The other of the two events, as you may have guessed, was his crucifixion. I hope that both of these events are preached regularly in your church. I write about the resurrection today not because I think it to be more important than the crucifixion, but because
1. I just spent a couple of weeks immersed in a passage of the Bible that deals primarily with the resurrection, so I've studied it and have become especially jazzed about it,
2. In my experience it seems that the church talks about the crucifixion year-round, because it's easily connected to just about every other topic. We often remember, in different ways, that "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures," and that "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son..." and I guess I think we tend to leave resurrection talk for one very special Sunday per year: Easter. And
3. When we do talk about it on Easter we often relegate "the resurrection" to the single historical event of Jesus being brought back to life, which is cool because it means that his death really did accomplish what it was supposed to, and our sins really have been forgiven. And we also spend an awful lot of time explaining why the event is historically defensible (a topic, by the way, which I LOVE). There's obviously nothing wrong with that, except that I think there's more to "resurrection" than that.
Take a gander at 1 Corinthians 15. Especially verses 12-28. There are some in the church at Corinth who "say that there is no resurrection from the dead" (v. 12). Now, to clarify, it doesn't appear that they denied Christ's resurrection, only the future bodily resurrection of believers. But Paul doesn't think that logic holds any weight. The bodily resurrection of Jesus is inseparably linked to that of those who belong to him. Paul basically tells the Corinthians, "If there's no bodily resurrection of people, then Jesus wasn't bodily resurrected either. And if Jesus wasn't resurrected everything is very crappy indeed" (v. 13-18, New Revised Jake Version).
Seriously, read it. If there's no resurrection then the preaching of the apostles is worthless (v. 14). Faith is worthless (v. 14). The apostles are liars (v. 15) because they've proclaimed that God raised Christ from the dead, so they're not only lying but blaspheming. We are all still condemned in our sins (v. 17). Those who have believed in Jesus Christ as their savior who have already died are utterly lost (v. 18). Because of all of this, because of our devotion to an empty, worthless faith that has no power over death or sin, we as Christians are to be pitied more than all others (v. 19).
Don't stop reading.
"But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep" (v. 20). As Mark Prior points out, "This But must rank with the great 'buts' of the Bible." Firstfruits is an agricultural term identifying the first installment of an entire harvest of the same kind which is to come. That means that Jesus is just the beginning. Just as he was raised from his death, so will all of those who call on him and trust him as their Lord.
See, Corinthians? A bodily resurrection! For you and me! Don't forget, the word "asleep" (v. 18, 20) holds the promise of an awakening.
Paul's argument started with a refutatio, or a refutation of the Corinthians' stance. He explains to them why denial of the resurrection leads to unacceptable consequences. Verse 20 begins the second half of his argument; the confirmatio, or a reaffirmation of the logical alternative. Just as we were all affected by the sin of one human being (Adam), we will be affected by the resurrection and defeat of death itself of one human being (Jesus). So, without the resurrection our solidarity would still be with Adam. Bummer.
So you see? The resurrection has eschatological (end times) implications. Jesus' resurrection inaugurated the ultimate defeat of the "last enemy" (v. 26), which is death. But the fullness of salvation is not yet realized. We still experience death. Some of you know that all too well. There's still the pain and the sorrow and the suffering. If the resurrection is not true then death is never a conquered enemy. Even when all is said and done it would still have power. But since it is true, God wins. Someday death will be thwarted permanently.
Today we have "prosperity" churches all over the place (if you're not familiar with them, turn on your television on Sunday morning). They pretty much teach what the Corinthians apparently thought. "All we can expect is what we've got now, so live it up!" If some of these preachers and churches really understood the implications of the resurrection would that message change?
Other Christians of the more "liberal" sort deny the resurrection because it's too far-fetched. Christianity needs to be more palatable, so we'll do away with ridiculous notions like some dude came back to life. But they don't consider what that denial means. Without a resurrection you can't be a "Christian," because the entire faith is futile. Paul says so.
"The joy that characterizes the basic orientation of the Christian life is based on the confidence that Christ will return, the dead will be raised, and all wrongs will be made right. If that is not true, then joy is replaced by despair." -- David Garland
But it is true. So celebrate Easter, and keep trying, as I do, to fully understand what it means for us.
so this comment has absolutely nothing to do with your post, but rather something i really wanted to tell you. during the easter sermon at my church, they showed this news clip of a family claiming to see jesus' face in the fur of their family cat. after the video was over, the pastor said, "god does NOT use cats" rather emphatically. turns out it is rather well known that he likes cats as much as you do. the whole thing just made me think of you :)
ReplyDelete