Lent 3 C: Suffering, the Cross, and the Promise of Love
Dear Working Preacher,
This passage is rife with both promise and peril. The promise is to address one of the persistent questions many of our people have: why is there so much suffering in the world? Or, put more theologically, is suffering connected to our behavior? Does God cause suffering? Is suffering or calamity a form on punishment? These are questions usually asked in moments of extreme suffering and loss and they are as poignant as they are important. And this week we have a chance to address them more reflectively than we can when asked in the emergency room or hospice center – that’s the promise of this week’s reading.
Of course the peril is to imagine that we can answer all those questions! We’ve all heard so many less-then-helpful (and sometimes downright awful!) explanations of suffering, running the gamut from someone saying to explain the death of a child that God needed another angel in the choir to TV preachers saying a particular calamity is God’s punishment for sin. And so we understandably want to avoid repeating those mistakes.
Which means that probably the first thing we want to do with this passage is to remind ourselves that it’s never a good idea to develop a whole theology about something from a single passage. Having said that, what can we say about suffering and loss and the cause of evil on this day and from this single passage. Several things, I think.
First, suffering is not a form of punishment. If there is anything we can take from Jesus’ sharp retort to his audience – “Do you really think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were worse sinners than all other Galileans?” – it’s that suffering and calamity are not God’s punishment for sin. Just to make sure the crowd listening gets the point, Jesus goes on to offer a second example of folks killed when a tower fell on them, asking once more, “do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others living in Jerusalem,” again answering definitively, “No.”
Second, just because suffering is not punishment doesn’t mean that it is disconnected entirely from sin. Pilate’s murderous acts of terror – as well as those horrific actions of today’s tyrants that we read about in the news – are sinful. Moreover, what if the wall Jesus references was built by a fraudulent contractor? Sin has consequences, and there are all kinds of bad behaviors that contribute to much of the misery in the world, and the more we can confront that sin the less suffering there will be.
All of which brings us to a third, and very important, thing we can say from this passage: God neither causes nor delights in suffering and calamity. This is where the parable about the fig tree comes in. Now, a quick warning: we tend to read this parable allegorically, assuming that the landowner is God and the gardener Jesus. But nowhere in Luke do we find a picture of an angry, vindictive God that needs to be placated by a friendly Jesus. Rather, Jesus portrays God as a father who scans the horizon day in and day out waiting for his wayward son to come home and as a woman who after sweeping her house all night looking for a lost coin throws a party costing even more than the coin is worth to celebrate that she found it. Luke’s Gospel overflows with the conviction that “there is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine who need no repentance” (Luke 15:7).
Given Luke’s consistent picture of God’s reaction to sin, then perhaps the landowner is representative of our own sense of how the world should work. That is, from very early on, we want things to be “fair” and we define “fair” as receiving rewards for doing good and punishment for doing evil. (Except of course, when it comes to our own mistakes and misdeeds – then we want mercy!) So perhaps the gardener is God, the one who consistently raises a contrary voice to suggest that the ultimate answer to sin isn’t punishment – not even in the name of justice – but rather mercy, reconciliation, and new life.
If this is true, Dear Partner, what might we say to people this Sunday? Even more, how might we equip our people to offer words of comfort and grace when those around them are suffering? Well, we might remind them that this whole discussion takes place on the road to Jerusalem, as Jesus is making his way steadfastly to the cross. And in light of this passage and the whole of Luke’s Gospel, we might then recognize that the cross is not about punishment for sin either. Not for Jesus’ sin, certainly, but also not for ours.
That is, of course, a tradition interpretation of the cross: that because God is just, God has to punish sin, and because God is loving, God beats up on Jesus instead of us. But I have a hunch that this understanding of the cross says more about our inadequate understanding of justice than it says about God. In contrast to this theory, I’d suggest that the cross is not about punishment but is instead about identification, solidarity, and love.
Rather than imagine, that is, that God has to punish someone – and that we’re just lucky Jesus was around – what if instead we recognize that God’s answer to sin isn’t punishment but instead is love. That is, in Jesus God loves us enough to take on our lot and our lives fully, identifying with us completely. In the cross, then, we see just how far God is willing to go to be with us and for us, even to the point of suffering unjustly and dying the death of a criminal. And in the resurrection, we see that God’s solidarity and love is stronger than anything, even death.
