The Road to Calvary
In this episode
Scripture References
Works
Times will appear once this episode's audio is aligned.
Welcome to Halting Toward Zion, the podcast where we limp like Jacob to the Promised Land and talk about life, the universe, and everything along the way. I’m Emily Maxson here with Greg Uttinger and Rachel Voytek, and we are in the midst/early aftermath of Jesus’ trial before Pilate. We’re going to be talking more about Pilate tonight. We are mostly in Matthew 27 and John now, so if you’re following along at home, that will be on page whatever page it’s on in your Bible.
That’s why you never want to get a new Bible because you know where on the page it is. Then you get a new Bible and everything is in the wrong place.
We left off with Pilate in the difficult position of knowing that Jesus is innocent, and wanting, after a fashion, to let him go, partly because he knows he’s innocent and partly because he really doesn’t like being manipulated by the Jewish leaders.
In the book of Acts the prayers of God’s people nonetheless speak of this as part of the conspiracy that Psalm 2 predicted. Even though he’s not wholeheartedly jumping into all of this, it was his responsibility simply to say no and release an innocent man and take the consequences, as all judges should. They should kiss the Son, lest he be angry with them and they perish from the way. So although he’s a reluctant member of this conspiracy and would not consider himself such at all, yet God holds him accountable.
It's important again that he represents Rome. God has given the keys of the Jewish world to Rome. They’re the caretakers, the overseers, the guardians of Israel, so what he does Rome does, and what Rome does God’s authorized them to do it, but they’re supposed to play fair. They’re supposed to play by God’s rules, so we have here someone who has already repeatedly said that Jesus is innocent. He is guilty of no capital charge, and in fact there is no fault in him at all.
I think one extra thing to add in here is that we should not excuse him simply because he was not one of God’s people, but instead should remember Romans 13. I think that’s very relevant here, that he should have been a minister of God for those who do good, and Jesus is the one who does all good. So we are legitimate in condemning him and any other ruler in history who breaks God’s law and justifies the wicked and condemns the righteous, regardless of who they are.
We can even think of the precedent of Nebuchadnezzar when Babylon had charge of God’s people. Nebuchadnezzar was expected to be an image of Christ in being a good king.
A side issue, but an important and relevant one in our day – there are a lot of Christians who don’t think that God expects civil rulers to obey his Word. Perhaps some kind of natural law, some common morality, some common law of nations, some common sense, but when we start talking about how God holds you accountable to his Word, then we start getting pushback.
God called Nebuchadnezzar to judgement for his sins, and when he was told, “You’re going to be given the heart of a beast,” and he wasn’t sure what to do with that, Daniel addressed him privately. “Break off your sins with humility and showing mercy to the poor,” personal kinds of things. “Yes, your public policy stinks in a lot of ways,” but Daniel’s first preaching to him, his first witness to him was along the lines of personal piety. “You have not feared God.”
Jesus is going to kind of point this out to Pilate somewhat indirectly. He already has, after a fashion. He’s claimed he came into the world to represent truth in an absolute sense. That was Pilate’s first chance to embrace truth. He’s going to say something else before we’re done.
In the meantime, while Pilate is trying to answer the Jews and to get out of crucifying Jesus without getting labeled someone who’s betrayed his office and his support of Caesar, he comes up with this in verse 24 of Matthew 27:
When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person. See ye to it.
This is not particularly a Roman ceremony, but the Old Testament contains something like this in Deuteronomy. When a dead body was found kind of out in the middle of nowhere between towns, the elders of the nearest towns would measure to see which town it was closest to. I don’t remember all the details involved, like killing a red heifer, but they would end up washing their hands saying, “We didn’t do this. We don’t know who did this. We’ve made investigation. Please don’t lay this on our hands or our heads.” They would wash their hands in water to justify themselves or excuse themselves or declare their innocence.
