A mob + the innocent + festival = Bad News

Church of the Transfiguration - Cape Cod

Over the past several weeks I have been re-studying the Gospel of John. Of the many things that recapture my heart with this my second favorite Gospel, I am reminded why Jesus keeps being so elusive. Specifically the times in the Gospel when Jesus says some variation of 'it is not my time yet." 

So when is Jesus' time?

• Wedding at Cana (Chapter 2), Nope.
• How about when Jesus fed 5000 (Chapter 6), nope.
• The festival of Booths (Chapter 7), nope.

I could go on and on, because the gospel of John if full of these instances, however the point is made. The formula in the gospel of John that ensures that it is Jesus' time is three fold. Only when these three elements are present do you know that it is Jesus' time. Take a moment and see if you can figure it out yourself - what elements are needed in order for Jesus to no longer be elusive?

1. Jesus' presence
2. A festival
3. A unified mob

There are times when Jesus is present and there is a festival but no unified crowd (Ch. 2, wedding, Jesus, no unified crowd).

There are times when Jesus is present and there is a unified mob but no festival (Ch. 8, Jesus, unified crowd against woman caught in adultery, no festival).

There are times where there is a festival and a unified mob but no Jesus (Ch. 9, Sabbath, unified mob, no Jesus).

Why do you think that these three elements are needed in order for it to then be the right "time?" I would submit that it is at the intersection of these three elements that Jesus is trying to teach us something about the nature of his death. The death of Jesus is not a transaction between humans and God (God is mad, Jesus is sacrificed, God's wrath is held back). The death of Jesus points us to the demonic nature of what happens when a unified mob acts in sacred violence we tend to kill the innocent. 

If we believe that our cause is so righteous and correct, if we whip others into a frenzy and demand uniformity masquerading as unity, if we have innocent people we will end up crucifying the Christ once more. 

Be cautious of anytime we find ourselves with a "righteous cause" (religious leaders of Jesus' day had a "righteous cause"). Be cautious of anytime we find ourselves placing a higher degree of holiness and purity over mercy and love (remember Jesus said, I desire mercy not sacrifice). Be cautious anytime we are willing call others unorthodox or identify ourselves with being "the majority" (Jesus was counted unorthodox and it was the perceived majority crowd that killed Jesus). 

If we are taking about an election or a denomination, we may need to take another look at the intersection of the mob, the innocent and celebrations. Jesus sought out that intersection to teach us something, may we have ears to hear that lesson. 

Why would a God thirst?

The NRSV translation of the Bible put John 19:28-29 in this way: "After this, when Jesus knew that all was now finished, he said (in order to fulfil the scripture), ‘I am thirsty.’ A jar full of sour wine was standing there. So they put a sponge full of the wine on a branch of hyssop and held it to his mouth."

Some talk about the scripture that is being fulfilled is Psalm 69:21 - "They gave me poison for food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink." Meaning the fulfilment comes in the type of drink that was given to Jesus. 

I guess. But does the drink type serve as a convincing argument for Jesus as Messiah? And, in his final moments, I question that Jesus is thinking, "Oh, hey I could fulfill an obscure scripture about drinking vinegar if I just request a drink. I know, I will say 'I thirst.' That will do it." 

Perhaps it is a misunderstanding to interpret "I am thirsty" as fulfilling one verse of of the scriptures. Perhaps in this line, Jesus fulfils all of scripture?

Throughout the biblical witness, there is a revealing story about the nature of God. That is God is a God who is constantly pouring God's self out out of love for creation. This is made most evident in the life of Jesus who identified himself as the source of the water of life (John 4). But even after death, when Jesus' side is pierced and water and blood flow out, God continues to be poured out onto creation. 

Could it be that Jesus is thirsty because he has poured himself out so much out of love for creation that he himself grows thirsty? He gives the water of life to others to the point that he goes thirsty. Could it be that God goes without the waters of life so that others may have their thirst quenched? 