So what can we say in the face of suffering and loss? That God is with us. That God understands what our suffering is like. That God has promised to redeem all things, including even our suffering. That suffering and injustice do not have the last word in our lives and world. And that God will keep waiting for us and keep urging us to turn away from our self-destructive habits to be drawn again into the embrace of a loving God.
That’s what we can tell our people, Dear Partner, and this, at last, is all promise. Thanks for sounding that message. It’s never been needed more than today.
Yours in Christ,
David
Thank you, David. I read weekly and have been remiss in voicing my appreciation. You interpret with the precision and compassion of a true pastor.
I read Rene Girard’s work, and of those influenced by him, God rest his soul. I believe he would agree with your conclusion that God acts in love, not in need for punishment.
Peace.
I was fortunate enough in seminary to take a half dozen classes taught by Tony Bartlett, an acolyte of Rene Girard. Girard’s anthropological hermeneutic has had a profound and ongoing influence on my preaching and teaching. Here are a couple of links to excellent websites for those wanting to know more about Girard’s theology — http://girardianlectionary.net
https://www.ravenfoundation.org
David, Great ‘Lutheran’ perspective and theology of the cross. Your insights give a fresh approach to the test.
I offer the following poem to compliment your remarks:
A Poem a Sunday
Lent III – C
February 28, 2016
Tree of Life
Tree of Life in Eden sprouting
fertile ground of Paradise
its green leaves surmounting
from the deathly compost rise.
Seedlings spread throughout creation
keeping the deep hope alive
that every tribe and every nation
will live and not just survive.
On the other side of Eden
Eastern winds blow hard and harsh.
Humankind in barren wastelands
refugees are on the march.
Barren trees provide no refuge,
fruitless trees provide no hope.
Hunger strikes and people refuse
never knowing how to cope.
Yet one more year allow in patience
the barren tree in fertile soil
will spring forth in Eden; ancient
new life divinely royal.
Barren tree is now uplifted
upon Calvary it springs.
Fertile soil it has been gifted
and brings life eternally.
Copyright@A Poem a Sunday by Kenn Storck
May be used with permission – contact kennstorck@gmail.com
Always a delight to read your poetry, Kenn. Thank you!
You are welcome. I am inspired with renewed hope as you lead a new Seminary. ELCA needs to do more creative things with our institutions and you are leading the way! As a Seminex grad it makes my heart sing.
“The cross is not about punishment.” Really? Then what of “sacrifice,” “scapegoat,” “passover lamb,” and “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness”? Certainly the cross is all about love, for God so loved the world. But that point is truly made without ameliorating the crucifixion to a mark of mutual suffering. In fact, to suggest that His crucifixion is absent the punishment we deserve not only lessens the depth of His love, it leaves standing a burning question. If Jesus has not paid the price and penalty I owe, then who will?
Thanks for your reply, Tim. I’d suggest that you’re working from a frame of reference (or theory of atonement) very much shaped by St. Anselm’s substitutionary theory of atonement (also called penal substitutionary theory) later modified by Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin. In any event, what I’d question about your comment and this frame of reference is, why does sin require punishment? Is God not able to forgive sin? Indeed, aren’t punishment and forgiveness rather antithetical, when you think of it. That is, each is a way of dealing with a problem, but not that compatible. If someone has “paid for sin” then there is no need to forgive. And if one has truly forgiven, then there is no payment required. For instance, if I default on my mortgage and the bank threatens to foreclose, but a neighbor pays my debt for me, then I’m no longer in trouble with the bank, but it wouldn’t make any sense to say they forgave my loan. They just found someone to else to pay it. So, ironically, a focus on punishment assumes God can’t or won’t forgive, and forgiveness is, of course, one of the largest themes of the NT. Another way to say all this is that the substitutionary theory of atonement comes at things from a juridical point of view, and makes some sense in a court of law. But focus on forgiveness comes more from a relational point of view and makes more sense if we take seriously the biblical focus on being in relationship with God. For instance, imagine what would happen to any of the important relationships in your life if you functioned from a point of view that the only way to restore relationship with someone was to make sure everyone was punished when they made a mistake. It would pretty ugly pretty quickly. Forgiveness is essential to relationships. Anyway, a few thoughts in response to your questions. If you’re interested, I wrote a conversational-style book on the cross called Making Sense of the Cross that explores a variety of theories about the cross, including the one you are, I think, referencing.