Pilate seems to have known about this, or just similarities of cultures kicking in at this point, and says, “I’m going to wash my hands here.” We have this idiom today in English, “I wash my hands of the situation. I’m innocent of the blood of this…” – the King James says “just,” and we would probably today say this “righteous person.” Again he confesses that Jesus is not a law-breaker on any kind of front that would come before a civil office. He’s innocent, he’s just, he’s righteous. More than just innocent, he is righteous. This is a step up.
Not only has he not done anything in particular that’s evil, he is a man that more and more Pilate is convinced is a man who does good and is good. He’s watched throughout all of this. He’s tried probably dozens of murderers and terrorists and people like that. He’s used to the screaming and the yelling and the ranting, and he’s looked at Jesus and he knows this man is so completely different, so he tries to throw it back on Israel using something that they will recognize. It doesn’t work. This is what they say –
Then answered all the people and said, His blood be on us and on our children.
Yes, it really is, and now we need to draw a line there, “…and upon our children.” It’s not our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren, our great-great grandchildren, our great-great-great grandchildren, our children to a thousand generations. This is much nearer at hand. This is not a condemnation of anyone who has Jewish blood forever and forever. They were very specific – “Us and our children.”
Well, a generation is about 40 years and it’s about 30 AD. In 70 years, Jerusalem will be destroyed horribly and God’s people – or those who had been God’s people – killed and scattered across the world. The temple will be gone, the priesthood, the sacrifices, all of that. Blood will run in the streets. They got what they asked for. It’s a frightening thing, as you say.
At this point I believe we skip over to John 19. Pilate had offered already, “Well, I’ll scourge him and let him go.” You don’t scourge an innocent man! But Pilate was hoping that by showing them blood, they would be shocked and horrified. The funny thing about such things is it does shock and horrify people who are not used to it and who are not blood-thirsty, but for those who are, showing them a little blood makes them call for more blood. We’re told in John –
Then Pilate therefore took Jesus and scourged him. And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe and said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands.
The scourging the Bible passes over very quickly, but fortunately we know something about it from Roman historical records. It was not nice. This is from Josh McDowell’s The Resurrection Factor, which I’ve mentioned before, and as I’ve said before, though I think there are limits to his argumentation, his facts are great. It’s a rather short book and very clear and useful. The sub-title here is “The custom of whipping.”
“After the verdict of crucifixion had been pronounced by the court, it was customary to tie the accused to a post at the tribunal. The criminal was stripped of his clothes and then severely whipped by the lictors or scourgers. The whip, known as flagrum, had a sturdy handle to which were attached long leather thongs of varying lengths. Sharp jagged pieces of bone and lead were woven into them.”
The Jews were limited by their law to 40 lashes, and sometimes you’ll hear something about Jesus being given 40 lashes or 39 lashes or something like that. That was Jewish law. That was what God had said, “No more than 40, lest your brother seem vile.” The Pharisees redacted it to 39, lest they miscount. They were such sticklers about such things. The Romans had no limitations on it and they would pretty much beat the victim until he was nearly dead.
Here is a medical perspective from Dr. C. Truman Davis. He describes the whipping like this: “The heavy whip was brought down with full force again and again across Jesus' shoulders, back and legs. At first the weighted thongs cut through the skin only. Then, as the blows continued, they cut deeper into the subcutaneous tissues, producing first an oozing of blood from the capillaries and veins of the skin and finally spurting arterial bleeding from vessels in the underlying muscles.”
Sharp jagged bone and lead were woven into the straps so that when the leather straps came down they were weighted on the end, and those little scraps and balls and such would carry the force of the thing, add to it, and then wrap around and stick into the flesh of the victim. And as the soldiers yanked it back these pieces of metal would tear at the skin and tear it up. So we’re dealing with more than just the kind of flogging that say the British Admiralty did in the 1800s. This was much more brutal.
“The small balls of lead first produced large deep bruises that were broken open by subsequent blows. Finally, the skin of the back was hanging in long ribbons, and the entire area was an unrecognizable mass of torn, bleeding tissue. When it was determined by the centurion in charge that the prisoner was near death, the beating was finally stopped.” And if they weren’t careful, the prisoner would die, and some did.
