Loading...On Easter Sunday CNN published an OpEd that I wrote to discuss how so many Christians (most I’ve ever known) are not overly compelled by Good Friday but are passionate about Easter. Just, well, check out the church attendance on both days. In the OpEd I argued that it’s because as a rule most Christians prefer the glory to the pain, and in some ways that preference is written into the canon of the New Testament, where the teachings of Jesus of the need to serve others even if it means suffering comes first and then Revelation where the saints are given domination of the earth and a city of gold from which they rule the earth with a rod of iron comes last. The reality is that most Christians prefer the conquering Christ of Revelation to the suffering Jesus of the Gospels — at least when it comes to what they want to see in their own lives.
CNN has a policy that does not allow me to reproduce the entire OpEd, just the opening bit. Here it is, with a link to the whole thing. I hope you find it interesting.
*****************************
Good Friday and Easter Sunday celebrate two events that the disciples of Jesus never saw coming. In our Gospels, they did not accept what he repeatedly said: His goal in life was to die. And they were to follow his example.
The disciples instead believed Jesus was the powerful Messiah — the one who would destroy God’s enemies and establish his kingdom here on earth, with himself at its head. They assumed he was going to Jerusalem the final week of his life to be coronated. When he entered the holy city, he would come in conquest. The crowds would hail him as the king to come, sent by God to deliver them in fulfillment of prophecy.
But he raised no army, and at the end of the week the crowd turned. Jesus was unceremoniously arrested, tried and publicly tortured to death. The disciples’ hopes were brought to a brutal end.
Link: The messages of Easter and Good Friday are not the same
Terrific article. Most interesting.
Imitatio Christi still eludes my grasp. Whilst rightfully expecting society to respect those who chose singleness, abandoning one’s family is not so acceptable.Moreover,disowning one’s mother,in particular,seems a very serious trespass. It nullifies the 5th Commandment.
The issue of forfeiting one’s possessions to become oneself poor and help the other poor has always seemed utopian. Where it’s been tried,like supposedly in Communism,it has failed. Jesus himself thought that an expensive oil that could have helped so many is better spent on himself. Jesus and the Apostles lived off others wealthier than them,whose riches were indispensable.
Eventually,”treasure in Heaven” is employed as a powerful reward,far better than “treasure on Earth”,as Heaven was blissful and forever,whilst in Earth
dwelled pain,death and corruption.
In fact, throughout Jesus’ interaction with his listeners, there were constant threats and rewards.
Pragmatic question:
Could the acute preference for Easter be related to families? I totally agree that the messages of Good Friday and Easter are vastly different and their respective meanings are profound and manifold. But still, the Crucifixion is much harder to explain to kids – what with its horror and violence-than the joyful Resurrection,with its own wholesome,child friendly traditions .
Yeah good point. You want the kids to realize it’s all good!
You write here “At the end of the week the crowd turned.” referring to the way Jesus was disowned by the mob on Good Friday despite his triumphal entry a few days earlier. Do you, in fact, think it is likely these two groups were the same people, please?
Historically, no. But that’s how it’s portrayed in the Gospels. (I don’t think, historically, there was a crowd focused on Jesus at either his coming inot the city or at his trial)
It’s a nice opinion piece, but the events of Good Friday and everything that led up to it are irrelevant without the resurrection on Easter. Paul makes it clear that the resurrection is the basic tenet of Christianity that gives it validity, and so that is where the main celebration happens. Would you not agree that the death of Jesus is just the death of another Jewish self-proclaimed Messiah without the resurrection to set it apart. All the other ‘Messiahs’ are forgotten, only Jesus survives and that is because of the belief in the resurrection.
I agree with you that often trying to live the teachings of Jesus is secondary to avoiding the eternal punishment and achieving eternal reward in the minds of Christians. It’s unfortunate, because those ends really depend on the life lived in service and compassion and humility. But I’m sure you would agree that the real reason for the focus on Easter is the belief in the resurrection as paramount for the religion itself. Interestingly, my grandfather, a very devout fundamentalist, once told me that even if there was nothing to Christianity, it was still the right way to live.
