Having followed some of the forum discussions for some time now, I think that my key concern is that the ‘Future of the People of God’ conference should highlight the place of the resurrection of Jesus in its debate/thinking/discussion.
Much has been made recently of the suffering of Jesus - most probably prompted by Mel Gibson’s film, and the forum dicussions demonstrate people’s ongoing concern about the theology of the atonement in the emerging church debate.
However, we need to emphasise the reality that the gospel and the Christian faith - according to St. Paul - stands or falls on the resurrection of Jesus. The first disciples proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus as ‘the’ event that has changed the world. The Lordship of Jesus - and his messiahship and divinity, are proclaimed on the basis of the resurrection.
I recently heard a leading figure in the Evangelical Alliance address a conference on the key issues that unite evangelicals today. Not one mention was made of the resurrection! This may be typical of evangelicaism today (or may not). Perhaps for too long we have emphasised the cross, sin, atonement to the exclusion of the resurrection.
Understanding the resurrection seems to have formed the backbone of the mission of the New Testament Church. Every time they declared Jesus as God, Lord or Christ they were proclaiming that He had been raised from the dead. NTW clearly demonstrates in ‘the Resurrection of the Son of God’ the primary role that the resurrection held for the New Testament writers and early believers.
Why so little discussion today? What difference would it make to the gospel we proclaim if we took a leaf out of the Apostles’ book and insisted in proclaiming the resurrection as the central plank of ‘the gospel’?
Bigger than just that
I would like to join your desire for a resurrection of the resurrection. However, having just spent an enjoyable time studying the resurrection again, I came to a non-novel conclusion: the resurrection is more about the Father than Jesus. Most texts (maybe I missed some) speak of “GOD” raising Jesus. I wonder if our “Jesus died and rose again” phrasiology has placed the power of the resurrection solely on Jesus. Seems to rest solely on the Father.
I think it’s interesting that Jesus had such an “I point to the Father” method-of-communication while we (at least American, blaberying Christians) tend to focus solely on Jesus. Seems to parallel what we (now I speak of full-time, paid ‘pastors’) have done with the Church’s role in point towards God but now pointing towards itself. So my extension of the post is this: perhaps a study of the resurrection will not only bring the powerful episode back to our thinking, but also lead us to a different emphasis on God.
Resurrection resurrection
Thanks OneOfMany - that’s helpful.
I think i am searching for a clearer understanding of the meaning and application of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.
Acres of space seems to be devoted to working out the meaning of the atonement - John Piper has recently issued a book ‘50 reasons why Jesus died’ - but I have yet to see ‘50 reasons why Jesus was raised from the dead.’ The traditional reformed evangelical emphasis has been on the cross, the blood, sin and - in the main - penal substitution. Just a few days ago I received a letter from a local Christian saying that the real Easter Day was Good Friday! He was replying to a review I had done of ‘The Passion’ in the local newspaper. He even said that he wasn’t sure that he would be speaking to me again should he see me because I hadn’t mentioned sin and the blood in my review!!!
But seriously, how are we to apply the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. NTW is clear that the resurrection was confirmation for the apostles that Jesus was Messiah, Lord and King and God. But how do we take these forward?
To state that Jesus is God takes us into the realm of worship - Luke 24:52.
To state that Jesus is Messiah is to assert that God’s new creation is begun - Exekiel 37. Does this mean that we should engage in ecology and environmentalism as God’s co-workers in beautifying this messed-up world? Paul seems to be moving this way in Romans 8.
To state that Jesus is Lord and King on the basis of the resurrection is to make a clear political statement - as NTW makes clear in various places. But, how do we follow this through? When the nation is debating the possibility of going to war against Iraq should not the follower of Jesus be considering whether Jesus would go to war against Iraq? When the media parades the ideal life as being under the spell of consumerism should not the follower of Jesus be living in contentment - thus denying oneself luxuries and giving generously to the poor. Who feeds our opinions? Government? Media? etc. Surely if Jesus has been raised from the dead and NTW is right in his claim that this means that Jesus is declared to Messiah, Lord and King and God, then this has stark consequences for the way we think about our faith and seeking to live it out.
