Sw - Session 9 - Homework

christ

The Historical Meaning of the Cross Disarming the Powers

Session 9 Homework

Introduction Of most biographies that are around, few devote more than ten percent of their pages to the subject’s death – including biographies of men like Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Steve Biko and Oscar Romero who died violent and politically significant deaths. e Gospels, though, devote nearly a third of their length to the climactic last week of Jesus’ life. Only two of the Gospels mention the events of his birth, but each chronicler gives a detailed account of the events leading to Jesus’ death. It must be that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John saw death as the central mystery of Jesus. Nothing remotely like it had happened before.1 eir writings make it abundantly clear that the Gospel story doesn’t end with an unfulfilled dream of God’s kingdom, but that God mightily intervened in world affairs through Jesus’ death on the cross and his subsequent resurrection. In fact, they make it clear that Jesus’ death brought salvation to the world. It was only through God’s death and self-sacrifice that the world’s salvation could be accomplished. At first, God had worked universally to establish Shalom on earth (Gen. 3-11). However, he had to intervene twice to save humankind from selfdestructing. After that he chose one family to become a blessing to the nations. Once he had formed the descendants of Abraham from a slave people into a nation under God, he charged them to establish social systems and live relationships characterized by Shalom. In this way they were to become a witness to the nations of God’s true character and bring blessing and Shalom to them. However, Israel became unfaithful to its true calling. Even though God sent many prophets to call them back to their original purpose, they didn’t listen. Finally, God withdrew from Israel and allowed his people to self-destruct their nation. After a period of 70 years in exile, God began to work anew with a remnant of the original nation. At first, the remnant under the leadership of Nehemiah and Ezra seemed to partially embrace God’s purpose for them as a nation. However, as the centuries progressed they once again alienated themselves from God’s original vision of Shalom. Instead of blessing the nations around them, they developed an exclusivist spirit and looked down on all other nations. So God finally sent his own son to call his nation back to his original plan and gather the people of Israel into God’s Shalom community. Yet, the nation’s leaders opposed Jesus’ vision and call to repentance for fear of losing their power and status. ey preferred to uphold the status quo and kill Jesus instead. Jesus’ death, however, was not the end of God’s vision, but the beginning of a brighter future for the world, its systems and its inhabitants. How?

The Integral Mission of the Church



2





Living the Story Series

What was the meaning of the cross and Jesus’ death? I believe we need to distinguish between the historical meaning and the theological meaning of the cross. Christians today concentrate mostly on the latter and seem to indicate thereby that the historical meaning of the cross is irrelevant. is is very unfortunate, since it misses an important aspect of the meaning of Jesus’ death on the cross. In fact, it stands in danger of spiritualizing the meaning of Jesus’ death! What, then, is the historical meaning of the cross, of Jesus’ execution – and what significance can this historical meaning have for our ministries today? e Historical Meaning of the Cross: Why Jesus Was Executed Normally we think of someone who dies a criminal’s death as a failure. What crucifixion meant to the Romans is expressed in Cicero’s (a Roman statesman) words, ‘Far be the very name of the cross, not only from the body, but even from the thought, the eyes, the ears of Roman citizens’.2 Indeed, at first glance, it may seem that Jesus’ torturous death was futile. He finally died like so many other freedom fighters die – at the hand of the oppressors. No doubt, his life, teachings and ministry made an impact that can be felt until today. His vision of Shalom was life-giving. But in the end, one remains wondering: Why did he willingly give himself over into the hands of his opponents? Why didn’t he escape from Palestine, when he knew for a fact that staying would lead to his death? e historical meaning of the crucifixion of Christ can be seen as Jesus’ radical repudiation of the use of violent force, overcoming it with moral, social and courageous force. It can be seen as the confrontation between the Pax Christi (the Peace or Shalom of Christ) and the Pax Romana with its dark, demonic forces standing behind those human and societal structures; the confrontation between the Empire of God and the Empire of Satan. e Pax Romana was a peace made possible by the cross: people so feared crucifixion that they would think long and hard before rising up against the emperor. e cross was the Roman tool of terror and execution; it was reserved especially for leaders of rebellions. Anyone proclaiming a rival kingdom of Caesar’s would be a prime candidate for crucifixion. is is exactly what Jesus proclaimed, and this is exactly why he suffered death by crucifixion.3 In the only explicit record of the charges brought against Jesus, Luke 23:2, 5 reads: “We have found this man subverting our nation, opposing the payment of taxes to Caesar, and saying of himself that he is the Christ, a King. … He stirs up the people throughout all Judea beginning in Galilee by his teaching.” In other words, Jesus posed a genuine threat to the establishment in Jerusalem. As a charismatic leader with a large following, Jesus had long aroused the suspicion of Herod in

