The Meaning of the Crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth

Foreword (from original 1987 edition)

Book Chapters

1. Suffering Servant
What Happened at a Crucifixion
Fulfillment of the Scriptures
Questions for Reflection and Discussion

2. Lamb of God
Worship and Sacrifice
The New Covenant
Sacrifice and Covenant Today
Questions for Reflection and Discussion

3. Prince of Peace
A Tale of Two Kingdoms
Demons and Demonology
Into the Enemy's Camp
Sharing the Good News
Questions for Reflection and Discussion

4. Emmanuel: God is With Us
Fallen Human Nature
Redemption of the Flesh
Sharing the Good News
Questions for Reflection and Discussion

5. Savior of the World
Scriptural Meaning of "The World"
Overcoming the World
Implications for Catechists
Questions for Reflection and Discussion

6. The Way of the Cross
False Self, True Self
Lessons of the Cross
Conclusions
Questions for Reflection and Discussion

Suggested Reading

One of my earliest recollections from parochial school days concerns the meaning of the crucifixion. It was nearing Holy Week, and Sister had been teaching us second-graders about Jesus' redemptive death. "He died for you;' she told us, "so that you could live without sin and be happy with God forever:' I was already feeling uneasy about the prospect of living with God forever, not quite sure that this was going to be as fun as Sister made it out to be. In addition, I was very confused about why Jesus had to die. I didn't see how he could have died for me, since he never knew me in the first place, and I hadn't done anything so wrong as to bring about his death. The whole thing left me feeling terribly guilty, like someone had done me a great favor and put me in great debt, but I hadn't asked for the favor in the first place.

Through my childhood and even later years, the theology of the crucifixion which I was taught featured such concepts as ransom, debt, expiation, atonement, sacrifice and satisfaction. The story goes--and I know you've heard it--that in the beginning, Adam and Eve walked and talked with God. Then God gave them an obedience test, which they flunked, so God sent them out of the Garden of Eden and closed the gates of heaven. God wasn't happy about this situation, however, so he formed a people, the Jews, and prepared them for the coming of a messiah. We Christians believe Jesus is that messiah. As true God and true man, Jesus was the only one who could repay the debt of Adam and Eve. This he did by dying on the cross, becoming a ransom for us and the perfect sacrifice who bridged the gap between God and humanity.

As a young child, I found justice in this account, but also something cruel and disturbing. After all, it only seemed right that people should be punished when they did something wrong, and that this punishment should make things right again. But somehow it didn't seem right that an innocent person should be punished for the guilty, although there was certainly something admirable about that. I knew I would never volunteer to be punished for my sister's mistakes (in fact, I sometimes enjoyed watching her get her licks). It took a real hero to take somebody else's punishment, I guess. The only problem with this view was that my parents would never agree to such an arrangement. When my sister did wrong, punishing me would not help her at all. So how could God's punishing Jesus help Adam and Eve, who were dead at any rate? How could it help me, if it happened before I had done anything wrong? And what kind of God was this anyhow, wanting to punish someone--anyone, but most especially his own son--to get rid of his anger! My parents never pun-ished me just to get rid of their anger. Was God as good as my parents?

I grew up in a church which cherished the cross as the symbol of what we were about, but I did not understand its meaning. In Lent I saw many people piously and tearfully meditating on the Way of the Cross. To me, the passion and death of Jesus seemed monstrously cruel and gruesome--nothing to get piously enthusiastic about. Not trusting my own judgment, however, I kept telling myself that one day I would understand. High school came, then college, and I kept waiting to understand. Then several friends converted to Fundamentalist communities, and they seemed to be very excited about the cross. They spoke or being "washed in the blood of the Lamb:' Gross stuff! I went to hear their preachers, and there it was all over again: Jesus dying on the cross as a ransom for my sins. Ransom? I was not even clear about what it meant to be a hostage!

Yet God's grace is such that I was never completely able to shake free of my attraction to Jesus. What I'd learned about him in my religion classes and through my own reading revealed a man who deeply inspired me. Through his eyes, I also came to see a loving Father, whose rain falls on the good and the bad alike. After coming to an adult faith commitment in my early 20s, I began to follow Jesus as my Lord of love, and to experience his risen presence in many different ways. As for my understanding of the crucifixion, I just simply accepted the fact that it was inevitable that a good and prophetic man like Jesus be killed by political and religious authorities more interested in preserving the status quo. Theologies of satisfaction and substitutionary atonement were still repulsive to me, but these were the only explanations I encountered.

