The Road To The Cross
Sermon
PREPARATION AND MANIFESTATION
Sermons For Lent And Easter
Passion Sunday, the whole story of the dastardly plots and betrayals that brought Jesus to the cross, lies before us. You know the story well. It is filled with a number of subplots, all of which provide insights about the kind of people that we are and how our sins nailed Jesus to the cross. We see how the disciples (especially Judas and Peter, as well as the sons of Zebedee), each in his own way, failed our Lord. In similar ways we have failed him.
We hear the story of our Lord's courage, his love of peace. We see him practice what he preaches when he renounces the use of violence to save himself from arrest (Matthew 26:51-56).
We see Jesus before the Sanhedrin (the highest court and council of ancient Judaism) and observe the schemes of the chief priests, the Pharisees and the Jewish elders (esp. see Matthew 26:57-75). More of that later. Their schemes, in an unfortunate, equally heinous way, are our schemes, too. Yet, it all comes to a climax when Jesus is brought before Pilate. What ultimately brought Jesus to the cross were the schemes of the Jewish religious establishment and Pilate's cowardly judgment. Thus, let us begin at that final point.
You know the story as well as I do: Pilate and his wife would have liked to release Jesus (Matthew 27:14, 19, 23). Matthew (and Mark) says that Pilate realized that the chief priests, the Jewish authorities, were envious of Jesus (Matthew 27:18; cf. Mark 15:10). In response, Pilate tried to spare Jesus by offering the crowd a choice between Jesus and (according to Matthew's version) a "notable (or notorious) prisoner" named Barabbas (who may also have been named Jesus - Jesus Barabbas) (Matthew 27:15-17). Yet, the chief priests and the Jewish elders tried to stir up the crowd, to get the crowd to select Barabbas as the one to free. The scheme of the Jewish authorities worked (Matthew 27:19-20).
"Pilate said to them, 'Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?' They all said, 'Let him be crucified.' And (Pilate) said (to the crowd), 'Why, what evil has he done?' But they shouted all the more. 'Let him be crucified' (Matthew 27:21-23)." Crucify him.
"So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, 'I am innocent of this man's blood, see to it yourself.' And all the people answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children!' Then he released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, delivered him to be crucified (Matthew 27:24-26)."
It is not a pretty story. Yet it is a story full of insights about the nature of our sin. In fact, this is a story that we need to tell. We need to tell it because the story uncovers an element of sin that American Christianity, because of some of our history in this country, has too often overlooked. The story of the sentence of Jesus testifies to us that sin is not just an individual's affair; sin is a social problem. In fact, it was social sin, the sin that permeates our social structures, which finally and ultimately brought Jesus to the cross.
What do I mean by "social sin?" By social sin, I refer to the reality of evil that is bigger than you and I are as individuals. I refer to the perversion of the institutions of society in such a way that these institutions, though created to serve human beings, become agents of sin, evil and harm. In our century, the most obvious example of social sin is evident in the social structures of National Socialism and the Third Reich in Germany during World War II. One also thinks of the South African apartheid system. But let us not forget the way in which the runaway economic system of pre-Depression America caused untold suffering to the American people, or the way in which the international capitalist system of multi-national corporations causes many to suffer inhuman working conditions and exploits the poor today. We could cite other examples.
At any rate, this is what I mean when I speak of social sin. Social sin happens when society's institutions become the agents of sin and evil, so that these institutions corrupt basically decent people and make people like you and me to do their bidding to work evil.
Such is the nature of social sin. Yet we have not said enough about it in the churches of this country (not following the insights of liberation theology in Latin America). We have been too much inclined merely to dwell on the sins of individuals - on our own or on other people's misdeeds. It is for these sins, we say, that Jesus died.
Perhaps our reluctance to consider social sin has to do with our good old American hang-up about not mixing religion and politics. For if we criticize social sin, the fear is that the church is inevitably involving itself in criticizing the political structures. And we must not do that!
It may be that we have gotten to the root of American Christianity's reluctance about dealing with social sin. Yet I do not believe that we can remain silent about such sin any longer, at least not if we take seriously the gospel's accounts of Jesus' road to the cross. For as I noted previously, according to Matthew (and the other gospel writers), it was the sin that permeated the social structures of Jesus' day that finally brought him to the cross. Matthew seems to be using the story of Jesus' condemnation as a way of condemning social sin. Let us consider the story in more detail.
Social sin; the lust for power; the determination to maintain control and to remain in power, no matter what compromises we need to make; apathy - the kind of apathy that leads us to go along with the crowd and with our leaders, even if they are not doing the right thing. We are all guilty of such sin. Pilate was also guilty, as were the chief priests and the elders and the crowd. We all sentenced Jesus to death.
