Holy Friday is the one day of the year when globally Christians participate in corporate meditation upon the crucifixion of Christ. We are an odd people. The death of Christ on a Roman cross is the capitol punishment of a man whom many thought to be the Messiah. Of course, the Messiah is not one who dies this kind of death. The Torah said that one who dies on a tree is cursed (Deut. 21.23). Messiah cannot die death by crucifixion. That would mean that Israel’s God has cursed him.
On Holy Friday all we know is that the events of the day disqualify Jesus from being the Messiah. The Messiah is to be the King of Israel. The Messiah is to reign as the pinnacle of the Davidic line. The Messiah is to restore the Kingdom to Israel. The Messiah will purge the land of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob of all the unrighteous, wicked God-haters. The Messiah will reestablish the covenant with the people of God. For some it appears this would be a time when the eschatological Holy Spirit would recreate the nation. For some this was a time when the resurrection of the righteous dead would occur. For some this was when God would judge the nations. Messiah hanging lifeless on a Roman cross is none of these things.
It is hard for Christians on the other side of the resurrection to understand this perplexing paradigm. For those who are not committed to Jesus as the risen Lord and Christ it remains troublesome.
One of my favorite portions of Scripture is 1 Corinthians 1.18-31ff. The Apostle Paul opens this section with words that embrace the problem: For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God (v. 18). There is no way for the world to interpret the crucifixion as we do. At best, some may admire it as if Jesus was a martyr who chose to die rather than kill. We Christians find our very salvation being enacted in this event. We may not agree on all that occurred on the cross, but we know at least it was the catalyst to the cosmic changing event known as the resurrection.
For many we speak of this event as a “sacrifice” for our sins as Jesus the “holy Lamb” presented his very person as both the High Priest who offers the Paschal offering and as the offering itself. We see him as the “Servant” who embodied the role given to Israel in the Book of Isaiah suffering injustice. Jesus is the one who bore the curse on his body. Jesus is the one who tricked death into swallowing his body to find that the sinless Son of God killed death itself. We may go on and on regarding the various theories and images that surround this event, but the main point is that what the world sees as weakness God has used as power for salvation.
In Corinth it was not many who were wise, who were rich, who were given political authority that found glory in this symbol of capital punishment (vv. 26-27). It was those who were considered fools, the poor, the weak and the marginalized. In my context here in the United States this may seem to be something that has changed, but globally the body of Christ continues to draw these people. Many of those who find a place in the family of God are those who had nothing that the world found desirable.
I can read the Apostle’s words over and over again as he writes (vv. 20-25, NIV):
Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
The world cannot understand Holy Friday because death is not victory and being violated is not strength, being that this is not the system of the world. As Paul wrote (vv. 27-30):
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.
On Holy Friday we boast not in ourselves. Even if we are considered wealthy, affluent, or educated by the world it was none of these things that opened our eyes to the work of God through Christ on the cross. This is the role of the Spirit. Jesus Christ is the wisdom of God for us. Jesus redefines reality. Holy Friday can be called “Good” not because death is good or violence is good, but because the Son of God absorbed the blow of death and violence upon his person so that he could be vindicated through the resurrection which establishes him as God’s chosen King of the cosmos and the one who reigns over all, including death, an enemy that he is putting under his authority so that “God might be all in all.”
For those who are interested Brannon Ellis of InterVarsity Press has interviewed Tom McCall of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School about his book Forsaken: The Trinity and the Cross, and Why It Matters. Since it is Good Friday you may be meditating on things like the relationship between the Father and Son at Calvary. If so, you can listen to the interview here.
We are brought together into one body before God through the crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ.
According to the Apostle Paul one of the great implications of the death of Christ is that it resulted in the creation of one new humanity. He writes on this subject in Ephesians 2.11-22. In an address to Gentile Christians he reminds them that they were Gentiles “in the flesh” (τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί) known by their status as being uncircumcised (therefore, not in covenant with God, v. 11). Gentiles were separated from Christ (as he walked on earth before the crucifixion maybe?), alienated from Israel (the people of God), and estranged from the covenants given to Israel. This resulted in a state of hopelessness (v. 12).
