The Person and Work of Christ, Part XVI: Christ in His Resurrection

By John F. Walvoord

The resurrection of Christ essential to all His work. Just as the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ was a proof of His deity and Lordship, so also was His resurrection an indispensable evidence of the efficacious value of His death on the cross. Here again, one is faced with the absolute question of whether Christ is all He claims to be. If He did not rise from the dead, then He is not the Son of God; and it follows that His death on the cross is the death of an ordinary man and of no value to others. If, on the other hand, Christ actually rose from the dead, it not only demonstrates that He is indeed all He claims to be but that His work has the value set forth in the Scriptures, namely, a substitutionary sacrifice on behalf of the sins of the whole world.

It is for this reason that so frequently in Scripture the resurrection of Christ is linked with His work on the cross, as in Romans 4:25 where it states not only that Christ “was delivered up for our trespasses” but that He was “raised for [with a view to] our justification.” In like manner, the resurrection of Christ is linked to real faith in Him as in Romans 10:9: “Because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thine heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” The resurrection of Christ and His substitutionary death are twin doctrines which stand or fall together.

As James Orr expressed it: “It seems evident that, if Christ died for men—in Atonement for their sins—it could not be that He should remain permanently in the state of death. That, had it been possible, would have been the frustration of the very end of His dying, for if He remained Himself a prey to death, how could He redeem others?”[1] It is significant that those who deny the bodily resurrection of Christ always also deny His substitutionary sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.

The resurrection of Christ has not only a backward look toward the cross demonstrating the power of God in salvation, but it is also the doorway to His present work in heaven. One of the important reasons for the resurrection of Christ was the necessity of a victory such as His resurrection as a prelude to His work in heaven.

Orr states, “The Resurrection of Jesus is everywhere viewed as the commencement of His Exaltation. Resurrection, Ascension, Exaltation to the throne of universal dominion go together as parts of the same transaction.”[2]

At least a dozen important aspects of His present ministry were contingent upon the fact of His resurrection.

1. Sending the Holy Spirit. The promise of Christ that He would send the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7) was contingent upon His resurrection and His return to glory. The Holy Spirit was sent to continue the ministry of Christ which was, in a sense, suspended when He returned to heaven. As Christ expressed it in John 16:7: “Nevertheless I tell you the truth: It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I go, I will send him unto you.” The major feature of the present age, namely, the ministry of the Spirit, is therefore dependent upon the validity of Christ’s resurrection from the grave and His return to glory as the triumphant, resurrected Savior.

2. Bestowing eternal life. Through the Spirit whom Christ sent to the earth, He is able to bestow eternal life on all those who put their trust in Him (John 11:25; 12:24–25). If Christ did not literally rise from the dead, God’s program of giving life for spiritual death through faith in Jesus Christ would become invalid. He is able to bestow eternal life in virtue of who He is and of what He has done in His death and resurrection.

3. Head of the church and the new creation. In His resurrection from the dead, Christ also became head of the new creation as well as head of the church. This is stated in Ephesians 1:20–23, where the power of God is manifested: “When he raised him from the dead, and made him to sit at his right hand and in the heavenly places, far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and he put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.”

As the head of the new creation, He is able to form the church as His body and give it eternal life. According to 1 Corinthians 15:45, “The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.” In a similar manner, according to 1 Peter 2:4–5, Christ comes as “a living stone” with the result that believers “as living stones are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” This power to form the church is further amplified in 1 Peter 2:9: “But ye are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.”

This present undertaking of God like all other aspects of His present work depends upon the validity of His resurrection and is essential to His present exalted work. Milligan writes: “Thus, then, it appears that the Resurrection of our Lord brings His work to its first stage of completion; for it perfects the different offices by which the work is accomplished. It is an essential part of the work which He left the mansions of His Father’s glory to perform. If He did not rise from the dead and return to the Father, He is neither Priest, Prophet, or King, in the full sense of any of these terms.”[3]

4. The work of Christ as Advocate. The present ministry of Christ in heaven as the Advocate of the believer (1 John 2:1) depends likewise upon His person and His work and is valid only because Christ is who He is and that He died on the cross for our sins and rose in triumph from the grave. It is because “we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” His work as Advocate in turn depends on the fact that “he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world” (1 John 2:2).

5. The work of Christ in intercession. The resurrection of Christ is specifically linked with His work in intercession in which Christ presents His petitions on behalf of weak and tempted Christians and intercedes for them before the throne of grace. According to Hebrews 7:25, this ministry is dependent on His resurrection: “Wherefore also he is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God through him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” His resurrection is necessary to His perpetual intercession.

6. The bestowal of gifts. According to Ephesians 4:11–13, Christ gives gifted men to the church such as apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. His work in thus bestowing gifted men upon the church is, however, dependent on the fact revealed in the preceding verses that “when He ascended on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men (Eph 4:8). Now that He has “ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things” (Eph 4:10), an act, of course, which depended upon His resurrection, He is able to be sovereign in His bestowal of gifts and gifted men.

7. Impartation of spiritual power. Just as the deliverance of Israel from Egypt was God’s divine standard of power in the Old Testament, so the resurrection of Christ from the dead is a divine standard of power in the New Testament, especially in relationship to His work for the church. It was because of who He was and what He was able to do that He could say in Matthew 28:18, “All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.” This standard of power is described especially in Ephesians 1:17–23 where the apostle expresses his prayer that the Ephesian Christians might “know what is…the exceeding greatness of his power to usward who believe, according to that working of the strength of his might which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and made him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places” (Eph 1:19–21). It was in virtue of His resurrection that He was able to send the Spirit who would be the channel through which the power would come according to Christ’s own prediction in Acts 1:8: “But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” It is as the Christian enters into the reality that he is in the risen Christ and a partaker of Christ’s victory over death that he is able to realize the divine power of God in his spiritual life.

8. The raising of believers to a new position in Christ. It is in keeping with Christ’s present work for believers that they are raised to a new position in Christ. According to Ephesians 2:5–6: “Even when we were dead through our trespasses, [God] made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved), and raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus.” It is in virtue of the resurrection of Christ that the believer can now be triumphant in his new position, no longer being dead in trespasses and sins in Adam, but raised in newness of life in Christ Jesus.

9. Christ in His resurrection, the first fruits from among the dead. In His resurrection from the dead, Christ fulfills the Old Testament anticipation in the feast of the first fruits in that He is the first to be raised from the dead in anticipation of the future resurrection of all believers, as stated in 1 Corinthians 15:20–23: “But now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of them that are asleep. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ’s, at his coming.” The resurrection of Christ, therefore, is the historical proof substantiating the hope of the believer that he too will be raised from the dead, in keeping with the prediction of Philippians 3:20–21.

10. Christ is now preparing a place. In the upper room, Christ told His disciples, “In my Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I come again, and will receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also” (John 14:2–3). An important aspect of the present work of Christ stemming from His resurrection is that Christ is anticipating future rapture and resurrection of the church and is preparing a place for His bride in heaven. Here again, His present work would be meaningless unless it was supported by a literal resurrection from the dead.

11. His universal Lordship over all creation. In Ephesians 1:20–21, it is brought out that Christ not only became Head over the church in virtue of His resurrection and ascension, but has resumed His position of Lord over all creation. Such would be impossible if He had not been literally raised from the dead as the One who had power to lay down His life and take it again.

12. Shepherd of the flock. In His death on the cross, Christ fulfilled the anticipation of Psalm 22 that He would die as the Good Shepherd for His sheep. In His present ministry, however, Christ fulfilled what is anticipated in Psalm 23 as the Great Shepherd who cares for His sheep. His present ministry is anticipated in a number of passages in the New Testament (John 10:14; Heb 13:20; 1 Pet 2:25). Yet to be fulfilled after His second coming is the fulfillment of passages relating to His work as the Chief Shepherd (1 Pet 5:4).

The future work of Christ also dependent upon His resurrection. In a number of particulars, the work of Christ yet to be fulfilled in keeping with the prophetic Scripture also depends upon His resurrection. Among these a number of facts can be cited.

1. The resurrection of all men. It is anticipated in the prophetic Scriptures that Christ by the power of His own resurrection will raise the dead in a series of resurrections, probably in the following order: (a) the church at the time of the rapture (1 Cor 15:51–53; 1 Thess 4:14–17); (b) Israel and the Old Testament saints at the time of His coming to the earth to establish His kingdom (Dan 12:2, 13; Hos 13:14; Matt 22:30–31); (c) the tribulation saints at the time of His second coming (Rev 20:4); (d) the probable resurrection of millennial saints at the end of the millennium, though this is not mentioned in the Scriptures specifically; (e) the resurrection and judgment of the wicked dead at the end of the millennium (Rev 20:12–14). Regardless of time and character of resurrection, all resurrection is attributed to the power of Christ (John 5:28–29; 1 Cor 15:12, 22) and depends upon the historical fact of His own resurrection.

2. The marriage of the Bridegroom and the bride. At the time Christ comes for His church at the rapture, He will be joined to the church in heaven in keeping with the figure of the Bridegroom coming for the bride. This figure in the Scriptures speaks of the eternal union and fellowship of Christ and His church and is an important aspect of His future work, logically depending upon the fact of His resurrection from the dead. The church in the present age is a bride waiting for the coming of her husband (2 Cor 11:2; Rev 19:7).

3. The judgment of all classes of moral creatures. In addition to His present work of administering chastening and disciplinary judgments in the life of the believer, Christ will also be the final judge of all moral creatures, whether men or angels. These judgments can be itemized as referring (a) to the church (2 Cor 5:10–11); (b) to Israel nationally and individually (Matt 24:27—25:30 ); (c) to the Gentiles at the time of His second coming to the earth (Matt 25:31–46); (d) to angels, probably at the end of the millennium (1 Cor 6:3; 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 6); (e) to the wicked dead (Rev 20:12–15). There also are general references to the fact of judgment as attributed to Christ in His power demonstrated in His resurrection (John 5:22; Acts 10:42; Rom 14:10; 2 Tim 4:1).

4. Reigning on David’s throne. In the original prediction to David that his throne and seed would continue forever, it is implied that ultimately one would reign who would be a resurrected person. In ordinary succession of kings who ultimately would die, it is unlikely that the throne would be actually established forever as stated in 2 Samuel 7:16. The prophecy given to David has its confirmation in the announcement of the angel to Mary in Luke 1:31–33 where it was stated of Christ, “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end” (Luke 1:32–33). The specific promise given to David, therefore, is to be fulfilled in Christ and could not have been fulfilled if Christ had not been raised from the dead. This is confirmed in Peter’s Pentecostal sermon in Acts 2:25–31 where the resurrection of Christ is tied in with the promise to David that God would set one of David’s descendants upon His throne.