Matthew's version of the story is perhaps not as kind to Pontius Pilate as is Luke's version (see Luke 23:20, 22). Yet even in Matthew, as in Mark's version, it is clear that Pilate (and certainly his wife) does not think that Jesus is guilty of the Jewish Sanhedrin's accusations. In fact, Pilate seems to have tried to get Jesus off the hook by offering the crowd a choice between Jesus and Barabbas the prisoner. Because, according to Matthew, "[Pilate] knew that it was out of envy that they [the chief priests and the elders] had delivered him [Jesus] up (Matthew 27:18)."
No, Pilate, along with his wife, knew right from wrong on the matter (Matthew 27:19). Yet, Pilate failed to do the right thing. Of course you cannot blame him too much. (At least that is one argument on his behalf.) He was under all kinds of terrible pressures.
To be the Roman governor of Israel in the time of Jesus was no easy task. The Jews of the day were nationalistic and many were religious fanatics. It would be sort of like a foreigner trying to govern Iran today. No, Rome and Pilate might have been in charge of Israel in Jesus' day. However, they had a delicate balancing act to do if they were to keep things under control and peaceful. Consequently, if enough Jews were against Jesus, the thing for Pilate to do was to play to the crowd - to give them what they wanted (even if Pilate knew that Jesus did not deserve the punishment).
Keep the crowd happy, even if it is at the expense of your integrity and commitments. That was Pilate's formula; that was his sin. (Contrary to what he wanted to do, he really could not wash his hands of this sin [Matthew 27:24].) It is your sin and my sin, too, is it not?
However, it is not just Pilate who was complying in such social sin, who was concerned to maintain the status quo of evil social institutions. The chief priests and the rest of the religious establishment of Jesus' day wanted him put away. According to Matthew (26:47ff), it was the chief priests and the elders who were involved in first capturing Jesus in Gethsemane. They engineered the betrayal by Judas Iscariot (Matthew 26:14-16). They and the scribes engineered the trial before the Sanhedrin (Matthew 26:57ff). They delivered Jesus to Pilate (Matthew 27:1ff). and they stirred up the crowd (Matthew 27:20)!
Why did they do it? Social sin was involved. The quest for power. Matthew 21 makes that very clear. When Jesus first came to Jerusalem, he cleansed the temple of the moneychangers and proceeded to do some miracles. Apparently, a number of people, notably children, were impressed. But the chief priests and the scribes were indignant about it (Matthew 21:12-15).
Next came other verbal confrontations with the religious establishment. After a time Jesus returned to the temple to teach, and according to Matthew, at least one parable Jesus taught was perceived by the religious establishment as being told at their expense. It was then that they resolved to arrest Jesus, and they only refrained at that time for fear of inciting Jesus' supporters (especially Matthew 21:45-46). Finally, after several more confrontations, in which the established leaders were made to look bad by Jesus in front of others (Matthew 22:15ff, 23-24), our gospel (at the beginning of Chapter 26) tells us that "the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and took counsel together in order to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him (Matthew 26:3-4)." The plan of the religious establishment to put Jesus away seems to have had its origins in jealousy over the influence that Jesus was having on the crowd in Jerusalem.
What else is this but social sin and thirst for power and influence? The chief priests and the elders, the religious establishment, were afraid that Jesus was taking away their power and influence. Thus, in order to maintain their power, in order to maintain the religious establishment, they moved to put Jesus away.
Have you never done it? Sin order to keep your favorite institution running just the way you like it, have you ever helped ease the trouble-maker out? Have you ever hurt someone in the name of your favorite institution? Have you ever "done someone dirty" in order to keep your important position on the job or in the community? Not so quick with your denial. If you have ever held an office that you cared about in this congregation, in this community or on your job, you have done it! I have done it. Our yearning for power and influence, like that of the Jewish religious establishment of Jesus' day, nailed him to the cross.
Perhaps you do not think that you are guilty of the dynamics of social sin that we have thus far explored. However, you will surely discover yourself in the sinful passivity of the crowd that gathered around Jesus and Pilate. That crowd had a chance to free Jesus. They could have chosen him instead of Barabbas as the man whom they wanted to set free. This was, after all, no doubt the same crowd that just five days earlier, on Palm Sunday, had cheered Jesus wildly as he entered Jerusalem (Matthew 21:8-9). Yet more recently, many in this crowd had been so convinced that Jesus was a prophet that they had made it impossible for the chief priests and the Pharisees to arrest him (Matthew 21:46). And now, fickle people, they proclaimed, "Let him be crucified (Matthew 27:22, 23)."
