will retort that to describe them in secular language strips them of their true significance, because the resurrection must be left out of account. Well - perhaps so; but a description may be true, even though it is inadequate.
His greatest achievement was to defeat evil, both in his life by resisting temptation, and in his death by allowing evil to break him without changing his nature. The cross shows one thing clearly that could not have been demonstrated any other way; that he was good through and through. When the outer shells of his resistance had been smashed, the world did not discover that inside was a secret core of malice and hatred; it found goodness and yet more goodness. It doesn't matter murdering a man (if you have a Gestapo mentality) provided that in his death you can prove that he was a traitor at heart. But if his death proves the opposite, that he was good; then his death is more horrible by far. Whether Annas and Caiaphas assumed that at heart he was as evil as themselves, or whether they knew they were hating and destroying goodness for its own sake, I am confident it never dawned on their imaginations that by murdering him, they would prove to the world that he was good. It never occurred to them that they were doing the one thing that no-one else could do.
This basically is the difference in the attitude of his disciples to him, before and after his death. Before his death, they believed he was good, sometimes confidently, at other times not so confidently. After his death, they knew he was good.
Now we all know what evil is. This is not a religious idea. It is a secular idea. Evil is when a plaintiff or defendant tells lies to win his case; or when a lawyer tells lies to win their cases for them. That is an example of evil on the individual level. Evil on a social level is when a man licks someone's boots for preferment. Evil on a community level is when a maniac like Hitler tries to impose the jackboot of his tyranny on free men and women. I say evil…