The Order of Salvation

by Stuart Olyott

Table of Contents 

1. Calling 
2. The New Birth/Regeneration
3. Repentance and Faith
4. Justification
5. Adoption
6. Sanctification
7. Glorification

---------------

Christ died to save those whom His Father had given Him.

But how are they brought into the actual enjoyment/experience/possession of salvation?

The Scriptures teach that God works in their lives, doing certain things in a certain order. The very first of these (Romans 8:28-30) is:-

CALLING

The outward call

• God addresses all men in what we call 'natural revelation' - Psalm 19:1-3, Romans 1:18-23, 32, 2:14-15, 10-18.
• But He has chosen to save His people through the preaching of the Gospel. 1 Corinthians 1:21, Romans 1:16, 10:17
• But not everybody who hears the Gospel accepts it.

Why some accept the Gospel when they hear it, and some do not

The reason is not in the Gospel itself.

• the same message is preached to all Romans 10:13.
• there is nothing in the message itself which stops a man from accepting it

The reason is not in the nature of the hearers:-

• all of them are equally dead, spiritually Ephesians 2:1
• all of them are naturally anti-God Romans 8:7-8
• all of them, left to themselves, would certainly never accept the saving Gospel, but would perish in their sins 1 Corinthians 2:14.

The reason IS that some are effectually called, and some are not. Matthew 22:14

• all are called by the same message but not all are 'called out' by it
• only some receive the call which actually united them to Christ Colossians 1:9
• it is a miracle - like Lazarus they hear the Divine summons, and are actually brought to Christ by it (GOD calls!)
• another illustration and example of this call is Zaccheus
• to be called is to be a Christian Romans 1:6-7, Ephesians 4:1

The effectual call

• this special and inward call is referred to in Romans 8:30, 1 Corinthians 1:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, 2 Peter 1:10,
• it is an act of God, and of God alone 1 Corinthians 1:9, 2 Timothy 1:8-9
• it is specifically attributed to God the Father - Romans 8:30, 1 Corinthians 1:9, Galatians 1:15, Ephesians 1:17-18, 1 John 3:1
• it is given in time because it was planned in eternity Romans 8:28-30, 2 Timothy 1:9, Ephesians 1:4 it is all part of God's purpose in Christ.
• once it is given, it is never withdrawn Romans 11:29
• it is high, holy, and heavenly - Philippians 3:14, 2 Timothy 1:9, Hebrews 3:1

This does not make men and women into mere pawns

• No-one is lost or saved against his will. Natural men do not want the Gospel, and called men do!
• Effectual calling is not an act of forcing, but an act of creation. A new nature and a new will are given The called person WANTS to do what he did not want to do before.
• he sees the Gospel as true, as a blind man sees the sun 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14
• he sees his unworthiness and guilt before God. Acts 2:37
• he is drawn to the Saviour. John 6:44.
• he turns from his sin to this Saviour. Ezekiel 11:19, 36:26-27. Acts 26:18.

Two dangers to avoid

Effectual calling may be sudden, or it may be gradual, it may be accompanied by strong feelings, or it may not.

Do not assume that because you have had sudden religious experiences accompanied by deep feelings, that you have been effectually called.

Where is your faith now?

• that is the question to decide whether you have been called or not,
• because TRUE calling always leads to CONTINUING FAITH. 2 Peter 1:10

If you are unconverted, do not sit around waiting for some mystic experience.

• you are COMMANDED by God's Word to repent and believe the Gospel.
• if you do not, you will perish
• if you do, you will be saved
• this will in turn prove that you have been effectually called
• you can have no such assurance until you have believed.

----------------

Christ died to save those whom His Father had given Him.

By a series of acts. God brings these people to actually possess this salvation

• the first act is calling, God calls, His people come
• but how can dead men hear the call, obey it, and come?
• it would never happen - if it were not for regeneration.

THE NEW BIRTH / REGENERATION

All men and women are spiritually dead

• they are governed by their sins; unable to please God; and consider spiritual things to be foolish. Ephesians 2:1, Romans 8:5-8, 1 Corinthians 2:14.
• they cannot give themselves spiritual life; and have no desire or power to do anything at all about their condition. Titus 3:5, John 6:44, Jeremiah 13:23.

Regeneration is the giving of life to the dead.

• it is spoken of this way in Ephesians 2:1, 1 John 3:14, 4:7.
• elsewhere it is spoken of as birth - the giving of life. John 3:3, 6-8, James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23.
• or as new creation, or renewal. 2 Corinthians 5:l7, Titus 3:5-6.

It is brought about by the Word and the Spirit

• the Word (especially the preached Word) is the means God uses. See how calling and the new birth are intimately linked! 1 Peter 1:23,25, 1 Corinthians 4:15
• The Holy Spirit accompanies this with life-giving power in the hearts of the elect. 1 Corinthians 2:2-5, 1 Thessalonians 1:5-6

It is a sovereign act of God

• God regenerates whom HE wills. John 1:12-13, James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:3.
• Man has no understanding of the process, and no control whatever over it. John 3:1-13.
• Yet the new birth is absolutely essential to salvation, and all spiritual graces flow from it. John 3:3, 5-7, 1 Peter 1:3.

Regeneration ALWAYS brings a person to Christ.

• all who are regenerated are given saving faith John 1:12-13, Ephesians 2:1-10, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 John 5:1, 4.
• all who are regenerated are inwardly changed and outwardly different (This is because regeneration is the implanting of the new nature, which inevitably asserts itself increasingly in sanctification). Ezekiel 36:25-26, 2 Corinthians 4:6, 5:17, 1 John 2:29, 3:9, 4:7, 5:18

It is patterned on Christ's resurrection

• this is taught in 1 Peter 1:3.
• the power which worked in Him is the same power which works in every believer Ephesians 1:19-20.
• all for whom He died are certain to experience this divine miracle of regeneration. Ephesians 2:5, Titus 3:5-6.

* Salvation is thus seen to be entirely of God's grace. *

* And much modern 'Gospel preaching' is seen to be erroneous. *

---------------

Christ died to save those whom His Father had given Him.

By a series of acts, God brings these people to actually possess this salvation

• the first act is calling, God calls His people outwardly & inwardly
• they come; for although they are dead, God gives them life (regeneration)
• they come from sin (repentance) to Christ (faith)
• this happens to all who are regenerated, John 6:379 1:12-13, and cannot happen without regeneration, John 6:44, 65.

REPENTANCE AND FAITH

FAITH

Faith is God's gift

• this is clearly stated in Ephesians 2:8-10.
• yet you must have it to be saved. John 3:16, 18
• this proves that all salvation is by God's free grace

What faith is

• it is the believing of certain facts. Romans 4:24-25, 10:9-10, 1 Corinthians 15:1-5.
• the person believing the facts puts his personal trust in the Lord Jesus Christ ALONE for his salvation. Acts 15:11, 16:31. John 1:12, 3:16, 4:42. Galatians 2:20. 2 Timothy 1:12.

Remember!

• The sinner is active, not passive He acts as a person, not a robot. He believes, He cries, He rests. Faith is the first conscious act of the Christian life.
• His faith is in God's promises which freely invite all to salvation in Christ; not in God's decree of election. He comes because he is invited, not because of prior knowledge that God chose him.
• He has confidence in the facts, not just a knowledge of them. He is convinced that he is a great sinner, and that Christ is the Saviour of sinners -. so he goes to HIM to be saved.

REPENTANCE

Repentance is God's gift

• this is clearly stated in Acts 5:31, 11:18, 2 Timothy 2:25.
• yet you must have it to be saved. Luke 13:3, 5.
• this proves that all salvation is by God's free grace.

What repentance is

• something done, not felt. It is turning. Acts 3:19, 26,20
• it is turning from sin. 2 Chronicles 7:14. Hebrews 6:1
• it is turning to the living God, by faith in Christ. Acts 14:15, 1 Thessalonians 1.9, Acts 20:21, Mark 1:15.

Remember!

Repentance and faith always go together. You cannot and do not have one without the other

• Faith looks to Christ for salvation But why should it want to be saved? Because it wants to finish with. sin.' This is repentance.
• Repentance is turning from sin But where is it going to turn? To Christ! This is faith.'
• 'Believe' means 'repentantly believe'. 'Repent' means 'believingly repent'
• To see this clearly, look at .the following pairs of verses. Acts 3:19-4:4, 10:43-11:18, 17:30-l7:34, 26:18-26:20.
• It is plain that one term includes the other.

---------------

Christ died to save those whom His Father had given Him.

By a series of acts, God brings these people to actually possess this salvation

• the first act is calling God calls His people outwardly & inwardly
• they come; for although they are dead, God gives them life (regeneration)
• they come from sin (repentance) to Christ (faith)
• and are immediately clothed in a robe of righteousness (justification).

JUSTIFICATION

Justification is a declaration

Look at Deuteronomy 25:1.

When a judge justifies a man, he is declaring that innocent man to be righteous The opposite is condemnation

But we are guilty (Romans 3:23).

How can the righteous Lord declare the guilty to be righteous?

The answer lies in imputation

Imputation

Imputation means that God has reckoned or credited to one person what originally belonged to another person

• for instance, the sin of Adam is imputed or 'laid to the account' of all Adam's race. We receive from him. He receives nothing from us
• In the case of Jesus Christ and His elect people there is a double imputation :-
• my sin is laid to His account - and He is treated as if He had sinned my sin. 2 Corinthians 5:21.
• His perfect righteousness is laid to my account. God treats me as if I had never sinned. I am treated as if I had lived Christ's perfect life. 2 Corinthians 5:21

GOD is the Author of justification

"It is GOD that justified" (Romans 8:33). He declares us righteous.

• do not think that it is your faith which makes you righteous. Faith is not a 'good work' which commends us into God's favour. Faith is not the ground of righteousness
• the work of Jesus Christ alone is the ground of righteousness. Romans 3:24. There is no other sin-bearer.
• Faith is an INSTRUMENT ONLY
• the hand by which we receive the righteousness of God - NOT the source of that righteousness.
• so faith in any other will not do -none but Christ alone is righteous.

Some other important points to grasp

Justification is an ACT completed in a moment, NOT a process which is only gradually completed.

• you are either justified or you are not.
• once justified, you cannot. be Unjustified! You are legally righteous with God for ever, and free from wrath & condemnation. Romans 8:1.

No man is justified until He repents and believes the Gospel.

• it is God's plan to justify His people, but they are NOT IN FACT justified until they believe. Until then they are lost. Galatians 2:1.6. Colossians 1:21-22
• yet the moment they believe, they are at once justified. Acts 13:38-39, Romans 3:22.
• as faith is God's gift, and it is impossible to be justified without it, it is right to describe justification as an act of God's free grace. Romans 3:20-24, 4:16.

We are justified by faith alone - no law-keeping is necessary. Yet the faith that justifies is never alone, but is always accompanied by good works. James 2:26.

• these works do not commend us to God.
• but whoever God justifies He sanctifies (as we shall see), and so a believer's life just cannot be the same as it was before.

This doctrine of justification by faith is the VERY CENTRE of the Gospel.

• it is "the article of a standing or falling Church" (Luther).
• in it the power and glory of God's grace shine out brightly.

--------------

Christ died to save those whom his Father had given Him.

By a series of acts, God brings these people to actually possess this salvation.