The Integral Mission of the Church



3





Living the Story Series

Galilee and the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. To a puppet Sanhedrin government intent on keeping “peace at any cost” for their Roman masters, such an event raised alarm. Jesus new teaching and actions threatened the false sense of peace in Palestine. His open challenge of the Jewish rulers, charging them as hypocrites, undermined their spiritual authority. And so, the Jerusalem aristocratic elite said: “If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation”. So they plotted to destroy him: “It is better for one man to die for the people than that the whole nation perish.” ( John 11:47-50). Blasphemer, seditionist and messianic pretender! at, then, was the charge! at is why the political and religious leadership conspired to kill him. Jesus was not killed because He showed the way to Heaven to humankind, but because he claimed to be the Messiah, the king of a new kingdom – though a kingdom that was very different from any kingdoms of this world. He was a serious troublemaker as far as the Jewish leadership was concerned.4 When they forced Pilate to admit that Jesus’ messianic claims were a political threat to Rome, Pilate agreed to crucify him.5 e inscription on the Cross (King of the Jews) shows that the alleged crime was Jesus’ messianic claim and rebellion towards Rome. Roman governors regularly crucified Jewish messianic pretenders in the first century.6 In summary, then, Jesus was killed because he was a threat to the Status Quo of both the seen and unseen worlds. At first glance, then, the death of Christ appears to be the victory of both the Jewish and Roman authorities. Yet, it was their demise. When the most sophisticated religious system of its time allied with the most powerful political empire and arrayed itself against a solitary figure, the only perfect man who ever lived, accusing him as a blasphemer and political insurgent, as a threat to the Status Quo, many common people started suspecting that something was wrong. When they saw how religion, not irreligion accused Jesus; how the law, not lawlessness, had him executed, it showed to the world the hollowness of these leaders’ accusations. It opened the eyes of many of Jesus’ contemporaries who had been blinded by the Establishment, illustrating to them how the Jewish Sanhedrin colluded with the Roman authorities to uphold the status quo. e rigged trials, the scourgings, the violent opposition to Jesus exposed the political and religious authorities of that day for what they were: defenders of their own power only. It made it obvious that they were not interested in justice; they were merely interested in maintaining their power, affluence and privilege. On that day the authorities fractured their moral authority by condemning an innocent victim; they could no longer claim to be moral. e Jewish Sanhedrin proved its collusion with Roman authorities outright by naming Caesar their king and friend ( John 19:12-15). Pilate on the other hand, though at first giving the appearance

The Integral Mission of the Church



4





Living the Story Series

to reject Jesus’ death sentence, would never have acted contrary to the Sanhedrin’s claims against a low-status plaintiff – such as Jesus. As aristocratic allies who controlled the system of justice as a means of furthering their own interests, it was obvious to him that the Sanhedrin’s interests were also his.7 Jesus, it follows, was crucified not because the common people called for it. Jesus was crucified because the elite engineered it.8 While some members of the populace allowed themselves to be manipulated and hired by the ruling elite to accuse Jesus, most likely for some small personal benefits, many people who physically saw the crucifixion, whether or not they were Christ’s followers, saw that it was not the justice but the injustice of humankind that was being carried out that day.9 In the arrest, trial and crucifixion of Christ, humankind’s sin was more than visible: human’s disobedience to God, human’s rejection of truth, human’s cruelty, human’s lies, human’s vested interest, human’s greed, human’s hate, human’s oppression, human’s exploitation, human’s abuse of power, human’s deliberate choice of evil were all there on the cross for everyone to see, hear and feel.10 Every one could see that it was the sin of the world that was hanging on that cross. It was not the justice of humankind that was displayed on the cross. Both his judges, Pilate and Herod, admitted that Jesus had committed no offense that called for his execution. Every one knew that Jesus was being crucified because of the envy, jealousy, fears and hypocrisy of the socio-religious and political leaders of his day. Everyone could see that what was hanging on the cross was the greed of his betrayer, the lies of false witnesses, and the moral cowardice of some hired crowds, the disciples and the Governor that could not resist injustice and oppression but instead condoned the status quo. What hung upon the cross was not the nobility of the human heart but our sin – the brutality, oppression and terror upon which the kingdoms of this world, the kingdom of Satan, have been founded. When Jesus died, even a gruff Roman soldier was moved to exclaim, “Surely this man was the Son of God!” He saw the contrast all too clearly between his brutish colleagues and their victim, who forgave them in his dying gasp. e pale figure nailed to a crossbeam exposed the ruling powers of the world as false gods who broke their own lofty promises of piety and justice. Each assault on Jesus laid bare their illegitimacy.11 So when Peter spoke to crowds in Jerusalem just a few weeks later and publicly exhorted them that “God has made this Jesus whom YOU crucified, both Lord and Christ… the people, when they heard this, were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:36-37). Within days of Peter’s public denunciation and call to repentance thousands more had joined the fledgling movement. e Jewish leaders were not able to curtail its growth by pointing to Jesus’ criminal record and smearing Jesus’ name. Why? ey

The Integral Mission of the Church



5





Living the Story Series

had lost their moral authority by breaking their own lofty promises of piety and justice. eir subjects’ trust in them markedly waned. e consequences were grave: When the Jewish leadership rejected Jesus’ message of Jubilee, chose ongoing collaboration with Rome and selfpreservation by upholding the status quo, discontent among the general populace increased. Jerusalem had rejected the appeal of God’s last and greatest messenger, and now judgment fell.12 Just three to four decades later, the pot boiled over. Large numbers of common people rebelled against the Jewish elite and the Roman occupiers, following the Zealots on a path of violent revolution. e result: Rome brutally crushed the rebellion in 70 AD, massacring tens of thousands of people, completely destroying Jerusalem and its temple, and bringing the Jewish nation to an end. Life as the Jewish people knew it, life centered in Jerusalem, temple, priesthood, and homeland was over. e ‘end of the age’ had come.13 e same had happened 600 years earlier: the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Babylonians in 587 BC. is is the consequence when a people and its social systems renounce the purpose for which they were created and instead uphold a religion of control, a politics of oppression and an economics of exploitation. God withdraws and leaves them vulnerable to the consequences of their own evil ways. Had they only listened to Jesus’ alternative vision! e Significance of the Cross for the Growth of Christianity and the Demise of the Roman Empire Fortunately, Jesus’ alternative vision and plan of action to bring Shalom to the nations had not been destroyed. In fact, through the cross, Christ conquered the Jewish and Roman leaders and with them all principalities and powers opposing God’s reign. He conquered them not through their humiliation and death, but through his. Jesus willingly subordinated himself to the powers by accepting crucifixion. In doing so, he reminded the powers that they were powerless, even in victory, to make their will sovereign. ey couldn’t forcibly crucify him. He chose to let himself be crucified. eir instrument of control – fear of death – didn’t work on him. e cross, then, was Jesus’ radical refusal to compromise with the evils of the social status quo. It was a costly confrontation with corruption. e cross, for Jesus, was not a passive acceptance of evil, but a fearless opposition to evil – and of accepting the consequences of that opposition. In fact, Jesus not only carried his cross, but he asked his disciples to carry their own crosses too. One cannot be a disciple of Christ unless one takes up one’s cross and follows him. To ‘take up your cross’ means to become a rebel! It means to fight a corrupt establishment with moral and social weapons, to be a troublemaker and accept the consequences of one’s

