The Resurrection of Christ

By Thaxter Dickey

I am a Christian because Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Some, even among Christians, might find that statement dogmatic; but I am in good company. It was on this basis that Thomas called Jesus “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). It is to this fact that the early preaching of the apostles pointed (Acts 2:24; 3:14-15; 4:10, 33; 17:18, 32; Rom. 1:4; 2 Tim. 2:8). And Paul says that if it is not true then his preaching is in vain and our faith is also vain (I Cor 15:14).

The resurrection is the central fact of Scripture. It is the uniqueness of Christianity. This is illustrated in the oft told, perhaps apocryphal, story of a Moslem and a Christian discussing the relative value of Mohammed and Jesus as prophets. The Moslem said, “We can make a journey to Mecca to view the grave of our prophet. All you Christian’s have is an empty tomb.” The Christian’s reply: “Exactly.” Exactly, this empty tomb has changed the world.

Consequences and Meaning of the Resurrection

The resurrection shows God’s approval of Jesus and his life. God said, “This is my Beloved Son in Whom I am well pleased.” Time and time again God showed his approval of his only begotten Son in words and signs; but the resurrection is the ultimate stamp of approval (Acts 2:22-24).

The resurrection gave meaning to Christ’s death. Lots of men die for what they believe. Many are even good men. But none has had the same power over the lives of others. Auguste Comte, the French philosopher, was discussing the future with Thomas Carlyle, the Scottish essayist. He said that he was going to start a new religion that would sup-plant the religion of Christ. “Very good, Mr. Comte,” Carlyle replied, “very good. All you will need to do will be to speak as never a man spake, and live as never a man lived, and be crucified, and rise again the third day, and get the world to believe that you are still alive. Then your religion will have a chance to get on.” The power of the gospel message of the atonement of the cross is in the resurrection.

The resurrection makes his promises certain and teachings authoritative. How could we believe Jesus’ promises if he had died just as any other man. When Peter says it was impossible for death to hold him (Acts 2:32-36), we say amen and every knee must bow and every tongue must confess that he is Lord. If he had been wrong about this, our confidence in him would be undermined but instead with his resurrection we are brought to believe all that he said.

The resurrection gives meaning to his promise to return. At his ascension the angels said he will return as you’ve seen him leave (Acts 1:6-11). Death was not the end of his life as with other men. Death was but a pause before his victorious resurrection and triumphant return to the Father. And we know that if he ascended, then he comes again.

It was the resurrection that gave the disciples the boldness to preach. They were a dispirited and scattered band after the crucifixion until he came to them and said “peace.” Read again of the disciples who were leaving Jerusalem in discouragement but whose hearts burned within them as they returned to Jerusalem after witnessing the resurrected Lord ( Luke 24:13-53).

The resurrection of Christ testifies of the certainty of our own resurrection. It thus frees us of the power of the fear of death (Heb. 2:14-15). Where else but in the resurrection of Jesus do we learn of the hope of which Paul speaks in 1 Thessalonians 4:13, 14 with which we are to comfort one another in times of loss?

It gives a reason to live righteously for it gives reality to the concept of a final judgment. One of Plato’s thought puzzles in the Republic was the story of a man who found a ring that made him invisible so that he could do whatever he wanted and avoid punishment. The question he was considering was whether a man will live righteously if he can escape punishment. Many ask that question today, thinking that punishment does not reduce crime; but for many the threat of punishment is the only means of securing right behavior. It is true that we should be transformed by the renewing of our minds so that we are holy as he is holy; but ultimately without the certainly of an eternal judgment, which is made possible by the concept of the general resurrection which is made possible by the fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, there is no fairness, no justice, no motivation to live righteously.

Thus the enemies of the cross rightly see the resurrection as the crux of the matter. If they can cause men to doubt it, then the life and death of Jesus has no power. In fact Paul says, “If Jesus be not raised then our preaching is in vain.” If he is not raised, then his teachings are not trustworthy; the atoning power of his death is a fiction; we have no more authoritative word about the resurrection than that of charlatans, pseudo-spiritualists, and mediums and there is no reason not to be pragmatic and selfish. But if he was raised, then every knee must bow and every tongue must proclaim him as Lord. And so the Devil has exerted all his wiles to bemuse the minds of men and a number of objections have been raised by the enemies of Christ.

Objections to the Resurrection

Veracity of Scripture. Obviously any challenge to the resurrection is a challenge to Scripture since Scripture so clearly teaches that Jesus rose from the grave on the third day. Many will argue that the Scriptures are not historical documents, merely human fabrications, and thus the resurrection of Jesus is also mere fiction. But any discussion of this topic is beyond the scope of this article. Instead our attention will be directed to those theories that give some credence to the Bible accounts and still attempt to deny the resurrection.

The Body is Still in the Tomb Theories

Mistaken tomb theory. Some argue that the Bible accounts of the resurrection are based on a simple mistake: the women went to the wrong tomb. After all, the argument goes, it was late in the evening when they saw the tomb and they had only seen it at a distance. I think this poor sense of direction and these poor powers of observation are a modem and a scholarly overlay on the ancient stories. It is we moderns (and scholars especially) who pay little personal attention to the location or appearance of a location important to us and instead depend upon official maps to arrive where we intend. Besides what about the guard? Were they at the wrong tomb too? Why did they report the same thing to the chief priests? And if the women went to the wrong tomb, why did it have the stone rolled away and grave clothes left inside? And how improbable that Mary would meet a gardener at exactly that time who said such ambiguous things as to confuse her into thinking him the resurrected Christ. These improbabilities are preferable to the miracle of the resurrection only to those who refuse to accept miracles as a matter of their materialist assumptions.