• the first act is calling Cod calls His people outwardly & inwardly.
• they come for although they are dead God gives them life (regeneration).
• they come from sin (repentance) to Christ (faith).
• they are immediately clothed in a robe of righteousness (justification).
• they are then received as Sons in God's family (adoption).

ADOPTION

Not all men are the children of God - only believers

• in the OT God is only the Father of Abraham's seed. Exodus 4:22, Hosea 11:1.
• in the NT God is only the Father of those who repent of their sins and turn to Christ as sin-bearer and master, thus becoming Abraham's spiritual seed. Galatians 3:26, 28b-29, John 1:12, 14:6.
• this Sonship is not natural It is a gift of grace - an adoptive sonship Galatians 4:4-7. Romans 8:14-17 Ephesians 1:4. 1 John 3:1-3.

Some important things to know about this adoption

• it is the highest privilege which the gospel offers,
• your sonship is to be the controlling thought at every point of your Christian life :-
• when you think what a disciple is. Mark 3:35, Matthew 28:9-10, John 20:17-18, Hebrews 2:11-13,
• when you want to know how to behave. Matthew 5:43-45a, 48, 5:16, 6:1-18,
• when you pray. Matthew 6:7-18. 7:7-11
• when you worry about material things. Matthew 6:25-32,

The moment you forget you are God's child; you will not be able to live your Christian life so as to please Him.

Some things which happen to a Christian who constantly remembers his adoption

• He is overcome by the greatness of God's grace. 1 John 3:1-3. Luke 1:18. John 17:23
• He longs for heaven.
• Adoption means being a 'chosen heir'!
• He cannot help thinking of what awaits him, Galatians 4:7, Romans 8:14-19
• He Stops seeking second experiences.
• For he is well aware that the basic ministry of the Holy Spirit is not to give us power etc., but to be to us the Spirit of adoption! Romans 8:5, Galatians 4:6
• He longs for personal holiness
• He can see what it is - family likeness
• He has a motive for seeking it - to avoid shaming the Father
• He knows how it will come about - instruction & discipline,

The life of many Christians would be transformed simply by reflecting on this truth of adoption.

---------

Christ died to save those whom His Father had given Him.

By a series of acts, God brings these people to actually possess this salvation.

• the first act is calling God calls His people outwardly & inwardly
• they come for although they are dead, God gives them life (regeneration)
• they come from sin (repentance) to Christ (faith)
• they are immediately clothed in a robe of righteousness (justification)
• they are then received as sons in God's family (adoption).
• they then increasingly take on the family likeness - for this is God's will and purpose for them. Ephesians 1:4, 1 Thessalonians 4:3, 1 Peter 1:16.

SANCTIFICATION

Sanctification begins with an inward change

• When God saved you, the Holy Spirit entered you. Romans 8:9.
• He made you clean, and renewed you inwardly. Titus 3:5.
• He gave you a new heart - a heart which wants to obey God, Ezekiel 11:19-20.
• You are a new creation, the old has gone, the new has come. 2 Corinthians 5:17, Galatians 6:15
• The old nature has been destroyed Romans 6:2-6, 14.
• And you have received a new one Romans 8:2, 2 Peter 1:4, Ephesians 4:24 Colossians 3:10, Galatians 5:16

Sanctification is a process.

• There is still indwelling sin in the believer, and he is not free from sinning, either in heart or life. Romans 7:14-25, 1 John 1:8, 2:1.
• He is at war with it. Romans 7:14-25
• And it does not have the mastery. Romans 6:12-14, 17, 22. 1 John 3:9, 5:18.
• He endeavours constantly to bring holiness to completeness 1 Thessalonians 5:23, 2 Peter 1:5-8, 2 Corinthians 7:1.
• This progressive work has likeness to Christ as its goal Romans 8:29, Philippians 1:9-11
• But entire sanctification will not be ours until our bodies are changed into the likeness of Christ's glorious body. Philippians 3:21. 1 John 3:2. Romans 7:24.

Sanctification is our work, yet God's.

• to us comes the call to be holy, the commands to throw off sinful ways, the direction to be like Christ. See 1 Thessalonians 4:3, 7. Colossians 3:1-6. Ephesians 4:17-5:21 etc...
• all sorts of incentives are given to us, to set about this work. See Romans 12:1-2, 1 Thessalonians 4:7-8, 1 Peter 1:17, 1 John 3:3, Romans 8:13, Hebrews 2:14,

WE must work

• from God comes the promise that He Himself is at work in us; and that He will strengthen and assist us. Philippians 2:13, Romans 8:29, 2 Corinthians 3:17-18, 4:16, 1 Peter 1:2.

HE works!

Sanctification is chiefly brought about by God's Word.

• It is declared to be God's chosen instrument. Psalm 119:9, John 17:17, 2 Timothy 3:16-17
• This is why Christ has given to His church men who will enable God's people to be instructed in His Word. Ephesians 4:11-16, 1 Timothy 5:17
• So nothing is more important to us in our Christian lives than the proper hearing of the Word of God. Luke 8:18.
• That is our part. God also brings into our lives experiences which are not pleasant at the time, but which lead to greater sanctification. Hebrews 12:10-11.

"Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord" Hebrews 12:14.

--------------

Christ died to save those whom His Father had given Him.

By a series of acts, God brings these people to actually possess this salvation

• the first act is calling. God calls His people outwardly & inwardly.
• they come: for although they are dead, God gives them life (regeneration).
• they come from sin (repentance) to Christ (faith)
• they are immediately clothed in a robe of righteousness (justification).
• they are then received as Sons in God's family (adoption).
• they increasingly take on the family likeness (sanctification).
• and they come at last to the family home!! (glorification). John 6:37-40. Romans 8:28-30. 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14.

GLORIFICATION

In feet and inches, heaven is no distance at all from us.

• heaven is not to be confused with the physical heaven above us.
• it is an entirely different realm; dimension; sphere of existence - not far away (of - Jacob; Isaiah; Stephen; John; Jesus; believer at death).
• the real world, the holy world, the eternal world. Hebrews 8:5, Psalm 20:6, 89:29.

It is the dwelling-place of God.

• God is constantly said to be 'in heaven'. Matthew 5:16, 6:9, 12:50.
• so are His angels. Matthew 18:20, 22:30.
• He is Lord of Heaven Daniel 4:35, 5:23, Psalm 11:4, Matthew 11:25.
• His presence, glory & majesty fill the place. Jeremiah 23:24, Hebrews 8:1.
• From there He speaks to men and women Hebrews 12:25.
• And from there He sends His judgements. Romans 1:18.

It is where the Lord Jesus Christ can from, and now is.

• He came from there, and returned there. John 3:13. 1 Peter 3:22.
• He is still there, interceding for us, preparing a place for us, and reigning. Acts 7:55, Hebrews 9:24, John 14:2-3, Matthew 28:18.
• He will return from there 1 Thessalonians 4:16, Philippians 3:20.

It is a place beyond our mortal understanding

• Paul was caught up into heaven, and witnessed things which cannot, and must not, be put into words 2 Corinthians 12:1-4.
• Yet God's Word describes it in pictures, to help our understanding, a barn; the Father's house; a city, heavenly Jerusalem, a better country, an inheritance of treasure. Matthew 13:30, 43. John 14:2. Hebrews 12:22, 11:16. 1 Peter 1:4.

It is THERE that Christ's people are certainly going.

They are already:-

• heirs of heaven. Matthew 25: 34
• enrolled in heaven. Luke 10:20.
• citizens of heaven. Philippians 3:20.
• knowingly going to-heaven. Hebrews 13:14.

They are going to:-

• the unveiled blessing of the Father. Matthew 25:34.
• all they ever hoped for Colossians 1:5.
• their reward Hebrews 10:34-35.
• their treasure. Matthew 6:20
• the sight of the Lord. John 17:24

The present physical heavens and earth will pass away, and will be renewed. Righteousness will dwell in them. Matthew 19:28, Acts 3:21, Hebrews 12:27, 2 Peter 3:13.

Then the new Jerusalem will descend out of heaven from God, and the redeemed will enter into their final joy. Revelation Ch 21 & 22.

The present distinctions of material/spiritual, visible/invisible will be wiped away, and GOD WILL BE ALL IN ALL.

"For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen"

(Romans 11:36).

Christological Controversies in the Early Church

AN ESSAY BY Coleman Ford

DEFINITION

A study of the doctrine of Christ as its understanding developed in the early centuries of the church.

SUMMARY

This essay will survey the developing understanding of the Christian doctrine of Christ in the first centuries of the Christian church and conclude with some reflections for today’s Christian.

--------------

Introduction

When Jesus asked him who the apostles thought him to be, Peter stated that he believed Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of God (Matt 16:15–16). Peter’s statement represents the belief of the church, maintaining that Jesus is both divine and human. To this day, a remarkable level of agreement exists between Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant churches when it comes to the person of Jesus Christ. A greater understanding of this biblical confession of Jesus Christ grew as thinkers in the early church were forced to respond to erroneous views that did not align with that faith which was “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).  While the confession of Christ’s divinity and humanity is pivotal to the Christian faith, Christological doctrine developed in light of various erroneous teachings that arose from the earliest days of the church. The best way to sum up the Christology of the early church is an affirmation of the apostolic witness and development of the orthodox tradition and vocabulary. Early Christians proclaimed Christ as Lord based on the biblical testimony (apostolic teaching) which was reaffirmed in their writings, worship, and witness in the world.

Ebionism and Docetism

The earliest christological controversies in the early church include Ebionism and Docetism. The Ebionites, whose leader was identified as Ebion by various early heresiologists and historians (e.g., Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 1.26.1–2, 5.1.3; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.27.2), were a type of Jewish sect in the late first and early second centuries. They maintained the authority of the Hebrew Bible, and thus held to the necessity of observing the Mosaic law. They argued that God adopted Jesus at his baptism, thus rejecting his preexistence and virginal conception. A similar view was espoused by a false teacher named Cerinthus (fl. c. 50–100) in the late first and early second century. He lived in Asia Minor and was deemed heretical by early church fathers (e.g., Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 1.26.1; Hippolytus of Rome, Refutation 7.21; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.28–35, 7.25.3). According to these sources, Cerinthus denied the virgin birth, taught that Jesus was a normal human who was exceedingly wise, and that he was empowered by the Christ-spirit upon his baptism. He appeared to affirm many facets of a Gnostic cosmology wherein the world was made by a lesser being, that Jesus spoke of a previously unknown supreme god, and that the Jewish law was created by the lesser being.

Another early Christological error to arise within the church was Docetism, which challenged the biblical testimony of Christ’s full humanity. The Apostle John warned against this error, noting that some refused to acknowledge “that Jesus Christ as come in the flesh” (1Jn. 4:1-3). Ignatius of Antioch (d. 110) likewise warns against this erroneous view when he warns the church in Ephesus “do not so much as listen to anyone unless he speaks truthfully about Jesus Christ” (Ign Eph 6.2). Ignatius affirms that Jesus was “both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering then beyond it” (Ign Eph 7.2). There was no reason to suffer for Jesus, as the apostles and martyrs had done, if Jesus too had not suffered in the flesh.