David,
Thank you for this reply…. (I’m eaves dropping I guess!) 🙂
“a focus on punishment assumes God can’t or won’t forgive”
I wonder whether “consequence” would be a better word?
You mention a mortgage or a family member who has done wrong…. regardless of who pays the price for the ‘act’ (or sin) there are still consequences. Relationships change, depending on the ‘sin’, there may be damage that has to be repaired emotionally, physically, etc
I am not a fan of focusing solely on the ‘blood’ atonement piece, but I also do not feel it can be easily dismissed either. It is one of the ways to look at the cross. Jesus hung there for me. But my sin still affects my life in ways that are consequences, regardless of who forgives it or stands in the way of my punishment.
Thanks for making us think!! 🙂
Tim,
Thank you for asking this question. I too thought that the sentence “Not for Jesus’ sin, certainly, but also not for ours.” was dismissive completely of the theology of substitution atonement… I know there are other theologies “Christus Victor” etc etc but to simply throw one out in order to be merciful is not helpful either.
DJL,
Thank you for taking the time. Yes, culturally driven is Anselm’s 11th century substitutionary explanation, but not without also proceeding from the biblical writers’ clear use of the model of the sacrifice of lambs (John 1:29; Hebrews 9, etc.). Paul employs often the substitution concept, to stand in our place under the law, to take the punishment we deserve (Galatians 4:4, Romans 3:21-26), and of course the familiar “while we were still sinners, Christ died for us,” (Romans 5:8). Christ came to take our place, to take unto himself our guilt, sin, and death, to give his live as a ransom (Mark 10). I sure don’t presume to be citing passages unfamiliar to you. Furthermore, I don’t mean in any way to be suggesting the Law is more powerful than God. It is God’s totally unconditional love that drives the whole thing. The Law’s demands fall only on us. The price He paid of His Son in blood I do not mean to reduce to a little contract or calculation. God’s working out of our salvation through Christ is far more profound than a simple “price” or punishment rendered. What is puzzling to me from your blog includes the pitting against one another two of the common redemptive themes, “forgiveness” and “punishment” in a sort of “pick one or the other”. Both are so clearly and frequently proclaimed throughout Scripture. And too, if Irenaeus and the early church focused on the victory motif, as another major description of how God came to rescue us from our sinfulness, and, if after Anselm, Luther, for example, introduces or certainly employs another motif, the “joyous exchange,” my understanding is that while all the attempts represent biblical proclamation, none of the descriptions gains a clear or certainly not a complete view into the mind of God. If we had an explanation to resolve the paradoxes or to understand why God accomplishes the salvation of sinners in the manner in which He did, the illusion of control, of knowing the mind of God ought to alarm. So, help me. How does one discard one or more biblical atonement motifs without also setting aside the corresponding portions of the biblical account?
I appreciate the dialog.
Tim
Even at this late hour, I still must write a sermon today, but just would like to take a moment to say thank you to Tim for writing what I wanted to write. I was disturbed and a bit sad to read David’s post this time. Although I appreciate the time and thought that has over the centuries given us systematic theories explaining the cross (including that of Christ’s alignment with our suffering), I find that theories in general leave me feeling that we are pressing the work of God into an algebraic equation. My understanding both from scripture and from experience is so simple…that the perfect love of God is both mercy and justice. Look at the ways God developed a consciousness of each of those down through the centuries of relationship with his people! It’s impossible to sidestep mercy OR justice in the perfection that God accomplished on the cross…otherwise, what’s to be reconciled?
David, I leave this email with some reluctance. I am struggling with this text this year. With several deaths in my immediate family I find my family shrinking at an alarming rate. I am not much different than the widow following the funeral procession of her only son. I don’t believe God was angry and so Jesus had to die to appease God’s wrath,that leaves me with the unhealthy picture of God the Father as the divine child abuser.I believe there is EVIL in the world (with capital letters) that is so prevalent and invasive that we can’t even see its impact on us. Because of that cultural EVIL bad things happen. God as Jesus takes that onto himself. That’s why its so important that we keep the Trinity as one. God doesn’t send, God comes. Where I stumble this week is trying to say where is God after the bad thing happens. Many people in my congregation are in the same boat I am.What does the cross and this parable say to people who are struggling to put one foot in front of another as a result of bad things happening to good people. Sometimes it is deathly silent after and one wonders where is God in all this. For the people who the tower fell on who lost people and will limp through life from then on what do you tell them. By the way your book making sense of th cross is sitting next to me on my desk right now.I am sorry that this email doesn’t help anyone else in their struggle with the text this week, Peace
I know you are asking David, not me. But if I may – I believe that Jesus hanging on the cross, suffering betrayal of friends, suffering the road to cavalry are all confirmations that Jesus knows what suffering is. That Jesus walks along side us in that suffering. That it is indeed, as difficult as it can be, a place of opportunity for deep deep union with God.