None of this is new, but it seems to me that we need to put more emphasis upon the radical demands of following Jesus as the one who uniquely, has been raised from the dead.
Curious on one verse
I’d love to hear your take/integration on Paul’s statement or Romans 4:25, “He who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.” I know you were looking for a more “practical” take on the Resurrection - just curious on the impact this verse has on the theology of the Resurrection.
Resurrection...justified
Thanks OneOfMany!! - I think that perhaps I’m with the Apostle Peter on this - 2 Peter 3:16!!!
However - how about this for an attempt at understanding.
Taking up NTW’s picture of the cross as the place where Jesus enters into the experience of exile - entering into the godforsakeness and transgression of Israel (and also the whole world). It is there in exile - on the cross, outside the city, outcast and bereft of home that Jesus takes and deals with the trangressions not only of Israel, but of the whole world.
Resurrection is the return from exile - a powerful symbol for Israel and the world. Justification is what happens when we return from exile and God accept us back - having cleansed us from our sin. Take the picture of the prodigal son (accepting that this is firstly a reference to Israel). The son is able to return freely because the Father has justified him. His sin is forgiven, his transgressions erased etc.
Resurrection is this return home to the Father where justification is worked out.
Hence, “he was delivered over to death for our sins (because of them and to deal with them), and was raised to life for our justification (so that we could return with Him from exile and know sins forgiven and a welcome home).
Hmmm.
Romans 4.25
“Yeshua, who was delivered over to death because of our offences and raised to life in order to make us righteous”
(from the “Complete Jewish Bible”)
Because of our offences, a punishment was required; Yeshua (Jesus) was the person who took that punishment in our place. As the only person to be righteous (in his own right), because he never sinned, he was the only person able to do that. That intercessory act removed our punishment, but in itself, did not place us back into right relationship (righteousness) with the Father. In accounting terms, (and if you look at the context, Paul was speaking precisely in accounting terms) it paid our overdraft, but did nothing to credit our account (to place us in right relationsip with God).
The ressurection, however, credited us with being in right relationship to God, something we could never have brought about by our actions, per se. In accounting terms, in effect, it said, the account is now paid and you can draw constantly upon it for every requirement, including forgiveness for sins and life for overcoming…
(I know that’s not the main thread of the arguments you’re pursuing here, but perhaps someone may find it helpful)
A couple of thoughts on the resurrection
I would like to pick up on a couple of points that have been made so far in this thread. First, OneOfMany:
I am inclined to agree with this. One thought that comes to mind is that the resurrection is a demonstration of the righteousness or faithfulness of God towards those who trust him – and of the extreme faithfulness of God towards those who trust him in extreme circumstances. On the cross Jesus quotes Psalm 22:1: ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ But the psalm moves beyond the fear and uncertainty i) to a reaffirmation of trust in God (22-24), who ‘has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted’; ii) to worship (25-29) – Edward makes this point with reference to Luke 24:52; and iii) to a proclamation of ‘his righteousness to a people yet unborn’ (30-31).
The whole psalm is a perfect commentary on the cross and resurrection, which Jesus of course understood; but it is also very much a celebration of the God who does not abandon his people in their darkest moments.
I wonder, though, whether the resurrection, at least as it has usually been understood, does not present a particular problem for the emerging church. We have become rather suspicious of myth (by which I mean a narrative about the supramundane, regardless of whether we believe it to be true or not) because myth is a privileged form of narrative: it is difficult to hold it accountable. Gibson’s film depicted something that happened inside the tomb – we miss the actual moment of the body leaving the grave cloths only by seconds. The Gospels do not attempt to do this: the resurrection is presented not directly but through the often ambiguous and confused testimonies of those who believed that they had seen the risen Lord. To recognize and make room for this degree of subjectivity and uncertainty is already a distinctly postmodern move and may prove to be a key element in our rethinking of the resurrection. I would also suggest that we need to understand the significance of the resurrection of Jesus within the context of Jewish apocalypticism – less as a universal event that somewhat incidentally took place in first century Judea, more as an event within the particular, limited, contingent story about Israel under Roman rule, which is, as Tom Wright insists, the heart of New Testament eschatology.
Is the emerging church still in exile?
