Why did you decide to write about the resurrection?
I was asked to preach one Easter. I felt compelled to speak about the resurrection, not surprisingly perhaps, and discovered that not many books had been written on the subject. I began to think that someone needed to write about our neglect of the resurrection and all the implications of this event.
But all Christians believe in the resurrection of Jesus, right?
Absolutely! In fact, I would argue that the best way to define a Christian is as someone who believes in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ and lives in light of the implications of that event. The problem is, however, that we tend to take this for granted. For example, we don't hear as many sermons about the resurrection as we do about the cross.
Do you think we need to mention the resurrection to effectively preach the gospel?
To be honest, I would go so far as to say that the resurrection is the gospel. Gospel means good news, it would hardly be good news if Jesus was rotting in a tomb somewhere in Israel! Without the resurrection we would still be dead in our sins. If we only preach the cross and not the resurrection we have failed in our duty to declare the full gospel. We will not know power in our preaching unless we do a whole lot more than just mention the resurrection. Perhaps this failure is precisely why so few people become Christians in the average evangelical church today. Maybe the people never rejected the gospel of Christ's victory over death but instead they never heard it.
Are you saying that the cross is overemphasized?
Not at all. In fact, we do probably need to emphasize the cross more than we do. It's just that if we want to be truly cross-centered we must also learn to be empty-grave-centered.
Why do you think Christians tend to neglect the resurrection?
There seems little doubt to me that preaching in the average church today tends to stress the cross and assume the resurrection. The exact opposite is true of the preaching of the Apostles in the book of Acts--they stressed the resurrection and assumed that their hearers already knew about Jesus' death. This has to be part of the reason for our neglect. But then, we must ask why preachers do this. I believe this is largely because there has been so much controversy surrounding the cross.
Do you want us to emphasize the resurrection rather than arguing about theories of atonement?
In the last few years we have seen a renewed attack on penal substitution. This same attack has been repeated many times over hundreds of years. I am certainly someone who has been very firm and clear in my defense of this doctrine. It is absolutely vital.
But we must never forget that without the resurrection Paul tells us we would still be dead in our sins. Without the empty grave, Jesus' death would have been just another pointless waste. I am not aware of any group today who are arguing about the doctrinal implications of the resurrection. But that does not mean we should neglect to build that part of our doctrinal wall. We cannot afford to let the enemies of the gospel define our agenda entirely. We must fully explore and preach the implications of both the cross and the resurrection. It need not be either/or--rather it must be both/and!
What are the implications of neglecting the resurrection?
First of all, we will not be as confident of our salvation, for it is only to the extent that we are sure that Christ rose that we will be sure that we are saved.
Secondly, we can miss out on the joy of our salvation. For the gospel to be good news it has to include the triumphant resurrection of Jesus! If we constantly talk about His death for us, but never mention that He rose again, we could almost find ourselves feeling sorry for Jesus! The gospel is the announcement of the enthronement of the risen King with all its implications for us today. In particular, this gives us a hope that goes beyond the grave.
Thirdly, we will never understand the gospel fully if we don't understand the resurrection's role in justification.
Finally, we may miss out on fully experiencing the benefits of the life-transforming power that the resurrection releases inside each of us.
Why is the resurrection so important for understanding our justification?
Paul tells us that Jesus died for our sins, but it was His resurrection that obtained our justification (Romans 4:25). If you have been raised on the average preaching that statement will be as shocking to me as it was to me when I first began to unpack it. I spend a whole chapter on this crucial idea.
How does the resurrection transform our lives today?
Because Jesus rose from the dead, we can now approach Him as our living, active, Savior--one who is still involved in the world today. Carefully considering the resurrection will help us to fully appreciate the supernatural nature of our God. If He can raise a crucified body back to life, then He can do anything!
The risen Christ also desires to have a real relationship with us through His Holy Spirit, poured out for us. All Christians have received their own spiritual resurrection. But none of us are as aware as we could be of the profound effects of this reviving power Jesus obtained for us through His resurrection.
