CHRISTOLOGY

Death of Christ

All four gospels record the death of Christ (under Pontius Pilate) which is interpreted in advance by Christ himself as a death for the forgiveness of sins, the establishment of the new covenant, and the defeat of Satan (Luke 22:15-20; John 12:31; 16:11). The heart of Christ’s teaching on this matter became the authoritative teaching of the apostles (in keeping with OT assertions to the same). We will talk more about the proper interpretation of the death of Christ when we discuss the doctrine of salvation. It is enough for now to realize that the evidence for his death by crucifixion is overwhelming.

The Resurrection of Christ

All four gospels record the empty tomb and the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (Matt 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20). He appeared to Mary Magdalene (John 20:11-18), to another Mary (Matt 28:1-2), to Cephas (1 Cor 15:5), to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35), to James (1 Cor 15:7), to ten disciples (Luke 24:36-43), to Thomas and the other ten disciples (John 20:26-29), to seven disciples at the Sea of Tiberias (John 21:1-14), to more than 500 people (1 Cor 15:6), to the eleven at his ascension (Matt 28:16-20; Acts 1:1-11), and finally to Paul (1 Cor 15:8). He appeared to the disciples over a course of about 40 days (Acts 1:3).

In recent times scholars have come to debunk most of the naturalistic theories (e.g., the swoon, hallucination) advanced to account for the resurrection and attending data. Virtually every scholar agrees that “something happened,” and most would agree that the resurrection is the watershed issue in a biblically defined Christianity. The question that is posed most acutely, according to Gary Habermas14, is whether the kerygma (the preached message of Christ’s resurrection) itself is sufficient to account for the data or whether a literal resurrection plus the kerygma is necessary to account for the data. Habermas outlines the critical answers according to four scenarios, pointing out that this is a debate not just between evangelicals and higher critics, but also between the higher critics themselves. First, there are those like Rudolph Bultmann who argue that the cause of the disciples’ experience is not ascertainable; it is buried in the NT text. Second, scholars like Karl Barth and Sren Kierkegaard argued that the resurrection was literal, but that it is not subject to study since it lies outside the realm of our experience of history. It must be accepted by faith alone. The third group of scholars, including Jürgen Moltmann, argue for the literal empty tomb and a historical explanation for the disciples’ change from grief to joy, but again the resurrection is an event that will only be finally vindicated/verified in the future. Fourth, there are scholars who argue that the available historical evidence suggests that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. Wolfhart Pannenberg would be an example of this thinking, though he argues against a corporeal body in favor of a spiritual body which was recognized as Jesus and which spoke to the disciples before departing to heaven.

There is, however, no valid a prior reason for rejecting the resurrection as portrayed in scripture. It is usually one’s theology of history that precludes whether resurrections happen or not. In any case, the empty tomb, the eyewitness testimony, the transformed lives of antagonists such as James and Paul, the existence of the church, the inability of the Jewish leaders to disprove the resurrection and the claims of the apostles, the early date and solid character of the claim to resurrection (1 Cor 15:3-4), as well as the solid character of surrounding evidence such as Jesus’ existence, ministry, death by crucifixion, and burial. The explanation which possesses the greatest explanatory power, is the most plausible (not ad hoc), and stands the greatest chance of not being finally overturned, is that Jesus of Nazareth was actually raised from the dead and appeared to many people. His body was a physical body fit for spiritual existence and was not subject any longer to death and limitations.

The theological interpretation of Christ’s bodily resurrection includes the doctrine that it is central to the Christian life and hope (1 Cor 15), that it demonstrates that he is the Son of God (Rom 1:4) and that he will someday return to judge the entire world (Acts 17:31). In the area of soteriology, the resurrection is the foundation of our regeneration and spiritual/ethical life (Rom 6:4-5; 1 Pet 1:2), our justification (Rom 4:25; Eph 2:6), our present ministry and work for the Lord (1 Cor 15:58), our hope of glorification and our eternal communion with the Father, Son and Spirit (1 Cor 15:12-28).