Jesus was a strong robust man, but he’s been through Gethsemane. He’s been awake for more than 24 hours and hasn’t eaten in a long time. He probably had little to no water, and he’s already been beaten up a bit in the temple courts. This is something designed to render people non-functional. It’s very brutal and very wicked.
When they’re done with the beating, they do a couple things. First they find some thorns, and we’re tempted to think like rosebushes. There’s a number of possibilities and all of them pretty much involve long spike-like thorns the size of penny nails or something like that, and about as tough. So when they make the crown and at the end begin to pound it into his skull there’s more blood and more pain. It’s a terrible mockery of crowning someone, but he is crowned with thorns, and that should take us all the way back to Genesis.
I was going to say, let’s not skip over the imagery here. Just as the priests would put their hands on the head of the sacrificial animals to identify themselves with the animal, Jesus is having the curse of the earth placed on his head.
Yes, and they smite him. One of the gospels says they put a reed in his hand. They put a purple robe on him. They’ve stripped him of his own clothing and find some kind of old purple robe, maybe a soldier’s. Purple is generally a symbol of royalty but I’m sure there weren’t any of Caesar’s old hand-me-downs around so they found what they could.
Or we came across a robe last time when he went to Herod. Herod gave him a robe so it could have been that robe.
Yes, that could have come back with him, in which case it might have been one of Herod’s cast-offs. That would be even more ironic in all of this – Herod who wants to be king of the Jews.
They bow before him and mock him, and let’s go on and see what happens. They say, “Hail, king of the Jews,” so there’s the mockery. As a human being he’s certainly not beyond feeling the rejection because these two would be people for whom he died. Certainly they are people in his image, and to hear this has got to be heartbreaking.
Pilate therefore went forth again and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you that ye may know that I find no fault in him. Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man! [in Hebrew it would be Behold Adam.]
Here’s your second Adam, crowned with the curse itself. Not a pretty sight. Not a glorious glamorous sight. A lot of people would look at this and turn away in disgust, and probably a lot of people would throw up at the sight. He’s hoping that this will be enough that they will see how close he is to death and how he’s been humiliated, and just maybe it will be enough and they will relent. That’s not the way it goes.
When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him and crucify him, for I find no fault in him.
Remember this is the week that the Passover lambs have been examined. In fact, by this point they’re being offered. Here our Passover lamb has been examined by a servant who works for the king of the world, the emperor, pronouncing Rome’s official verdict. “He is innocent. He is innocent. He’s righteous. There’s no fault.” That’s what the Roman courts say, and Pilate never alters that.
You mentioned earlier Romans 13. “He is the servant of God, the deacon of God to you for good,” and when he acts in accordance with God’s law it is God’s voice. So God through his servants on the one hand is saying, “Look at my son. He is innocent. He has broken no law. He in fact is righteous.” This is important for what’s going to follow.
The Jews, realizing that he’s dragging his feet and he’s still not moving forward, he’s still not giving them what they want, maybe they know a little bit about his superstitious nature. Most pagans were superstitious, in fact of all the boasts about Greek rationalism, so they bring this up. It hasn’t been seemingly relevant but it won’t hurt.
The Jews answered him, We have a law and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
Now that would put him in conflict with Caesar. It would also mean that things just got really weird.
He doesn’t say, “Okay, on the one hand he can’t do that, Caesar is the son of God, so you’re gone.” He doesn’t say, “Then the man is obviously crazy and we don’t crucify lunatics so this is a way out.” He is afraid because he knows there’s something different about Jesus. He just doesn’t know what it is. It involves moral purity and peace and a claim to be truth, and now he hears what Jesus had not said so clearly – he’s the son of God. So he goes in to where Jesus is.
And went again into the judgment hall and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? [where do you come from?] But Jesus gave him no answer.
Jesus has said pretty much all he needs to, more than he ever said to Herod, by the way.
Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee and have power to release thee?
And Jesus answers. Isaiah had said “dumb as a sheep going to slaughter,” and Jesus does get out this one last response. Again there’s a sort of preaching of the gospel here if Pilate will hear.
Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above.
Alright Pilate, take everything you know, everything you’ve been told – righteous, innocent, son of God – and this is all God’s plan. What are you going to do with that?
“To this point you’re doing your job. I’ve been presented to you, and yeah you stepped over the line with the beating, but you haven’t ordered me executed yet.”
The “he” here would probably be the high priest here – “He that delivered me to you hath the greater sin. Now what? Make a choice.” Pilate has to think for a moment, but right now Pilate is not in the mood to think.
And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him, but the Jews cried out saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend. Whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.
He is afraid of the Caesar on the throne, and he has no doubt the Jews will spin a wonderful story in their next report back to Rome, and he’s terrified. He’s afraid of Jesus. He’s afraid of Jesus’ God, but he is used to dealing in political realities.
When Pilate therefore heard that saying [you’re not Caesar’s friend], he brought Jesus forth and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement [the place from which he could pronounce formal judgement]. And it was the preparation of the Passover and about the sixth hour and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
Whoa. Messiah? God? This is the whore-ish bride getting in bed with the bestial empire, announcing her loyalty to Yahweh and to the coming Messiah, or the present Messiah they failed to recognize. It’s the sixth hour of the sixth day of the week after six trials – 666.
If we think back to Judges, this would be like Israel assimilating themselves into the other nations.
Very much so, and deliberately putting themselves under their authority. It’s not simply, “Oh, we’re just going to intermarry. We’ll all get together,” or “Come and we will be your slaves. We will follow you wherever you go with all of your idols.”
Which is also then reminiscent of the beginning of 1 Samuel where they want a king just like the other nations and God says, “They’ve not rejected you, Samuel. They’ve rejected me as king by wanting to be like everybody else.”
Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus and led him away.
And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required. And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired…
So he releases Barabbas, who is everything they accused Jesus of being and more – a murderer, terrorist, insurrectionist, tax rebel, an enemy of Caesar, a foul filthy man. Then Jesus apparently steps into his place because it says two of Barabbas’ cohorts are going to be crucified with Jesus. “Hey, we’re doing a crucifixion. Let’s do three for one.”
That’s frightening, free will – it’s at work here. Also the same thing we said for democracy. Someone had said that democracy is only represented once in scripture. That might not be completely true, but this is certainly the most obvious time when the authorities asked the people, “Well, what do you want, Jesus or Barabbas?” The crowd always picks Barabbas.
And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus.
Some people have looked down on Jesus like, “What, he couldn’t carry his own cross?” No and neither could you if you had been through all of this, not only the Roman beating but the whole ordeal of Gethsemane which nearly killed him and everything else that had been stacked upon this. He was a strong powerful man, a carpenter by trade, or had been, and he can’t carry the cross bar, so they find a man.
Simon sounds like a Jewish name, a Cyrenian from north Africa. Some have considered that Simon was a black man. Maybe. The text doesn’t say and it doesn’t matter unless you want to say, “Well, Africa is represented here.” Okay.
Much of north Africa does not necessarily have very dark skin traditionally.
You mentioned the cross bar and I want to dispel all of the images that have pervaded all of our minds of Jesus carrying an actual preconstructed cross, or trying to and failing, and even that there was this cross that was up by itself sitting on a hill. Instead, they would carry this cross bar, which was a single piece of wood, to a place and most often it would be basically hoisted up and connected to an actual tree. There wasn’t a big other piece of wood that they stuck in the ground. They were much more efficient than that and used existing trees that were already set up.
So it’s just a single piece of wood that Jesus was attempting to carry, but it obviously had to be very strong for it to hold the weight of a man and to be able to be hoisted. Just a historical correction because every image seems to be – even the jewelry that we wear that make the cross into this nice even smooth shape.
I remember a movie and it showed Jesus and the two thieves going to Calvary, and they got it right with the two thieves. They showed the two thieves carrying cross bars, but then they showed Jesus carrying the full-blown cross. What? You came so close!