Thanks Andrew - I’m sure you’re right about the resurrection being a demonstration of the righteousness of God. In Christ God fulfils his promises to Israel and, further, brings about the final processes of justice for the whole world.
But, I’m still searching/thinking/meditating on the centrality of the resurrection for the Christian faith. I’m not sure that I understand your comments on the resurrection not being a particular problem for the emerging church. I’m not suggesting that the resurrection is a problem, I’m saying that we have not worked out the practical implications of the resurrection. This is not about subjectivity, nor simply about a incidental event within Israel’s story. It is the crowning event of the new creation that has consequences for the whole world and most certainly for followers of Jesus.
This centrality is not simply about doctrinal affirmation - ‘I believe Jesus has been raised from the dead and is alive today.’ The Apostle Paul is clear - if the resurrection has not taken place in history then we may as well all pack up now and go home. (Ok - he didn’t say exactly that, but…) For Paul and the Apostles the resurrection was the motivation for their mission, it was their Good News - ‘Jesus has been raised, he is Lord!’
Maybe I can’t see the wood for the trees, but I have yet to read/hear anything that places resurrection at the centre of a practical outworking of our faith. NTW has obviously done masses of work on the resurrection, but I was still left hanging - hoping for practical application.
I remain with my view that unless the emerging church reconsiders its theology of salvation - highlighting the resurrection alongside and at least equal too if not more significant than the cross and the suffering of Jesus - then the cause is lost and the emerging church remains in exile.
The scope of the resurrection
Edward wrote:
Yes for the followers of Jesus; not so sure about the whole world - at least, I think this aspect of it needs to be thought through more carefully. If we are going to speak of the resurrection as inaugurating a ‘new creation’, how exactly are we using the term? Is it simply a metaphor for the renewal of the people of God (cf. Ezek.36:33-36)? Or does it refer to something more ‘real’, some sort of change in the cosmic order? If we mean the latter, how are we to speak about it meaningfully and publicly? Where is the evidence for it?
Certainly we must say that the resurrection is critical for faith, but I am still inclined to think that it remains primarily something that God has done for Israel and for the sake of his own honour. If Jesus’ resurrection is fundamentally about vindication, the renewal of the covenant community in him, and the justification of a God who did not abandon his servant to death, I wonder whether we are right to suppose that it has immediate cosmological implications - such that we might draw from it particular political and environmental conclusions. Colossians 1:15-20 is interesting in this regard: Christ is ‘first-born of all creation’, the one through whom all things were created; but by virtue of the resurrection he is ‘first-born from the dead’, which suggests that the resurrection is more an anticipation of a general resurrection (cf. 1 Cor.15:22-23) than a turning-point in the present creation.
So what does it mean to proclaim that Jesus has been raised from the dead? It means that God really has acted to rescue his people from the consequences of their rebellion; it means that God really has defeated Israel’s enemies, supremely satan and death; it means that those who are ‘in’ this crucified and resurrected messiah do not need to fear death; it means that Christ and not Caesar or the principalities and powers rules over the church and will rule over the whole world.
Does it have practical implications? i) It is crucial to the story-line that accounts for the renewal of Israel. ii) It means that Christ has become determinative for, sets the agenda for, defines the boundaries of the disciple’s relationship to the Father. iii) We as the people of God have the Spirit of the risen Lord - a major practical consequence! iv) We are in a position to take very seriously the prospect of a future collective resurrection.
I have a hunch, though, that these will still not be practical enough for you. If so, what exactly are you looking for? What do you feel is inadequate about the emerging church’s understanding of the resurrection? Do we need to see the resurrection as being somehow a bigger event than this sort of language implies?
Resurrection response
Andrew, you wrote that you thought that the resurrection has consequences for the followers of Jesus, but NOT for the whole world.
Andrew - I’m sorry, but I disagree with your comments. In my view the resurrection marks the beginning of the renewal of creation, the reconciling of all things to Christ, the reign of Jesus as Lord and God. This must have immense consequences for the whole world - let alone the whole of creation.
Too easily we brush the resurrection on one side as somehow not so significant for the world, but rather preach the cross - highlighting sin and guilt in an attempt to bring people into relationship with God. We say that the cross has implications for the whole world - Christ died for the sins of the world. But the key event that is preached by the early apostles to prove that Jesus is the Messiah and God for the whole world was not so much the cross as the resurrection.