I recall a particularly disturbing incident during my early days of adult faith when I was watching a televised Mass. In his homily, the priest told a story about a father who worked the controls at a railroad drawbridge. One day the father's only son, a young boy, came to play. The father warned him about playing near the machinery below, then went about his business. After a while a boat approached, so he opened the drawbridge to let it through. He then received word that a train was coming very soon and that he should close the bridge so it could pass over the stream. At that moment he looked out of his window and saw his son (his only beloved son!) playing near the control machinery below. If he closed the bridge, he would crush his son; if he didn't close it, a train full of people would fall into the river and drown. You can guess how the story ends.

I was bewildered and infuriated! How could my beloved Jesus and his Father be mixed up in such a gruesome business? How could a Catholic priest tell such a story over television? To make matters worse, I heard the same story from the pulpit the very next week (apparently, it was making the rounds). It was then that I decided that theologies of substitionary atonement did not answer my deepest questions about the crucifixion, although I didn't have anything to take their place.

Happily, I have since been introduced to several excellent books that helped me to reconcile my belief in a loving God with the events of Holy Week. My own prayer, reflection and struggles to live the gospel have also taught me much about the cross. Unfortunately, old explanations still seem to persist among both laity and clergy. That is why I am writing this book.

There are many different levels of response to this question. A historian, for example, would interpret the question why in different terms than a psychologist or theologian. The historian would probably say that Jesus died on the cross because he was perceived by the Jewish authorities as threatening their already tenuous political relationship with Rome. A psychologist might say that the love of Jesus called people to change, and few people arouse more hatred in us than those who provoke us out of spiritual inertia. The theologian, on the other hand, is primarily interested in what God has accomplished through the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. Our primary concern in this book shall be with theology. As we shall see, there are rich and wonderful approaches to understanding the crucifixion which better emphasize God's love than the traditional explanations of satisfaction and substitutionary atonement.

In reflecting upon the theology of the crucifixion, we shall begin with the early church. What did the crucifixion mean to the first Christians? Chapter 1 discusses the crucifixion as the fulfillment of the prophecies about the suffering servant of Yahweh, and Chapter 2 discusses the crucifixion as the fulfillment of traditions of sacrifice and covenant. These were the explanations which nourished the early church's theology of the crucifixion. Also in the early church we find the beginnings of a theology which recognizes the crucifixion as the means by which God broke the power of sin rooted in the devil (Chapter 3), the flesh (Chapter 4), and the world (Chapter 5).

A second objective for the book is to discuss whether the understanding of the crucifixion reached by the early church and augmented through the ages still speaks to people of our age. How meaningful is it, for example, to speak of Jesus' death as a sacrifice to people who lack traditions of sacrifice in their culture? Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5 include a section on catechetical implications which deal with these kinds of questions.

A third objective is to reflect on the meaning of the cross in our everyday lives. This is the main focus of Chapter 6. There we note the relationship between loving and laying down our lives for our friends. In this way, we come to better understand Jesus' words:

"If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny his very self, take up his cross, and follow in my steps" (Mk 8:34).

Like its companion, Jesus Alive in Our Lives (Ave Maria Press, 1985), which studied the meaning of the resurrection, this book will provide questions for reflection and discussion. I suggest that the reader spend some time with the questions at the end of each chapter, perhaps using a journal. It is also good to discuss a book of this kind with others to learn how they understand and experience the cross of Christ in their lives. Helping one another to carry our crosses is one of our most significant activities as church.

The crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth is one of the most certain of all historical occurrences. One might, for lack of proof, doubt the testimony of those who claim that Jesus rose from the dead, but there is no justification for doubting the death itself.

