Introduction:
Mark 14:32-42 is loaded with theological insights but I would like to deal closely with the suffering and death of Jesus according to the Markan Narrative. Thereafter, in the light of the atrocities committed against women in our society, I would like to reconstruct the meaning of suffering and death of Jesus and analyze its relevance to the present context.
On that difficult night, Mark narrates that Jesus along with Peter, James and John went to Gethsemane to pray. Now that the time of his arrest is at hand, Jesus is portrayed like almost any other human being, who knowing that his life is growing short, began to be distressed and agitated.
When we look into the socio-political world of the text, this story resembles strongly with Mark’s audience. Mark’s audience too suffered persecution, arrest and were threatened with execution. In the midst of pain and agony Jesus, the suffering Child, prays to ‘Abba’ (Mark 14:36) and pleads to remove the cup. Brown argues that the meaning of the cup here could not be anything but suffering and death since this "cup" language was used earlier in Mark, in the dialogue between Jesus and James and John. Jesus did not want to face the cross, because that was not his mission and that is the reason why Jesus prays “remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but what you want.” Then, why did Jesus accept suffering and death? Was it imposed on him or preordained by God?
Reconstruction of Jesus’ Suffering and Death
Most of the New Testament scholarship proclaims that the suffering and death of Jesus was in accordance with God’s redemptive purpose and therefore it is preordained by God. But according to Mark Jesus’ fundamental mission was not to die but to initiate the Kingdom of God (reign of God). (Mk 1:14-15)
Earlier in the gospel, Mark depicts Jesus as a person, who is confident and is in command of affairs around him. He isn't troubled by challenges from his enemies and he demonstrates detailed knowledge about coming events – including his death. He knows that 'the hour is come; now the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners' (Mark 14: 41) seems to prove that Jesus’ death was preordained by a divine decree and Jesus accepted it and went to Jerusalem to fulfill what God has imposed. If so, was Jesus a Sacrificial Scapegoat?
In the Old Testament (Leviticus 16: 8-26) there is a description of a ritual in which all sins were laid upon a goat, and then the goat was sent into wilderness carrying away all the sins of the Israelites on its back. At later times, there was a modification in this ritual, because sometimes the goat used to return, which was considered as such an evil omen. Thus, the goat was killed, either by pushing it over the cliff or in some other manner.
The prophesies in the Old Testament about the Suffering Servant (Isaiah 53) have been conveniently linked with Jesus. But we should recognize that it was the early Christians, who after their experience of the death and resurrection of Jesus that they looked back to the prophets and searched the Old Testament scriptures to make sense of their own cognitive dissonance relative to the awful enigma of a suffering and dying Messiah.
Historically and theologically it would be an error to view suffering and death of Jesus as divinely foreordained event. Because, Jesus’ fundamental mission was to initiate the kingdom of God (reign of God) – A kingdom which is not only spiritual but also political. As Yoder states in ‘The Politics of Jesus” that Jesus had Maccabean roots and shared the Maccabean expectation – that is the political liberation of Jews from Roman rule. Jesus had Zealotic expectations in the Kingdom of God and therefore it was not God who demanded Jesus’ death but it was Jesus, who was willing to take up the cross.
In the story of the vineyard owner (Mk 12: 1- 12) as we have seen in the skit the Father after sending his servants, finally sends his own son, thinking that they would respect him and not kill him. Instead, the tenants kill him and throw him out of the vineyard. The mission of the son was to collect the produce. In the same note, the mission of Jesus in Jerusalem was to proclaim the message of the kingdom of God, pronounce judgment on the temple and its religious and political establishment and call for repentance. That’s the fruit that God was expecting from the vineyard keepers in Jerusalem. But the religious hierarchy was in no mood to lend an ear to a fanatical prophet from Galilee, who was a threat to the status quo. The parable concludes that when the religious leaders heard the parable they wanted to arrest Jesus but were afraid of the people. Therefore, the reality of the situation in Jerusalem was such that Jesus expected his fate to be not much different from that of the son in the parable. Jesus would have probably expected a violent death not because it was preordained by God but because of the conflicts that he encountered in Jerusalem.
Jesus’ manifesto was to preach good news to the oppressed and to set the captives free. He stood against the oppression and exploitation of people like women, widows, lepers and other people. Crossan rightly reconstructs Jesus’ arrest and execution and concludes that it was the incident at the temple that led to his arrest and execution in Jerusalem at Passover. Jesus was willing to meet the demands of his expectation, even towards the end of his life.
The gospels and the Acts clearly tell us that human beings brought about the death of Jesus. It is not my intention to blame any particular group, but I would like to highlight the fact that it is the work of human beings. Jesus’ commitment to the kingdom of God was to remain faithful to his mission of proclaiming and living out the kingdom of God, even till the point of his death. This is not a passive acceptance of violence or a preordained task he was sent to accomplish, but he was committed to his mission and sacrificed himself willingly. Jesus did not die as a disappointed messiah. He died with the conviction that not even his own death was going to put a stop to the kingdom of God, that the kingdom of God is even greater than his own life. In fact, he came to the place where he believed that if the kingdom of God meant his own death, he would accept the bitter cup and drink it.
