What's so good about Good Friday?
Commentary
One of my favorite movies of all time is the 1956 classic titled Twelve Angry Men featuring an all-star cast including Henry Fonda, E. G. Marshall and Lee J. Cobb. The entire movie takes place in a jury room where the 12 jurors try to arrive at a verdict in a murder case (hence the title of the movie).
When the first ballot is taken, the vote is 11 to 1 to convict. The lone holdout (Henry Fonda) refuses to accept the prosecutor's case at face value because of inconsistencies he detected in the prosecution's case. As he discusses his concerns other jurors become less sure of the accused's guilt. Complicating the dynamics between those certain of the accused's guilt and those less certain is the stifling summertime heat in the non-air-conditioned jury room.
In the deliberations the anger becomes intense, tempers flare, and short fuses become quick triggers. All of the anger, threats and intimidations are directed primarily to the one juror who would not go along with the majority over, what is for most, an inconsequential matter. Slowly, the motivations of those favoring a guilty verdict come to the surface, suggesting that the search for truth begins with a search of the self. Fonda stands by his convictions and one by one the jurors are forced to face their own prejudices and inner conflicts until at last the vote is unanimous -- 12-0 to acquit.
There are many interesting (and I think important) layers to this movie, but certainly among the most interesting is the Fonda character's unwillingness to let the opinions of others or even his own unpopularity dissuade him from doing what he thought was right. And that's what's good about this movie -- in the midst of confusion and doubt and fear and uncertainty it offers the hope that one person, standing by what they believe to be right, can make a difference.
Isaiah 52:13--53:12
Dr. Achtemeier has done us a service in the First Lesson Focus by reminding us that the Servant passage of today's lesson had a life before its use in helping to define the person and work of Jesus. However, I feel compelled to offer a counterpoint to her comments in the concluding section of her article.
Dr. Achtemeier is correct that the Gospel writers called upon this and other passages within the Hebrew scriptures to describe the meaning of the cross event. In spite of Jesus' attempts to prepare his followers for what would happen, the idea of a crucified Messiah was totally beyond their frame of reference. When the crucifixion did occur, the disciples were left to make sense of what had happened and one source to which they naturally turned was their scriptures. If, as they believed, Jesus were the Messiah of God then surely the scriptures, which were given by God, would provide a clue to understanding this unexpected turn of events. As the early disciples looked more carefully at their sacred text, they began to see references that matched their experiences of Jesus. They used these references in their teaching and proclamation to assist others in understanding the life and ministry of Jesus. To this point Dr. Achtemeier and I are in agreement, and she has provided several references from the New Testament by way of illustration.
It is when she speaks of the Gospels portraying Jesus as "taking over the role of Israel and its religious institutions" that I would like to offer a word of caution. The examples she cites in support of this statement are almost exclusively from John's Gospel and I would agree that John's purpose certainly seems to be at the very least an undermining of the Jewish faith, if not its outright replacement. I think it is also undebatable that John's is the most anti-Judaic of the Gospels. Even Matthew, whose purpose is to present Jesus as a new Moses, does not engage in the vitriol of John. That John is presenting a replacement theology, I will not argue with. That this is the purpose of all of the Gospels, I think is an overstatement and a dangerous one at that.
The 20th century witnessed what centuries of replacement and supersessionist theologies can do to the Jewish people. Since the Holocaust, Christian denominations and ecclesiastical bodies across the theological spectrum have taken a new look at their sacred scriptures and how those scriptures have historically been interpreted. One positive consequence of these actions has been a rejection of any interpretation of scripture that would lead to replacement or supersessionist theology. My caution is that the reader not take Dr. Achtemeier's concluding comments as an indication of the normative nature of replacement theology, nor her endorsement of it.
Hebrews 10:16-25
The Letter to the Hebrews could probably more accurately be described as the Sermon to the Hebrews, since as many commentators have noted it has fewer characteristics of written correspondence and more characteristics of an oration. The letter/sermon was written to Jewish believers in Jesus at a time when to be a follower of Jesus was dangerous business. Persecutions and harassment seemed to the order of the day for those who were followers of the Way. Consequently, some converts, old and new, were downplaying their belief in Jesus, while others were abandoning the faith altogether and returning to Judaism. This sermon/letter was delivered in an attempt to encourage the persecuted believers to remain faithful to Christ and to the confession of faith they had embraced. The form this encouragement took was to pile example upon example to demonstrate the superior nature of Christ.
In today's lesson the author is laying a foundation upon which he wants to construct his argument. That foundation is the once and for all forgiveness of sins offered through Jesus Christ. The Jewish Christians were familiar with the sacrificial ritual in the Temple where every day as part of the daily liturgy the priestly representative would offer a sacrifice for the sins of the people. The preacher will argue that this repeated act is ineffective as atonement for sin because of its repeatable nature. Something that has to be done every day, so the argument goes, cannot be nearly as effective as something that by its very nature does not need to be repeated. In contrast to the daily, repeated sin sacrifices offered by the priests, Jesus has offered himself as a once and for all sin sacrifice the results of which are a full and complete forgiveness.
With the reality and permanence of that forgiveness as a foundation, the author moves on to the "So what?" question. Therefore, because one is forgiven, there need be no hesitancy in approaching the presence of God. There is no "Off Limits" section in Christ's sanctuary. There is no longer a curtain separating the seeker of God from God's holy presence. The one with true intentions of the heart and with deeply felt needs can confidently approach the presence of God because of the priestly function of cleansing performed within the individual by Christ.
