"It was nine o'clock in the morning when they
crucified him."
Between the hours of 9 am
and 12 noon, three gospel accounts are similar in their telling -- outside of
five verses in Luke which differ on the demeanor of the crucified criminals flanking
Jesus. The fourth gospel -- John -- skips all of this and instead emphasizes
the inscription put on the cross of Jesus.
'The inscription of the charge against him read,
"The King of the Jews."'
From the moment Jesus left
the governor's residence on his long, agonizing walk to Golgotha, endless
numbers of people saw Jesus' "crime" which had been written on a
board. Upon his arrival at the Place of Skulls, that board was nailed to the
cross. Yet, what offense was this -- "The
King of the Jews"?
As reported by the
gospels, Pilate was put into an untenable position. Jesus was no enemy of the
state; he hadn't committed a vile crime; nevertheless, the prefect was forced
to sentence an innocent man to death. The verdict had to be placed on a sign
for all to view. That was the standard.
With this inscription, was
Pilate's intent to mock Jesus -- like so many others were doing?
Belittle Jesus or not, the
governor had a chance to get under the skin of the Sanhedrin who had caused him
a great deal of trouble. With this charge, he chose to mock… the Jewish
authorities.
The concern of the Jewish
leaders over this matter was documented in the Gospel of John. Imagine their
outrage. One can sense, by his response, Pilate relishing the moment. "What I have written I have
written." Basically, "Deal with it."
Someone else though had to
deal with it. Jesus. Ridicule, scorn and hate were spewed at him. Among the
taunts was "You who would destroy
the temple and build it in three days,…"
Is that what Jesus really said? Mark 13:2 had Jesus proclaiming,
"Do you see these great buildings?
Not one stone will be left here upon another." While up for
interpretation, the destruction mentioned by Jesus wasn’t specifically to be
done by his hands.
How about after he cleared
the temple of money changers? 'The Jews
then said to him, "What sign can you show us for doing this? Jesus
answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it
up."'[i]
Like an accident where
witnesses have differences of opinion as to who did what, implication was
inserted -- a twist to the words that Jesus would be the demolition man as well
as the restorer. What Jesus actually meant -- "The sign for my clearing
the temple is… I may die at your hands, but in three days, I (this temple) will return -- body and
soul" -- was incomprehensible. Thus, the true meaning of his words fell on
deaf ears.
And the taunts hurled at
the crucified Christ continued: "Save
yourself, and come down from the cross!" "He saved others; he cannot
save himself."
The chief priests and
scribes goaded Jesus; their words dripping with sarcasm. "Give us a
miracle!" "Help us in our unbelief!" "We know these past
three years the focus of your ministry has been on the people, but this time make
it about you, Jesus."
There’s such a paradox in
this gut-wrenching scene. He had saved others – or so it had been declared by
the weak and lowly. Could Jesus actually save himself? This question stirred up
quite a bit of discussion leading to a unanimous agreement that indeed Jesus
could've saved himself.
If that was the case, why
did he choose to remain on the cross? Bev* stated, "Jesus' mission was
more important to him than his suffering." Although he knew all roads
converged in Golgotha for this appalling moment, Jesus also knew his death
would not be the end.
Consider if he had stepped
down off of that cross. What would've happened to his message of Good News? Would
it have meshed with who he was and what he previously shared in ministry? How
would he have been perceived by the doubting people and Jewish authorities?
Would their minds have changed? Would they have believed him then?
Using our earthly values,
he might have "lived" but his divine message would've
"died." By staying on the cross though, he did save himself and saved us -- by separating himself from all of
the other so-called "messiahs." His death would not put an end to his
life. He was the Messiah of the New Covenant.
Taking it a step further
in this scene, not following what was recorded in Mark and Matthew, the Gospel
of Luke offers hope in relation to one of "the
least of these." Of the two crucified criminals next to Jesus, one
derides him; the other however chides his cohort in crime and expresses
compassion for the Christ.
'"We indeed have been condemned justly, for we
are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing
wrong." Then he said, "Jesus remember me when you come into your
kingdom."'[ii]
The gospel account
regarding the criminal could've stopped there. Our sympathy would've gone to
the condemned man with a heart of gold who saw the truth when others were so
blind. But it doesn't end there, which becomes even more impactful.
Think back to what
happened earlier,… what if Jesus had accepted the offer of a drink to numb his
senses from the intense pain he was experiencing? "And they offered him wine mixed with myrrh; but he did not take
it."
By keeping a clear head,
even while nailed and hanging on a cross -- beaten, bleeding, suffering,
exhausted -- Jesus ministered to this dying lawbreaker. "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise."[iii] Forgiveness and mercy
poured out of him to touch this man’s life in an astounding way.
During those three hours, someone
did experience a miracle. Forsaken by
others, the condemned captive was set free.
NEXT
Darkness and Light;
Anguish and Abandonment
No comments:
Post a Comment