Revisiting the Resurrection

Introduction

A distinguishing mark of biblical Christianity even among today’s philosophies is its invitation to weigh the evidence.

No one is a believer by birth. No one is a believer through practice or ritual.

Everyone who becomes a true believer hears the evidence, investigates the claims, and eventually trusts Christ on the basis of searching out the truth (think of the Bereans in Acts 17).

The Resurrection and the Integrity of the Gospel.

Perhaps there are two points to consider, here, in light of Paul’s earlier “conditional” setup in 1 Cor. 15:2.

First, if the resurrection really happened, then the gospel has integrity; it is sound and has substance.

Furthermore, any denial of it has neither integrity nor substance. This fits with the dilemma Paul presented the Corinthians earlier.

Either Paul and all those witnesses he named are right, or those who deny the resurrection are right. But, both cannot be. Someone is lying and a liar.

We should focus hard on what is happening within the Corinthian church. Can you have a viable form of Christianity while denying the resurrection? Something calling itself “Progressive Christianity” is now giving it a try. Notice that for them, the resurrection is not a verifiable, historical event. It power isn’t the power of God. It’s reality isn’t the confirmation of Jesus’ deity. In the end, its only power is...the self, the person who claims to believe.

One may suggest that some were denying that other than Jesus, there is no resurrection from the dead. This would not satisfy Paul either. For, we could then understand his argument to mean that the false teachers can’t have it both ways. You cannot say on the one hand that there is no resurrection from the dead but that Jesus was raised from the dead. The Gospel loses its truthfulness entirely if Christ has not been raised.

Are we supposed to imagine that some among the Corinthians were denying that the Holy Spirit awakens us to Christ who comes alive to us by virtue of our faith? What sense would that make here? Some are just denying the power of faith to make Jesus come alive to us?

In 1 Corinthians 15:12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19 Paul uses a series of first class conditional sentences to lead the Corinthians on a logical exercise.

Crucifixion without resurrection is pointless. It’s just another death. For the crucifixion to have power the Messiah cannot remain dead. The crucifixion only has meaning if there’s a resurrection that follows. All of that only has meaning if the scriptures teach this is what would happen to Messiah.

If the resurrection didn’t happen then:

The gospel offers no truth.

The gospel offers no divine forgiveness.

The gospel offers no hope.

The Theological and Anthropological Need for the Resurrection:

Events in Genesis are important for understanding why salvation occurred the way that it did.

The Bible must be carefully heeded in what it teaches. Creation and the events thereafter have a bearing upon understanding God’s actions later. Apparently, we must conclude that in light of human sin in the world, the obedience of a human in that same world would be required for salvation and justification.

Paul shifts from dealing with the logic of the resurrection based upon the present evidence to the theological or anthropological necessity for a human resurrection. He begins, at this point, with an assertion, Christ, at this point, has been raised as the firstfruits of the resurrection. After making that declaration, he moves to a logical explanation for why that must have happened. He does this using a familiar technique, one he also used in Romans 5. He explains how Adam’s introduction of sin and death necessitated another man who would make possible the resurrection from the dead. The resurrection of Messiah was not an afterthought or an unexpected event. Instead, it, like the obedient death of Christ, has its roots in the plan of God and mirrors the fall of man.

We are told in Revelation that Jesus is the “lamb slain before the foundation of the world.” The crucifixion of Jesus, then, we cannot see as a divine reaction to human disobedience. God knew, before he ever created humans who would sin, how he would make possible his imputation of righteousness, his offer of forgiveness, his extension of mercy and grace. He would do so through the death and resurrection of his son. But, death and resurrection are themselves not merely a means to accomplishing an end. They are, themselves, part of what is required for a divine reversal of the effects of human disobedience, sin, and death.

Romans 5

Hebrews 2

This passage has its echoes in other parts of the Bible, one of them, for certain, attributable to Paul himself. From God’s point of view, there must be something transactional in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Divine forgiveness, and the giving of life, could not just be given. Sin created an indebtedness on our part. Someone had to pay that debt. Sin introduced the reality of death for us. Life couldn’t just be given. Someone had to make that possible.

One of the most remarkable considerations that this section gives us is that the reality of how sin entered into the world affected how God would deal with it.

Salvation, then, is not just a matter of divine thought, an expression of the divine nature.

It means that God had to see to it that specific physical acts occurred in the material, physical world in order to make possible the giving of life to those who believe.

The Bible leaves us with the impression that God had to do very specific things.

God’s nature and person established the constraints that human sin, or better said, salvation therefrom, placed upon him.

One question we might consider now is what makes resurrection possible. Paul, in just a few short statements, explains why resurrection for Jesus was necessary.

Firstfruits: it refers to “first” in time, but also the best in quality. He had to be first before us to make it possible for us to be raised. Our salvation, then, was not a mere matter of God’s power. Something tangible and real had to be done for forgiveness and the imputation of righteousness to be based upon. It could not, however, be earned through our works. We lack the capacity for total obedience. Notice that in Paul’s reasoning, the humanity of Jesus is important. While Jesus’ deity is essential to salvation, so also is his humanity.

Part 2:

Last Sunday we saw Paul making the bold, hopeful declaration that Christ has been raised. He describes Jesus as the “firstfruits” of the resurrection by which he pointed to the superiority of the person of Jesus and to the necessary order of Jesus’ resurrection. Thus, Christ’s resurrection takes primacy in every possible meaning of the term.

1. No accident.

But, in 1 Cor. 15:21-22, Paul offers the rationale for why Jesus had to be the first-fruits of the resurrection. We might consider, then, that Paul’s explanation removes any possibility of Jesus’ resurrection being a coincidence. Rather it was necessary that his came first in light of the reality of how sin and death entered the world. As noted above, Paul echoes his own words in Romans 5 and the words to come by the writer of Hebrews in Hebrews 2. Having the Messiah be raised first, and all the theological implications that go with that, is essential to God’s demands for resolving human sin. We get from Paul a tripartite form of reasoning:

Logical: there was a logic to the resurrection. It was related to something affecting man, and it was done to satisfy God. We cannot make sense of either the crucifixion or resurrection apart from anthropological considerations or those related to the person and nature of God. Resurrection, however, was no accident of time and space. It was a necessity, and not just to fulfill scripture.

The fulfillment of scripture is only part of the necessity. Why would God refer to it in prophecy? What is the need for crucifixion and resurrection?

Anthropological

Romans 5

Hebrews 2

Hebrews 10:4-10

Theological:

All of this relates to the person of God.

God had certain demands that had to be met in order for us to be righteous. One of them must be that in light of the fact that it was a human who sinned to introduce sin and a sinful nature upon humanity, a human had to die and rise again in order to make life possible. (We die in Adam. In Christ we will live). The resurrection of Jesus means that must be true for believers and unbelievers. One to judgment, the other to life. (John 5).