Gnosticism

Another major challenge to the biblical witness of Jesus Christ was the complex system of Gnosticism. Though Gnosticism had numerous elements relating to platonic philosophy, it was also heavily influenced by Jewish and Christian theological elements. Much of the Gnostic system sought to wed biblical material to its complex cosmology. Gnostic texts, claiming to be from the hands of apostles, began to appear in the second century, with the most famous perhaps being the Gospel of Thomas. Other Gnostic texts, attached to biblical names, promoted the Gnostic cosmogony in various ways while shrouded with biblical language. The general tendency was to deny the goodness of the created order and emphasize a solely spiritual salvation. Christ was a savior who came to bring knowledge (gnosis) of this spiritual salvation, given only to a select few. The greatest proponents of Gnosticism in the early church included Valentinus of Rome (fl. 2nd cent) and Marcion of Sinope (fl. mid-2nd cent). Marcion was a member of the church in Rome and began to teach that the God of the Old Testament was really the demiurge (lesser god) of Gnostic cosmology. He was a vindictive god, evil, and therefore what he created was evil as well. In contrast, the god of the New Testament was a loving spiritual god who sent Jesus to demonstrate the way of love and peace and true salvation. Marcion edited the bible, dismissing the Old Testament entirely, and keeping only the non-Jewish sounding bits of the New Testament. He was excommunicated from the church of Rome and started a rival church, which continued to flourish for some time after.

Both Irenaeus (c. 130–c. 202) and Tertullian (c. 155–c. 240) provided extensive defenses of biblical Christology in the face of the Marcionite heresy. Irenaeus responded to the Gnostic heresy by focusing on the foundational nature of both the Old Testament and New Testament as the work of the one true God. The human authors of the various books of Scripture had been given perfect knowledge by the Holy Spirit and thus were incapable of proclaiming error (Against Heresies 3.1.1). Scripture is a harmonious whole according to Irenaeus. He states, “All Scripture, which has been given to us by God, shall be found to be perfectly consistent … and through the many diversified utterances (of Scripture) there shall be heard one harmonious melody in us, praising in hymns that God who created all things” (Against Heresies 3.5.1). For Irenaeus and the early church, the whole of Scripture must be used to understand the redemptive work of God. Merely piecing together certain texts to fit one’s theology can never produce the “beautiful image of the king,” but rather, it produces a distorted image of “a dog or of a fox” (Against Heresies 1.8.1). Contrary to the Gnostics who distinguished between Christ, a being of heavenly origin, and Jesus, the earthly man, Irenaeus declared that “Jesus Christ is one and the same,” an expression which was later incorporated in the Chalcedonian Definition (Against Heresies 3.16.2; 3.17.4). Tertullian, likewise, addresses the error of Marcion in his use of Scripture. Marcion adulterates the gospel by not recognizing that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies (Against Marcion 4.1). Using the book of Luke, the only gospel Marcion accepts albeit in edited form, Tertullian demonstrates Marcion’s error of dividing God, Christ, and the Scriptures (Against Marcion 4.5ff).

Dynamic and Modalistic Monarchianism

The twin errors of monarchianism sprang up in the second and third centuries, yet they were not a monolithic system. The common emphasis was the oneness of God (Greek – monarchia) to the detriment of God’s personhood. Though there were differences among monarchian theologians, there were two prevalent forms: adoptionism and modalism. Theodotus of Byzantium (fl. late 2nd cent.)—called “the Tanner” or “Shoemaker”—taught that the Father and Son were distinct but Jesus, being an exceptionally virtuous man, became God’s son through adoption at his baptism. The descriptor “dynamic” comes from the Greek dynamis (power) to describe the means by which Jesus became God’s son. Theodotus brought his views to the church in Rome and was soon excommunicated, though his teaching continued through others into the third centuries. Paul of Samosata (fl. mid-to-late 3rd cent.) was the most prevalent of the adoptionists.

Noetus of Smyrna (fl. mid-to-late 3rd cent.) and Sabellius of Rome (fl. early-to-mid 3rd cent.) were two leading modalist thinkers in the second and third centuries. They believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit were not distinct persons, but different ways or modes of acting of the one God. These thinkers and their followers sought to uphold the oneness of God and the divinity of Christ, yet believed that asserting the Father and Son as distinct amount to bi-theism. In so doing, they denied the unique role and personhood of each member of the godhead in order to prioritize the monarchia, or oneness, of God. The Son was simply a mode of appearance. Tertullian provided a thorough defense against these erroneous views. He summarized the teaching of a modalist which Tertullian identified as Praxeas (fl. mid-to-late 3rd cent.) by saying that he “put to flight the Paraclete and crucified the Father” (Against Praxeas, 1). In his response, Tertutullian developed a trinitarian grammar for the Western church. According to Tertullian, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons (personae) “not in condition, but in degree, not in substance, but in form, not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and one condition, and of one power” (Against Praxeas, 2).

Arianism

In the fourth century, numerous Christological errors arose and required an extensive defense from Christian leaders. The first major error was Arianism. Arius (256–336), a presbyter in Alexandria, began teaching in 313 that the Son was created rather than being the co-equal eternal Son of God. According to Arius and his followers, Jesus was a created being, not ontologically equal to the Father. To help spread this teaching, he even wrote out songs which incorporated his belief about Christ stating, “There was a time when he was not.” The church dealt with this error at the Council of Nicaea in 325, a council called by the emperor Constantine (c. 272–337). They declared that Jesus is “begotten not made,” “light from light,” “true God from true God,” and “of one being (or essence) with the Father,” using the word homoousias (Greek – homo: “same”; ousia – “substance”) to describe the relationship of essence between Son and Father. This word, though not from Scripture, was used to express the biblical relationship revealed in Scripture, and denounce the unbiblical view of the Arians. Arianism would take many forms following the Nicene declaration, with groups affirming doctrine similar to Arius while seeking to avoid the actual error itself. Some groups affirmed the Son as homoiousias (Greek – “of like substance”). Depending on the reigning emperor, Arianism and related doctrines received a more favorable audience. This explained how church leaders who vigorously defended Nicene orthodoxy, such as Athanasius of Alexandria, repeatedly fell in and out of favor with authorities. At one point, Arian doctrine had pervaded the church to the point that Jerome (c. 347–420) later wrote, “The whole world groaned and marveled to find itself Arian.”

Apollinarianism

Apollinaris of Laodicea (d. 390) believed that in taking on human nature, the Word became united with a body only. So eager was he to avoid the Arian error and emphasize the deity of Christ and unity of his person that he denied Jesus as having a human soul. The soul was replaced with the divine Word, or logos. Jesus, in other words, was not an ordinary human being. Gregory of Nazianzus (329–390) addressed this issue and related it to the heresy of docetism, stating that in this view Christ’s flesh was merely “a phantom rather than a reality” (Letter 102). If he lacked a soul, therefore mind and will, then it is not proper to call Christ a man. Gregory contended elsewhere that “if [Christ] has a soul, and yet is without a [human] mind, how is he man, for man is not a mindless animal?… How does this relate to me? For deity joined to flesh alone is not man” (Letter 101). For Gregory, Apollinarianism only offered a partial salvation because the Savior was only partially a man. Thus, Apollinarian views were condemned at Council of Constantinople (381), where church leaders also reaffirmed the declarations and doctrinal formulations of Nicaea over fifty years prior.

Nestorianism

In the early fifth century, Nestorius of Constantinople (c. 386–450) taught that Jesus Christ was actually two distinct persons. Nestorius struggled to affirm the traditional title for Mary as theotokos (“God-bearer”), as this seemed to deny the human qualities of Christ. He struggled to conceive how it could be that God was born from a human, or that God suffered and died. Therefore, Nestorianism posited that in Christ was both the human person and divine person, but that each operated independently. At one point it would be the divine person working, and at another point it was the human. In this way, Nestorians sought to deal with Scripture that spoke to both Christ’s divine characteristics and his human ones. Cyril of Alexandria (375-444) addressed the theological error of Nestorianism and its effects. He asserted that in the incarnation “the two natures being brought together in a true union, there is of both one Christ and one Son” while also retaining their respective characteristics (Fourth Letter of Cyril to Nestorius). According to Cyril, the eternal Son of God took upon and personally united with a human nature, both in body and soul. Cyril’s teachings would influence the Council of Ephesus in 431 to denounce Nestorianism as heretical, thus affirming the one person of Christ.

Eutchyianism

Teachings from the monk Eutychus of Constantinople (c. 380–c. 456), Eutchyianism combines the two natures into one single nature. The official term for this theological error was monophysitism. Eutychus believed that both natures existed before the incarnation, but following the birth of Christ, there was only one nature. The human nature according to Eutyches was a mere appearance, harkening back to views expressed by Docetists. This nature made him different from other humans. Thus at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, gathered church leaders affirmed the two natures of Christ (Greek – henophysitism or miaphysitism) with the two united “without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.” Though this council took place in the Eastern portion of the Roman empire, Leo of Rome (c. 400–461) provide a summary of the Latin tradition of Christology, known as Leo’s Tome. This Tome was a topic of debate at Chalcedon, yet became the accepted doctrinal formulation for the person of Christ and his two natures.

Post-Chalcedonian Christology

Chalcedon proved a major step toward defining Christology for the church, but it did not resolve every tension. One area of concern came over Chalcedon’s statement that the Son assumed a human nature, but not a human person. This formulation was meant to combat adoptionism and deny that Jesus would have existed as a man apart from the incarnation, yet some questioned whether this affirmation legitimized Nestorianism. By the Second Council of Constantinople (553), which was called by Emperor Justinian I to clarify the Chalcedonian Definition and unite churches, henophysitism had been enlisted as the most clarifying way to describe the relationship of Christ’s two natures to his one person. The affirmation at Constantinople clarified several aspects of Christology: 1) Christ was personal, as a man, by virtue of the union of human nature in the person of the eternal Son; 2) The incarnation is a dynamic act on the part of the person of the Son, but in triune relationship and action; 3) Christ’s human nature was the same as any other human in its unfallen condition, except independent personal existence apart from the Son; 4) the Son is able to live a fully human and divine life; 5) The imago dei underpins the concept of henophysitism. Though challenges to orthodox Christology have always existed, the Church continues to rely upon the scripturally-derived doctrine of Christ hammered out in the early centuries of the church.

Considerations for Evangelical Christians

Christians today have much to consider and appreciate when it comes to the Christological settlement determined in the early church. First, the person and work of Jesus Christ has far reaching effects. The early church defended the doctrine of Christ so vigorously because the gospel and salvation itself was at stake. Only a Savior who is both truly God and truly man can secure man’s salvation. Second, clear and unambiguous language is necessary for doctrinal discussion and formulation. This doesn’t mean we fully understand every facet of God’s nature and his redemptive work, but it certainly matters that we think clearly and provide meaningful language for the Church. This affects everything from teaching to worship to evangelism to one on one discipleship. Third, Christians should remain charitable but firm in matters of Christology. Again, not all the mysteries of Christ can be discerned but we should not bend when biblically orthodox doctrine regarding the person and work of Christ is challenged. Thus, any other faith system which affirms a place for Jesus, yet not as fully God and fully man according to Scripture, is erroneous. Last, through the teaching, worship, and discipleship ministry of the Church, Christians should be learning what it means to think about, talk about, and more faithfully worship the God who was made flesh on our behalf in order to rescue and redeem us from sin. The end result of Christology is humble worship of God and an increase of joy in the believer.

