Text for this Sunday's Sermon/Discussion: John 19
"They took Jesus away. Carrying his cross, Jesus went out to the place called Skull Hill (the name in Hebrew is Golgotha), where they crucified him, and with him two others, one on each side, Jesus in the middle. Pilate wrote a sign and had it placed on the cross. It read:
'jesus the nazarene
the king of the jews.'"
But nobody ever talks about Golgotha. The hymns refer to Calvary, the Latin translation... but I think that sucks (hey, there's another ugly word)! Calvary sounds so beautiful to me... a magical, joyful place like heaven, or Hawaii, or Disneyland - not a dirty, ugly place to be led to your torturous death. John 19 tells us that Golgotha means "Skull Hill," or "Place of the Skull."
As they so often do (in an attempt to help us interpret the mysteries of God's Word)... biblical scholars debate why all four gospel accounts of the crucifixion refer to Golgotha. Some believe it was a hill where people were executed, and their skulls were left there. Others believe the side of the hill actually resembled a skull. Another thought is that a cemetery was nearby, and "Place of the skull" is a reference to the bones buried there.
Either way, one thing is clear. Jesus was forced to carry his cross to "Skull Hill" (though he did all this willingly)... where he was nailed to a cross made of rough-hewn lumber... suffering an agonizingly slow and painful death. The only reason he died before the others was because he was severely beaten beforehand... almost to the point of death before ever being compelled to take up his cross.
I don't know if this is important to everyone else... but I actually find the term Calvary quite offensive. I love the old hymns, but I really, really hate how they relate such an ugly place with such a beautiful sounding word. The English translations of the Bible consistently use the word Golgotha... and I think it's far more descriptive of the evil and dark place where Jesus was executed, mocked, and humiliated. It may not rhyme with many things... and it may not roll of the tongue very easily, but to me, that's the point. Death and darkness define that horrible hill... and anytime we seek to soften or romanticize it, we are making it about us rather than about him.
But damn we're good at that... aren't we?
With so many things tugging for our time, actually taking the time to study the texts and understand the historical context seems to be taking a back seat to "feelings" about faith. Hummm? The Bible stories told to us do leap over the pain and suffering endurred by Christ because of what we've done and will do in the future and instead shoots straight to the resurrection of Christ and resultant place again as God in heaven. I believe both the pain and suffering death (which we as humans can somewhat understand) as well as the resurection (which I struggle with due to my earthborn knowledge) are important. Maybe the resurrection is softened and romanticized because it is hard to attach logic to and therefore makes a better fantasy story to those on the fringe of faith?
ReplyDeleteThat's just a classic example of making the bible into something cute and cheapening it. Sunday school and cheap slogans make me shutter. I think of "precious moments" when i hear the word calvary.
ReplyDeleteAs I read John 19 and in particularly these verses, I notice a few other things, all setting the stage for our belief and redemption. This is the pivotal point in God's plan. How beautifully God has set the stage. Isaiah 52 and 53 so aptly predict so much of what happens, and the learned Jews still did not recognize him. But if you are seeking truth, the fulfillment of the old testament prophesy will bear witness.
ReplyDeleteHe bore his cross alone (at first) symbolicly as he did our sins.
"Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews," in the three languages of the gathered for the Passover Feast so all would know, the absolute certainty of his earthly death, the contrast of "the man," and "the King," and finally the great contrast with Easter Sunday...
Jeff - Do you know what the roots of the word Calvary are and when the Christian church started using it? I do agree that it is a pretty word.
ReplyDeleteGolgotha is apparently the Greek equivalent for an Aramaic word "Gulgaltha" (In Hebrew the word is "Gulgoleth.") The definition is literally "place of the skull" or "place of a skull." An actual hill is not mentioned, but has become part of Christian tradition. The Vulgate is a 5th century Latin translation of the Bible, and used the Latin word Calvariae. Finally, the translator of the King James Bible used the anglicized version of the word, giving us the infamous "Calvary." Clear as mud yet? :-)
ReplyDeleteI understand what your saying Jeff, I love the old hymns of Calvary. Like the hymn At Calvary, At Golgotha just doesn't roll off the tongue as easily. ;-)
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that you are getting caught up in the sounds of words, rather than in their meanings. I guess I am of a different generation, but Calvary to me is not a pretty word. It signifies all of the horror and pain where my Savior was crucified. It is the same as Golgotha. I think we should not be tearing down words, but should be centering in on what Jesus did for us, whether we use one dispicable word....Calvary, or another.....Golgotha. This is just another side of the word coin!
ReplyDeleteYa, Doris... that is certainly a good point... in one sense anyway, words are merely semantics. What one generation might refer to as an ugly place is bound to be different than aother generation. What's the big deal? Nevertheless, I can't help expressing my frustration. I find it extremely difficult, if not downright offensive to swallow the insertion of a Latin word with such a beautiful sound, over the Greek/Hebrew word that has such an inherently gutteral, ugly phonetic. "Place of the skull..." Wow, that is creepiness defined.
ReplyDeleteSo... swallowing this gnat may not be a matter of eternal salvation, but to me, calling Golgotha Calvary is symptomatic of deeper problems within humanity that lurk beneath the surface... it's just wrong when we (consciously or unconsciously) beautify the very location on which our Lord was executed by exchanging more palatable words. Jesus could have been crucified in Jerusalem... or Galilee... or Philippi... or Damascus - all beautiful sounding words. But he wasn't... he was crucified at Golgotha. An ugly word, maybe (just maybe) by His design. Maybe we were never meant to say the word without shuddering at its ugliness. Ah, well... pot-a-toe, pot-ah-toe... Maybe this blog post doesn't represent an important dichotomy of terms to you... or to others... but nevertheless, the argument is deeply important to me.
But then again, I must admit... I don't think we should wear gold, jewel-encrusted crosses around our neck either. Just a legalist I guess. :-)
Back to the contrast, not of words but deed. Our Lord was "horrifically" crucified in probably the ugliest event in history, but, according to God's plan, the most important revelation to mankind. Forget the words and phonetics (hey maybe in Aramaic it is beuatiful) let us focus on God's unfathomable mercy and gift.
ReplyDelete