A few things written on the board. The works that are mentioned here don't really seek to address the question of Jesus' personal approach to death. They have different issues in mind. The first two books listed are by Martin Hengel, who is a New Testament professor at the University of Tübingen in West Germany, a Lutheran. Hengel has written a whole series of short books on Christology, with much complaining that there's so much administrative work nowadays that it's impossible for a theologian to write a big book, so he's written a number of short books. These two are about 100 pages apiece, and they really are intended to go together. The book entitled Crucifixion is primarily concerned with the practice of crucifixion in the ancient world, the first half of the book, and then some reflections on Christian thought on the crucifixion in the light of that context.

[01:01]

Henglaar is an expert on the relationship of Judaism and Hellenism at the time of Jesus. He has, at an earlier stage, written two massive volumes on that subject, and that's the type of knowledge that he's drawing on here. So if you're looking for information on the legal practices and matters of that sort, not specifically with regard to Jesus, but in the world at the time, that's very reliable. source of information. The second volume entitled The Atonement is intended as a reflection on Christian interpretation of Jesus' crucifixion with particular emphasis on the theme that's reflected in the title, Christ's death for our sins as atonement. The third volume that's mentioned, also fairly short, but a little bit longer than Hengel's books, by Hans-Rudy Weber, The Cross, Tradition and Interpretation, is more concerned with the passion narratives in the Gospels, which don't figure quite as prominently in Hengel's presentation.

[02:06]

This is written in a slightly more popular vein, but all three of them are serious works and contain further bibliographical references. So that's just by way of background. Before I come to the specific interpretations that we'll be talking about here, let me just say by way of introduction that Jesus' death and specifically the circumstances of Jesus' death, the shameful end on the cross, were perceived at least to a certain extent as a problem by the early church. Think of Jesus' message of God's love, God's forgiveness, the effort to call all Israel in response to that message. Then at the end, suddenly or perhaps not so suddenly, but in any case, things end up in a rather barbaric death. between two people who are at least seen as criminals from the point of view of the state.

[03:10]

One expression of this situation is found in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, which for various reasons accents very strongly the importance of the crucifixion. To a great extent, Paul is concerned with specific problems in Corinth, and he wishes to emphasize the crucifixion in that setting. But in the first chapter, where Paul is setting the stage for much of what follows, he refers very frequently to the cross. and comes eventually to a section where he reflects something of the general attitudes toward the crucifixion in the world of his day. This is chapter one, verses 22 to 24. He writes, the Jews demand signs and the Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified.

[04:14]

a stumbling block to Jews, folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. He then goes on to develop that in various ways, but that's not our immediate concern here. The point I wish to emphasize is the contrast between the Christian assessment of the cross and the assessment of the cross that would immediately come to mind to at least a great many people in the world in which Christianity first spread. How then did Christians interpret the cross? We tend to think primarily of the line of thought that is reflected in the title of Martin Hengel's book, The Theme of Atonement. Christ died for our sins. We think of the great medieval Benedictine theologian Anselm of Canterbury and his theory of satisfaction.

[05:17]

Christ offered himself on the cross to the Father as satisfaction for the sins of the human race. Looking at the New Testament, We can find foundations there for that line of interpretation, not the fully developed theory, but foundations for that line of interpretation. But we also find other approaches to the theology of the crucifixion. And it's those other approaches that I'd like to begin with for a moment this morning, and then we'll come to this third approach. The structure of what follows, I'm largely following the presentation of Edward Skillebakes in his book, Jesus, but the content of the individual pieces is not something that Skillebakes elaborated on his own. He's rather drawing on the work of other theologians and placing it here in a more synthetic organization. Aeschylobics distinguishes three different lines of thought with regard to the crucifixion.

[06:22]

They're not opposed to each other. They're simply different. One line of thought sees Jesus as the prophet martyr. As far as Skillebeaks is concerned, you can see here in the background his own interest in Jesus as a prophetic figure, but we can abstract from that for a moment. This is not limited to that particular accent in Skillebeaks' theology. One readily available line of interpretation to early Christians was to place Jesus in the line of prophetic figures in the Old Testament. That may not capture the whole of what Jesus was about, but it's certainly an element of it. He was a preacher. He spoke on God's behalf, as the prophets of old had done. Don't think of prophet here primarily as someone who foretells the future.

