Today’s readings; Isaiah 50, 4-7; Philippians 2, 6-11; Luke 22, 14 - 23, 56.
Every time we go through the Passion narrative, questions always surface that remain perplexing. Was it what Judas did that set in train the sequence of events that led to Jesus’s crucifixion and death? And on a deeper theological level, was Jesus really sacrificed for our sins?
If Judas had done nothing, would events have taken a different course? Was it simply the love of money that determined all this? We call Judas’ deed a ‘betrayal’. But the gospels show that Jesus lived quite openly, he was never in hiding, and strictly speaking there was no need for Judas to identify him.
It was surely Jesus himself who provokingly precipitated everything. His teaching was always considered a threat to the Jewish religion and tradition. His behaviour warranted action on the part of the guardians of the people’s faith.
On the cross, Jesus is subjected to a humiliating execution as a common criminal defeated by the political and religious authorities, deserted by his inner circle of friends, and, last but not least, forsaken by God. It is repugnant, from a rational but also theological perspective, to think of his death as a bloody sacrifice demanded by the Father as payment for the sins of the world.
For too long now we have perpetuated this explanation which is part of a collective imagination but which needs rethinking and reformulating.
The very idea of blood sacrifice is too primitive and areligious to explain the Passion and death of Jesus. If, as Pope Francis says, God is mercy, He could not be exacting Jesus’ death as a sacrifice for sins. The God we believe in, as depicted by Jesus himself, is not one who seeks satisfaction through such a sacrifice.
The framework of a primitive religion where sacrifices, even human sacrifices, are demanded to appease the wrath of the gods is belied by what Christianity stands for. We tend to distance ourselves even from remnants of this frame of mind scattered all over the Old Testament.
In today’s readings both the prophet Isaiah and St Paul undoubtedly offer a different key to interpret Jesus’ death on the cross. In the gospels, Jesus speaks of the grain of wheat which remains only a single grain unless it falls into the earth and dies, and yields a rich harvest. Paul speaks of Christ “not clinging to his equality with God but emptying himself”.
The death of Jesus was his self-emptying, tracing the path for those who want to live their life fully and authentically. Jesus was conveying a very important message about true and authentic living. When his followers in the garden where he was arrested struck out with the sword, Jesus stopped them because violence is not how things should happen in the kingdom he proclaimed.
From someone always on the move through the streets of Jerusalem doing good, now that his hour had come Jesus took the status of patient. The moment he was handed over to earthly powers, as Isaiah says, “he made no resistance”. Throughout his ministry he spoke authoritatively, decisively and even changed situations. Now he is silent and violence prevails.
This violence is very telling of who God is. It speaks loud and clear about a weak God, not a God who demands payment for the sins of the world. God continues to manifest Himself as weak in that He very often lets events go their course. We want to believe in a strong God who intervenes to stop abuse, diseases, disasters, and all that disturbs the peace and disfigures humanity.
The narrative of the three days from Good Friday to Easter Sunday is a different one; it speaks of a different God who never imposes Himself to change the course of history but who “emptied” Himself and assumed our human nature to make us divine, to empower us to find always the strength to keep moving and stay alive even in the midst of violence.