For one thing, crucifixion was not the kind of death that a group would choose to ennoble its hero. In the Roman world where this form of execution was practiced, the purpose of crucifixion was to so thoroughly humiliate the victim in public as to deter others in the community from doing what the victim had done. Generally, such extreme measures were reserved for those who had committed hideous acts. They were strung up along roadsides and near gates into cities so that people could see them and hear their cries of anguish. It was undoubtedly a gruesome sight! Many had received the customary 39 lashings, which not only streaked the skin but left welts because of lead implants in the leather of the whip. Very often, too, the victims lived for days, especially if their cross included a small peg upon which the victim could "sit" briefly to take the weight off the arms and legs. But this peg, too, eventually became a source of torment, tearing away the flesh of the buttocks so that with time the victim had no respite from pain. Death came through suffocation as the diaphragm became stifled from the prolonged drooping of the body.

If anyone wanted to know why the victim had been assigned such a horrible fate, the victim would usually be happy to explain--with his own biases, no doubt. To be certain that their own point of view in the matter was properly understood, however, the Romans affixed a sign to the cross, or hung one around the neck of the victim, detailing his wrong-doings. Although crucifixion was generally reserved for the most heinous of criminals, we know the Romans did not hesitate in crucifying hundreds and even thousands of people if they were considered subversives. This was the justification for crucifying Jesus of Nazareth. As we read in the gospels, the sign affixed to his cross stated: "This is the King of the Jews." It was by pointing out the conflict between Jesus' claims to be a king and the absolute nature of the emperor's reign that the Jewish authorities succeeded in convincing Pilate that Jesus deserved the ultimate form of torture and execution.

Unlike others who were crucified, Jesus' torture was unique in at least two respects. First, there was the crowning of thorns, a ploy intended to mock his claims of kingship. Second, there was the spearing on the cross; the usual practice was to break the legs of the victim if they wished him to die. In addition, there was the nailing to the cross itself--an uncommon, but by no means unique, feature of Jesus' execution. The usual procedure was to tie the arms and legs of the victim, especially if they wanted to prolong his agony.

All of this adds up to an overwhelming debasement of the integrity of a human being. As we read in the scriptures, the torture and execution of Jesus provoked fear in his followers (except for those few most tenacious of lovers). The spokesman for the group denied him three times, one killed himself, and most of the others went into hiding. This was not the way they thought things would turn out. In fact, it was the worst of all fates! How could God have allowed such a thing to happen to the Messiah? Or was he the Messiah after all? "We were hoping that he was the one who would set Israel free," lamented the disciples on the way to Emmaus (Lk 24:21). With the crucifixion, their hopes were crushed.

Their experiences of the risen Lord and the Pentecost experience convinced the followers of Jesus that he was indeed the Messiah. Regarding the crucifixion, then, the primary question was one of understanding how such humiliation could have happened to God's chosen one. The general expectation was one of a political messiah, who would vanquish the foes of Israel and magnify the glory that was once David's. So strong was this expectation that it persisted even after the resurrection. "Lord, are you going to restore the rule to Israel now?" asked the disciples shortly before the ascension (Acts 1:6). In response, Jesus let them know that the time of the final restoration was known only to the Father.

It is easy to understand how the disciples, like most of the Jews of their time, could have been expecting a political messiah. In the first place, they were dissatisfied with their relationship with Rome. Although Rome had made an astounding exception in absolving them from emperor worship, the Jews were nonetheless repelled by their subservience to so pagan a presence. Then there was Pilate, who would taunt and torture. He knew the Jews well, and he despised them, often requiring them to do things that flew in the face of their most cherished beliefs. The historian Josephus recorded many instances of skirmishes between the Jews and Pilate brought about by Pilate himself. This brought him a few reprimands from Rome, which only deepened his hatred of the Jews. It was only natural that a people under political oppression should allow their hopes to take expression in the political arena.

Then there were the scriptures themselves. Many of them affirmed the coming of a glorious age, when Israel would once again be a light to all the nations. And did not the fact that the Messiah would be a descendant of David indicate that he would be a king as David--only greater? As the prophet Isaiah put it,

Yet Jesus, the risen Lord and Messiah, was tortured and crucified! What was that all about?

It seems likely that one of the first lessons the followers of the risen one needed to learn was that their scriptures contained information about the Messiah which pointed to his suffering and death. The gospels present Jesus as telling his disciples of these matters on several occasions. But, as Luke 18:34 and similar verses state, "They understood nothing of this. His utterance remained obscure to them, and they did not grasp his meaning:' We even note Peter taking Jesus aside and trying to dissuade him, which brought about one of the harshest responses attributed to Jesus.