Because one is forgiven one should lay hold of one's confession of faith with an unrelenting tenacity. There will no doubt be many situations to arise that will severely test one's faith, but the believer's faithfulness should be as unwavering as the One in whom the believer's hope resides.
Because one is forgiven one should take advantage of the opportunity to turn attention away from oneself and toward that brother or sister in the faith whose steadfastness is also undergoing a challenge. Rather than stoking one another's fears, each should provoke the other toward a confident love. Rather than the paralysis brought on by anxiety, one should encourage the other to acts of goodness. Rather than shunning the gathered community of Christ so as to preserve one's deniability, one should welcome the opportunity to worship with and encourage one another.
Because one is forgiven one can face whatever life throws at him/her because one knows that no matter what forces of darkness rule the moment, God rules tomorrow. The Day of the Lord is approaching when forgiveness will be complete, when hope will be fulfilled and when the enemies of Christ will be made a footstool for his feet (10:13).
John 18:1--19:42
In the last third of the first century, the gospel writers put pen to parchment in order to preserve a record of the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. We should not be surprised that one remembered different facts than the others or that they remembered the same fact differently -- that's the nature of memory and perspective. Nor should we hasten to make one version out of four. Each of the Gospel writers used the facts that were available to them, added to the facts their own recollections and produced an account that primarily served the purposes and needs of their particular audience. I believe, therefore, that we are better served by allowing each of the Gospel writers their own voice, rather than trying to synthesize their voices and memories into a seamless whole.
The purpose, then, of what follows is to help us understand the cross event from John's perspective. To do that I will attempt to point out John's unique contributions to the Jesus story. One of the first things to notice is that for John, Jesus is in control throughout the ordeal. Jesus is depicted controlling the conversation and the events surrounding the arrest (18:1-11); engaged in an in-your-face dialogue with Annas (18:19-23); turning Pilate's questions back on Pilate (18:33-38); carrying his own cross all the way to the place of execution (v. 19:17); giving instructions for the care of his mother even as he is hanging on the cross (19:26-27); and finally relinquishing his spirit himself (19:30). All of this accords well with John's focus elsewhere (v. 10:18) that no one takes Jesus' life from him, rather Jesus lays down his life of his own will. Therefore, there is no question but that John understands the cross event as a completely self-giving act on the part of Jesus.
Another thing to notice is the detail John provides to significant events. If indeed he is the unnamed disciple throughout this Gospel, then not only did he have a front row seat to many of the events (notice the use of "another disciple" and "the disciple whom he loved"), but he had political connections as well (v. 18:15) that gave him entr ©e not available to other disciples. The specifics added to the story of Peter's denial (18:15-27), of the indecisiveness of Pilate (18:28--19:16) and of the rationale for the actions taken after Jesus' death (19:31-42), add a background to the tapestry not found in the other Gospel accounts. This does not mean that John's account is more reliable -- after all John seems to use facts in a random order to suit his Gospel purpose -- but it does personalize the story in a way that is not done elsewhere.
Perhaps the most important thing to notice about John's version of the cross event is the timing of the crucifixion. The synoptic Gospel writers clearly identify the Last Supper as a Passover meal. John places the meal before Passover and for a very important reason -- he wants to present the crucifixion of Jesus as taking place during the same time period in which the Passover animal would have been sacrificed. What this does for John is to unambiguously identify Jesus as a Passover sacrifice. Note that Pilate offers to release a Jewish prisoner in honor of Passover (18:39), presumably before the festival begins. Pilate brings Jesus out for one last attempt at releasing him and John provides us with a time reference, about noon on the day of Preparation for Passover (19:14). The significance of this reference would seem to be that the ensuing events occurred between noon on Passover eve and the beginning of Passover (19:31, 42), or as the Passover animals were being prepared for the evening celebration. This theological arrangement is, again, very much in keeping with John's style throughout his Gospel.
As a final matter, it is interesting to note that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus use a garden tomb near the execution site more out of expediency than plan. Passover was quickly approaching and they needed a temporary place to secure the body -- they just didn't know how temporary.
Application
What makes Good Friday good? This was the question posed by one of my children several years ago as they watched me struggling to put together an Easter Sunday sermon. It was one of those out-of-the-mouth-of-babes moments. What does make Good Friday good? For that matter what makes anything good? Is something good simply because of its personal benefits or is there a deeper, more objective quality to goodness? What makes Good Friday good?
The most reflexive answer to that question is that Good Friday is good because of the eternal and universal consequences of Jesus' sacrifice. That is a true answer and an important answer, but it is also an answer we can give without much thought or reflection. It is, in a sense, the easy answer. If we thought about the question for more than half a second, might there be additional answers we could offer?
I would like to make a contribution to the answer pool and it is this: Good Friday is good because it gives us reason to hope that the world can be different. Hope will continue to flicker as long as there are persons among us like the Servant of Isaiah 52-53. In a world that celebrates the ideal, the beautiful, the near perfect, the Servant offers hope that the rest of us -- the mere mortals, the uncomely, the flawed -- are not overlooked or abandoned by God. In a world that lives by the sword and that is quick to retaliate against suspected offenders, the Servant offers hope that by choosing a different path, a path of suffering reconciliation, the righteousness of God might be revealed. In a world in which each person seeks one's own self-interest to the neglect and oppression of the other, the Servant offers hope that through selflessness and concern for the other the righteousness of one will lead to the righteousness of many.
