and find grace for help at the right time."

OUTSIDE THE GATE

Meditations on the Cross, 10

John, in his Gospel, in describing the crucifixion of Jesus, mentions almost incidentally, " ... the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city" (John 19:20).  Three of the Gospel writers tell us that the (Hebrew) name of the place was Golgotha which all four tells us means "Skull" or "Skull Place" - Greek Kranion).  It was obviously not very pretty place and one wonders little as to why the title.  It doesn't take a great imagination to come up with an explanation.  (The kinder gentler Latin name, "Calvary" is not found in the Greek texts of any Gospel.)

I've never been to the Holy Land and don't have any plans to visit in the near future, but I have read and seen photos of, and arguments for, the various places that are assumed to be Golgotha.

I have, however, often pondered John's remarks.  Golgotha was "near the city," so therefore it must have been on the outside.  And, of course, we would expect that.  The prescribed place of execution by stoning in the Law of Moses was "outside the camp"; we read of this over and over in the Torah.  "Outside the camp" was also the place where lepers and other unclean persons were to stay.  It was the place where one went to relieve oneself.  These places were considered unclean.  One exception was that the remains of animals sacrificed in the tabernacle or temple were burned "in a clean place outside the camp" (Leviticus 4:12; 6:11).

Jesus, during His last week spent time teaching in the Temple.  A parable that He told at this time was one we might call "The Parable of the Tenant Farmers."  It is found in Matthew 21:33ff; Mark 12:1ff; and Luke 20:9ff.  It is a story of a landowner who keep sending messengers to his tenant farmers to collect the rent in the form of "the fruit of the vineyard."  As the story goes, the tenants mistreated, even murdered the messengers in succession, finally culminating in the murder of the landowner's son.  As Matthew 2l:39 tells it, "They took him (the son) and threw him outside the vineyard and killed him."  Luke tells it similarly although Mark has a different order.  The story ends with judgment on the tenant farmers and their replacement with others.

Though there is much depth in the story, it doesn't take a great amount of interpretive skill to recognize the meanings of most of the details.  Jesus is the Landowner's Son and His murderers are the Jewish leaders who were at that time questioning Him.

So then, what is the significance of the fact that Jesus was crucified "outside the city"?  The anonymous author of the letter to the Hebrews says in 13:11-14);

          "For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the Holy Place for sin, are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus, so that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate."

Hebrews was written to a group of Jewish believers in Christ, who for some reason were considering returning to their old religion and apparently turning their back on Christ.  The book is a series of warnings of the dangers of these actions.  The author's final exhortation is this, Hebrews 13:14:

          "So then let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach."

As mentioned before, the cross of Christ is ugly; it is stupidity in the eyes of the world, even of those who are religious.  We as followers of Christ, however, need to recognize that our identity with Him demands that we "go to Him outside the camp."  Following Him will take us outside of our comfort zone of conformity.  It may even require suffering for His Name.

THE CO-CRUCIFIED

Meditations on the Cross, 9

In my previous post, I considered the two men who hung on crosses on either side of Jesus.  In my study of the passages in all four Gospels, I saw the words "cross" (stauros) and "crucify" (stauroo) occurring over and over.  Luke also uses the word for "hanging" (23:39).  But one word struck me - a word used 3 times of these two men.  Matthew (27:44), Mark (15:32) and John (19:32) use the word sustauroo of them  The word is a compound word - the verb stauroo "crucify" with the prefix sun, which means "with" or "together with."  Perhaps we could translate it "co-crucify."  They were co-crucified with Christ. 

Our English translations don't bring this out and this little word study wouldn't seem to be that important.  A search of my lexicons, concordances and commentaries showed nothing of importance in the word.

 

Except for a few matters I noticed.  First I found no uses of the word outside of the New Testament, not in ancient Greek literature, not in the early church fathers, and not in modern Greek.  Was this a word just made up by the Gospel writers or their sources?  And then abandoned?

 

But the word does reoccur two times in the writings of Paul.  The first is in Paul's letter to the Galatians, which is believed by many (myself included) to be Paul's earliest letter (49 AD?) and possibly the earliest of any New Testament literature.

