When the Romans
carried out a crucifixion, the victim would be crucified naked. This was
meant to add to the humiliation of the victim (shaming him and increasing the
honor of Rome and the Caesar), adding yet another display of his utter
powerlessness in the face of Rome’s great might. For crucified Jews, the
fact of being naked meant that their covenant marker, their circumcision, was
exposed for all the world to see. The Romans, of course, knew this, and
it added yet one more dimension of humiliation to the process. Naturally,
and though artistic representations of the event present something slightly
different, Jesus underwent crucifixion in this way---completely
unclothed.
Along with this,
though there is no record of it in the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion,
there is a long tradition that Jesus’ beard was ripped from His face at some
point during His ordeal. This tradition stems from the words of Isaiah,
in which his “suffering servant” speaks and says, “I offered my back to those
who attacked, my jaws to those who tore out my beard; I did not hide my face
from insults and spitting” (50:6). The Gospel narratives do record that
Jesus was scourged, which involved lashes primarily to the back (though
certainly not limited to the back), that He was insulted, and that the Roman
soldiers spit in His face. Therefore, an extrapolation is made, in
conjunction with this prophecy, and as those that believed in Jesus came to see
Jesus as the embodiment of Isaiah’s suffering servant, it was presumed that His
beard was ripped from His face as well.
In light of the sheer
number of prophecies that came to be understood as being fulfilled in the life
and death and Resurrection of Jesus, it is probably quite safe to accept this
tradition, especially in light of the continued and enhanced shaming (not to
mention intense pain) that would go along with this. These two things
then, that being naked crucifixion and beard-pulling, bear a similarity to the humiliating
exposure and beard-shaving of the servants of King David. As it relates
to Jesus and His crucifixion, these two things, naturally, were designed to not
only increase pain and suffering, but to induce a thorough humiliation.
This connection would have been especially pronounced for a Jew, as this story
of David’s servants might very well have sprung to mind, in light of Jesus’
messianic claims and the messianic title of “Son of David” that was attached to
Israel’s messiah-king.
Undoubtedly, in
undergoing these things, it is not difficult to imagine that Jesus would have
been humiliated. That would have been
the intention. David’s servants experienced such humiliation, so such a
thing would have been a natural response. However, if one were to move
forward in Isaiah, as Isaiah himself perhaps looks back to the “Hanun
situation,” the suffering servant is found to have undergone these actions that
were meant to induce humiliation, saying, “But the sovereign Lord helps me, so
I am not humiliated” (50:7a). He goes on to say, “For that reason I am
steadfastly resolved; I know I will not be put to shame. The one who
vindicates me is close by” (50:7b-8a).
Jesus, in defiance of
the intended shaming and humiliation, steadfastly trusted that His God was
going to raise Him up. Jesus knew that His vindicating Resurrection was not
far away, so rather than rage against His adversaries and accusers, He asked
for their forgiveness and entrusted all things, His spirit included, into the
faithful hands of His Father. In a
culture in which being put to shame was the equivalent of undergoing death, He
knew that He was going to be made to overcome the pending grave, thus trumping
any possible shame brought to him by the crucifixion, while also paradoxically
accepting the shame and providing the model for service to His kingdom for all
that would come to pledge their allegiance to Him.
No comments:
Post a Comment