In the death (blood) of Christ Paul finds the solution to the Gentiles being outsiders (v. 13). Why would the blood of Christ provide entrance for Gentiles into the people of God? Well, in Christ the “dividing wall of hostility” (this may be language derived from the idea of the various courts of the Temple?) has been torn down. For Paul the death of Christ somehow removed whatever it was that demanded that Jews stand afar from Gentiles. Jesus himself is considered the “peace” that unites the two groups (this may be a jab at the idea of a Pax Romana, v. 14). He indicates that what divided Jews and Gentiles was “the law of commandments expressed in ordinances” which seems to mean (in the language of James D.G. Dunn) that particular commandments prevented Jews and Gentiles from intermingling, but in Christ those laws have been fulfilled so that Jews can mix with Gentiles now. In other words, Jews will not violate their covenant with God by being with Gentiles because Gentiles cannot make them unholy.
Why is this so? It may have to do with the language of Deuteronomy 21.23 that one who hangs on a tree adsorbs the curse of God. Since Jesus was raised from the dead as God’s sign of approval this means that Christ’s death somehow serves as the punishment from violating the Law of God that made the Jews distinct from Gentiles. Now that the Law has delivered it’s punishment in the death of Christ there is no punishment to fear. This is a substitutionary atonement of sorts. We know from Galatians 3.10 that Paul saw failing to obey the Law as resulting in a curse on the people. In Christ this curse has been delivered as the punishment of “sin and death” (something he discusses in Romans 1 and 8) found its ultimate victim in Christ (a Christus Victor atonement of sorts), but Christ’s resurrection allowed him to transcend “the Law of Sin and Death” because he had accessed a higher Law, that “of the Spirit of Life” as Romans 8.1-17 argues. So maybe Paul had these ideas in mind?
What is amazing about this is that Paul understands the death of Christ as creating “one new man” or “one new humanity” (εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον). Again, Paul mentions the “peace” that his death created. It seems that while the death of Christ created peace between God and humanity we find here that it creates peace between Jews and Gentiles (v. 15).
The death of Christ resulted in humans being reconciled to God and humans being reconciled to each other, specifically Jews and Gentiles. Through his crucifixion he was killing to enmity and hatred between Jews and Gentiles (διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ ἀποκτείνας τὴν ἔχθραν ἐν αὐτῷ, v. 16)!
Jesus’ life and death proclaimed a peace treaty for all (v. 17). Why? As Paul argues in Romans 8 the death of Christ gave us access to the Spirit of God and the Father through the Spirit (v. 18). Anyone who has the Spirit is brought into the household/family of God (vv. 19-21). In Christ we become a Temple for the Spirit (v. 22).
This is an amazing and complex passage. It sounds a lot like Romans 8 where the Spirit of God adopts us giving us resurrection life so that we can overcome death like Christ overcame death, but the emphasis is on how the death of Christ included the “killing” of those things that kept Jews and Gentiles from being in one family.
Licona, Michael R. (2010) The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic. (Buy from IVPress.com here)
Michael Licona credits Gary Habermas with “three minimal facts that are regarded as indisputable by almost all scholars” writing on the fate of Jesus.
(1) Jesus died by crucifixion.
(2) Shortly thereafter some of Jesus’ disciples had experiences that led them to proclaim that Jesus had been resurrected and that he appeared to them.