Hope will continue to flicker as long as there are persons among us like the preacher of Hebrews. Each of us experience moments when life seems to overwhelm us, when faith no longer makes sense, when we cannot muster the energy it takes to continue on, when the forces set in opposition to us flex their muscle and our 98-pound frame quivers in their shadow. At such times we need the hope provided by one like the preacher to the Hebrews. A hope that reminds us that through forgiveness we are welcomed into the very presence of God. A hope that keeps before us our confession of faith. A hope that is fed and nourished by a community for whom we truly matter. When life hands us lemons, we need one like the preacher to teach us how to make lemonade.
Hope will continue to flicker as long as the presence of Jesus resides among us. In Jesus we find one who controls events and is not controlled by them. In Jesus we find one who, in spite of our denials and faithlessness, continues to count us among his own. In Jesus we find one who is willing to lay down his life for us so that those enemies of mortality, sin and death, might not hold sway over us.
Good Friday is good because hope still lives. Hope lives in the one willing to be a Servant and in the one who calls us to faithfulness. But more than these, hope lives in the presence of Christ within us. And that is what makes Good Friday good.
Alternative Applications
1) Isaiah: The prophet reminds us of a truth that the Apostle Paul will echo in his letter to the Corinthian Christians, namely that God doesn't go to GQ or Cosmopolitan for his models of faithfulness. God does not limit his pool of useful Servants to the beautiful people. What that tells us is if we want to see God at work in our world, we might pay closer attention to the despised and rejected, to the ordinary folks and to the no-accounts, to those bruised by life and to those crushed by oppression. Walter Wangerin has a marvelous story titled "Ragman" in his book by the same title that would provide a fresh look at this passage.
2) Isaiah: Additionally, the preacher cannot walk away from this text without giving much reflective thought to verses 4-6. Whether or not these verses are used for a sermonic offering, preachers would do well to sit before this text as they prepare to lead their congregations through a Good Friday service in preparation for Resurrection Sunday.
3) Hebrews: The author of Hebrews attempts to build a case for faithfulness upon the foundation of forgiveness. On this Good Friday, when minds are focused on the forgiveness offered by God through Christ, the preacher might consider with the congregation the implications of forgiveness in contemporary society. Has forgiveness gone out of style? What does forgiveness look like these days? Why should we bother with forgiveness in the first place? If one does decide to forgive, what's in it for the forgiver? Is that even an appropriate calculation? For the preacher of Hebrews, forgiveness of sins was the linchpin for the work of Jesus. What does forgiveness mean to us?
4) John: John's account of Peter's denial is one that we can identify with all too well. Peter's failure is also our failure. The only difference is that his failure is recorded for all the ages to see and we can quietly walk away from ours. At its core Peter's denial of Christ was a capitulation to peer-pressure. In the presence of Jesus, Peter was bold. In the community of the disciples, Peter was a rock. Left on his own among an unsympathetic audience, Peter's courage melted away. Isn't that the way it is with us as well? At the office, in the market, at school or chatting with a neighbor, when we are asked about our faith, isn't our first reaction to try and change the conversation, to deny in some way that faith is much of an issue with us? A sermon exploring our propensity to deny an intimate connection with Christ might help our hearers to see themselves in that courtyard standing around the charcoal fire.
FIRST LESSON FOCUS
Isaiah 52:13--53:12
This passage is the fourth in the series of Servant Songs that are found in the prophecies of Second Isaiah (chs. 40-55), who delivered his message in Babylonia to the exiles of Israel, sometime between 550 and 538 B.C.
Obviously, this is a very complicated prophecy, and through the centuries literally gallons of ink have been used to write of the many problems with which the passage confronts its interpreter or preacher.
The first question raised by the passage is: Who is the Servant? Although scholars have given multiple answers to that question, it is my position that the Servant is Israel in exile. In a number of texts in Second Isaiah, God clearly calls Israel his Servant, and there is no reason to change that designation here. Exiled Israel is the Suffering Servant, a corporate individual standing for the whole suffering people.
The second question is: Who speaks in which verses of the prophecy? That must be made clear before the text can be understood. We can therefore say that the Lord speaks in 52:13-14. "Many nations" are the confessors in 53:1-6. The prophet himself takes up the dialogue in 53:7-9, 10. And the Lord is the speaker in 53:11-12.
The general announcement of the prophecy is that God's Suffering Servant, who has been despised and scorned by the nations as one rejected by God, will in the end be exalted by the Lord. That exaltation will cause the nations to reconsider and to confess that the Servant has suffered for their sins against God, and that suffering has been borne as part of the Lord's plan. The Servant will willingly, in faith, accept his plight and death, and that sacrifice will serve as the propitiation for the iniquities of the peoples. Moreover, because of the Servant's faithful acceptance of his role, God will finally exalt him to a position of greatness.
Now let us look at the details. Israel in exile is described in the most poetic terms. There is nothing about the people that make them attractive to other nations. As the Servant, they are like a disfigured and ugly person, upon whom no one can bear to gaze -- we might say like a gnarled hunchback or a person eaten up by a spreading cancer. As a result, everyone shuns the Servant, and he is isolated, a man of loneliness and sorrow and grief.
Why? Because everyone thinks God has rejected him. That is not an isolated thought in the Old Testament. Sickness and trouble are often described in the Bible as the result of God's judgment and curse. And Jeremiah, for example, describes exiled Israel as a "horror, a hissing, and an everlasting reproach" in the eyes of other nations (Jeremiah 25:9; cf. 25:18; 29:18). So the Servant, Israel, is shunned and despised by all as one cursed by God.
