An historical, humanist perspective on Easter
An historical, humanist perspective on Easter
Many biblical historians see Paul as out of step with the other Apostles and their leader James, the brother of Jesus. These intimate associates of Jesus saw no redemptive value in the crucifixion and remained firmly wedded to Judaism after it. They accepted Jesus as a Messiah but believed redemption would only be secured by a second coming and in the meantime, they continued to observe the Jewish Day of Atonement. Their priority seems to have been to carry on Christ’s humanist work- his compassionate care of the poor and his campaign against the corrupt religious elites based in the Jerusalem Temple. Professor JD Crossan is just one of many scholars who now see Jesus steeped in in this Judaic prophetic tradition, elevating a thirst for justice and compassionate activism as ‘the new cornerstone’, the supreme commandment of Judaic law.
But while Paul’s Christology gradually prevailed over that of the original Apostles, it is their more humanist perspective that dominates the four gospels, even though they were written decades after Christ’s death when Paul’s influence was at its zenith. So why do Christians insist on seeing the crucifixion through Paul’s eyes rather than James’? There is only one reference in Matthew’s gospel where Christ said he was shedding his blood “to forgive the sins of multitudes” (Matt 26:28) and Paul seems to have hitched his wagon to this verse. Yet when those words are placed in the historical context of Christ’s mission, they take on a very different meaning to the one Paul derived.
In Galilee where Christ focused most of his campaign, the ‘multitudes’ were afflicted with widespread disease and rural poverty, often caused by the dispossession of their land. This misery was exacerbated by being connected with sinfulness, a stigma indelibly ingrained by strict ‘purity’ rules enforced by the religious establishment. This ‘poverty of spirit’- a crushing burden of guilt- compounded their dire material condition and produced a deep yearning for forgiveness.
But in what sense was Jesus ‘shedding his blood’ for these unfortunates?
The event that triggered Christ’s crucifixion was his assault on the Jerusalem Temple which was dominated by the fundamentalist Shammaite Pharisees who promoted the draconian purity laws. These extremists had forged an uneasy alliance with the corrupt Sadducees who imposed their own heavy religious taxes (tithes) on the countryside and accumulated vast land holdings by evicting small indebted farmers from their land. The purity laws imposed a culture of guilt that made this exploitation easier, especially when the Sadducees had a monopoly of on forgiveness of sins via the Temple. But Jesus went way beyond this symbolic forgiveness. His healing miracles eradicated the sin altogether by actually curing people and giving them new hope. Here was a competing power of forgiveness that had the potential to put ‘Temple Inc’ out of business. Its priests arrested him and demanded his crucifixion.
This is how James and the early Jewish Christians probably understood Christ as shedding his blood for ‘the sins of multitudes’. His purpose was not to earn us a free ride to heaven. Quite the contrary- he demanded we ‘take up our own crosses’ and follow him, sharpening our compassionate awareness and our thirst for justice.
It this humanist perspective is correct, Christians should start to focus far more on this world and less on the next, if they are to find redemption in either.
Tom Drake-Brockman
Author of Christian Humanism: the compassionate theology of a Jew called Jesus
http://christianhumanism.webs.com/