The Integral Mission of the Church



6





Living the Story Series

actions! Such actions, though costly, eventually disarm the powers and prove their illegitimacy. It is stunning indeed that the church chose the cross as one of its primary symbols.14 e spectacle of crucifixion, which long functioned for Rome to beat down courage and resistance and uphold the Pax Romana, now became the center of another narrative of power, a story that displaced Rome from center stage. e cross still remained a spectacular symbol, but to the growing Christian movement it was no longer a symbol of defeat, but a symbol of victory, celebrating triumph over the Roman Empire’s crucifying power and relegating it into a mere interim power.15 For the early church, embracing the cross meant that the kingdom of God would triumph not by inflicting violence but by enduring it – not by making others suffer but by willingly enduring suffering for the sake of justice – not by coercing or humiliating others but by enduring their humiliation with gentle dignity. (is theme of enduring suffering is far more common in the teaching of Jesus and the apostles than most of us realize). Jesus, they felt, took the empire’s instrument of torture and transformed it into God’s symbol of the repudiation of violence – encoding a creed that love, not violence, is the most powerful force in the universe.16 e fledgling Jesus movement thereby stole the show from Rome, by wielding the spectacle of one of Rome’s most terrifying weapons – the cross – against terrorizing Rome.17 It’s no surprise in this light that the heroes of the early church were not Crusaders, not warriors, not men of the sword, but rather martyrs, men and women with the faith and courage to face lion, ax, cross, chain, whip, and fire as testimony to their allegiance – not to the standards of this world but to the standards of the kingdom of God. Like Jesus, they would rather suffer violence than inflict it. Like Jesus, they showed that threats of violence could not buy their silence, that instruments of fear could not make them cower.18 As a result, Jesus’ movement to change society swept across the Roman Empire. Rome was deeply threatened by these Christian alternative communities. is is the only explanation that truly makes sense out of Rome’s episodic persecution of the church for over two centuries. ose emperors who scorned and attacked the Christians rightly perceived that the greatest enemy Rome faced was not the Huns or Visigoths, but the Christians. Yet, even in trying to extinguish the Christian movement, many Romans remained impressed at its power. Roman governor Plinius Secundus, for instance, wrote in his Epistles X96 that Christians were people who loved the truth at any cost. Although he was ordered to torture and execute them for refusing to curse Jesus, he was continually amazed and impressed with their firm commitments "not to do any wicked deeds, never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up."

The Integral Mission of the Church



7





Living the Story Series

By the end of the second century, an envoy to Roman Emperor Hadrian, wrote about the Christians of that time: “ey love one another and they never fail to help widows; they save orphans from those who would hurt them. If they have something they give freely to the man who has nothing; if they see a stranger they take him home and are happy as though he were a real brother; they don't consider themselves brothers in the usual sense, but brothers instead through the Spirit in God.” e result eventually was the transformation of Roman society into a Christianized society within the course of 300 years. God used the message carried by this tiny, persecuted, oppressed, rejected, reviled group of disciples to change the Roman Empire.19 By the time Constantine was crowned Emperor in 312, between 10-25 percent of the Roman Empire was Christian. And Christianity had brought about significant social justice and social reform. It is an exciting study to see the impact of the second and third century churches on changing the social culture of Rome, particularly in terms of justice and social welfare.20 Historically, then, the cross was the strategy of Christ in the battle against not only the heavenly, but also the secular powers, principalities and rulers of this dark age; a strategy that would in its finality expose the illegitimacy, corruptness and self-serving attitude of the current leadership and authorities.21 Historian Philip Schaff described the overwhelming influence which Jesus had on subsequent history and culture of the world. "is Jesus of Nazareth, without money and arms, conquered more millions than Alexander, Caesar, Mohammed, and Napoleon." How ironic that the cross, the icon of the dominating Roman framing story, became the icon for the liberating framing story of Jesus. 22 e Significance of Jesus’ Strategy of the Cross Today Interestingly, Jesus’ example and moral power influenced multitudes of social actors in centuries to come, including some of the best known social movement leaders of the 20th century: Mahatma Gandhi well understood and imitated Christ in his embrace of the cross. Many Indians wanted to fight British colonialism with guns and bombs. But Gandhi asked his followers to fill the British jails and accept the British stick-blows and bullets. When the British threw Gandhi in jail, it was not Gandhi who was judged and condemned but the British themselves. When they beat and killed the peaceful protesters, they in fact destroyed their own kingdom. at was what Jesus had invited his disciples to do. To ‘take up your cross’ means to become an opponent of those powers that oppose God’s rule, to fight a corrupt