Relevance of Jesus’ Suffering and Death for Suffering Women
What is the relevance of Jesus’ suffering and death for the oppressed in our society? Women in our society are sometimes forced to suffer and die a violent death. We cannot glorify suffering in the context of the suffering women. We cannot view it as a virtue.
In countries like India, suffering women are advised to become ‘an ideal woman’ by being submissive and obedient to their husbands in distorted relationships and abusive marriages. “The more you beat them, the better they would be” is the notion prevalent about woman. It is offensive to the oppressed to concentrate on liberation without going into the depths of oppression. Domestic violence is a reality in the Church and we don’t need another story to prove the fact. Unequal power relations in the world have the root cause for proliferation of domestic violence. Sometimes even the Church seems to sanction these oppressive structures by emphasizing that no matter what the husband does, the wife has to be submissive. All these overt and covert forms of violence are very much evident in our society.
Some propose Christ as an example for women to endure their sufferings as Christ endured his cross. But Jesus’ suffering was necessary part of his solidarity with the oppressed through which he proclaimed a new reign of God. Jesus initiated a kingdom of God movement in word and deed, therefore, it cannot be used to validate or encourage women to remain in abusive marriages or to sacrifice their selfhood. Jesus’ fundamental understanding of the reign of God is not to take us into another world and escape the reality but has always challenged the staus quo and questioned the attitude against women of his time.
What is the Challenge for today?
Can the cross be sacralized in a way that will empower women and men for survival? For many centuries, the Cross has been a symbol of empowering the oppressed communities and it is a witness to the fact that God is on their side. It is also a reminder to the fact that God, in Jesus, knows and suffered violence and oppression, and yet was able to walk beyond the cross. Moreover, our belief in resurrection makes the cross as a powerful symbol giving us the hope that the cross is not the end, but through resurrection there is still hope for the oppressed in the midst of pain and suffering. Yet sacralizing cross could be dangerous if it is a symbol of violence.
In conclusion, the message conveyed at Gethsemane is that Jesus was willing to accept the ultimate consequence (death) by standing strong against oppression to bring the reign of God. This is not a passive acceptance of violence or a preordained task he was sent to accomplish, but rather a commitment to not to turn back from his mission. Abba did not send Jesus to be killed, but to initiate the reign of God. Abba then transformed this violent consequence of Jesus' mission into defeat over death itself. This is the good news for all of us, but more so for women in situations of domestic violence. Jesus' example is not to passively suffer and submit to violence, but rather to stand strong against oppression and hope in God's ability to transform even the worst situations. Amen.
Mark 14:32-42 is loaded with theological insights but I would like to deal closely with the suffering and death of Jesus according to the Markan Narrative. Thereafter, in the light of the atrocities committed against women in our society, I would like to reconstruct the meaning of suffering and death of Jesus and analyze its relevance to the present context.
On that difficult night, Mark narrates that Jesus along with Peter, James and John went to Gethsemane to pray. Now that the time of his arrest is at hand, Jesus is portrayed like almost any other human being, who knowing that his life is growing short, began to be distressed and agitated.
When we look into the socio-political world of the text, this story resembles strongly with Mark’s audience. Mark’s audience too suffered persecution, arrest and were threatened with execution. In the midst of pain and agony Jesus, the suffering Child, prays to ‘Abba’ (Mark 14:36) and pleads to remove the cup. Brown argues that the meaning of the cup here could not be anything but suffering and death since this "cup" language was used earlier in Mark, in the dialogue between Jesus and James and John. Jesus did not want to face the cross, because that was not his mission and that is the reason why Jesus prays “remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but what you want.” Then, why did Jesus accept suffering and death? Was it imposed on him or preordained by God?
Reconstruction of Jesus’ Suffering and Death
Most of the New Testament scholarship proclaims that the suffering and death of Jesus was in accordance with God’s redemptive purpose and therefore it is preordained by God. But according to Mark Jesus’ fundamental mission was not to die but to initiate the Kingdom of God (reign of God). (Mk 1:14-15)
Earlier in the gospel, Mark depicts Jesus as a person, who is confident and is in command of affairs around him. He isn't troubled by challenges from his enemies and he demonstrates detailed knowledge about coming events – including his death. He knows that 'the hour is come; now the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners' (Mark 14: 41) seems to prove that Jesus’ death was preordained by a divine decree and Jesus accepted it and went to Jerusalem to fulfill what God has imposed. If so, was Jesus a Sacrificial Scapegoat?
In the Old Testament (Leviticus 16: 8-26) there is a description of a ritual in which all sins were laid upon a goat, and then the goat was sent into wilderness carrying away all the sins of the Israelites on its back. At later times, there was a modification in this ritual, because sometimes the goat used to return, which was considered as such an evil omen. Thus, the goat was killed, either by pushing it over the cliff or in some other manner.
The prophesies in the Old Testament about the Suffering Servant (Isaiah 53) have been conveniently linked with Jesus. But we should recognize that it was the early Christians, who after their experience of the death and resurrection of Jesus that they looked back to the prophets and searched the Old Testament scriptures to make sense of their own cognitive dissonance relative to the awful enigma of a suffering and dying Messiah.