Yet, when the Servant is exalted, the nations are given to second thoughts and to a confession of faith. They realize that God has not rejected the Servant at all, and so the Servant has suffered for some other reason. And the nations come to the realization that such suffering has been on their behalf. The Servant has borne their pains and been wounded for their transgressions and bruised for their sins against an almighty Lord. "We have all gone our own way," the nations confess, and so the Lord has laid upon the Servant the iniquity of them all.
In his plight of suffering and exile, however, the Servant renews his faith in God and a commitment to God's will. And so the Servant willingly accepts the burden of suffering that the Lord lays upon him. In other words, Second Isaiah here is portraying a renewed Servant-Israel, whose exile causes him to return to the Lord. Again, that is a thought found elsewhere among the prophets. Hosea pictures a reformed Israel, cleansed by its exile and recommitted to its God (Hosea 3:5; 14:3).
The result is that, renewing his faith, the Servant submits willingly to the suffering laid upon him for the sake of the nations. He opens not his mouth when he suffers oppression and judgment. He even willingly dies, like one accursed (cf. the thought of Israel as dead in exile in Ezekiel 37:1-11). And his death becomes the sin-offering for the transgressions of the nations.
But the Servant is not finally dead, any more than Israel was totally dead in Babylonia. Instead, the Servant will live and will see the result of his sacrifice. Because of the Servant's faithful willingness to suffer for all, his faith will account for the righteousness of many in the eyes of God. They will be forgiven for the Servant's sake, and their numbers will be multiplied. Moreover, the Servant's name will become great and he will be mighty.
Such is the role to which Second Isaiah calls his people in their exile. He envisions an ideal Israel, one who is made righteous by the experience of the exile (cf. Hebrews 5:8-9), one who willingly accepts suffering and death for the sake of all peoples, and one who in faith totally commits himself and his life to the Lord.
It is this poetic portrayal of the role of an idealized Israel that the Gospel writers call upon when they describe to us the meaning of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross. Many details are used. Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29; cf. Revelation 5:6). He is silent before his oppressors and judges (Mark 14:61; 15:5; John 19:9), and Isaiah 53:7-9 is quoted in Acts 8:22-33. He is mocked, spit upon, scorned, and scourged (Mark 10:33-34). He is buried in the grave of a rich man (Matthew 27:57-61). But he dies for our sins, "according to the scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3; cf. Romans 4:25). By his wounds we are healed, we sheep who have gone astray (1 Peter 2:24-25). His righteousness makes many accounted righteous in the eyes of God (Romans 5:18-19). And in his resurrection, he is highly exalted (Philippians 2:9-11). Thus does our Lord fulfill the ancient words spoken by the prophet Second Isaiah, and his work accomplishes that to which Israel was called, but which Israel never did.
It is not surprising therefore that in the Gospels, Jesus is portrayed as taking over the role of Israel and its religious institutions. In the Gospel according to John, for example, Jesus is the true vine who takes the place of the corrupted vine of Israel (John 15:1; Isaiah 5:1-6). His blood replaces the water used in Jewish rites of purification (John 2:1-12). His body replaces the temple (John 2:19), and he becomes the way to true worship, instead of that found in both Jerusalem and Gerizim (John 4:4-42). Indeed, Jesus' own self replaces the blood of the covenant (John 13:1-11).
Similarly, in Matthew 2:15, Jesus is the son, referred to in Hosea 11:1, whom God has called out of Egypt. In other words, our Lord Jesus Christ is everything that Israel was meant to be, everything that Second Isaiah called that people to be. But he is no longer the adopted son of God, as Israel was. Rather, he is the begotten Son of God (John 1:14; 20:31), sent by God to take away your sins and mine, and to make us accounted righteous in the eyes of our heavenly Father. He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows -- all of them. And by his stripes all of us wayward sheep have been healed. Thanks be to God for his inestimable love in Jesus Christ our Lord!
PREACHING THE PSALM
Psalm 22
Jesus spoke the opening words of Psalm 22 from the cross (Matthew 27:46), making it an obvious choice for the Good Friday responsorial psalm. But the larger psalm served the early Christian community as well, for it describes the suffering of a righteous one in terms that fit the crucifixion of Jesus, including verse 17, "they have pierced my hands and feet" (RSV) and verse 18, "for my clothing they cast lots." And beyond that, the psalm testifies to the vindication of those who suffer for righteousness (vv. 22-23). In all, five quotations from or allusions to Psalm 22 appear in the Gospel passion narratives.
1) While the primary focus of this day is the suffering and death of Jesus, there is room to speak to all who suffer through no wrongdoing of their own. It will be the rare sufferer who cannot personally appropriate the words of verses 14 and 15. The preacher could delve into each of the metaphors of those two verses. What is the equivalent of being poured out like water? Of having one's heart melt like wax? Of having one's tongue stick to one's jaws? Instead of guessing, talk to some of those suffering -- physically, mentally, emotionally, socially, spiritually or otherwise -- in your own congregation, and then consider what word of gospel should be spoken to them from the pulpit.
2) Take a look at the last phrase of verse 29. The NRSV translates it "and I shall live for him," but the footnote in that version gives it as "he who cannot keep himself alive," which is also how the RSV renders it. The difference between the two is important. The first assumes that the sufferer will survive long enough to serve God with his existence; the second alludes to faithful dying, which, of course, is exactly what Jesus was doing that dark Friday. For anyone to be able to praise God and pray while dying, as Jesus did, "My God," that is a statement that even death is ultimately under the umbrella of the kingdom of God, and a testimony that physical death, for the faithful, is a doorway to eternity. We need to remind people of that from time to time.
sociation).