FURTHER READING

• “Arius, Arianism”, Chalcedon, Council of,” “Ephesus, Council of,” “Nestorius/Nestorianism,” and “Nicaea, Council of,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 3rd (Baker Academic, 2017).
• Christopher A. Hall, Learning Theology with the Church Fathers (IVP Academic, 2002)
• Justin Holcomb, Know the Heretics (Zondervan, 2014)
• J. N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed. (HarperCollins, 1978)
• Richard A. Norris, ed. The Christological Controversy (Sources of Early Christian Thought) (Fortress Press, 1980)
• Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (University of Chicago Press, 1975)
• Robert Louis Wilken, The Spirit of Early Christian Thought: Seeking the Face of God (Yale University Press, 2005)

The Intercessory Work of Christ

AN ESSAY BY Robert Letham

DEFINITION

The intercession of Christ is efficacious. It is not like our prayers that are often of necessity uncertain and conditional. Rather, Christ blesses his church effectively as the characteristic feature of the time between his ascension and his return.

SUMMARY

Christ, having ascended to the right hand of the Father, blesses his church by his presence in heaven and by the Holy Spirit who he has sent. In this he sends us help when we need it, conveys the blessings of the covenant, and enables us to experience and enjoy union and communion with him.

----------------

The Ascension and Christ as Priest

Luke records Jesus’ parting words and gesture at his ascension. There at Bethany “lifting up his hands he blessed them. And as he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven.” (Luke 24:50-51). His final act was the priestly act of benediction (Num. 6:24). This priestly act is thus characteristic of his continuing ministry thereafter. In parting from them he blesses them. Being parted from them he blesses them and continues to do so. As the author of Hebrews states it Jesus, the Son of God has “passed through the heavens” and so is able to send us grace and help in time of need (Heb. 4:14-16). His continuing priestly ministry following his ascension is threefold: intercession, benediction and communion.

Intercession

First, it is important to understand what Christ’s intercession is not. He does not plead on our behalf before a reluctant Father: this would have, among other things, enormous consequences for the Trinity. Nor is it to be equated with the kinds of intercession we make here and now. When we pray there is an element of uncertainty; we ask God to heal x, but he may have determined that x die a slow and painful death. The ascended Christ’s intercession has no caveats. It is to be compared with the high priest in the Old Testament, who entered the holy of holies once a year, wearing the prescribed breastplate, containing twelve jewels representing the twelve tribes of Israel. In his representative capacity he was, so to speak, bringing the twelve tribes with him into the sanctuary of God. In an analogous way, Christ, having passed through the heavens, brings us his people with him into the presence of God, the right hand of the Father, and he does this since he himself not merely represents man but is man himself and continues to be so for ever. In his incarnation he, the Son of God, permanently united to himself our nature, our flesh and blood, and so carries it before the Father on a permanent, everlasting basis. As the Westminster Larger Catechism 55 puts it, his intercession is “his appearing in our nature continually before the Father in heaven.” The ascended Christ’s continuing intercession is his constant presence with the Father as man. Thus, in the words of Charitie Lees Bancroft, “When Satan tempts me to despair, and tells me of the wrong within, upwards I look and see him there, who made an end of all my sin.”[1]

Given that Christ’s intercession consists in the effective bestowal of the blessings of God’s covenant, we should see his prayers during his incarnate ministry in that light. Certainly, these were the prayers of one who was truly and fully man. He lived in dependence on his Father, sustained by the Holy Spirit, facing suffering, bereavement, the trials of living in a fallen world and all the frustrations and disappointments that go with it. That was foreshadowed in the Old Testament where the suffering servant of Isaiah, ultimately fulfilled in Jesus, expresses disappointment, even depression, at the apparent failure of his mission. He is reassured that God has appointed him for salvation not only of Israel but of the ends of the earth (Isa. 49:1-6). We can be sure that he remembers these human struggles and that it informs his continued work on our behalf.

Benediction

Secondly, the benediction characteristic of the ascended Jesus’ continuing ministry also differs from prayer. While intercessory prayer is the expression of a desire that this or that happen, if it be God’s will, a benediction is a declaration of a state of affairs that actually exists and a bestowing of the reality of that state of affairs on those to whom it belongs. There is none of the hesitation or uncertainty that there is with our own intercessions. We do not have access to the fine details of God’s eternal will. We cannot be sure whether this or that possibility is something he has planned. Sometimes we are unsure of the correctness of a particular course of action. In the case of the ascending and ascended Christ, this uncertainty is entirely absent, for as king he has ascended far above all heavens that he might fill all things (Eph. 4:8-10). Christ’s priestly benediction grants to his people all they need for salvation both in this life and in what follows; in it he guards, protects, and nourishes his church, governs the world and brings his sovereign judgments to bear on its inhabitants. This includes all entailed in the author of Hebrews’ description of him as our forerunner (Heb. 6:19-20), foreshadowed in John 14:1-3. He has gone before, we follow: we follow because he has gone before: in going before he brings us there by the Holy Spirit whom he has sent. Indeed, all that occurs consequent to the sending of the Spirit – his blessing of his church, his ministry to its members, his witness to the world – is entailed in this.

This is why Paul can say, in a celebrated passage, that God works all things together for the good of those that love him, who are the called according to his purpose (Rom. 8:28). This is because Christ has been raised from the dead, is at God’s right hand, is for us in every way so that no one can lay a charge against us (Rom. 8:29-34). While he may chastise us as he sees fit, he will do so for our good (Heb. 12:3-11) so that it is to be seen in the overarching context of his continuing ministry of benediction. This is the characteristic feature of his ascended rule as our great high priest.

Communion

Third, there is union and communion. Jesus refers to his ascension immediately after the bread of life discourse, which has often been associated with the Eucharist (John 6:47-58, 62).2 From this, and from the fact of communion with Christ in the Lord’s Supper – evident elsewhere in the New Testament beyond this one passage – it follows that the ascension and the Eucharist are closely linked. Calvin saw this clearly. Jesus is absent from us. Yet we feed on his body and drink his blood. How? Through the Spirit (John 6:63) who lifts us up to heaven. The Supper is to be observed from Christ’s ascension to his parousia – the precise time that he is at the right hand of the father, removed from our sphere but present by the Holy Spirit.

Similarly, the author of Hebrews writes that we have come now to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, to an innumerable company of angels, and to Jesus (Heb. 12:18-24). The bodily ascension of Jesus is the basis for our communion with him – according to both natures – through the Holy Spirit, who unites things separated by distance, as Calvin was fond of saying. The Eucharist is for the church until Christ’s parousia. It is coterminous with his ascended ministry. So long as he intercedes for us and blesses his church, so we feed on him in the Eucharist. It points to our destiny, union with God in Christ: the ascended Christ has sent the Spirit to unite us to him and thus to the Father. It is the ascension that makes room for this to occur. As Jesus said, “It is to your advantage that I go away” (John 16:7).

FOOTNOTES

1. From the hymn, “Before the Throne of God above.”
2. Robert Letham, The Lord’s Supper: Eternal Word in Broken Bread (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2001), 7–15.

FURTHER READING

• Wilhelmus a Brakel, “The Work of Christ’s Intercession Considered”
• John Flavel, “The Intercession of Christ Our High Priest”
• Robert Letham. The Work of Christ. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1993, 105-123, 155-157.
• H. Henry Meeter. The Heavenly High Priesthood of Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1916.
• Thomas F. Torrance. Theology in Reconciliation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975, 139-214.

The Ascension of Christ

AN ESSAY BY Robert Letham

DEFINITION

The ascension is a discrete element in the career of Christ the mediator. It marks his entry into supreme authority over the creation.

SUMMARY

The ascension marks the departure of Jesus from interaction with his disciples in this world and his entrance into the realm of God. In this, he is exalted to supreme authority over the whole creation in his mediatorial capacity as the incarnate Son of God.

----------------

Introduction

One recent writer has remarked that “the ascension is, I think, a subject richer and more instructive than is commonly recognized.”[1] A description of the event occurs in only two places in the New Testament, both written by Luke (Luke 24:50-51, Acts 1:6-11) but the New Testament refers to it in many places and it is also foreshadowed in the Old Testament.

The Old Testament Background to the Ascension

The psalms of enthronement (Psa. 24, 47, 68, 110) feature the installation of the Royal King, behind which lie the events in 2 Samuel 6 and 1 Chronicles 13-16, where David brings the ark of the covenant up to Jerusalem with shouts of joy. These psalms portray an ascent to royal sovereignty, the enthronement of Yahweh as King.

Earlier, Moses had repeatedly ascended Mount Sinai, on Yahweh’s invitation, to meet him in the clouds on behalf of the people (Exod. 19:3, 20, 24; 24:1-2, 9-11, 12-18; 32:30ff; 34:4). At the establishment of the Mosaic covenant Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel ascend Sinai (Exod. 24:9-10), see the God of Israel, and eat and drink.

Later, Elijah ends his ministry by ascension (2Kgs. 2:1-18) “into heaven,” where Yahweh dwells. He was no longer found, removed to the realm of God, a deeply mysterious event.

The Ascension in Luke-Acts

Luke 24:50-53

Luke concludes his first volume with these details: (i) Jesus lifts up his hands and blesses his disciples; (ii) while he blesses them he is parted from them; (iii) he is carried up into heaven. Benediction, parting, being taken up into heaven; these are the salient features.

Benediction is a priestly act, the last thing the apostles see Jesus doing. It defines his ongoing ministry. It signals that his effective blessing rests on his disciples.

The parting is decisive and differentiates this event from the resurrection appearances. This is an ongoing departure.

Jesus is passive; the Father takes him up to his right hand in heaven. Jesus, God incarnate, depended on the Holy Spirit and followed the Father’s will. The ascension mirrors the virginal conception (Luke 1:26-38); the Spirit takes the initiative.

Acts 1:9-11

From another angle, Luke pinpoints the ascension’s pivotal significance; as Farrow says, is “the hinge” upon which the two volumes turn.[2]

Jesus has taught the apostles of the imminent coming of the Spirit, and their task as his witnesses. After this Jesus is lifted up, and a cloud receives him, while he passes out of the apostles’ sight. During this sequence, they look on. He is taken up into heaven. Again, the Father takes him to be with himself, the seal of divine approval on all he has done.

There is a physical removal, a lifting up. The reference to the cloud receiving him is reminiscent of the Son of Man (Dan. 7:13-14), who comes “with the clouds of heaven” and to whom is given “dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him.” Jesus, in his ascension as the Son of Man, receives his kingdom which shall embrace “the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). The rest of Acts records how this process begins. Throughout Scripture clouds are associated with the glory of God (Luke 9:24-36; Rev. 1:7, cf. Acts 1:10-11; Exod. 13:21, 24:18; Isa. 19:1). His return will be in glory. His disappearance, concealed by a cloud, is his passing into the presence of God.

The disciples see this, taking us back to the ascension of Elijah (2Kgs. 2:1-14). There Elijah promises Elisha a double portion of his spirit – the portion of the first-born – if he sees Elijah taken up to heaven. And so he does (2Kgs. 2:11-12). Thereafter there are recorded twice as many miracles by Elisha. Here, the apostles – promised the Holy Spirit – see Jesus taken up by the Father to the glory of God in the cloud. They gaze intently; a few days later, the Spirit of Jesus is unleashed in power.

