In
the late first century Marcion and the Gnostics taught that Christ only appeared
to be a man (dokeo, to seem or to appear). The Apostle John refers to this false
teaching in 1 John 4:1-3. This heresy undermines not only the reality of the Incarnation
but also the validity of the Atonement and bodily resurrection.
B. Ebionism
In
the second century this heresy denied the deity of Christ, considering Jesus to be
the natural son of Joseph and Mary but elected to be Son of God at His baptism when
He was united with the eternal Christ.
C. Arianism
A
heresy that denied the eternality of Jesus as the Logos. Anus reasoned that since
Jesus was begotten, He must have had a beginning. Arians held that the divine nature
of Christ was similar to God, homoousian, but not the same, homoousian. The Council
of Nicea condemned this teaching in A.D. 325, affirming that Jesus had the same nature
as God.
D. Apollinarianism
Apollinarius, the younger
(died about 390), sought to avoid undue separation of the natures of Christ. He taught
that Christ had a human body and a human soul, but that He had the divine Logos instead
of a human spirit (this assumes a trichotomous view of man). This Logos dominated
the passive human body and soul. This was an error affecting the humanity of Christ.
E.
Nestorianism
Nestorianism divided Christ into two Persons (though
it is disputed whether or not Nestorius himself clearly taught this). He explained
that Jesus Christ was the prosopon (form or appearance) of the union of two natures.
The humanity had the form of Godhead bestowed on it, and the Deity took upon itself
the form of a servant, the result being the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth. Thus
in this view the two natures were separated, resulting in two Persons. The teaching
was condemned by the Council of Ephesus in 431.
F. Eutychianism
Eutyches
(ca. 378-454) reacted against Nestorianism and taught that there was only one nature
in Christ. This error is also known as monophysitism. The divine nature was not fully
divine, nor was the human nature genuinely human, and the result was a mixed single
nature. This was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
A similar error
developed after Chalcedon which taught that Christ had only one will though conceding
verbally that He had two natures. It is called monothelitism. This was condemned
at the third council of Constantinople in 680.
A study of errors should help
clarify the truth and make us more careful how we express it. Semantics are very
important in the statements of theology.
I. CHRIST AS PROPHET
A.
The Designation of Christ as Prophet
Moses predicted that God would
raise up a prophet like himself (Deut. 18:15). Whatever other fulfillments this may
have had in the succession of Old Testament prophets, its ultimate fulfillment was
by Jesus Christ who is identified as that Prophet (Acts 3:22-24). The ordinary people
of Christ’s day acknowledged Him as a Prophet so enthusiastically that the chief
priests and Pharisees feared reprisals if they took any strong action against the
Lord (Matt. 21:11, 46; John 7:40-53). Further, the people called Him Rabbi (1:38;
3:2), not because He had been trained formally, but because they recognized the quality
of His teaching.
Our Lord also claimed to be a Prophet (Matt. 13:57; Mark
6:4; Luke 4:24; 13:33; John 4:44) who came to do what prophets did, i.e., deliver
God’s message to man (8:26; 12:49-50; 15:15; 17:8).
B. The Manner of
Christ as Prophet
One of our Lord’s principal activities while on
earth was proclaiming God’s message through preaching (Matt. 4:17) and teaching (7:29).
The manner of His preaching and teaching included these interesting characteristics.
1.
It was an occasional thing. This does not mean He taught infrequently, but rather
as the occasion arose. He was always open to opportunities and the variety of situations
that presented themselves. He used the synagogue services when possible (Mark 1:21).
He preached outdoors if an indoor situation was unavailable (4:1). He seized every
opportunity.
2. It was unsystematic. This was due to the fact that He took
opportunities as they arose, rather than waiting until a planned curriculum could
be followed. Think, for example, of where you will find the Lord’s teaching on sin;
and the answer is in various passages of various types—some didactic, some parabolic.
The interpreter of Scripture has to systematize Christ’s teachings.
3. It
was profusely illustrated. And those illustrations were themselves varied and appropriately
chosen for the audience (notice an illustration for women and men in Matt. 24:40-41
and Luke 15:4, 8).
4. It made use of questions. This was true especially in
situations of controversy (Matt. 22).
5. It was authoritative. This was probably
the outstanding feature of Christ’s ministry as a Prophet. His authority stood in
sharp contrast to the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees (Mark 1:22) because it
probed the depths of the reality of the truth.