 

He says in Galatians 2:19, 20:  "For I, through the Law, died to the Law, that I might live to God.  With Christ I have been co-crucified.  It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.  And what I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and handed Himself over for me!"

 

What does Paul mean by this statement?  Is he identifying with those two who hung there alongside Jesus?  Most scholars claim the Gospels weren't even written when Paul wrote; but perhaps they were; perhaps Paul had at least read the rough drafts.

 

Years after he wrote Galatians, Paul wrote another letter - to the Romans, in which he uses the word again in similar fashion.  In Romans 6:6 he says " ... knowing this, that our old self was co-crucified that the body of sin might be rendered ineffective, so that we should no longer serve as slaves to sin!"

 

What I believe Paul is saying is that God considers the one who has faith in Christ as having somehow (spiritually? mystically? metaphorically?) died when Christ died.  My old self is seen as hanging there with Him, with all my sins, just as those two terrorists were.

 

The death of Christ was more than a sacrifice for our sins, as great an accomplishment as that is.  His death was our death to what we once were and His resurrection is ours (Romans 6:8).  Our salvation is not only in the future; our salvation is ours right now.

THE OTHER GUYS

Meditations on the Cross, 8

The four Gospel writers give different accounts of the events of the day that Jesus was crucified.  We usually try to piece together the details from all four accounts into a reasonably seamless whole.  As I've thought on these accounts, I've tried to do that with the various events and characters as each writer records them.

All four of the Gospels tell us that Jesus was crucified between two other men.  The different authors describe them differently.  Matthew and Mark call them lestai (singular lestes), which is most often translated "robbers," the usual understanding of the word as it is used elsewhere in the Gospels.  Luke calls them katourgoi - "criminals" (literally "evildoers").  John simply refers to them as "two others."

So what about these guys?  Who were they?  And why are they significant to the story?

Well, being a word person, I was intrigued by the word lestes, which is also used by John to describe a man named Barabbas (John 18:40).  According to the Gospel accounts, Pilate the governor had offered the bloodthirsty mob their choice of prisoner to be released - Jesus or Barabbas; the mob chose Barabbas.  And while John simply calls Barabbas a lestes, Matthew calls him a "notorious prisoner," and Mark and Luke have more to say about him.

Mark 15:7 - " ... Barabbas who was imprisoned with the insurrectionists who (plural) had committed murder in the insurrection."

Luke 23:18, 19 - " ... Barabbas ... he had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city and for murder."

So it is most likely that the two men hanging on either side of Jesus were not simply "robbers" but Jewish terrorists who along with Barabbas were imprisoned as part of an uprising against Roman rule.  History tells us that this was happening more and more frequently, culminating in the revolution of the late 60's AD and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD.  Josephus in his history often uses the word lestai to describe these revolutionaries.

The crowd chose Barabbas over Jesus.  Probably he was a leader in this uprising and quite possibly a hero to many in the crowd.  It has often been noted that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter (and vice versa).

Some texts of the Gospel of Mark include verse 15:28, "And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, 'And He was numbered with the lawless.'"  (Quoting Isaiah 53:12 and Luke 22:37)  Jesus was not being executed simply as a common criminal; He was executed right along with terrorists and was identified with them.

Matthew and Mark tell us the two were mocking Jesus along with the crowds, but Luke gives us further information.  He tells us that one of them " ... spoke abusively to Him, saying 'Aren't you the Messiah?  Save yourself and us!'"  (23:39)  This man knew that the Man hanging next to him was not one of his company.  He understood that Jesus was not - as he was - attempting to throw off the Roman yoke by force; Jesus was actually claiming to be the Messiah, the true Deliver of Israel.

The man on the other side however, not only recognized Jesus' claims, but in some way recognized the truth of those claims.  We don't know how he knew; perhaps he had heard Jesus earlier; perhaps he had heard rumors even while he was imprisoned; perhaps he perceived in Jesus' demeanor the reality of His claims.

Luke tells us that after rebuking his fellow and admitting that the two of them deserved their sentence while recognizing that Jesus was not guilty, turned to Jesus, "And he said, 'Jesus remember me when You come into your kingdom'" (23:39-42).  Somehow as both he and Jesus hung there dying, this man - this terrorist - recognized that while his own struggles had not only been in vain but had led to his death sentence, Jesus was offering a Kingdom that was in some way yet to come.  Wasn't this genuine faith?

