My responsibility tonight was to prepare a meditation on the death of Jesus on the cross. What I have actually prepared is more of a homily: a set of answers to the questions I asked in my Palm Sunday sermon. I asked what Jesus was trying to accomplish in his so-called triumphal entry into Jerusalem, and I asked, why didn’t he try to avoid death? Added to these two, is the question of how the death of Jesus saves us. This evening, as we sit in front of the cross, I want to share with you various answers to those questions, and tell you how my understanding has changed.

Let me begin by saying that I do not know whether only one answer is true. More than one of the answers may be true. And it is important to know that the church has never chosen one single answer, as the explanation for why Jesus chose to die, or how he saves us. The controversial teaching of Jesus, the compassion of Jesus for the sick and the outcast, his practice of sharing meals both with Pharisees and with tax-collectors, make Jesus a very complex person to understand, even before we get to the politics of an occupied, theocratic state.

Over the years, my thinking and my faith have evolved. When I first became an Episcopalian in 1968, I learned the traditional explanation of why Jesus chose to die: he was accepting the punishment we deserved, for our sins: he was a substitute for us. I’m sure you are aware that many of our hymns and prayers say exactly this. Last Sunday, several people said they didn’t know any other explanation existed. Within the New Testament, however, I learned there are three other explanations. The first explanation, that Jesus took our punishment, is similar to the second explanation: that the justice of God demands satisfaction for the commission of sins, and that only a person without sin could make adequate satisfaction. Jesus, being both human and divine, was that person. The third explanation, is that Satan had gained control of the world, and Jesus offered himself as a ransom to win our release. The fourth explanation is, that we are saved through the new covenant instituted by Jesus. In the Biblical view, covenants with God are always sealed in blood; therefore Jesus died in order to seal the new covenant.

In the 1980’s, I discovered two explanations that made more sense to me, even though they came out of the Middle ages. What I will call the fifth explanation, is that when the Son emptied himself of divinity in order to become incarnate, he actually changed human nature itself. As St. Athanasius said, “He became human in order that we might be made divine”. The sixth explanation also appealed to me: that Christ’s self-offering is final evidence of God’s great love for us. When we recognize that love, our natural response is to love God in return.

In the 1990’s I began to think that Jesus did not intend to die: that he merely accepted death as one possible outcome of his ministry. It seemed to me that he was making a carefully planned effort to bring the whole Jewish community in Galilee and Judea back to the way of the Lord. At first his teaching and healings persuaded many people; but in order to reach his goal of bringing the whole community back to the way of the Lord, he would have eventually to convince the religious authorities in Jerusalem. One reason this explanation appealed to me, is that it made sense of Jesus’ refusal to identify himself as Messiah. His effort was not to bring attention to himself, but rather to get Israel “to return with all your heart” to God. If that seventh explanation is right, then the crucifixion is really a failure--not only his, but also a failure of his followers.

In the 21st century, I have been learning an eighth explanation which makes even better sense to me. This explanation arises from the unconscious mechanism by which a group of people experiencing tension and conflict, usually identify one person as the cause of the conflict, as the scapegoat, and get rid of him or her. Sometimes this means simply pushing the scapegoat out of the group, other times it means killing him. The result is that peace is restored within the group. When I apply this idea to first century Jerusalem, I see immediately that the Romans are prepared to identify anyone who is disrupting their control, as a scapegoat. For example, John the Baptist was murdered by the ruler of Galilee, Herod Antipas, because John was foolish enough to create trouble for Herod. I see that the Essenes out at the Qumran community had identified the chief priests as the ones who ought to be ejected. And the chief priests certainly identified Jesus as a troublemaker who was challenging the operation of their sacrifices and their Temple. In fact, Caiaphas the high priest actually said, according to the Gospel of John, “you do not understand that it is better to have one man die for the people”(11:50).

Could it be that Jesus understood this unconscious mechanism of choosing someone to blame, and decided to expose it? Could it be that Jesus knew something about death that we still cannot comprehend--namely that God is not involved in any way with death or violence? Did Jesus choose to die, knowing that the death of an innocent man, beloved by the people, would bring to light and call into question that whole process of making anyone a scapegoat? Above all, did he choose to die trusting in his deep experience of the living God, the Abba who loved him and sent him with the message of forgiveness and love? Yes, yes to all of those questions. It was Jesus’ own faith that his connection to the Father would survive death, which enabled him to choose it, demonstrating to us the reality of eternal life.

So the cross was not a failure, but it is a paradox: the cross is an historic instrument of death, which nevertheless tells us that death is not final. The cross is an instrument of shame, through which Jesus revealed that no one, no one, ever, deserves to be killed. The cross is a symbol of human violence, by which Jesus showed us that there is no such thing as divine violence, for the love of God is stronger, much stronger, than death. Amen