On a smaller scale, Christians fast for similar reasons. We do not eat so that others may. And so when we give away our food so others may be fed, we become hungry. When God gives the waters of life away so creation may drink, God becomes thirsty. 

The thirst of God in Jesus is also a bit different from the thirst of other gods of the day. Other god's have a thirst that cannot be quenched. They have an thirst that demands that creation offers up sacrifice after sacrifice in order to quench their thirst. These gods are thirsty for more. God in Christ is not thirsty for more, but thirsty because he gave all that he has. 

Because we are all duped. #progGOD

Over the past several months there has been a challenge put out by Patheos and curated by Dr. Tony Jones called #progGOD. The point of the challenge is to invite progressive Christians to say something constructive about a particular topic rather than just deconstructing. This post is my response to the third question, "Why a crucifixion?" (The first two questions were "Who/What is God?" and "Why and incarnation?")

---

In college I asked the question, "If Jesus died for our sins, then why did he have to be crucified? Why wouldn't he just commit suicide?"

I was unable to find someone who was willing to entertain such a morbid question, and when I did I was told one of two responses. The first: "It was God's will." The second: "Rome crucified anyone who was a threat to the state and and the ministry of Jesus was a threat to the state, so he was crucified." 

The first response seemed to reflect a morbid God, but it at least had a sense of God in the response. The second response upheld the political threat of the message of Jesus but it also seemed to removed God from the entire process. This is my attempt to find a response that upholds the political understanding of the death of Jesus while also finding space for God, 

My understanding of Rene Girard is that Jesus was the one who exposed to the world just how destructive it is for a society to resolve tension and disagreements by finding scapegoats to kill. Humanity has been duped by this way of seeing the world. We all are looking for scapegoats to blame in order to feel better about the problem, which allows us to never really deal with the problem and only buys us time before we find our next scapegoat. Even today we have our scapegoats from Michael Brown to Steve Bartman. 

When you and I, at times, identify when someone/something is being scapegoated, is a result of the crucifixion. 

Jesus exposed the tension between all the different factions, Zealots, Pharisees, Sadducees, Rome, Herodians, etc. And when this tension is exposed and elevated, then, humans being duped into "knowing how to resolve the tension", seek out their scapegoat. Jesus was the perfect scapegoat for many factions and thus these factions sought out ways to kill him. 

Jesus, knowing his life was the way of the scapegoat, understood that he could not be run out of town and thrown off a cliff like any scapegoat. Jesus knew that if he died like any other scapegoat that humanity would still be caught up in a cycle of violence and that we would forever be entrapped in the web of deceit of the Satanic cycle of violence. 

This is why Jesus eventually understood that his death was to be the way of crucifixion. If he was going to be the scapegoat for the factions of his day, then he was going to the the scapegoat that also liberated humanity and exposed the cycle of violence.  

Today the world is saved from this cycle of violence because God in the life of Jesus, was not a victim of suicide or of a mob killing like countless others. Jesus' crucifixion was the way that Rome chose to kill Jesus and in that death God chose to reveal the nature of cycles of violence. The fact that Jesus saw the system of scapegoats as a lie of violence is evidence that Jesus was able break the cycle. To put it another way, Jesus was not like any other human, Jesus was indeed God.

Have you ever wondered why Pilate, the ruler of the land, would listen to Joseph of Arimathea and approve that Jesus off the cross? Why did Pilate not also remove the two thieves off their cross? Could it be that the longer that Jesus hung on his cross the more his death exposed the fact that he was an innocent scapegoat - And if we scapegoat the innocent then anyone could be the next victim in an endless cycle of violence.  

Even someone like you or me.

Jesus was crucified in order to reveal that God does not desire sacrifices. That the tension in the world cannot be resolved by violence (even violence with a 'divine sanction'). In the crucifixion we see once and for all that God has not ever demanded or required violence/sacrifice/scapegoats, but that God used that system against itself to reveal something deeply profound about the way humans think about violence...

We all are duped.