I say this because I have spent 10 months in utter pain and unable to partake in most normal activities due to a life-altering and rare condition. During that time I cried out to God and wondered where He was on more than one occasion. Now that I am in a period of remission, I have to say that in a strange way – I miss that intimacy. As strange as it sounds, when I had nowhere else to go, I was being held by the arms that hung on that cross. THe One who knows me better than I know myself. I don’t want the physical symptoms back, of course… but I will never be sorry for the profoundly intimate and loving relationship I feel I now have because I know that Jesus “gets it”…. May the God of mercy bless you!
Thanks for continuing the conversation, Tim. You’re catching me in a crazy-busy week, so I know my response is too brief to do justice to your questions or the topic at hand, but I’ll try…. Yes, there are a variety of motifs about atonement in Scripture and none of the three theories that have been so influential – victory, substitution, moral – fully captures the wonder of what is accomplished in and through Christ’s cross. Indeed, I sometime wonder if undue attention to any theory risks muting the actual impact of the cross on us. At the same time, I think the motifs/theories we favor influence our imagination about God and God’s character. The Scripture passages you reference are not uniformly interpreted of course. Sacrifice, for instance, is not normally understood in the OT as a form of substitutionary punishment but rather to reconnect (at-one-ment) sinful people with God through a sharing of lifeblood. Similarly, if someone pushes another out of the way of a car we might say that one person died for another or that the person “sacrificed” him or herself, but to whom was the sacrifice made? The person, the car, the world? Indeed, the question doesn’t make nearly as much sense as asking “for whom”? – the person who was saved. Similarly, I think the focus on Christ’s sacrifice is less about to whom that sacrifice was made than for whom. Punishment and forgiveness are largely antithetical. If Jesus was punished for us, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to talk about forgiveness, anymore than when an inmate is released we don’t say the state forgive him but rather that he did his time or paid the price. Sorry, gotta run. I know folks differ on this and that may be the case here. Blessings in Christ. ~David
Thanks for your question, Vicky, and know that you are in my prayers. I believe God is with us in suffering. That may not seem like much at times, but I find some comfort that we are not alone in our suffering, that God knows what it is like, that God holds onto us and promises us to bring us through suffering and death to new life.
David,
Thank you again. The interchange has been helpful. I didn’t realize, if I’m hearing you, a sort of cost-less, cross-less “divine forgiveness” represents the gospel in some circles. But neither did I realize who’s attractive blogsite this was when I digitally stumbled upon it a few days ago, reading your Luke 13 entry without then knowing your identity. We’ve reached different points from different paths, as you kindly said, “folks differ on this and that may be the case here.” Thank you for the time!
Tim
Scholarly discussions aside (not unimportant, just set to one side for a moment), I find your approach very helpful for preaching in a time when religion is too equated with themes of violence based on harsh judgement. Your approach allows those questioners and seekers in my congregation to come a little closer to the God of Grace without first having to untangle complex theology. Thanks!
I really appreciated this take on the cross. Much like Nadia Bolz-Weber’s views in the Animate: Faith series, as well as N.T. Wright’s approach in “Surprised by Hope”–both pivotal in my theological growth. After everything is said and done, Jesus died because God chose to be incarnate. He could have died in any number of ways. The cross was the political and spiritual consequence of the day. He took on sin not necessarily by paying a debt owed to a vengeful God but by revealing God’s persistent grace even to the point of showing what sin, evil, greed, and power do to humans. And he revealed what God’s love does to humans through his refusal to wield power but instead forgive. Thanks, David. Home run.