"And (Jesus) replied to him, 'Amen!  I'm telling you, today you'll be with Me in Paradise'" (15:43).

Imagine that!  The first person to enter Paradise with Jesus was a convicted terrorist!

JESUS' MOTHER

Meditations on the Cross, 7

John alone in his Gospel tells us that Jesus' mother was standing there at the cross as her Son was being crucified.  "And there were standing by the cross, His mother, His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene."  (John 19:25)

Though John only mentions these four women at the cross the other Gospel writers mention a number of others.  But Mary is the only one that we're told Jesus actually spoke to from the cross.  The account continues, "Jesus then, when He saw His mother and the disciple He loved standing there, says to His mother, 'Woman - look at your Son!'"  (John 19:26)

As a parent, I have often tried to put myself in Mary's place, to in some way enter into her pain.  I know many parents who have lost children.  As a pastor and as a hospital chaplain, I have stood at the side of those whose children had passed or were passing away: from stillborn babies, to crib deaths, to teenagers, to grown adults.  It's never been easy, and though I have shed tears with many, the fact that I have been spared their experiences means that I can't ever completely understand what these mothers and fathers are going through.  (And to be truthful, I hope I never have to.)

Yet Mary's experience, though duplicated in many lives of many parents, was unique to her.  After all, she was the only mother who was told that her Son was going to save His people from their sins, that He was going to reign forever as the King of His people Israel.  She was the only mother who had given birth without "knowing" a man.

She had raised Jesus from childhood; she had seen His strange actions as a precocious child and as a man.  By this time Joseph her husband had left the scene, apparently having died an early death.  Jesus as the first born would have been responsible for caring for His widowed mother, but she must have felt some rejection as He drew away from her even while He seemed to be stepping more and more into His role as Messiah.

And here she was standing and watching as her Son was suffering a horrible criminal's death.  And now he tells her - demands (?) that she look on that beaten, wounded naked body.  Perhaps she took some comfort in His next words.  "Then He says to the disciple, 'Look at your mother!'"  And John continues, "And from that hour that disciple took her to his own."  (John 19:27)

Perhaps she took some comfort, but I doubt if she took much.  Her concern as a mother would not have been for her own care, but for her dying Son.  She had been told long before, when her Son was a baby, that a sword would pierce her soul because of Him.  She must now have been feeling the full thrust of the sword.

But whether or not we can in some ways imagine Mary's pain, I find it impossible to feel the pain that Jesus felt.  I can suppose that there have been many others who have suffered physically in the same way; there were in fact at that time two other men hanging on crosses, one on either side.  Yes it must have been horrible; besides the physical pain, the shame of His nakedness must have brought to His mind the shame of that original pair so many thousands of years earlier.  But more than all this, He was bearing the cup - the full force of the punishment we all deserve and that He did not.

And yet He thought of the needs of His mother.

THE UGLINESS OF THE CROSS

Meditations on the Cross, 6

The Apostle Paul said, " ... Jews ask for signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach a Messiah who was hanged on a cross - to Jews a scandal and to Gentiles something stupid." - 1 Corinthians 1:22, 23 (my translation).

In my home as in many, we have crosses hanging on the wall. Silver crosses, wooden crosses, wrought iron crosses.  Some simple, some ornate.  We have crosses that hang from chains around our necks.  I have a small smooth wooden cross that I carry in my pocket.  Most of these crosses are pretty, some even beautiful.

We're Protestants; all our crosses are empty.  We are embarrassed by the crosses of our Roman Catholic friends; their crosses have a nearly naked man on them.  But their crosses are pretty too.

But the cross on which Jesus hung was not pretty; it was ugly.  Any instrument of death is!  We would be repulsed by someone who wore an image of an electric chair around his neck - or a gas chamber gurney, or a gallows.  Even if this image were gold-plated.

Under the Law of Moses, a particularly despicable criminal was hung on a pole or tree so that all could see his disgrace.  "He who is hanged is accursed of God."   Deuteronomy 21:22, 23.  The Romans who ruled the world in Jesus' day had found it to be not simply an instrument for executing condemned criminals, but a merciless torture device and the ultimate humiliation for the condemned.