When the first ballot is taken, the vote is 11 to 1 to convict. The lone holdout (Henry Fonda) refuses to accept the prosecutor's case at face value because of inconsistencies he detected in the prosecution's case. As he discusses his concerns other jurors become less sure of the accused's guilt. Complicating the dynamics between those certain of the accused's guilt and those less certain is the stifling summertime heat in the non-air-conditioned jury room.
In the deliberations the anger becomes intense, tempers flare, and short fuses become quick triggers. All of the anger, threats and intimidations are directed primarily to the one juror who would not go along with the majority over, what is for most, an inconsequential matter. Slowly, the motivations of those favoring a guilty verdict come to the surface, suggesting that the search for truth begins with a search of the self. Fonda stands by his convictions and one by one the jurors are forced to face their own prejudices and inner conflicts until at last the vote is unanimous -- 12-0 to acquit.
There are many interesting (and I think important) layers to this movie, but certainly among the most interesting is the Fonda character's unwillingness to let the opinions of others or even his own unpopularity dissuade him from doing what he thought was right. And that's what's good about this movie -- in the midst of confusion and doubt and fear and uncertainty it offers the hope that one person, standing by what they believe to be right, can make a difference.
Isaiah 52:13--53:12
Dr. Achtemeier has done us a service in the First Lesson Focus by reminding us that the Servant passage of today's lesson had a life before its use in helping to define the person and work of Jesus. However, I feel compelled to offer a counterpoint to her comments in the concluding section of her article.
Dr. Achtemeier is correct that the Gospel writers called upon this and other passages within the Hebrew scriptures to describe the meaning of the cross event. In spite of Jesus' attempts to prepare his followers for what would happen, the idea of a crucified Messiah was totally beyond their frame of reference. When the crucifixion did occur, the disciples were left to make sense of what had happened and one source to which they naturally turned was their scriptures. If, as they believed, Jesus were the Messiah of God then surely the scriptures, which were given by God, would provide a clue to understanding this unexpected turn of events. As the early disciples looked more carefully at their sacred text, they began to see references that matched their experiences of Jesus. They used these references in their teaching and proclamation to assist others in understanding the life and ministry of Jesus. To this point Dr. Achtemeier and I are in agreement, and she has provided several references from the New Testament by way of illustration.
It is when she speaks of the Gospels portraying Jesus as "taking over the role of Israel and its religious institutions" that I would like to offer a word of caution. The examples she cites in support of this statement are almost exclusively from John's Gospel and I would agree that John's purpose certainly seems to be at the very least an undermining of the Jewish faith, if not its outright replacement. I think it is also undebatable that John's is the most anti-Judaic of the Gospels. Even Matthew, whose purpose is to present Jesus as a new Moses, does not engage in the vitriol of John. That John is presenting a replacement theology, I will not argue with. That this is the purpose of all of the Gospels, I think is an overstatement and a dangerous one at that.
The 20th century witnessed what centuries of replacement and supersessionist theologies can do to the Jewish people. Since the Holocaust, Christian denominations and ecclesiastical bodies across the theological spectrum have taken a new look at their sacred scriptures and how those scriptures have historically been interpreted. One positive consequence of these actions has been a rejection of any interpretation of scripture that would lead to replacement or supersessionist theology. My caution is that the reader not take Dr. Achtemeier's concluding comments as an indication of the normative nature of replacement theology, nor her endorsement of it.
Hebrews 10:16-25
The Letter to the Hebrews could probably more accurately be described as the Sermon to the Hebrews, since as many commentators have noted it has fewer characteristics of written correspondence and more characteristics of an oration. The letter/sermon was written to Jewish believers in Jesus at a time when to be a follower of Jesus was dangerous business. Persecutions and harassment seemed to the order of the day for those who were followers of the Way. Consequently, some converts, old and new, were downplaying their belief in Jesus, while others were abandoning the faith altogether and returning to Judaism. This sermon/letter was delivered in an attempt to encourage the persecuted believers to remain faithful to Christ and to the confession of faith they had embraced. The form this encouragement took was to pile example upon example to demonstrate the superior nature of Christ.
In today's lesson the author is laying a foundation upon which he wants to construct his argument. That foundation is the once and for all forgiveness of sins offered through Jesus Christ. The Jewish Christians were familiar with the sacrificial ritual in the Temple where every day as part of the daily liturgy the priestly representative would offer a sacrifice for the sins of the people. The preacher will argue that this repeated act is ineffective as atonement for sin because of its repeatable nature. Something that has to be done every day, so the argument goes, cannot be nearly as effective as something that by its very nature does not need to be repeated. In contrast to the daily, repeated sin sacrifices offered by the priests, Jesus has offered himself as a once and for all sin sacrifice the results of which are a full and complete forgiveness.
With the reality and permanence of that forgiveness as a foundation, the author moves on to the "So what?" question. Therefore, because one is forgiven, there need be no hesitancy in approaching the presence of God. There is no "Off Limits" section in Christ's sanctuary. There is no longer a curtain separating the seeker of God from God's holy presence. The one with true intentions of the heart and with deeply felt needs can confidently approach the presence of God because of the priestly function of cleansing performed within the individual by Christ.
Because one is forgiven one should lay hold of one's confession of faith with an unrelenting tenacity. There will no doubt be many situations to arise that will severely test one's faith, but the believer's faithfulness should be as unwavering as the One in whom the believer's hope resides.
