# Apostolic Preaching: Why is Resurrection empasized?



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 12, 2005)

I was just pondering this today. I noticed in the apostolic sermons in Acts, a greater emphasis seems to laid on the ressurection of Jesus than on his crucifixion and death. Paul doesn't even mention His death in Acts 17 before the Areopagus. It is only implied by statindg He was resurrected. That seems to me to be quite a diffferent emphasis today even in Reformed churches, which focus more on the life and death of Jesus rather than the ressurection. Do you think this may have any connection to downgrade in the Church today? How should we emphasize the resurrection today?


----------



## DTK (Dec 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> I was just pondering this today. I noticed in the apostolic sermons in Acts, a greater emphasis seems to laid on the ressurection of Jesus than on his crucifixion and death. Paul doesn't even mention His death in Acts 17 before the Areopagus. It is only implied by statindg He was resurrected. That seems to me to be quite a diffferent emphasis today even in Reformed churches, which focus more on the life and death of Jesus rather than the ressurection. Do you think this may have any connection to downgrade in the Church today? How should we emphasize the resurrection today?


This is an accurate observation regarding the specimen sermons of the Apostles in the Book of Acts. It is, moreover, a charge from an Eastern Orthodox perspective that we "Reformed" emphasize the atoning death of Christ to the slighting of His resurrection. I suppose that if one is prone to follow this line of reasoning/argumentation that the Apostle Paul could be criticized in the same manner regarding his evangelistic work among the Corinthians, when he stated in his own words...


> 1 Corinthians 2:2, For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.


Both doctrines must be preached. Without the atoning death of Christ, we would have no resurrection, and without the resurrection our faith would be in vain (1 Cor 15:17). Obviously, we cannot have the one without the other; and whenever one is preached, the other must be declared in equal proximity to it.

Nothing earth-shattering here, but that's my 

DTK


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Dec 12, 2005)

The resurrection changed everything. It turned the world upside down. The good news (evangelion) of the birth and rise of a new king was seen as a sign of hope, and a chance for peace for all the world. Couple this with the fact that this new king defeated death itself ... who better to give the world a chance for hope, peace, and renewal?


----------



## Casey (Dec 12, 2005)

You might want to check out _Resurrection and Redemption: A study in Paul's soteriology_, by Gaffin (an entire book on that subject! P&R). Also, _When the Time Had Fully Come: Studies in New Testament theology_, by Ridderbos, has an interesting chapter entitled "The redemptive-historical character of Paul's preaching" that might shed some light here (at least, it has for me; Eerdmans or W&S).


----------



## JohnV (Dec 12, 2005)

I suppose that if there is such a thing going on in certain places it would be because of the lack of novelty in the single act of resurrection, while Jesus' acts while walking among men, both in the miracles and in the teachings, can be mined for many different novelties. Also His agony and death can be seen from many different angles or perspectives. 

If it is the case that this is happening I would say that it coincides a great deal with the appetite for novelty, with so many new ideas and perspectives becoming theological currency in our times. I tried a little while ago to count on my fingers all the new _isms_ that I've personally run across in the churches, and I couldn't remember them all. I know there were at least five at the same time in my original church, but I can't name them all anymore; and that didn't take into account the ones that I took only passing interest in. But I do recall that, of the ones I remember, a lot of them had a lot to say about Jesus' miracles and teachings, and about His actual death, and not too much about the resurrection, when I think about it. There was a lot of doubt cast on the historicity of these, whether these were actual, metaphorical, or allegorical. It was a phase we as Western churches were going through, I think. 

The present _isms_ don't make too much of that anymore, but are still calling into question teachings via the concept of approaching things from different perspectives, it seems. And it seems to me that there isn't a great deal of lattitude on the resurrection, not like there is on Jesus' life and death. But it's like David King says, what you say about the one impacts what you believe about the other. If someone denies that Jesus died, then how can he still hold that Jesus rose from the dead? 

I would just note that the _isms_ don't have to be heretical themselves to spread heresy. All they have to do is: either replace or supplant received doctrine, or become normative to understanding them; or they only need to stand alongside received doctrine. In the past we saw Albert Schweitzer's ideas not only thought of as doctrine at first, but raised beyond that as normative to understanding doctrine. Same with Barth's teachings. They spread a net over all of the Bible to give it new and fresh meaning. But in order to do this ( and this is the point I'm making ) they have to virtually ignore the resurrection because it is a simple doctrine, a single act that is central to doctrine. It is so easy to disprove: just produce Jesus' body, and the whole thing is undone. But a lot of people miss the fact that some denials of Jesus' mighty acts and teachings also impact the resurrection. And we're just getting into those now, I think, with new ideas on justification showing up. 