Historically and theologically it would be an error to view suffering and death of Jesus as divinely foreordained event. Because, Jesus’ fundamental mission was to initiate the kingdom of God (reign of God) – A kingdom which is not only spiritual but also political. As Yoder states in ‘The Politics of Jesus” that Jesus had Maccabean roots and shared the Maccabean expectation – that is the political liberation of Jews from Roman rule. Jesus had Zealotic expectations in the Kingdom of God and therefore it was not God who demanded Jesus’ death but it was Jesus, who was willing to take up the cross.
In the story of the vineyard owner (Mk 12: 1- 12) as we have seen in the skit the Father after sending his servants, finally sends his own son, thinking that they would respect him and not kill him. Instead, the tenants kill him and throw him out of the vineyard. The mission of the son was to collect the produce. In the same note, the mission of Jesus in Jerusalem was to proclaim the message of the kingdom of God, pronounce judgment on the temple and its religious and political establishment and call for repentance. That’s the fruit that God was expecting from the vineyard keepers in Jerusalem. But the religious hierarchy was in no mood to lend an ear to a fanatical prophet from Galilee, who was a threat to the status quo. The parable concludes that when the religious leaders heard the parable they wanted to arrest Jesus but were afraid of the people. Therefore, the reality of the situation in Jerusalem was such that Jesus expected his fate to be not much different from that of the son in the parable. Jesus would have probably expected a violent death not because it was preordained by God but because of the conflicts that he encountered in Jerusalem.
Jesus’ manifesto was to preach good news to the oppressed and to set the captives free. He stood against the oppression and exploitation of people like women, widows, lepers and other people. Crossan rightly reconstructs Jesus’ arrest and execution and concludes that it was the incident at the temple that led to his arrest and execution in Jerusalem at Passover. Jesus was willing to meet the demands of his expectation, even towards the end of his life.
The gospels and the Acts clearly tell us that human beings brought about the death of Jesus. It is not my intention to blame any particular group, but I would like to highlight the fact that it is the work of human beings. Jesus’ commitment to the kingdom of God was to remain faithful to his mission of proclaiming and living out the kingdom of God, even till the point of his death. This is not a passive acceptance of violence or a preordained task he was sent to accomplish, but he was committed to his mission and sacrificed himself willingly. Jesus did not die as a disappointed messiah. He died with the conviction that not even his own death was going to put a stop to the kingdom of God, that the kingdom of God is even greater than his own life. In fact, he came to the place where he believed that if the kingdom of God meant his own death, he would accept the bitter cup and drink it.
Relevance of Jesus’ Suffering and Death for Suffering Women
What is the relevance of Jesus’ suffering and death for the oppressed in our society? Women in our society are sometimes forced to suffer and die a violent death. We cannot glorify suffering in the context of the suffering women. We cannot view it as a virtue.
In countries like India, suffering women are advised to become ‘an ideal woman’ by being submissive and obedient to their husbands in distorted relationships and abusive marriages. “The more you beat them, the better they would be” is the notion prevalent about woman. It is offensive to the oppressed to concentrate on liberation without going into the depths of oppression. Domestic violence is a reality in the Church and we don’t need another story to prove the fact. Unequal power relations in the world have the root cause for proliferation of domestic violence. Sometimes even the Church seems to sanction these oppressive structures by emphasizing that no matter what the husband does, the wife has to be submissive. All these overt and covert forms of violence are very much evident in our society.
Some propose Christ as an example for women to endure their sufferings as Christ endured his cross. But Jesus’ suffering was necessary part of his solidarity with the oppressed through which he proclaimed a new reign of God. Jesus initiated a kingdom of God movement in word and deed, therefore, it cannot be used to validate or encourage women to remain in abusive marriages or to sacrifice their selfhood. Jesus’ fundamental understanding of the reign of God is not to take us into another world and escape the reality but has always challenged the staus quo and questioned the attitude against women of his time.
What is the Challenge for today?
Can the cross be sacralized in a way that will empower women and men for survival? For many centuries, the Cross has been a symbol of empowering the oppressed communities and it is a witness to the fact that God is on their side. It is also a reminder to the fact that God, in Jesus, knows and suffered violence and oppression, and yet was able to walk beyond the cross. Moreover, our belief in resurrection makes the cross as a powerful symbol giving us the hope that the cross is not the end, but through resurrection there is still hope for the oppressed in the midst of pain and suffering. Yet sacralizing cross could be dangerous if it is a symbol of violence.
In conclusion, the message conveyed at Gethsemane is that Jesus was willing to accept the ultimate consequence (death) by standing strong against oppression to bring the reign of God. This is not a passive acceptance of violence or a preordained task he was sent to accomplish, but rather a commitment to not to turn back from his mission. Abba did not send Jesus to be killed, but to initiate the reign of God. Abba then transformed this violent consequence of Jesus' mission into defeat over death itself. This is the good news for all of us, but more so for women in situations of domestic violence. Jesus' example is not to passively suffer and submit to violence, but rather to stand strong against oppression and hope in God's ability to transform even the worst situations. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment