Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Wednesday, April 9, 2014 Read John 19:17-22 We need to note that John’s story has merged once again with the story told in the synoptic gospels with some variations. The scene now moves to the place of crucifixion. It is only after the sentence of death has been given by Pilate that Mark and Matthew tell of Jesus being mocked by the soldiers and dressed in a purple cloak and crowned with thorns. John had placed this scene within the trial before Pilate. Luke does not mention the purple cloak and has mentioned a mocking of Jesus earlier but it seems far less brutal in Luke’s story. On the way to the cross Mark, Matthew, and Luke tell of a man named Simon of Cyrene who was compelled to carry Jesus’ cross behind him. It is supposed by most readers that Jesus is too weak from the flogging he endured to bear his own cross. None of the gospel writers specifically tell us this. In fact, in John’s gospel Simon is not mentioned and John tells us explicitly that Jesus bears his own cross. Jesus is in control of what is happening to him in John’s gospel – he is not weak in any way. Jesus is not a victim. Jesus is in charge of what is happening. Luke interjects something none of the other gospel writers mention. He tells of women of Jerusalem weeping for Jesus as he journeys the final steps to the cross. Jesus tells them not to weep for him but for themselves. John does not mention these women. All four gospel writers identify the place of crucifixion to be Golgotha which all identify as the “Place of the Skull” and must have been a well-known site just outside the city limits of Jerusalem. The modern Church of the Holy Sepulcher is located over what is the traditional site of the crucifixion. That may well be the case though we cannot be certain. Regardless, it is likely the crucifixion site was on the Northwestern side of the city and in a location where many people would have passed by. John makes the most of this though the others also point to it. All four gospel writers tell of an inscription that is placed on the cross. It was the usual practice to write the crime that had been committed on this sign. In this case the crime identified is that Jesus claimed to be the “King of the Jews.” The sign is another of the ironic characteristics of this scene. Pilate, of course, wrote that Jesus was the “King of the Jews” to mock both Jesus and the Jewish leaders and people. We can imagine his sinister grin as he put this label on this pathetic and helpless one. Pilate knew that Jesus was innocent, that he was not violent, and likely viewed Jesus as a weakling. Just as he may have pointed to Jesus, “the King,” sitting on the judgment seat and said, “see your king,” here too he could point at the cross and at Jesus and say, “this is your king – see what happens to those who attempt to be king in my kingdom!” John makes a great deal out of this sign and the debate between Pilate and the religious authorities about what it said. The religious authorities wanted Pilate to write that Jesus, who they did not think was the king either, had claimed to be king. But Pilate wanted to make it clear that this one really was as much of king as the Jewish people would ever know! But the grand irony in it all is that Jesus is indeed the KING! So Pilates words sound a little like the words of the high priest when he said that it was better for one man to die than for the whole nation to perish. His words were ironically true too. So with the eyes of faith the followers of Jesus are enabled to “see” that Jesus is the king while all other human eyes see only a pathetic man slain in the wake of a political battle between Pilate and the Jews. But John’s readers know that Jesus is no victim! He lays down his life of his own accord – and he will take it up again. Almost in passing, John makes the remark that Jesus was crucified between two others. John makes no further identification of them. Mark, Matthew, and Luke tell their readers that these other two were bandits. Luke makes the most of these others by telling of a dialogue between Jesus and them. The contrast in Luke’s gospel between these two criminals helps Luke to suggest two responses we might make to Jesus. None of this is found in John. We might notice that something else is missing from John’s account. There are no religious leaders who mock Jesus while he is hanging on the cross. There is no crowd to jeer at him. No one suggests to Jesus that if he really is the Messiah he should come down from the cross. The crucifixion scene in John’s gospel is almost serene. We might imagine that there was a good deal of silence – a silence broken only by Jesus who initiates communication first with his mother and the beloved disciple and then with the soldiers when he says that he is thirsty and received a drink of wine to fulfill the scripture. And the final words of Jesus are a shout of victory – mission accomplished! We might be bothered by all these little differences that we encounter as we carefully study the story in each gospel. That would be especially bothersome if we were to think that the inspiration of scripture has to do with “historical accuracy” or that only the Holy Spirit is responsible for what is written. Reading the story carefully ought to lead us to come to the conclusion that we have to give responsibility to each writer too. There have been times in the history of the church when people have argued for “verbal inspiration” which essentially meant that the writers were only vessels who contributed nothing to the process. That simply will not hold up. So understanding how the Bible is the Word of God is more complicated and challenging. But carefully listening to each story is far better than simply trying to smooth things over. Personally, I am not bothered in the least by all these little differences. I find them fascinating and engaging. They make the whole story far more important and valuable to me. We’re going to step away from John’s gospel for a few days to listen to some Psalms and a few chapters from the OT book of Zechariah. The more I have dug into the gospel stories the more convinced I have become that these first writers, in their attempts to understand Jesus, went to the OT to find places that spoke to the situation. They read the OT through the lens of the death and resurrection of Jesus and then they let the OT shape the way in which they told the story.