And while we’re talking about it, this is not fanciful on our part because as you continue to read through the New Testament the thing on which Jesus died is called – I haven’t counted how many times, I can think of three or four off the top of my head – it’s called a tree. “That’s just a figure of speech.” Why is that the figure of speech and cross isn’t?
Especially considering all of the foreshadowing that was set up in the Old Testament with trees and the curse of being hung on a tree.
We’ve got the tree of life, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil…we can go way back here.
The king’s son hanging from a tree, yes. And the defeated Canaanite kings being hung from trees, and of course the passage you already hinted at, “Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree,” which Paul will take in Galatians and he won’t change the word from tree to cross. He’ll leave it as is. Jesus died on a tree, and again there’s no particular reason to assume that that’s in anywise figurative. It can be a tree and a cross at the same time, depending on what the writer is trying to emphasize here.
This would be an interesting biblical theological study, which you’ve already hinted at, but trees produce fruit and fruit gives life. Look at this tree. It’s a horrific kind of fruit and yet a glorious type of fruit. This is the glory of God in the humiliation of his Son. It’s an incredible thing for us to sit and ponder.
There’s one other thing about Simon. Mark, who was writing for the Romans, says –
And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.
We see them in Romans. When Paul is saying, “Say hi to Bob and Ted and Frank” and all of that, he greets at least one of these. I think it’s Rufus.
Notice how closely connected Paul is to these people. Mark is writing to the Romans and he says Rufus and expects everybody there to know who he’s talking about. So apparently at least Simon’s kids became Christians. There’s no reason to doubt that Simon did as well, and his wife did – “…his mother and mine.”
As they are proceeding along by the quickest way out to wherever Calvary may actually have been, it says –
And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him. But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me but weep for yourselves and for your children. For behold, the days are coming in which they shall say, Blessed are the barren and the wombs that never bare and the paps which never gave suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us, and to the hills, Cover us. For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?
These are the women of Jerusalem. These are not the women who came with him from Galilee, but there is enough sympathy here for him and for what’s happened to him. Of course he looks horrible. He’s been beaten, bruised, there’s swelling, it’s bloody, he can’t even carry the cross bar anymore, so they’re weeping. He tells them one of his last little sermons, “Don’t weep for me. Weep for yourselves and your children.” Remember, “His blood be on us and our children.”
The references he makes – “The days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.” He had said much the same thing in the Olivet discourse when he was describing the destruction of Jerusalem. The next line is – “Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us, and to the hills, Cover us.”
In the book of Revelation where John rehashes this, or the Holy Spirit rehashes it for John, we see the great day of the Lamb’s wrath has come and again they call for the mountains to fall on them, the hills to hide them from the face of him that sits on the throne.
The last bit is – “For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?” – the most obvious reference is to Israel. She’s the fig tree that seems to be fully green and flourishing, but there’s no fruit. In 40 years when all of God’s mercies are withdrawn, what’s going to happen then? The book of Revelation has some answers for that one. It’s possible that as they’re going along he may even be pointing at the tree he’s being taken to.
And there were also two other malefactors [evildoers] led with him to be put to death. And when they were come to the place which is called Calvary, there they crucified him and the malefactors, one on the right hand and the other on the left.
This is the one passage that calls it Calvary. The Greek however is cranium and we know what that means in English. It means a skull. The others give it the Aramaic or Hebrew name Golgotha. There’s been a lot of debate as to where Golgotha or Calvary actually was. There are two major contenders. I will throw out a suggestion and it is nothing more because I can’t prove it, but I think it’s consistent enough.
The Mount of Olives would be a wonderful place. According to Jewish tradition it’s where Isaac had been prepared for sacrifice by Abraham. It’s the place most likely where the red heifers were killed in the sin offering, and it’s right outside the temple gate. There was easy access there, and oddly enough it’s a mountain.
I would add one other thing to that, which is that if you’re up on the Mount of Olives you look back on all of Jerusalem and you particularly look directly into the temple from that perspective. The two things sit across from each other on either side of a small valley.
So it works and makes sense. I don’t know that any archeologists have taken the thought seriously but it’s something maybe for other generations to consider.
