How Jesus viewed his Cross

hqdefaultPermit me another reflection (or set of reflections) on the question of whether the Son was abandoned by the Father on the Cross. The question is often answered solely in terms of the Cry: “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” Disagreements over the meaning of the Cry are played out in terms of whether Jesus is referencing Psalm 22 and if so how this might or might not inform our understanding of what Jesus believed to be the state of his relationship with God to be. My own sense is that this cry is indeed a reference to Psalm 22 and that, given the context of the Psalm, what Jesus is actually saying is “I am not abandoned by God as you suppose,” which is the opposite of what many take the Cry to mean. But it comes as bad news to some that Jesus did not suffer from any dereliction of mind or belief regarding the Father’s abiding love, intentions, support or presence throughout his passion.

In this post I think it would be helpful to expand the search beyond the Cry itself for clues to understanding how Jesus might have intended these words. How did Jesus view his Cross? Did he anticipate his own suffering? Did he describe it ahead of time? Did he saying anything during his trial that might give us an insight into what he thought was going on or what he believed would be the meaning of his suffering? What else did he say while on the Cross? Can his statements in any of these contexts help us understand his own understanding of his suffering?

I think there are significant statements Jesus makes that reveal his perspective on his own suffering. I invite you to consider what Jesus says before, during and after (in a manner of speaking) the Cross.

Prior to the Cross
First, Jesus anticipates his sufferings and resurrection (Mk 8.31; 9.30-31; 10.33-34; Mt 16.21-28; 17.22-23; 20.17-19; Lk 9.22-27). We repeatedly meet with Jesus’ prediction that “the Son of Man will be betrayed, suffer, die, and on the third day rise” (and similar phrases). It’s clear that Jesus knows he will be betrayed and murdered. He knows he will be handed over to religious scapegoating violence. There’s no surprise here. In addition, and importantly, he is as confident that he will rise as he certain that he will suffer and die. He knows the game-plan heading into Jerusalem.

Second, Jesus makes it clear that “No man takes my life from me. I lay it down. I take it up.” Not only does he know the game-plan, but he is quarterbacking the play. Some want to ignore or dismiss the implications of Jesus’ claim that he will raise up his own body, but it has to be taken into any account of what one takes Jesus to mean by the Cry. I suggest that at the very least this means Jesus decides to submit himself to be killed and that nothing done to him by others wrests his command of the narrative and meaning of his suffering from him. This in itself makes any deconstruction of the divine identity Jesus enjoys exegetically untenable.

Third, though Jesus clearly believes he will be abandoned and forsaken by others, even his disciples, he does not believe the Cross is where his Father will forsake him. Jn 16.31-33 make this point explicit:

“Do you now believe?” Jesus replied. “A time is coming and in fact has come when you will be scattered, each to your own home. You will leave me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me. I have told you these things so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”

Besides explicitly declaring that his Father would be with him in his upcoming ordeal, Jesus’ point (Jn 16.33) is that how God would be with him on the Cross would ground his disciples’ own peace in their own upcoming afflictions. That is, how the Father would be with Jesus in his suffering is how the Father will be with them in their suffering – precisely the opposite point which interpreters make who view the Cry as expressing Jesus’ despairing belief that God had in fact abandoned him.

These three sources of information from prior to Jesus’ passion suggest that Jesus’ understanding of the Cross had been forged over time and in the most intimate of conversations between him and his Father. He knows the what, the why, and the whence (resurrection) of his suffering to come, and his understanding of the Cross did not include “being alone” or “abandoned” by the Father. Those promoting divine abandonment, however, suppose that although Jesus anticipated the suffering of the Cross and its rejection, and knew he would be vindicated through resurrection, and although he believed the Father would be supportively present with him, this all comes unraveled in Jesus’ mind on the Cross as he ceases to believe it.

ban2

On the Cross
Comments Jesus makes while suffering include:

“Father, forgiven them, for they know not what they do.”
“Today you will be with me in Paradise.”
“My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”
“It is finished.”
“Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”