[07:33]

That's a different issue. The main emphasis here is the theme of the prophet as God's representative, the one who bears God's word in a particular situation. We know from the Old Testament that many, though not all of the prophets were rejected by Israel, at least by many, that many of the prophets suffered as a result of their preaching, that the rejection of the message tended to involve a rejection of the prophet as well. The best example of that for the Old Testament is Jeremiah. whose message was unwelcome politically and in other respects, and who was opposed by many of the leading powers at that time. So, the book of Jeremiah stands in the background, and it's perhaps for that reason, that the liturgy for the concluding period of Lent, not so much the Mass, but the readings in the office, make great use of Jeremiah, particularly the theme of Jeremiah's suffering.

[08:45]

He doesn't react to that the same way Jesus does. He warrants vengeance against those who are opposing him, but the theme of suffering is strongly present there. In the New Testament, we find various examples of the theme. Here, I'll take two. The first is from Acts, chapter 7, verses 51 to 53. This is part of a much longer speech. It's a speech of Stephen, but it's not the overall speech that I'm interested in here. It's just this one particular section. Stephen says, you stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit.

[09:47]

As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? They killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the righteous one, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it." After listening to that, it's not surprising to hear when they heard these things, they were enraged and ground their teeth against him. This is what leads to the martyrdom of Stephen. But the point that I wish to accent is the way in which Stephen places the death of Jesus against the background of a history, a history of Israel's rejection of the prophets, those who bore God's word, and as he accents here, foretold the coming of the Messiah. Similarly, Jesus is put to death as a prophetic figure. Now, there's a little bit of rhetorical exaggeration in this formulation.

[10:51]

It's not the case that all of the prophets were persecuted, and it's certainly not the case that all were put to death. But this is generalizing from certain elements of prophetic experience. The second example is taken from Luke chapter 13, verses 33 to 34. It's part of Jesus' response to some Pharisees who have warned him to go away because Herod is seeking to kill him. It's one of the few places, I suppose, in the Gospels where the Pharisees appear in good light as somewhat sympathetic to Jesus. Part of Jesus' response is this. Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course. Nevertheless, I must go my way today and tomorrow and the day following, for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem.

[12:01]

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets, stoning those who are sent to you, How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings and you would not. He goes on to continue the lament over Jerusalem. Again, the point that I accent at the moment is not the Jerusalem aspect of the passage, also not primarily the theme of the response to Herod, but rather this passage, Jesus placing his own approaching death in the history of the suffering of the prophets, and more specifically here the rejection of the prophets in the capital city of Jerusalem. Now, yesterday we spoke about questions that come from the fact that one can always ask how many of these statements go back to Jesus himself, how many are the reflection of the early church. For our purposes this morning, that's not an immediately relevant question, because whether or not this does go back to Jesus' own thinking on his death, and it's quite plausible that it does,

[13:09]

It still serves in any case to illustrate the point that the gospel tradition puts Jesus' death in this context. It's a context that was suggested rather readily by the content of Jesus' life and by a tradition that was clearly reflected in Israel at that time. Let me take one final passage And I do this partly to indicate that the theme is not restricted to Luke. So far we've had one from Luke and one from Acts, and the impression could be awakened that only this one evangelist has the idea. The other passage is in Mark chapter 12. verses 1 to 11. I won't read the whole section, I'll just summarize the beginning of it and then point to the part that's particularly relevant here.

[14:14]

This is the parable of the vineyard that Jesus tells. The man plants the vineyard, leaves control of it to various employees of his who then proceed to take advantage of the situation to reap the profits. When the time came, he sent a servant to the tenants to get from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. And they took him and beat him and sent him away empty-handed. It's a series of this. Eventually, so with many others, some they beat, some they killed. Finally, we come to verse 6. He still had one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them saying, they will respect my son. But the tenants said to one another, this is the heir, let us kill him and the inheritance will be ours. And they took him and killed him and cast him out of the vineyard. Now parables generally let the listener make the application. Sometimes in the Gospels, the application is provided at the end in one form or another, but the parable itself usually leaves things a little bit unstated.