I heard a suggestion that the skull in question was Goliath’s skull, that that’s where David struck him down.
Yes, the only skull that’s ever associated with Jerusalem is Goliath’s. In a very odd passage after David, as a young boy – probably nearly 20 because he joins the army shortly thereafter, maybe they made an exception for him so 17-20, someplace in there – he has just defeated Goliath and helped chase the Philistines away, and he comes back and gets Goliath’s head and takes his skull, and we’re told he took it to Jerusalem.
At that point Jerusalem was still under the control of the Jebusites. Now, it could mean that he took it there eventually and we’re just getting a flash forward, or it could mean he did take it there pretty soon and just kind of put it on some kind of post or something. How many British kings have put the skulls of their dead enemies on pikes as a warning, “Don’t rebel.”
It would not be unusual at all in the ancient world for David to stick Goliath’s skull on some big stick and say, “You’re next.” So that’s one thing. He took it to Jerusalem, but unless you were a king of the Davidic line you didn’t get to be buried in Jerusalem. The tombs were outside the city, as was Jesus.
That just adds to the whole thing. We have Jesus questioning the head of the serpent where we last left off the head of the giant serpent whose head was crushed by David’s stone. Imagery piles upon imagery as we continue through the book.
No. There are two other suggestions. One is called Gordon’s Calvary and one is called I think Martin Calvary or something. I’ve heard both sides there criticize each other enough to not be interested in the controversy. What we’ve said is about the only thing you can draw from scripture, and although I don’t know that it’s completely conclusive, it is highly suggestive and I think it’s something I think maybe people should look at and reconsider.
It would lend something to all the songs about Mount Calvary because if it’s not the Mount of Olives, there’s nothing in the New Testament that calls it a mountain. It’s called Golgotha, it’s called the place of the skull, it’s called cranium or Calvary. There’s no mention of a mountain at all and it just seems fitting that Jesus should die on a mountain on a tree.
Yes, and of course you spoke of trees being ready. Well, the Mount of Olives has olive trees all over the place. And there’s a prophecy in Zechariah that speaks of when Messiah comes of his foot setting down on the Mount of Olives, and the Mount of Olives dividing and creating a way of salvation. Most interpreters of prophecy today look at the second coming, but I suspect that’s not exactly what Zechariah or God at least had in mind. Anyway, that’s for people to think about and see what they can come up with.
I suppose that brings us to the crucifixion. Well, it brings us to one other thing first. When Jesus had finished the last supper with his disciples he took a modified Nazarite vow. He said he would not drink any more of the fruit of the vine until it was fulfilled in his Father’s kingdom. And now, according to some kind of Roman tradition, apparently some kind of gesture toward kindness, they offer him sour wine or vinegar mixed with gall.
They offer him a sedative, something that would dull some of the pain, not much of an offer and yet when he tastes what it is he refuses it. He won’t drink anything from the fruit of the vine until this over, but when it’s over and he has said “It is finished” they offer it to him again, in fact he calls for it. He says, “I thirst,” and then he does take that one last cup.
Something else, and this is something that I had never thought about in these terms but I had two pastors, one of them from your OPC church who was your intern, and then another young pastor, who both within a couple weeks of each other, I think in chapel – remember the disciples John and James asked, “Can we sit at your right hand and your left hand in your kingdom?”
Jesus says, “You don’t know what you’re asking,” and he talks about suffering, “being baptized with my baptism, drinking of my cup.” They say they’re ready and he says, “Well, you’re going to but this is a role ordained by my Father.” I always assumed that talked about eternity. Maybe it does but here he is on the cross, on a tree, and here is someone sitting on his right hand and on his left. One is blessed and one is damned.
The idea of the cross as a throne is hardly new. Again we can go back to Genesis where all things begin, and the Tree of Life. When Adam and Eve sinned, they were barred from the Tree of Life and cherubim are placed there to guard the Tree of Life.
Eventually by the time we get to the New Testament the sacrificial fruit has become bread and wine in cups and on plates and people are not sitting in the branches of a tree, they’re sitting on wood that some carpenter someplace took and made into a table and chairs.
