Resurrection as Receipt?

[JTB.SDG]

Did a good bit of study and reading this last week on this topic. It seems to make sense: if Christ offering himself up on the cross was him making payment for sins, it only seems to follow that the resurrection acted as a "proof of purchase"; that this payment was effective, accepted by the Father. In citing Scripture, most refer either to 1 Corinthians 15:17 or Romans 4:25. But there are at least 3 views on what Romans 4:25 really means, and though this is one way you could take the 1 Corinthians 15:17 passage, it's certainly not the only possible meaning.

I really like the idea of this but am still grappling with if it's truly definitely Scriptural. Are there other Scriptures I'm missing? Any thoughts on this?

 

[Herald]

Jon, the Atonement was both penal and substitutionary. Christ paid our sin debt and our just punishment was taken by Him on the cross. I would not say that the resurrection was "proof of purchase" as much as I would say the resurrection was proof of victory. All analogies fail at some point, so it is difficult to find one that adequately explains the Atonement.

 

[JTB.SDG]

Thanks Bill. Also, just to clarify, I'm not saying by any means this is ALL the resurrection was or ALL it means. Just trying to discern if this is one aspect.

 

[Jack K]

Several good theologians have said the resurrection proves that God accepted all the saving work of Christ, or something like that. So yes, the redemptive purchase of his people is part of that, but only one aspect.

 

[JTB.SDG]

Several good theologians have said the resurrection proves that God accepted all the saving work of Christ, or something like that. So yes, the redemptive purchase of his people is part of that, but only one aspect.

Jack, that is what I've seen a lot this week as I've been reading. But my question has more to do with actually grounding that in Scripture. I know people say it and it sounds great, but does Scripture truly say this? What texts is it coming from?

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

I know people say it and it sounds great, but does Scripture truly say this? What texts is it coming from?

I think it can be grounded in the nature of a "sign". The resurrection was styled a "sign" by our Lord in Matthew 12:38-41:

Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
​

The Jews wanted proof that Jesus was truly the One sent from God to be the Messiah and that his message was true. They did this by asking for a "sing."

Signs were offered in proof of the divine commission of prophet (Isa. 20:3) and apostle (2 Cor. 12:12), and of the Messiah Himself (John 20:30; Acts 2:22); and they were submitted in demonstration of the divine character of their message (2 Kings 20:9; Isa. 38:1; Acts 3:1-16).—International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
​

Such a sign was given at the begining of our Lord's ministry with his baptism and also in the middle of it at his transfiguration. The third and final "sign" was the resurrection. By this, the Father again, in essence, declared "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." It declared both the Father's acceptance of the Redeemer's work and proclaimed to the world that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

 

[timfost]

I'm sure you already looked at Heidelberg 45?

 

[jwithnell]

The firstfruits of them that sleep? 1 Cornthians 15:20. Seems more an earnest than receipt.

(On first seeing your post my mind went to an older meaning of the word receipt: recipe )

 

[JTB.SDG]

The firstfruits of them that sleep? 1 Cornthians 15:20. Seems more an earnest than receipt.

(On first seeing your post my mind went to an older meaning of the word receipt: recipe )

Jean, good thought. My impression was that this was a slightly different aspect. It seems that 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 is speaking of the resurrection as the guarantee of our final resurrection; whereas this other aspect is saying that it is the proof that Christ's offering was accepted as payment for our sins. So I guess you could say the first is it is the PLEDGE of what's to come; whereas this is more like the PROOF Christ's payment was accepted. But maybe they're inseparably connected? The one must denote the other? Is it the same thing to say A) Christ's resurrection guarantees our resurrection; and to say B) Christ's resurrection shows that the Father accepted his offering as payment for our sins?

 

[JTB.SDG]

I think it can be grounded in the nature of a "sign". The resurrection was styled a "sign" by our Lord in Matthew 12:38-41:

Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
​

The Jews wanted proof that Jesus was truly the One sent from God to be the Messiah and that his message was true. They did this by asking for a "sing."

Signs were offered in proof of the divine commission of prophet (Isa. 20:3) and apostle (2 Cor. 12:12), and of the Messiah Himself (John 20:30; Acts 2:22); and they were submitted in demonstration of the divine character of their message (2 Kings 20:9; Isa. 38:1; Acts 3:1-16).—International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
​

Such a sign was given at the begining of our Lord's ministry with his baptism and also in the middle of it at his transfiguration. The third and final "sign" was the resurrection. By this, the Father again, in essence, declared "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." It declared both the Father's acceptance of the Redeemer's work and proclaimed to the world that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

I hadn't thought about this passage Christopher; thank you.

 

[JTB.SDG]

I'm sure you already looked at Heidelberg 45?

Tim, are you talking about the third aspect, the pledge?

 

[Jack K]

I think it can be grounded in the nature of a "sign".