The Physics of the Ascension

On the one hand, the ascension is not to be reduced to the level of a primitive form of space-travel. Luke points us to Jesus’ removal from the immediate realm of human interaction to the presence and place of God. However, we must avoid the opposite danger of reading the event in an entirely spiritual manner. The physicality of the event is clear. The ascension affirms Jesus’ continuing humanity. Our human flesh is taken to the right hand of God, invested with the glory of God, received by the Father. That this event took place in our own time and space was necessary since what is at stake is the continuation of our humanity.

Consequently, the ascension bridges our present world and that of the age to come. It is a movement, in T.F. Torrance’s words, “from man’s place to God’s place.”[3] Jesus moved from regular interaction with his contemporaries to the place where God dwells, in the clouds of glory. It occurred in this world at a definite time and place but with extra dimensions to it. There is the departure but also the cloud, the severance of fellowship and the reception by the Father, and Jesus’ consequent absence until his parousia and his presence through the Spirit – there is absence and presence. It is a happening in this world that can be dated but it is also an event that occurs in the life of God and so has eternal significance

The Resurrection and the Ascension  

The ascension was not simply the last of Jesus’ resurrection appearances; it is qualitatively different. In the resurrection appearances Jesus suddenly disappears, later reappearing elsewhere. Here, his departure is a concealment while the apostles watch. Moreover, it is confirmed by the angels as a continuous absence. After the resurrection, he appears in recognizable form, with enhanced powers (John 20: 11-18, 21:1-14, Luke 24:13-35) but after his ascension he is transformed (Acts 9:1-19, Rev. 1:9-20), so suffused with glory as to be unbearable. The goal towards which Jesus is heading as man is the glory of God, the right hand of the Father. There is the connection with Pentecost, connecting between the present world and the new creation in Christ.

The Ascension and Reception by the Father

The ascension is a definitive parting, for an indefinite time, to be ended only at Jesus’ return. As Farrow states, it is “a real departure,” the link between our fallen world and the new creation.[4] Moreover, all Jesus did is done in union with us, his people. We were in him as he ascended to the right hand of the Father. We too are ascended in Christ; our life is hid with Christ in God (Col. 3:1-4). We are seated with him in heavenly places (Eph. 2:6-8), in the closest union and communion with Christ, reigning with him even as we suffer and struggle in our present condition.

The Ascension in the New Testament Beyond Luke-Acts

First, in John’s Gospel Jesus links his incarnation with the ascension (John 3:13, cf. 6:62). Later, Jesus reassures his disciples, “I go to prepare a place for you” (John 14:2-3). He says he is going to the one who sent him – the Father (John 16:5; cf. 20:17). The Spirit’s indwelling of the disciples will be the permanent indwelling of all three persons of the trinity (John 14:23). Earlier in John, Jesus refers to the gift of the Holy Spirit following his glorification (John 7:37-39).

Second, Peter refers to the ascension (1Pet. 3:18-22). If, as is probable, verses 19-21 are a parenthesis, we have a progression in Peter’s thought from the crucifixion (v. 18) to the resurrection (“made alive in [or by] the Spirit” v. 18) to the ascension (v. 22).

Third, Paul argues that the church is founded on the basis of Christ’s ascension (Eph. 4:8-10, citing Psalm 68). The ascended Christ has given gifts to his church, gifts of persons, including the apostles. In the hymnic citation in 1 Timothy 3:16, which refers to the incarnation, resurrection and the preaching of the apostles, comes the phrase “taken up in glory.”

Fourthly, the ascension is crucial in Hebrews. There are many implicit references besides explicit ones. Jesus is our great high priest “who has passed through the heavens” (Heb. 4:14-16), and so is able to help us in our time of need; he is our forerunner who has entered into “the inner place behind the curtain” (Heb. 6:19-20), from where he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him (Heb. 7:25-26). He has entered “once for all into the holy place” (Heb. 9:11-12), “into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf” (Heb. 9:24). He has sat down at the right hand of God (Heb. 10:12-13). These passages trace the journey of Jesus from the cross to the right hand of God via the ascension, portraying his passage into the holy of holies, the presence of God.

Christ’s Ascension and Our Present Life

The ascension marks the boundary between two closely related pairs of contrasts. First, there is the redemptive-historical contrast of two ages: the world in Adam, from the fall onwards, subject to sin, corruption, and death, an age that is passing away; and the world in Christ, from the incarnation, resurrection and ascension onwards, which is being renewed, and is marked by life, which will last for eternity. Second, this contrast is evident in relation to creation. The creation, as made by God, was good, made in Christ,[5] but it was affected by human sin and is described by Paul as currently in bondage. On the other hand, there is the new creation, from the resurrection and ascension, renewed in Christ and ultimately destined for his eternal rule.

The Ascension and Christ as King

Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God as near (Mark 1:15, Matt. 4:17). It was reminiscent of the visions of Daniel of a kingdom that would overthrow all human rulers and be established for ever (Dan. 2:31-45, 7:9-14). After his resurrection he taught the apostles about the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3). It represented the rule of God over the whole of human life.

In the rest of the New Testament this theme disappears. Instead, the apostles draw attention to Jesus Christ. The primary focus of the gospel is on the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (1Cor. 15:3). The kingdom is equated with the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:25-27), with the totality of apostolic teaching after the resurrection. The kingdom of God is embodied in the risen Christ who, upon his ascension, has been given plenipotentiary powers over the entire universe (Matt. 28:18-20, Rom. 1:3-4, Eph. 1:18-23, Phil. 2:9-11, Col. 1:15-20, Heb. 1:1-4, Rev. 1:5). The mediatorial kingdom of Christ comes into view as the fulfillment of what Jesus had proclaimed. “He must reign until he puts all his enemies under his feet” (1Cor. 15:20-25).

Barth expresses it well, in writing that Christ became wholly and utterly one with man,

not in an act of secret or even public condescension, like a king for a change donning a beggar’s rags and mingling with the crowd, but by belonging to them in every way, by being no more and no less than one of them, by having no point of reference except to them. He became one of them, not in order to renounce fellowship with them when the game was over, like the king exchanging again the beggar’s rags for his kingly robes, not in order to leave again the table where He had seated Himself with the publicans and sinners, and to find a better place, but in order to be one of them definitively as well as originally, unashamed to call them brethren to all eternity.[6]

From this, the incarnate Christ, “meek and lowly of heart” (Matt. 11:28-30), remaining man, is the one exalted in his ascension to the highest place as ruler of all things.

Paul writes that Jesus was highly exalted and given the supreme name of “Lord” (kurios, Phil. 2:9-11). It is not a case of a man being promoted to Godhood since he was eternally in the form of God and equal to God (v.6) and continued to be so in the days of his incarnate lowliness. Rather, as the incarnate one, nailed to the cross and now risen, he was exalted to be given the name “Lord.” At the ascension he is received by the Father and invested with sovereign, plenipotentiary authority. In that sense it is expedient that he left the disciples (John 14:1-4, 28, 16:7-15). The work of redemption will reach its culmination when Christ returns and hands over the kingdom to the Father (1Cor. 15:27-28). However, since he is one with the Father, his kingdom never ends.

The Cosmic Scope of Christ’s Kingship

Christ is heir to the cosmos (Col. 1:16). It was created in him, through him, and for him. He maintains it in being and directs it to its appointed goal. The reconciliation he achieved relates not only to the church but to the entire universe (Col. 1:19-20). This inheritance he received at his resurrection, his ascension to the Father effecting his enthronement as king. While as Son, he ruled inseparably with the Father and the Holy Spirit in the unity of the indivisible trinity, this was his investiture as king in his incarnational, mediatorial office.

In his ascension Christ publicly displays his conquest of his enemies, as in a triumphant victory procession (Eph. 4:8-10). Christ’s realm is universal. He has ascended far above the heavens and now fills all things. He has passed through his territory and has won the authority throughout his realm. From this, the cosmos will be liberated when Christ returns (Rom. 8:18-23). Meanwhile, he rules the new heavens and the new earth (Heb. 2:5-9)

The Corporate Nature of Christ’s Kingship

By his ascension Christ establishes the church, granting gifts to it for its preservation and advancement (Eph. 4:11f). All that he did and does is in union with us. We were in him in his ascension. We too have ascended to the right hand of the Father in Christ. We too sit with him in heavenly places. Christ is not king merely over a collection of disparate individuals but over his covenant people, of which individuals are a part.

FOOTNOTES

1. Douglas Farrow, Ascension and Ecclesia: On the Significance of the Doctrine of the Ascension for Ecclesiology and Cosmology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), x.
2. Farrow, Ascension and Ecclesia, 16.
3. Thomas F. Torrance, Space, Time and Resurrection (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 106–58.
4. Farrow, Ascension and Ecclesia, 39.
5. Athanasius, Incarnation, 1, 3, 12, 14; PG, 25:97–102, 115–22.
6. Barth, CD IV/4:58–59.

FURTHER READING

• Alistair Begg, “Ascension Sunday Address”
• Tim Chester and Jonny Woodrow, The Ascension: Humanity in the Presence of God
• Robert Godfrey, “Taken Up Into Heaven: The Ascension of Christ” (video)
• John MacArthur, “The Significance of the Ascension” (video)
• John MacArthur, “Why the Ascension Matters” (video)
• John MacArthur, “What the Ascension Accomplished” (video)
• Peter C. Orr, Exalted Above the Heavens: The Risen and Ascended Christ
• R. C. Sproul, “The Ascension of Jesus Christ” (video)
• Derek Thomas, Taken Up to Heaven
• Thomas F. Torrance. Space, Time and Resurrection. Eerdmans, 1976, 106–58.

The Resurrection of Christ and Salvation

AN ESSAY BY Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.

DEFINITION

Because of our union with Christ, we share in his justification; his resurrection-approved righteousness is reckoned as ours, imputed to us.

SUMMARY

This essay examines the relation of the resurrection of Christ to the salvation he provides. Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is the ground of the believer’s standing before God and of the hinge of transformed life.

---------------

Introduction

In making use of the Nicene Creed in our worship, we confess in part about the Lord Jesus Christ that he

for us and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

Together with the rest of the “one holy catholic and apostolic” church down through the centuries, we affirm what has achieved and continues to secure our salvation: the death, resurrection, ascension, and heavenly session of the incarnate Son, the eternal Son of God become man.

This confession prompts the question I want to consider here. How specifically is the resurrection “for our salvation”? What in particular is the saving efficacy, or “efficiency,” of the resurrection? Or, to ask the question negatively, without the resurrection, what would become of our salvation?

To the question of how Christ’s death is for our salvation, virtually every Christian will likely have a ready and heartfelt answer: he died that my sins might be forgiven, to bear in my place the eternal punishment my sin deserves. Most if not all believers grasp in some measure the saving truth of penal substitution, of Christ’s “once offering up of himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice, and reconcile us to God” (Westminster Shorter Catechism, 25). At the same time, however, it seems fair to say that in general Christians are not as clear about the answer to our question about the saving efficacy of the resurrection.

No Resurrection, No Salvation

It should be immediately apparent that the death of a dead Christ, a Christ who remains dead, achieves nothing for our salvation. Paul makes that clear in 1Cor 15. If Christ hasn’t been raised, then our faith is “futile” or “useless,” and we are “still in [our] sins” – entirely – and our situation all told is “most to be pitied” (vv. 17, 19). Minus the resurrection, death continues with unabated, invincible finality, and it does so as “the wages of sin” we so justly deserve (Rom 6:23).