The word "Christ" is not a surname or family name.  It is a title.  Christos is the Greek translation of the Hebrew "Meshiach" or "Messiah" - literally "Anointed One."  The Jews had been looking for that anointed descendant of David, the coming King who would deliver them from their oppressors and set up an eternal kingdom.

And so to the Jews of Jesus' day, of Paul's day, the idea of the most important figure in their history and their hope for the future hanging from the ugliest instrument of death was a skandalon, a trap-stick that caused them to stumble.

To the Greeks, the philosophers, the seekers of wisdom, the whole concept was moria stupidity.  We might even think of it as an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.

To "the Greeks" - the brilliant thinkers of our day and those who imagine themselves to be such, the whole idea of the cross is still that.  The idea of the need for One to suffer for all defies their reasoning.

And "the Jews" - not only the descendants of Abraham, but nice religious people of any ethnicity or persuasion, the need for a Crucified Messiah is still something to trip them up.  To some religionists morality is the issue; moral pronouncements are what they struggle over - the "culture wars."  To others religion is all about the self - self improvement, happy homes, prosperity.  To still others it is about acceptance of those who differ, not only ethnically but religiously and sexually.  And the Crucified Messiah is merely a means to an end - at times a rather uncomfortable one.

But Paul didn't stop with the words quoted above; he continues, "But to those who are the called ones, both Jews and Greeks, Christ [that Crucified Messiah], the power of God and the wisdom of God."  (1 Corinthians 1:24)

Those who embrace this Crucified One can see the power and wisdom - and also the beauty, of the cross.  Which of these three persons are you?

THE SOLDIERS

Meditations on the Cross, 5

Matthew, Mark and Luke all tell of the centurion in charge of Jesus' crucifixion, and of his reaction to Jesus' death and the accompanying earthquake; John simply speaks of "the soldiers."

Mark tells us, "When the centurion who was standing right in front of Him (Jesus) saw how He breathed His last, he said, 'Truly this Man was God's Son!'"  (15:39)

Matthew tells us, that not only the centurion, but also " ... those guarding Jesus with him ..." made these remarks and that they "became extremely afraid."  (27:54)

Luke tells us that the centurion " ... glorified God, saying 'certainly this was a righteous (or innocent) man!'"  (23:47)

We aren't told how many soldiers were there at Jesus' crucifixion.  Probably not a large number, although adequate enough to handle the three executions mentioned in all four Gospels.  The centurion was the NCO in charge of this contingent.

What caused these men to say these things about Jesus?

The soldiers were apparently those assigned to the service of Pontius Pilate, the Roman official then governing the province of Judea.  The centurion would probably have been a spectator at Jesus' trials before Pilate and had heard the dialogue between the two, as Jesus almost seemed to turn the tables and put Pilate on trial.  The other soldiers may have been there as well.

They may have heard the accusations made against Jesus, that He claimed to be the Jewish Messiah and King.  They would undoubtedly have seen the irony in such an accusation being made against a haggard looking peasant who already showed bruises from his previous "trials" and accompanying mistreatment at the hands of His own religious leaders.

They may have heard His replies to Pilate's questions, and the fact that He did not deny the accusations, but claimed that His kingdom was "not of this world."  They may have heard the frustration in Pilate's voice.  They may have heard Pilate's thrice repeated verdict of innocence.

And yet having heard all these things, they simply followed orders and scourged Jesus.  These were not soft men; they were undoubtedly calloused by the cruelties they had inflicted on other men many times in the past.  They could make a game out of it, mocking Jesus' claims to royalty with a scarlet robe and a crown woven from thorns.  Was the robe dyed scarlet by the blood of countless other men now dead?

They would have heard screams and curses from those they tortured.  But this One was different.  We're told that " ... when He was reviled, He did not revile in return, when He suffered He did not threaten ... "  (1 Peter 2:23)

What went through their minds as they saw Pilate wash his hands of the blood of Jesus?  When they saw the notice they had to nail to the cross, written in three languages "Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews"?

We're told that they took Him to a place called Skull and crucified Him along with two others.  And that they gambled for His clothing while these men hung there dying.  All in a day's work!