5. The final deliverance of the world to the Father. As a climax to the drama of history, Christ delivers a conquered world to the Father according to 1 Corinthians 15:24–28. This ultimate victory and the establishment of the sovereignty of Christ over all of His enemies could not have been accomplished apart from His resurrection. This is predicted in 1 Corinthians 15:26, “The last enemy that shall be abolished is death.” The ultimate resurrection of all men as well as the ultimate subjugation of the entire world to the sovereignty of Christ depends upon His resurrection. It is not too much to say that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a link in the total chain of God’s sovereign program without which the whole scheme would collapse.

L.S. Chafer has summarized the importance of the resurrection in these words: “His resurrection is vitally related to the ages past, to the fulfillment of all prophecy, to the values of His death, to the Church, to Israel, to creation, to the purposes of God in grace which reach beyond to the ages to come, and to the eternal glory of God. Fulfillment of the eternal purposes related to all of these was dependent upon the coming forth of the Son of God from that tomb. He arose from the dead, and the greatness of that event is indicated by the importance of its place in Christian doctrine. Had not Christ arisen—He by whom all things were created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, He for whom things were created, who is before all things, and by whom all things consist (hold together)—every divine purpose and blessing would have failed, yea, the very universe and the throne of God would have dissolved and would have been dismissed forever. All life, light, and hope would have ceased. Death, darkness, and despair would have reigned. Though the spiritual powers of darkness might have continued, the last hope for a ruined world would have been banished eternally. It is impossible for the mind to grasp the mighty issues which were at stake at the moment when Christ came forth from the tomb. At no moment of time, however, were these great issues in jeopardy. The consummation of His resurrection was sure, for omnipotent power was engaged to bring it to pass. Every feature of the Christian’s salvation, position, and hope was dependent on the resurrection of his Lord.”[4]

The resurrection a proof of the inspiration of Scripture. Like other important prophecies which have been fulfilled, the resurrection of Christ is another confirmation of the accuracy and infallibility of the Scriptures and a testimony to its inspiration by the Holy Spirit. The resurrection of Christ fulfilled many prophecies both in the Old and New Testament. Of importance in the Old Testament is Psalm 16:10 quoted by Peter in his Pentecostal sermon (Acts 2:27). As Peter points out, this promise could not have been fulfilled by David who died and whose tomb was known to them at the time of Peter’s statements. It could only refer to Jesus Christ whose body did not see corruption.

In the New Testament narrative, Christ frequently referred to His coming death and resurrection and these predictions again had their fulfillment when Christ rose from the dead (Matt 16:21; 20:19; 26:62; Mark 9:9; 14:28; John 2:19). The Apostle Paul in giving his testimony before King Agrippa affirmed that the heart of his message was that which Moses and the prophets had predicted, “how that Christ must suffer, and how that he first by the resurrection of the dead should proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles” (Acts 26:23). It is inevitable that anyone who denies the resurrection also denies the inspiration of Scripture and usually it is also true that those who deny the inspiration of Scripture deny the bodily resurrection of Christ. The two are linked as are many other important doctrines of Biblical faith. The fact of the resurrection of Christ remains a pillar of the Christian faith without which the edifice soon totters and falls. The resurrection of Christ is, therefore, to be numbered among major undertakings of God which include His original decree, the creation of the physical world, the incarnation, the death of Christ, and His second coming to the earth.

Notes

1. James Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, p. 277.
2. Ibid., p. 278.
3. William Milligan, The Resurrection of Our Lord, pp. 151-52.
4. L. S. Chafer, Grace, pp. 272-73.

The Person and Work of Christ, Part XV: Christ in His Resurrection

By John F. Walvoord

The Resurrection Body

The facts concerning the resurrection body of Christ have been obscured by the modern rejection of the details of Christ’s resurrection as recorded in the Scripture. Liberals and neo-orthodox scholars have summarily rejected the facts of the Scriptural records, often with hardly any supporting argument. Common among such scholars is the view that Christ arose only in a spiritual sense—continued existence after His death, but not a bodily resurrection.

Though no new evidence has been advanced in support of this rejection of Scripture, the technique has been to assume that the gospel narratives are in serious contradiction of each other, and that what actually happened is that Christ appeared to the disciples in visions or dreams. With no documentary proof whatever, they consider the accounts of the appearances of Christ on the resurrection day and immediately subsequent to it as later fabrications. Even Filson, who seems to accept the fact of the resurrection of Christ, in one sentence sweeps all the resurrection-day appearances into discard in his statement: “Most likely the first appearances to the apostles were in Galilee, and this led to a rallying of the believers in Jerusalem where such appearances continued.”[1]

Though many liberal arguments have been so soundly refuted as to have fallen into discard even among liberals (such as the swoon theory, the imposture theory, the wrong-tomb theory, and the wishful credulity of the disciples), the modern mind still assumes that the resurrection is an impossibility and that early Christians were deceived either by their own senses or by other men. On the contrary, conservative scholarship has demonstrated for many generations that the Scriptural accounts are self-sustaining, that they do not contain differences which cannot be reconciled, and in fact offer a web of interrelated facts which make the resurrection of Christ one of the best attested facts of the ancient world. If Scripture may be considered as reliable and infallible revelation, it is found to unfold a marvelous doctrine of resurrection as illustrated in the resurrection of Christ Himself.

The resurrection body of Christ is not only an important aspect of Scriptural revelation unfolding the nature of Christ’s resurrection, but is significant of the fact and character of the resurrection which believers in Christ may anticipate. The resurrection of Christ is at once an apologetic for His deity and His substitutionary death on the cross, and at the same time is substantiating evidence of the important place of the future resurrection of saints in the eschatological program of God. Although, the doctrine of resurrection is discussed theologically in 1 Corinthians 15:12–50, the principal source of information is found in the accounts of Christ after His resurrection. Here, for the first time in history, occurs bodily resurrection which is more than restoration—the creation of a new body similar in some respects to the body laid in the tomb but in other important aspects dramatically different. Christ is given a new kind of body in contrast to those restored to life miraculously prior to the resurrection of Christ, such as Lazarus whose body was restored to what it was before he died.

The resurrection body of Christ identified with the body laid in the tomb. At least eight features identify the body of Christ raised from the dead as the same body which was laid in the tomb.

1. The nailprints in His hands and feet were retained in the resurrection body of Christ (Ps 22:16; Zech 12:10; John 20:25–29). The Scriptures both prophetically and historically record this important fact which would lead to the conclusion that the resurrection body is the old body transformed rather than the creation of a new body entirely different.
2. According to John 20:25–29, the resurrection body also retains the wound which was inflicted in His side on the cross. It was this identification which distinguished Christ from the others who died with Him and was one of the signs demanded by Thomas as proof of His bodily resurrection (John 20:25).
3. In His various appearances after His resurrection, Christ was readily recognized by His disciples as the same person who died and rose again. Any hesitation in recognizing the resurrection of Christ is given special explanation in the Scriptures. Mary Magdalene who, because she was in tears did not immediately recognize Christ, identified Him as her Lord by His voice (John 20:16), even though she apparently had her back turned when He spoke to her. There seems to be no hesitation on the part of the women who met Him or in any of the other appearances except in the case of the disciples who met Him on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13–35). Here their delay in recognizing Him is attributed to the fact that they were supernaturally blinded (Luke 24:16, 31). The disciples were so certain of their identification of their risen Lord that they were willing to lay down their lives for this truth.
4. In Christ’s appearance to His disciples in the upper room, He deliberately ate food to prove to them that He was not just a spirit and had actually risen from the grave (Luke 24:41–43).
5. The resurrection body of Christ had a material nature which could be felt. According to Matthew 28:9, the women held Him by the feet when they worshipped Him. In the appearance of Luke 24:39, He invites them to handle Him. In His first appearance to Mary Magdalene in John 20:17, it is implied that Mary clung to Him in a physical embrace prompting Christ to say to her “Touch me not,” literally, “do not cling to me.”
6. It is evident from these facts already itemized that the resurrection body of Christ was visible to the natural eye though it also had the capacity of disappearing in a miraculous way. This is illustrated in John 20:20, “The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord.”
7. According to John 20:22, the resurrection body of Christ had the ability of breathing and to this extent corresponded to a natural body.
8. Christ specifically states of His resurrection body that it possessed flesh and bone (Luke 24:39–40), thereby refuting the idea of the disciples that they were seeing merely a spirit when Christ appeared to them. Confirming these identifying features of the body of Christ raised from the dead is the fact of the empty tomb. Christ in His resurrection did not receive another body but the same body.

The resurrection body of Christ changed. After His resurrection Christ manifested certain characteristics which were not seen before His death. Though there seems to be little question in the Bible of the identity of the resurrection body, new qualities were added which distinguished it from the body laid in the tomb.

1. Christ in His resurrection body had a newness of life and a deliverance from the sufferings of His death to such an extent that on several occasions His recognition was somewhat delayed as in the case of Mary Magdalene who mistook Him for the gardener and the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:31; John 20:15). The delay in recognition, however, is explained by other factors and is no greater than one would naturally expect considering the tremendous transformation of resurrection.
2. The ordinary limitations of transportation and distance did not seem to restrict Christ after His resurrection. Though before His death He would become weary from long journeys, there is no evidence that His various appearances to His disciples required such ordinary means of transportation. He apparently was delivered from many of the limitations of time and space.
3. The resurrection body of Christ was characterized as having flesh and bones, but He did not seem to be restricted by physical barriers. This is evident in the fact that He could enter closed rooms without apparent difficulty (Luke 24:36; John 20:19).
4. Christ was able to appear and disappear at will after His resurrection (Luke 24:17; John 20:19).
5. No proof is offered in the Scriptures that the resurrection body of Christ required either rest or food to sustain it. Though He could eat, there is no evidence that He needed food to supply nourishment, and there is no mention of Christ sleeping after His resurrection. In so far as Christ’s resurrection body accommodated itself to the conditions of time and space, it was in keeping with the evident purpose of Christ to minister to His disciples prior to His ascension. Some of the features of a resurrection body which were ultimately His such as the glory of heaven were delayed in manifestation.