(3) Within a few years Saul of Tarsus converted because he believed that the postresurrected Jesus appeared to him. (pp. 302-303)
Today I will examine (1). Licona says there are four reasons to affirm that Jesus died by crucifixion: (1) It is attested to in multiple sources. (2) The reports are early (e.g. Paul is writing about it a little after two decades later). (3) The Passion Narratives “appear largely credible given their satisfying of the criterion of embarrassment”. (4) The low probability of surviving a crucifixion (though some fringe writers have proposed he survived. (pp. 303-317)
Let’s review each:
(1) Yes, there are multiple sources that discuss Jesus’ crucifixion: The Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, the other early epistles, the Apostolic Fathers, Josephus, and a long list of early Christian literature. There should be little doubt that many people testified to knowing either first hand, or through other witnesses, that Jesus had died by crucifixion.
(2) Some folklore develops over long spans of time. Jesus’ crucifixion seems common place. When Paul begins writings in the 50′s he is part of a tradition that has already been in place. Plus, I don’t find sufficient reason to create a story about a crucified Messiah.
(3) As I said, there is little reason to invent the crucifixion. It is embarrassing. That Jesus was crucified seems like something to ignore rather than to discuss and invest with meaning. While Licona doesn’t say this (yet) it seems to me that another reason for believing that the resurrection happened is the later exaltation of the cross. If the cross was the end it would have been nothing to discuss.
(4) Though some did survive crucifixion, if we take into consideration the extent to which Jesus’ was beaten prior to his crucifixion, and if we accept the details of the crucifixion and burial, there is basically no chance that Jesus survived.
I doubt many would disagree with Licona that Jesus died by crucifixion. This seems fairly evident and therefore it qualifies as bedrock for examining the other two claims mentioned above which we will do next.
Read Pt. 1 here.
Read Pt. 2 here.
Read Pt. 3 here.
Read Pt. 4 here.
Read Pt. 5 here.
Read Pt. 6 here.
Read Pt. 7 here.
Nicholas Perrin and Richard B. Hays (eds) (2011). Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.
Well, Daniel and I are already half-way through our review of Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright (again, we would like to say a huge “thank you” to IVP for our review copies). We have already taken a look at the first four chapters where various scholars interact with Wright’s work in historical Jesus studies. Today we will examine the chapter where Wright has the floor and he gets to present his vision for where historical Jesus studies may go as relates to the life of the church.
N.T. Wright, “Whence and Whither Historical Jesus Studies in the Life of the Church?”
In this chapter Wright begins by looking back at where the quest for the historical Jesus has gone. He gives much attention to Rudolf Bultmann, emphasizing his project and the historical context within which it evolved. Wright’s major critique is that he understand Bultmann to have imported the Lutheran “two kingdoms” model onto Jesus. This results in a Jesus of history and one of faith. Once this move has been made scholars became more concerned with “the community” to which the gospels were written that the Jesus about whom they were written (p. 117).
The first person Wright finds who provides a good corrective is Ernst Kasemaan whose own work showed “if we don’t do historical-Jesus research, difficult through it may be, we are helpless against the ideology that manufactures a new Jesus to suit its own ends.” (p. 119-120) Wright uses Germany as an example, showing that when people no longer seek the Jesus of history we often find something like the Jesus of the Nazi ideology or whatever other culture it is wherein Jesus is being reinvented.
Wright says that as he was training for academics and the pastorate, “I found my self incapable of saying in the pulpit, ‘As Jesus said…’ without asking myself the question, But did he?” (p. 120) In his view many of his contemporaries either bought into the criticisms of their professors or they retreated to a Jesus with whom they were comfortable from the traditions from where they had come.
While he admits that he retreated into Pauline studies for about a decade (I can resonate) it was Schillebeeckx’s Jesus and Meyer’s The Aims of Jesus that drew him back toward the subject of the historical Jesus. One shift in methodology that Wright admits making is rather that asking whether Jesus said this or that (a crapshoot of a task) he decided to ask,
” Supposing Jesus said this or that, what would it have meant at that time? lead to the question, So what did Jesus mean at the time? What was he wanting to get across to his hearers? What was he trying to accomplish? What, in short, were his aims?” (p. 123)
Wright then spends some time explaining his historiographical method before presenting his “two main themes” (p. 133): the divinity/humanity of Jesus and the cross/kingdom in the life of Jesus.