Why had the crowd changed its mind? Because everyone else was calling for the crucifixion. And why did they all want it? Matthew says because the chief priests and the rest of the religious leadership stirred them up (Matthew 27:20).
Too often, is it not that way with us? Are we not inclined to "go with the flow," to let the latest American social convention or trend dictate our actions, decisions and values? Is it not true that too often we let the high priests, the leaders, of American social convention stir us up in determining the things that we do? Do we not make our purchases, determine our values, form our dreams on the basis of what the high priests of the American media proclaim?
Certainly, the younger generations among us are guilty of such behavioral patterns. However, even those of you more set in you ways have been susceptible to such influences. Are not your values, your way of doing retirement, or your image of the good life shaped by the American cultural agenda - the "American dream" (No matter if that dream has been exploiting the poor in our nation and throughout the world)?
We really are like that Jewish crowd wich followed Jesus. How often, like that crowd, have we refrained from standing up for what we know was right, and instead gone along with the flow, along with everyone else - gone along with everbody else because we did not want to rock the boat. It happens in this congregation sometimes, does it not?
I refer once again here to social sin. It manifests itself whenver we let evil social institutions and unethical trends go their own way even though, in our hearts, we know that they are wrong. Our gospel lesson from Matthew is emphatically clear on this point. It was such social sin that nailed Jesus to the cross.
It is evident that sin is not just the transgressions of an individual - not just your sin and my sin, but the sin of our institutions and the lust for power that we have about finding a place or protecting our place in these institutions. How can the church remain silent about such social sin? Our text forbids such silence. It condemns such social sin insofar as social sin nails Christ to the cross.
One more word on the subject (a word of freedom and responsibility) is proclaimed by our gospel story. It is interesting to note the kind of man who is released by the crowd's decision. It is Barabbas, a "notable [notorious] prisoner (Matthew 27:15)." Jesus' death set a criminal, a notorious sinner free!
Is this still not happening today? Is not Jesus' death still setting notable prisoners, sinners like us, free? Criminals challenge the social order. Might it not now be our task, as criminals set free by Christ's crucifixion, to challenge the social order and its institutions when they are working evil and harm to others? Our gospel for Passion Sunday calls the church to condemn sin when it permeates our social institutions. It also sets us sinners free (as Jesus' crucifixion set Barabbas free) to work for freedom and justice!
We hear the story of our Lord's courage, his love of peace. We see him practice what he preaches when he renounces the use of violence to save himself from arrest (Matthew 26:51-56).
We see Jesus before the Sanhedrin (the highest court and council of ancient Judaism) and observe the schemes of the chief priests, the Pharisees and the Jewish elders (esp. see Matthew 26:57-75). More of that later. Their schemes, in an unfortunate, equally heinous way, are our schemes, too. Yet, it all comes to a climax when Jesus is brought before Pilate. What ultimately brought Jesus to the cross were the schemes of the Jewish religious establishment and Pilate's cowardly judgment. Thus, let us begin at that final point.
You know the story as well as I do: Pilate and his wife would have liked to release Jesus (Matthew 27:14, 19, 23). Matthew (and Mark) says that Pilate realized that the chief priests, the Jewish authorities, were envious of Jesus (Matthew 27:18; cf. Mark 15:10). In response, Pilate tried to spare Jesus by offering the crowd a choice between Jesus and (according to Matthew's version) a "notable (or notorious) prisoner" named Barabbas (who may also have been named Jesus - Jesus Barabbas) (Matthew 27:15-17). Yet, the chief priests and the Jewish elders tried to stir up the crowd, to get the crowd to select Barabbas as the one to free. The scheme of the Jewish authorities worked (Matthew 27:19-20).
"Pilate said to them, 'Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?' They all said, 'Let him be crucified.' And (Pilate) said (to the crowd), 'Why, what evil has he done?' But they shouted all the more. 'Let him be crucified' (Matthew 27:21-23)." Crucify him.
"So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, 'I am innocent of this man's blood, see to it yourself.' And all the people answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children!' Then he released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, delivered him to be crucified (Matthew 27:24-26)."
It is not a pretty story. Yet it is a story full of insights about the nature of our sin. In fact, this is a story that we need to tell. We need to tell it because the story uncovers an element of sin that American Christianity, because of some of our history in this country, has too often overlooked. The story of the sentence of Jesus testifies to us that sin is not just an individual's affair; sin is a social problem. In fact, it was social sin, the sin that permeates our social structures, which finally and ultimately brought Jesus to the cross.