The glory of the resurrection body. Although many of the features of the resurrection body of Christ are revealed in the Scriptures immediately after His resurrection, it is evident that some aspects are delayed in manifestation until after His ascension. During the forty days of His ministry between the resurrection and His ascension, there was no unusual outward appearance of glory such as had occurred prior to His death on the Mount of Transfiguration. It is evident that His ultimate glory is veiled in order to make possible a ministry to His disciples in scenes of earth. After His ascension into heaven, Christ never appears again apart from His glory. In Acts 7:56, Phillip saw Christ standing at the right hand of the Father in the midst of the glory of God. In the appearance of Christ to Paul recorded in Acts 9:3–6, the glory of Christ was such that Paul was blinded. A similar experience befell the Apostle John in Revelation 1:12–20, where John fell at the feet of Christ as one dead when He beheld the glory of Christ in His resurrection. From these indications, it is safe to conclude that the resurrection body of Christ possesses an intrinsic glory which mortal man cannot behold under ordinary circumstances. This glory was temporarily veiled until the time of Christ’s ascension, but is now a permanent aspect of His resurrection body. The hope of believers for a resurrection body includes not only the features of the resurrection body manifested in Christ prior to the ascension, but also that our resurrection bodies will be glorious and suited for the glorious presence of God. In the case of believers the resurrection body not only includes the physical and visible aspects attributed to Christ but also that our resurrection body will be similar (Eph 5:27; Phil 3:21; 1 John 3:2).

Who Raised Christ from the Dead?

Like other important acts of God foundational to the Christian faith, the resurrection of Christ is related to each member of the divine Trinity. God the Father is said to have raised Christ from the dead in numerous passages. This is implied in the Old Testament prophecy of the resurrection of Christ found in Psalm 16:10–11 where His deliverance from Sheol and corruption is attributed to God. Peter cites Psalm 16 in Acts 2:24–32 in relating the resurrection of Christ to God. A similar statement is made in Acts 13:30 where Paul states, “God raised Him from the dead.” The resurrection of Christ is specifically related to the Father in Romans 6:4 and Ephesians 4:19–20.

Without contradicting the participation of the Father in the resurrection of Christ, the Scriptures also reveal that Christ raised Himself from the dead. In John 2:19 Christ declared, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” A similar statement is made in John 10:17–18 where Christ claimed not only to have power to lay down His life but to take it up again. The work of the Holy Spirit in relation to the resurrection of Christ is less clear. The only reference to it in Romans 8:11 draws a parallel between the resurrection of Christ and the giving of life to the believers, which, in both cases is accomplished “through his spirit that dwelleth in you.” Some have interpreted this passage, however, to refer to the resurrection on the part of the Father in which the Holy Spirit somehow participated.

The relation of the resurrection of Christ to the Three Persons of the Trinity is not, however, a contradiction. In other important works of God, such as the creation of the world and the incarnation of Christ, a similar participation of each member of the Trinity can be observed. In revelation, however, the unity of the Trinity as well as their distinction in persons is carefully supported, and no contradiction remains for one who accepts the doctrine of the Trinity. It is indeed the work of the Triune God.

The Significance of the Resurrection of Christ

All branches of systematic theology have tended to underestimate the significance of the resurrection of Christ. Orthodox scholars usually emphasize the apologetic significance of the resurrection as an attestation to the deity of Christ and the value of His substitutionary death. The resurrection of Christ is normally held to be a proof of the future resurrection of the saints. Often neglected, however, is the relation of the resurrection of Christ to His present work.

In liberal theology, the resurrection of Christ is rejected as a nonessential, and the conclusion is reached that Christ continues to exist after His death but not in a body. Scriptures relating to the subject are spiritualized or explained away. As James Orr noted a generation ago, the tendency now is to deny the resurrection as impossible, and therefore untrue.[2]

More important, however, than the liberal view in contemporary theology, is the neo-orthodox concept of the resurrection of Christ. Though the more conservative of neo-orthodox scholars tend to recognize the resurrection of Christ as a historic fact, they claim that in itself it does not have historic significance. Emphasis is placed upon the experience of Christ in the believer rather than in the fact of the empty tomb. The answer to all problems is found in the complete revelation of the Scriptures themselves which, if accepted in the normal meaning of words, establishes the orthodox position concerning the resurrection as a proof of His person and His offices and at the same time demonstrates that the resurrection of Christ is the key to all of His present work as well as the consummation of the divine plan in the prophetic future. For the present discussion, only the major facts can be itemized.

The resurrection a proof of the person of Christ. It is significant that the meaning of the three official names of Christ, namely, Lord Jesus Christ, is substantiated by His resurrection from the dead. The title of “Lord,” usually regarded as a declaration of His deity and authority over all creation is based on the assumption that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Though in His life He offered many substantiating evidences, the supreme proof of His deity is the solid fact of His resurrection. It was this argument which Peter used in His Pentecostal sermon when he declared on the basis of the fact of His resurrection that Jesus is “both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). Peter uses the same argument of the resurrection of Christ in his presentation of the gospel to Cornelius (Acts 10:40). In the introduction to the Epistle to the Romans, the Apostle Paul states that Christ “was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” The early disciples considered the resurrection of Christ as the final and convincing evidence that Jesus was all that He claimed to be, the very Son of God who existing from all eternity had become incarnate to fulfill the plan of God in His life, death, and resurrection. The resurrection of Christ is, therefore, an important proof of His deity and has been so regarded by orthodox scholars from apostolic days to the present.

In the title “Christ” as attributed to the Lord Jesus is embodied the hope of Israel for a Messiah to deliver them from their sins. Though the death and resurrection of Christ was anticipated by Old Testament prophecies, Jewish leaders in the time of Christ did not realize the necessity of it to fulfill His role of Messiah to Israel. It was only by His death that He could provide redemption and claim victory over Satan, and it was in His resurrection that He demonstrated the power of God which was to be ultimately manifested in the deliverance of Israel and the establishment of His righteous kingdom in the earth. The promise to David that He would have a son who would reign forever is now made possible of fulfillment by Christ in His resurrection body and is in keeping with the claim of Christ that He was the Messiah of Israel (John 4:25–26). The specific relationship of resurrection to His Messianic character is also revealed in His conversation with Martha in John 11:25–27. In a word, it was necessary for Christ to die and to be raised from the dead in order to be what the prophet had anticipated, a Messiah who would be Israel’s deliverer and Savior throughout all eternity. If Christ had not been raised from the dead, it is evident that His claim to Messiahship would have been thus destroyed and conversely the fact of His resurrection establishes His right to be Israel’s Messiah in the past as well as in the future.

“Jesus,” the third title attributed to Christ, meaning “Jehovah saves,” was His human name bestowed by the angel. He was given this name because He would “save his people from their sins” (Matt 1:21). His work as Savior, however, while inevitably related to His death on the cross, demanded also His resurrection. It was for this reason that Christ was commanded not only to die but to rise from the dead in John 10:17–18. According to John 12:27, where Christ prayed in regard to His death, “Father, save me from this hour,” He did not anticipate merely deliverance from death but prayed that if it were necessary to die, He would experience complete deliverance in His resurrection.

Milligan notes that the Greek is literally “save me out of this hour” (italics added). Milligan adds: “Our Lord prayed not merely that, if possible, He might escape suffering, but that, if it was impossible for Him to escape it, He might pass through it to a glorious deliverance,—that through death He might be conducted to that life beyond death in which the purpose of His coming was to be reached.”[3] It is the uniform presentation of Scripture that His resurrection is a necessary counterpart to His work in death, and apart from His resurrection His death would have become meaningless (John 11:25; Rom 5:10; 8:34; 10:9; Phil 2:9, 11; Heb 5:7). The resurrection of Christ is, therefore, the proof of His person and of that which His person affected, namely His work on the cross.

The resurrection a proof of His offices. The three offices of Christ, that of prophet, priest, and king are each related to His resurrection. The offices of Christ are one of the major themes of the Old Testament as they relate to Christ. Moses anticipated Christ’s office as a prophet in Deuteronomy 18:18. The priestly office of Christ is prophesied in Psalm 110:4 and His kingly office is in fulfillment of the promise to David in 2 Samuel 7:16 (cf. Luke 1:31–33).

The prophetic ministry of Christ, though largely fulfilled on earth prior to His death, needed the authentication of His resurrection to give authority to what He had already said as well as His continued ministry through the Spirit whom He would send (John 16:12–14). If Christ had not been raised from the dead, He would have been a false prophet and all of His ministry as recorded in the Gospels would have been subject to question. In like manner, His postresurrection ministry, bringing into climax much that He had taught before, would have been impossible apart from His bodily resurrection. The resurrection, therefore, constitutes a proof of the validity and authority of His prophetic office.

The resurrection of Christ is clearly related to that of His continuance of a priest. This was anticipated in Psalm 110 where Christ is declared to be a priest eternal in character, “Jehovah hath sworn, and will not repent; Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 110:4). The concept of Christ as a priest who continues to live forever is further substantiated in Hebrews 7:25 where it is said of Christ, “He ever liveth to make intercession for them.” In contrast to ordinary priests, who have their priestly office terminated either by death or retirement as in the Levitical order, the resurrection of Christ made possible His continuance forever as our high priest. This is the teaching of the New Testament as well as the anticipation of the Old. Hebrews 7:24 states it explicitly: “But he, because he abideth for ever, hath his priesthood unchangeable.” It is evident from the Scriptures, that apart from the resurrection of Christ, His office of priest would not have been capable of being fulfilled.

The third office, that of king, fulfilled especially the anticipation of the Old Testament of a Son who would have the right to rule. Christ was not only to rule over Israel, fulfilling the promise to David of a son who would reign forever, but over the entire world as the one to whom God has given the right to rule over the nations (Ps 2:8–9). Christ’s continuance on the throne forever after His death, in fulfillment of the plan of God that He should reign over all nations as well as the nation of Israel, would have been impossible if He had not been raised from the dead. His resurrection was essential to His unique fulfillment of each of His divine offices.

Notes

1. Floyd V. Filson, Jesus Christ the Risen Lord, p. 49.
2. James Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, pp. 14 ff.
3. William Milligan, The Resurrection of Our Lord, p. 125.

The Person and Work of Christ, Part XIV: Christ in His Resurrection

By John F. Walvoord

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the fundamental truths of Christian faith. As Robinson writes: “A renewed emphasis upon the resurrection is, however, relevant at this time. In Latin Christianity, the profusion of crucifixes focuses the eye upon the crucified, dead Jesus, leaving to the Evangelical Church a special responsibility for proclaiming the risen, living Lord. In American Protestantism, the weight of old liberalism still swings many from the bodily ‘physical’ resurrection of Christ witnessed in the New Testament to a kind of ‘spiritual resurrection’ at death, one befitting Plato’s society of souls in an idealistic universe. European scholarship is disentangling the biblical from the Hellenistic man, recognizing the body as also the handiwork of God, and the unity of the whole inner and outer man both in this life and in the age to come. Yet the influence of existentialism leads some of these scholars to present the death of Christ as the sole factual event of the kerygma, with the resurrection as an expression of the eschatological significance of the cross, a myth whose meaning is ‘real’ only in faith. The pessimism, resulting from inadequate presentations, can be lifted only by the proclamation of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ as factual occurrence, an act of God’s self-disclosure in truly divine dimensions.”[1]

The early disciples were impelled to bear their testimony for Christ because of their belief that Jesus Christ had actually died and rose bodily from the grave. James Orr has made the following comment: “A first fact attested by all witnesses is that Jesus died and was buried. St. Paul sums up the unanimous belief of the early Church on this point in the Word: ‘That Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried.’ The reality of Christ’s death, as against the swoon theories, was touched on before, and need not be re-argued. No one now holds that Jesus did not die!”[2]

From the standpoint of an apologetic for Christian theology, belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God stands or falls with the question of His bodily resurrection. As Paul expressed it in 1 Corinthians 15:17, “If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.” The resurrection, therefore, is properly considered a proof of the person of Christ, His deity, Messiahship, and His power to save from sin. Upon the resurrection hangs the value and effectiveness of all His work in the past, present, and future. The resurrection of Christ is also related to the proper fulfillment of prophecy concerning its resurrection in both the Old and New Testament, and is demanded by the concept of the infallibility of the Scriptures.

The doctrine of the resurrection of Christ is also strategic in that it is the first step in a series in the exaltation of Christ: (1) His resurrection; (2) His ascension to heaven and return to His preincarnate glory; (3) His exaltation in being seated at the right hand of the Father and the Father’s throne; (4) His second coming to the earth in power and glory; (5) His occupying the throne of David as ruler of the millennial earth; (6) His exaltation as judge of all men at the great white throne; (7) His exaltation in the new heaven and the new earth.

From the standpoint of the ministry of Christ, the resurrection is the introduction to a new phase of His work on behalf of the saints. Resurrection was preparatory to His return to glory and to His present ministry as our intercessor at the right hand of the Father. All His future work stems from His second coming and events related to the millennial kingdom. Few doctrines of the Christian faith are more necessary to the whole structure than the doctrine of resurrection. It is for this reason that evangelical Christians through the centuries, including the apostles, have placed such emphasis upon this doctrine.

The Historical Fact

The resurrection is the cornerstone of any defense of the Christian faith. Upon it rests everything that is essential to Christian theology. The evidences for the resurrection are so abundant that they constitute one of the greatest apologetics for Christianity. These fall in various classifications.

The resurrection appearances: an overwhelming historical proof. A careful study of the Scriptures will reveal the following order of events unfolded in the resurrection appearances of Christ:

1. According to Matthew 28:2–4, the guards saw an angel roll away the stone from the tomb, and because of this they were terrified. The Scriptures in this way account for the illegal act of breaking the Roman seal placed on the door of the tomb, and for the ineffectiveness of the guard to prevent removal of the body. The report of the soldiers suggested by the chief priest (Matt 28:11–15) that someone stole the body while they slept is false on the face of it. The probability is that Christ was raised from the tomb shortly after sundown the night before and the opening of the tomb was not to allow Christ to come out, but was a means of permitting others to enter and see the empty tomb.
2. Shortly after the stone was rolled away, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, and others arrived at the tomb (Matt 28:1, 5–7; Mark 16:1–11; Luke 24:1–10; John 20:1).
3. Upon learning that the stone was rolled away and hearing the announcement of the angel that Christ was raised from the dead, Mary Magdalene runs to tell the apostles with the other women following more slowly (Matt 28:8; Mark 16:8; Luke 24:8–10; John 20:2).
4. Upon informing the apostles, Mary Magdalene returns preceded by Peter and John and sees the empty tomb (John 20:2–10). She apparently does not understand at this time that Christ was actually raised from the dead, even though she has been told this by the angel.
5. The first appearance of Christ was to Mary Magdalene as she remained at the site of the tomb after Peter and John had left. Here she sees Christ and first mistakes Him for the gardener but immediately recognizes Him when He speaks to her (John 20:11–17; cf. Mark 16:9–11).
6. After she had seen the risen Lord, Mary Magdalene returns to report the appearance of Christ to her (Mark 16:10–11; John 20:18).
7. The second appearance of Christ was to the other women who are also returning to the tomb and see Christ on the way (Matt 28:9–10). The best texts seem to indicate that the phrase “as they went to tell his disciples” is an interpolation, and they were actually returning after telling the disciples.
8. The report of the guards watching the tomb concerning the angel rolling away the stone is another testimony to the resurrection of Christ from unwilling witnesses (Matt 28:11–15).
9. The third appearance was to Peter in the afternoon of the resurrection day. Concerning this there are no details, but it is most significant that Christ sought out Peter, the denier, first, of all the twelve (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor 15:5).
10. The fourth appearance of Christ was to the disciples as they walked on the road to Emmaus. Due to supernatural withholding of recognition, Christ was able to expound to them the Old Testament Scripture concerning His death and resurrection, and was not known to them until He broke bread (Mark 16:12–13; Luke 24:13–35).
11. The fifth appearance of the resurrected Christ was to the ten disciples (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36–43; John 20:19–23). The Mark account refers to them as the eleven, but it is obvious from the context that only ten were there, as Thomas was absent. After the departure of Judas, the remaining disciples were often referred to as the “eleven” even if all were not actually present. In a similar way, Paul refers to the “twelve” as witnesses of the resurrection (1 Cor 15:5), but as a matter of fact Judas Iscariot was already dead.
12. The sixth appearance was to the eleven disciples a week after His resurrection. At this time Thomas was present (John 20:26–29).
13. The seventh appearance was to seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee (John 21:1–23). It was on this occasion that he talked so significantly to Simon Peter following the miraculous catch of fish.
14. The eighth appearance was to five hundred and is recited by Paul as an outstanding proof of His resurrection (1 Cor. 15:6).
15. The ninth appearance was to James, the Lord’s brother (1 Cor 15:7). There is some evidence that James was not a believer prior to the resurrection (John 7:3), but immediately after the resurrection he is numbered among the believers (Acts 1:14; Gal 1:19). He later becames one of the outstanding leaders in the apostolic church.
16. The tenth appearance was to eleven disciples on a mountain in Galilee. On that occasion he gave them the great commission to preach the gospel (Matt 28:16–20). A similar commission is given in Mark 16:15–18 which may have been the same instance or an earlier appearance.
17. The eleventh appearance occurred at the time of His ascension from the Mount of Olives (Luke 24:44–53; Acts 1:3–9). This is the last appearance of Christ to His disciples prior to His glorification in heaven.
18. The twelfth appearance of the resurrected Christ was to Stephen just prior to his martyrdom (Acts 7:55–56).
19. The thirteenth appearance of Christ was to Paul on the road to Damascus as he was about to continue his work of persecuting Christians (Acts 9:3–6; cf. Acts 22:6–11; 26:13–18). It was on this occasion that Paul was converted.
20. The fourteenth appearance seems to have been to Paul in Arabia (Acts 20:24; 26:17; Gal 1:12, 17). This appearance is not clearly stated but may be implied from Galatians 1:12. Some believe that the instruction to Paul, which he mentions in Acts 26:17, were given to him in Arabia, not at the original appearance on the road to Damascus. There is no record of the precise revelation given to Paul in Acts 9 or Acts 22. In Acts 22:10, he is promised a later revelation which would give him the necessary instruction.
21. The fifteenth appearance of Christ was to Paul in the temple when Paul is warned concerning the persecution which was to come (Acts 22:17–21; cf. Acts 9:26–30; Gal 1:18).
22. The sixteenth appearance of Christ was to Paul while in prison in Caesarea, when it is recorded that “the Lord stood by him,” and told him that he would bear witness in Rome (Acts 23:11).
23. The final and seventeenth appearance of Christ was to the Apostle John at the beginning of the revelation given to him (Rev 1:12–20).

Taken as a whole, the appearances are of such varied character and to so many people under so many different circumstances that the proof of the resurrection of Christ is as solid as any historical fact could be in the first century.

The empty tomb as a witness to the resurrection of Christ. All the evidence that exists concerning the tomb after the resurrection of Christ indicates that it was empty. This was the testimony of the disciples who carefully examined the tomb when they found the stone rolled away. The guard that was stationed at the tomb, according to Matthew’s account, also reported that the tomb was empty. Only three explanations are even possibilities: (1) It has been suggested that the disciples may have chanced upon the wrong tomb. This, however, is refuted not only by the presence of the angels, but by the Roman guard who certainly would not have been guarding the wrong tomb. (2) The soldiers themselves made the suggestion that someone had stolen the body while they slept. If this had been the case, the guard would have been summarily executed. Instead, according to Matthew’s account, they were given money to spread the false story that someone had stolen the body. This was obviously an attempt at bribery to prevent the truth being told and was gladly accepted by the soldiers as it also assured them of intervention with the Roman authorities so that they would not be executed. (3) The complete lack of evidence for any alternative leaves the account of the resurrection of Christ the only plausible explanation. If it were not that this were supernatural and so intrinsic to the whole Christian faith, it would not even have been questioned. When the evidence for the empty tomb is added to the many other arguments for a bodily resurrection of Christ, it forms additional proof of the genuineness of the entire narrative. There would have been no motive on the part of the disciples to steal the body in the first place, and if the enemies of Christ had taken the body it would have been to their interest to have produced it when the accounts of the resurrection began to be circulated. There is no evidence, however, that the enemies of Christ made any effort to try to find the supposedly stolen body of Christ. The empty tomb remains a silent but eloquent witness to the fact of the resurrection.

The character of the human witnesses to the resurrection. It is clear from the accounts given in the Gospels that the witnesses to the resurrection of Christ were quite reluctant to believe their senses concerning this important event. Only when overwhelming proof was presented did they at long last accept the fact of His resurrection. The disciples certainly could not have been fooled in identifying Christ, as they knew Him well. They themselves, however, demanded tangible evidence such as Thomas required when he was not present at the first appearance of Christ to the eleven. There does not seem to have been any expectation on the part of the disciples that Christ would rise from the dead, even though He had told them plainly that this would be the case. Once the evidence was produced that Christ had actually been raised from the dead, no amount of persecution could make them waiver in their testimony. They repeatedly showed willingness to die rather than give up their faith in Christ as their resurrected Lord. The reluctant testimony of the soldiers as well as the grudging admission of the leaders of the Jews add a touch of reality to the fact of Christ’s resurrection.

