'Christ the Crucified' Sunday

Below is a rough translation and some preliminary notes regarding Luke 23:33-38, part of the Revised Common Lectionary reading for Christ the King Sunday. At the end is my little opinion on Christ the King Sunday, in light of this text. My views have morphed over time and I have published an essay on the Politics of Scripture blog that you can read here. Your comments are welcomed as well. 

 

³³καὶ ὅτε ἦλθον ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον τὸν καλούμενον Κρανίον, ἐκεῖ ἐσταύρωσαν 

αὐτὸν καὶ τοὺς κακούργους, ὃν μὲν ἐκ δεξιῶν ὃν δὲ ἐξ ἀριστερῶν. 

And when they came to the place, which is called Skull, there they crucified him and the criminals with one on the right and one on the left. 

ἦλθον: AAI 3p, ἔρχομαι, 1) to come  

καλούμενον: PPPart asm, καλέω, 1) to call 

ἐσταύρωσαν: AAI 3p, σταυρόω, 1) to stake, drive down stakes  2) to fortify with driven stakes, to palisade  3) to crucify  3a) to crucify one 

1. Verses 33 and 34 have “they” a lot as the implied subject of the 3rd person plural verbs. It is not easy to go back and clearly mark who the antecedents are for “they.” In v.13, Luke identifies “the chief priests, the leaders, and the people,” as they ones who engage with Pilate and are the antecedent for v. 18, “Then they all shouted out together, ‘Away with this fellow! Release Barabbas for us!’” But v.25 does not identify to whom Pilate handed Jesus over, the “they” of v.26, “As they led him away.” But, by now the “they” cannot simply be “the chief priests, the leaders, and the people,” because v.27 says, “A great number of the people followed him, and among them were women who were beating their breasts and wailing for him.” Besides, it doesn’t seem likely that “the chief priests, the leaders, and the people” have the role or authority to crucify or to seize someone from Cyrene named Simon and force him to carry a cross. By now, although they are not named, the “they” seem to be Roman soldiers. 

2. I’ve always been struck with how Matthew announces Jesus’ birth as part of a dependent clause, noting that Joseph did not “marital relations” with Mary, “until she had given birth to a son, and he named him Jesus.” Thank goodness we have Luke’s storytelling acumen. 
It almost feels like Luke presents the crucifixion in a similar offhand manner in this verse, with the emphasis on the location and the companionship that Jesus had as he was crucified. A better way to read it is to let the following verses serve as a long description of what this singular term “crucifixion” means. And it’s horrible.

 

³⁴[[ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἔλεγεν, Πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς, οὐ γὰρ οἴδασιν τί ποιοῦσιν.]] 

διαμεριζόμενοι δὲ τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ ἔβαλον κλήρους. 

[Then Jesus was saying, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”]  Then cutting his garment into pieces, they cast lots. 

ἔλεγεν: IAI 3s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak

ἄφες: AAImpv 2s, ἀφίημι, 1) to send away

οἴδασιν: PAI 3p, εἴδω, to perceive 

ποιοῦσιν: PAI 3p, ποιέω, 1) to make  1a) with the names of things made, to produce, construct,  form, fashion, etc.  1b) to be the authors of, the cause

διαμεριζόμενοι: PMPart npm, διαμερίζω, 1) to cleave asunder, cut in pieces  

ἔβαλον: AAI 3p, βάλλω, 1) to throw or let go of a thing 

1. The whole reason that I began looking for antecedents for “they” in vv.33-34 is to listen for who the “them” is in Jesus’ words. It’s odd how we like to particularize the ‘they’ pronouns referring to those who crucify, but then generalize the ‘them’ of v.34 so that all of us can be part of this request for forgiveness. If I want to claim that “I” am part of the “forgive them” in v.34, then I also have to admit that “I” am part of the “they” who crucify and cast lots in v.33. 

2. The first part of this sentence is in [[double brackets]] because it is not in many of the earlier manuscripts. This pronouncement’s dubious standing textually is the opposite of its beloved standing sermonically. The manuscripts do agree that the soldiers cut Jesus’ garment and gambled for pieces. I wonder if it were valuable or if they treated such relics as trophies. 