C. The Material of Christ
as Prophet
Though much of His prophetic material is scattered throughout
the Gospels, there are three major messages preserved for us: the Sermon on the Mount
(Matt. 5-7), the message on the Mount of Olives on Tuesday of Holy Week (Matt. 24-25),
and the message to the disciples in the Upper Room on Thursday evening (John 13-16).
The
teachings of Christ are possibly the most difficult part of the entire Bible to interpret
accurately. Why it this so? Because our Lord lived under the Mosaic Law and perfectly
kept it; but He also presented Himself to Israel as their King; and when He was rejected
as King, He introduced the new part of God’s program, the church, and gave some teaching
about it. In other words, He lived and taught in relation to three different aspects
of God’s program for this world—the Law, the church, and the kingdom. To keep those
strands of teaching distinct and without confusion is not always easy.
1.
The Sermon on the Mount. Some view this discourse as an exposition of the way of
salvation. The problem with such an interpretation is simply that the great salvation
words like redemption or justification do not occur at all in these chapters. Also
if this is the correct interpretation then salvation is surely through good works.
Others
consider the sermon a blueprint for Christian living today. To use it this way would
require deliteralizing much of what is taught in order to be able to obey it in this
unrighteous world. Further, if this is truth for the church, then why did our Lord
not mention the Holy Spirit, so important for Christian living, or even the church
itself?
Still others understand its primary purpose to relate to Christ’s
kingdom message. The forerunner, John, had announced the kingdom (Matt. 3:2); Christ
Himself began to preach that message (Matt. 4:17); now He explained what was involved
in true repentance. The kingdom they preached and the kingdom the people expected
was that messianic, Davidic, millennial kingdom promised in the Old Testament. Christ
gave no indication that they should have understood otherwise by changing the meaning
of the kingdom He was talking about. But the people had placed their hopes so much
on a political kingdom that they forgot there were spiritual requirements for even
that political kingdom. So the Lord explained what was involved in spiritual preparation
for the Davidic kingdom.
Preached in relation to the kingdom, this discourse
seems mainly to emphasize getting ready for the kingdom. Some of the requirements
to be practiced totally would necessitate the establishment of the kingdom with its
righteous government (5:38-42) though the general principle may be followed any time.
So
the sermon is a call to repentance for those who had disassociated inner change from
the requirements for establishing the kingdom. Therefore, it has relevance for any
time that the kingdom is imminent—which includes the time Christ preached it, and
the future time of the Tribulation. It also pictures conditions as they will be in
the kingdom when it is established. But, like all Scripture, it is profitable for
disciples in any age since it is one of the most detailed ethical codes in the Bible.
2.
The message on the Mount of Olives. By the time this message was given at the end
of Christ’s earthly life, it was quite clear that the Jewish leaders had rejected
the kingdom, and Christ Himself had introduced the church as the coming thing in
God’s program (Matt. 16:18). Did this mean that the kingdom was scratched from God’s
program forever? Not at all, and this message details some future events leading
up to the return of Christ to establish that messianic, Davidic, millennial kingdom.
Matthew 24:4-14 lists details that will happen during the first part of the coming
Tribulation period. Verses 15-28 do the same for the second half of that period.
Then Christ will return to earth and take the throne of His kingdom (v. 30; 25:31,
34). That this did not occur in the disciples’ lifetimes as they expected in no way
abrogates the assurance that one day Christ will rule in His kingdom (Acts 1:6).
3.
The message in the Upper Room. The night before His crucifixion the Lord revealed
in capsule form a number of things about the new Church Age soon to be inaugurated.
He repeated these things in capsule form because the disciples could not yet understand
what was really happening (John 16:12). What were some of those new revelations?
(1) He gave a new command—to love each other in the same way He loves us (13:34).
(2) He opened up a new hope—a place that He would prepare and take believers (14:1-3).
(3) He promised another Paraclete who would minister in a number of new ways: advising,
exhorting, comforting, interceding, convicting, teaching, etc. (v. 16). (4) He unveiled
new relationships—the Holy Spirit in them, not just with them, believers in Christ,
and Christ in believers (vv. 17, 20). (5) He established a new basis for prayer in
His name (16:24, 26). All of these reveal tremendous differences between the economy
then operative and the coming new dispensation of the church.