So what I'm saying is that the resurrection is not so much more central to teaching than Jesus' life and death, but that whatever is taught about Jesus' life and death cannot contradict the most basic and single doctrine of the resurrection: either one believes it or one denies it. If any teaching leads to a denial of the resurrection, in whole or in part, it can't be right. And remember also that the Spirit gives us a test for the spirits of teachings, namely that of whether it upholds the teaching that Jesus came in the flesh from God. This takes the whole into account. 

One cannot deny the resurrection without contradicting Scripture, but one can put new spins on it to change or nagate its meaning. And that requires first off new spins on His life and teaching, and then on the meaning of His death. So the way to attack the resurrection is via an attack on Jesus' life and death. And that is perhaps what we are seeing in our day.

Just my thoughts on this.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 12, 2005)

I think the resurrection should be as equaled a motiff as His death. Think about Sunday services - what is the motiff? Confessiona nd forgiveness, for example, should be coupled with the reality surrounding the resurrection. many of the Psalms we sing are often chosen around that motiff, such as Psalm 16 which we just sung this past Sunday. 

The Resurrection is the "stamp of approval" of the cross. Who would want a dead messiah? Dead messiah's can't do naything - they're dead. Instead, Christ is forever alive and we should concentrate of bringing to light His current intercession for us as the RISEN Savior.

We need more sermons and books on the resurrection.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> We need more sermons and books on the resurrection.



I was thinking about that too. How could we explain the significance of the resurrection better? I was thinking about that idea of the Risen Christ as our intercessor. Our conversion was a result of His intercession and sending of the Spirit. Our sanctification is a direct result of His intercessiobn and rule over us. His presence in the Supper is another idea to ponder. Christ's direct presence in the preaching of the gospel as well has made me reconsider how I listen to preaching. Our vistories over oppressors are the direct result of His intervention. These would certainly help people understand in rather practical ways the present work of the risen Christ in their lives. This would help us be more Christ centered in preaching in a fresh way. Am I heading in the right direction? Any other thoughts or ideas?


----------



## DTK (Dec 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> How could we explain the significance of the resurrection better? I was thinking about that idea of the Risen Christ as our intercessor. Our conversion was a result of His intercession and sending of the Spirit. Our sanctification is a direct result of His intercession and rule over us. His presence in the Supper is another idea to ponder. Christ's direct presence in the preaching of the gospel as well has made me reconsider how I listen to preaching. Our vistories over oppressors are the direct result of His intervention. These would certainly help people understand in rather practical ways the present work of the risen Christ in their lives. This would help us be more Christ centered in preaching in a fresh way. Am I heading in the right direction? Any other thoughts or ideas?


Patrick,

I think your sancified "brain-storming" here is a very good discipline to be observed. Such meditation forces us to think. But I'm not sure that the resurrection of Christ and Christ's present activity as the Risen Lord can be equated in the sense that sermons on the latter constitute a return to an emphasis on the former. In other words, I'm not sure that preaching on Christ's present ministry as Intercessor, Mediator, His presence in the supper, our sanctification, etc. constitute a return to an emphasis on the resurrection of Christ in our preaching, especially as you saw it emphasized in the Book of Acts in those specimen sermons of early apostolic preaching. It is true, of course, that all these realities presuppose the resurrection of Christ. Perhaps the pericope of Romans 6:4 (and the context surrounding it) would provide the practical implications for our sanctification based upon Christ's resurrection, and which would then constitute some very good material for a sermonic emphasis on Christ's resurrection from that perspective. But in the Book of Acts, those specimen sermons emphasizing the resurrection of Christ seem to have more of an evangelistic thrust to them as the Gospel spreads from Jerusalem to Judea, Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the then known world.

