In many places a commemoration we Lutherans usually call Holy Cross Day   is observed on 14 September.  Its actual name is Exaltatio Sanctae   Crucis, which in Latin means "Exaltation of the Holy Cross", which is   the name I grew up with, except exaltatio in Latin does not mean what   exaltation has come to mean by extension in English, it means raising   aloft, so the name actually translates as "Raising Aloft of the Holy   Cross" which is pretty close to its Greek name "Raising Aloft of the   Precious Cross".  I ain't getting into the Greek.  And I ain't getting   into the other "Holy Cross Days" on 13 September, 12 October, 6 March, 3   May and 1 August either!
So What's a Holy Cross Day?  
Glad   you asked.  But before getting down to that, let me be clear about two   things.  None of what follows should be construed as knocking the   historic liturgy and things related to it, as I consider it one of the   great treasures of "Lutheranism" that they are retained  except where  they contradict, as distinct from are commanded by,  Scripture.  And,  none of what follows should be construed as knocking an  ever growing  awareness of and reverence for what was accomplished for  us by Christ  on the cross.
It should be construed as what it is,  knocking the  retention of this "feast" as in any way aiding either the  work of  zealously guarding and defending the liturgy or of deepening  awareness  of and reverence toward what was accomplished for us by Christ  on the  cross.
The Origin of Holy Cross Day.
So   why a Holy Cross Day on 14 September?  Because on 14 September 335 the   Church of the Holy Sepulchre was concluded -- the dedication itself  was  the day before, and on 14 September the "cross" was brought outside  for  veneration by the people -- and the Roman Emperor, Constantine,  made it a  feast day, that's why.  What in all church planting Judas  does that  mean?  What cross?  Why, the "true" cross, discovered by the  Emperor's  mom Helena on a dig funded by the Imperial treasury!  Huh?
So  why  ain't it called the Church of the Holy Cross then?  Well guess  what,  there was already something standing there, which was another  church,  well a temple actually, to the goddess Aphrodite, known to the  Romans as  Venus, she from whom the planet, and also Friday, is named.   Some say the place was  originally a Christian worship site, for reasons  that will presently be  clear, and that the temple was later built by  Emperor Hadrian in his  rebuilding of Jerusalem.
Why Jerusalem Had To Be Rebuilt.  Again.
Now   why  rebuilding?  Well, remember, Jerusalem was completely trashed by   the Romans in 70 AD.  Whyzat?  Well it started in 66, when some Greeks   started offering pagan sacrifices outside a synagogue in Jerusalem.  At   first, the Roman soldiers stationed in Jerusalem did not get involved  in  this local matter, but next thing you know, the Jewish priests quit   offering token sacrifices to the Emperor -- the Roman Empire generally   left you alone as long as you paid tribute to the top and didn't rock   the boat, which is how its surviving state church still pretty much   operates -- and next thing you know there's protests against Roman   taxes, call it an ancient Tea Party, and muggings of Romans living   there, and finally, when some of the boys from duty stations in the area   go in to intervene they get their butts kicked by a bunch of Jews   (that's the Battle of Beth Horon) which clean pisses off the Roman   Emperor, guy named Nero.
Old Nero tells General Vespasian -- who   had distinguished himself in the Roman invasion of Mother England (OK   Britannia at the time) in 43 as commander of Legio secunda Augusta   (Second Augustan Legion), one of the four legions deployed  --  to go in   and open up a major can of whoop-ass on Judea.  Which he commences to  do  along with the forces of his son, also a general, Titus, in April  67,  with total forces of about 60,000.  By 68 they had pretty well  cleaned  house in the north, and in the south the Jews pretty well  cleaned house  on each other with infighting, so about all that was left  was Jerusalem.