Divinity and Humanity?
It is here that Wright presents his Christology. He notes,
“The Gospels are not primarily written to convince their readers that Jesus of Nazareth is the second person of the Trinity. They are not talking about that. Rather, they are written to convince their readers that he really was inaugurating the kingdom of God–the kingdom of Israel’s God–on earth as in heaven.” (p. 133)
According to Wright, “Jesus as kingdom-bringer has been screened out of the church’s dogmatic proclamtion. The church has managed to talk about Jesus while ignoring what the Gospels say about him.” (Ibid.) What must be acknowledged is that the Gospels claim “that this is Israel’s God in person coming to claim the sovereignty promised to the Messiah.” (p. 134) We must understand that this is God giving his son the nations (see Ps. 2).
Wright does not think that the tradition of the church has misunderstood Jesus like liberal scholars do, per se. Rather, he sees them as minimalizing him. He says this of the Chalcedonian Creed:
“…the Chalcedonian Definition looks suspiciously like an attempt to say the right thing but in two dimensions (divinity and humanity as reimagined within a partly de-Judaized world of thought) rather than in three dimensions. What the Gospel offer is the personal story of Jesus himself, understood in terms of his simultaneously (1) embodying Israel’s God, coming to rule the world as he had always promised, and (2) summing up Israel itself, as its Messiah, offering to Israel’s God the obedience to which Israel’s whole canonical tradition had pointed but which nobody, up to this point, had been able to provide. The flattening out of Christian debates about Jesus into the language of divinity and humanity represents, I believe, a serious de-Judaizing of the Gospels, ignoring the fact that the Gospels know nothing of divinity in the abstract and plenty about the God of Israel coming to establish his kingdom on earth as in heaven, that they know nothing of humanity in the abstract, but plenty about Israel as God’s true people, and Jesus as summing that people up in himself.” (p. 135) (See a fuller discussion of this quotation here.)
For Wright we cannot merely do abstract theological readings of the gospels. We must do historical readings. We must ask what the evangelists sought to tell us and who this Jesus was of which they spoke.
Kingdom and Cross
At this juncture Wright addresses one of his pet-peeves: the separation of the kingdom from the cross. He doesn’t see this as something only Liberals do, but also Conservatives. Some want a “kingdom” Jesus who teaches us good morals, ethics, and about social justice. Some want a “cross” Jesus who teaches us how to get to heaven because he died for us. Wright will settle for neither dichotomy.
Instead Wright points out that the evangelists focus on a Christ whose Kingdom is proclaimed through his life, yet whose death is the ultimate proclamation as the whole world sees him declared “King of the Jews” while hanging from a tree. For Wright we cannot miss this twist. Jesus’ life matters because he is the Ps. 2 King. His death matters because it shows how God defeats the world powers through an inauguration that includes a suffering Messiah. As Wright says, “For the Evangelists, the kingdom is the project which is sealed, accomplished, by the cross, one the one hand, and the cross is the victory through which the kingdom is established, on the other.”
Kingdom and Resurrection
In the same breathe as the Kingdom and the Cross, Wright mentions resurrection. Resurrection says more about the historical Jesus than many credit. He critiques conservative apologist who seem to boil it down to God’s big miracle (though it is nothing less, p.148) when in fact if there wasn’t a particular belief about Jesus as Messiah prior to his resurrection the resurrection claim wouldn’t make any sense. He takes aim at those who like Borg and Crossan (though unnamed) want to imply that the early Christians didn’t know the difference between a physical resurrection and some sort of post-mortum “presence” of Christ. If Jesus was merely “felt”, like people say of their deceased loved ones, this would not make Jesus the Messiah, it would not lead to proclamation of the gospel, it would not lead to them speaking of ascension and enthronement.
