There was a level of controversy recently, in the media at least, when certain events during the holiday period were advertised omitting the word “Easter”. Some church leaders spoke out against what they claimed was a de-Christianising of the festival.
Setting aside the detail that Easter has pagan origins, does the New Testament account of crucifixion and resurrection still have significance? Easter is central to Christianity due to its theology being based on St. Paul.
Paul promoted the notion that Jesus’ crucifixion was the sacrifice of God’s son to pay the debt incurred by Adam on behalf of humanity: Salvation from sin. The subsequent resurrection was God’s demonstration that not only was the sacrifice accepted, the debt paid, but also a promise of life beyond death for the faithful.
From a Deist perspective such an apparently supernatural intervention is open to a more rational explanation. It is based on the idea that Jesus was actually a proto-Deist within the context of the Judaism of his day.
Jesus seems not to have claimed any of the special supernatural or divine attributes that were to be conferred upon him in the centuries after his death. The “Kingdom of God” he proclaimed, that is to know God and love all your neighbours, was at hand because it is within, ready to be recognised and known by everyone.
However, by proclaiming “The Kingdom of God”, the Jewish population of the time were likely to interpret that as the restoration of the Kingdom of Israel. This would certainly have been regarded as sedition by the ruling Roman imperium.
The Jewish authorities also felt undermined, as all religious authorities do, by any claim that God’s way can be found by each and everyone within themselves. No need then for priests, the temple and the riches and power that go with them.
Also, the threat that the Romans might react in a devastating manner to a perceived threat of revolution would also necessitate a staunching of that threat. Not surprisingly, it did not require supernatural insight for Jesus to know his likely fate.
Nor is it surprising that in the hours before his arrest he fervently prayed to be spared that fate. Yet he remained resolute in his mission, with the result that the cross should be taken as a symbol of commitment, not one of blood sacrifice.
As for the resurrection, the explanation could be as mundane as Jesus actually surviving the crucifixion. From the New Testament accounts it seems he was on the cross for about six hours or so, when it usually took days for a victim to die that way.
Terrible as it was, human physical resilience to extreme trauma can be remarkable. By losing consciousness and not reacting to the spear wound Jesus’ death was declared, probably by soldiers who were only too ready to be relieved of their duty. They did, it seems, break the legs of the two crucified with Jesus to hasten their deaths.
When the disciple Thomas met with Jesus after the event he was able to actually touch the wounds, suggesting an all too real presence. Also, following his crucifixion Jesus did not preach a gospel of atoning death and resurrection.
The message Jesus charged his followers with was to make all nations into disciples observing repentance; that is, changing the way life is lived, and forgiveness of sins. That the message was for all nations rather than a “chosen people” was truly revolutionary.
What happened to Jesus afterwards is unknown. Perhaps his wounds forced him into secluded retirement, or maybe they eventually proved fatal. As to life beyond death, Jesus commended his spirit to God while on the cross. It seems he did not need to look forward to resurrection, unlike St. Paul, a man who did not know him.
*Based on “The Cross and the Empty Tomb” – christiandeism.com
deismuk 