The opinion piece from CNN was written by Jay Parini, an author and English teacher at Middlebury College. It appears that his perspective is that of someone who believes Jesus to be a good example, but not the Son of God, and the Bible to be a useful book, but not inspired Scripture. My comments on his essay will appear in italics and bold interspersed throughout.
Even when people have no idea about this
season, around this time of year there is an awareness that something is
happening. A person comes into the office or classroom with a charcoal cross on
his or her forehead; a friend or colleague is taking a trip to see family for
the holiday; the stores are selling Cadbury eggs.
Certainly the calendar marks off the day as
something special, and there is also a general sense of the turning season: the
long winter has ended and summer itself winks in the margins of daily life.
Indeed, Easter marks a change, and it has to
do with the feeling of rebirth or regeneration. But it is more complicated than
that.
I have a visceral sense of all this, having
been raised in a fundamentalist household, and my memories of Easter reach back
to beginnings: my father, a Baptist minister, understood the centrality of this
special day, even the whole Easter weekend. As a boy, I fidgeted through long
services on Good Friday and listened to readings of the seven last words of
Jesus on the cross, which built up to the resounding: "It is
finished."
I recall being quite upset, imagining the
cruelty of the sacrifice of God's only son. I thought it was horrific. I didn't
want him to have to die for miserable sinners like myself.
Soon enough I grew to dislike this version of
Easter, with the crucifixion as some form of blood-revenge. Why would a God who
had gone to the trouble to create humanity take such umbrage? Why would he need
to put his only son on the cross and see him publicly tortured—brutalized--to
satisfy his feelings of disappointment and anger at what his people had done?
Was I missing something?
Short answer; yes, you were certainly missing a great deal. First off, you should be upset imagining the cruelty of the sacrifice of God's Son, it is a horrific death of an innocent man. Whether you wanted him to die on your behalf or not, isn't the question. The real question is what God wanted to do, and God was not content to let humanity remain in rebellion against him, was not content to let that rebellion result in the destruction of those he had created in his image. God decided to rescue humanity, and God alone had both the wisdom to understand what that would entail and the power/righteousness to carry it out.
The famous hymn about being "washed in
the blood of the Lamb" sounded, to my young ears, increasingly disturbing.
God is better than this, I thought. The human beings he had created were surely
good enough for him?
One of the great conceits of the modern age: We can define God ourselves (or eliminate him altogether). God is holy, perfect, free of any contamination of sin. "Good enough" is not an option, it is not even close. To be in the presence of God is to likewise be holy, or to be dead. The design of the Tabernacle and Temple illustrated this barrier between God and humanity with its concentric layers of approaching God's presence and the limitation of only the High Priest on the Day of Atonement being allowed to enter into the Holy of Holies and see the presence of God between the cherubim of the Ark of the Covenant. Why would a Messiah have been necessary at all if humanity was "good enough"? And what would Jesus' mission have been if not the salvation of humanity? Either Jesus Christ came to save Lost sinners, the only way that it could be done, or he died a failure upon that Cross.
Simplistic ideas about the meaning of the
crucifixion still abound, and there is a vast industry founded on what is
called "substitution theology." One can easily dig through the Hebrew
and Greek scriptures to snatch occasional verses that seem to support this
transactional theology, with God in a bargaining mode, needing
"payment" for our sins.
This paragraph is dripping with disdain for those of us (that is, anyone retaining the Orthodox Christianity of the Early Church, Ecumenical Councils and Creeds, the Reformers, etc. Not to mention the authorial intent of every NT author) who understand that what Jesus accomplished on the Cross was a substitute for the punishment that each of us has earned through rebellion against God. And yes, one can easily read both the Old and New Testament and find passages of Scripture that support the understanding that what Jesus did was a payment for our sins. This traditional, mainstream, accepted interpretation of the Scriptures on the question of the purpose and efficacy of the Cross is far from "simplistic", it is an awe inspiring act of Amazing Grace, unparalleled love, and selfless sacrifice.
But I've studied the scriptures carefully,
especially the gospels and Paul's letters, and I see no reason to capitulate to
this downsized version of Easter weekend, with a vengeful God putting up his
own son on a cross for satisfaction of some kind.