D. The
Authentication of Christ as Prophet
The Law commanded that false prophets
be stoned (Deut. 13:5, 10). Of course if a prophet lived to the time when his prophecy
was either fulfilled or not, you could easily tell if he were a true or false prophet.
If he did not, then it was more difficult. Our Lord’s prophetic ministry was authenticated
in two ways: by being able to see that some of His prophecies came true, and by the
miracles which verified to the people of His day that He was a true Prophet.
The
test case is His detailed prediction of His death. He prophesied that someone close
to Him would betray Him (Matt. 26:21), that His death would be instigated by the
Jewish leaders (16:21), that He would die by crucifixion and that three days later
He would come back to life (20:19). For anyone to be able to give this kind of detail
about His death and for these details to come true authenticates Him as a true Prophet.
In addition, some of Christ’s miracles were directly linked as attesting to His being
a true Prophet (Luke 7:16; John 4:19; 9:17). Truly in these last days God has spoken
to us by a Son (Heb. 1:1-2).
II. CHRIST AS PRIEST
The
prophet spoke to men from God; the priest speaks to God for men. Being of the tribe
of Judah disqualified Christ from being an Aaronic priest; therefore, God arranged
ahead of His coming for another order of priests, the order of Melchizedek, and Christ
is a priest of that order with respect to His person and His work. Yet there are
similarities between Aaronic priests and Christ as Priest both in His person and
His work.
A. As Aaronic Priest
An Aaronic priest had
to be a man chosen by God and qualified for His work (Lev. 21; Heb. 5:1-7). Our Lord,
chosen, incarnate, and tested, qualified in His person to be a ministering Priest.
Aaronic
priests served by representing the people to God and especially in offering sacrifices.
Their sacrifices were many, repeated, and not in themselves eternally efficacious.
They did make atonement for sin in the context of the theocracy, but the writer to
the Hebrews makes it clear that had they been able to effect eternal satisfaction
for sin there would have been no need for their repetition year after year (10:2-3).
In contrast, our Lord’s sacrifice of Himself for our sins was a single sacrifice,
once for all, and for all mankind. In this, His great work of redemption, He did
a work which was foreshadowed by the work of the Aaronic priests, even though He
was not a priest after the order of Aaron.
B. As Melchizedekan Priest
The
portrait of Melchizedek in Genesis 14:18-20 and Hebrews 7:1-3 seems deliberately
limited to those features which liken him to Christ. The form of “made like” in 7:3
is not an adjective which would indicate that Melchizedek was like Christ in his
being (lending weight to the interpretation that he was a theophany), but a participle,
meaning that the likeness is being made by the biblical writer’s statement. The features
of the portrait are limited so that the resemblance may be more extensive.
Features
of the Melchizedekan priesthood include these. (1) It was a royal priesthood. Melchizedek
was a king as well as a priest. The uniting of these two functions was unknown among
Aaronic priests, though predicted of Christ in Zechariah 6:13.
(2) It was
unrelated to ancestry. “Without father, without mother” does not mean that Melchizedek
did not have parents, nor that he was not born or did not die, but only that the
Scriptures contain no record of these events so that he might be more perfectly likened
to Christ. Aaronic priests depended on their ancestry to qualify.
(3) It was
timeless, having no recorded beginning or ending so Melchizedek might again be more
like the Lord who is a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.
(4)
It was superior to the Aaronic order. Abraham, out of whom came the Aaronic order,
acknowledged the superiority of Melchizedek when he gave tithes of the spoils of
the war to him (Gen. 14:20). Levi, though unborn, and all the priests that came from
him were involved in this act which demonstrated the superiority of Melchizedek.
In
what ways does Christ function as a Melchizedekan priest? Like Melchizedek He is
a ruler. He receives our obeisance. He blesses us. And as Melchizedek offered bread
and wine to Abraham to refresh and sustain him after the battle, so our Lord as Priest
refreshes and sustains His people. He did this, for example, to Stephen at the time
of his martyrdom. Our Lord was standing to sustain Stephen (Acts 7:55). He does the
same today with respect to local churches as He walks among the golden lampstands
(Rev. 2:1). His work of redemption is finished, so He is seen seated, indicating
He will never have to rise again to do it over or to add to it in any way (Heb. 1:3).
But
His ministry of helping and sustaining goes on, so He is seen standing to do this.
We have a great High Priest standing and ready to come to the aid of those who are
tested (2:18) and anxious to give grace to help in time of need (4:16).