What do I mean by "social sin?" By social sin, I refer to the reality of evil that is bigger than you and I are as individuals. I refer to the perversion of the institutions of society in such a way that these institutions, though created to serve human beings, become agents of sin, evil and harm. In our century, the most obvious example of social sin is evident in the social structures of National Socialism and the Third Reich in Germany during World War II. One also thinks of the South African apartheid system. But let us not forget the way in which the runaway economic system of pre-Depression America caused untold suffering to the American people, or the way in which the international capitalist system of multi-national corporations causes many to suffer inhuman working conditions and exploits the poor today. We could cite other examples.
At any rate, this is what I mean when I speak of social sin. Social sin happens when society's institutions become the agents of sin and evil, so that these institutions corrupt basically decent people and make people like you and me to do their bidding to work evil.
Such is the nature of social sin. Yet we have not said enough about it in the churches of this country (not following the insights of liberation theology in Latin America). We have been too much inclined merely to dwell on the sins of individuals - on our own or on other people's misdeeds. It is for these sins, we say, that Jesus died.
Perhaps our reluctance to consider social sin has to do with our good old American hang-up about not mixing religion and politics. For if we criticize social sin, the fear is that the church is inevitably involving itself in criticizing the political structures. And we must not do that!
It may be that we have gotten to the root of American Christianity's reluctance about dealing with social sin. Yet I do not believe that we can remain silent about such sin any longer, at least not if we take seriously the gospel's accounts of Jesus' road to the cross. For as I noted previously, according to Matthew (and the other gospel writers), it was the sin that permeated the social structures of Jesus' day that finally brought him to the cross. Matthew seems to be using the story of Jesus' condemnation as a way of condemning social sin. Let us consider the story in more detail.
Social sin; the lust for power; the determination to maintain control and to remain in power, no matter what compromises we need to make; apathy - the kind of apathy that leads us to go along with the crowd and with our leaders, even if they are not doing the right thing. We are all guilty of such sin. Pilate was also guilty, as were the chief priests and the elders and the crowd. We all sentenced Jesus to death.
Matthew's version of the story is perhaps not as kind to Pontius Pilate as is Luke's version (see Luke 23:20, 22). Yet even in Matthew, as in Mark's version, it is clear that Pilate (and certainly his wife) does not think that Jesus is guilty of the Jewish Sanhedrin's accusations. In fact, Pilate seems to have tried to get Jesus off the hook by offering the crowd a choice between Jesus and Barabbas the prisoner. Because, according to Matthew, "[Pilate] knew that it was out of envy that they [the chief priests and the elders] had delivered him [Jesus] up (Matthew 27:18)."
No, Pilate, along with his wife, knew right from wrong on the matter (Matthew 27:19). Yet, Pilate failed to do the right thing. Of course you cannot blame him too much. (At least that is one argument on his behalf.) He was under all kinds of terrible pressures.
To be the Roman governor of Israel in the time of Jesus was no easy task. The Jews of the day were nationalistic and many were religious fanatics. It would be sort of like a foreigner trying to govern Iran today. No, Rome and Pilate might have been in charge of Israel in Jesus' day. However, they had a delicate balancing act to do if they were to keep things under control and peaceful. Consequently, if enough Jews were against Jesus, the thing for Pilate to do was to play to the crowd - to give them what they wanted (even if Pilate knew that Jesus did not deserve the punishment).
Keep the crowd happy, even if it is at the expense of your integrity and commitments. That was Pilate's formula; that was his sin. (Contrary to what he wanted to do, he really could not wash his hands of this sin [Matthew 27:24].) It is your sin and my sin, too, is it not?
However, it is not just Pilate who was complying in such social sin, who was concerned to maintain the status quo of evil social institutions. The chief priests and the rest of the religious establishment of Jesus' day wanted him put away. According to Matthew (26:47ff), it was the chief priests and the elders who were involved in first capturing Jesus in Gethsemane. They engineered the betrayal by Judas Iscariot (Matthew 26:14-16). They and the scribes engineered the trial before the Sanhedrin (Matthew 26:57ff). They delivered Jesus to Pilate (Matthew 27:1ff). and they stirred up the crowd (Matthew 27:20)!
Why did they do it? Social sin was involved. The quest for power. Matthew 21 makes that very clear. When Jesus first came to Jerusalem, he cleansed the temple of the moneychangers and proceeded to do some miracles. Apparently, a number of people, notably children, were impressed. But the chief priests and the scribes were indignant about it (Matthew 21:12-15).
