2013 02 17 . The Death of the Messiah . Part 2: Four Different Views of The Death of The Messiah
The stories in the Bible are not written to meet any human standard. They meet the standard that God wanted them to meet when he inspired the writers of the Gospels to write them. But many people are not comfortable with that, and have, unsuccessfully, tried to "harmonize" the Gospels, doing away with troublesome inconsistencies. And no place has more attempt been made to harmonize the Gospel stories than in the stories about the death of Jesus.
We are not going to try to do that. Instead, we're going to look at a some of those inconsistencies today, and then use them to think about a point I will making a bit later in the series: It is a good thing that we have four differing accounts of the Death of the Messiah.
First, let's look at those stories in general. The first thing you will notice is that all the Gospels do hold to a common, basic outline of the events leading to the crucifixion. And that makes sense. After all, there was a basic order of events that took place, that had to take place, and each of the Gospel writers follows that basic order.
For example, Jesus' arrest had to precede his trial, and the trial had to precede the sentence, and the sentence had to precede His execution. And all the Gospel share those common elements, and many more besides. While the details differ, anyone reading any of the Gospel account would easily see they were referring to the same event.
In this drama we call "The Death of the Messiah" there are not only the actions and reactions of Jesus, but also of supporting characters, like Peter and Judas and Pilate. And the drama is heightened by the contrasts between certain characters: innocent Jesus and guilty Barabbas, faithful Jesus and betraying Peter, and in one of the Gospels, wise and troubled Pilate versus the vile and remorseless crowd. Even the scoffing Jewish leaders have their antitheses in the Roman soldier who, in two accounts, declares Jesus to be the Son of God.
All of these elements, while often used quite differently in the separate Gospels, heighten our awareness of the struggle going on here between Jesus and the world that, as John puts it, “knew him not.”
The descriptions of the characters that surround him, and their motives and desires encourage us, the readers, to participate in the drama by constantly asking ourselves the question: "Where would I have stood had I been one of these players in this drama of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus?"
Perhaps we can see ourselves as being among those who welcomed him into Jerusalem as a hero. But would we be able to see ourselves as Peter, denying him? As Judas, betraying Him? Or could we see ourselves, as being like the religious leaders who condemned him? Or as Pilate, either wishing to avoid the issue, as in John's account, or washing his hands of the whole thing so he might appear blameless, as in Matthew's? Could we see ourselves abandoning him, as all the disciples did in three accounts, or staying at the foot of his cross until the end, as did the beloved disciple and Mary in the John’s Gospel?
There were many factors that colored the writing of the Gospels, which, as we learned last week, were all written 30 to 80 years after the death of Jesus. The memory of what happened at Jesus' death was deeply affected by the life situations of the local Christian communities in which the Gospel writers lived; and each was a little different. Each community was strongly influenced on how persecuted it was, and by whom it was persecuted. And each Gospel reflects, for example, how the writers perceived the Romans and the Jews.
Take the Romans, for instance. How do you offset the negative attitude displayed toward Jesus when you read the words of Tacitus, the great Roman writer, who treats Jesus as a despicable criminal; not worthy of anyone’s attention? How would you overcome Tacitus' very negative portrayal? What if, say, you were to portray Pilate as being a spokesman for Jesus, or at least, not against him? Two of the Gospel writers did just that.
If you move through the Gospels according to when they were written you'll see that Pilate is increasingly portrayed as a fair judge who recognized Jesus as innocent of political ambition. This viewpoint not only rehabilitates Pilate in the eyes of Christian readers, but also rehabilitates Jesus in the eyes of Romans: if a Roman Governor of Pilate's stature saw nothing wrong in Jesus, Tacitus must have been mistaken about Jesus being simply a common criminal.
Lets look at just one more example: "How would you characterize Jewish involvement in Jesus' death? Who was involved, who was responsible, for the death of Jesus? Was it all of the Jews? Or just the Pharisees? The Priests? All the Priests? The Sanhedrin? What about Joseph of Aramathea, wasn't he in the Sanhedrin? Or, was it the Romans, and not the Jews at all?
Well, it depends on which Gospel you read. If you wish to go easy on the Jewish involvement, or want to limit it to a handful of leaders, read Luke. In Luke there is no calling for witnesses against Jesus and there is no Jewish death sentence against Him. In fact, there is no formal night time trial, complete with the high priest Ciaphas in charge, as in Mark and Matthew. There is only a simple questioning in the morning by the Sanhedrin.
John, who is hard on the Jews elsewhere in his Gospel, does not write that the Jews were heavily involved in actually deciding Jesus' fate. John records no Sanhedrin session at all after Jesus' arrest, but only a police interrogation conducted by a different high priest, Annas.
Confused? Add further confusion: How much were the Romans involved, and when? John includes Roman soldiers and their Tribune as early as the arrest, the other writers do not. This is important because no Roman Tribune could have been dispatched without the knowledge of Pilate, which means that John believed that Pilate was involved far earlier and far more deeply than any of the other Gospels report, even though, in the end, Pilate could find no justification for killing Jesus.
On the other hand, look carefully at the stories about the accusations against Jesus. If you suspect that it was "all of the Jews" who accused Jesus then Matthew and John are the Gospels that lead you to that conclusion; while Mark and Luke limit Jewish accusations to the Jewish leadership, specifically the priests and the Sanhedrin.
And, while John goes easy on the Jewish leaders during the trial period, John also believes that the whole "world" rejected Jesus and so places blame for his death on everybody, and does not go easy on either the Romans or the Jews. Both are guilty in John's eyes, but, in John’s eyes, so are we. And for my money, John’s conclusion is spot on. As the great Lenten hymn proclaims, “I crucified you.”
We could spend months looking at, and comparing, the Gospel accounts of such things as those above, and things like: How did Jesus view His own death? How did the disciples react at Gesthemene? What did they do at the arrest? Could the Jewish trial even have happened according to Jewish law? What happened at the actual time of death?. i.e.: Did the curtain in the Temple split? Were graves opened? And, after his death, were there guards at the tomb? And on and on. We will do some of that in this series, but only as it helps us better understand Jesus.
Otherwise, if we took the time to sort through every detail, would we find out anything that would help us better understand Jesus? Well, I have (Monte has) done that, done it for countless hours, and I can (he can) tell you that studying and arguing about every little detail does not help us learn much about Jesus.
What will help us know more about Jesus is to know that each individual portrayal of Jesus’ death gives us an insight into who he is such as none of the others give us. And the reason is simple enough. Each divinely inspired evangelist knows a different facet of our Lord and his life and death, and therefore each writer portrays a different picture.
I’m going to stop here for today.
During the coming weeks as you learn in more depth what some of those different views are, I want you to ponder the implications of having four differing portraits of the Death of the Messiah and decide for yourself how you feel about that. I will share with you how I feel about it, but you need to form your own conclusions. Each of us brings our own needs to God and each finds peace and secure faith in his or her individual way.
Can you, like the Church, live comfortably with four quite different portrayals of Jesus’ death? Or do you long for it to be much simpler? How does it affect your faith to know that there is no single, absolutely scientifically provable history of his death?
When we are done looking at a few more of those conflicts in the reports of his death, we will take a very close look at the portrayal by two of the Gospel writers to see WHY the different Gospel writers wrote what they did.
God bless.
Posts