"I see no reason to capitulate to the Scriptures" Not exactly what he said, but the essence of the point. I have no idea how God's willingness to redeem humanity from sin, and in the process destroy the power of sin and death, can be viewed as a "downsized version of Easter". I am also at a loss how anyone can honestly have studied the Gospels and Paul's letters and not see the repeated quotations of Jesus that this is the plan of God (Mark 8:31 for example: He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again) and the repeated explanations of Paul that this sacrifice was on our behalf (Romans 3:25 for example: God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—). FYI, maybe read the book of Hebrews too, the entire thing is about the superiority of Jesus' sacrifice.
That Jay Parini thinks that Jesus upon the Cross has anything to do with vengeance shows a significant lack of understanding of the theology he has decided to reject. Holiness, righteousness, justice, grace, love, and mercy are the themes around which the discussion of God's redemptive plan revolve, not vengeance.
In any case, the idea of satisfaction or
"payment" is fairly recent, tracing back to St. Anselm in Cur
Deus Homo? This treatise, written in the late 11th century, put
forward the idea of the death of Jesus as atonement for human sins, a
"satisfaction" for the wrath of God.
A century or so later, Peter Abelard famously
rejected Anselm's theory, suggesting that the death of Jesus was simply an act
of love, showing humanity a way forward, an example of divine benevolence.
Jesus lived and died to teach us how to live and die ourselves, or how to
"empty ourselves out," as St. Paul says. The crucifixion is first and
foremost a prelude to the Resurrection.
This "fairly recent" argument is utterly specious. I suppose you can't trace the idea of substitutionary atonement back to the New Testament itself if you utterly ignore the portion of Scripture that teach it (Matthew 20:28 or Colossians 1:19-20 for example). It is true, but not some sort of important point, that nobody stated the theory expressed in the NT exactly the way that St. Anselm did until he did it, but perhaps Jay Parini has forgotten about St. Augustine who wrote the following in On the Trinity in the 5th Century, “What, then, is the righteousness by which the devil was conquered? What, except the righteousness of Jesus Christ? And how was he conquered? Because, when he [the devil] found in Him nothing worthy of death, yet he slew Him. And certainly it is just, that we whom he [the devil] held as debtors, should be dismissed free by believing in Him whom he [the devil] slew without any debt. In this way it is that we are said to be justified in the blood of Christ. For so that innocent blood was shed for the remission of our sins… He conquered the devil first by righteousness, and afterwards by power: namely, by righteousness, because He had no sin, and was slain by him most unjustly; but by power, because having been dead He lived again, never afterwards to die. But He would have conquered the devil by power, even though He could not have been slain by him: although it belongs to a greater power to conquer death itself also by rising again, than to avoid it by living. But the reason is really a different one, why we are justified in the blood of Christ, when we are rescued from the power of the devil through the remission of sins: it pertains to this, that the devil is conquered by Christ by righteousness, not by power.” The list could go on and on of those who believed that Jesus died for our sins from the Early Church Fathers to the Reformers, but if St. Augustine isn't enough of an example to ignore this paragraph of the essay, nothing else will be.
So this is the "grand vision" of Easter that he prefers? Jesus lived and died to show us an example of how to "empty ourselves" {To what end?} How is this a solution to the problem of sinful human nature? How does this address the fundamental questions of sin, justice, death, and the afterlife? To think that a perversion of Easter where Jesus dies as some sort of example, and accomplishes nothing else, somehow paints a kinder view of God is ludicrous. What then of the prayer that the cup be taken away in the Garden? What then of the refusal to save himself? The entire Bible falls apart when you jerk away the foundation upon which it is build, to ignore so much of Scripture because you prefer that it say something else is not an option open to those who would have faith in Jesus Christ.
Jesus had faith in God, resting in the arms of
an all-embracing love. That's a fancy way of saying that Jesus trusted that all
would be well in the end, which is what Easter teaches us. And a crucial text
here -- a key one -- is Romans 3:22, where Paul suggests that reconciliation
with God, which is a better way to define "righteousness," is
achieved through imitating Jesus in his self-abandonment on the cross on Good
Friday.
