Meaning of Jesus Death (Exp. III)
cf Taussig JbG 31 - Cf Geering Christianity at Crossroads p.15 \4thR Westar - see \Articles\Miller Pearl etc (cop) p.7 - Cf Brown The Death of the Messiah -
Brown considers most of the details of the Passion narrative historically plausible. Funk following Crossan (Who killed Jesus?) reject many details as later additions, ‘products of the fertile imagination of the early believers’. HtJ 31,32,35,40,43,44,51,121, 219-40, 300 -
John Howard Yoder: "The Cross of Calvary was not a difficult family situation, not a frustration of visions of personal fulfillment, a crushing debt, or a nagging in-law; it was the political, legally-to-be-expected result of a moral clash with the powers ruling his society." in The Politics of Jesus p.129 -
Chilton: RJ 280 "...But what was providential in Jesus' execution was not that it was predetermined, but that it became the vehicle for an unconquerable vision. The "cross" he expected to carry, and expected each of his followers to carry, did not refer to the particular sequence of events that brought him to his death. Rather, it symbolized the potential of suffering to serve as the gateway to vision. .... 281
Sobrino: He had opened a way from this world to the realm of God for all who chose to take up their daily crosses and follow him." - JL 200ff
By asking for the meaning of Jesus' death we step on dangerous terrain, since that meaning is difficult to prove by history.
A few Questions:
- Was Jesus’ death the failure of his mission?
- In what way could it have been seen as a victory or vindication?
- Did Jesus have to die to save humankind from sin? (theological)
These are some of the questions that can be raised about the death of Jesus. There are as many opinions as there are answers given by scholars, some of which differentiate according to their theological views. We will have to limit ourselves in trying to give answers to these questions, since our course is not about theology, but a research into historical details as they have reached us from early Christian and non-Christian writings. In general we have to find out if Jesus talked about his death or the way he expected he would die, and if so did he see a purpose or meaning in it.
First question: Did Jesus see his death as a failure?
Wenham asks: PFJFC Jesus and his death 138ff -
To what extent, if at all, did Jesus share Paul's view of Jesus' death?
We proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Greeks. 1 C 1:23
It is understandable that Paul and other followers of Jesus should have needed to explain Jesus' death - after the event. It was, indeed, "a stumbling block to Jews," and no doubt had been such to Paul before his conversion; it was "foolishness to Greeks," and the early Christians (many who were Greeks) had to make sense of it. But what of Jesus himself? 138
Simple answer is: Nowhere is there an indication that before his death Jesus let de disciples know that he was sorry he would fail them, or that he saw his death as an unsuccessful conclusion of his ministry.
Second question: Where there any signs that Jesus saw his death as a victory ?
Yes, in some way Jesus must have seen his death as the consequence/ result of what he believed in, and had proclaimed. A martyr who dies for what he believes in is no failure, but a winner.
Did Jesus express himself about this position? I believe so. Though there are no clear statements of Jesus on this point, the fact that several gospel writers (and Acts) express this notion of victory, could very well be seen as an indication that Jesus himself had insinuated the idea. He also spoke quite explicitly, though for some in a puzzling way, about his awareness of a vocation to go to Jerusalem to die there:
‘It would not be right for a prophet to die outside Jerusalem’ Lk 13:33
We asked before “Why did Jesus die”, and it was answered by stating: Because Jesus saw his death as the fulfilment, the conclusion of his calling as ‘servant of Jahweh’, a positive conclusion of his life and mission. We might say, he became the victim of his calling and his own vision.
Third question: Did Jesus see any kind of vindication in his death?
I don’t find such conviction in Jesus’ words. The NT texts (and there are plenty) that point in that direction, are considered by many of the scholars as post-resurrection reflections by the communities, who had experienced Jesus’ presence in the powerful working of his Spirit during his life time, as well as the experiences of his spiritual presence after his resurrection. Cf Funk in HtJ 274 The roots of resurrection
I like the way Funk CJ 144 puts it:
“he (Jesus) dies with his trust in God inviolate; he has learned to be indifferent to life in the bossom of that trust.”
Paula Fredriksen FJC 123 says:
‘... later Christians, looking back to Jesus' crucifixion in light of their belief in his resurrection, radically reinterpreted the meaning of the cross (and of Jesus' death). Since his resurrection had followed upon his crucifixion, the cross came to be seen as the necessary prelude to this great (resurrection) event. By condensing death and eternal life into one symbol, Christians esteemed the cross as the paradoxical expression of Jesus' ultimate vindication (hence John's repeated puns on crucifixion as exaltation).