Certainly without the death of Christ there is no salvation, but then neither is there any salvation without the resurrection. His resurrection, no less than his death, is at the heart of the gospel (Rom1:3-4; 1Cor 15:3-4). The resurrection is often viewed primarily as the awesome miracle that validates the truth of Christianity and the gospel. But it is more than such crowning evidence – much more.

Sin, Salvation, and the Resurrection

Salvation on its negative side is salvation from sin. All too evidently the destructive consequences of sin are virtually incalculable, its misery untold. At the same time, those innumerable consequences are basically twofold. First, sin affects our standing before God; it renders us guilty, liable to his just judgment and condemnation. Second, it affects our condition, in that it leaves us thoroughly corrupt and enslaved to Satan and sin as the power that dominates our lives. The depth of sin’s effects is such that, left to ourselves, apart from God’s saving grace, we are nothing less than “dead in … trespasses and sins” (Eph 2:1, 5). Sin leaves the sinner both inexcusably guilty and helplessly enslaved.

“But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more” (Rom 5:20; NKJV). As the effects of sin, in its abounding, are either one of two basic kinds, so too, in countering and alleviating these effects, grace – manifold, superabounding in its effects – is basically twofold. Grace is either judicial or renovative, reversing either our guilt-ridden standing before God or our corrupt, sin-enslaved condition. The role of the resurrection in bringing about that reversal can be seen here by focusing on justification and sanctification.

The Resurrection and Justification

For justification, a key text is Rom 4:25: Jesus “was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.” Earlier in Romans, Paul has said that Christ’s death was a propitiatory sacrifice, so that God might be “just and the justifier” of believers (3:25-26). Later he says that “we have now been justified by his blood” (5:9). In 4:25, however, justification is connected specifically with Christ’s resurrection in distinction from his sacrificial death.

How are we to understand that connection? On the basis of his life of obedience, culminating in his death as the representative sin-bearer and righteous substitute for sinners (Phil 2:8; Rom 3:25; 8:3; 2Cor 5:21), Christ’s resurrection is his own justification. This is so in the sense that the action of God in raising him from the dead – that enlivening act itself – vindicates him in his obedience and effectively demonstrates his righteousness. The resurrection, then, is a de facto declaration of his righteous standing before God. As an event, Christ’s resurrection “speaks,” and it does so judicially, in a legal manner.

First Timothy 3:16 confirms this. There Christ is described as “manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit” (NKJV). This almost certainly has in view the Holy Spirit’s action in raising Jesus from the dead (Rom 8:11). This response by the Spirit was justly warranted by the righteousness manifested in Jesus’ obedience “in the flesh,” that is, during his life on earth prior to the resurrection.

But the justification of Christ in his resurrection was not just for his own sake, apart from us; it was also for us, “for our justification.” Our justification flows from our union with him, by Spirit-worked faith, along with the other benefits of salvation manifested by that union (Westminster Larger Catechism, 69). Because of our union with him, then, we share in his justification; his resurrection-approved righteousness is reckoned as ours, imputed to us.

At the same time, this union preserves a key difference – a gospel difference – not to be missed. Christ’s justification, unlike ours, does not involve the imputation to him of the righteousness of another. Unlike us, he is declared righteous on the ground of his own lifelong, blood-bought righteousness.

Calvin has beautifully captured this reality:

Therefore, that joining together of Head and members, that indwelling of Christ in our hearts – in short, that mystical union – are accorded by us the highest degree of importance, so that Christ, having been made ours, makes us sharers with him in the gifts with which he has been endowed. We do not, therefore, contemplate him outside ourselves from afar in order that his righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into his body-in short, because he deigns to make us one with him. For this reason, we glory that we have fellowship of righteousness with him (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.11.10).

The Resurrection and Sanctification

How then is the resurrection essential for our sanctification – for the renovative side of salvation, for lives pleasing to God and marked by holiness? That question can be answered along a number of lines, including the one we will follow here.

Again, as with justification, union with Christ is crucial. We are united with him in his death and resurrection, signified and sealed to us in baptism, “in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (Rom 6:4). Here the resurrection of Christ is linked specifically with the newness that marks the Christian life. That newness surely has in view Christ’s life as resurrected, the resurrection life he shares with those who are united to him.

The source and quality of this life are further clarified in Romans 8:11: “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.” What God the Father did in raising Jesus from the dead he will also do for believers. The controlling thought here is the tie or unity that there is between the bodily resurrection of Christ and that of Christians.

The intrinsic nature of that unity is made most explicit in 1Cor 15:20, 23. There Christ is described as “the firstfruits” of the resurrection. To extend the metaphor as Paul surely intends, his resurrection and ours are the beginning and the end of one, single harvest.

Christ’s resurrection is, as is often said, the guarantee of ours, but we should appreciate that this is so because his resurrection is nothing less than “the actual beginning of this general epochal event” (Geerhardus Vos, Pauline Eschatology, p. 45).

As believers, we can be sure of our own resurrection, not only because God has decreed it and promised it (which would surely be enough for us!), but because he has done more: that decree has been realized, that promise has already been fulfilled, in history; the resurrection harvest in which believers will share bodily at the end of history, when Christ returns, has already begun. It has entered history and become visible in his resurrection.

The Resurrection, the Holy Spirit, and the Christian

Romans 8:11, as it highlights this resurrection unity, brings into view the activity of the Holy Spirit. God will resurrect us bodily, as he did Jesus, through the enlivening action of the Spirit. But more is said here than what will be true in the future. The Spirit of resurrection is the indwelling Spirit; he is already present in believers. This points us to a fundamental truth about the Christian life: life in the Spirit is sharing in the resurrection life of Christ.

That comes out clearly in the verses that immediately precede (vv. 9-10). Four combinations are present there: (1) “you … in the Spirit,” (2) “the Spirit … in you,” (3) to “belong to him [Christ]” – equivalent here to “you … in Christ,” and (4) “Christ … in you.” These expressions hardly intend to split the believer’s life into four different sectors; together they provide a unified, overall perspective on that life.

In this mutual indwelling, Christ and the Spirit are one. In their presence and activity, the Spirit is “the Spirit of Christ” (v. 9). There is no relationship, no union with Christ, that is not at the same time fellowship with the Spirit. There is no work of the Spirit in our lives that is not also the presence of Christ at work in us (see Eph. 3:16-17).

This inseparable bond between Christ and the Spirit does not begin with our experience; rather, it rests on what is first of all true in the experience of Christ. In 1Cor 15, we are told that Christ, the last Adam, as the “firstfruits” of the resurrection harvest, became the “life-giving Spirit” (v. 45). At his resurrection, he was not only glorified by being transformed in his human nature by the enlivening power of the Spirit. He also came into a possession of the Spirit that was so climactic, so unprecedented, so overflowing, that it is properly captured by calling him the “life-giving Spirit.”

Note that this in no way compromises the personal distinction between Christ and the Spirit. The eternal, essential distinction and equality between the second and third persons of the Trinity remain unchanged. But because of who Christ, in his human nature, has become in his state of exaltation, he and the Spirit are now one in their work of giving life. This life is nothing less than resurrection life in the Spirit. As we have seen, this is not only a future hope, but already a present reality for believers.

Of course, the bond between Christ and the Spirit did not begin at the resurrection. Christ was conceived by the Spirit (Luke 1:35), and the Spirit later descended on him at his baptism by John (Luke 3:21-22).

The difference, the momentous difference, is this: At his baptism, Christ received the Spirit as an endowment to carry out the messianic task before him, the task that ultimately led to the cross. But in his exaltation, in his resurrection leading to his ascension (Acts 2:32-33), he received the Spirit as the consummate reward for having completed that assigned kingdom task. And he does not keep this reward for “his own private use” (Calvin); the Spirit becomes the consummate gift that he shares permanently with his people at Pentecost.

So, Jesus Christ – the resurrected, life-giving Spirit – has promised us: “I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matt 28:20). He is with the church to stay, indwelling believers as he provides every spiritual blessing and resource that we need to carry out our church-building and kingdom-expanding task of discipling the nations. So, too, as the life-giving Spirit, he is present with us in a special, sacramental way when he invites us to commune with him at his table.

Even More Than That

How, then, was Christ resurrected “for us and for our salvation”? I have done little more here than to begin considering the answer. I have not yet taken note of what is as important as anything: Christ, “who died – more than that, who was raised,” intercedes for us at God’s right hand (Rom 8:33-34). And that intercession of Christ, resurrected and ascended, as gracious as it is hardly gratuitous, refutes any and every charge that would call into question the justification of God’s elect. Moreover, it insures, with an infallible efficacy, that “they can never fall from the state of justification” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 11.5).

Finally, consider Rom 8:29. God’s predestinating purpose for believers centers ultimately in their being “conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” This “image” is the Son’s as he is resurrected, specifically in his now-glorified human nature. He is “the firstborn among many brothers” only as he is “the firstborn from the dead” (Col 1:18).

Our privilege, great beyond our comprehension, is this: we have been chosen in Christ “before the foundation of the world” (Eph 1:4) to the ultimate end that we be like Christ. This conformity to his image, already being worked in us by the sanctifying power of the Spirit (2Cor 3:18; Gal 4:19), will be fully realized when, like him, we are raised bodily.

But there is more to this than what is ultimate for us. Even more ultimate in God’s predestinating purposes is what is at stake for the Son personally in our salvation, what he has invested for himself. This, as much as anything, is why from all eternity the Son willed, together with the Father and the Spirit, to become incarnate, to suffer and die. He did so, so that, having been resurrected triumphant over sin and death, he might have brothers like himself – brothers glorified not because of anything in themselves, but entirely because of his saving mercy. They will share with him in this triumph and magnify forever his own preeminent exaltation glory. And so his “kingdom shall have no end.”

Surely there can be no more ultimate perspective on Christ’s resurrection “for us and for our salvation” than this.

Note: This essay first appeared in New Horizons, April, 2017, under the title, “For Us and For Our Salvation.” Used here with permission. 

FURTHER READING

• Sinclair Ferguson, The Holy Spirit
• Richard Gaffin, By Faith and Not By Sight
• Richard Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption
• Scott Swain, “‘Saved By His Life’: Reflections on Jesus’ Resurrection”
• Geerhardus Vos, Pauline Eschatology

The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus

AN ESSAY BY Benjamin C. F. Shaw

DEFINITION

The claim of the bodily resurrection of Jesus is central to the Christian message as the cornerstone of all claims to divinity and salvific efficacy, and although it has been hotly contested by those with naturalist presuppositions, the historical data supports the Christian claim of the resurrection.

SUMMARY

The claim of Jesus’s bodily resurrection is central to the gospel message. Without his bodily resurrection, Jesus’s claims to divinity would be empty, and the gospel’s claim to be the power of God for salvation would be false. Although many with naturalistic presuppositions have questioned the legitimacy of the claim of resurrection, six facts support the credibility of the historical claim. First, death by crucifixion was not something that the followers of Jesus were likely to invent. Second, burial account fits with all historical evidence that we have. Third, the claim of the empty tomb was easily verifiable, but there are no contradictory accounts. Fourth,  the apostles claim to have met the resurrected Jesus face-to-face. Fifth, these apostles were willing to suffer and die for these claims. Sixth, those who were very unlikely to be converted to this belief were, nonetheless, converted by means of personal experiences of the resurrected Christ.