THE
SELF-EMPTYING OF CHRIST
I. THE ORIGIN OF THE CONCEPT
The question
of Christ’s self-emptying or kenosis (from the verb in Phil. 2:7) has been discussed
throughout church history. The Synod of Antioch in 341 said that Christ emptied Himself
of “the being equal with God” while clearly defending the full deity of Christ. During
the Reformation the discussion centered on the possibility of Christ emptying Himself
of the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence without affecting
essential Deity. In the seventeenth century some boldly asserted that Christ was
actually less than divine. But the nineteenth century brought an almost new form
of Christology with the appearance and spread of many false ideas of the kenosis.
This was due to the fact that that century saw the rise of many new scientific theories
like evolution and radical criticism. It also brought an emphasis on the rediscovery
of the “real” humanity of Jesus and with it the magnitude of His self-denial and
self-emptying.
Of course, there is a true statement of kenosis since it is
taught in Philippians 2:7, and a statement which does not contradict other truths
which the Scriptures reveal about the Lord. Actually the Bible does not elaborate
a doctrine of kenosis, though basic elements usable in forming a true statement are
revealed. To put this all together and to avoid heresy is the task of this chapter.
I.
THE MEANING OF CHRIST’S SINLESSNESS
Sinlessness in our Lord means
that He never did anything that displeased God or violated the Mosaic Law under which
He lived on earth or in any way failed to show in His life at all times the glory
of God (John 8:29). It does not exclude His experiencing sinless limitations that
accompany humanity e.g., He was weary (4:6); He was hungry (Matt. 4:2; 21:18); He
was thirsty (John 19:28); He slept (Matt. 8:24). But at every stage of His life,
infancy, boyhood, adolescence, manhood, He was holy and sinless.
II.
THE TESTIMONY TO CHRIST’S SINLESSNESS
A. The Evidence
The Scriptures
definitely assert the sinlessness of Christ.
Our Lord was announced as a holy
Child (Luke 1:35). He challenged His enemies to show that He was a sinner which they
could not do (John 8:46). They failed in their attempts to trap Him by using something
He said (Matt. 22:15). He claimed to do always those things which pleased the Father
(John 8:29). He said that He kept the Father’s commandments (John 15:10). During
the trials and Crucifixion He was acknowledged as innocent eleven times (by Judas,
Matt. 27:4; by Pilate six times, 27:24, Luke 23:14, 22; John 18:38; 19:4, 6, by Herod
Antipas, Luke 23:15, by Pilate’s wife, Matt. 27:19, by the repentant thief, Luke
23:41; and by the Roman centurion, Matt. 27:54). Furthermore, there is no record
of our Lord ever offering a single sacrifice, though He frequented the temple. This
silence speaks of the fact that He did not need to since He was without sin.
Paul
said of our Lord that “He knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21).
Peter also declared
that Christ did not commit any sin nor was deceit ever found in His mouth (1 Peter
2:22). He was a Lamb without blemish and without spot (1:19).
John affirmed
the same truth when he said that in Christ was no sin (1 John 3:5).
The writer
of Hebrews attested to our Lord’s sinlessness by several phrases: He was without
sin (4:15); He was holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners (7:26), and
without any need of offering sacrifices for Himself (v. 27).
Thus Christ’s
own testimony and that of the writers of the New Testament are uniform—He was sinless.
B.
The Debate
Though conservatives agree that Christ was sinless, they
do not agree on the question of whether or not He could have sinned. That He did
not is affirmed; whether He could have is debated.
The concept that He could
not have sinned is called impeccability (non posse peccare). The concept that He
could have, whether He did or not, is peccability (posse non peccare). Liberals,
of course, think that not only could He have sinned but that He also did sin. That
is peccability combined with sinfulness. The concept of peccability does not need
to include sinfulness and conservatives do not include it.
III. THE
TESTING OF CHRIST’S SINLESSNESS
A. The Relation of Testing to
Peccability/Impeccability
The debate as to whether Christ was peccable
or impeccable is closely linked to the temptation of Christ. Those who support peccability
reason that if He could not have sinned then His temptations were not real and He
cannot serve as a truly sympathetic High Priest. In other words, peccability requires
a constitutional susceptibility to sin. Those who support impeccability point out
that it relates to the union of the divine and human natures in the one Person so
that even though the human nature was peccable, the Person was impeccable. It could
not be otherwise with a Person who has all power and a divine will.