 

³⁵καὶ εἱστήκει ὁ λαὸς θεωρῶν. ἐξεμυκτήριζον δὲ καὶ οἱ ἄρχοντες λέγοντες, 

Ἄλλους ἔσωσεν, σωσάτω ἑαυτόν, εἰ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ 

ἐκλεκτός. 

And the people had stood by, watching.  Yet also the rulers were deriding saying, “He saved others, let him save himself, if he is the Christ the chosen of God.” 

εἱστήκει : PluAI 3s, ἵστημι, 1) to cause or make to stand, to place, put, set  

θεωρῶν: PAPart nms, θεωρέω, 1) to be a spectator, look at, behold  1a) to view attentively, take a view of, survey 

ἐξεμυκτήριζον: IAI 3p, ἐκμυκτηρίζω, to turn up the nose at, deride out and out.

λέγοντες: PAPart npm, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak 

ἔσωσεν: AAI 3s, σῴζω, 1) to save, keep safe and sound, to rescue from danger or destruction

σωσάτω: AAImp 3s, 1) to save, keep safe and sound, to rescue from danger or destruction 

ἐστιν: PAI 3s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

1. The arc of Luke’s story has been a testimony, beginning with the birth narratives of John the Baptizer and of Jesus, filled with promises and proclamations that John, then Jesus, are the prophet and Christ sent from God. At Jesus’ baptism in Luke 3:22, a voice from heaven says, Σὺ εἶὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα, “You are my son, the beloved, in you I am well pleased.” In Luke 4:3 and 4:9, the devil pushes those declarations into question, framing the 1^st and 3^rd temptation with the conditional, Εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, “If you are the son of God.” One way of reading Luke’s story is to follow the flow of this arc, making this a moment when the rulers are calling the declarations of Mary, Simeon, the angels, and even Godself into question by making this derisive comment conditional. 

2. The use of the pluperfect, “The people had stood by” seems incredibly powerful to me. I don’t know if they had any realistic alternative at this point, but it seems to be the bed that they made themselves by demanding crucifixion.

3. “Let him save himself” is a 3^rd person imperative. I wonder if there is significance that the derision is not in the 2^nd person direct address. My suspicion is that the religious leaders are aiming for validation. They had stirred up the cry for Jesus’ death and now need to keep it going, since the reality of watching one’s fellow Jew/Galilean treated so horribly by Roman soldiers can only be tolerated if he is depicted as a deserving scapegoat. 

 

³⁶  ἐνέπαιξαν δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ οἱ στρατιῶται προσερχόμενοι, ὄξος προσφέροντες αὐτῷ 

Yet also the crucifiers approaching him mocked, bringing vinegar to him 

ἐνέπαιξαν: AAI 3p, ἐμπαίζω, 1) to play with, trifle with 1a) to mock  1b) to delude, deceive

προσερχόμενοι: PMPart, npm, προσέρχομαι, 1) to come to, approach  2) draw near to  3) to assent to

προσφέροντες : PAPart npm, προσφέρω, 1) to bring to, lead to 

1. The agency here is now directly attributed to “the crucifiers.” 

2. The main verb here is “mocked,” with ‘approaching’ and ‘bringing’ (and ‘saying’ in the next verse) as participles of how they mocked him. 

3. The mention of vinegar may not mean that they were torturing Jesus by giving him “Three Buck Chuck” instead of something aged in an oak barrel. The definition of ὄξος in thebible.org is “the mixture of sour wine or vinegar and water which the Roman soldiers were accustomed to drink.” If that is the case, the quality of this wine is not its inferiority but its availability for the crucifiers, the Roman soldiers. It seems to me that asking ‘why they would give him wine’ is more of an issue than noting that they gave him bad wine. 

4. Why would they give him wine? My guess is that it is a further description of the ‘mocking’ not an act of compassion. It might be a way to sustain him and to make the crucifixion last longer, rather than to deaden his pain or slake his thirst. Alas, I am blissfully unfamiliar with crucifixion practices.