Jon, I too think this talk about signs is part of where that teaching comes from. If the resurrection is a sign that Jesus indeed is the Prophet and Messiah, then the resurrection is proof that he effectively accomplished his saving work.

I also think this teaching may come from the idea that the resurrection was the first step in Christ's exaltation. There are a couple of prominent passages teaching us that Christ's exaltation is due to the successful completion of his saving work. In Philippians 2, Christ's humility to the point of death on a cross means that "therefore God has highly exalted him." And the praise in Revelation 5 says, "Worthy is the lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!" showing again that Christ's exaltation stems from the worthiness of his sacrifice. So if indeed the resurrection is part of his exaltation, it would follow that the resurrection too is a sign that he was a worthy sacrifice.

 

[timfost]

Tim, are you talking about the third aspect, the pledge?

I was thinking about the implications of the whole Q&A. I hope quoting Ursinus isn't redundant if you've already read it in your studies, but if not, these quotes from his commentary on Heidelberg 45 may be of interest:

"But if he had remained under the power of death, and had not risen from the dead, he could not have conferred these gifts upon us, because then he would have had no existence, and hence could have effected nothing in our behalf. It is for this reason also, that these blessings are deposited in Christ by the God head, that he should make us partakers of them: 'And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace.'”

"Yea, had he not risen from the dead, we could not have known that he had satisfied for us; for this would have been a certain argument that he had not made this satisfaction, but was overcome by death and the burden of sin; because where death is there is sin; or, if he had made satisfaction for us, and yet remained under the power of death, it would have been inconsistent with the justice of God."

"Speaking in a general way, it may be said that all the benefits of Christ s death are also fruits of his resurrection; for his resurrection secures the effect which his death was designed to have. Christ by his resurrection applies to us the benefits which he has merited for us."

"The resurrection of Christ also assures us as to the application of his benefits, which he could not have conferred had he not risen from the dead; for, as we have already shown, it became the same mediator, being man, both to merit and bestow gifts, and for this reason to rise from the dead. In as much, therefore, as he has risen, we are assured that he has not only merited, but is also able to bestow upon us the benefits of his death; for, says the Apostle Paul, “Christ was raised again for our justification,” that is, to confer and apply unto us his righteousness. (Rom. 4:25.)"

"And further, if he has abolished death, and that by a sufficient satisfaction for our sins, as his resurrection fully testifies, then his resurrection is most assuredly a certain evidence and pledge of our resurrection, in as much as it is impossible that we should continue in death since Christ has rendered a full and sufficient satisfaction in our behalf."

"By his coming forth from the punishment under which he was laid, he declared that he had fully satisfied for our sins."

 

[py3ak]

It follows from the connection of sin and death. If Christ died for sins, then rising again is inevitably a demonstration that sin was dealt with and overcome; otherwise he would have remained dead in our sins. Robert Candlish explains this fairly fully in his lectures on 1 Corinthians 15.

 

[JTB.SDG]

I was thinking about the implications of the whole Q&A. I hope quoting Ursinus isn't redundant if you've already read it in your studies, but if not, these quotes from his commentary on Heidelberg 45 may be of interest:

"But if he had remained under the power of death, and had not risen from the dead, he could not have conferred these gifts upon us, because then he would have had no existence, and hence could have effected nothing in our behalf. It is for this reason also, that these blessings are deposited in Christ by the God head, that he should make us partakers of them: 'And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace.'”

"Yea, had he not risen from the dead, we could not have known that he had satisfied for us; for this would have been a certain argument that he had not made this satisfaction, but was overcome by death and the burden of sin; because where death is there is sin; or, if he had made satisfaction for us, and yet remained under the power of death, it would have been inconsistent with the justice of God."

"Speaking in a general way, it may be said that all the benefits of Christ s death are also fruits of his resurrection; for his resurrection secures the effect which his death was designed to have. Christ by his resurrection applies to us the benefits which he has merited for us."

"The resurrection of Christ also assures us as to the application of his benefits, which he could not have conferred had he not risen from the dead; for, as we have already shown, it became the same mediator, being man, both to merit and bestow gifts, and for this reason to rise from the dead. In as much, therefore, as he has risen, we are assured that he has not only merited, but is also able to bestow upon us the benefits of his death; for, says the Apostle Paul, “Christ was raised again for our justification,” that is, to confer and apply unto us his righteousness. (Rom. 4:25.)"

"And further, if he has abolished death, and that by a sufficient satisfaction for our sins, as his resurrection fully testifies, then his resurrection is most assuredly a certain evidence and pledge of our resurrection, in as much as it is impossible that we should continue in death since Christ has rendered a full and sufficient satisfaction in our behalf."

"By his coming forth from the punishment under which he was laid, he declared that he had fully satisfied for our sins."

Wow Tim, these are great, thank you. I did not know about this.