[15:22]

But you can think here clearly in this context, the vineyard imagery is an ancient one in Israel. It's reflected in the Old Testament. You can think here in the sense of sending the prophets, the initial servants who are sent, Various things happen to them, but they don't bring about what they seek to achieve. Finally, the owner of the vineyard sends his son, and the people in control of the vineyard decide there is all the more reason to do away with the son. That conclusion is drawn explicitly in verse 12. It's not part of the parable. It's a kind of brief commentary at the end of the parable. They tried to arrest him, but feared the multitude, for they perceived that he had told the parable against them. So they left him and went away. And then it goes on with various plotting to do away with Jesus. Once again here, though, in somewhat more veiled form, Jesus places himself in the line of the prophets

[16:28]

And the parable specifically places his fate in the line of the prophet's fate. And once again here, as was the case with the passage from Luke, whether or not all of this goes back to Jesus himself, it still illustrates the point that this is a vehicle used by early Christians for interpreting Jesus' death. Now, what is involved in this interpretation. First of all, it presupposes that Jesus has already been identified as a prophetic figure. The interpretation doesn't make any sense without that. But then it takes the further step of saying that prophets frequently, if not always, meet with rejection, even persecution and death. That means that the crucifixion of Jesus is not an argument against his prophetic standing.

[17:37]

It means that the crucifixion does not undercut Jesus' claim to speak for God. If anything, on the contrary, this is the type of fate one would expect for someone who truly speaks for God, given the background, given the history of past experience with God's representatives. So one of the thrusts of this line of interpretation is to confirm The validity of Jesus' preaching, the validity of his claim to speak for God, despite the fact that his apparently shameful end on the cross appears to be a sign of abandonment. That's the first of the lines of interpretation. Jesus, as the prophet who suffers as a result of his prophecy of his speaking for God, but who almost paradoxically is really confirmed as a prophet rather than undercut as a prophet through his death.

[18:45]

There is one further line of thought which we won't go into here, but which does leave the way open for further development. It is sometimes suggested in the tradition about the prophet's suffering that the sufferings of the prophet can have value for others. So we can move in that direction with the theme of the prophet martyr, whose death eventually causes the prophetic activity to bear fruit. That's the first line of thought. I'd like to move on to the second, which is somewhat similar to the first. but nonetheless has some distinctive features to it. The second is the theme of Jesus as the righteous sufferer. Again, there is a general Old Testament background to this.

[20:03]

The figure that I suppose we would think of most immediately is Job, a classical Old Testament story of someone who is presented as upright, who nonetheless suffers his friends, or at least his so-called friends, argue that he must have done something wrong, otherwise he wouldn't have been suffering. But Job persists and is eventually vindicated. The suffering does not argue against his innocence, against his righteousness. But in addition to the figure of Job, there are also some other Old Testament references. The theme is more widespread than just Job. It's a theme of wisdom, literature in general. Among others, the theme is present in the Psalms, in many of the Psalms of lament, where the righteous praise for deliverance from suffering and even from persecution because of righteousness.

[21:14]

I mention here in particular Psalm 22. because Psalm 22 proves to be quite significant in the gospel's passion narratives. In Mark and in Matthew, Jesus dies on the cross praying Psalm 22, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Another example is to be found in the book of Wisdom two sections of the Book of Wisdom, Chapter 2, 12 to 20, and Chapter 5, 1 to 23. In each of these cases, we have the example of someone who is innocent, who is suffering,

[22:16]

who is eventually vindicated by God. That's always the last part of the story. Let me just read a portion of Psalm 22 as an illustration of the themes that are present here. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from helping me from the words of my groaning? Oh my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer by night, but I find no rest. So that's the first theme, the suffering. Then it's intensified with the theme of rejection and persecution by others. But I am a worm and no man, scorned by men and despised by the people. All who see me mock at me. They make mouths at me. They wag their heads. He committed his cause to the Lord. Let him deliver him. Let him rescue him, for he delights in him." And that's developed at great length with very powerful imagery.

