In his book "Fools, Martyrs, Traitors - The Story of Martyrdom in the Western World", Lacey Baldwin Smith writes
Jesus the martyr, the man who elected to suffer and die, not the risen Christ, became the inspirational source for the philosophy of martyrdom that emerged during the next three centuries. p. 87
This strikes me as almost entirely misguided. It was in fact the resurrection - and ascension - that propelled martyrdom; or, at least, the resurrection as the vindication of the suffering and death. The martyrs did not merely die out of some imitation of Jesus' heroism, but out of a hope borne from his rising to life. They did not die merely out of admiration for him. They did not display courage only, but courage along with hope.
Perhaps the error here is: Jesus is not a martyr but a model for martyrs. Martyrs are not imititating Christ in his martyrdom, but rather becoming martyrs out of imitation of Christ.
3 comments:
Perhaps another question might be whether the Messiah has the monopoly on the definition of martyrdom? Is not not just a particular martyr?
Yes, I completely agree. An even worse quote is from page 72: the cross and resurrection 'establish martyrdom as a deliberate means to an end, and they prove it works'. WRONG! There is no such connection between cross and resurrection (i.e. the universe isn't a machine in which, if you put in a cross, you will get a resurrection). The resurrection is a purely contingent gift to Christ as it is also sheer promise to those who die with Christ.
Well said. There's more too!
Post a Comment