But then something else happened back in Rome.   Nero was  getting too bizarre for even the Romans, the Senate and the  military  went against him, he was declared an enemy of the people, so  he bolts  and commits suicide in 68.  All hell breaks loose and in 69  Rome goes  through four emperors!  First, the new emperor, guy named  Galba, gets  assassinated by a guy named Otho who wants to be the new  emperor so he  bribes the Emperor's bodyguards, the Praetorian Guard, to  kill him, and  then a guy named Vitellius, with the best legions in the  Roman army on  his side, defeats Otho and inspires him to commit  suicide, but then  Vitellius pisses everybody clean off by having so  many feasts and  parades that he about bankrupts the Empire.  So in July  69 Vespasian  gets hailed as emperor by his army and other Roman armies  -- Roman  armies did that sometimes, it's also how Constantine would  get his start  as emperor  --  and, thinking maybe that isn't such a bad  idea, Vespasian heads to Rome  and his allied armies kick the living  crap out of Vitellius' forces and  kill him, and the Senate proclaims  Vespasian emperor 21 December 69.   Helluva year.
Vespasian had  left crushing the Jewish rebellion to  his son Titus, which he bloody  well does, so thoroughly destroying  Jerusalem that Jospehus, the Roman  name of the great Jewish contemporary  historian Yosef, says you  wouldn't have even thought the place was once  inhabited.  This includes  the destruction of the Temple, which happened  on 29/30 July 70.  In  the Hebrew calendar it was Tisha B'Av, or the 9th  of Av (a month in the  Hebrew calendar) and guess what, it was on  exactly that date that  first Temple had been destroyed by the  Babylonians, leading to the  Babylonian Captivity (the one of the Jews,  not the church) some 656  years earlier.
Why the Destruction of the Second Temple Is a Big Deal.
The   destruction of the Second Temple has enormous consequences for both   Christianity and Judaism.  To have the centre of one's worship and   people's identity destroyed for the second time was catastrophic.  And   this time there wasn't even a captivity in which to be carried off.    Worst of all, with the Temple gone, it would now be impossible to follow   the Law.  How does a religion and people based on the Law continue  when  observing the Law is no longer fully possible?
There's only  two  answers: one, the Law could now pass because it had been  fulfilled, or  two, something else would take the place of the  sacrifices until such  time as they could be restored.  The second  answer was forthcoming from  Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai.  During the  siege, he was slipped out in a  coffin, and knowing the destruction was  coming, and sensing Vespasian  would become Emperor, negotiated from him  three things: 1) sparing the  city Jamnia, 2) sparing its sages, who  were students of Rabbi Gamaliel,  grandson of the great Hillel, and whom  St Peter mentions as having  argued against killing the Apostles for  their messianic beliefs about  Jesus, and among whose students St Paul  counts himself, 3) a physician  to attend an old rabbi (OK, his name as  Tzadok)who had fasted for forty  years hoping to ward off any  destruction such as has just happened.  It  was here that Judaism as we  know it, in the absence of the Temple, began  to take shape.  Basing  himself on Hosea 6:6, he concluded that our  mitzvoth (good works) and  prayer would now take the place of the  sacrifices commanded in the Law.
The  second answer is that the  sacrifices had culminated in that to which  they pointed, the sacrifice  of Jesus at Calvary, who is now both priest and victim, and the  destruction of the previous ones is what was  meant when Jesus said some  of those living would see the end, meaning  the end of things as they  knew it -- which some of them did.
Hadrian Rebuilds Jerusalem.
The  story goes that, as Hadrian was rebuilding Jerusalem, there was a site  that had been a Christian church reportedly on the site of Jesus'  burial, so Hadrian, who hated Christians, ordered dirt brought in to  cover the site, then had a temple to Venus (Aphrodite to the Greeks)  built on top of the earth on top of the old church site.  So Constantine  ordered the temple destroyed and the earth underneath it moved back  out!
Makes for a nice story, but the story is pure bull.  Hadrian  located the forum for the new Jerusalem where Roman fora were always  located, which is, at the meeting of the main north-south road through town and the, or one of the, main east-west roads.  In Jerusalem  there were the latter case, and the forum was located in the space between  the two east-west roads and along the north-south road, and the temple to Venus was part  of that.  So far from being a special action against Christians, it was  just a following of standard Roman practice anywhere.
And, that  the site is that of Jesus' tomb is so unlikely as to be nearly surely  false.  The Bible says Jesus' tomb was outside the city walls of  Jerusalem, and this site is within the walls of Jerusalem.  Oh well,  some say, the walls of Jerusalem in Jesus' day were different.  Two  problems with that.  If they were east enough of the current walls to  make the site west of them, Jerusalem would have been quite a narrow  city.  Also, building a tomb west of the city is highly unlikely, as  wind in Jerusalem generally blows from west to east, and thus would blow  over the tombs bringing ritual impurity not to mention a possible  stench to the city and in particular to the Temple Mount.  So, graves go  to the east of the city.