Andrew - may I humbly suggest that your language paints a too small picture and a too narrow perspective on the resurrection? If Jesus has been raised from the dead - then our proclamation should be more - ‘Jesus is Lord’ than - ‘Jesus died for your sin’. The latter perpetuates the self-centred - ‘what Jesus can do for you’, but the former challenges all to ‘repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand!’
Yes, the resurrection has implications for our personal lives - if Jesus is Lord of the whole earth then we of all people should live to honour him. The resurrection therefore has political implications. The words and deeds of the early believers were strikingly political. If they were not political then why was such a fuss caused over them. NTW is categorical in pointing out that Paul’s letter to the Romans is political - Jesus is Lord and not Caesar.
But the resurrection also has ecological and environmental implications. If the resurrection of Jesus marks the beginning of the new creation then we should seek to be part of that renewal - making this world a place fit for a King.
We can hardly speak of the resurrection without bringing in the eschatological perspective. Jesus is returning – as Lord and King of the whole earth! We will welcome him as he comes in his glory - for it will be the unveiling of all we have lived for. His reign on the earth will right the wrongs, clear up the pollution, settle the debts, heal the sick, house the homeless, bring peace and justice to the whole world.
The resurrection anticipates this unveiling. Therefore, we live today in this world in such a way that paints a vivid picture of how things should be now that Jesus is Lord. But we also seek to encourage others to live under the Lordship of the resurrected Jesus, so that for them also his unveiling will be a joy and not a surprise. I wonder whether there might even be those who welcome Jesus – not because they have become Christians previously, but because in Jesus as he is unveiled they see the Lord whose rule and whose ways have already been so attractively and persuasively lived out by his followers.
Stay on it!
Edward, you wrote:
I don’t know that I can track fully with you on this. I agree that the emerging church does not place much on the resurrection, but “lost in exile” seems to be an overly strong statement, historically. The Eastern churches have place quite a bit of emphasis on the Resurrection with the West staying at the cross. I would suggest digging into some Eastern writers for more “worked-out” thoughts on the Res. But “lost in exile” would imply that the Western churches have been in exile since the East-West split. I’m not going to deny that idea, necessarily. Only point out the implications of your statement. I’m curious to know if you think it goes that far.
However!, after reading your posts I have found that I read my Bible differently these days. I did not pay much attention to early Acts having the Apostles preaching “the Res. of Jesus” (Acts. 3ff). Thanks for tuning my eyes to see this!
I don’t know that I’d agree with Andrew’s idea of God vindicating Himself with/for Israel. Mainly because I don’t think they understood that it was coming, as evidenced by their lack of Messiah-death theologies (as seen in the Bible texts as well as their Midrash and other writings). Not that their expectation(s) is all that matters. But I think that God understood He was doing something unique, albeit, hinted at in the Prophets (much easier to see it post Resurrection!). But I put a different emphasis on Israel than Andrew does.
Practical implications: most Western Christians, I would fear, are afraid of the mystical/fairy-tale feeling of the Resurrection. I think they are ashamed of how un-natural it is, compared to the universal experience of death. Further, I think the Cross allows us (Western Christians) to continue to emphasize the negative, sin-induced aspects of humans. It allows us to concurrently down-judge others while non-directly highlighting our own rise. Maybe that’s part of why there is so little celebration, but much rewarding in our culture at-large (also in the churches). Personally, I think on of the immediate applications of the Res. is that (1) God is to be the source of my attention (whereas the Cross, by way of contrast, looks at me-in-my-sin) and (2) I can (it only makes sense!!) CELEBRATE God Himself. He is to be the Subject and Honored-One of the deepest parts of my soul/heart (I need a better word for “parts” - ugh). I know that this is not as practical to my system of theology, but it IS practical to my living. I do not think it is a stretch to say that, as I add this to my daily life (and once again, thank you for starting this thread!!), I and my community will begin to see the theological impact as well.
This babelling has led me to a question: are you looking for daily-life implications or system-wide, theological implications of the Res.?
David
http://www.signsofthelastday.
http://www.signsofthelastday.com