The dramatic change in the disciples after the resurrection. One of the impressive arguments for the genuineness of the resurrection of Christ was the contrast in the disciples before and after the resurrection. Scripture indicates that the disciples before the resurrection were utterly disheartened, were meeting in fear in obscure places, and were dismayed at the death of Christ. There is no indication in any of the narratives describing the disciples prior to the resurrection that they entertained any real hope that Christ would be restored to them in resurrection. On the day of resurrection itself, there is no evidence that they were credulous or accepted the testimony of the resurrection of Christ without requiring definite proof. It was evidently hard for them to believe their senses when they actually saw Christ risen. Once they were convinced, however, the disciples were joyous and fearless and, as illustrated in the case of Peter, bore a public testimony to the fact of the resurrection, challenging their hearers to consider the evidence. In their attitude before the resurrection Christ as well as in their subsequent renewed hope and faith, their experiences followed a normal pattern and there is no indication of accepting the fact of the resurrection apart from the solid proofs which were theirs in the postresurrectional appearances.

The disciples experience of divine power in the postresurrection period. The book of Acts cites the evidence of the supernatural power of God in the ministry of the apostles. It is, in a sense, the acts of the Holy Spirit, rather than of the apostles themselves. The predicted power of the Spirit that would come upon them on the Day of Pentecost was fulfilled in chapter 2 and in the subsequent experience of the church. Jews and Gentiles are transformed under the power of the gospel as they believed in a Christ who had died for them and arose again. The gospel was attested by supernatural acts of healing, by the divine judgment of Ananias and Sapphira, by the supernatural appearance of Christ to Saul, and numerous other events in which the supernatural power of God was evident. The book of Acts would have been meaningless and impossible if it had not been for an actual resurrection of Christ from the dead. The transforming power of Christ witnessed to by Christians through the ages is likewise without explanation if Christ did not actually rise. The book of Acts, therefore, can be considered a massive confirmation of the doctrine of resurrection.

The evidence of the Day of Pentecost. Outstanding in the book of Acts is the support of the resurrection afforded in the events of the Day of Pentecost. This event in itself is a demonstration of the power of God, but is attended by human phenomenon which would be without proper explanation if Christ had not actually arisen from the dead. The Day of Pentecost, occurring only fifty days after the death and resurrection of Christ, was the occasion for the sermon by Peter on the doctrine of resurrection as thousands gathered to hear. Those who listened to Peter had access to the garden where the tomb was located, and had undoubtedly investigated the reports of the resurrection of Christ which was commonly discussed in Jerusalem. As Peter declared the resurrection of Christ there was no contradiction from the multitudes, and the record indicates that instead of offering rebuttal to his assertion three thousand people, who were in a position to know the facts, believed that Jesus Christ had actually been raised from the dead. It is evident that Peter’s confident assertion that Christ actually arose in fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies of David, as recorded in Psalm 16:10–11, must have stemmed not only from his own personal conviction that these were the facts, but also from confidence that there was no one competent to contradict them. The events of Pentecost would be left without a reasonable explanation if Jesus Christ had not been raised from the dead.

The evidence in the custom of observing the first day of the week. Early in the apostolic church, it was the custom of believers to gather on the first day of the week and observe it as a special day of worship and praise. On this day they observed the Lord’s Supper and would bring their offerings (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2). Orr states: “It is the uncontradicted testimony of all the witnesses that it was the Easter morning, or, as the Evangelists call it, ‘the first day of the week,’ or third day after the Crucifixion, on which the event known as the Resurrection happened; in other words, that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day. The four Evangelists, whatever their other divergency, are agreed about this. The Apostle Paul, who had conversed with the original witnesses only eight or nine years after the event, confirms the statement, and declares it to be the general belief of the church.”[3]

From the first century, the great majority of Christians have continued to observe the first day of the week as a special day of religious significance. The only explanation that has a historic foundation of this change from the seventh day of rest to the first day of the week as a day of worship was that Christ rose from the dead on that day. The historic custom fully attested by the history of the church is therefore another compelling argument that Christ actually arose from the dead.

Milligan shows the convincing character of this change in custom: “We have the institution of the Lord’s day, of which there are traces within a week of the Resurrection, and of which no one will dream of denying was expressly designed to commemorate that event. Surely there must have been a depth of conviction as well as an amount of power difficult to estimate, in a belief that could lead to such an institution. Nor do we see the full force of this until we remember the totally different conceptions which the Sabbath and the Lord’s day express,—the one the last day of the week, when man, weary of the work of the world, he sought the joyful strength of God in which to face it; the one commemorating the close of the old creation, the other, the beginning of the new…. It was believed that Jesus rose from the grave on that first morning of the week. It was this fact that made the difference, and a more powerful testimony to men’s conviction of the truth of the event within a week after it is said to have happened, it would be impossible to produce.”[4]

The origin of the Christian church. The existence of the Christian church from the first century historically is explained as stemming from the belief in the resurrection of Christ. Only such definite proof of the deity of Christ would have given the church the convincing power that it needed in the gospel witness. The dynamic which characterized the early church can be explained only on the basis that Christ actually arose from the dead. In the years since, millions of believers have been blessed and transformed by faith in Jesus Christ as their risen Savior and Lord. If the resurrection is a myth, there is no adequate explanation for the power of the early church in its witness and the willingness of its adherents even to die rather than renounce their Christian faith. The continuity of the church through the centuries, in spite of ignorance, unbelief, and erosion of doctrine, would be difficult to explain if there were not a solid basis for its origination and continuation in the historic resurrection of Christ. Those who investigate the facts concerning the resurrection of Christ as contained in the Scripture have certainly an abundant evidence on which to rest their faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior and God.

Notes

1. William C. Robinson, “The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” Bulletin of Columbia Theological Seminary, Decatur, Georgia, July 1957, p. 3.
2. James Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, p. 92.
3. Orr, Ibid., pp. 114-15.
4. William Milligan, The Resurrection of Our Lord, pp. 68-69.

The Person and Work of Christ, Part XIII: Reconciliation

By John F. Walvoord

Most of the difficulties in definition and exposition of the doctrine of reconciliation resolve when the Biblical passages pertinent to this truth are studied. Likewise, the debated point of the extent of reconciliation yields to patient exegesis.

Important Passages on Reconciliation

2 Corinthians 5:17–21. This central passage dealing with reconciliation introduces the concept that the believer reconciled to God is a new creation. The key phrase is found in verse 17, “If any man is in Christ.” The new creation is in contrast to the former position in Adam, in which man was doomed to die and under hopeless condemnation (Rom 5:11–21). “The old things” are therefore said to be “passed away” in the sense that the believer in Christ has an entirely new position. He belongs to the new creation instead of the old, the Second Adam instead of the First Adam.

This total change is indicated by the word reconciliation in that God has reconciled the believer “to himself through Christ.” As Morris states: “First of all let us notice that the process the apostle has in mind is one which is wrought by God. ‘All things,’ he tells us, ‘are of God, who reconciled us’; ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself,’ ‘him…he made to be sin on our behalf.’ Though it is true that there is an aspect in which men may be exhorted to be reconciled to God, yet there is no question that Paul is thinking of something God has done for men, and not of some merely human activity.”[1] God is the subject, man is the object, Christ is the means.

Because man is given the new standing of being reconciled to God, he also has “the ministry of reconciliation,” as defined in verse 19, “to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses.” Here is the grand reason for man being reconciled to God, namely, that he is in Christ and in this position God has reconciled man unto himself. By the act of imputation He does not impute their sins to them, but instead imputed sin to Christ.

Of interest is the fact that “the world” (Gr. kosmos) is used, meaning something more than believers only. It is rather that Christ in His death made a forensic provision for the entire world and has provided reconciliation for all, not just the elect. It is this important point that makes emphatic the ministry of reconciliation as defined in the latter part of verses 19 and 20 : “…Having committed unto us the word of reconciliation. We are ambassadors therefore on behalf of Christ, as though God were entreating by us: we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God.” God, having a provision in the death of Christ for all sinners, now can present a “whosoever” gospel. The appeal is that God has already provided reconciliation for all, but it is effective only when received by the personal faith of the individual. The contrast is between provision and application. The provision is for all, the application is to those who believe. Those who are already reconciled to God are the ambassadors through whom the message is delivered to those who have not yet availed themselves of the mercy of God.

The recipient of the message of reconciliation must receive the reconciliation. As Taylor expresses it: “This passage is also of importance because it is complementary to the truth that it is God, and God alone, who can reconcile men to Himself. As we have already seen, although the verb, ‘to be reconciled,’ is passive, it denotes an active process of co-operation on man’s part. Man cannot accomplish his reconciliation with God, but he can refuse it….”[2]

Commentators have noted that up to verse 20 there is no direct connection of the doctrine of reconciliation with the death of Christ. Verse 21, however, makes plain that the act of reconciliation did not arise in a divine fiat, but in the work of Christ upon the cross. Here it is stated: “Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him.” It was the act of Christ in becoming sin by the imputation of the sins of the whole world to Him (cf. 1 John 2:2) that made possible reconciliation of a sinner to God.

Morris brings this out: “For although in these verses the apostle does not specifically mention the death of the Lord, there is not the slightest doubt that he has it in mind. For it is only through this death that man’s trespasses are put away on Paul’s view, and thus the cross is vividly present to his mind in verses 19 and 21 .”[3] Forsyth concurs with this interpretation: “The New Testament at least cannot sever Atonement from Reconciliation. The greatest passage which says that God was in Christ reconciling says in the same breath that it was by Christ being made sin for us. The reconciliation is attached to Christ’s death, and to that as an expiation.”[4]

The relationship of redemption, propitiation, and reconciliation, therefore, becomes clear. Christ by His death redeemed or paid the price for sin. This payment constituted a propitiation or satisfaction of God’s righteousness. This freed the love of God to act in grace toward the sinner in reconciling the sinner to Himself on the basis that Christ has died in his place. The believer who comes into the position of being in Christ through faith and through the baptism of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:13) thus is reconciled to God because God sees him in Christ. The whole act of reconciliation, therefore, is an act of God, a free gift to man, provided for all men, effective to those who believe. Those once estranged in Adam are now reconciled in Christ.