At the same time, I can see where an emphasis on the death of Christ finds a central place in the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and in the epistles of the NT. I don't have the time to do so now, but I would like to make a post in the future to show how the cross of Christ is introduced and woven into the fabric of practical Christian living in the NT. Apart from the pericope of the Romans 6 passage, I'm not sure that we find the resurrection of Christ so used, in that sense, by the apostolic writers of the NT. I hope I can provide such a post soon. But even so, I do want to emphasize again that both events (Christ's atoning death and His resurrection), though distinguishable, are nonetheless inseparable for the accomplishment of our redemption, and that one by necessity implies the other. Now, to be sure, Romans 4:25 certainly connects Christ's resurrection with our justification, and that would be a theme to be worked out homiletically.

Again, these remarks are rather "off-the-cuff" more than the product of extended theological reflection which interacts thoroughly with the NT corpus, and as always are subject to the scrutiny and correction of a more able man than myself.

DTK


----------



## Larry Hughes (Dec 12, 2005)

Patrick,

I've noticed that too and even in my own thinking. I've read some items of late quite unconnected on my part that have really brought that out more. In this sense as opposed to as you said the life (before the cross) and death of Christ - but rather the strong death-life (life here meaning ressurrection/post cross and tomb) motiff of Christ and the believer by his/her being in Christ. 

Particularly with Paul when pressed about the Gospel in questioning it, "what shall we sin that grace may abound". The question reveals the still "legal" old Adam seeking something "to do". Paul doesn't backtrack or "chicken out" at this point by saying something like we would today saying, "of course you must do this or that" to kind of soften the Gospel and cool the legal Adam in all of us. Rather the Apostle presses the Gospel onward but that he does it this way: He leaves the legal language of justification and presses it forward in the death-ressurrection or death-life motif/language. 

Some have proposed that the legal language though helpful at the start breaks down eventually as our old nature understands things and this is where Paul goes onward with the death-life language to press the Gospel forward. The death-life of the believer is the old Adam dying, the doer, who seeks always in some way to "play a part" in his/her salvation. This by the Word of the cross which says you can never DO anything anywhere in the line of salvation, such thinking is deadly for it re-feeds and nurishes the old Adam seeking self-salvation/righteousness. The life or ressurrection is on the foundation of that death, the "doer" dies by the Word of the cross and what arises is the new Creature heretofore never before. Or out of nothing by the Gospel God calls into being that which was not, just Lazarus. Death of the old Adam being a "not existence".

Some would say, "Is there nothing I must do?" And again it is fundamentally the same question as before betraying the old Adam trying to live. If salvation comes the old Adam must die and that is the impossible thing except by the Gospel and the Holy Spirit.

We see this death-life motif even in views of election. One side of us is terrified by Divine election, the old Adam. Why? Because it says in short, "You can do absolutely nothing to save yourself." The old Adam fumes and rages at this and at length despairs and must die. But election from the view of the Gospel (absolutely without our doing), the new creature in Christ, election becomes a tremendous and great source of strengthening of the faith to wit, "THANK God it is not of my doing in the least!"

I saw your post and immediately was drawn to it because in the past month or so the same thing has been coming across to me.

Grace and Peace,

Larry


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> At the same time, I can see where an emphasis on the death of Christ finds a central place in the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and in the epistles of the NT. I don't have the time to do so now, but I would like to make a post in the future to show how the cross of Christ is introduced and woven into the fabric of practical Christian living in the NT. Apart from the pericope of the Romans 6 passage, I'm not sure that we find the resurrection of Christ so used, in that sense, by the apostolic writers of the NT. I hope I can provide such a post soon. But even so, I do want to emphasize again that both events (Christ's atoning death and His resurrection), though distinguishable, are nonetheless inseparable for the accomplishment of our redemption, and that one by necessity implies the other. Now, to be sure, Romans 4:25 certainly connects Christ's resurrection with our justification, and that would be a theme to be worked out homiletically.



That is true. The cross is emphasized alot more in Paul's epistles. I wonder why the contrast? Perhaps Luke is focusing on the resurrection more for a redemptive historical explanations of the expanse of the gospel to the Gentiles while Paul is addressing the theological applications to present kingdom living between the two ages? More "santicified brainstorming" I guess


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> I've noticed that too and even in my own thinking. I've read some items of late quite unconnected on my part that have really brought that out more. In this sense as opposed to as you said the life (before the cross) and death of Christ - but rather the strong death-life (life here meaning ressurrection/post cross and tomb) motiff of Christ and the believer by his/her being in Christ.



That is true. Some more to think over.....


----------

