Happy Easter, dear reader.
In my opinion, one of the greatest historical contributions in the last decade is the book “Dominion”, by Tom Holland.
As I have discussed in many other articles, I had always had a sense when I was younger that the science/religion debates were, historically speaking, missing the point.
And as the confluence of (more honest) modern scholarship is now showing, it turns out that my suspicion was correct.
Considered historically, the question of whether or not one is a conscious Christian in our day and age, can often be a cover and a distraction from the fact that, because of the “Christian Revolution that Remade the World” (which was SO successful, that we no longer even have a sense of it), all westerners are—morally speaking at least—Christian.
Christ is Risen?
Particularly at Easter time, I grew up (in a church setting that I still very much appreciate) hearing the phrase “Christ is Risen!”
But for those outside the church who didn’t believe in this (or those inside who harbored some skepticism), the counter was always a sort of scientific claim that dead men simply cannot rise from the death, and that we had no good reasons to believe that the laws of nature were suspended in this particular case with Jesus of Nazareth.
And there were of course many apologetics people who spent a good deal of their time arguing in the affirmative that Christ indeed did physically rise from the dead (the most notable of which were very educated men like William Lane Craig). And of course there were many who argued against this notion (the most notable among them being Bart Ehrman or Robert M Price).
And others (gnostics in particular) would eventually argue that Jesus only spiritually rose from the dead, and not physically.
But as I’ve discussed in other articles, this particular duality/dialectic just simply didn’t exist in the same way for the ancients as it does for us.
As the above video (quoting Tom Holland) explains, almost everyone took it for granted that, in certain situations, men would indeed rise from the dead. And this resurrection was a sign of being MORE than just a physical miracle, but rather also ascendence to a place of honor.
And so, if you were said to physically rise from death after suffering the most shameful of all deaths (crucifixion), then that was a proposition that most people just simply wouldn’t be able to accept. But it’s not because a physical “miracle” happened that it would be impossible to accept, but because of what PRECEDED the miracle that would make it impossible (that is, SHAME).
You see, the whole moral objective of the entire Old Testament was to be in right standing with Yahweh, the one God among the many other gods of the nations (and Moses had set up a system of sacrifices in which men could do this). But the key objective was to not fall into SHAME.
This is why the Old Testament was so clear that:
“Fear not [you who worship Yahweh], for you will not be put to shame; And do not feel humiliated, for you will not be disgraced.” (Isaiah 54:4)
And this is why St. Paul, a Jew, would quote the Old Testament in regards to Christians who trust in this Jewish Jesus, who most shockingly was said to have risen from the dead AFTER suffering humiliation:
“It is just as the Scripture says: Anyone who believes in Him will never be put to shame.” (Romans 10:11)
Yes, St. Paul said this, even though he knew very well that his holy scripture had been perfectly clear that:
“Cursed is anyone who is hung on a tree.” (Deuteronomy 21:23)
It is not at all JUST the notion that a man physically rose from the dead that would have impressed the ancients, but to have physically risen after shame… THAT was impossible.
And yet that was the very message that Christians were spreading in the dominion of Rome, and it was that very message with all it’s grotesquely shocking implications that earned the Christians so many different enemies.
And so, whether or not you yourself, dear reader, believe in the literal ressurection of Jesus of Nazareth, I would encourage you to think of a different way in which Christ was claimed to have been risen…
NOT that he just rose from death… but that it was claimed that he rose from death after humiliation.
We are far past due to properly appreciate the shocking historical significance of “Christ is Risen from death”, and to understand it rather as “Christ is Risen from shame-death”.
Risen from Death? Or Risen from Shame-Death?