 

³⁷καὶ λέγοντες, Εἰ σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων, σῶσον σεαυτόν. 

and saying, “If you are the king of the Judeans, save yourself.”

λέγοντες: PAPart nmp, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak  1a) affirm over, maintain  1b) to teach  1c) to exhort, advise, to command, direct 

εἶ: PAI 2s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

σῶσον: AAImpv 2s, σῴζω, 1) to save, keep safe and sound, to rescue from danger or destruction

1. The word “saying” is another participle that conditions the main verb of ‘mocking’ in v.36. In approaching, bringing vinegar, and saying this, the crucifiers mocked him. 

2. Now, the imperative “save yourself” is a more common 2^nd person address, unlike the 3^rd person imperative “let him save himself” in v.35. The crucifiers are echoing what the rulers said in v.35. 

3. Again, like the words of “the devil” in c.4 and “the rulers” in v.35, Jesus’ identity becomes a conditional, “If you are the king of the Judeans.” But, unlike v.35 the phrase is “king of the Judeans” instead of “son of God.” The parallel conditional statements in vv.35 and 37 might suggest that while “the rulers” are mocking Jesus’ blasphemy as claiming to be the son of God, the crucifiers (Roman soldiers) are mocking Jesus’ sedition as claiming to be the son of Herod (or Caesar, since βασιλεὺς could be translated as “emperor” as well as “king.”)

4. Richard Horsley argues that – in Mark – the word Ἰουδαίων should be translated “Judeans” instead of “Jews,” because of Mark’s polemic of Galilean piety v. Judean piety. Phonetically, Ἰουδαίων certainly sounds more like Judeans than Jews. I think “Judeans” is more appropriate here in Luke also, because the first time this phrase is used in Luke’s gospel – slightly different – is 1:5, where Herod the Great is identified as βασιλέως τῆς Ἰουδαίας, “king of Judea.” (Judea is singular in 1:5, plural in 23:37.) The exact wording of this phrase is in 23:3, when Pilate asks Jesus, Σὺ εἶ ὁβασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων; “Are you the king of the Judeans?” Jesus cryptically answers, Σὺ λέγεις “You say.” 

 

³⁸ ἦν δὲ καὶ ἐπιγραφὴ ἐπ' αὐτῷ, Ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων οὗτος.

Then there was a superscription above him [or, Then a superscription was above him], “This the King of the Judeans.” 

ἦν: IAI 3s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present 

1. The note from the KJV and other earlier translations that the superscription was in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin does not appear in older, more reliable manuscripts.

2. The superscription lacks a verb. 

 

³⁹ Εἷς δὲ τῶν κρεμασθέντων κακούργων ἐβλασφήμει αὐτὸν λέγων, Οὐχὶ 

σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστός; σῶσον σεαυτὸν καὶ ἡμᾶς. 

Yet one of the criminals who were hanging blasphemed him, saying, “Are you not the Christ?  Save yourself and us.” 

κρεμασθέντων: APPart gpm, κρεμάννυμι 1) to hang up, suspend 2) to be suspended, to hang

ἐβλασφήμει: IAI 3s, βλασφημέω, 1) to speak reproachfully, rail at, revile, calumniate, blaspheme 

λέγων: PAPart nsm, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak

εἶ: PAI 2s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

σῶσον: AAImpv 2s, σῴζω, 1) to save, keep safe and sound, to rescue from danger or destruction 

1. The challenge to Jesus’ identity seems infectious. And the idea that everyone gets to tell Jesus what to do. 

 

⁴⁰ ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ ἕτερος ἐπιτιμῶν αὐτῷ ἔφη, Οὐδὲ φοβῇ σὺ τὸν θεόν,ὅτι ἐν 

τῷ αὐτῷ κρίματι εἶ; 

Yet the other having answered reproving him was declaring, “Are you not afearing God, that you are in the same judgment? 