Wright say, “So often preachers at Easter say, ‘Jesus is alive again; therefore he’s in heaven; therefore we’ll go to be with him one day.’ That’s not what the evangelists say. Rather, they say, ‘Jesus is alive again; therefore new creation has begin; therefore we have a job to do.’ And part of that job is precisely to tell the story, the story of Jesus as the climax of the story of Israel’s God and the climax of the story of Israel, the means of the world’s redemption.” (p. 149)
Prospects
Where does Wright see historical Jesus studies going?
(1) Big-picture: He says that for too long it has been difficult to get a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies if you are a big-picture person. Details people have it easier, but we need big-picture people. He says, “The study of the Gospels in the light of all we now know about first-century Judaism positively cries out for exploration of big, new subjects: Jesus and the temple, Jesus and priesthood, Jesus and economics.” (Now we know where Nicholas Perrin got the idea for his recent book!) (p. 150)
(1) The gospels and the church’s mission: Wright’s second point is that it is time for a “fresh reading of the Gospels in service of the church”. (p. 151) Taking his point from Jn.20.21, “As the father has sent me, so I send you” he finds it high time for the church to ask how the gospels impact mission. In order to understand the resurrected Jesus we must read the gospels which seek to tell us about Jesus before the resurrection. We must keep the Kingdom with the Cross and both with the Resurrection.
In this chapter he has some stinging things to say about Christianity that he finds as semi-Gnostic, which makes a good transition into his criticisms of Barthians. Let me share some excerpts (though remember excerpts are merely that, excerpts):
“…the church needs constantly to reconnect with the real Jesus, who the canonical Gospels give us but whom we have so badly misunderstood. The world will pull these things apart again, will lure us into the smaller worlds of either social work or saving souls for a disembodied eternity. Our various Western worldviews will force on us political agendas that are culled from elsewhere, which we can feel good about because they don’t have the cross attached to them. Gnosticism is so much easier than Christian mission: easier epistemologically, especially in today’s Western world, and easier socially and politically too. You don’t have to worry about justice in the world if you go that route. Beware of atonement theolgies that deliver a type of evangelical preaching which is actually detached from what Scripture actually says!…And those who, in order to renounce Gnosticism, become glorified social workers will find all too easily that they are caught up in a political agendas culled from elsewhere, which can be adopted with no need for the cross—the cross as the means of victory, and only means by which genuine kingdom victories are won.” (p. 152)
“We only know the meaning of the resurrection, and hence of present Christian faith, in the light of the kingdom and the cross. Without that, the very word resurrection loses its meaning and becomes merely a cipher for “the new spirituality.” The point about resurrection is that the risen Jesus, though now immortal and beyond the reach of suffering and death, is nevertheless the same Jesus who went about announcing God’s kingdom and dying to bring it about.” (p. 155)
“If the Messiah is not raised, said Paul, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. And, we might add, if the Messiah who died is not the Jesus whose history we know through Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, our faith is groundless and we are still in our fantasies.” (p. 157)
Conclusion
Let me say what I found positive and what I found negative:
Positive:
(1) Wright’s correction of the Bultmannian project that creates a Jesus of faith not grounded in history.
(2) His emphasis on keeping the Kingdom, Cross, and the Resurrection together.
(3) His emphasis on ‘big-picture’ studies and the gospels as fuel for the mission of the church.
(4) His sound reminder that the church often shrinks Jesus, even when we say orthodox things about him. We must remember who he was historically and that must influence our doctrine. We cannot de-historicize Jesus.
(5) His criticisms of some Barthians who create a chasm between those who are inside and those who are outside so that the gospels are private rather than public documents. We cannot response to criticisms of the gospels merely by saying that they are Christians books for Christians. This type of retreat is futile.
Negative:
(1) In his criticisms of orthodox Christology he could be misunderstood as undermining it. I don’t think that is what he was doing, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he was represented as doing this.