[23:18]

And then, finally, Toward the end of the psalm, the tone changes to one of vindication. First the prayer, but you, O Lord, be not far off, O you my help, hasten to my aid, deliver my soul from the sword, save me from the mouth of the lion, my afflicted soul from the horns of the wild oxen. And then there's praise of God. I will tell of your name to my brethren in the midst of the congregation. I will praise you. You who fear the Lord, praise him. All you sons of Jacob glorify him. All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord. All the families of the nation shall worship before him. That same theme could be shown in various other ways. The passage from the book of wisdom, is particularly enlightening in this regard, but it's a bit too long to read the whole thing here, so I'll just leave that for something for you to look at later.

[24:27]

Those are the Old Testament themes, the theme of the righteous sufferer who, despite suffering, nonetheless is righteous in God's sight and will eventually be vindicated by God. In the New Testament, This theme is developed in various places, but it's particularly present in the passion narrative, where Psalm 22, but also other related psalms like Psalm 31, are cited frequently. And Psalm 22 even serves as a basis, in a sense, for the structure of the passion narrative as it's developed by Mark. There are constant references to it throughout. So that's a second theme. The suffering figure seems to be abandoned by God, but in fact is not, and is eventually vindicated. Again, application to Jesus, it has the effect of showing that Jesus is not rejected despite his crucifixion, that the way of the cross is not ultimately a way of rejection, but a way of vindication.

[25:41]

So this second theme, very similar to the first, is a way of understanding the crucifixion as something other than rejection, a way of saying that Jesus' standing here as righteous, here as prophet, is not undercut by the way in which he is put to death. Here it may be appropriate to make one final reference to the Gospels. I take this from Luke. Yesterday, in a somewhat different context, I made reference to the centurion in Mark, who, confronted with Jesus' death, says, truly this man was a son of God. In Luke, We have the same centurion, at least I suppose it's the same centurion, in chapter 23, verses 46 and 47.

[26:55]

Then Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, Father, into your hands I commend my spirit. You'll notice that the words here are somewhat different from the words in Mark and Matthew. In Mark and Matthew, the final words are, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Which is the beginning of Psalm 22. Here, it's, Father, into your hands I commend my spirit, which is a passage taken from Psalm 31. It's not the same psalm, in other words, but it's still the same theme that's in the background. It's another psalm of lament. Now when the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God and said, certainly this man was innocent. That's the translation that's used here. But the word that translates innocent, which is a widespread translation, is the same as the word righteous. And the theme of the justice of Jesus is reflected in that.

[28:02]

A little different words. on the part of the centurion here, but the reflection still of Jesus standing, despite his death, acts in here on a slightly different subject. Now, those two lines of interpretation, at least in their basic form, are both arguments drawing on the Old Testament, drawing on other aspects of Jewish history. They are both arguments that you might say despite his death, Jesus is still salvific. Despite his death, he is a prophet. Despite his death, he is righteous. The third type may go a step further. least certainly accents something more strongly. Because the third type does not suggest, despite his death, Jesus is salvific, but rather because of his death, Jesus is salvific.

[29:12]

The third type speaks of an intrinsic, inherent value in Jesus' death, and it uses the categories such as ransom, which was mentioned yesterday, death for us, for our sins. The chief Old Testament background, here I'll say redemptive atoning death. The chief Old Testament background here is the well-known fourth servant song in the prophet Isaiah. He bore our infirmities, suffered for our sins. Here, the death has a salvific significance of its own.

[30:17]

not quite isolated from Jesus' life, but still with great focus on the death by itself. This theme can be found in the New Testament in various places. It's not that prominent in the Passion narratives, but it is to be found occasionally in the Gospels. One example in the Gospels is Mark Chapter 10 verse 45, the passage was also mentioned yesterday where Jesus says the Son of Man has come not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for the many. The ransom theme is an illustration of this third point. It's also found in the parallel verse in Matthew but not in the parallel in Luke. Widespread in Paul.