Or couches, things to recline on. As for the cherubim, everywhere else in the Bible when we see cherubim they’re guarding the throne of God. So originally just as the Tree of Life was meat and drink, meal and chair, it was also the original throne, but God is not content that the throne stay a tree. Having the tree a throne is great for kindergarteners. It’s lousy for adults who actually have a king.
So at this point we have Jesus lifted up, and some of the old hymns do speak of him as reigning from the tree, reigning from the cross. The sign above his head says he’s the king of the Jews.
Next time, as we are out of time for tonight. It seems really weird to just hop over to recommendations right there but that’s what we have to do. Who wants to go first?
I can since mine connects to what we were just talking about. I wanted to recommend a favorite hymn of mine that this whole discussion was reminding me of which is called “My Song is Love Unknown.” There’s a beautiful rendition of it done by Fernando Ortega. He has a number of very beautiful remakes of hymns.
I particularly like this hymn because of the way that it pairs up so many paradoxes or things that we wouldn’t expect. The one line that I love the most says, “A murderer they save and the prince of life they slay,” showing how a murderer is saved and given life, but then the prince of life is killed, and yet we are all the murderers that he’s saving as he, the prince of life, is dying.
It also meditates some on the rage of the crowds and going, “They thirst and cry for his death. Why are they raging?” So I appreciate just the overall meditation of his life and particularly his passion.
That’s a good one. I guess my train of thought here is slightly macabre but I was also reminded of something, the 2012 adaptation of True Grit.
Recommendation: 2012 adaptation of True GritYes, we watched it for my birthday. It’s a great movie and it is a great adaptation. Watching the movie very much feels like reading the book. I recommend the book also, but the adaptation is great.
There’s a part where our protagonists come across someone hung from a tree, quite dead, and they have to cut him down or they think it’s a good idea to cut him down so a 14-year-old girl has to climb the tree and cut him down, and he’s way up high there. She asks why they hung him so high, and Rooster Cogburn says, “Maybe they thought it would make him more dead.” Again macabre, but that’s my flavor of humor today so sorry, that’s what you get.
All this conversation has reminded me of a trilogy of theological books I have. I haven’t looked at them in a long time. They’re very well-known in the Dutch Reformed world. They’re by Klass Schilder. They are titled Christ in His Suffering, Christ on Trial, Christ Crucified.
Recommendation: Klass SchilderIt is solid Reformed theology. It is a somewhat devotional style and it talks about Christ in his suffering, Christ on trial, and Christ crucified, and it’s beautifully written. It’s from the 1930s, I think. At least that’s the American version, so it’s rather old but easy enough to follow. If you want to consider more of what all this stuff is that we’ve been talking about, this would be a good starting point.
And fear not, we haven’t discussed all the theology behind the cross and what’s happened, and although this is a history podcast and not a theological exposition, we will come back to this once Jesus has died. We’re taking the history first and then we will look back on its significance for everything that follows, or we’ll wait till the resurrection and then really look back.
Yes, something like that. We know this is more than a historical fact, and I think you’ve sensed that particularly in the recommendations you’ve heard here.
Thank you both so much for this conversation. It has been edifying. I’m not going to say it was a delight this time because the content was rough, but it was edifying and I hope our listeners will find it so as well.
A big thanks to David, our producer and my lawfully-wedded husband. A big thank you to our financial supporters for keeping the show rolling. If you’d like to join their number, Dear Listener, you can visit patreon.com/haltingtowardzion.
And as always if you’d like to send us a message, questions, comments, insults, [email protected] is the best way to get hold of us. You can feel free with the insults because I won’t read them. David will read them and then if you say something nice he’ll forward it to me.
As always, if you’re enjoying the show, probably somebody you know would also enjoy the show so feel free to share us around and also put a 5-star review on whatever podcast catcher you’re using. If you’re not going to put a 5-star, I don’t know if I want you to leave a review at all. 5 stars would be great, but be honest if you honestly think we’re 5 stars.