Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Easter: In Need of Reinterpretation

Posted by on Mar. 26, 2013 at 10:53 AM
  • 21 Replies

A thoughtful piece, by a Christian Bishop.

The Christian Faith was born in the experience that we have come to call Easter. It was this Easter experience that invested Jesus with a sense of ultimacy. It caused his followers to regard his teaching as worthy of being preserved. It was the reason that Saint Paul could write, “if Christ has not been raised then your faith is in vain.” Clearly without Easter there would be no Christianity. That assertion hardly seems debatable. At this point I discover that I am at one with the most literal fundamentalists.

What is debatable, however, is the question of what the experience of Easter really was. Here the distance between the Christianity of biblical scholarship and the Christianity of the fundamentalists opens and begins to widen. Fundamentalists are quite sure of their truth. On Easter the crucified Jesus, who was laid in the grave as a deceased man on Good Friday, was by the mighty act of God, restored to life on Easter. He had thus broken the power of death for all people. If the body of Jesus was not physically restored to life, the fundamentalists claim, then Easter is fraudulent. There can be no compromise here. Those who waver on this foundational truth of Christianity have, according to this perspective, abandoned the essential core of their faith tradition. Well, my only comment on this would be to borrow the words from an old song and say, “It ain’t necessarily so!”

When one reads the New Testament in the order in which these books were written, a fascinating progression is revealed. Paul, for example, writing between the years 50 and 64 or some 20 to 34 years after the earthly life of Jesus came to an end, never describes the resurrection of Jesus as a physical body resuscitated after death. There is no hint in the Pauline corpus that one, who had died, later walked out of his grave clothes, emerged from the tomb and was seen by his disciples.

What Paul does suggest is that Easter meant that God had acted to reverse the verdict that the world had pronounced on Jesus by raising Jesus from death into God. It was, therefore, out of God in a transforming kind of heavenly vision that this Jesus then appeared to certain chosen witnesses. Paul enumerates these witnesses and, in a telling detail, says that this was the same Jesus that Paul himself had seen. No one suggests that Paul ever saw a resuscitated body. The Pauline corpus later says, “If you then have been raised with Christ, seek the things which are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.” Please note that the story of the Ascension had not been written when these Pauline words were formed. Paul did not envision the Resurrection as Jesus being restored to life in this world but as Jesus being raised into God. It was not an event in time but a transcendent and transforming truth.

Paul died, according to our best estimates, around the year 64 C.E. The first Gospel was not written until the early 70′s. Paul never had a chance to read the Easter story in any Gospel. The tragedy of later Christian history is that we read Paul through the lens of the Gospels. Thus we have both distorted Paul and also confused theology.

When Mark, the first Gospel, was written the Risen Christ never appears. The last time Jesus is seen comes when his deceased body is taken from the cross and laid in the tomb. Mark’s account of the Resurrection presents us with the narrative of mourning women confronting an empty tomb, meeting a messenger who tells them that Jesus has been raised and asking these women to convey to the disciples that Jesus will meet them in Galilee. Mark then concludes his Gospel with a picture of these women fleeing in fear, saying nothing to anyone (16:1-8). So abrupt was this ending that people began to write new endings to what they thought was Mark’s incomplete story. Two of those endings are actually reproduced in the King James Version of the Bible as verses 9-20. But thankfully, these later creations have been removed from the text of Mark in recent Bibles and placed into footnotes. The sure fact of New Testament scholarship is that Mark’s Gospel ended without the Risen Christ ever being seen by anyone.

Both Matthew, who wrote between 80-85, and Luke, who wrote between 88-92, had Mark to guide their compositions. Both changed, heightened and expanded Mark. It is fascinating to lift those changes into consciousness and to ask what was it that motivated Matthew and Luke to transform Mark’s narrative. Did they have new sources of information? Had the story grown over the years in the retelling?

The first thing to note is that Matthew changes Mark’s story about the women at the tomb. First, the messenger in Mark becomes a supernatural angel in Matthew’s story. Next Matthew says the women do see Jesus in the garden. They grasp him by the feet and worship him. This is the first time in Christian history that the Resurrection is presented as physical resuscitation. It occurs in the 9th decade of the Christian era. It should be noted that it took more than 50 years to begin to interpret the Easter experience as the resuscitated body of the deceased Jesus. When Matthew presents the story of the risen Jesus to the disciples, it is on a mountaintop in Galilee where he appears out of the sky armed with heavenly power. Recall once again that when Matthew wrote this narrative the story of Jesus’ ascension had not yet entered the tradition.

Luke follows Mark’s story line about the women at the tomb, stating that they do not see Jesus in the garden on Easter morning. Luke, however, has turned Mark’s messenger into two angelic beings. He has also transferred the locale of Easter to Jerusalem specifically denying Mark’s words spoken through the messenger that Jesus will meet them in Galilee. Luke has heightened dramatically the physicality of Jesus’ resuscitated body. In Luke, the resuscitated Jesus walks, talks, eats, teaches and interprets. He also appears and disappears at will. He invites the disciples to handle his flesh. He asserts that he is not a ghost. Finally in order to remove this physically resuscitated Jesus from the earth, Luke develops the story of Jesus’ Ascension.

Even in the Ascension narrative, however, Luke is not consistent. In the last chapter of his Gospel the Ascension takes place on Easter Sunday afternoon. In the first chapter of Acts, which Luke also writes, the Ascension takes place 40 days after Easter. Whereas the messenger in Mark, who becomes an angel in Matthew, directs the disciples to Galilee for a meeting with the risen Christ, Luke specifically denies any Galilean resurrection tradition. He orders the disciples to remain in Jerusalem until they are endowed with power from on high. The narrative is clearly growing.

