Good Friday - "Why Have You Forsaken Me?"

As with yesterday's revision and reprint of a post I made about Maundy Thursday, today I revise and repost reflections on one of the "Seven Last Words" recorded from the story of Good Friday.
----

Matthew 27:46 (New International Version)

46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Listening to the "Jesus Christ Superstar" soundtrack is a part of my Lenten preparations for Easter, so some of you will not be surprised to learn that I have heard that soundtrack several times this week. Of the famous Seven Last Words of Jesus, the "forsaken" word is included in the script as the second of three things Jesus says during the Crucifixion. (The JCS line is "My God, my God, why have you forgotten me?") As I hear that every year, I am reminded how my understanding and appreciation of this moment in Christ's life has changed and grown over time, and how Bible Study was such an important part of that growth.

When I was a teenager and first saw the film, it might well have been the first time I paid any attention to the Last Words. At that time, I took it as it is performed by Ted Neely - the frustrated lament of someone who truly believed he had been forgotten. Now, I see this "word" much differently, and that's because of studying that I've done,  together with help from other knowledgeable people.

Containing the Aramaic version of the words, the verse guides us to uncover some messages which are lost if one simplifies the "Word" to merely the translated "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"  Those messages are all related to a simple fact: Jesus is quoting the first verse of Psalm 22.  Take a quick look at the Psalm, and then think about the man who is saying the words.  Why does Jesus say this? Is it because he is actually feeling forsaken? I don't think so, and I don't think the Gospel author thought so, either, because he wrote the original Aramaic words, and then translated them for his readers.  So, what do I think Jesus intended?

First, Psalm 22 is a psalm containing messianic prophecy. At our Maundy Thursday services at my former church, we always closed the service by speaking this psalm as the paraments are removed from the altar and the pastor changes from normal vestments to all-black. We have learned, over the years, that this psalm teaches us what will happen to Jesus and what will happen because of him. The psalm tells us that the Messiah will be scorned (v.6) mocked and insulted (v.7). People will say that God should rescue him, since he trusted God so much (v.8 and fulfilled in Matthew 27:43). His hands and feet will be pierced (v.16). People will gamble to see who gets his clothing (v.18). And yet, the second half of the psalm tells of the joy that will come to God's people and the victory that will be won by the Savior He sends.

By speaking the first line of this psalm, Jesus is pointing out to those around him -- and to us today -- that the first part of the prophecy is being fulfilled, and by extension He is promising the second part is soon to come.

Second, and this is the part of the lesson which came to me more recently, Jesus continues to act in his role as "'Rabbi' (which means teacher.)" (John 1:38) In order to instruct the young, a rabbi of Jesus' time would teach his students to memorize the scriptures.  To test the memory of his students, he would speak the opening of a passage and expect them to recite the rest.  Though memorization is not taught as commonly in schools (even Sunday Schools) these days, many of us remember having this same technique used to teach us the Pledge of Allegiance, Psalm 23 or the Christmas story from Luke.  With those facts in mind, it's not hard to imaging that, by speaking these first words, Jesus is acting in his role of teacher to the end.

Third, I think what Jesus wanted to teach is the importance of the entirety of the psalm, not merely the first part. And yet, Jesus did not speak the whole psalm - He started it. Why?  Perhaps because, without his physical presence, we are responsible for learning and understanding God's will and actions, and Jesus is telling us we still have work to do. We are to finish it. We are to learn its meaning. Then we are to accept the resulting grace.

Now, could Jesus have actually been feeling forsaken? I guess it depends on whether such a feeling would be sinful or not. As a human, he would certainly be "normal" if he felt alone as he neared his death. Some would interpret feeling forsaken as a loss of faith, and that is sin.  This is what I used to believe, and because I believe Jesus was the "spotless Lamb" - without sin - I could not reconcile myself to him feeling forsaken.  Later in my life, however, I have thought more about what being "truly human" means when we're describing Jesus' humanity, and I begin to think that our Christ needed to experience the emotions we have as creatures, and then overcome those emotions.  With that thought in mind, I think it's entirely possible Jesus felt forsaken, but used the Psalm to reassure himself, as well as us, that salvation and grace would follow.

