This passage from Isaiah, particularly, is extraordinary because it was used very early on by the followers of Jesus to try to make sense of what was in fact one of the greatest scandals of this early movement. Jesus' followers could all run around shrieking, "God has raised this man from the dead!". But, before that even began to make sense, and even to appreciate what that kind of resurrection meant, it was essential to somehow deal with the fact that this man was executed in a way that was reserved for the worst criminals in the Roman empire.

I think we have domesticated the Cross and are so accustomed to it that what Paul refers to as its scandalous character is pretty much lost on it - - at least it is lost on me. Furthermore, the Greek word for scandal is an interesting word. It means stumbling block, or obstacle. So, as I said, it is quite amazing that these early followers of Jesus took these four very obscure poems in the second part of the Book of Isaiah which refer to some sort of mysterious person who is going to be faithful to the Lord. This one is called a servant of the Lord, and their death and their suffering is somehow going to be a benefit to somebody else. Nobody knows the person to whom Isaiah was referring. But what is extraordinary is that it seems that very early on these Jews took those texts and combined them with another understanding of Jesus which seemed absolutely incompatible; namely, Jesus as Messiah. This was certainly one of the earliest interpretations of Jesus. However, I, and many scholars, do not think that Jesus thought he was the Messiah. We believe he thought he was doing what God wanted him to do. Moreover no Messianic expectation among the Jews included this kind of death! As I said, it is very hard for us to retrieve the horror of the Cross, in every sense of the word, and the disgrace in a society where of course disgrace and honour were absolutely critical elements of one's sense of oneself. It is very hard to recapture that sense of the disgracefulness of the Cross. So, what they did was very clever. They said, "somehow this individual's death is going to work to our benefit", and that is precisely the point I would like to focus on today.

We know very early on in the earliest strata of the development of the Christian movement that they wrestled with this death of Christ. The easiest way to do it, as seen very early on in the Gospel of Mark - around the year 70 - was to say "God wanted this". This was wonderful. They said, "God wanted Jesus to die and that settles it!". Let me make a short remark about that. In what sense did God want the death of Jesus? God wanted Jesus to do what God wants all of us to do, which was to grow up. And growing up of course means to take responsibility for our own actions. As simple as it sounds it is absolutely accurate to say the Cross is simply Jesus taking responsibility for his own actions He could have given up and left his situation. He could have gone to the desert and said, "It was all a great mistake and I take back everything I did and said". He could have done this. And so the fact that he did not was so irritating to people that they had to get rid of him. But that was not adequate for these early Jesus followers and so they had to validate the death of Jesus in all kinds of ways. For example, in the Gospel of John: "Jesus knew his death was coming", or "Jesus knows everything that is coming". In the Gospel of Mark, very early on, Jesus predicts his death by Crucifixion three different times. All of these things in the New Testament, and there are more, are attempts by the New Testament writers to somehow make this horror comprehensible and intelligible in order to legitimize it in some way.

But what about us? One of the other ways of doing this is to say that "Jesus died for our sins". Every time I hear that phrase I go back thirty-three years to my first assignment when I was teaching high school. I was talking to a group of grade nine people about the death of Jesus, and I had just asked the kids what they thought about the death of Jesus. And my friend Bruce held up his hand and said, "Jesus had a good time dying because he knew he was dying for me". Well, there you have it. Bruce had no lack of self-confidence obviously but his remark has stayed with me as the expression of our misconception of the cross. Jesus did not have a good time, even if he had had Bruce in mind. What does it mean when we say "Jesus died for our sins"? Does this mean, for example, that Jesus was waving a sign on his way to Calgary that said, "I am dying for your sins"? No, what is going on when we say that Jesus died for our sins is not some statement about Jesus. Instead, it is primarily a statement about us. It is we who are saying this man's life makes so much sense, and this man's death, which was part and parcel of this man's life, makes so much sense that now I really know what it is to be a human being and to be alive as a human being. It is out of that kind of understanding that then we can make the claim that Jesus did die for our sins, because I have come to believe that what it is to be a human being entails this kind of living. And as Paul will say over and over, this kind of dying. Because to live that way, not just in the world of first-century Palestine, but in the world of late twentieth-century Canada, is necessarily going to entail the same consequences. No matter how much we may want to avoid those implications this is still the fact. Again, to take the smallest example that I have been mentioning for weeks now: just to tell the truth is occupationally hazardous. It is hazardous to one's health!

And then of course, finally, at the end of this passage from Mark we have yet another instance of the Cross. Mainly, the thing that is absolutely pervasive through the New Testament: the radical re-definition of what it is to be a boss. For me, to be a boss means I have a reserved parking place in the King's College parking lot, as well as having one of the bigger offices here at the College. To me, it means I am a part of all kinds of committees, even if I do not want to be, I am there, and that is what it means to be an administrator. Thus, to be an administrator means to be a boss. But Jesus is saying, "No, people. That is the way it functions. That is business as usual. That is standard operating procedure. That is certainly true, but that is also precisely the opposite of what my understanding of what being an authority figure is". To be a boss means, and here Mark lays it out very simply: "Whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant" and "Whoever wants to be first among you must be the slaves of all". And remember, we are talking about words spoken in a society in which slaves were the absolute bottom of the social pyramid. That is a hard and difficult belief to live by. And again, if it needs saying, and it probably does, at least I need to hear it being said and I hope you do too: What qualifies this whole enterprise - if it is anything but an exercise in sadomasochism - is the conviction that my life and my reality is sustained - - not by my office or my parking place - - but by my conviction that God loves me.

To other sermons

RT 19/10/97

Created: 30 Nov 1996
© Copyright: R. Trojcak, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002
London Ontario Canada
Last Update: September 05, 2005
Comments: rtrojcak@hotmail.com