The Integral Mission of the Church



8





Living the Story Series

establishment with moral and social weapons, to be a troublemaker and take the consequences of that.23 Years later, Martin Luther King Jr. decided to put Gandhi’s tactics into practice in the United States. Many blacks abandoned King over the issue of nonviolence and drifted toward “black power”. After you’ve been hit on the head with a policeman’s nightstick for the dozenth time and received yet another jolt from a jailer’s cattle prod you begin to question the effectiveness of nonviolence. But King himself never wavered. As riots broke out in places like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Harlem, King traveled from city to city trying to cool tempers, forcefully reminding demonstrators that moral change is not accomplished through immoral means. Almost all his speeches reiterated the message: “Christianity has always insisted that the cross we bear precedes the crown we wear.” To be a Christian one must take up his cross, with all its difficulties and agonizing and tension-packed content and carry it until that very cross leaves its mark upon us and redeems us to that more excellent way which comes only through suffering. King had a number of weaknesses, but one thing he got right. Against all odds, against all instincts of selfpreservation, he stayed true to the principle of peacemaking. He did not strike back. Where others called for revenge, he called for love. e civil rights marchers put their bodies on the line before sheriffs with nightsticks and fire hoses and snarling German shepherds. at, in fact, was what brought them the victory they had been seeking so long. Historians point to one event as the single moment in which the Civil Rights movement attained a critical mass of public support for its cause. It occurred on a bridge outside Selma, Alabama, when Sheriff Jim Clark turned his policemen loose on unarmed black demonstrators. e American public, horrified by the scene of violent injustice, at last gave assent to passage of a civil rights bill. e real goal, King used to say, was not to defeat the white man, but “to awaken a sense of shame within the oppressor and challenge his false sense of superiority… e end is reconciliation; the end is redemption; the end is the creation of the beloved community.” King, like Gandhi before him, died a martyr. After his death, more and more people began adopting the principle of nonviolent protest as a way to demand justice. In the Philippines, after Benigno Aquino’s martyrdom, ordinary people brought down the dictatorship of Marcos by gathering in the streets to pray; army tanks rolled to a stop before the kneeling Filipinos as if blocked by an invisible force. Later, in the remarkable year of 1989, in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Romania, Mongolia, Albania, the Soviet Union, Nepal, and Chile, more than half a billion people threw off the yoke of oppression through nonviolent means. In many of these places, especially the nations of Eastern Europe and South Africa, the Christian church led the way.

The Integral Mission of the Church



9





Living the Story Series

Protesters marched through the streets carrying candles, singing hymns, and praying. As in Joshua’s day, the walls came tumbling down.24 In 1989 alone, thirteen nations comprising 1.7 billion people – over thirtytwo percent of humanity – experienced nonviolent revolutions. ey succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest expectations in every case but China. And they were completely peaceful (on the part of the protesters) in every case but Romania and parts of the southern U.S.S.R. e latest successful non-violent revolution happened in East Timor, which obtained political independence from Indonesia in 2002. If we add all the countries touched by major nonviolent actions during the past one hundred years, the figure reaches almost 3 billion.25 e British commanders, then, who authorized massacres against Mahatma Ghandi’s followers, the racist sheriffs who locked Martin Luther King Jr. in jail cells and unleashed guard dogs on unarmed African-American protesters, the Soviets who deported Solzhenitsyn, the Czechs who imprisoned Václav Havel, the Filipinos who murdered Benigno Aquino, the South African authorities who imprisoned Nelson Mandela, the El Salvadorian authorities who had archbishop Oscar Romero murdered, the Mexican authorities who massacred non-violent student protesters in Tlatelolco, Mexico City – all these thought they were solving a problem. Instead, they all ended up exposing the hollowness of their claims to seek the justice and wellbeing for their people and helped open the eyes of many citizens to their lies. ey unmasked their own violence and injustice and paved the way for their own demise, triggering movements that brought about change in their respective countries. Moral, social and courageous power can have a disarming effect as already Jesus and his disciples proved. Today, in many countries of the world where evil, corruption and tyranny reign, heaping untold miseries on the weak and the poor, Christ continues to call his disciples to a practical compassion for the sheep. He calls his followers to take up their cross and follow him in the path of service, protest and non-violent confrontation.26

reflection questions: your reactions to the historical meaning of the cross In what follows, reflect on the following questions and write your answers into your Application Journal • What are your reactions to this article?