They thus reversed the terms of the problem originally posed by Jesus' death, and it became the conviction:
Only a crucified messiah is the true messiah. Scriptural support for this proposition extended the argument: only the crucified messiah fulfills the scriptures.' FJC 123
Roger Haight in his monumental theological work Jesus Symbol of God 85 observes:
Jesus' death was the end of his life on earth, his last action in his life's passion; it was not only done to him, but something he did ... Jesus' death was due to his message, his preaching that message, and his actions. [in other words as I said before: he became the victim of his own vision]. His crucifixion was determined, says Haight, by the measure, in which he confronted people, or challenged their interests. Jesus' death flowed from the radicality and seriousness of his message; ... from his perspective, it was a function of his fidelity, to his mission or cause, the cause of God, a mission of 'salvation' (t.i. liberation) to the people around him. Jesus gave his life for the kingdom of God, and all the evidence points to the fact that he gave it freely...
86 Jesus' death, Haight continues, must be connected with the whole of his life; it absolutely cannot be separated, and made a datum of reflection in itself. Jesus' death says: that Jesus 'endured in his life' to the very end; he summed up his dedication to God's cause against the negativities of human existence in a final act of trusting commitment."
Thoughts from Dr.Karl Henzy, (professor of literature - sermon at Unitarian Ch, Wilm. 7-6-02)
‘We should keep this theological development in mind when we turn to the accounts of the evangelists about Jesus' death, for it informs their strategy of presentation.’
The experiences of Jesus after the resurrection had great impact on the development of the early “thinking” of who Jesus really was. How the resurrected Jesus might well have been experienced:
“Look into their eyes, look for the light that's there in all sons and daughters of man, but that gets buried under the weight of the world." And when Jesus himself went among the oppressed, he reached out to them in a simple and straightforward style, saying things like, "you can see, yes you can," or "come on now, get up and walk, you have the strength." And there was something in his voice that convinced them they could do exactly as he said.
He told them that he was one with God, but also that they themselves were gods, and that they should strive to be "children of light." 15 And he addressed God not as an all-powerful lord but as "Abba," "Father," as if a nourishing and protective force were right there beside him, or even within him. They asked him for a philosophy or theology, a set of doctrines they could understand and follow as a new way, and he responded, "I am the way-don't worry about some doctrine. Think of fire, of how I move about in the world, how I relate to people. You'll be alright. You'll know what to do."
He, for instance, knew that he would eventually be taken as dangerous by the authorities, he would be executed, but what he really stood for would come back to them afterwards, even more powerful as an image of life, stripped of everything extraneous.18 In this way he would live forever, and so would others who understood what he was about and followed him.”
Passion Narratives
It is important to be aware from the beginning that the Passion Narratives, the stories about the suffering and death of Jesus, were composed by the evangelists - in the existing gospels - according to their own personal design and objective.
What the evangelists intended or conveyed is the key to the meaning of their Passion Narratives. Brown DoM I 9
James Carroll says about the Passion stories CS 562:
'The story, especially the core of it known to us as the Passion narrative, was, in Oates's term, 'invented'. ... But after the crisis of the Temple's destruction, and after the followers of Jesus had begun to adjust to the obvious fact that the Lord's return was not imminent, and after the expressly "Jewish" character of the (Jesus) movement was changed by the loss of the worship center of the Temple and by the influx of Gentile converts, ... the followers "forgot" that the Passion narrative was invented. ... the details of the narrative that had their origins not in the historical life of Jesus but in the Jewish Scriptures were re-imagined as "facts:" Now the Seamless Robe of Jesus, was understood as having actually existed, and the "facts" of its seamlessness and of the centurions' having rolled dice for it, were understood as "fulfillments" of the Jewish Scriptures in which those details had first appeared. This perception was pressed into service of the apologetic impulse, and all at once the details of the Passion narrative and the pattern of Jewish "foreshadowing" and Christian "fulfillment" became understood as proving the claims that followers of Jesus were making for him. Such proof would have been unthinkable in the first years after the death of Jesus, not only because the invented character of the story [Jesus] was so well known, but because proof was unnecessary in any case, since Jesus was coming back so soon.’ 562
The narratives, - we must remember - are from stage 3 of the early Christian tradition. We saw before Part I 27f :“During this stage the Gospels became: a conscious reworking and remodeling of already existing understandings about Jesus-and-his-teachings as received from the oral tradition.”