Because one is forgiven one should take advantage of the opportunity to turn attention away from oneself and toward that brother or sister in the faith whose steadfastness is also undergoing a challenge. Rather than stoking one another's fears, each should provoke the other toward a confident love. Rather than the paralysis brought on by anxiety, one should encourage the other to acts of goodness. Rather than shunning the gathered community of Christ so as to preserve one's deniability, one should welcome the opportunity to worship with and encourage one another.
Because one is forgiven one can face whatever life throws at him/her because one knows that no matter what forces of darkness rule the moment, God rules tomorrow. The Day of the Lord is approaching when forgiveness will be complete, when hope will be fulfilled and when the enemies of Christ will be made a footstool for his feet (10:13).
John 18:1--19:42
In the last third of the first century, the gospel writers put pen to parchment in order to preserve a record of the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. We should not be surprised that one remembered different facts than the others or that they remembered the same fact differently -- that's the nature of memory and perspective. Nor should we hasten to make one version out of four. Each of the Gospel writers used the facts that were available to them, added to the facts their own recollections and produced an account that primarily served the purposes and needs of their particular audience. I believe, therefore, that we are better served by allowing each of the Gospel writers their own voice, rather than trying to synthesize their voices and memories into a seamless whole.
The purpose, then, of what follows is to help us understand the cross event from John's perspective. To do that I will attempt to point out John's unique contributions to the Jesus story. One of the first things to notice is that for John, Jesus is in control throughout the ordeal. Jesus is depicted controlling the conversation and the events surrounding the arrest (18:1-11); engaged in an in-your-face dialogue with Annas (18:19-23); turning Pilate's questions back on Pilate (18:33-38); carrying his own cross all the way to the place of execution (v. 19:17); giving instructions for the care of his mother even as he is hanging on the cross (19:26-27); and finally relinquishing his spirit himself (19:30). All of this accords well with John's focus elsewhere (v. 10:18) that no one takes Jesus' life from him, rather Jesus lays down his life of his own will. Therefore, there is no question but that John understands the cross event as a completely self-giving act on the part of Jesus.
Another thing to notice is the detail John provides to significant events. If indeed he is the unnamed disciple throughout this Gospel, then not only did he have a front row seat to many of the events (notice the use of "another disciple" and "the disciple whom he loved"), but he had political connections as well (v. 18:15) that gave him entr ©e not available to other disciples. The specifics added to the story of Peter's denial (18:15-27), of the indecisiveness of Pilate (18:28--19:16) and of the rationale for the actions taken after Jesus' death (19:31-42), add a background to the tapestry not found in the other Gospel accounts. This does not mean that John's account is more reliable -- after all John seems to use facts in a random order to suit his Gospel purpose -- but it does personalize the story in a way that is not done elsewhere.
Perhaps the most important thing to notice about John's version of the cross event is the timing of the crucifixion. The synoptic Gospel writers clearly identify the Last Supper as a Passover meal. John places the meal before Passover and for a very important reason -- he wants to present the crucifixion of Jesus as taking place during the same time period in which the Passover animal would have been sacrificed. What this does for John is to unambiguously identify Jesus as a Passover sacrifice. Note that Pilate offers to release a Jewish prisoner in honor of Passover (18:39), presumably before the festival begins. Pilate brings Jesus out for one last attempt at releasing him and John provides us with a time reference, about noon on the day of Preparation for Passover (19:14). The significance of this reference would seem to be that the ensuing events occurred between noon on Passover eve and the beginning of Passover (19:31, 42), or as the Passover animals were being prepared for the evening celebration. This theological arrangement is, again, very much in keeping with John's style throughout his Gospel.
As a final matter, it is interesting to note that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus use a garden tomb near the execution site more out of expediency than plan. Passover was quickly approaching and they needed a temporary place to secure the body -- they just didn't know how temporary.
Application
What makes Good Friday good? This was the question posed by one of my children several years ago as they watched me struggling to put together an Easter Sunday sermon. It was one of those out-of-the-mouth-of-babes moments. What does make Good Friday good? For that matter what makes anything good? Is something good simply because of its personal benefits or is there a deeper, more objective quality to goodness? What makes Good Friday good?
The most reflexive answer to that question is that Good Friday is good because of the eternal and universal consequences of Jesus' sacrifice. That is a true answer and an important answer, but it is also an answer we can give without much thought or reflection. It is, in a sense, the easy answer. If we thought about the question for more than half a second, might there be additional answers we could offer?
I would like to make a contribution to the answer pool and it is this: Good Friday is good because it gives us reason to hope that the world can be different. Hope will continue to flicker as long as there are persons among us like the Servant of Isaiah 52-53. In a world that celebrates the ideal, the beautiful, the near perfect, the Servant offers hope that the rest of us -- the mere mortals, the uncomely, the flawed -- are not overlooked or abandoned by God. In a world that lives by the sword and that is quick to retaliate against suspected offenders, the Servant offers hope that by choosing a different path, a path of suffering reconciliation, the righteousness of God might be revealed. In a world in which each person seeks one's own self-interest to the neglect and oppression of the other, the Servant offers hope that through selflessness and concern for the other the righteousness of one will lead to the righteousness of many.