Helena.
And,  to those unlikely to be true legends, add those about Helena and the  finding of the "true" cross.  Helena was the mother of Constantine and  the father was Constantius, however, it is unclear of she was a legal  wife or a concubine, which then meant an extra-legal wife since the  marriage was between social classes (he was noble, she was not) and  prohibited by Roman law.  Constantius dumped her in a power deal to  solidify his political position to marry another (Theodora), which he  did in Trier, then called Augusta Treverorum and his new capitol.  Son  Constantine the "Great" would later do the same thing for the same  reasons.  Once her son became Emperor, Helena returned to public life  and was made Augusta Imperatrix, and was given unlimited access to the  imperial treasury to locate objects of Christian veneration.
The  story is, after the Temple of Venus was torn down and the land removed,  excavation found three crosses at what was supposed to be the site of  Jesus' burial.  So a woman near death was brought, and did not recover  on touching the first two crosses but did on touching the third, which  Helena proclaimed the cross of Christ.  Problem is, contemporary  accounts of the excavation (Eusebius) do not mention Helena being there  at all, unlikely for the Augusta Imperatrix to not be mentioned if she  were there, and the legend about authenticating the true cross appears  not only later, but in at least three distinct versions, the one just  related, one where a dead man was touched to each of the three and came  back to life at the right one, and that the inscription put on the cross  was still on it.
Take Your Pick.  Or Not. Exaltatio Sanctae Crucis.
What  a wretched mess, most of it legend of the most spurious kind and the  rest of it fact of the most disgusting kind.  A verifiable total  confusion of the Two Kingdoms (left and right hand) surrounded by  unverifiable legends that don't even agree with each other.  This  honours the cross of Christ?  Such a miserable excuse for piety should  be shovelled out and thrown away just like Constantine shovelled out  what Hadrian shovelled in.  The object of our veneration is not the  cross per se, or toothpicks from it, or legends about finding it, or big  fancy churches built at state expense on the supposed site of it, or a feast day established by a Roman Emperor, but  Christ and his action on it for our salvation, whose body and blood he  gives you right in your own parish in Communion Divine Service.
The  true Raising Aloft of the Holy Cross is not like some empty fiction,  for example the story about Dietrich von Bern, or these miserable True  Cross legends, but as St John says in John 12:32 "And I, when I am  lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself."  Et ego si  exaltatus fuero a terra omnia traham ad me ipsum.  The Alpha and the  Omega, and his Omega Point through whose exaltatio we are drawn from the one  and raised aloft to the other.
VDMA
Verbum domini manet in aeternum. The word of the Lord endures forever.
1 Peter 1:24-25, quoting Isaiah 40:6,8. Motto of the Lutheran Reformation.
Fayth onely justifieth before God. Robert Barnes, DD The Supplication, fourth essay. London: Daye, 1572.
Lord if Thou straightly mark our iniquity, who is able to abide Thy judgement? Wherefore I trust in no work that I ever did, but only in the death of Jesus Christ. I do not doubt, but through Him to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Robert Barnes, DD, before he was burnt alive for "heresy", 30 July 1540.
What is Luther? The doctrine is not mine, nor have I been crucified for anyone. Martin Luther, Dr. theol. (1522)
1 Peter 1:24-25, quoting Isaiah 40:6,8. Motto of the Lutheran Reformation.
Fayth onely justifieth before God. Robert Barnes, DD The Supplication, fourth essay. London: Daye, 1572.
Lord if Thou straightly mark our iniquity, who is able to abide Thy judgement? Wherefore I trust in no work that I ever did, but only in the death of Jesus Christ. I do not doubt, but through Him to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Robert Barnes, DD, before he was burnt alive for "heresy", 30 July 1540.
What is Luther? The doctrine is not mine, nor have I been crucified for anyone. Martin Luther, Dr. theol. (1522)
For the basics of our faith right here online, or for offline short daily prayer or devotion or study, scroll down to "A Beggar's Daily Portion" on the sidebar.
12 September 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

No comments:
Post a Comment