(2) The same with Barth. It doesn’t seem he has read much Barth, nor does he care to do so (I sympathize since I have tried very hard, only to find myself being drawn back to trying to reading the text trying to understand how early audiences would have read it), so I think he is reacting against forms of Barthianism. His criticism of Barth’s followers can easily be interpreted as criticisms of Barth, but I don’t think they are, though it is possible.
06/29: N.T. Wright, “Whence and Whither Historical Jesus Studies in the Life of the Church?” (Brian LePort)
07/06: Edith M. Humphrey, “Glimpsing the Glory: Paul’s Gospel, Righteousness, and the Beautiful Feet of N.T. Wright” (Daniel James Levy)
07/13: Jeremy S. Begbie, “The Shape of Things to Come? Wright Amidst Emerging Ecclesiologies” (Brian LePort)
07/20: Markus Bockmuehl, “Did St. Paul Go to Heaven When He Died? (Daniel James Levy)
07/27: Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Wrighting the Wrongs of the Reformation? The State of the Union with Christ in St. Paul and Protestant Soteriology” (Brian LePort)
08/03: N.T. Wright, “Whence and Whither Pauline Studies in the Life of the Church?” (Daniel James Levy)
I think many of us who have heard someone describe crucifixion understand that it was a terrible thing. In Michael Licona’s TheResurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach he mentions that Cicero commented on crucifixion, so I decided to search for the broader context. It is in Against Verres 2.5.165. He is bemoaning the crucifixion of a Roman citizen named Gavius who cried out over and over that he was a Roman while being lead to his death. One Verres ignored the claim and proceeded anyways.
In his accusation against Verres he says, “You confess that he did cry out that he was a Roman citizen; but that the name of citizenship did not avail with you even as much as to cause the least hesitation in your mind, or even any brief respite from a most cruel and ignominious punishment.”
For Cicero a Roman citizen should never, ever be subject to crucifixion. It is “a most cruel and ignominious punishment”.
On the other hand, a Jewish criminal who may be an enemy of the State has no rights. When Jesus went to die he went to suffer “a most cruel and ignominious punishment”. It was troubling enough of an event that Cicero couldn’t imagine a Roman being allowed to experience it.
In the time between Good Friday and Easter Sunday, I have taken some time to reflect upon the past day a little more deeply, particularly from my background. I am Filipino, and come from a country whose national religion is Catholicism. Filipinos have taken Catholicism quite seriously, and I personally know of many devout Catholic Filipinos.
I was reminded of the devotedness of some Filipinos when I saw some news articles (here) on Good Friday about crucifixions. No, we are not talking about Christ crucified, but actual twenty-first century people being crucified. There are certain groups in the Philippines who get crucified upon a cross, with actual nails and everything. As a child, I remember seeing on the news channel an interview with a person who would undergo these crucifixions. Others who are devout get flogged as they walk a version of the Via Dolorosa.
I have mixed feelings about their reasons. In my previous church, I had always heard that those getting crucified were drunks and drug users who felt that they could receive atonement by undergoing crucifixion. In one of the articles yesterday, I read that these people do it out of devotion.
The Catholic Church disapproves of these actions, and I am in agreement. Furthermore, I agree with Scripture that the only way to be identified with Christ’s crucifix is through baptism and discipleship. Although I cannot judge the intent or devotion of those becoming crucified, I do believe that such devotion is misguided.
I also remember my first Holy Week in the Philippines as a young adult. I remember hearing of the idea that because Christ died on Good Friday, one was not to go out or do anything brash because the evil spirits had free reign. I think such thinking borders on superstition, no matter how well-meaning it might be, and that it causes one to almost forget that Christ is risen.
Thanks be to the Father for the Passion of His Christ in which He took upon our sins and for the baptism by which we are identified with the Lord Jesus in His death, burial, and resurrection. Christ lives and reigns with the Father and the Holy Spirit—one God forever and ever.