[31:22]

Slightly varying vocabulary from case to case, here I'll just give two references. The first is to Romans, chapter 3, verses 24-25. where Paul speaks of being justified by God's grace in accordance with the scriptures. I might just add parenthetically that there is a complexity to interpreting the last part of that according to the scriptures. The for our sins element certainly points in this direction, redemptive atoning death. According to the scriptures, maybe an allusion to the Old Testament background of this line of interpretation. The scriptures for Paul would mean the Old Testament scriptures.

[32:31]

The New Testament hasn't been written yet. Or, according to the scriptures, maybe a different line of interpretation, thinking more in one of the other categories, probably the theme of the righteous sufferer. It's very hard to establish that. The text is too compact for that to be the case. But it may be that in that one passage in Paul, which Paul didn't originate himself, he's taking that over from other people, both of these lines of interpretation are reflected. At least that's a possibility. In any case, this is the third type, one last set of texts where you find it in a very prominent position, the Last Supper material. Death for the many, death for you. Think of the words of institution in that regard. Does it not show up in the passion narrative? It doesn't show up. Well, if you include the Last Supper material in the passion narratives, which is reasonable to do, then it is present in the Last Supper material.

[33:38]

But it's not prominent in the retelling of the trial, the arrest, the trial, the crucifixion narratives. That was the sense that I was getting before. There you find greater prevalence of the other themes. Interpretation, do you think, on the road to Emance, their hearts were on fire because of being done by Christ? The court tells them that, you know, it brings them through the scriptures. Interpretation, presumably, from there, would be perhaps... Well, it's... It's hard to say because it doesn't say, of course, right there. The question would be what in the scriptures are being referred to, because you can get all of these out of the scriptures in their own way. What's immediately suggested is that somehow the passion and the death of Christ are foreseen.

[34:50]

And that they're, in at least some mysterious sense, part of God's plan. The Messiah had to suffer these things and so into his glory. That doesn't go quite in the direction of the third one. which tends a bit more towards saying why this is significant. It's more in the direction of the first two, and perhaps especially the second. The vindication is part of what God eventually has in store for the righteous one. When Peter kind of said, no, [...] we can't suffer and die, right? This is kind of what, presumably, he was kind of implicitly saying to Peter at the time, that this is the route that I have to go. Therefore, presumably, he might be performing that same thing to a couple of people at great disillusion two days after their hero was killed.

[35:58]

Well, there's a difference between the two settings because the first setting in the context of the gospel, Jesus is saying that he's going to die to people who don't anticipate that at all. The second setting, he's talking to people who know perfectly well what has happened and who have, in Luke's account of it, who have given up hope as a result. The revelation, I think you can say, that's contained in Jesus' words is that if you read the Old Testament properly, and it's not the only possible way to read the Old Testament, but if you find these things out from the Old Testament, then you'll be able to see, even in Jesus' death, part of the divinely willed plan. The first part does not have that kind of direct, the scene with Peter does not have that kind of direct reference to the Old Testament, but it does have the theme of the divine must.

[37:10]

That's the element perhaps that you're pointing to that does tie the two together. That somewhat in accordance with the first two, in the sense that the prophets all suffer, in the story that that seems to be part of what God has in store for a prophet. Similarly, the righteous suffer, this is what happens, even being persecuted because of righteousness. But the third one on that point goes a little bit further by saying that this death is redemptive, this death is atoning, instead of just leaving it as the more general must. Anything else on those? All right, let me add a couple of comments on these three lines of thought. First of all, to reemphasize a point that's been touched on briefly, the first two types

[38:20]

may simply involve saying that Jesus is salvageable despite his death. They may also say a bit more than that, because the theme of the martyr can be a way of saying that the death is in itself productive of something good. But the initial impression, at least, of the first two types is the despite. The third type What differs on that, the third type, is because of. Very clearly, that's the thrust of these statements. Now, it may not be only because of. This isn't saying that the rest of Jesus' life is insignificant, but it is focusing specifically on the value, religious theological value, of his death. At the same time, I emphasize that these lines of interpretation, in principle, are not in conflict with each other.