--------------

Jesus’s resurrection is “of first importance” for the Gospel message (1 Cor. 15:1–3). Through this event, Christians are justified before God (Rom. 4:25) and are able to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4; 2 Cor. 5:15; Eph. 2:1–10; Col. 3:1). Additionally, the same power that raised Jesus from the dead will also raise believers (Rom. 6:5, 8:11; 1 Cor. 6:14; 2 Cor. 4:14; Phil. 3:20–21; 1 Thess. 4:13–14). But without the resurrection, we are still in our sins, have lied about God, have a worthless faith, and are most to be pitied (1 Cor. 15:12–19, 32–34).

Given its centrality to the Christian message, it should not come as a surprise that Jesus’s resurrection is also found throughout the sermons in Acts (2–5, 10, 13, 17). In these sermons, the apostles would point out that they were witnesses to the resurrected Jesus (2:32, 3:15). Paul refers to the resurrection as the proof that a day has been fixed when man will be judged (17:31, cf. 10:42) and those who believe and follow after Jesus receive forgiveness of sins (10:43, 13:38).

We can see, then, why Jesus’s resurrection is so vital for believers and that several important conclusions follow from it. The resurrection provides immense hope, comfort, peace, and joy. Since all this is of such importance, it is necessary for believers to keep in mind the evidences for their belief in the resurrection so that they may be prepared to give a reason for the hope that they have when asked (1 Pet. 3:15). Situations where we may be asked to give such an account could arise in the context of evangelizing (Acts 17:18–20, 32–34) or in the midst of personal pain or suffering (1Thess. 4:13–14; 1 Pet. 1:3–9).

Below we will present six facts that not only support Jesus’ resurrection but also argue strongly against naturalistic theories. Additionally, each of these six facts are supported by multiple historical criteria.

1. Jesus’s Death by Crucifixion

This is attested to by several sources throughout the NT as well as non-Christian sources (Josephus, Tacitus, et al.) and Christian sources outside of the NT (Clement of Rome, Ignatius, et al). When there are multiple independent sources that attest to an event, historians believe that this increases the likelihood that the event has occurred. Thus, these multiple independent sources that report Jesus’s death by crucifixion adds to its greater probability.

The event is embarrassing and not something that the earliest disciples would likely have invented. For the Jews, one who was crucified was considered be under a curse (Deut. 21:22–23; Gal. 3:13). The Romans too would have seen the cross as a “folly” since it was considered a punishment reserved for slaves (1 Cor. 2:3).

It is to be expected that those who wished Jesus executed would have made sure it was completed. Indeed, a final death-blow was administered to ensure Jesus was actually dead (John 19:33–34).

2. Burial

There are multiple sources reporting Jesus’s burial. The earliest tradition comes from a creed that Paul recounts in 1 Corinthians 15:4, which many scholars have dated to the early 30s AD. In addition to Paul, it is reported in each of the Gospels as well as in Acts.

Importantly, the only positive evidence we have regarding Jesus’ burial is unanimous that Jesus was, in fact, buried. No competing burial accounts exist. Additionally, archeology provides evidence that crucified victims received a proper burial. In 1968, a crucifixion victim named Yehohanan was found in an ossuary (housed the bones of the deceased) that has been dated to the 30s AD, the exact same decade Jesus was crucified and buried.

3. Empty Tomb

The empty tomb, like the burial, is reported in all four Gospels. It is assumed in the creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff. as well as the sermon in Acts 2:22–32 (cf. Luke 24:1–12). The opponents of Jesus inadvertently acknowledge that the tomb was empty when they claim that the disciples stole Jesus’s body (Matt. 28:11–15). This claim seeks to explain why the tomb was empty rather than denying that it was actually empty.

The early message of the resurrection was proclaimed in Jerusalem, thus making the earliest apostles’s claim easily verifiable since the tomb was in that very city. Since it was proclaimed in Jerusalem, anyone who was interested could have gone and investigated the tomb themselves.

4. Apostles had Experiences they Believed to be of the Risen Jesus

The earliest list of appearances is found in 1 Corinthians 15:5–8. Appearances are listed to both individuals (Peter, James, and Paul) as well as groups (the twelve, five hundred, all the apostles). The creed itself is believed by many to have been “received” by Paul (15:1, 3) during his trip to Jerusalem just three years after his conversion (Gal. 1:18–19). Interestingly, the two people he met during this trip were Peter and James, the Lord’s brother (the same two individuals mentioned in the creed). Yet, if they gave it to Paul at this meeting, then they must have had it prior. Thus, many scholars date this creed to the early 30s AD, shortly after Jesus’ crucifixion (around 30 AD).

Although Paul’s list is generally regarded as the earliest, the sermons in Acts that report the Peter and others as being witnesses is also early (Acts 2:32, 3:15). Of course, appearances are also reported in Matthew, Luke, and John (as well as non-canonical material). Importantly, in the early creed, there are three group appearances mentioned. Group appearances are also reported in other sources (Matt. 28:16–20; Luke 24:13–49; John 20:19–24; Acts 2:32). The group appearances are important because they argue very strongly against the possibility of hallucinations.

5. Willing to Suffer

While many have died for something they believed to be true (including Christians today), the earliest Christians were willing to suffer and die for what they knew to be true. Thus, the willingness of the earliest Christians to suffer and die for their beliefs highlights their sincerity in a way unique to them since they knew what they were willing to suffer for was either true or false (in contrast to Christian martyrs today who may base their beliefs off the claims of the apostles).

Paul provides firsthand accounts of his willingness to suffering. Most notably he provides a list of the hardships he had personally endured in 2 Corinthians 11:23–29, which includes being flogged five times. Additionally, Christian (Clement of Rome) and non-Christian sources (Josephus) provide early reports regarding the deaths of Peter, Paul, and James the brother of Jesus.

6. Conversion of Non-Believers (Paul and James)

In addition to the accounts in Act 9, 22, and 26, Paul provides his own account of his conversion from being a persecutor of the church to a follower of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:8–10; Gal. 1:12–16; Phil. 3:6–7; 1Tim. 1:12–17). James, the brother of the Lord, was considered a skeptic during Jesus ministry (Mark 3:21; 6:2–4, 6; John 7:5). He, however, then became the leader of the early church (Acts 15:13ff.) and was a “pillar” of the church that Paul met with while on his trips to Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18–19; 2:9). Paul also specifically identifies James as having seen the risen Lord (1 Cor. 15:7; Acts 1:14).

These six facts are well-attested historically, and naturalistic theories have been unable to account for them. For example, take the claim noted above that the disciples stole the body. First, they were willing to suffer and die for this belief. Liars promote lies in order to make their lives more comfortable but not to encounter greater suffering. Second, if the disciples stole the body it would not explain the conversion of Paul or James. Prior to his conversion, Paul might have initially thought the disciples did steal the body! Yet, for Paul it was the encounter with Jesus that converted him.

The hallucination theory is another example of how naturalistic theories are challenged by these facts. As noted above, there are multiple group appearances which strongly argue against the hallucination theory. Additionally, Paul would not have been likely to hallucinate as a persecutor of the church. Lastly, the tomb would not have been empty if the disciples had hallucinated. The disciple’s friends and family or the authorities themselves would have pointed out that the body was still in the tomb! Yet this did not happen. Thus, we see again how these few facts can argue against naturalistic theories.

We have only been able to present a concise overview of the evidences for each of these six facts surrounding Jesus’s resurrection. Since the NT is a collection of writings, each author provides his own specific details. The NT highlights the centrality of the resurrection for Christianity. Importantly, the evidences can assist believers in sharing the Gospel by keeping the central focus on Jesus and the resurrection. Additionally, the resurrection is the grounding for the transformation of believers to put to death the deeds of the flesh and walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4). Believers can also remind themselves during times of doubt or suffering of the fact of the resurrection and what follows from it (1 Pet. 3:9). The resurrection of Jesus, then, is an event which is central to Christian teachings and practice that is also well evidenced.

FURTHER READING

Resources from Gary Habermas:

• Benjamin C. F. Shaw and Gary Habermas, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ as Christianity’s Centerpiece”
• Gary Habermas, com (several free resources)
• Gary Habermas, Future Jesus, Risen Hope
• Gary Habermas, Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ
• Gary Habermas, “Job and Me” in Forever Loved: A Personal Account of Grief and Resurrection
• Gary Habermas, The Thomas Factor: Using Your Doubts to Draw Closer to God
• Gary Habermas, The Uniqueness of Jesus Christ Among the Major World Religions
• Gary Habermas and Mike Licona, The Case for the Resurrection

Historically Focused:

• Benjamin C. F. Shaw, “Jesus’ Resurrection: A Historical Inquiry”
• Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Historiographical Approach
• N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God
• William Lane Craig, The Son Rises
• William Lane Craig, Video: Facts Surrounding the Resurrection
• William Lane Craig, Video: Explanation of the Facts

Ministry and Application Resources:

• Anthony C. Thornhill, “The Resurrection of Jesus and Spiritual (Trans)Formation
• Eugene Peterson, Living the Resurrection”
• N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church
• N. T. Wright, Evil and the Justice of God
• Ross Clifford and Philip Johnson, The Cross is not Enough: Living as Witnesses to the Resurrection

Christ’s Descent to the Dead

AN ESSAY BY Matt Emerson

DEFINITION

The doctrine of Christ’s descent to the dead holds that after Christ’s death, his body remained in the grave and his soul remained in the place of the (righteous) dead, until his resurrection, not suffering but proclaiming the victory achieved by his penal substitutionary death to all those in the place of the dead. This did not extend the offer of salvation to those who had already died, but it was a sign of hope to the righteous and a sign of judgment to the unrighteous.

SUMMARY

The doctrine of Christ’s descent to the dead is that Christ, in remaining dead for three days, experienced death as all humans do: his body remained in the grave, and his soul remained in the place of the (righteous) dead. He did not suffer there, but, remaining hypostatically united to the divine nature of the Son, proclaimed the victory achieved by his penal substitutionary death to all those in the place of the dead—fallen angels, the unrighteous dead, and the OT saints. This doctrine should be held because it has both biblical and historic support, although the doctrine was called into question by some during the Reformation. This doctrine allows us to further identify with our incarnated and empathetic Lord, lends additional meaning to the waters of baptism, and helps to remind believers that Christ is now ruling and reigning, holding the keys to death and Hades himself.

---------------

The doctrine of Christ’s “descent” is confessed in the Apostles’s and Athanasian Creeds and celebrated by Eastern and Roman Catholic churches, but evangelical churches rarely give it much attention. Indeed, where the Apostles’s Creed is recited at all, many evangelicals just leave out the clause, “he descended into hell/the dead.” So just what is this doctrine?

Biblically and historically, the descent means the following:

“Christ, in remaining dead for three days, experienced death as all humans do: his body remained in the grave, and his soul remained in the place of the (righteous) dead. He did not suffer there, but, remaining hypostatically united to the divine nature of the Son, proclaimed the victory achieved by his penal substitutionary death to all those in the place of the dead—fallen angels, the unrighteous dead, and the OT saints. Christ’s descent is thus primarily the beginning of his exaltation, not a continuation of his humiliation.”