Thank you for this commentary. It has truly helped the direction of my sermon this week. My title is “The Hammer and the Nails.” We often picture God holding a hammer of judgment, but in fact, Jesus as a reflection of the heart of God took the nails, while we often hold the hammer. As our loving gardener, he continues to give us more time, nourishing us and giving us every chance to thrive, but sometimes we lack true repentance, true change of heart and mind.
Acck and Arrgghhh –
The explanations of our understanding of the cross and suffering are just that – explanations of our understanding; depending on who is doing the understanding. I keep coming back to this notion – that the fact is, with so many different ways of interpreting scripture, hence so many different theologies and faith traditions, the best I find myself being able to do – is wrestle with the text, with reality and with God. Yes, I am a pastor who graduated with an M.Div but when push comes to shove, I end up with this thought: No one – NONE OF US – really knows the bottom line.
There are indeed consequences to the choices we make.
There are good consequences and there are bad.
There are reasons people chose to engage in EVIL behavior and
reasons people chose to do GOOD. (Is EVIL an entity unto itself?
Is Goodness?)
God came to earth – incarnated Godself and lived life as a human with all that entails and then delivered himself up to die – a horrible, extremely suffering kind of death. For us. On our behalf.
That is love indeed. But there is for sure some deep suffering.
So, suffering is part of the human condition…whatever generates it.
And Jesus suffered for us – but what do we really know to explain this mystery? We all have our thoughts and understandings.
Even as I write this the equation of Love = Suffering comes to mind – but that’s not LOVE as I understand it.
JESUS’ PAINFUL DEATH ON A CROSS(after painful betrayal) = LOVE?
If that was all that was needed – why is there still suffering?
Other than that we are in the NOW and NOT YET. This is when my head starts to hurt.
Anyway – lots of in-depth thought to this post. Thanks.
I like to think that Jesus didn’t suffer for us but rather the horror of dying on the cross is Jesus (God) suffering with us, and through the resurrection we realize that, even in our darkest nights when it seems that God has forsaken us, God is in fact with us. I read somewhere that Eli Weisel, when asked where his God was in the concentration camp, answered that He was right there with him. Wiesel said he didn’t always know it at the time, but later looking back, he realized that it was his faith in God that helped him endure the suffering and horror and also gave him the ability to again live fully, love deeply and have hope in a better world.
Dear David,
Thanks for your post. This is the first time I’ve visited your website. It is very interesting! In regards to your idea that, “the cross is not about punishment for sin either. Not for Jesus’ sin, certainly, but also not for ours.” How do you understand certain passages in Scripture that seem to indicate that Jesus’ death was punishment for our sin?
Isaiah 53:6…and the LORD has punished Him
for the iniquity of us all…
1 Peter 3:18…For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous…
Romans 4:25…He was delivered up for our trespasses…
This is a very important issue to me!
Thanks in advance!
Danny
Hi, Danny. Thanks for your comment and question. A couple of things briefly in response. 1) Scripture uses a number of metaphors for Jesus’ death. Some, as with Isaiah, originally referred to another person and were later interpreted typologically by the early church (and evangelists) to refer to Jesus, while others refer directly to Jesus. It’s difficult to discern how metaphorical or literal some of the references are and I hesitate to develop a full theology of atonement from any one or even several verses when the testimony of Scripture is varied. 2) To say Jesus “died for our sins” – a consistent theme in the NT – is very different from saying God punished Jesus in our stead. Similarly, to say Jesus suffered because of our sin is not at all the same as saying God tortured and killed Jesus as a substitute. 3) The issue at heart is the character of God and while the NT offers a variety of ways of trying to understand Jesus’ death, I think a larger theology of atonement has to deal with the diversity and choose a thematic path that seems most in character with the whole witness of Scripture. 4) I wrote a great deal more about atonement theologies in Making Sense of the Cross (available on Amazon), if you’re interested. Thanks again for checking in.
Thank you very much for this blog David. Trying to make sense of the devastation following Cyclone Idai in Zimbabwe in recent days, and dealing with questions around suffering, I have found your blog very helpful. I cannot recognise a God who punishes God’s people and passively watches God’s people suffer. I find the understanding of a God who suffers with us life giving, especially when the reality is so challenging. For the people of Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Malawi, Kenya and New Zealand, this is no time for theologising their loss, pain and suffering. So thank you. I have been challenged by the conversation and there is lots to think about!