[39:33]

They may very well have been developed by different people, or at least promoted by different people. You don't always find the three together in a given text. But there's no reason why one could not hold to all three. And in fact, that's what's reflected in the New Testament taken as a whole, and in many cases, at least even in individual books of the New Testament. So at this level, there's no need to see competition. The question of how one can move from one to another is a bit more complex. But particularly in the case of the first two, I think you could see how one could go back and forth very easily. Isn't there an underlying tension between the value of suffering? That's something that I think plays itself out in the Christian spirituality. I would say you can switch back and forth easily between the first two and the third. And the third. Well, the link, I suspect, would be the theme that the sufferings of the prophet are productive of some good.

[40:41]

What you have to do to move toward the third is to introduce the theme of good for others. That's where the key question would arise. With one and two, you'd say? With one and two, in the direction of moving, you might say, from one and two to three. If there's positive good in the sufferings of the prophets, then it's not really despite the suffering. Then at that point, you've tended to go beyond the despite. Let me put it this way. There's a sense in which you can't say despite and because of at the same time, that they conflict with each other. But think of an immediate context in which these thoughts are at least pursued, the argument that somehow Jesus' death undercuts

[41:57]

his claims or the claims that are being made on his behalf. All of these, in one way or another, seek to respond to that objection. Some go a bit further than others in that response, but at the very least, they all make the claim, Jesus' suffering does not undercut what he's doing. in fact, laid the foundation for all of us for the new covenant. In terms of the atoning technology, he's taking us beyond kind of the old generation or the Old Testament way of thinking into covenant, which goes more in this direction. Okay, although of course you also do have Old Testament antecedents for that, too. All of this... That would be the fulfilling of a lot, too, then. At the same time, the emphasis has been kind of switched permanently, right through his own example.

[43:04]

Well, yeah, I just want to accent the great extent to which the Old Testament was drawn on for the development of all these themes. Obviously, it's being drawn on selectively. There are other things that are being left aside, but there is a good Old Testament background present in all of the three. There's a distinction, rather, between what we mean when we say Christ died for us. That's a very ambiguous phrase, because I think it can mean what A and B mean there, especially A, that the prophet suffered for the people. In other words, in the process of waking them up to their responsibilities or whatever, he suffered at their hands because of it. But when you get down to the atoning death, it's much more specific. It actually means, for means in place of, doesn't it? The atoning death is Christ died for us, on our behalf, not just as a result of his process of teaching and waking us up to our responsibility as any prophet would, but he died in a sense in our place.

[44:19]

that whole business of vicarious suffering or taking a harsh sentence on himself, that to me is the distinction between the first two and the third. Perhaps the point that has to be made to get it true together with that is that one of the key formulations of the death for us is the one in 1 Corinthians 15, Christ died for our sins. Now, you'll notice that that formulation in 1 Corinthians is a compact formula dealing with death and resurrection. doesn't go into the question of Jesus' preaching or other things, that's also reflected pretty much in the general thrust of Paul's treatment of the subject. He doesn't make much of Jesus' teaching.

[45:22]

He doesn't make much of the events of Jesus' public life. Of course, he wasn't there, but he just doesn't make a great deal out of that. The first two types are more dependent on recourse to Jesus' public life in order to be understood. The third type is a bit more self-contained. And that, I think, also is something to be taken into consideration here. I should add one comment. In speaking of these as the first, second, and third types, I'm not suggesting a chronological sequence. I'm not suggesting that first Christians worked with this and then eventually they went on to the second and finally came to the third. On the contrary, the evidence that we have is that each of the three are basically equally old, that they're different though compatible lines of thought that were developed quite early by Christians, and will come then at least briefly to the question, can they be traced back even earlier than that, even to the time of Jesus' public life in advance of his death?

[46:38]

Let me turn then to that The further question, can these lines of interpretation be traced back into Jesus' lifetime? In other words, do they originate with Jesus himself or do they originate with the early church? That's disputed. And it's a complex question to begin with because it's actually three questions rolled into one because you can ask the question with regard to each of the three. Skillebeaks speaks of Jesus' death as a sign that he left for others to interpret. a kind of prophetic sign, in a sense, left for others to interpret, but with the qualification that the material for the interpretation was present in Jesus' life.