Next came other verbal confrontations with the religious establishment. After a time Jesus returned to the temple to teach, and according to Matthew, at least one parable Jesus taught was perceived by the religious establishment as being told at their expense. It was then that they resolved to arrest Jesus, and they only refrained at that time for fear of inciting Jesus' supporters (especially Matthew 21:45-46). Finally, after several more confrontations, in which the established leaders were made to look bad by Jesus in front of others (Matthew 22:15ff, 23-24), our gospel (at the beginning of Chapter 26) tells us that "the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and took counsel together in order to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him (Matthew 26:3-4)." The plan of the religious establishment to put Jesus away seems to have had its origins in jealousy over the influence that Jesus was having on the crowd in Jerusalem.
What else is this but social sin and thirst for power and influence? The chief priests and the elders, the religious establishment, were afraid that Jesus was taking away their power and influence. Thus, in order to maintain their power, in order to maintain the religious establishment, they moved to put Jesus away.
Have you never done it? Sin order to keep your favorite institution running just the way you like it, have you ever helped ease the trouble-maker out? Have you ever hurt someone in the name of your favorite institution? Have you ever "done someone dirty" in order to keep your important position on the job or in the community? Not so quick with your denial. If you have ever held an office that you cared about in this congregation, in this community or on your job, you have done it! I have done it. Our yearning for power and influence, like that of the Jewish religious establishment of Jesus' day, nailed him to the cross.
Perhaps you do not think that you are guilty of the dynamics of social sin that we have thus far explored. However, you will surely discover yourself in the sinful passivity of the crowd that gathered around Jesus and Pilate. That crowd had a chance to free Jesus. They could have chosen him instead of Barabbas as the man whom they wanted to set free. This was, after all, no doubt the same crowd that just five days earlier, on Palm Sunday, had cheered Jesus wildly as he entered Jerusalem (Matthew 21:8-9). Yet more recently, many in this crowd had been so convinced that Jesus was a prophet that they had made it impossible for the chief priests and the Pharisees to arrest him (Matthew 21:46). And now, fickle people, they proclaimed, "Let him be crucified (Matthew 27:22, 23)."
Why had the crowd changed its mind? Because everyone else was calling for the crucifixion. And why did they all want it? Matthew says because the chief priests and the rest of the religious leadership stirred them up (Matthew 27:20).
Too often, is it not that way with us? Are we not inclined to "go with the flow," to let the latest American social convention or trend dictate our actions, decisions and values? Is it not true that too often we let the high priests, the leaders, of American social convention stir us up in determining the things that we do? Do we not make our purchases, determine our values, form our dreams on the basis of what the high priests of the American media proclaim?
Certainly, the younger generations among us are guilty of such behavioral patterns. However, even those of you more set in you ways have been susceptible to such influences. Are not your values, your way of doing retirement, or your image of the good life shaped by the American cultural agenda - the "American dream" (No matter if that dream has been exploiting the poor in our nation and throughout the world)?
We really are like that Jewish crowd wich followed Jesus. How often, like that crowd, have we refrained from standing up for what we know was right, and instead gone along with the flow, along with everyone else - gone along with everbody else because we did not want to rock the boat. It happens in this congregation sometimes, does it not?
I refer once again here to social sin. It manifests itself whenver we let evil social institutions and unethical trends go their own way even though, in our hearts, we know that they are wrong. Our gospel lesson from Matthew is emphatically clear on this point. It was such social sin that nailed Jesus to the cross.
It is evident that sin is not just the transgressions of an individual - not just your sin and my sin, but the sin of our institutions and the lust for power that we have about finding a place or protecting our place in these institutions. How can the church remain silent about such social sin? Our text forbids such silence. It condemns such social sin insofar as social sin nails Christ to the cross.
One more word on the subject (a word of freedom and responsibility) is proclaimed by our gospel story. It is interesting to note the kind of man who is released by the crowd's decision. It is Barabbas, a "notable [notorious] prisoner (Matthew 27:15)." Jesus' death set a criminal, a notorious sinner free!
Is this still not happening today? Is not Jesus' death still setting notable prisoners, sinners like us, free? Criminals challenge the social order. Might it not now be our task, as criminals set free by Christ's crucifixion, to challenge the social order and its institutions when they are working evil and harm to others? Our gospel for Passion Sunday calls the church to condemn sin when it permeates our social institutions. It also sets us sinners free (as Jesus' crucifixion set Barabbas free) to work for freedom and justice!