Romans 5:6–11. Considered by some to be just as important as the passage in 2 Corinthians, the presentation of the doctrine of reconciliation in Romans 5 is remarkable in many respects. It expounds, first of all, the fourfold need of man for reconciliation, presenting this in climactic order: (1) man’s inability, or lack of strength, i.e., “While we were yet weak” (v. 6 ); (2) man’s lack of merit: “ungodly” (v. 6 ); (3) man’s lack of righteousness, or his guilt before God: “sinners” (v. 8 ); (4) man’s lack of peace with God, being at enmity with God: “enemies” (v. 10). From this fourfold indictment, it is clear that man is without strength to accomplish his own reconciliation. He is without merit or a righteousness. He has in fact sinned against God and stands condemned for his disobedience. Finally, his moral depravity has placed an insurmountable wall between him and God, leaving him completely estranged from God’s love and mercy.

Certain theological conclusions also are presented forcibly in this passage. First, it may be observed that the death of Christ is mentioned in some way in each verse of the passage from verse 6 to verse 10, in contrast to 2 Corinthians 5, where the death of Christ is only mentioned in the last verse. Here the emphasis is clearly on the means of reconciliation. Second, reconciliation is presented as something that man desperately needs which he has no right to expect, but apart from which he is utterly estranged from God.

Third, reconciliation is shown to be a work of God rather than a work of man for God, as also in 2 Corinthians 5:17–21. It is a work which is objectively toward man, in contrast to propitiation which is objectively toward God. This is stated in verse 10 : “For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.” The verb forms are passive, indicating that God is the actor and man is the recipient. This conclusion is emphasized in verse 11, where it is added, “And not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.”

Fourth, reconciliation is presented in this passage as a ground for assurance. The logic is unanswerable. If Christ died for sinners who at that time were estranged from God, unable to reconcile themselves, and without any merit, if God by His mercy has reconciled sinners to Himself, how much more will He be merciful to those who are reconciled? In other words, if God can save a sinner, then the one who is already reconciled by the death of Christ shall certainly escape the wrath of God. The child of God is saved “in [or, by] His life.” The life of Christ mentioned here is the life which was given on Calvary which in resurrection continued to provide the basis for the believer’s intercession and advocacy.

Some confusion has arisen because in verse 9 mention is made of the wrath of God and of justification by the blood of Christ resulting in salvation from divine judgment. Some, therefore, have attempted to include this in the work of reconciliation. Morris, for instance, writes: “There is an objective aspect to reconciliation, and this may well be held to imply that there is a sense in which God can be said to be reconciled to man.”[5] Morris ignores, however, that the Bible carefully avoids ever saying this. It is more accurate to express it as God being propitiated, and man being reconciled. All agree that there is a Godward aspect of the atonement; the question is whether the word reconciliation is properly used of this concept.

Reconciliation necessarily depends upon other aspects of the work of God in salvation, namely, the redemption provided in respect to sin and the propitiation provided in respect to the righteous demands of God toward the sinner. These having been accomplished, however, God is now free to reconcile a sinner to Himself by declaring him to be in Christ and justified by faith. Technically, we are not saved because God has been propitiated, which is true of all men, nor because mankind as a whole has been provisionally reconciled. The act of salvation is a personal one by which the individual on the basis of all these works of God is placed in Christ, declared righteous, and therefore reconciled to a holy God. Taken as a whole, the Romans passage brings out in bold relief how tremendous is the scope of divine reconciliation, and how intrinsic is the work of Christ on our behalf as providing a basis by which reconciliation can be effected.

Ephesians 2:16. According to this passage, it was God’s purpose to reconcile Jew and Gentile in the present age and form from them “one new man” (Eph 2:15), “so making peace.” As Taylor expresses it: “…St. Paul is not thinking only of the reconciliation of individuals to God, but also of the creation of a new divine community, the Church of God, in which His work of conciliation in Christ is to find its perfect embodiment.”[6] The reconciliation which is afforded the believer in Christ not only reconciled Jew and Gentile in the body of Christ, but reconciled both unto God in the one body referring to the church as a living organism. Reconciliation, therefore, is effective between men as well as between man and God. Hence it may be regarded as horizontal as well as perpendicular.

Colossians 1:20–22. This passage confirms and expands the universal extent of reconciliation, declaring that reconciliation extends to all things, but especially toward sinful man: “And through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, I say, whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens. And you, being in time past alienated and enemies in your mind in your evil works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and without blemish and unreprovable, before him.”

The truth, as it is unfolded in this important passage, treats both the provision and application of reconciliation. All things are provisionally reconciled to God; this new relationship of peace has been made possible through the blood of the cross; it extends to all things, both in heaven and in earth provisionally; its application is specifically to sinners saved by grace who once were alienated and enemies through evil works, but now reconciled and presented holy, without blemish, and unreprovable before God. It should be clear from this passage, as well as from the others, that the act of reconciliation in the death of Christ does not in itself affect reconciliation for the individual, but rather that it is provisional and makes possible the reconciliation of the individual. The natural state of the unsaved continues unchanged even after the death of Christ until such time that the reconciling work is made effective in him when he believes. Having believed, however, and coming into a new relationship in Christ, he is considered by God as holy and without blemish and unreprovable, even though his actual state may be far from perfection. This passage again clearly indicates that it is the position of believer before God rather than his spiritual state which is in view. Even now the believer in this act of divine reckoning can be presented before a holy God.

The Extent of Reconciliation

Reconciliation provided for all. Reconciliation in its provision is intended for all men, and theologians who differ on this subject usually do so by definition of terms. As Shedd writes in connection with his discussion of the vicarious atonement of Christ: “In answering the question as to the ‘extent’ of Christ’s atonement, it must first be settled whether ‘extent’ means its intended application, or its intrinsic value; whether the active or the passive signification of the word is in the mind of the inquirer. If the word means value, then the atonement is unlimited; if it means extending, that is, applying, then the atonement is limited.”[7] Properly understood then, the question of the extent of the atonement does not give basis for the universalist who would teach that all men are saved, for the Bible truly contradicts his concept. And, on the other hand, it does not support the adherent of limited atonement who would try to make the provision of reconciliation limited to the elect. A proper orthodox point of view is that reconciliation is provided for all, but applied only to the elect.

The main issue in the question of the extent of reconciliation is that of the design of the atonement. If the strict Calvinist is correct, God’s essential purpose was to save the elect, and necessarily the death of Christ was directed primarily to this end. A more tenable position, however, is reflected in moderate Calvinistic, Lutheran, and Arminian theologians. They, in some cases, retained the essential features of Calvinism but held that God’s purpose in the death of Christ, while including the salvation of the elect, was a broader purpose to render the whole world savable or reconciled in the provisional sense.

The concept of reconciling the whole world has been given the term unlimited atonement, whereas the more strict Calvinistic, position is that of limited atonement. Many moderate Calvinists, while going along with the main tenets of Calvinism, nevertheless hold to unlimited atonement. The question is somewhat theoretical, as most theologians, even the strict Calvinists, agree that the death of Christ forensically was sufficient for all. The question is a technical one of God’s purpose in the death of Christ. The best solution, however, is to be found in what Christ actually did. Here the broad statement of 2 Corinthians 5, where God is said to reconcile the “world,” should be determinative. Just as redemption and propitiation were for all men (1 John 2:2), but are applicable only to those who believe, so also is the work of reconciliation.

This concept of the universality of the provision of reconciliation is borne out in the context in which reconciliation is discussed. In 2 Corinthians 5:14, emphasis is given to the fact that all were dead spiritually. The three instances of “all” in 2 Corinthians 2:14–15 seem to be universal. This is followed by the limited application indicated in the phrase “they which live.” Hence, the passage reads: “For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for all [universal], therefore all [universal] died; and he died for all [universal], that they that live [restricted to elect] shall no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again” (2 Cor 5:14–15). The word “all” is used, then, in a universal sense in this passage, followed by the restricted application indicated in the phrase, “they which live.” This is reinforced by the use of the word “world,” referring to all men, in verse 19.

Reconciliation applied to the elect when they believe. The reconciling work of Christ for all men does not become effective even for the elect until that moment of faith in Christ in which they pass from death unto life. Ephesians 2:1, referring to the Ephesian Christians, plainly indicates that even though they were elect prior to their salvation, they were “dead through…trespasses and sins.” Because of this, they lived according to the pattern of the world and “were by nature children of wrath even as the rest” (Eph 2:1–3). What is true of the Ephesian Christians is true today. Though the death of Christ occurred centuries ago, even the elect are not saved in any sense until reconciliation is applied. It is for this reason that the responsibility of carrying the message of reconciliation is pressed upon those who have already believed, and they are exhorted to carry the message to others.

Reconciliation in relation to the nonelect. The question may fairly be asked what benefit is the death of Christ to those who have not received Him as Savior. An unbeliever goes on to his eternal doom in much the same manner as if Christ had not died. If God has provisionally reconciled the whole world to Himself, how does this affect the unsaved, if at all?

The answer seems to be that the basis for his condemnation and judgment has been essentially changed. Apart from the death of Christ, a sinner would have been committed to his eternal punishment regardless of what he had done. Even if he had placed faith in God, he would still be in Adam, and there would be no provision of reconciliation or salvation for him. The provision having been made, however, the whole world is placed in an entirely different light. A person now proceeds to eternal punishment not because God has failed to provide, or because the love of God has been ineffective, but rather because he has rejected that which God has provided. This is set forth plainly in John 3:18: “He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.” The condemnation of the sinner now is not simply because he is a sinner, but because he has rejected God’s provision to care for his sin. Though he is still judged according to his works, his eternal punishment has a new character of being that which he chose in rejecting the love and grace of God in Christ.

Reconciliation in relation to the universe. One of the reasons why the death of Christ needed to extend to the entire world, not just to the elect, is the fact that the curse of sin inflicted on the universe by Adam had an effect far beyond the bounds of the human race. According to Romans 8:22, “the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.” The whole universe is laboring under the curse of God, which is manifested in many ways in nature as well as in man. It is for this reason that Colossians 1:20 speaks of reconciling “all things unto himself,” and specifically extends this reference to “things upon the earth, or things in the heavens.” The question may be raised, however, as to what extent reconciliation actually extends to the earth. Grace, seemingly, is unknown to the angels, except as they observe it in the relationship of God to man. The fallen angels have no offer of salvation and, having once sinned, are doomed. The physical universe, however, having been cursed by the sin of Adam is destined to have this curse relieved in the future millennial reign of Christ, when the desert will once again blossom as a rose, and satanic power will be inactive. Ultimately, God will destroy the present physical universe and replace it with a holy universe which stems from the reconciling work of Christ.

