Scandalous II

In the media, there is much abuzz concerning justice, fairness and integrity. We speak of the proper separation and independence of the different wings and powers in government. We applaud all efforts to establish responsible interpretation, discharge and accountability. We despise and shame every allusion of corruption and scandalous behavior. We demand transparency and that public entities be not even remotely tainted. We profess high moral and ethical maturity, impeccable standing and untarnished integrity. We hold ourselves as pillars, fortresses and bulwarks, standing tall and resolute, against all unseemly ravishes.

And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to put him to death, for they feared the people. (Luk 22:2)



And they cried out again, "Crucify him." And Pilate said to them, "Why, what evil has he done?" But they shouted all the more, "Crucify him." (Mar 15:13-14)



Pilate went out again and said to them, "See, I am bringing him out to you that you may know that I find no guilt in him." So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, "Behold the man!" When the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, "Crucify him, crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no guilt in him." The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God." (Joh 19:4-7)

In the trial accounts of Jesus Christ, the Son of man, we are familiar with the many discrepancies; a trial by the Chief Priests and religious authority, founded on a prior betrayal plot, secured by silver coins from the Temple treasury, to dispose of the Man. The local Herodian authority reverting responsibility to the Roman governor, who by his own admission could not determine any crime in the Man. An incensed mob driven to prefer a condemned Barabbas than the recently revered Teacher and Healer of Galilee. To have every wing of government, local and foreign, both religious and secular authorities, and the public at large, all and sundry turned against one Man for a crime, none could ascribe, except for the claim He made; that He is the Son of God. It is difficult to reconcile how, that only days earlier, His triumphant entrance into Jerusalem riding on a donkey, symbolic and in the tradition for the inauguration of the Jewish king. But still they would crucified Him, as King of Israel. Scandalous?

So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, 'I am the Son of God.'"(Mat 27:41-43)



And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" And some of the bystanders, hearing it, said, "This man is calling Elijah." And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink. But the others said, "Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him." And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. (Mat 27:46-50)

And thus Jesus Christ died. But is it not disturbing that even God had forsaken Jesus Christ? In the entire cosmos, could we not expect that God should have done right, that He being the final arbiter and witness would ensure justice by preventing this gross injustice; was this His son or not? How could the Father forsake His Son? In the name of love? That Christians should propose that mankind benefit from these proceedings? Scandalous.

He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike, an abomination to the LORD. (Pro 17:15)

This text makes for uncomfortable reading. There are no two ways to interpret or to understand it. Did the LORD do the abominable Himself, in justifying the wicked, and leaving Jesus Christ condemned? The gospel proclaims that Jesus Christ, the sinless Son of God, died, condemned and cursed on a cross, to justify us sinners. How can any judge condemn a righteous man and justify the wicked? What more, a God, who would justify all the wicked by condemning His righteous Son? Scandalous?

There is no denying that the gospel provides for the wicked to be justified by the condemnation of a righteous; furthermore, this considered abomination is proudly proclaimed and the two (the justification and condemnation) are irrevocably intertwined. How do Christians reconcile this inconsistency? If we had our own Richter scale for scandals, how would we compare? Which disturbs us the more? The current affairs of this age, or the Gospel itself? Is there yet another scandal, one not quite so conspicuous?

Calvary and the cross needs to be distinguished from Christian cliché. The gospel has always been presented as "life-saving", and we have gotten used to the scenes so often that they no longer repulse our senses. Yet it is scripted as “a stumbling-block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greek”, "an aroma of death or of life". Then what of our own response; If we embrace the cross and proclaim the wisdom of God, what aroma emits of our lives? Of dry bones and rotting flesh or of newness and progressing growth in the resurrected life? Scandalous?

I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. (Joh 15:5)

God bless.



/ckh