Hodge
represents the peccability viewpoint. “Temptation implies the possibility of sin.
If from the constitution of His person it was impossible for Christ to sin, then
His temptation was unreal and without effect, and He cannot sympathize with His people”
(Systematic Theology [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960], 2:457).
On the other
side Shedd wrote: “It is objected to the doctrine of Christ’s impeccability that
it is inconsistent with His temptability. A person who cannot sin, it is said, cannot
be tempted to sin. This is not correct; any more than it would be correct to say
that because an army cannot be conquered, it cannot be attacked. Temptability depends
on the constitutional susceptibility, while impeccability depends on the will. .
. . Those temptations were very strong, but if the self-determination of His holy
will was stronger than they, then they could not induce Him to sin, and He would
be impeccable. And yet plainly He would be temptable” (Dogmatic Theology [New York:
Scribner, 1891], 2:336).
B. The Nature of Christ’s Testings
That
His tests were real goes without saying. They happened, so they were obviously real.
Actually the particular tests Christ experienced were suited to a God-Man. No ordinary
man would ever be tempted to try to turn stones into bread, but the God-Man could
have done that. No man would be seriously tempted to prove his messiahship by jumping
off a high place expecting to land unharmed. No man would take seriously an offer
from Satan to give him all the kingdoms of this world—perhaps a corner of some kingdom,
but not all. So these were tests designed to test a God-Man in a way no other has
ever been tested.
Though the particular tests were out of the ordinary experience
of human beings, the areas of testing which they represented were common to all people.
All sinful desires can be classified as either lusts of the flesh, lusts of the eyes,
or the boasting about possessions (or a combination thereof, 1 John 2:16). The tests
which Satan put the Lord through fall into those three categories (Matt. 4:1-11).
When
the writer to the Hebrews says that our Lord was tested in all (kata panta), he cannot
mean that He experienced every test that people experience (Heb. 4:15). He was, for
example, never tested to misuse television. But He did experience tests tailor-made
for a God-Man that fell into the same categories into which all tests fall, including
ours. And the reason He could be tested at all was that He had a human nature, for
God is not tempted with evil (James 1:13). He was tested, the writer continues, “according
to likeness.” In other words, the fact that He was made in the likeness of sinful
flesh allowed Him to be tested. Yet there was a major difference between His humanity
and ours. He was “apart from sin.” He had no sin nature and He never committed a
single sin. Still that does not mean that His humanity was impeccable. It was peccable,
though it never knew sin. But the person of the God-Man was impeccable. Shedd correctly
observes; “Consequently, Christ while having a peccable human nature in His constitution,
was an impeccable Person. Impeccability characterizes the God-Man as a totality,
while peccability is a property of His humanity” (2:333).
C. The Results
of Christ’s Testings
1. Sensitivity. He became sensitive to the pressure
of testing. He experienced it with emotions and powers we cannot understand.
2.
Example. He furnishes us an example of victory over the severest kinds of tests.
3.
Understanding. He can offer sympathetic understanding to us when we are tested.
4.
Grace and power. He can also provide the grace and power we need in times of testing.
People who have experienced the same problems we might have are sensitized and sympathetic,
but often they can do little or nothing about our problems. He can do something and
offers us grace to help in time of need (Heb. 4:16). Only a God-Man High Priest can
do both—sympathize because He was genuinely tested, and empower because He is God.
THE
RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION OF CHRIST
I. THE RESURRECTION
A. The Importance
of Christ’s Resurrection
1. To His person. If Christ did not rise
from the dead then He was a liar, for He predicted that He would (Matt. 20:19). To
the women who came to His tomb wondering where He was, the angel said, “He is not
here, for He has risen, just as He said” (28:6). The Resurrection authenticates our
Lord as a true Prophet. Without that, all that He said would be subject to doubt.
2.
To His work. If Christ did not rise from the dead then, of course, He would not be
alive to do all His post-resurrection ministries. His ministry would have ended at
His death. We would not, therefore, have a High Priest now, an Intercessor, Advocate,
or a Head of the church. Further, there would be no living Person to indwell and
empower us (Rom. 6:1-10; Gal. 2:20).
3. To the Gospel. In the classic passage,
1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Christ s death and resurrection are said to be “of first importance.”