Jesus about his death [cf GoJ 199f]
Back to the central question: Did Jesus talk about his death or the way he expected to die, and if so, did he see a purpose or meaning in it?
Schillebeeckx, a theologian and biblical scholar, takes this cautious stance:
‘Even though 'no certain logion (word) of Jesus can be found in which Jesus himself might have ascribed a salvific (saving) meaning to his death, nor any authentic saying of Jesus that tells us how he regarded and evaluated his death, nonetheless the entire ministry of Jesus ... was not just an assurance or promise of salvation but a concrete 'offer' of salvation(/liberation) then and there, and in that sense the conclusion would seem to be justified that Jesus felt his death to be (in some way or other) part and parcel of the salvation-offered-by-God, as a historical consequence of his caring and loving service and solidarity with people, and thus there is no gap between Jesus' self-understanding and the Christ proclaimed by the Church" [Schill. J 310, 311 quoted in Sheehan’s FC 251]
[GCS] The only “gap”, I see, that started to exist was the change in understanding of the ‘salvation’ concept 'from the Jewish tradition', and understanding of the human Jesus', which later developed into Christology and Christian belief.
For Jesus, his death was a victory - he was willing to go the road all the way, accepting his death as the consequence of his message, remaining loyal to the God who had called him, not giving in an inch to the Evil One, who wanted to destroy him and his message. Jesus must have realized that by accepting “the end” he expressed to the Evil One that he had “no chance”. That was victory! But a victory only to be understood in the light of Jesus’ teaching ‘to turn the other cheek’; - once arrested, he did not resist.
Paula Fredriksen FJC 124 This '... the evangelical portrait of a pacific Jesus fits well with a theme prominent in the traditions, both about his ethical teachings and about the coming Kingdom: violence was to be avoided, and the Kingdom would come without force of arms.’ [Also EP Sanders in JeJud 74/5; 131/2 - for the different versions of Jesus‛ final words on the cross see GoJ 203]
NOTE - Jesus' final words at Gethsemani and on the cross see JbG 41 and GoJ 203ff
Resurrection Note
Cf CRJ EPS' art. - Chilton MaMa 82f - what the women 'perceived' 89: It is conceivable his corpse remained where it lay, although that interpretation can claim no more evidence than the others. Yahweh acknowledged this loyalty-to-the-bitter-end, and rewarded Jesus by raising him from the dead. Cf HtJ Jesus-resurrection idx Cf Taussig JbG 32
Reminder!! Jesus did not rise from the dead by his own power.
“On the third day He rose from the dead” is a theological statement about Jesus’ divinity found in the development of the Christology, and left to us in the creed. Many songs do reflect this belief.
Theologically, God ‘raising Jesus from the dead in his resurrection’ was the vindication that completed the victory of the cross.
cf Col 2:15 Thus did God disarm the principalities and powers . He made a public show of them, leading them off captive, triumphed in the person of Christ.
MBorg makes this interesting observation in relation to vindication TMoJ 268 n16
‘I suspect, - though I cannot prove it, - that both 'God raised Jesus from the dead' and 'God raised Jesus to God's right hand' are earlier than the story of the empty tomb. I do not mean simply that these two phrases occur in an earlier written source (though they do: Paul uses them c. 55, and our earliest written source referring to an empty tomb is Mk c.70), but rather that the early community spoke of 'raised from the dead' and 'raised to God's right hand' before there was a story (in Mark) of an empty tomb. [Be aware of the timeline!]
Within this way of looking at it, the story of the empty tomb becomes a parable of the resurrection: Jesus will not be found in the land of the dead, for God has raised him up.
My suggestion is, says MB, that 'raised from the dead' and 'raised to God's right hand' are alternative ways of saying the same thing; they do not point to two separate moments of being raised from the tomb and then being raised to God's right hand, both those two alternative sayings are symbols for the vindication of Jesus by God. TMoJ
Jesus’ Death and Salvation See RC 92
Did Jesus have to die to save humankind from sin?
Was the Christian understanding of ‘salvation’ the purpose of his death?