Christ’s presence necessarily changes the nature of Paradise, from one of expectation for the coming Messiah to the reality that he is present, which is why the early church describes the descent as “release” from Hell (particularly and only for those in the righteous compartment; see below). Finally, the descent is not an opportunity for post-mortem salvation; Christ’s declaration of victory is good news for those who awaited his coming and a sign of judgment for those who rebelled against him. (For the above definition, see Matthew Y. Emerson, “He Descended to the Dead”: An Evangelical Theology of Holy Saturday.)

Biblical Support

The first point we need to make in considering an evangelical theology of Christ’s descent is that it has biblical support. The core belief regarding the doctrine is that Jesus died a truly human death, which, for the biblical authors, meant that his human body was buried and his human soul departed to the place of the dead. In Second Temple Judaism, the common (though not universal) belief about the afterlife was that there is an intermediate state in which all the souls of deceased persons dwell, albeit in different compartments. This common “place of the dead” was referred to as Sheol or Hades, and it was believed to be divided into at least three parts: Abraham’s Bosom (Luke 16:19–31), or Paradise (Luke 23:43), for the righteous dead; Gehenna, or in some instances Sheol or Hades, for the unrighteous dead (again, e.g., Luke 16:19–31); and Tartarus, for the imprisoned rebellious angels or spirits (1 Pet. 3:19; 2 Pet. 2; Jude 6). These compartments were seen as holding places until the general resurrection of the dead, at which the temporary judgment placed upon its inhabitants would become final and eternal (e.g. Rev. 20:11–15). The descent teaches that, between his death and resurrection, Jesus’s human soul continued consciously to exist in this intermediate state, specifically in Paradise or Abraham’s Bosom, the righteous compartment of the dead. This view of the intermediate state and Jesus’ existence in it between his death and resurrection is reflected in texts like Matthew 12:40, Luke 23:43, Acts 2:27–31, and Romans 10:7.

But Jesus didn’t just experience the intermediate state between his death and resurrection; he gained and proclaimed victory over its master, Death, and transformed Paradise. This victory and transformation are by virtue of his penal substitutionary death and his unique nature as the God-Man. First, Jesus gains victory over death by experiencing it on our behalf. In Revelation 1:18, Jesus says, “I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.” Because he is both the completely righteous Messiah and also God in the flesh, when he enters the place of the dead, he does so as the one that Death cannot hold. His words indicate that he is now in possession of the keys to the realms of Death and Hades, having taken them from their masters in his descent.

Having achieved victory, Jesus also proclaims victory over Death and Hades and their occupants in his descent. First Peter 3:19 tells us that between his death and resurrection Jesus “proclaimed to the spirits in prison.” This proclamation (from kerusso) is not a post-mortem gospel sermon in which the dead are given the opportunity to repent and believe. Instead, it is a declaration of Christ’s victory, which has already been won in his penal substitutionary death and which will be vindicated and made known in his impending resurrection from the dead and ascension into heaven. Jesus thus proclaims to all the inhabitants of the dead that he is Lord over those “under the earth” (Phil. 2:10), just as he will declare himself to be Lord over those on the earth in his resurrection and over those in heaven in his ascension.

Finally, the very presence of Jesus transforms the nature of Paradise, from expectation to reality. Those Old Testament saints who sat waiting in the darkness of death for the coming Messiah in whom they trusted in life now see by sight what they formerly only saw by faith. Jesus is with them and soon he will be raised as a sign of their coming resurrection from the dead. And when he is raised on the third day, he will lead “a host of captives” (Eph. 4:9) those who were formerly captive to Death but now by virtue of their faith in the Messiah who has defeated death are in his resurrected presence until they, too, are raised on the last day.

Historical Importance and Creedal Inclusion

This basic threefold importance of Christ’s descent—solidarity in experiencing death as all humans do, proclaiming victory to all the dead, and releasing the OT saints—was virtually ubiquitous in the early church from the second century onward. From Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian to Augustine, Ephrem the Syrian, and Maximus the Confessor, early Christians wholeheartedly, clearly, and repeatedly affirmed the view of the descent described above. It was confessed in the Apostles’s and Athanasian Creeds in the clause descendit ad inferos, which translates to “he descended to the dead.” There is some contemporary confusion here, as many English versions of the Apostles’s Creed read “he descended into Hell,” which comes from a synonymous Latin phrase, descendit ad inferna. What we must understand is that these two phrases in early Medieval Latin would have been synonymous. Inferna, from which we get our English word “infernal” and which today indicates torment, would have simply meant “place of the dead” at the time of its inclusion in the Apostles’s Creed, and it was synonymous with inferos. The Creeds did not mean by descendit ad inferna that Jesus went to Hell, if by Hell we mean “place of torment”; rather, they meant what we said above, that Jesus’s human soul resided in the place of the dead, and specifically the righteous compartment, between his death and resurrection.

There is also some debate over when the descent clause was included in the Apostles’ Creed, with some claiming that it was not included until the seventh century (see Wayne Grudem, “He Did Not Descend into Hell: A Plea for Following Scripture Instead of the Apostles’ Creed). What we now know, however, is that while the phrase descendit ad inferna/inferos does indeed appear only on some occasions in the Apostles’s Creed between its initial appearance and the seventh century, the actual content of the clause was viewed as included in the phrase “he was buried” even when the clause itself was not included in the Creed. As Mike Bird puts it, “The reason for the elasticity of wording is that a burial implies a descent, and the descent presupposes a burial” (Michael F. Bird, What Christians Believe: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine Through the Apostles’ Creed, 148). Where the clause does appear, it is most likely in opposition to Apollinarianism. This heresy states that the divine Logos only assumed a human body, not a human soul (according to this heretical belief the Logos himself is the mind of Christ). The descent clause, which demands a human soul that resides in the place of the dead during the period between Christ’s death and resurrection, would have been the perfect way to combat Apollinarianism’s denial that Christ has a human soul.

During the Medieval period, and particularly after the seventh century, the descent doctrine takes on additional meaning in both the Eastern and Roman churches. In Eastern Orthodoxy, the descent is increasingly associated with an implicit universalism, while in Roman Catholicism the descent becomes the ground to establish both Purgatory and an opportunity for post-mortem salvation for those in Hades prior to Christ’s arrival. At the time of the Reformation, both Calvin and Luther wanted to depart from these unbiblical appendages to the descent doctrine, but they approached theological reform in different ways. Luther essentially affirmed the early Christian doctrine while rejecting the Roman developments related to Purgatory and a post-mortem offer, whereas Calvin reinvented the doctrine in a novel way entirely, claiming that the clause teaches that Jesus at his crucifixion bore the weight of God’s wrath on behalf of sinners. Another Reformer, Martin Bucer, viewed the descent clause as redundant with “he was buried,” where the latter simply meant that Jesus’s human body was buried. This, too, was a novel idea in the 16th century. One final development of the doctrine comes from Hans Urs von Balthasar, who attempted to combine Calvin’s view (via Barth), the Eastern view, and his own Roman Catholicism by positing that the Son experiences separation from the Father on Saturday in Hell and in doing so abolishes Hell and establishes Purgatory.

These six developmental streams—Eastern, Roman, Calvinist, Lutheran, Bucerian, and Balthasarian—continue today. For evangelicals, the most likely positions taken are either Bucer’s or Calvin’s, although Balthasar’s position is popular among those who wish to connect Jesus’s Passion with the psychological experiences of abandonment, loneliness, and the like. Luther’s view seems closest to Scripture.

Pastoral Implications

One of the most important pastoral implications of the descent is that Jesus really, truly died as all humans do. He walked through the valley of the shadow of death before us and for us to rescue those of us who trust in him from it. When Christians are bereaved of believing loved ones, we proclaim the hope that we will see our deceased loved ones again at the resurrection of the dead. That ultimate hope is accompanied, though, by a more immediate one, namely that Christ has gone before our loved ones into the place of death and shines the light of his resurrection there now.

Moreover, Jesus has transformed Paradise from a place of expectation to reality—Jesus is really, truly bodily present with departed saints until his return and their resurrection from the dead. Believers who die do not descend into nothingness and are not alone until Christ returns. Christ is present with them in Paradise, now known as “the third heaven” (2 Cor. 12:1–10). And his bodily presence in heaven reminds departed saints that they will one day, too, be raised from the dead, and heaven will descend to the new earth, the Paradise of God where believers dwell bodily forever with their king.

A third reason the descent is pastorally important is because it is connected to baptism. The early church viewed Jesus’s descent to the dead as the third and final of three descents in the mission of the Son: the first was the descent into the waters of Mary’s womb, the second was his descent into the waters of the Jordan at his baptism, and the third and final descent is his descent into the waters of Sheol, the place of the dead. In these descents, and ultimately through the whole work of Christ, the enemy is defeated. Because chaos waters are so often associated with God’s enemies in the Bible, these aquatically-portrayed descents are important pictures for the victory Christ achieves through his life and work, and particularly his death and resurrection. When new believers enter into the waters of baptism, they are proclaiming that they have renounced Satan and his works and participate in the victory Christ has won for them through union with him by the power of his Holy Spirit.

A final pastoral implication is that, even while death and destruction still wreak havoc in our world, they no longer have the keys to their kingdoms. Jesus holds the keys to Death and Hades. One day, they will be no more as they are thrown into the Lake of Fire along with the rest of Christ’s enemies. Jesus’s descent, and ultimately his resurrection and ascension, bring the victory bought at the cross to reality in all three realms of creation. We therefore have nothing to fear, “neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation” (Rom. 8:38–39).

Jesus’s descent to the dead is good news!

FURTHER READING

Blogs

• Joe Rigney, “He Sang in the Belly of the Earth: Holy Saturday in Hades.”
• Matthew Emerson, “Christ’s Descent to the Dead: Four Myths.”
• Matthew Emerson, “Death Has Been Swallowed Up by Death.”
• Matthew Emerson, “The Good News of Holy Saturday.”
• Matthew Emerson, “He Descended to the Dead.”
• Matthew Emerson, “Old Testament Echoes of Holy Saturday.”
• Matthew Emerson, “Why Holy Saturday Matters.”
• Patrick Schreiner, “Jesus’s Descent in Ephesians 4.”

Articles and Essays

• Charles E. Hill, “‘He Descended into Hell’”
• Donald Bloesch “Descent into Hell (Hades),” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.
• Jeffery Hamm, “Descendit: Delete or Declare? A Defense Against the Neo-Deletionists”
• Justin Bass, “Paradise,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary.
• Matthew Emerson “‘He Descended to the Dead’: The Burial of Christ and the Eschatological Character of the Atonement”
• Matthew Emerson, “‘The One Who Trampled Hades Underfoot’: A Comparative Analysis of Christ’s Descent to the Dead and Trinitarian Relations in Second Century Christian Texts and Hans Urs von Balthasar.”
• Matthew Emerson, “Mapping Anthropological Metaphysics with a Descensus Key: How Christ’s Descent to the Dead Informs the Body-Mind Conversation,” in The Christian Doctrine of Humanity: Explorations in Constructive Dogmatics.
• Wayne Grudem, “He Did Not Descend into Hell: A Plea for Following Scripture Instead of the Apostles’ Creed.

Books

• Justin Bass, The Battle for the Keys: Revelation 1:18 and Christ’s Descent into the Underworld
• Matthew Emerson, “He Descended to the Dead”: An Evangelical Theology of Holy Saturday