Within recent weeks, when the world of Christendom has turned its attention to Christmas and the birth of the Messiah, my mind has turned towards Easter and the great event that is celebrated on that day, namely the resurrection. It began in looking into the New Perspective(s) on Paul over the summer and has culminated with viewing a lecture series by N.T. Wright on the book of Acts and a theological symposium held in 2006 at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, MO. One theme that kept resurfacing in my reading, viewing, and listening has been the theme of the resurrection, not only Jesus’ resurrection but also the believers’ resurrection.
I read, for example, in Matthew the Son of David coming to Israel and Judah. He rarely interacts with Gentiles and even tells the Twelve, when he sends them out on mission to proclaim the gospel of the kingdom, to not go to the Gentiles and Samaritans but only to Israel. Yet at the resurrection Matthew paints a Jesus who says to not only to Israel but to all nations and make them his disciples. Just read the entire book of Acts. The message the early church proclaims is not a Messiah who was crucified for sins–though that is present–but a Messiah who was resurrected from the grave to fulfill God’s promises in the OT and now appointed as God’s judge. The early church proclaimed a resurrected Jesus to both the Jews and the Gentiles. That’s what sparked all the controversy in Acts for the church. And that is just two examples off the top of my head at 11:30 pm.
During this time of seeing how important a theme the resurrection is in the New Testament, in my corner of Christendom (Reformed Evangelical Protestant, SBC), I have noticed that the resurrection is often not discussed, if at all. When it comes up, it is in passing and no exposition is given upon the resurrection. Usually those who do often do so because of the discussion being about how the world is going to end and what happens when it does. The resurrection seems like it is just part of what happens at the last day.
On Easter, in my experience, when we are to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus I hear sermons and exposition on the even of Good Friday, namely the crucifixion. I think most notably of my pastor in KC, MO. He has got to be my favorite expositor of Scripture. The authority and compassion with which he speaks is captivating while at the same time his insight into the Scripture is both deep and complex yet also simple and clear. God has truly gifted this man with the gift of preaching. In his preaching, I have observed more and more that the resurrection has gone largely untouched while at the same time the cross of Jesus is clearly expounded and unpacked. The members of my church back in KC can clearly articulate a theology of the cross, one that is fairly balanced in the major theories of atonement (but most definitely it is a church that holds primarily to penal substitution). But, as simple observation, I’m not certain they can articulate a theology of the resurrection, both Jesus’ resurrection as well as the resurrection of humanity. Let me very fair to my pastor here. I spend Easter at home in Columbia with my family so I’m not in KC where a resurrection sermon is preached. Furthermore, my pastor spent about 18 months preaching in Hebrews where the death of Jesus is focused on, but the resurrection is not neglected only the death receives the most exposition by the letter. Now he is wrapping up a series on the prophet Malachi, a text that doesn’t display a lot of resurrection themes. I do keep this in mind.
When I listen to guys like R C Sproul, John McAurthur, and John Piper (to name a few off the top of my head), the same can be said to be true. There is a clear articulation in their preaching and teaching of a theology of the cross but not so much a theology of the resurrection. And usually when I do hear these pillars of my Christian faith speak of the resurrection, like on Easter, it is only to point back to the cross where at which point their clearly defined theology of the cross is articulated again.
So as I sit here in my bed–okay not my bed but the bed in my parents’ guest bedroom–I have a couple of questions. The first question has to be, what is a theology of the resurrection? What does the resurrection (both Jesus and the believer) mean and what are its implications on soteriology and ecclesiology and missiology and the sacraments etc.? In other words, what does Jesus’ resurrection mean in terms of the salvation of both the individual and the people of God? What impact does the resurrection have on our understanding of the sacraments (Lord’s “Dinner” and Baptism) and the church? What is the significance of the resurrection in the evangelism of the lost world? What does it do to our methodology and message? What does a theology of the resurrection look like and where does one start? What narratives are needed to articulate this theology? Evangelicalism is quick to move to the Yom Kippur, Day of Atonement, narrative in the Old Testament to articulate the meaning of the cross. What narrative is needed for the resurrection?
The other pressing matter in this observation is this, why is this theology of the resurrection missing (for a lack of a better term)? Why isn’t it being articulated clearly? Why aren’t we debating the meaning of the resurrection as much as we are debating the meaning of the atonement? I know one answer is that the cross is what is being challenged. But is that because the world accepts the resurrection that has been proclaimed, or has the world not heard the resurrection and therefore is not challenging its meaning? Again I can only speak of my own pocket of Christendom. May be someone who reads this post is in a pocket of Christendom where a theology of the resurrection is clearly articulated.
I don’t have answers to these questions and so I’m not asking to lead a discussion in a certain direction. I am honestly asking these questions and seeking honest answers to them. I would deeply appreciate feedback to them if you would like to provide some.