Meaningful is what Haight says about this 350, - and I paraphrase:
The meaning of the salvation of all humanity by Jesus must be understood in the category of symbolism, that is: by pointing to God's action for salvation in Jesus' message and life, Jesus makes conscious and explicit to human beings what would not have been known, without him. Jesus is the symbol of that salvation ... Jesus does not cause God's loving presence to human existence. It is there from the dawn of creation. But Jesus causes this loving presence to be revealed, and thus when it is freely accepted by the human it is becoming consciously effective (and 'saving').
With MB [cf TMJ 79] I understand that Christians have seen Jesus' death as the very purpose of his life. It had saving significance and makes our salvation possible; it fulfilled God's purpose. Reason why Jn could write:
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, so that whoever would believe in him would not perish, but have everlasting life." 3:16
And this was kept for us by the Nicene Creed
"For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, (and) for our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate."
The question is: did Jesus himself see this as the purpose or goal of his life?
According to the gospels it seems to be integral to his vocation, as the fulfillment of the prophecies. The central section of our earliest gospel, Mark, is dominated by a threefold prediction of the passion. Jesus is going from Galilee to Jerusalem for the last week of his life:
"Then Jesus began to teach his disciples that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.”8:31 (cf 9:31 10:32-4)
I agree with MB when he says:
The word 'must', in this text, points to necessity: Jesus must do this. Not only did Jesus speak about his death in advance, but he saw it as something that 'had to happen'.
So also in Luke. In one of Luke's Easter stories, the risen Christ says to the two disciples with whom he has been walking on the road to Emmaus 24:25-7
"Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?"
Moreover, it was foretold by scripture.
Even before the gospels we find the same sentiment in Paul, who saw it as a existing tradition:
"For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures." 1C 15:3
Given all of this, it is not surprising that the death of Jesus has been seen as the 'purpose' of his life.
But, there is still the question, was this how Jesus saw it? Did Jesus have that kind of understanding of his death that it would be 'saving' ? Or is it: a post-Easter product of the early Christian community?
One might consider these kind of interpretations of Jesus death in the NT, ‘as powerful and truthful post-Easter metaphors for expressing the significance of Jesus' death and resurrection.’ But for several reasons I can not see them going back to Jesus himself. I mentioned before that the Passion Narratives, the stories about his suffering and death of Jesus, were composed by the gospels writers according to their own personal design and objective.
Besides there are traces in the gospels indicating that Jesus' death was a shock to his followers that shattered their hopes. This would be difficult to understand if Jesus had spoken clearly about his upcoming death as an means for salvation.
A comparison of the views of NTWright and MBorg might gives us better insight into the complexity of this matter, even though it does not necessarily hand us a solution.
NTW claims that Jesus saw his own death as accomplishing something of utmost importance in the God-Israel relationship, and as 'the final battle against the real enemy'. Jesus took the suffering and sin of Israel and the consequences of its present historical direction upon himself. He saw his death as atoning for the sin of which Israel was guilty and he himself was innocent.
To MB this seems a strange notion: that Jesus thought his own death would accomplish all of this. He does agree with NTW though, that the notion of one's death can have an atoning effect for others and was present in the Jewish setting in which Jesus lived and died. It was possible for a first-century Jew to think this.
Question is: Did Jesus believed this about himself.
Considering Jesus’ teaching, his passion for justice, his healings and the way he shared meals with the ‘sinners’, it is difficult to see Jesus’ atoning death as the center of his messianic vocation.
As MB says:
'Was he doing all of these 'other things [just mentioned] on the side', as it were? Or were they what was central'?
All in all, personally I see it as historically more correct and more in line with Jesus’ Jewish beliefs to consider the interpretations of Jesus' death and resurrection as post-Easter explanations, and as MB says: 'history metaphorized, not history remembered'.
Reason why I mentioned before that I do agree with what Haight was saying: (paraphrased)
The meaning of the salvation of all humanity by Jesus must be understood in the category of symbolism, that is: by pointing to God's action for salvation in Jesus' message and life, Jesus makes conscious and explicit to human beings what would not have been known, without him. Jesus is the symbol of that salvation ... Jesus does not cause God's loving presence to human existence, which is there from the dawn of creation. But Jesus causes it to be revealed, and thus when it is freely accepted by the human it is becoming consciously effective, (and saving). 350 |