The results of reconciliation. In its broadest sense, the work of reconciliation extends to the total work of God on the behalf of the believer, while redemption is active toward the payment of the price for sin, and propitiation is directed to satisfaction of the righteousness of God. Reconciliation, then, deals with man’s total need and total restoration. Certain aspects, however, can be mentioned specifically. (1) The baptism of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13) is the work of God by which the believer is united to the body of Christ and comes into his new position “in Christ.” This, of course, is the key to the whole reconciling work of God. (2) In regeneration, the believer becomes a new creation, having received the very eternal life of God. Just as Adam became a natural man by having breathed into his body the breath of life, so the unregenerated man at the moment of salvation in Christ has breathed into his spiritually dead body the eternal life of God. As such, he is a new creature with a new nature and a new destiny. (3) By justification, the believer is declared righteous before God, because he is now in Christ. In this position there is imputed to him the righteousness of Christ and he is accepted as perfect in the presence of God. (4) The new position in Christ and His justification assures the believer’s positional sanctification in which he is set apart as holy to God. (5) In his new position, as reconciled to God, the believer has the possibility of intimate fellowship assisted by the indwelling presence of the Triune God and the transformation of his character through the new birth. Reconciliation, while essentially positional, has an experiential aspect as the believer walks in fellowship with God. (6) Ultimate sanctification is also assured the one who is thus reconciled to God, in which the believer’s spiritual state is elevated to his high position. (7) The final state of reconciliation is that of glorification in the presence of God in which the last evidences of sin are destroyed and the believer stands perfect and complete, sharing the very glory of Christ in heaven.

Notes

1. Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, p. 202.
2. Vincent Taylor, Forgiveness and Reconciliation, p. 73.
3. Morris, op. cit., p. 203.
4. Peter Forsyth, The Cruciality of the Cross, p. 138.
5. Morris, op. cit., p. 198.
6. Taylor, op. cit., p. 78.
7. W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, II, 466.

The Person and Work of Christ, Part XII: Reconciliation

By John F. Walvoord

Few doctrines are more important in a total theology than the doctrine of reconciliation. Though based on comparatively few specific references, reconciliation has been hailed as a doctrine of “vital concern both for doctrinal clarity and pulpit vitality.”[1] Vincent Taylor speaks of reconciliation as “the best New Testament word to describe the purpose of the Atonement….”[2] Referring to Paul’s discussion in 2 Corinthians 5, Taylor comments: “All through this section one cannot fail to be impressed with the immense importance St. Paul attaches to this message and to his sense of being divinely commissioned to declare it.”[3] Leon Morris introduces the subject of reconciliation by quoting T. H. Hughes to the effect that “in the New Testament the basic idea of the atonement is that of reconciliation.”[4] The importance attached to the doctrine of reconciliation not only justifies its discussion, but is also the occasion for major differences of opinion as to its meaning. Few doctrines have been more divergently described within orthodoxy than the doctrine of reconciliation, and, as subsequent discussion will show, the difficulty lies in definition. If limited to what the New Testament actually states about reconciliation, the doctrine is a facet but not the whole. If the doctrine is encumbered with other aspects of soteriology which are logically necessary to accomplish reconciliation, it becomes a more general word with a broader definition.

It is the thesis of this presentation that the doctrine of reconciliation is properly the work of God for man in which God undertakes to transform man and make possible and actual his eternal fellowship with a holy God. Two major aspects will be observed. First, provisionally reconciliation was accomplished once and for all by Christ on the cross with the result that the whole world was potentially reconciled to God. Second, reconciliation becomes actual and experiential in the person of believers in Christ who are reconciled to God at the time of their salvation. It may be seen, therefore, that while reconciliation does not embrace all of the work of Christ, it depends upon it. Its prerequisites are the work of God in Christ in providing redemption and propitiation, on the basis of which man is justified, regenerated, and made a new creature in Christ.

Reconciliation in the Old Testament

As most treatises of reconciliation recognize, the Old Testament doctrine of reconciliation adds little to the New Testament. Several words in the Old Testament are commonly translated reconcile such as kaphar (cf. Lev 6:30; 8:15; 16:20; Ezek 45:15, 17, 20; Dan 9:24). It is a common word used of spreading pitch on the ark (Gen 6:14), but translated, when in the piel, to mean to obtain forgiveness, and hence to reconcile. Mention should also be made of chata translated reconciliation in 2 Chronicles 29:24 and ratsah found in 1 Samuel 29:4, translated reconcile. These two words mean, respectively to bear the blame, in reference to the sin offering, and to make one’s self pleasing, to obtain favor. The Old Testament allusions actually add little, either by way of background or definition, to the New Testament doctrine. What is true of the Old Testament carries over into the Septuagint where only rarely the Greek words found in the New Testament for reconciliation are found and such instances as occur are not especially significant as Morris points out.[5] In the literature of Judaism, also discussed by Leon Morris, little can be learned except that there was widespread understanding that man could not be reconciled to God unless something was done to appease the wrath of God. Such reconciliation seldom rose above an anthropomorphic concept of two people in disagreement resolving their difficulties. Though, as Morris states: “The best Rabbinic thought had risen to the concept of God Himself bringing about the reconciliation….”[6] Taken as a whole, the doctrine of the reconciliation before the New Testament is not specific nor precise in its theology and to some extent confuses rather than clarifies the issues involved.

Survey of New Testament Usage

All the words directly related to the doctrine of reconciliation come from the same root. Probably the most important is καταλλάσσω found twice in active form (2 Cor 5:18, 19) and four times in passive form (Rom 5:10, twice; 1 Cor 7:11; 2 Cor 5:20). It is defined simply as “to reconcile” or in the passive “to become reconciled.”[7] It is used ordinarily of the relationship effected by God in which man is reconciled to Himself. In the New Testament an illustration of human reconciliation is afforded in 1 Corinthians 7:11 where an estranged wife is reconciled to her husband. In every reference where God is spoken of as reconciling man, that is, in five out of six instances, man is spoken of as reconciled to God rather than God as being reconciled to man. In keeping with the preliminary definition, usage would indicate the general meaning of reconciliation as bringing about a renewal of fellowship and relationship effected by God in His transformation of man.

The second Greek word is καταλλαγή, a noun form of the preceding word. Its definition is the same as the verb, and in all four instances (Rom 11:15; 2 Cor 5:18, 19; as well as in Romans 5:11 where the Authorized Version translates it atonement) the work of reconciliation is spoken of as originating in God and effective toward man.

A third Greek word is ἀποκαταλλάσσω, and is found three times in the New Testament (Eph 2:16; Col 1:20, 21). This word does not occur in any previous Greek literature, and some feel Paul coined it to express the completeness of reconciliation. It means to reconcile completely.[8]

Two other words commonly cited, namely διαλλάσσω (Matt 5:24; cf. LXX, 1 Sam 29:4; 1 Esdras 4:31) and ἱλάσκομαι, translated merciful in Luke 18:13 and incorrectly translated reconciliation in Hebrews 2:17, are not properly related to the doctrine of reconciliation, as most evangelical scholars agree. Of the first three words which form the basis of New Testament study, eleven are specifically descriptive of the relation of God to man and in every instance man is said to be reconciled to God, and God is referred to as the One who effects the reconciliation.

From a preliminary survey of the New Testament usage, there is no reason for rejecting a simple definition of reconciliation to the effect that it is the work of God through the death of Christ by which sinful man is brought to spiritual fellowship and moral harmony with God. In this definition, reconciliation is viewed as dealing with man’s position with enmity in his sinful state and the resultant work wipes out that enmity and transforms man into a new creature, making possible his eternal fellowship with God.

Who Is Reconciled?

Four divergent interpretations of reconciliation appear in answer to the question “Who is reconciled?” William G. T. Shedd is an advocate of the view that reconciliation has God as its object. Shedd holds it is accurate to say that God is reconciled to man.[9]

A second view is offered by Charles Hodge which has attracted many contemporary adherents including Leon Miller. Hodge states in effect that reconciliation affects both parties in that peace is restored between them. In his understanding, God and man are both reconciled.[10]

A third point of view is represented by that of A. H. Strong who holds that the object of reconciliation is man rather than God in that man is changed, not God.[11] Strong views reconciliation as including election, calling, union with Christ, regeneration, conversion, justification, sanctification, and perserverance. A fourth modern view, typical of neo-orthodoxy and Barthian theology, is that reconciliation was accomplished by the incarnation of Christ rather than by the death of Christ, and though not within the ordinary limits of orthodoxy, must be taken into consideration in any modern treatment of the doctrine.

The view of Shedd is set forth in some clarity in his discussion as follows: “The objective nature of atonement appears, again, in the New Testament term καταλλαγή and the verb καταλλάσσειν. These two words occur nine times in the New Testament, with reference to Christ’s atoning work. Rom 5:10, 11, 15; 2 Cor 5:18–20. In the authorized version καταλλαγή is translated ‘atonement’ in Rom 5:11; but in the other instances, ‘reconciliation’ and ‘reconcile’ are the terms employed. The verb καταλλάσσειν primarily signifies, ‘to pay the exchange, or difference,’ and secondly ‘to conciliate, or appease.’ The following from Athenaus (X. 33) brings to view both meanings of the word. ‘Why do we say that a tetradrachma καταλλεται, when we never speak of its getting into a passion?’ A coin is ‘exchanged,’ in the primary signification; and a man is ‘reconciled,’ in the secondary. Two parties in a bargain settle their difference, or are ‘reconciled,’ by one paying the exchange or balance to the other. In like manner two parties at enmity settle their difference, or are ‘reconciled,’ by one making a satisfaction to the other. In each instance the transaction is called in Greek καταλλαγή. The same usage is found in the Anglo-Saxon language. The Saxon bot, from which comes the modern boot, denotes, first, a compensation paid to the offended party by the offender; then, secondly, the reconciling effect produced by such compensation; and, lastly, it signifies the state of mind which prompted the boot or compensation, namely repentance itself. Bosworth: AngloSaxon Dictionary, sub voce.