Of all the evidence, what do you think is the most compelling evidence for the physical resurrection?
How much emphasis should an evangelist place on giving apologetics for the resurrection when sharing the Gospel?
How much emphasis should an evangelist place on giving apologetics for the resurrection when sharing the Gospel with a Muslim audience?
I think the rapid growth and continued existence of the Church, the only movement that has ever claimed its leader rose from the dead takes some explaining. The resurrection stories were not created by the Church, instead those stories created the Church.
Every life changed by the risen Jesus is compelling evidence that he rose again. There is a chapter in my book on these and other historical reasons why we can believe in the resurrection. Apologetics has it's place but we must make sure that we announce and proclaim the wonderful news "Christ is Risen!"
Speaking with Muslims is in many ways no different to speaking with religious people of other persuasions. I suspect that speaking of Jesus as the God we know personally would have massive impact.
I know the idea of this is for you to ask ME questions, but allow me to ask YOU one.
Do you agree that we have been neglecting the resurrection?
I agree we have been neglecting the resurrection too much. I must say I miss something in this interview too: isn't the resurrection also about that we - just like Jesus - will be physically resurrected on the last day? If Jesus wasn't resurrected it would have meant that He wasn't just and that we wouldn't be justified by His resurrection and that we wouldn't have any hope for our own resurrection in an imperishable, glorified body on the last day (like Jesus had a glorified body after His resurrection). I think many people spiritualize the resurrection too much in accordance to a Greek line of thinking where a strong distincion is made between the physical and the spiritual. A more Jewish line of thinking would be more appropriate since Jesus was a Jew in a Jewish context where many people expected a physical resurrection and an earthly Kingdom where the Messiah would reign. This expectation should also be one of the central points in Christian living. Resurrection is something we can look back to when Jesus was resurrected; right now we are justified through Jesus' resurrection which we know when we have the Holy Spirit (who is given as a pledge for our future inheritance); in the future we will be resurrected as justified people in glorified bodies living in God's Kingdom. Resurrection has not as much to do with heaven as it has with the coming Kingdom when Jesus returns and the dead will be resurrected.
Totally agree Jaap, I guess I just couldn't address everything in my answers above. I do address this vital subject as well as the implications of the resurrection for the whole of creation in the book.
Thank you for this article!
My wife debated Muslim Ehteshaam Gulam this past Summer on the topic: "Did Jesus Die On A Cross?" Many of your article points came to light in this debate as the Jesus of Islam and the Jesus of Christianity were revealed.
If you'd like to watch the 1 hour and 30 minute debate, click here: http://confidentchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/06/mary-jo-sharp-vs-ehteshaam-gulam-did.html
Rev. Roger L. Sharp
Nassau Bay Baptist Church
Houston, TX
As a layperson raised in Southern Baptist settings, but also a somewhat skeptical postmodern thinker, exploring the implications of the resurrection for the whole of creation was a huge turning point in my understanding of the Bible and bolster to my faith. So, sorry for the length, but...
It seems to me the resurrection is a sort of Rosetta Stone for the rest of scripture. What God did in the literal, physical body of Christ is what he is doing for all of creation, which includes me, through his chosen people Israel, namely in the person of Jesus – the firstborn of all creation. Jesus entered into creation, was affirmed by God as good, was afflicted, battered and torn by (our) sin, even cursed to death, then was healed and transformed. There was both continuity between the new and old body, affirming the original goodness of it, and yet discontinuity. The scars were completely healed, reclaiming his original form, except for a few that even further revealed his identity of love. He still ate and walked and talked, and yet could appear and disappear, moving in and out of locked rooms; and in and out of our locked world. This transformation is the blueprint – the logos ¬– of not only what God intends to do with our individual bodies, but Israel (and dare I say has done in the Law and covenant), all nations and all creation. The entire narrative may be unfolded in Jesus, and the hinge is centrally the resurrection.