[47:45]

So it's not making something up at a later date. It's rather drawing together and making explicit lines of thought elements that were present there even beforehand. Others, and one of the major examples is, again, a German exegete, Rudolf Pesch. Pesch argues that each of these lines of interpretation can be traced back to Jesus prior to his crucifixion, at least at the Last Supper. I leave that here simply as a question that is argued among exegetes, but I would add the comment that the test of the validity of the interpretation is not whether explicit formulations can be traced back to Jesus.

[48:48]

The validity of the interpretation rests on whether the interpretation does justice to the facts of Jesus' death. It's not a question of who used it for the first time. The easiest example of that is probably the first one. The first interpretation is valid if, in fact, Jesus was a prophet who was persecuted because of his prophecy. It doesn't require that Jesus said, this is what the situation is. The events speak for themselves. So those are the three basic lines of interpretation. One of the reasons for mentioning the three is to suggest a certain richness to the New Testament interpretation and an impoverishment which would result from reducing these interpretations to only one category. There are values to each of the three. among other things, showing the link between Jesus' public life and his death, that are more readily evident when all three are taken into account, rather than when we reduce things to just one.

[49:59]

It's a bit of the same situation as with regard to the Gospels. We might sometimes wish there were only one Gospel instead of four, because having four makes matters complex, but we'd lose an awful lot if we only had one. Similarly here, if we only had one line of interpretation, we would lose significant insights into the significance of Jesus' death. Let me turn here then to one final issue that's of a slightly different type. It's partly a historical question, and it's partly a question that has to do with contemporary Christology. Perhaps the best way to put it initially is to think of it in historical terms, and then let me raise the question in a different way with regard to contemporary literature.

[51:28]

What was the situation of Jesus' disciples at the time of the crucifixion. Now, what I have in mind with this is not the question of an immediate kind of psychological impact. That's an issue also, but that's a little different kind of question. The scene that was mentioned earlier in Luke, the disciples are portrayed as saying, two of the disciples are portrayed as saying, we had hope. but the hope is gone now because of the, the events that have taken place. And so the, the implication that seems present in those texts is that you have a certain attachment to Jesus that's present during his life that's shattered by the crucifixion.

[52:43]

And the immediate result of the crucifixion is a kind of loss of faith. Now, that has to be qualified a little bit because you don't get the picture at all that the disciples go over to the side of Jesus' opponents. They don't become his foes, but they do lead. One of the reasons that it's the centurion who does the speaking at the crucifixion is that there's no one else present to speak. The disciples have headed off someplace else. So it has to be someone who has not been associated with Jesus beforehand. There are some exceptions to that in John's gospel, but basically the disciples aren't present there. Then faith is reawakened by the resurrection material, the appearances, the empty grave story and so on.

[53:46]

The question that will come up here initially is, is that too simplified a portrait of the situation? You recall elsewhere in the Gospels there are various references to John the Baptist And there is, at the end of Mark's story of the death of John the Baptist, a line that I think is quite significant here. I mentioned the other day that Mark frequently makes allusions to things in passing that can be overlooked, but that, in fact, have a greater point. This is in chapter 6 of Mark. You're familiar with the story of John the Baptist being beheaded at the behest of Herodias and so on, the story that's there. I'll just read the last couple of verses.

[54:50]

Chapter 6, verses 27 to 29. Immediately the king sent a soldier of the god and gave orders to bring his head. He went and beheaded him in the prison and brought his head on a platter and gave it to the girl and the girl gave it to her mother. When his disciples heard of it, they came and took his body and laid it in a tomb. Now that ends the story of John the Baptist, and that's the immediate thrust of what's going on here. The gospel goes back to speaking about Jesus and the apostles. But, again, when a Christian reads the story, the Christian has in mind the whole of the gospel. Fundamentally, it's known to the reader. When Jesus is killed, his disciples do not perform the last respects. His disciples have taken off.

