The Cross as an Event

By Dr. David Flusser

Let me say as I begin this talk that when I speak to you about the
meaning of the Cross, I am not speaking as a Jew whom Christians have
invited in to hear his opinion, but as a scholar who only wishes to help
his friends to come to a better understanding of the Cross as a historical
event. Not that in so doing I am saying that the Cross is only a historical
event. On the contrary, I consider it much more than such words seem to
indicate.
Let us begin with the question: Is there a difference between the
execution of Socrates and the crucifixion of Jesus? Indeed, very early,
Christians noted the similarity between these two tragic events. But there
is an enormous, decisive difference. Had the Greek philosopher not been
executed by the authorities of Athens, the development of Greek
philosophy would not have changed an iota. But had Jesus not been
crucified, there would have been no Christianity at all as we know it.
This is true even if followers of the forlorn figure on the Cross had risen
to keep alive his example and teaching.
I do not want to speak about the manifold development of so-called
Christology in historical Christian thought. I am sure you are all aware
of the various motifs in theologies of the Cross. Some of these theologies
have been of great comfort to believers and most of them seek to
interpret what really happened. However, today, when so much of the
Faith has grown weak in many minds, these interpretations miss the
point. This is mainly due to their detachment from the event of the Cross
itself.
Judaism and Christianity are faiths built on facts. Modern views of faith,
recognizing that faith is the vital element in religion, tend to abandon
facts because they seem less certain than the need for faith. This is the
reason we hear so much about demythologization. In reality, however, to
demythologize is to dehistorize religion. Demythology, at least for many
of those who would like to abandon the search for a true historical
picture of Jesus and the earliest faith of Jewish Christianity, is simply
dehistorization.
Let me give an obvious illustration. The exodus of the Hebrews from
Egypt not only became in time the classic symbol of liberation from
slavery but was itself an event of history which had very concrete
historical consequences. Through it the children of Israel were led to the
desert where the Law was propounded and accepted. Through it the
commandment of the Law about being kind to "strangers and sojourners"
picked up its most powerful fillip: one's attitude to the stranger is to be
dictated by the memory of the way one felt as a stranger in Egypt.
In the same way, the Cross is rooted in Christian experience. Not only is
faith in the Cross at the root of Christian faith, the event of the Cross is
itself at the root. Jesus did not die as a martyr solely--many, many good
men have been killed as crudest criminals. The Cross is much more than
martyrdom.
It is true that Christians can have some understanding of the Cross due to
their faith that he was the Son of God, the Messiah. But even the belief
in Jesus' Sonship does not explain the historical meaning of the Cross.
You may say, if you wish, that Jesus, as the Son of Man, Son of God,
and Messiah of necessity suffered a more significant death than that of
other martyrs and that therefore the Cross is completely unique. But by
saying this, you have not really said anything about the Cross itself. You
may say that the Father offered his Son as a sacrifice to expiate the sins
of those who believe, but it seems to me that by putting the problem that
way--without knowing Jesus himself--you are speaking about only a
theological or mythological event but not of a historical event in the full
sense of the word.
I do not think that the so-called "mystery of the Cross" can be
understood without the historical Jesus and his teaching and message.
The message of the Cross is the crown of his life and teachings. Through
the Cross the faith of Jesus was welded to the faith in Jesus.
This was not always so understood, of course. Too often in the ancient
Church and in the Middle Ages, and even in modern Catholicism and
Protestantism, what happened before the Crucifixion was unimportant
for theologians and common Christians. In contrast to this over-
emphasis, liberal Christian theology came to care little for the Cross,
Jesus and his teaching becoming their main interest, with the result that
the Cross was eclipsed. However, such a thing can happen only if certain
important parts of Jesus' message are glossed over. If the central
elements of Jesus' teaching, such as sin, goodness, and faith in God, are
eliminated and the Kingdom of Heaven is understood as human progress
only, Jesus emerges as a liberal teacher of sublime ethics, but the
centrality of the Cross is destroyed.
Happily, we can today understand the teaching of Jesus much better than
it was once possible to do, particularly by getting a clearer picture of the
Judaism of his day. We now know not only many of the links of Jesus'
sayings with the Jewish schools of his time, but we can understand better
what Jesus demanded. We can see that he expanded the precept of
mutual love to include even the enemy. Jesus taught this because he was
sure God loved both sinners and righteous men, and it is significant that
he taught this without claiming that God loves sinners because they may
repent and become righteous!
Jesus did not say that by our love for sinners we would make them
better. On the other hand, he had no sympathy for sin itself and insisted
that God recompenses good and punishes wickedness. The message of
Jesus is both a revolutionary moral teaching and a revolutionary moral
approach. Even without the Cross, one can see that this is a message of
Good News.
I have said that the Cross is the crown of Jesus message about sin and
atonement. It is not only an accidental tragedy, as was the poisoning of
Socrates. The righteous one who died as a criminal was also the man
who said that he was sent not to the righteous but to the sinner.
It is, therefore, of the greatest importance to know that the Cross is the
historical outworking of Jesus' doctrine of sin and righteousness.
Historically speaking, the Crucifixion opened the way for sinners, and,
as it seems, for the Gentiles, but this was possible only because of the
teaching of the righteous crucified one.
Having said all this, I must, however, make it clear that had Jesus desired
his death as a tool of atonement for sinners, the whole event would have
been meaningless as event. Had this been true, Jesus' death would only
have been a sublime theological suicide. Jesus begged his Father for life
in his agony in the Garden of Gethsemane--he did not seek death. Death
and the Cross came only because he submitted himself to God's will.
Thus, the external and internal events of Jesus' life and death, his
teaching, and the Cross form a unity. If one wants to understand the
theology of the Cross, he has to begin with Jesus' baptism, he has to
listen to his teaching, and he has to see his silent obedience in
Gethsemane. Then the horrible and violent death of Jesus will be an
end--and also a beginning.

____________________________________________________

Professor David Flusser was born in Vienna in 1917. An internationally

distinguished biblical scholar, he is noted for his work on the Dead Sea
Scrolls, Essene Christianity, and Judaism at the time of Christ.
Professor Flusser studied classical philology at the University of
Prague, lectured there from 1947 to 1950, and received a doctorate
from Hebrew University in Jerusalem where he served as professor of
History of Religion. His publications include The Dead Sea Sect and
Prepauline Christianity, Scripta Hierosolymitana 5 (1958), and Jesus
(German edition 1968, English edition 1970).

Yavo Digest, 1987