On the Cross Jesus has the presence of mind to connect his suffering purposefully to his mission and his identity as the Son beloved of his Father. He forgives sin, bestows eternal life, identifies himself as an innocent scapegoat, calls God his Father, confidently commits his spirit to his Father, and dies satisfied in the knowledge that his life’s mission is “finished” – that is, he continues throughout his passion to do what he sees the Father doing. This is perfectly consistent with the confidence he expresses prior to the Cross in what is to occur and what it will mean. Given what he says on the Cross, there is every indication that Jesus’ perspective on his own identity as the beloved of his Father and the success of his mission was not deconstructed or reduced to despair or dereliction by the intensity of his pain or by any internal perception or spiritual sensibility that God had abandoned him. He meaning-makes throughout his suffering without giving up any of this.

After the Cross
What other post-resurrection statements (of Jesus or others) might shed light on Jesus’ view of his own Cross? I’ll mention this as food for thought without going into detail, but the resurrected Jesus says to Paul, “Saul, why are you persecuting me?” (Acts 9.4) What might this tell us about Christ and suffering? Anything? And what are we to make of Paul’s statement that he “fills up in his flesh what is lacking of the sufferings of Christ”? (Col 1.24) Heb. 12.1-3 introduces “hope” as a defining motivation for Jesus’ ability to endure the Cross? How is that hope sustained alongside his believing himself to be forsaken by God? Then there are 2Cor 5.21 (“God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself”) and Gal 3.13 (Christ becomes a curse for us).

Does God really forgive sin if he pours upon Christ the “death consequences” we deserve? It would seem that rather than forgiving sin that God prosecutes it, for if Christ suffers the godforsakeness we deserve as the consequence of our sin, then God was in Christ counting men’s sins against them, which is just the opposite of what Paul says. To take passages like 2Cor 5.21 and Gal 3.13 as expressive of the truth of God’s perspective and motivation is to read God as scapegoating Jesus in mythological terms.

Paul cannot mean (2Cor 5.21) that Jesus literally becomes sin in an ontological sense, or that his human, created nature even is transformed literally into sin, for Paul credits this transformation to God. I think if we read Paul here in terms of the broader narrative of the gospel and in the context of Jesus’ own anticipations and convictions, Christ’s being made sin has to be read as God’s turning Jesus over to the violent, scapegoating mechanisms by which we (not God) identify the innocent victim with our sin and its consequences. God’s “making Jesus to become sin” is thus equivalent to God’s having Jesus become what we (not God) consider to be the divinely appointed mechanism by which our sin and violence are addressed – i.e., the scapegoat.

Same with Gal. 3. God didn’t curse Jesus and God isn’t of the opinion that whoever hangs on a tree is cursed of God. That’s Israel’s false belief and her own scapegoating, skewed perspective, not God’s. But God does give himself to it – i.e., to be treated by it, allowing it to exhaust its resources on him. But if is not true that whoever hangs on a tree is cursed by God, how can God demonstrate this to be a false belief? He demonstrates it by hanging on a tree without being cursed (or abandoned) by God. Christ’s “becoming a curse” for us, then, is equivalent to Christ’s being treated by us in all the ways we identify with having been cursed by God, not because we’re right in believing God to curse the innocent victims we hang on trees, but precisely because we’re wrong, and so that we can be proved wrong, to have ever thought so.

Lastly, there is the question of the application of a proper understanding of the Cross for Christians who are suffering innocently. The Cross functions as an example of how Christians are to suffer, not how they are not to suffer because Jesus suffered. If the moment that defines Christ’s Cross is Jesus’ derelict belief that God had abandoned him, then it’s difficult to see how the Cross becomes an example for Christian suffering, for no NT writer promotes the view that Christians are called to suffer God’s abandonment of them. Quite the contrary (Mt 6.24f; Rom 8.31-39; Col 1.24; 1Pet 2.21; 4.12-19; Heb 12.2). But how does the Cross exemplify the promise to us of God’s sustaining presence in suffering if it’s true that the Cross is most fundamentally an embodiment of God’s abandonment of Christ in fulfillment of the death consequences of our sin? Hebrews 12.2 grounds Jesus’ ability to endure the Cross in a vision of the joy his suffering would result in, hardly the kind of perspective on one’s suffering that a derelict, God-forsaken mind would be capable of. But if Jesus has the joy-giving purpose of his death in mind, as the perspective from which he interprets his own suffering as he suffering, he can hardly think of himself abandoned by the Father.