The Integral Mission of the Church



10





Living the Story Series

• Describe the meaning of crosses in the Roman Empire. Was this a new insight for you? How does it compare with associations most people have with the cross today? • How do you react to this article’s claim, that Jesus’ death had not only spiritual meaning? • Have you personally seen the effectiveness of Jesus’ strategy in disarming the powers work? Now, take some time to pray as you reflect on the next questions, and allow God’s Spirit to work in your heart to encourage, reveal, exhort, challenge and inspire. • How does this article affect you in terms of your own personal faith and your spiritual journey? • What would it imply for you to ‘take up your cross’ in your community/city? Would you be ready? • What would it imply for people in your church to ‘take up their cross’ your community/city? • What are ways that you and your church are called to take up your cross? What issues and injustices in your community and city can only be overcome by a movement of ‘cross-bearing’ disciples? • What would happen in your community/city if a growing number of churches took up their cross the way Jesus commanded his disciples to do? Come prepared to share your answers in the following class session!

application journal:

The Integral Mission of the Church



11





Living the Story Series

The Integral Mission of the Church



12





Living the Story Series

endnotes 1

? Carson, D. A. 1994. New Bible Commentary: 21st century edition. Rev. ed. of: e new Bible commentary. 3rd ed. / edited by D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer. 1970. (4th ed.) . InterVarsity Press: Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA 3 Jesus died between two others who had also proclaimed opposition to Caesar, yet whose violent methods radically differed from Jesus’. e two men who were crucified with Jesus, commonly thought of as thieves, were more likely leaders or agents of failed political rebellions. 4 Based on class notes of Bob Linthicum’s course “Building a People of Power” He claimed to be the legitimate king of the Jews with a large following backing him, which meant that the Sanhedrin’s rule was illegitimate. 5 In asking Jesus if his title is “King of the Jews”, Pilate asks Jesus, “Are you the head of the resistance?” e title charged Jesus with sedition against the empire and Caesar. Pilate wondered greatly. is was not because he thought Jesus not guilty or not threatening, as some commentators assert. Indeed, the fact that Jesus’ doings rendered him liable to a political charge, says something subversive about this evasive kingdom which Jesus insists is not of this world. Central to the meaning of not being ‘of this world’ is the refusal to use the strength of worldly power. Jesus said that if his kingdom were of this world his servants would fight to prevent his arrest. In other words, they would not hesitate to resort to violence. Note that Jesus at this juncture is past the temptations of the wilderness – past inner cravings for the compelling yet doubtful potential of reformist ambitions, of power and authority and the lure of the spectacular. Now there is only the quiet resolves to drink the cup of suffering before him. So Pilate wondered because Jesus had brazenly not denied that he was a threat to Rome. He had not been able to intimidate Jesus into lying, begging or recanting in order to save his life, enough to make any true imperial officer wonder. Jesus denied Pilate and his imperial system the power to intimidate him into conformity and submission, but maintained the challenge of his commission. (Warren Carter, Matthew and Empire, 161-162; Melba Padilla Maggay, Transforming Society, 49) 6 Ronald Sider, One-Sided Christianity, 71 7 Warren Carter, Matthew and Empire, 151 8 Warren Carter, Matthew and Empire, 167 9 Many commentators suppose that masses of people turned their backs on Jesus because he didn’t fulfill widely-held expectations that he would lead an armed revolution and sack the Romans. ey were disappointed with Jesus’ vision and strategy for change: ey had wanted a local hero, a Messiah just for Israel, one who would follow their customs and confirm their prejudices. So, when Jesus turned out to challenge their parochial attitudes and self-serving desires, and didn’t fulfill their expectations of Messiah, these commentators maintain, multitudes were fine with the Jewish authorities’ desire to get rid of him and readily offered their support. While this traditional interpretation may have some merit, it is still hard to believe that the majority of common people turned their backs on Jesus when they had welcomed him as King just a few days earlier. e following interpretation seems more plausible: In Mark 15:11 we’re told that the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas and crucify Jesus instead. e leaders preferred Barabbas, a sicarii (‘dagger man’ were connected to the Zealots) who assassinated Roman officials in the vain hope of driving them out of Palestine, to be released instead of Jesus. From their choice, it was clear that the Jewish elite conceived Jesus a bigger threat to their power than Barabbas. It is important to note that the crowd present in Pilate’s court yard did not comprise all of Israel. ey wouldn’t have fit in Pilate’s palace court anyway, where the trial was held. More likely, then, this crowd was hired or mobilized by the Jewish authorities’ to demand Jesus’ crucifixion. e authorities 2