Hope will continue to flicker as long as there are persons among us like the preacher of Hebrews. Each of us experience moments when life seems to overwhelm us, when faith no longer makes sense, when we cannot muster the energy it takes to continue on, when the forces set in opposition to us flex their muscle and our 98-pound frame quivers in their shadow. At such times we need the hope provided by one like the preacher to the Hebrews. A hope that reminds us that through forgiveness we are welcomed into the very presence of God. A hope that keeps before us our confession of faith. A hope that is fed and nourished by a community for whom we truly matter. When life hands us lemons, we need one like the preacher to teach us how to make lemonade.
Hope will continue to flicker as long as the presence of Jesus resides among us. In Jesus we find one who controls events and is not controlled by them. In Jesus we find one who, in spite of our denials and faithlessness, continues to count us among his own. In Jesus we find one who is willing to lay down his life for us so that those enemies of mortality, sin and death, might not hold sway over us.
Good Friday is good because hope still lives. Hope lives in the one willing to be a Servant and in the one who calls us to faithfulness. But more than these, hope lives in the presence of Christ within us. And that is what makes Good Friday good.
Alternative Applications
1) Isaiah: The prophet reminds us of a truth that the Apostle Paul will echo in his letter to the Corinthian Christians, namely that God doesn't go to GQ or Cosmopolitan for his models of faithfulness. God does not limit his pool of useful Servants to the beautiful people. What that tells us is if we want to see God at work in our world, we might pay closer attention to the despised and rejected, to the ordinary folks and to the no-accounts, to those bruised by life and to those crushed by oppression. Walter Wangerin has a marvelous story titled "Ragman" in his book by the same title that would provide a fresh look at this passage.
2) Isaiah: Additionally, the preacher cannot walk away from this text without giving much reflective thought to verses 4-6. Whether or not these verses are used for a sermonic offering, preachers would do well to sit before this text as they prepare to lead their congregations through a Good Friday service in preparation for Resurrection Sunday.
3) Hebrews: The author of Hebrews attempts to build a case for faithfulness upon the foundation of forgiveness. On this Good Friday, when minds are focused on the forgiveness offered by God through Christ, the preacher might consider with the congregation the implications of forgiveness in contemporary society. Has forgiveness gone out of style? What does forgiveness look like these days? Why should we bother with forgiveness in the first place? If one does decide to forgive, what's in it for the forgiver? Is that even an appropriate calculation? For the preacher of Hebrews, forgiveness of sins was the linchpin for the work of Jesus. What does forgiveness mean to us?
4) John: John's account of Peter's denial is one that we can identify with all too well. Peter's failure is also our failure. The only difference is that his failure is recorded for all the ages to see and we can quietly walk away from ours. At its core Peter's denial of Christ was a capitulation to peer-pressure. In the presence of Jesus, Peter was bold. In the community of the disciples, Peter was a rock. Left on his own among an unsympathetic audience, Peter's courage melted away. Isn't that the way it is with us as well? At the office, in the market, at school or chatting with a neighbor, when we are asked about our faith, isn't our first reaction to try and change the conversation, to deny in some way that faith is much of an issue with us? A sermon exploring our propensity to deny an intimate connection with Christ might help our hearers to see themselves in that courtyard standing around the charcoal fire.
FIRST LESSON FOCUS
Isaiah 52:13--53:12
This passage is the fourth in the series of Servant Songs that are found in the prophecies of Second Isaiah (chs. 40-55), who delivered his message in Babylonia to the exiles of Israel, sometime between 550 and 538 B.C.
Obviously, this is a very complicated prophecy, and through the centuries literally gallons of ink have been used to write of the many problems with which the passage confronts its interpreter or preacher.
The first question raised by the passage is: Who is the Servant? Although scholars have given multiple answers to that question, it is my position that the Servant is Israel in exile. In a number of texts in Second Isaiah, God clearly calls Israel his Servant, and there is no reason to change that designation here. Exiled Israel is the Suffering Servant, a corporate individual standing for the whole suffering people.
The second question is: Who speaks in which verses of the prophecy? That must be made clear before the text can be understood. We can therefore say that the Lord speaks in 52:13-14. "Many nations" are the confessors in 53:1-6. The prophet himself takes up the dialogue in 53:7-9, 10. And the Lord is the speaker in 53:11-12.
The general announcement of the prophecy is that God's Suffering Servant, who has been despised and scorned by the nations as one rejected by God, will in the end be exalted by the Lord. That exaltation will cause the nations to reconsider and to confess that the Servant has suffered for their sins against God, and that suffering has been borne as part of the Lord's plan. The Servant will willingly, in faith, accept his plight and death, and that sacrifice will serve as the propitiation for the iniquities of the peoples. Moreover, because of the Servant's faithful acceptance of his role, God will finally exalt him to a position of greatness.
Now let us look at the details. Israel in exile is described in the most poetic terms. There is nothing about the people that make them attractive to other nations. As the Servant, they are like a disfigured and ugly person, upon whom no one can bear to gaze -- we might say like a gnarled hunchback or a person eaten up by a spreading cancer. As a result, everyone shuns the Servant, and he is isolated, a man of loneliness and sorrow and grief.
Why? Because everyone thinks God has rejected him. That is not an isolated thought in the Old Testament. Sickness and trouble are often described in the Bible as the result of God's judgment and curse. And Jeremiah, for example, describes exiled Israel as a "horror, a hissing, and an everlasting reproach" in the eyes of other nations (Jeremiah 25:9; cf. 25:18; 29:18). So the Servant, Israel, is shunned and despised by all as one cursed by God.