“The term ‘reconciliation’ is objective in its siglaification. Reconciliation terminates upon the object, not upon the subject. The offender reconciles not himself but the person whom he has offended, by undergoing some loss and thereby making amends. This is clearly taught in Matt 5:24. ‘First, be reconciled to thy brother’ (διαλλαγηθι τῳ ἀδελφῳ). Here, the brother who has done the injury is the one who is to make up the difference. He is to propitiate or reconcile his brother to himself, by a compensation of some kind. Reconciliation, here, does not denote a process in the mind of the offender, but of the offended. The meaning is not: ‘First conciliate thine own displeasure towards thy brother,’ but, ‘First conciliate thy brother’s displeasure toward thee.’ In the Episcopalian Order for the Holy Communion, it is said: ‘If ye shall perceive your offences to be such as are not only against God, but also against your neighbors; then ye shall reconcile yourselves unto them; being ready to make restitution and satisfaction, according to the uttermost of your powers, for all injuries and wrongs done by you to any other.’ The Biblical phraseology, ‘Be reconciled to thy brother,’ agrees with that of common life, in describing reconciliation from the side of the offending party, rather than of the offended. We say of the settlement of a rebellion, that ‘the subjects are reconciled to their sovereign,’ rather than that ‘the sovereign is reconciled to the subjects’; though the latter is the more strictly accurate, because it is the sovereign who is reconciled by a satisfaction made to him by the subjects who have rebelled. In Rom 5:10, believers are said to be ‘reconciled to God by the death of his Son.’ Here the reconciliation is described from the side of the offending party; man is said to be reconciled. Yet this does not mean the subjective reconciliation of God towards the sinner. For the preceding verse speaks of God as a being from whose ‘wrath’ the believer is saved by the death of Christ. This shows that the reconciliation effected by Christ’s atoning death is that of the divine anger against sin.”[12]

Though the presentation of Shedd may seem to be a reasonable understanding of the doctrine, a close study will reveal a number of fallacies. (1) Shedd has ignored the specific language of the New Testament which always speaks of God as reconciling man to Himself. Grammatically, God is the subject and man is the object. Never does the Bible say that God is reconciled. It is significant that Shedd avoids comment on 2 Corinthians 5:14–21 which is a major passage on reconciliation and in which the world is declared to be reconciled to God. (2) Shedd confuses reconciliation with propitiation. It may be conceded that propitiation is an essential prerequisite to reconciliation in that God’s righteousness must be satisfied before any mercy can be shown to man. The New Testament, however, does not use reconciliation in the sense of propitiation, and the two words must not be exchanged. (3) Shedd presents reconciliation as a change of attitude on the part of God toward man. This is accomplished, however, not by reconciliation, but by propitiation and the fault lies with what man is rather than what God is. (4) It is significant that Shedd appeals to Matthew 5:24, a word never used for reconciliation between God and man. The command “First, be reconciled to thy brother” does not reveal how the reconciliation is to be accomplished. On a human plane often apology and restitution will affect a reconciliation, but in the relationship between man and God this is an impossibility for man. His illustration of rebelling subjects effecting reconciliation toward their sovereign ruler is a human illustration of human relationships quite different from the relationship of man to God. Though Shedd can say that it is “more strictly accurate” to say that the sovereign is reconciled to his subjects, he would not say that the Bible is not accurate in its terminology. Basically Shedd’s problem is that he is reading into the doctrine of reconciliation a meaning which is not given to it in the New Testament and is ignoring what the Bible actually says on the subject. While evangelical scholarship is in agreement that propitiation is essential to reconciliation, it does not follow that propitiation is included in the New Testament concept of reconciliation.

Charles Hodge represents a mediate position which has attracted many scholars. His point of view is represented in the following quotation: “Still another form in which the doctrine of expiation is taught is found in those passages which refer our reconciliation to God to the death of Christ. The Greek word used to express this idea in Romans v.10; 2 Corinthians v. 18, 19, 20 is καταλλάσειν, to exchange, or to change the relation of one person to another, from enmity to friendship. In Ephesians ii.16; Colossians i.20, 21, the word used is ἀποκατταλάττειν, only an intensive form, to reconcile fully. When two parties are at enmity a reconciliation may be effected by a change in either or in both. When, therefore, it is said that we are reconciled to God, it only means that peace is restored between Him and us. Whether this is effected by our enmity towards Him being removed, or by his justice in regard to us being satisfied, or whether both ideas are in any case included, depends on the context where the word occurs, and on the analogy of Scripture. In the chief passage, Romans v.10, the obvious meaning is that the reconciliation is effected by God’s justice being satisfied, so that He can be favourable to us in consistency with his own nature.

* * *

The reconciliation of God with man is effected by the cross or death of Christ, which, removing the necessity for the punishment of sinners, renders it possible for God to manifest towards them his love. The change is not in man, but, humanly speaking, in God; a change from the purpose to punish to a purpose to pardon and save. There is, so to speak, a reconciliation of God’s justice and of his love effected by Christ’s bearing the penalty in our stead.”[13]

From these quotations, it is evident that Hodge views reconciliation as a renewal of peace between God and man resulting from God’s justice being satisfied. His extended discussion is based upon two main arguments: (1) that reconciliation by the death of Christ constitutes an expiation to God which has to, do with the enmity of God toward man rather than man’s enmity toward God; (2) that justification is accomplished by the death of Christ, but not sanctification as it does not result in the immediate subjective change of the sinner. He therefore concludes that reconciliation cannot be said to be the change of the sinner himself and deals primarily with God rather than man.

A number of objections, however, can be cited in opposition to Hodges’s conclusions. It may be agreed (1) that Christ’s death constituted an expiation for sin represented in the non-sweet-savor offerings of the Old Testament. But this was not all that was accomplished by Christ as there was also the sweet-savor aspect in which His righteous obedience was accepted in lieu of our obedience and Satan’s power over the sinner was broken. All agree that the death of Christ does not in itself effect a subjective change in the sinner, but the provisional reconciliation effected by Christ is made actual at the time the individual believes, and the change at that time is not a change in God but a change in man.

(2) There is confusion of that which is positional, true of all Christians, and that which is subjective or conditional. Reconciliation basically does not have to do with man’s feelings toward God, but of his position before God. The unsaved are at enmity toward God not because they feel at enmity, but because they are in Adam who sinned. The child of God who is saved in Christ is reconciled, not because he feels differently, but because he is now in Christ.

(3) Hodge’s distinguishing between justification and sanctification is another failure to differentiate that which is positional and that which is experiential. Neither justification nor sanctification are accomplished for the believer until the moment of saving faith, and both are perfect as far as the believer’s position is concerned. The progressing sanctifying experiences of the Christian’s life do not improve his reconciliation to God, but are an expression of it just as much as reconciliation.

(4) His argument based on the word “enemies” in Romans 5:10 does not sustain his point. The reason they are the objects of God’s wrath is because they are in Adam. Even the death of Christ does not change their ultimate judgment as long as they remain in Adam. It is when one believes in Christ that one becomes actually reconciled to God. Both propitiation and reconciliation are in some sense inoperative until accepted by faith.

Augustus H. Strong in his discussion of reconciliation does not consider in a formal way the arguments for the objective nature of reconciliation. He rather presents an exposition of his own point of view that the work of God in reconciliation includes His total work for man. Reconciliation therefore is viewed as the application of the work of Christ to man. The exegesis of important Scripture passages will bear out Strong’s point of view. The supporting arguments therefore for Strong’s thesis will be considered in the exposition of major passages in the New Testament on reconciliation to follow in a later discussion.

Before turning, however, to this material, note should be taken of the modern interpretation characteristic of neo-orthodoxy that it is the incarnation of Christ rather than the work of Christ on the cross which constitutes the basic work of reconciliation. Karl Barth, for instance, resists the old orthodox concept of the hypostatic union of God and man in Christ and prefers to regard God’s deity as including His humanity. Barth writes: “In Jesus Christ there is no isolation of man from God or of God from man. Rather, in Him we encounter the history, the dialogue, in which God and man meet together and are together, the reality of the covenant mutually contracted, preserved, and fulfilled by them. Jesus Christ in His one Person, as true God, man’s loyal partner, and as true man, God’s. He is the Lord humbled for communion with man and likewise the Servant exalted to communion with God. He is the Word spoken from the loftiest, most luminous transcendence and likewise the Word heard in the deepest, darkest immanence. He is both, without their being confused but also without their being divided; He is wholly the one and wholly the other. Thus in this oneness Jesus Christ is the Mediator, the Reconciler, between God and man. Thus He comes forward to man on behalf of God calling for and awakening faith, love, and hope, and to God on behalf of man, representing man, making satisfaction and interceding. Thus He attests and guarantees to man God’s free grace and at the same time attests and guarantees to God man’s free gratitude. Thus he establishes in His Person the justice of God vis-a-vis man and also the justice of man before God. Thus He is in His Person the covenant in its fullness, the kingdom of heaven which is at hand, in which God speaks and man hears, God gives and man receives, God commands and man obeys, God’s glory shines in the heights and thence into the depths, and peace on earth comes to pass among men in whom He is well pleased. Moreover, exactly in this way Jesus Christ, as this Mediator and Reconciler between God and man, is also the Revealer of them both.”[14]

It is probably fair to Barth to indicate that he does not by this statement push aside the work of Christ on the cross. It is rather a matter of emphasis. The infinite God has bridged the gap to finite man by including man in His deity. It is this act which is the basic reconciliation rather than any subsequent action of the Redeemer. As in the doctrine of revelation in neo-orthodoxy, the emphasis is transferred from the work to the Person.

From the standpoint of traditional orthodoxy, it may be agreed that the act of incarnation was an essential prerequisite to the act of reconciliation. The idea, however, that the incarnation in itself effected the reconciliation must be resisted. Conceivably Christ could have become incarnate without having reconciled the world to Himself if He had failed to become the sacrifice for sin which was basically required and if no human beings actually ever entered into the reconciliation thus provided. The confusion of ideas and interpretations relative to the doctrine of reconciliation can be resolved only by strict adherence to Scriptural usage and terminology and this will form the substance of our subsequent discussion.

Notes

1. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “From Enmity to Amity,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 474:139, April, 1962.
2. Vincent Taylor, The Atonement in New Testament Teaching, p. 191.
3. Vincent Taylor, Forgiveness and Reconciliation, p. 73.
4. Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, citing T. H. Hughes, The Atonement, p. 312.
5. Ibid., p. 188.
6. Ibid., p. 192.
7. Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 415.
8. Cf. Arndt and Gingrich, ibid., p. 92.
9. W. G. T. Shedd., Dogmatic Theology, II, 395–97.
10. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, II, 514.
11. A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 886.
12. Shedd, ibid., II, 395–96.
13. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, II, 514–15.
14. Karl Barth, The Humanity of God, pp. 46-47.