Another aspect is based on the language and enactment of God’s “Son” being crowned as “King of the Jews,” “coming on the clouds,” (which the ascension seems to be a literal enactment of) to the “right hand of God.” The immediate and foremost implication of the resurrection for the first Christians was that God’s man was on the throne. This meant a new “world” or “age” had dawned on the present one, and God’s anointed King would bring judgment of Israel, judgment on the oppressive pagan nations, but also the restoration of Israel and all the nations being drawn to her light. This would not only fulfill God’s purpose for Israel, but all of creation would rejoice. Jesus’ rule over Israel, who would represent God to the rest of the nations is congruent with God’s rule through man, who would represent God to the rest of creation.
What did all of that mean at the ground level, and in the midst of an evil empire with its own ruler still on the throne and in the midst of a corrupted Israel with ties to that empire? That is exactly the lens through which we should read the book of Acts, which is based on the work of Jesus in the Gospels. Resurrection, therefore Acts (actions), which means confronting the principalities and powers of this age, holding things in common, and sharing bread, all as a direct witness to the resurrection.
I look forward to the book and am glad to see Ed Stetzer and his clout supporting it.
Adrian,
I have often preached that too many people assume the resurrection but don't live in the reality of the resurrection.
It always amazes me that so many people say Jesus rose from the dead. For example, in the states, 2/3 of the younger UNCHURCHED "believe Jesus died and came back to life" (from my Lost and Found book).
Any thoughts as to why the resurrection is so widely believed but still not transforming? If I thought a guy was dead, and then he was not, I would pay attention!
Ed
I love this post. I've often wondered why there has been such "neglect" of the resurrection. It's also interesting the difference in how the eastern orthodox church has traditional focused more on the resurrection while the western church on the cross. Neither has meaning without the other. And you guys are right in talking about how everyone assumes the reality of the resurrection, but few live in light of it. I would go so far as to say that some pastors might not feel like they know how to preach & teach from that perspective. We're such a cross-centric church culture that we almost have to relearn a core, no wait, the core doctrine of our faith.
I think that those figures are staggering, Ed.
I doubt it would be that high here.
Makes me think of what James said about demons "believing".
Until people have had their own spiritual resurrection they will never truly trust in Jesus FROM THEIR HEART.
But, do I really appreciate all the implications of the resurrection? NO. It struck me afresh as I prepared this evening for talks I am giving tomorrow that it still after all these years hasn't hit me properly.
We must PRAY for the Spirit to WAKE US UP, thrill us with the resurrection and thru us spread the aroma of this glorious good news.
My pastor, Tope Koleoso said the other day. "The message of the New Testament is He is Risen."
Terrific conversation and a reminder we all need.
Hi,
I think the phrase "attack on Penal Substitution" isn't quite accurate. From a Catholic perspective, we're just trying to take back the notion of Satisfaction which I believe has been erroneously co-opted with Penal Substitution. I believe the former is Biblical, the latter is not. See this debate against a Calvinist where I show the former to be thoroughly Biblical and the latter to not be:
http://catholicdefense.googlepages.com/psdebate
For sure some people HAVE been attacking Penal substitution, Nick. In some cases with great vigor. Some people have claimed those of us who teach it believe in "Cosmic Child Abuse"!
The cosmic child abuse thing isn't invalid if properly framed, for Penal Substitution teaches Jesus was effectively damned to hell, by the Father, in our place.
Luther, Calvin, and respected Protestant authors up to today openly affirm this:
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2009/04/was-jesus-damned-in-your-place.html
I dont think my last comment went through:
The cosmic child abuse thing isn't invalid if properly framed, for Penal Substitution teaches Jesus was effectively damned to hell, by the Father, in our place.
Luther, Calvin, and respected Protestant authors up to today openly affirm this:
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2009/04/was-jesus-damned-in-your-place.html
That sure looks like a row to me! Calling something I hold dear blasphemy is very much attacking penal substitution!
But the point here is that because we don't argue about the resurrection in the same way we don't tend to think about it and study it so much.