The Integral Mission of the Church



13





Living the Story Series

might have promised them some material reward in return, since – apart from the ruling elite – not many common Jews would have readily acknowledged Caesar as their king and friend ( John 19:12-15). In fact, isn’t it a common practice in many countries for politicians to manipulate the poor to achieve their goals? How often have you seen political parties buy votes by giving people some kind of material rewards? How often have you seen politicians use poor people to march for a cause, even though these poor don’t even know the underlying reasons for their protests? It seems, then, that the number of common people who actively demanded Jesus’ crucifixion was small. e great majority, didn’t approve, yet unfortunately remained silent – most likely for fear of repercussions. 10 Vishal Mangalwadi, Truth and Social Reform, 23 11 ? Mangalwadi, ? 12 By calling the nation to repentance and challenging them to accept his teachings of the Kingdom, Jesus hoped to avert the nation from self-destruction. If they didn’t, he foresaw a scenario something like this: “Tensions will continue to rise, and eventually the Zealots will lead the people into a violent rebellion. When they rebel, God will not intervene as they hope, because God does not want to continue to bless violence. Instead, they will be crushed brutally by the Romans. e temple will be destroyed. Jerusalem will fall. Jewish life as we know it will end.” As anyone who knows history will realize, the scenario Jesus describes did in fact occur. His countrymen did not trust him or follow him. ey rejected both his promises and his warnings. ey did not accept his radical alternative to violence, accommodation, or isolation. Jesus himself realized this would be the case as he descended to Jerusalem on what we call Palm Sunday, and he began to weep and say, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem! If only you knew what makes for peace!” (Brian McLaren, e Secret Message of Jesus, 179) 13 Brian McLaren, e Secret Message of Jesus, 186 14 Mark Lewis Taylor, e Executed God, 104 15 Mark Lewis Taylor, e Executed God, 104 16 Brian McLaren, e Secret Message of Jesus, 152-153 17 Mark Lewis Taylor, e Executed God, 104 18 Brian McLaren, e Secret Message of Jesus, 153 19 Bob Moffit, If Jesus Were Mayor, 36 20 Bob Moffit, If Jesus Were Mayor, 40 In 313 AD Emperor Constantine declared Christianity legal and gave the church freedom from persecution and social contempt. He and his successors continued to broaden policies that favored the church. By 381, Christianity was declared the state religion. Pagan Rome was no officially “Christian Rome”. e Roman Empire gave state support to Christianity in 392. And there something very unfortunate happened. Instead of continuing to play a prophetic role, the church entered into growing cooperation with the state – with the desire to transform the world under the banner of the Roman Empire. is introduced radical changes to Jesus’ vision and stood in stark difference from the humble and simple service of the early church. Many of the resulting changes were not in line with God’s vision of Shalom. Nonetheless, God continued to use parts of the church during the subsequent centuries. He always does! (Bob Moffit, If Jesus Were Mayor, 40-41) 21 Vishal Mangalwadi, Truth and Social Reform, 25 Someone, whose perception of Christianity is conditioned by the contemporary image of the Church is very likely to dismiss this interpretation of the historical meaning of the cross as a heresy. But Gamaliel, a respected Jewish rabbi, who watched Jesus and His cross-bearing community closely and sympathetically, saw them as well-intentioned political rebels. He naturally classed the apostles with eudas and Judas the Galilean who ‘also’ led revolts against Rome. e entire Jewish Sanhedrin–both critics and sympathisers of the apostles–agreed with Gamaliel’s perception of the Church as a band of rebels (Acts 5:33-40) (Vishal Mangalwadi, Truth and Social Reform, 25-26)

The Integral Mission of the Church



14





Living the Story Series

22

Brian McLaren, Everything Must Change, 86 Vishal Mangalwadi, Truth and Social Reform, 24-25 24 Vishal Mangalwadi, Truth and Social Reform, 25-26 25 Walter Wink, e Powers at Be, 117 26 Vishal Mangalwadi, Truth and Social Reform, 25-26 23

The Integral Mission of the Church



15





Living the Story Series