The Gospel is based on two essential facts: a Savior died and He lives. The burial
proves the reality of His death. He did not merely faint only to be revived later.
He died. The list of witnesses proves the reality of His resurrection. He died and
was buried; He rose and was seen. Paul wrote of that same twofold emphasis in Romans
4:25: He was delivered for our offenses and raised for our justification. Without
the Resurrection there is no Gospel.
4. To us. If Christ did not rise then
our witness is false, our faith is without meaningful content, and our prospects
for the future are hopeless (1 Cor. 15:13-19). If Christ is not risen then believers
who have died would be dead in the absolute sense without any hope of resurrection.
And we who live could only be pitied for being deluded into thinking there is a future
resurrection for them.
B. The Evidences for Christ’s Resurrection
1.
His appearances after the Resurrection. The number and variety of people in a variety
of circumstances who saw the Lord after His resurrection give overwhelming proof
of the fact that He did rise from the dead. When, for example, on the Day of Pentecost
Peter offered as proof of his message the fact that they were witnesses of the resurrected
Christ, he did so in the city where the Resurrection occurred less than two months
before and to an audience who could ask around to check on Peter’s claim (Acts 2:32).
The
order of appearances between Christ’s resurrection and ascension seems to be as follows:
(a) to Mary Magdalene and the other women (Matt. 28:8-10; Mark 16:9-10; John 20:11-18);
(b) to Peter, probably in the afternoon (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5); (c) to the disciples
on the Emmaus road toward evening (Mark 16:12; Luke 24:13-32); (d) to the disciples,
except Thomas, in the Upper Room (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-25); (e) to the disciples,
including Thomas, on the next Sunday night (Mark 16:14; John 20:26-29); (f) to seven
disciples beside the Sea of Galilee (John 21:1-24); (g) to the apostles and more
than 500 brethren and James, the Lord’s half brother (1 Cor. 15:6-7); (h) to those
who witnessed the Ascension (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:19; Luke 24:44-53; Acts 1:3-12).
2.
Effects which must have a cause (the Resurrection). Some astounding facts must be
explained. It is inconceivable to think they could have a satisfactory explanation
other than being caused by the resurrection of Christ.
What caused the tomb
to be empty? The disciples saw that it was empty. The guards reported to the chief
priests that it was empty and took a bribe to keep quiet about it (Matt. 28:11-15).
If the story they were ordered to tell (that the disciples came and stole the body)
were true then, of course, they should have been punished or executed for allowing
that to happen while they were on guard duty. Some have suggested that the disciples
went to the wrong tomb, but again the presence of the guard makes this inconceivable.
The tomb was empty (the effect) because Christ had risen (the cause).
What
caused the events of the Day of Pentecost? Pentecost came and went every year, but
the year when Christ rose it saw the descent of the Holy Spirit as He had promised
(Acts 1:5). In his sermon Peter attributed the coming of the Spirit to the fact that
the risen Christ sent the Spirit (2:33). The coming of the Spirit (the effect) had
to have a sufficient cause (the risen Christ).
What caused the day of worship
to change? All the first Christians were Jewish, accustomed to worshiping on the
Sabbath. Yet suddenly and uniformly they began to worship on Sunday though it was
an ordinary workday (Acts 20:7). Why? Because they wanted to commemorate the resurrection
of their Lord which took place on Sunday, they changed their day of worship. Sunday
worship, the effect; Christ’s resurrection, the cause.
C. The Results of Christ’s
Resurrection
1. A new, prototype body. With the resurrection of Christ there
appeared for the first time in history a new kind of resurrection body, for He rose
with an eternal body, never to die again. Before that event, all resurrections were
restorations to the former earthly bodies.
Christ’s resurrection body has
links with His unresurrected earthly body. People recognized Him (John 20:20), the
wounds inflicted by crucifixion were retained (20:25-29; Rev. 5:6), He had the capacity
though not the need to eat (Luke 24:30-33, 41-43), He breathed on the disciples (John
20:22), and that body had flesh and bones proving that He was not merely a spirit
showing itself (Luke 24:39-40).
But His resurrection body was different. He
could enter closed rooms without opening doors (Luke 24:36; John 20:19), He could
appear and disappear at will (Luke 24:15; John 20:19), and apparently He was never
limited by physical needs such as sleep or food.