Whether he truly felt forsaken or not, the crucial lessons for us to learn from this "Last Word" are connected to the meaning of Psalm 22. Without Bible Study, I would have never known this, and so I am truly thankful to have been given that gift.




.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

Statistics about Christianity and their relation to Science and Evolution

Gathered these facts in 2013.  Never posted.  Not sure why, but as they are still valid (for the time they were gathered -- unlikely to have changed since 2013)  and pertinent to a discussion I was having, I'll post now.

====

There are 2.2 billion Christians in the world.  [Sources: Washington Post, Pew Forum]

Of those, 1.2 billion are Catholic. [Sources: Catholic Culture, Pew Forum]

Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the Catholic stance that the theory (or theories) of evolution are not in conflict with scriptural truth (see Message to the Ponfical Academy if Sciences: On Evolution) and in fact, the centuries-old recognition that "We know that the truth cannot contradict the truth. (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus)"

Here are two important things for people involved in the "Church vs. Science" false debate to take from the above:

Christians -- you are not the minority.  Many Christians speak, act, and even stand in pulpits and preach as if they were somehow the minority.  While it is true that there are more non-Christians in the world than there are Christians, of people professing a religion, you are the largest group.

People who claim "Christians are opposed to science and particularly the Theory of Evolution": The numbers above demonstrate that a majority of Christians in the world profess a type of Christianity which supports the Theory of Evolution, and has done so for decades.  And that's only the Catholics.  There are plenty of Christian denominations which are not Catholic, but which also acknowledge that "truth cannot contradict the truth" and that, to the best knowledge humans have today, Evolution is scientific truth.

While researching this, I came across an essay by Doug Linder: The Vatican's View of Evolution: The Story of Two Popes, which I found very interesting.  It selected some of the key quotes from two Popes, which show the progression of acceptance of evolution in that branch of Christianity.

Superstar - Of Its Time - On Purpose

 It's that time again.  Holy week is when I watch Jesus Christ Superstar.  These days, I can allow myself to turn away from the screen during some of it.  I sing along with pretty much all of it -- well, when the house is empty like it is these days -- and most of the shots are well etched into my memory.

Still, there are scenes which always draw my attention.  As I was watching them again this year, I was struck by how the show is steeped in "1970s." The performers were from a time before everyone in movies was either chiseled from stone or buxom or both.  Josh Mostel's soft-bellied Herod was the only one hinting at the shape most of us normal Americans would be in 40 years later.  (Yes, it's been 40 years!)

Of course the costumes and hairstyles make us think of those psychedelic times and the anti-establishment nature of the day.







Jesus Christ Superstar still works, though.  There are many reasons for that fact, of course.  The music, the acting -- all first rate.  Carl Anderson put so much humanity into Judas.  Ted Neely was born to play Jesus, and to sing those incredibly difficult songs.  The Kings were perfectly cast.  And then there's Yvonne Elliman, whose voice and look brought us a Mary Magdalene who was real, sympathetic and as far from both trashy and glamorous as possible.  (Either would have stained the film.)


I suppose I should ask people in my children's generation whether the '70s nature makes this movie look "old" to them.  My view is that it was carefully constructed to be, in a sense, a "period piece," even though it was created from within the period it depicted.

I suppose the film, like the opera itself, doesn't have the same sense of defiance it had at the time.  I remember as a young near-teen hearing people decry it for not be accurate enough, etc., etc.  (Then again, almost any film dealing with Jesus's life will still have that problem, won't it?)  It certainly was a different slant on the events of Holy Week than the vast majority of us American Christians were being taught.  Today, far more of us have been exposed to variations of the story.  No one should take this movie as Gospel, of course, but it's impressive how many of the key messages are contained.  We all need to realize that depicting a Jesus who is both true God and true Man is probably beyond any of us. The JCS Jesus is more Man, but a very good Man.  The film also asks us to accept that the people around Jesus were real people, with real personal motives.  And hey, that message is even there in the Gospels.

Ultimately, though, it's about the music and the performances carrying the drama and the messages.  I still find this film well worth an annual visit.

I suspect I'll listen to the music again a couple of times before Easter.  I suppose I had better close the office door, though, in case I happen to forget where I am.  I might start singing "Who is this broken man / cluttering up my hallway?"  I don't want to offend anyone.












[Still, this last image is just a bit creepy, don't you think?]