You have a point here, but many Christians throughout the history of the religion, and especially American Christians, have wanted to use their belief as a tranquilizer to help them forget that life has any “down” aspects to it — what could be called the Norman Vincent Peale version. I’ve always admired the realism of Adlai’s “I find Paul appealing but Peale appalling.+
The statement about Revelation coming last reminds me of something I have wondered about. Bart has given us a good description of when and by whom the books of the NT were chosen, but why are they in the order they are in? The books of the OT are in a somewhat chronological order, which seems reasonable, and the Gospels come first in the NT, which also seems reasonable. However, since Mark was the first Gospel written and was used as a source for other Gospels, should it not logically be the first book of the NT? Why is it second, and who put it there?
The problem is that ancient Christians thought matthew was first and mark was a condensed versoin of it. The OT books are chronological with respect to the historical books, but ont the others (Psalms, Prophets, etc.) They had a different order of arrangement. So too NT books. Gospels deal with Jesus, so they’re first; Acts with his apostles from right after the resurrectoin, so they’re next; Paul a later follower so he’s next; the rest of the books — well, it’s the “other” apostles.
For those feeling Christian,even as others claim they are not, (for those not believing in the Resurrection,the Crucifixion as wholesale atonement or even a sacrifice but an execution,the Messiahship,the Kingdom or the miracles)
the great and lifelong attachment,not contingent with any of the above,is to Jesus’ teachings and message,and how they shaped Western civilisation.
The ethical/moral message, though,is not intrinsic to either Good Friday or Easter,which deal with history(Crucifixion ) and doctrine(Resurrection)or so it seems to me.
I looked up “doing good for others” specifically.You speak of this constantly as being the central issue.
I found many instances of specific exhortations to do things for others in Acts,but barely in the Gospels. John, perhaps.
One finds in the Gospels about giving to the poor,selflessness, kindness,forgiveness,humbleness,the golden rule (I prefer the negative version though),service (to be distinguished from what became oppressive servitude),laying one’s life for one’s friends(something every soldier knows),being less attached to material things,and of course,the ancient all encompassing “love your neighbour” overlapping with the golden rule(one of the non-specific ways of “loving” your neighbour).
Nowhere in the Synoptics do I find anything extolling “doing for others” specifically.
What am I missing?Am I too literal perhaps?Still,Acts spell it out and the Synoptics don’t.
Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31? (That’s where it’s stated plainly; but most of Jesus’ ethical teachings are rooted in the idea, especially as spin offs of Lev. 19:18 Love your neighbor as yourself — explicitly in Mark 12:31 and other places but implicity in most of the ethical teachings…
Yes,thank you,those two are central.I did include them.
My stumbling block is that both depart from the Self,creating an even field of reciprocity and contingency. I had imagined “doing good for others” as independent of the Self’s measurings.
For example,the Golden Rule seems better formulated as “treating others as *they* want to be treated”. This avoids seeing the Other as a clone of oneself, it forces us to truly know and understand the Other in their own terms,and avoids imposing on them. My sense of “doing good for others” was more pristine,selfless,not contingent on good being first done to me,as a pre-requisite.
The act of doing good for others could involve my own self-sacrifice,which both formulas,Leviticus and the Golden Rule don’t really cover.
That’s why I couldn’t find in the Gospels an appropriate passage,original to Jesus,where the sumum bonum of “doing good for others” is truly reflected.
I think the idea is that you know how *you* want to be treated so that can be a criterion for treating others, as opposed to having to intuit how they might want to be treated; some basics we all share (need for food, clothing, shlter; desire for justice, fairness, kindness, and so on…)
Excellent OpEd Bart.
Are you familiar with Manufacturing Consent or other works of Noam Chomsky? As a textural critic of the bible, do you have any thoughts or opinions on how to more accurately consume contemporary media, being able to recognize the authors bias and framing to better understand a news story. For myself, though not a common application of those methods, the criterion of embarrassment and the criterion of dissimilarity can be quite a helpful tool when processing news media. Though perhaps not referred to with the same vocabulary, I think Noam Chomsky’s approach to reading the news is very similar in some ways to how a textural critic might interpret a text and I would love to hear Dr. Ehrman’s thoughts on that.
I”m afraid I’m only distantly knowledgable about Chomsky’s work. Sigh. One of my many shortcomings.