Yet, when the Servant is exalted, the nations are given to second thoughts and to a confession of faith. They realize that God has not rejected the Servant at all, and so the Servant has suffered for some other reason. And the nations come to the realization that such suffering has been on their behalf. The Servant has borne their pains and been wounded for their transgressions and bruised for their sins against an almighty Lord. "We have all gone our own way," the nations confess, and so the Lord has laid upon the Servant the iniquity of them all.
In his plight of suffering and exile, however, the Servant renews his faith in God and a commitment to God's will. And so the Servant willingly accepts the burden of suffering that the Lord lays upon him. In other words, Second Isaiah here is portraying a renewed Servant-Israel, whose exile causes him to return to the Lord. Again, that is a thought found elsewhere among the prophets. Hosea pictures a reformed Israel, cleansed by its exile and recommitted to its God (Hosea 3:5; 14:3).
The result is that, renewing his faith, the Servant submits willingly to the suffering laid upon him for the sake of the nations. He opens not his mouth when he suffers oppression and judgment. He even willingly dies, like one accursed (cf. the thought of Israel as dead in exile in Ezekiel 37:1-11). And his death becomes the sin-offering for the transgressions of the nations.
But the Servant is not finally dead, any more than Israel was totally dead in Babylonia. Instead, the Servant will live and will see the result of his sacrifice. Because of the Servant's faithful willingness to suffer for all, his faith will account for the righteousness of many in the eyes of God. They will be forgiven for the Servant's sake, and their numbers will be multiplied. Moreover, the Servant's name will become great and he will be mighty.
Such is the role to which Second Isaiah calls his people in their exile. He envisions an ideal Israel, one who is made righteous by the experience of the exile (cf. Hebrews 5:8-9), one who willingly accepts suffering and death for the sake of all peoples, and one who in faith totally commits himself and his life to the Lord.
It is this poetic portrayal of the role of an idealized Israel that the Gospel writers call upon when they describe to us the meaning of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross. Many details are used. Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29; cf. Revelation 5:6). He is silent before his oppressors and judges (Mark 14:61; 15:5; John 19:9), and Isaiah 53:7-9 is quoted in Acts 8:22-33. He is mocked, spit upon, scorned, and scourged (Mark 10:33-34). He is buried in the grave of a rich man (Matthew 27:57-61). But he dies for our sins, "according to the scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3; cf. Romans 4:25). By his wounds we are healed, we sheep who have gone astray (1 Peter 2:24-25). His righteousness makes many accounted righteous in the eyes of God (Romans 5:18-19). And in his resurrection, he is highly exalted (Philippians 2:9-11). Thus does our Lord fulfill the ancient words spoken by the prophet Second Isaiah, and his work accomplishes that to which Israel was called, but which Israel never did.
It is not surprising therefore that in the Gospels, Jesus is portrayed as taking over the role of Israel and its religious institutions. In the Gospel according to John, for example, Jesus is the true vine who takes the place of the corrupted vine of Israel (John 15:1; Isaiah 5:1-6). His blood replaces the water used in Jewish rites of purification (John 2:1-12). His body replaces the temple (John 2:19), and he becomes the way to true worship, instead of that found in both Jerusalem and Gerizim (John 4:4-42). Indeed, Jesus' own self replaces the blood of the covenant (John 13:1-11).
Similarly, in Matthew 2:15, Jesus is the son, referred to in Hosea 11:1, whom God has called out of Egypt. In other words, our Lord Jesus Christ is everything that Israel was meant to be, everything that Second Isaiah called that people to be. But he is no longer the adopted son of God, as Israel was. Rather, he is the begotten Son of God (John 1:14; 20:31), sent by God to take away your sins and mine, and to make us accounted righteous in the eyes of our heavenly Father. He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows -- all of them. And by his stripes all of us wayward sheep have been healed. Thanks be to God for his inestimable love in Jesus Christ our Lord!
PREACHING THE PSALM
Psalm 22
Jesus spoke the opening words of Psalm 22 from the cross (Matthew 27:46), making it an obvious choice for the Good Friday responsorial psalm. But the larger psalm served the early Christian community as well, for it describes the suffering of a righteous one in terms that fit the crucifixion of Jesus, including verse 17, "they have pierced my hands and feet" (RSV) and verse 18, "for my clothing they cast lots." And beyond that, the psalm testifies to the vindication of those who suffer for righteousness (vv. 22-23). In all, five quotations from or allusions to Psalm 22 appear in the Gospel passion narratives.
1) While the primary focus of this day is the suffering and death of Jesus, there is room to speak to all who suffer through no wrongdoing of their own. It will be the rare sufferer who cannot personally appropriate the words of verses 14 and 15. The preacher could delve into each of the metaphors of those two verses. What is the equivalent of being poured out like water? Of having one's heart melt like wax? Of having one's tongue stick to one's jaws? Instead of guessing, talk to some of those suffering -- physically, mentally, emotionally, socially, spiritually or otherwise -- in your own congregation, and then consider what word of gospel should be spoken to them from the pulpit.
2) Take a look at the last phrase of verse 29. The NRSV translates it "and I shall live for him," but the footnote in that version gives it as "he who cannot keep himself alive," which is also how the RSV renders it. The difference between the two is important. The first assumes that the sufferer will survive long enough to serve God with his existence; the second alludes to faithful dying, which, of course, is exactly what Jesus was doing that dark Friday. For anyone to be able to praise God and pray while dying, as Jesus did, "My God," that is a statement that even death is ultimately under the umbrella of the kingdom of God, and a testimony that physical death, for the faithful, is a doorway to eternity. We need to remind people of that from time to time.
sociation).