We have in these competing interpretations of the Cry fundamentally different visions of the God-World relation and its relational, aesthetic, and moral dynamics. So as the Knight said to Indy, “Choose wisely.”

Advertisements

10 comments on “How Jesus viewed his Cross

  1. cyneathian says:

    Seems to me a special dispensation must have been invoked, since the ole Life-giver, the Holy Spirit, would have kept His – God’s – body alive, no matter what man did to it.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. shimosi says:

    Some good ideas. Tom. I had never noticed the relevance of John 16:32, so thanks for that.

    I do have a couple of issues, though.

    On 2 Corinthians 5:21, I think a more viable understanding is to take αμαρτια here to mean ‘sin offering’ rather than sin. It makes the verse nearly a quotation of Isaiah 53:10, and the use of αμαρτια in this sense is well documented in LXX and at least one other NT reference.

    On Galatians 3:13, I’m baffled by your characterization of ‘cursed is everyone hanged on a tree’ as not authoritative but merely “Israel’s false belief.” Paul’s statement here is a quotation of Deuteronomy 21:23 and Paul explicitly introduces the citation with “Christ became a curse for us.” I don’t believe this justifies the penal atonement theory. I think it simply means that Christ suffered death, which is the consequence of the curse on Adam.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Tom says:

      Thank you Shimosi. Glad you commented.

      I agree on 2Cor 5:21. That’s my own understanding. I just think that by “sin offering” Paul means an offering that WE suppose God requires, not an offering that GOD requires. It’s a scapegoating offering from our fallen perspective to which God submits himself in order to expose the entire sacrificial system as impotent and violent.

      On Gal 3.13. I do think Jesus has to face death (as we do) as part of taking the fallen human journey. If that’s all Paul has in mind by “curse,” then there’s no real problem. But (a) God curses the ground in Genesis, not humanity. I don’t recall any explicit passage that says God curses “humanity.” But in any event, if facing death/mortality is all that’s in view, that’s not a problem. But (b) why should this curse be expressed as falling on those who hang on a tree?

      Like

      • Rob says:

        In the NRSV, Deut 21:23 says “anyone hung on a tree is under God’s curse”, whereas Gal 3:13 says “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”, omitting any mention of God. Is this distinction also present in the Greek?

        Like

    • Thanks Tom.
      Even as I hear the voice of my “Evangelical” sisters & brothers telling me that we should not believe “new”, “ear-tickling” messages from the Scripture I want to say thank you for suggesting these pointers as to the true revelation of the Cross.
      The MASSIVE John 16:32 clue is indeed key. As is the fact that needing a sacrifice is no kind of forgiveness.
      I think we can add (and maybe you did and I missed it!) that because Jesus asks God to forgive US (father forgive them for they…) for this crime, which even PSA philes would agree God does, that it is not God doing/causing the punishment.
      So the cross is a picture of God’s forgiveness of our sin by lovingly & mercifully staying God’s own hand when we mistakenly kill The Light of the World in God’s own name.
      Blessings.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Tom says:

        Thanks Lewis. Rest assured, however, that there’s nothing essentially new in what I’m saying. That the Father essentially never abandons the Son is Orthodox Christianity. Sometimes older is better. 😀

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Rob says:

    Once again, this is really excellent work, Tom.

    I note, perhaps somewhat obviously, that the perspective of Jesus’ abandonment on the cross sits rather well with PSA.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. rwwilson147 says:

    I am wondering how you can know that “the success of [Jesus’ self-perceived] mission was not deconstructed or reduced to despair or dereliction by the intensity of his pain or by any internal perception or spiritual sensibility that God had abandoned him.” It seems to me that there is an unknowability implicit in Jesus’ statement “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” One can as many have as you do posited answers to the question of what Jesus meant. But we are neither the God nor the me of the statement. Theological speculations are the best we can have–until we meet and know him in that day.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s