In John, the Fourth Gospel (95-100), the physicality of the Resurrection is even more enhanced. In the 20th chapter of this Gospel Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalene in the garden and says to her, “Mary do not cling to me.” One cannot cling to something that is non-physical. Then John suggests that Jesus ascends immediately into heaven before appearing, presumably out of heaven, that night to the disciples, who are missing Thomas. Though Jesus appears able to enter an upper room in which the windows have been closed and the doors locked, he is once again portrayed as being quite physical. This physical quality is further enhanced a week later when Jesus makes a second appearance to the disciples, this time with Thomas present. It is in this narrative that Thomas is invited to touch the nail prints and to examine the place in his side into which the spear had been hurled. All of these appearances take place in Jerusalem.

Chapter 21 of John’s Gospel portrays a Galilean appearance much later in time after the disciples have actually returned to their fishing trade. Here Jesus directs them to a great catch of fish, 153 of them to be specific. Then he eats with them. Finally he restores Peter after his three-fold denial.

The Easter story appears to have grown rather dramatically over the years. Something happened after the crucifixion of Jesus that convinced the disciples that Jesus shared in the eternal life of God and was thus available to them as a living presence. This experience was so profound that the disciples, who at his arrest had fled in fear, were now reconstituted and empowered even to die for the truth of their vision. This experience had the power to force the Jewish disciples to redefine the God of the Jews so that Jesus could be seen as part of who God is. Finally this experience was so profound that it ultimately created, on the first day of the week, a new holy day that was quite different from the Sabbath, to enable Christians to mark this transforming moment with a liturgical act called “the breaking of bread.”

When these biblical data are assembled and examined closely, two things become clear. First something of enormous power gripped the disciples following the crucifixion that transformed their lives. Second, it was some fifty years before that transforming experience was interpreted as the resuscitation of a three days dead Jesus to the life of the world. Our conversation about the meaning of Easter must begin where these two realities meet.

by on Mar. 26, 2013 at 10:53 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
12hellokitty
by Platinum Member on Mar. 26, 2013 at 11:14 AM
1 mom liked this

I thought you were an Atheist?  Either way what do you find to be thoughtful about this progressive interpretation of scripture?

Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Mar. 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM
Quoting 12hellokitty:

what do you find to be thoughtful about this progressive interpretation of scripture?

It explains the differences in narrative between the gospels in a way that flows naturally from the order in which the gospels were written.


12hellokitty
by Platinum Member on Mar. 26, 2013 at 12:12 PM
1 mom liked this



Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting 12hellokitty:

what do you find to be thoughtful about this progressive interpretation of scripture?

It explains the differences in narrative between the gospels in a way that flows naturally from the order in which the gospels were written.


Okay, but what do you find to be creditable about Spongs opinions?  I'm a little worried with you referencing Shane Claiborne in one thread and now this one by Spong....



Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Mar. 26, 2013 at 12:19 PM
Quoting 12hellokitty:

Okay, but what do you find to be creditable about Spongs opinions?

Given he is a Bishop, a qualified theologian and has held visiting lecturer positions at Harvard and other major theological institutions, we can be pretty sure the factual basis of his remarks are sound.

Whether you agree with his interpretation of the facts is another matter.

autodidact
by Platinum Member on Mar. 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM
2 moms liked this

or RE-reinterpretation.

12hellokitty
by Platinum Member on Mar. 26, 2013 at 12:40 PM



Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting 12hellokitty:

Okay, but what do you find to be creditable about Spongs opinions?

Given he is a Bishop, a qualified theologian and has held visiting lecturer positions at Harvard and other major theological institutions, we can be pretty sure the factual basis of his remarks are sound.

Whether you agree with his interpretation of the facts is another matter.


So you acknowledge the bible as containing facts?  Spong is not a highly respected "theologian".  In fact I'm not even sure if he recognized as being a theologian.  


Donna6503
by Platinum Member on Mar. 26, 2013 at 1:01 PM
N.T. Wright .... Wrote a very scholarly book on this very topic, "Simply Jesus"

His new book, which deals with the Gospels touches this issue too.

N.T. Wright is the CS Lewis of our day. I can't get the link to click ... But I suspect this article is indeed from N.T. Wright

It could be from Bishop Spong, sounds very much of an Aglicanism (Episcopalian) in nature.

But if I'm wrong it won't be the first time nor the last. :)
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
12hellokitty
by Platinum Member on Mar. 26, 2013 at 1:05 PM


This is a list of notable Christian theologians.

20th century

[edit]21st century


VeronicaTex
by on Mar. 26, 2013 at 1:15 PM
1 mom liked this

Thank you for sharing and educating as well.

The ones I have been most inspired are the following :

Blessed Pope John Paul II (Karol Woytyla) Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI, Fulton Sheen and Thomas Merton, to name a few.

Veronica

Quoting 12hellokitty:


This is a list of notable Christian theologians.


coronado25
by Silver Member on Mar. 26, 2013 at 1:15 PM

I am atheist, probably because I read the bible, and many other "holy" books (book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, the Koran....etc) growing up in a Christian household.  

The story of the ressurection of Christ is told in three different books of the bible.  Each one very different and the only thing that they all have in common is that Jesus was said to have been very hungry after awaking from the dead and asking for and eating fish....You would think that his "Heavenly Father" would not have sent him back to mortal earth hungry. He was supposed to be in a new and glorified body...yadayada.

Celebrate another springtime having arrived every Easter with your loved ones and drop this absolute BS called religion.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)