They would have heard Jesus saying, "Father forgive them, they don't know what they're doing!"  Would they have understood these words as applying to them?  Perhaps they would not have thought of themselves as needing forgiveness.  Weren't they just following orders?

But then we have their confession at Jesus' death.  We might speculate that the centurion and some of the others had already had some knowledge of who Jesus was.  The gospels do mention some contacts of soldiers with Jesus.  So at this point it finally all comes together.  This Man is who He claimed to be!  He is innocent!  He really is the Son of God!

The soldiers then went about their business.  They broke the legs of the other two to hasten their death, but they did not do so to Jesus.  One soldier stabbed a spear in Jesus' side to make sure He was dead.  The centurion made his report to Pilate.

We're not told what happened to these soldiers after these things.  They were probably not the same as those later assigned to guard the tomb.  We may speculate, that the centurion himself was the source for much of this information.  After all, of the original twelve, only John was there at the cross.  But the Scriptures are silent.  Of course, Hollywood has attempted to fill in the details.

But the fact that this confession was recorded at all hints that we may see some of these men again.

TWO MEN AND THE CROSS

Meditations on the Cross, 4

John tells us that after His trial and scourgings, Jesus:  "...bearing His own cross went out to the place called 'Skull Place'" (19:17).

The other three Gospel writers tell us, "...they compelled a passerby, a certain Simon, a Cyrenian, coming in from the field (the father of Alexander and Rufus) to carry His cross" (Mark 15:21; cf. Matthew 27:32; Luke 23:26).

Most students of the Gospels have little problem reconciling these passages.  Knowing that Jesus had had no sleep the night before and that He had endured a Roman scourging with its accompanying physical and verbal abuse, we can imagine Him starting out on the road to His death carrying the cross but unable to finish.  [He was probably carrying not the entire cross, but the cross beam - heavy enough in itself.]  When He stumbles and falls, another man, a passerby is compelled into service.

Who was this Simon?  To the calloused Roman soldiers he was probably a nobody, just another faceless provincial who just happened to be available, and whom they had the authority to force into their service whenever they felt it necessary.  But the fact that three of the Gospel writers have something to say about him implies that he was important to them in some way.  They tell us his name and that he was from Cyrene, a Roman province in North Africa.  Mark also adds that he was the father of two men, Alexander and Rufus, probably men known to the original readers.  They also tell us that he was coming in from the field (or the country) which could imply that he was at that time a resident of Judea - a farm worker or small farmer.  Paul in his letter to the Romans mentions a man named Rufus who was at that (later) time a resident of Rome.  Since it is believed that Mark's Gospel was written in or to Rome, we can see a possible connection.  Another possibility is that this is the "Simeon called Niger" in the church at Antioch, who is mentioned along with a "Lucius of Cyrene" in the Book of Acts (13:1, 2).  The nickname "Niger" means "black" in Greek.  Was he possibly a black African?

He was probably not a follower of Jesus at this time.  Mark tells us that he was simply "a passerby."  But what impact did this task have on him?  He was more than simply a witness of Jesus' sufferings, he was compelled to take part in them - to carry the cross that the Savior was no longer able to bear.  Luke tells us that he carried the cross "behind Jesus" (28:26).

The beam would have been a heavy weight for even a muscular farm hand to carry any distance, but we can imagine that the sight of the bruised and bleeding Man stumbling along immediately in front of him was a greater burden.

Could this have been Simon's conversion experience?  Jesus had said many times, "If anyone wants to follow after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me" (Mark 8:34).  Had Simon heard these words?  He was, in a very real sense carrying them out.  Did Simon see the connection between his actions and Jesus' demands?

 

But Simon is not at the center of this bloody, violent drama. It is the Man he is following.  Though we may find it difficult to imagine ourselves in Simon's place, it would seem impossible to understand the Savior's mind at this time.  He knew in some way that He was beginning to drink from the cup the Father had given to Him. Perhaps He felt the irony of His being physically incapable of following His own admonition. But He knew what lay ahead - the physical and mental sufferings He was yet to endure as He bore much more than a wooden beam.

THE CUP

Meditations on the Cross, 3

Three of the Gospel writers - Matthew, Mark and Luke - record the words of Jesus' agonized prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, though in slightly different forms.  Matthew and Mark tell us that He prayed is prayer three times, but perhaps we can imagine that this was simply a way of telling us that He prayed it over and over.