Yes, Jesus had faith in God (more specifically the Father, Jesus himself was just as much God as the Father), and yes, he knew that all would "be well in the end" (Hebrews 12:2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.) But that is NOT what Easter teaches us. Hey man, just chill out, it will all work out just fine in the end. Sigh, We are so far off from Orthodox Christianity and the traditional accepted meaning of Scripture that it is hard to find a point of commonality. The quotation of Romans 3:22, certainly an important passage, is odd to say the least. Paul is NOT suggesting that reconciliation/righteousness is achieved through OUR imitating Jesus; quite the opposite in fact. Paul is stating categorically that our righteousness comes FROM God through faith in Jesus (Note the crucial parallel discussion in Ephesians 2:8-9, For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.). If only he had kept reading, for in Romans 3:24 the true source of our justification (the repair of our relationship with God) is made clear, "and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." Are we to imitate Jesus? Absolutely. Does that imitation reconcile us to God? Not in the least, and for a very good reason. We have no chance, no hope, of imitating Jesus until AFTER we have been reconciled to God through faith in Jesus, at which point we receive the Holy Spirit who empowers us to live like Jesus. Neither our salvation nor our subsequent imitation of Jesus is on our own merit, nor does it puff up our pride, all of it is according to God's grace.
I would translate this critical verse in this
way: "We are reconciled with God by imitating the faith of Jesus, and we
hold him dearly for this." (I always prefer to use the phrase "hold
dearly" for "believe," as this is the root of the word. It has
no reference to "belief" in the epistemological sense of that term.)
There is clearly a huge difference between having "faith in Jesus" --
a nod of assent -- and imitating the "faith of Jesus."
This entire paragraph is meaningless. You do not have permission to translate Scripture in ways that suit your fancy. Yes, there can be more than one acceptable translation of the Bible's Hebrew and Greek into English, and they do vary slightly, but not like this. The original Greek of Romans 3:22 and Jay Parini's preferred self-translation are saying the opposite. Paul wrote about God's righteousness, available to us through faith in Jesus. Parini's mis-translation is about our own supposed righteousness achieved through our own effort.
Yes, there is a difference between having "faith in Jesus" (necessary for salvation) and imitating the "faith of Jesus" (discipleship). One is how we become reconciled to God, the other is how we walk once we have received reconciliation. He evidently wants to eliminate the need for "faith in Jesus" and replace it with imitating the "faith of Jesus" Nope, we need both, and we need "faith in Jesus" first.
Easter teaches Christians this, I believe: to
emulate the faith of Jesus in the goodness of the universe-- to rest in God,
whatever we mean by that great holy syllable, which seems a stumbling block for
so many in our highly secular world. It teaches us about what it means to lose
ourselves, our petty little selves, in order to gain something larger:
reconciliation with creation itself.
Christians all walk with Jesus out of the tomb
on Easter morning, reborn as free people, released from the straightjacket of
time itself. And this is nothing but joy.
Holy non-sequitur Batman; Jesus had faith in the goodness of the universe?? The universe is not good (or evil), how can an inanimate object have a moral quality? God is Good. We are NOT to seek reconciliation with Creation itself (some sort of Pantheism?). Our sole need/priority/purpose is to be reconciled with God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Jesus died to make that reconciliation possible for us, he was raised to life again to proclaim his victory over sin and death and to give us the hope that if we place our trust in him we too will be raised to life on the Last Day.
I pity an interpretation of Easter that is about relaxing and not getting too caught up in a busy life. We need not be liberated from time itself. We are not prisoners of time. We, as human beings, are enslaved to sin (rebellion against God). Our only hope, our only recourse, is to stop trying to dig our way out of the hole, put our trust in what Jesus Christ has already done on our behalf (shedding his blood in payment for our sins and rising from the dead), and start living by the Spirit according to Jesus' example and God's Word. The true meaning of Easter? Give me that old time religion, it's good enough for me. Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world, nothing less; my hope is in the crucified and risen Savior.