The most detailed description
of Christ risen and ascended is found in Revelation 1:12-16. Here John records his
vision of the glorified Christ. He was like a son of man, which links Him to His
former earthly appearance, but He also radiated glory from His eyes, feet, voice,
and face. This is the way we shall see Him someday.
His resurrection also
serves as a prototype of the resurrection of believers. Twice Christ is referred
to as the firstborn form the dead (Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5). This means that He was the
first to have an eternally resurrected body. Our resurrection bodies, like His, will
be different from our earthly bodies. When answering the question, what will believers’
resurrection bodies be like, Paul says that they will not be the same bodies that
were laid in the grave simply reconstituted; but they will be new yet related to
the former ones (1 Cor. 15:35-41).
Totally, believers in the eternal state
will be “like Him” (1 John 3:2). What does this mean? John explains in the following
verses. To be like Him means to be pure (v. 3), to be without sin (v. 5), and to
be righteous (v. 7). Our entire beings, including our bodies, will be characterized
these ways.
2. A proof of His claims. We have already mentioned that His resurrection
proved His truthfulness as a Prophet (Matt. 28:6). It also validated His claim to
be Lord and Messiah, a point Peter drove home in his Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:36).
Paul states that the Resurrection proved Him to be the Son of God (Rom. 1:4).
3.
A prerequisite to all His subsequent ministries. If Christ did not rise then His
life and ministry ended on the cross, and He does nothing from that time on. Through
the Resurrection and Ascension our Lord entered into His present and future ministries
which will be discussed in the next chapter.
The resurrection of Christ has
always been the joyous, captivation, and motivating truth for the church. One of
the simplest prayers and earliest creeds of the church was “Maranatha,” “our Lord,
come” (1 Cor. 16:22). No one could say that who denied the resurrection of his Lord.
It affirmed in the clearest way that Jesus is the living and coming Lord.
Maranatha!
II.
THE ASCENSION
A. Statements about the Ascension
1. In the Old
Testament. Two references foretell the ascension of Messiah (Ps. 68:18, quoted in
Eph. 4:8 and Ps. 110:1 quoted in Acts 2:34).
2. In the sayings of Christ.
Our Lord spoke of going to His Father (John 7:33; 14:12, 28; 16:5, 10, 28) and specifically
of the Ascension (6:62; 20:17).
3. In the writings of the New Testament. The
debated ending of Mark records the Ascension (16:19); Luke speaks of it twice (Luke
9:51; 24:51); but the principal description is in Acts 1:6-11. Other New Testament
passages refer to it (Eph. 4:10; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 4:14; 1 Peter 3:22), and others
which tell of the present exaltation of Christ presuppose it (e.g., Col. 3:1).
B.
Description of the Ascension
1. The place. It occurred “toward Bethany”
(Luke 24:50), that is on the Bethany side of the Mount of Olives (Acts 1:12).
2.
The procedure. Christ actually traveled up as if supported by the cloud (v. 9). The
ascent was not a sudden disappearance but a gradual, though not long, movement upward.
3.
The promise. As the disciples watched, two angels appeared and promised that He who
had just been taken from them would return again “in the same way.
C.
Problems Raised with Regard to the Ascension
1 It was contrary to
the laws of nature. Yes it was, but Christ’s resurrection body was not necessarily
subject to the laws of nature.
2. Did He ascend to heaven before the public
ascension? Some think that John 20:17 indicates one or more ascensions before the
one detailed in Acts 1. However, the verb “I ascend” is most likely a futuristic
present referring to the coming public ascension of Acts I and referring to it with
certainty. It is as if the Lord were saying to Mary, “Stop clinging to Me. There
is no need for this, as I am not yet at the point of permanent ascension. You will
still have the opportunity to see Me. However, there is no question but that I certainly
will ascend to My Father” (see Leon Morris, The Gospel of John [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1971], pp. 840-1).
D. Significance of the Ascension
The
Ascension marked the end of the period of Christ’s humiliation and His entrance into
the state of exaltation. Even the forty days between His resurrection and His ascension
involved some limitation as, for example, with respect to showing His glory. Notice
that His post-resurrection, preascension appearances did not startle the disciples
as far as the appearance of His resurrection body was concerned. But the post-ascension
appearance of Christ to John described in Revelation 1 must have shown His glory
much more vividly.
The Ascension having taken place, Christ then was ready
to begin other ministries in behalf of His own and of the world.