The psychological dynamics here are fairly clear: If one has strong expectations in a given area, only that which falls within the range of those expectations will be recognized. From the disciples' point of view, Jesus' miracles and the incredible magnetism of his person indicated that he might be the Messiah. It is true that there were many things he said which didn't match their expectations, but they were willing to overlook these so long as the exhibits of power continued and the crowds grew larger. Who knows but that they themselves might be given thrones! It was a happy business, something not to be spoiled with talk of torture and crucifixion by the slime of Rome. Given this backdrop, it is easy to understand why Jesus was so vague in speaking about his messianic identity.

The rigidity of the disciples' expectations was a source of frustration for Jesus. "What little sense you have!" he tells the two on the way to Emmaus. "How slow you are to believe all that the prophets have announced! Did not the Messiah have to undergo all this so as to enter into his glory?" (Lk 24:25-26). It was a hard lesson for them to learn, but gradually they began to understand. They saw that there was much in their scriptures that they had been overlooking, things that now made sense precisely because God's Messiah had been crucified and had risen. No doubt the new life in the Spirit also had much to do with their deepening understanding.

In time we hear the passion and resurrection of Jesus proclaimed as accomplished "in fulfillment of the scriptures!' Nowhere does the proclamation to Jews take place without those words. The pagans, of course, would not have appreciated this matter, but we shall examine their situation in our next chapter. The good news came first to the disciples of Jesus, who were Jews, and their first converts were also Jews. In fact, it probably never dawned on them until later that pagans could become members of the community without first becoming Jews. As we know, this was an issue which divided the early church.

The key element lacking in popular Jewish expectations of the Messiah was the recognition of the Messiah as the suffering servant of Yahweh. The clearest description of this servant is found in Isaiah 52:13- 53:12. In this passage we read of a servant who was unattractive, and who was spurned by people.

We even read of a grave with sinners--an amazing prediction of the passion, death and burial of Jesus.

How was it that the suffering servant of Isaiah failed to influence Jewish expectations? We get a hint of an answer in Acts 8:26-40, in the story of Philip's confrontation with the Ethiopian eunuch. The Ethiopian, who was probably a Jewish convert, was returning home from a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The Spirit moved Philip to catch up with his carriage, whereupon he found the Ethiopian reading about the suffering servant in the Book of Isaiah. "Tell me, if you will, of whom the prophet says this--himself or someone else?" the eunuch asks. Philip seizes the moment to explain how Jesus had died and risen "in fulfillment of the scriptures 7 The story ends with Philip baptizing the Ethiopian in the first stream they came to (a catechizing process which must cause the coordinators of today's R.C.I.A. programs to grimace).

It is very possible that the Jews of Jesus' time were like that Ethiopian. They either attributed the meaning to the prophet himself, or, more likely, as a reference to the sufferings of the nation as a whole. As we know, it is very common in the Old Testament to personify the nation. It is likely that they considered the servant to be Israel--themselves--and the Messiah as the one who would deliver them from their sufferings. The suffering servant song in Isaiah 53 is not much weakened by such an interpretation, but neither does it gain much.

A clear distinction between the nation and the servant, however, appears in the second song of the servant, Isaiah 49. In this song we read that

Not only will the servant redeem Israel, but he will also become a light for all the nations. The servant suffers for all, and brings the light of God to all.

We understand these words now with the aid of the Holy Spirit and the clarity of 20-20 hindsight. What we see is that the prophets were granted two glimpses of the Messiah: first, of the eventual glory of his reign, and second, of his suffering among us. Few guessed that what was glimpsed were two different aspects of his mission between which history now progresses. For the servant has come and suffered as it was written, "yet the world did not know who he was" (Jn 1:10). It is not surprising that we missed him, however. Who could have guessed that God would allow himself to be so humiliated?

1. What has this lesson awakened or re-awakened in you (ideas, feelings, questions, etc.)?

2. Put yourself in the place of a follower of Jesus. How do you think you would have felt when he was crucified?

3. Why do you think it was important for the followers of Jesus to find validation of the crucifixion in the Hebrew scriptures?