[55:54]

And so the contrast between the behavior of John's disciples and Jesus' disciples is quite striking. John's disciples here are presented as not losing some kind of commitment to John the Baptist despite his execution and despite whatever possible danger they might be in themselves. We can ask at least, were there not elements available to Jesus' disciples, particularly the theme of the suffering of the prophet, more immediately here John and the reaction of John's disciples, which would tend to at least limit this situation. So that the impact of the death, and again I don't mean the immediate psychological impact, but thinking about it further, that there are resources present for seeing this death not as a defeat, but as a conclusion to a life lived in complete fidelity to a prophetic mission.

[57:12]

I mention that simply historically. As an example, it's a period about which our information is limited, and the bits of information we have speak of all fleeing. But that could lead to an overstating of the issue. Well, you see, that's interesting. Joseph of Arimathea is not among the twelve. He's not among those who have been public followers of Jesus. It's precisely Joseph of Arimathea and a couple of women, and then in John's Gospel, Nicodemus, a handful of people who do not run away. and who bring about Jesus' burial. So they would be perhaps, it doesn't say they believed in this period, it doesn't say one way or the other, but they do what they can. They would be perhaps examples to think about in this regard, that they don't see Jesus undercut, at least by what has happened.

[58:18]

But the disciples that we think of most readily, particularly the 12, they're gone. They're not gone very far, but they're gone. All right, let me turn against that background just briefly to one last issue at this point, because it'll pave the way for what we'll be talking about with regard to the resurrection. This has to do with different patterns of Christological argumentation. A particular figure that I'd mention in this regard is Wolfgang Pannenberg is a very prominent Lutheran theologian who has written extensively on Christology and other subjects.

[59:27]

And I'd just like to sketch very briefly the outlines of his Christological argumentation. It's one that, with a few modifications but not very many, is also reflected in Casper, in O'Collins, to a certain extent in Kuhn. It's not universal, but it's widespread enough. Pannenberg presents a compact but very significant account of Jesus' public life. And he says that Jesus' public life raised a claim that he was speaking on behalf of God and even more raised a claim to unity with God. The key element here is the idea that this raised a claim.

[60:30]

No less than that, but also not, no more. The evidence needed to support that claim, the evidence that would justify a response in faith was not yet there. There may be some preliminary signs, some preliminary attractions, but not enough in Pannenberg's judgment to sustain the weight of this claim. Now what happens? Jesus is put to death. And that, for Pannenberg, is something very negative. That undercuts the claim. in his argument. That's an indication that the claim that Jesus had raised was not well founded. Death, however, was not the last word. Jesus was raised from the dead, and the resurrection shows

[61:44]

that God stands behind Jesus, it's the divine confirmation of Jesus' claim. One way in which Pannenberg expresses this is to speak of Jesus' double fate, meaning by that, death and resurrection. During his public life, it's Jesus who is active, Jesus who speaks, Jesus who calls disciples, and so on. Then things happen to him. He is put to death by his enemies, but raised from the dead by God the Father. It's the kind of vocabulary you find very frequently in the speeches in the early part of Acts. That's where much of the idea comes from. But notice that in this line of argumentation, pretty much everything rests on the resurrection and the public life.

[62:51]

The death doesn't really contribute very much, although I suppose you can say you wouldn't have the resurrection without it, but that's about the only sense in which the death is significant. And Pannenberg even says in one place, that you can only understand Jesus' death in the light of the resurrection, but you don't need the death in order to understand the resurrection. The light is shed in one direction. The resurrection sheds light on the death, not vice versa. That's a fairly widespread pattern of Christological argumentation, and it's one that I think has to be questioned very seriously because of the the lack of significance attributed to the crucifixion. And here I'd suggest that this is a place where some of the categories we were talking about earlier may come to bear, that Jesus' crucifixion as the death of a prophet, as the death of the righteous sufferer, doesn't have to be interpreted in such negative fashion, even in itself.

[64:02]

Yes. Yes, it is. Yes, it is. And it's interesting, it's a little odd in a way, that a Lutheran theologian would have such a similar pattern of argumentation, because this is not a typical line of argumentation in Protestant circles. It is a little odd.

[64:34]

@Transcribed_v004
@Text_v004
@Score_JJ