Mark's record reads:  "Abba!  Father!  All things are possible for You; take away this cup from Me ..."

Luke adds the words:  " ... if You are willing ..."

All three record that He said:  " ... yet not My will, but Yours be done!"

What was this "cup" whose removal Jesus pleads for?  The Old Testament prophets often speak metaphorically of various "cups," but the cup most frequently mentioned in their writings is the cup of God's anger for sin, whether the sin of the nations or that of His own people Israel.  Even the Psalms speak of it.

"For a cup is in the hand of the LORD, with foaming wine fully mixed; He pours from this and all the wicked of the earth drink from it and drain it to its dregs" (Psalm 75:8).

"Drink and expose yourself; the cup in the right hand of the LORD will come around to you, and bring disgrace upon your glory" (Habakkuk 2:16).

Over and over the prophets speak of God's rage as "the cup," sometimes threatening, sometimes offering to withhold it.  (See in context, Isaiah 51:17ff, Jeremiah 25:15ff; 49:12; 51:7.)

So as Jesus lies on His face in the Garden and prays in agony for the cup to be removed, is that what is on His mind?  Is He contemplating facing the full force of God's wrath on Himself?  The fact that He is asking for it to be taken away would seem to imply that there in the Garden He was already beginning to feel its force.

Peter tells us, "He bore our sins in His own body on the tree" (2:24).  Paul says. "He (God) made the One who did not know sin to be sin (or a sin offering) for us" ( 2 Corinthians 5:21).

Was the God-Man in His human frailty recoiling from what in His divine knowledge He was repulsed by?  Was the cup Jesus speaks of, the full force of God's wrath on sin - the sin that He would bear?

It is impossible for us to understand the anguish - the emotional suffering through which He was only beginning to go at that point.

HE LEARNED OBEDIENCE

Meditations on the Cross, 2

The Book of Hebrews has much to say regarding the sufferings of Jesus.  Much of it is, as its anonymous author tells us "difficult to interpret" (5:11).

One of its most "difficult to interpret" passages (at least for me) is 5:7-9:

"He in the days of his flesh offered up prayers and pleas with loud crying and tears to the One who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His piety.  Even though He was a son He learned obedience from the things He suffered.  And having been perfected, He became to all who obey Him a source of eternal salvation."

The picture painted here appears to be of Jesus' experience in the Garden of Gethsemane just a few hours before His arrest as He prayed to the Father while His closest disciples were sleeping.  Matthew, Mark and Luke all tell us of His agonized prayers as He fell to His face and three times pleaded with the Father, "If it is possible, let this cup pass from Me!"

The passage in Hebrews tells us that He pleaded with "loud crying and tears."    Luke tells us He was "in agony," an agony so great that "His sweat became like drops of blood falling to the ground."

Within a short time Jesus would be arrested, endure a series of "trials," be scourged and finally crucified.  And yet our passage tells us His prayer "was heard."  How can it say this?  The Father doesn't "hear" as we often do - hear and ignore.  When we're told our prayers are heard, the implication is that they are answered.  Should we understand this to mean that the Father's answer was no?

And we read that "He learned obedience."  Again, we might ask how the omniscient Son of God could learn.  But we know that as a man he did learn.  At the incarnation He had in some way "emptied Himself (Philippians 2:7) of His divine prerogatives.  And we also could note that He learned through experience as we do.

And amazingly He continued in that learning process right to the end.  Even as He was suffering - in the garden, at His trials, during His scourging, and finally, on the cross, He was continuing to learn obedience.

And He was "perfected," through His sufferings.  The Greek word translated "perfected," is teleioo.  It does not mean, as our English word may suggest, flawlessness.  It has the idea rather of the attainment of a telos,  goal or purpose.

Jesus was born to die.  His death on the cross was the Telos - the final goal.  As He hung there, some of his final words were "It is finished!" - tetelesthai, the perfect tense of that same word translated "perfected" in Hebrews.

It is done!  It has been brought to its final goal!  The death of Christ on the cross has brought it to completion!  The task is finished for which the Son came into the world and to which His 30+ years on earth looked forward!  Might we sense the feeling of accomplishment even of relief in those words?