ἀποκριθεὶς: APPart nms, ἀποκρίνομαι, 1) to give an answer to a question proposed, to answer

ἐπιτιμῶν: PAPart nms, ἐπιτιμάω, 1) to show honour to, to honour  2) to raise the price of  3) to adjudge, award, in the sense of merited penalty  4) to tax with fault, rate, chide, rebuke, reprove, censure severely  4a) to admonish or charge sharply 

ἔφη: IAI 3s, φημί, 1) to make known one's thoughts, to declare

φοβῇ: PMI 2s, φοβέω, 1) to strike with fear, scare, frighten. 

εἶ: PAI 2s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

1. I recognize my annoying habit of making the verb “fear” into “afeared,” but there is a reason. I’m trying to find a way to capture the middle voice, as opposed to the active voice.

 

⁴¹ καὶ ἡμεῖς μὲν δικαίως, ἄξια γὰρ ὧν ἐπράξαμεν ἀπολαμβάνομεν: οὗτος 

δὲ οὐδὲν ἄτοπον ἔπραξεν. 

“And we indeed rightly, for we are receiving deservingly that which we committed; but this one committed nothing out of place.”  

ἐπράξαμεν : AAI 3p, πράσσω, 1) to exercise, practise, to be busy with, carry on  1a) to undertake, to do  2) to accomplish, perform  2a) to commit, perpetrate

ἀπολαμβάνομεν: PAI 1p, ἀπολαμβάνω, 1) to receive  1a) of what is due or promised  2) to take again or back, to recover  2a) to receive by way of retribution 

ἔπραξεν: AAI 3s, πράσσω, 1) to exercise, practise, to be busy with, carry on  1a) to undertake, to do  2) to accomplish, perform  2a) to commit, perpetrate

1. This is a rather eloquent speech among persons who are dying in agony. It seems that a lot of martyrdom stories have eloquent speeches. 

 

⁴² καὶ ἔλεγεν, Ἰησοῦ, μνήσθητί μου ὅταν ἔλθῃς εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν σου. 

And he was saying, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 

ἔλεγεν: IAI 3p, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak

μνήσθητί: APImpv 2s, μνάομαι, mindful of

ἔλθῃς: AASubj 2s, ἔρχομαι, 1) to come

 

⁴³καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Ἀμήν σοι λέγω, σήμερον μετ' ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ. 

And he said to him, “Amen, I say to you, today with me you will be in the paradise.”  

εἶπεν: AAI 3s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak

λέγω: PAI 1s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak

ἔσῃ: FMI 2s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

 

While Jesus Christ is my lord and savior; I struggle with the phrase, “Christ the King.” I don’t think Jesus welcomed the title ‘king.’ I have read the history of the genesis of this celebration and I know that one hope is to re-interpret the term ‘king’ in light of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. But I am not sure how capable we are of ridding our minds of what the symbol of “king” means. At worst, we think of tyrant kings, cruel emperors, absolute monarchies, and the like. The US just saw enormous protests called “No Kings” rallies, which may have been aimed at a particular overreaching political figure, but demonstrates the modern sentiment toward the title of “king.” At best, we think of constitutional monarchies where royal figures are more symbolic than powerful. Paul Tillich argued that symbols can do that, so there is a timeliness about the use of symbols and their ability to retain their intended meaning. I think “king” may be a symbol that has lost its meaning.

 

However, I want to honor the intent that Pope Pius XI had when he instituted the Feast Day of Christ the King in 1925. Perhaps, one hundred years later, the desire for “no kings” is an opportunity for those who do honor “Christ the King” Sunday to do so prophetically. I suspect Jesus’ own reluctance to claim that title in his cryptic response to Pilate, as well as his unwillingness to assert the power to avoid crucifixion, are moments where the current aversion to “kings” is consonant with Jesus’ servanthood. 

 

Or, even more powerfully, I have wondered what we envision as the better alternative to “kings.” I suspect it is “we the people,” but I am Reformed enough to question the confidence we place in that notion. Early American Presbyterians supported democracy, not because they imagined that 51% of us are always right, but because they did not trust investing anyone with too much power. Democracy would diffuse power more than other forms of governance at hand. The role of “the crowd” in this story would offer a corrective to anyone who imagines that “we the people” are always right.