Spiritual resurrection theory. Others argue that the tomb wasn’t empty; that what occurred was a spiritual resurrection  a resurrected hope in the minds of the disciples. The major problem with this alternative theory is that it is not consistent with the psychology of men. It could only be seriously considered in a time in which we have so lost touch with human nature that we believe bizarre theories of the human mind and have an excessive and misplaced faith in the power of subjective experience over objective facts. It is a theory that could have currency only among people who are factually challenged (to use the phrase that Cal Thomas used in a recent article in reference to politics), who, as many today do, believe their own pet theories so that they will abandon facts. (the very thing that they accuse Christians of). For example, in the area of politics and history some say the holocaust never happened; some say that America was the aggressor in WWII; some say that Egyptians were blacks. Just so in religion some say that the resurrection was a spiritual one. Factually challenged in-deed or living in a virtual reality (to use Thomas Sowell’s expression) where facts are never allowed to interfere with political or social theories.

Empty Tomb Theories

Swoon theory. According to this theory. Jesus was not re-ally dead. He was merely in a swoon and was revived by the coolness of the tomb and made his own way from the grave, later to die a natural death somewhere else. This was a favorite explanation of the rationalists of the 19th century, but it is ludicrous to consider it. It requires more faith to believe this than to believe in the resurrection. It is impossible that a man would survive the cross and the spear in the side, be considered dead by the two men who carried him to a tomb, and then revive and have enough strength to remove his grave clothes and roll back a stone (which five women doubted they could move (Mark 16:3; Luke 24:10) and then either overpower the guards or sneak past them and disappear without another trace. This would be miraculous indeed except that it did not hap-pen. The miracle that did occur was the resurrection as described in the Scriptures.

The body was stolen by enemies. The silence of the Jews is as eloquent as the speech of Peter on the day of Pentecost. If the Jews had stolen Jesus body away, they would have come forward to dispute Peter’s claim of a resurrection which occurred just seven weeks later in the same city. They didn’t come forward because it was a known fact. He had appeared to many on numerous occasions (1 Cor 15:3-8).

The body was stolen by friends. This was the lie told that very day by the Jews because they knew the significance of the resurrection. But look at the foolishness of that idea. What happened to hearten the frighten disciples  to make them think they could carry off such a lie? What kind of men were they to do such a thing? Men may die for what they believe to be true even if it is false; however, few will suffer persecution and die for a lie they themselves have conceived. Nor can we imagine how they thought to succeed. How did they even come up with so bold an idea and where did they get the boldness to carry it off? The picture we have of them before the resurrection is that of a frighten scattered band (Matt 26:56; John 20:19). What changed that? A lie? Nonsense! But if Jesus was raised from the dead then it all makes sense.

Conclusion

Christ is risen! His teachings are true. God’s stamp of approval is on him. His death is the atonement for our sins and we too can know the power that seized the apostles and turned the world upside down. He is raised and because he is raised we are faced with the certainty that we will be raised in the last day and face the judgment and so we know that we ought to live soberly and righteously in the present world. We are compelled by the resurrection to accept his claim to authority in all things (Matt. 28:18; Acts 2:24-38).

Guardian of Truth XL: 1 p. 13-14
January 4, 1996

The Kind of Person He Was; What His Miracles Proved The Life of Christ

By Thomas C. Hickey

In the celebrated introduction to his Florida College Bible course on the “Book of Acts,” the beloved and lamented Edgar Srygley used to say: “This is not a study of all of the acts of all of the apostles, not a study of all of the acts of some of the apostles, not a study of some of the acts of all of the apostles, but a study of some of the acts of some of the apostles.”

In a similar way, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as biographers of the life of Christ do not attempt to record all the details of his life. With great economy of words these men, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit of God (2 Pet. 1:21) to do so, gave us brief insights into his life which are calculated to produce faith in our hearts (John 20:30-31).

The twofold purpose of this article is to discuss the character of Jesus, and the import of his miracles.

What kind of man was Jesus? Jesus was the kind of man who could astonish the doctors and lawyers of the temple while having only attained the age of twelve years (Luke 2:46-47). The most learned men of Israel resided in the environs of Jerusalem; they regarded the people of the northern province of Galilee as being ignorant country bumpkins (John 7:15; Acts 2:7; 4:13). By contrast to his evident scholarly credentials, Jesus still had wide appeal to the multitudes of common people who were equally astonished at his teaching (Matt. 7:28-29), and little children sought him out (Matt. 18:1-6; Mark 9:33-37; Luke 9:46-48). Jesus was also able to command and retain the respect of the fishermen of Galilee from whose number several of the apostles were chosen (John 1:35ff).

He was the kind of man who could subdue the strong-willed John, the baptizer, with the utterance of a simple logical request (Matt. 3:13-15).

His piety or devotion to God was such that he could go into the wilderness of Judea and fast for forty days and nights and still have the strength of character and will power to withstand the temptations of the devil including the temptation to misuse his miraculous powers to satisfy personal physical hunger (Matt. 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13). Or, he could teach the multitudes all day long until he was bone weary, then climb into the mountains of Galilee alone and pray to God almost all of the night (Matt. 14:22-23).

What kind of man was Jesus? He was certainly not the Mr. Milquetoast character by which some worldling’s conceive of Christians. Consider this: the area of Galilee has a climate somewhat like central and northern Florida. It is hot and, on the Mediterranean side of the central highlands, it can be humid. Jerusalem’s climate may be comparable to that of Prescott, Arizona. The Dead Sea area has a climate somewhat like that of Death Valley near Hell, California. The accepted mode of travel in Israel was by “sandal power.” Except for the fertile plains of Galilee, much of Israel is arid and the land is steep and craggy, littered everywhere by stones and boulders. (When the devil tempted Jesus to make bread from stones, there was no shortage of raw material [Matt. 4:3]). The central province of Samaria consists largely of sand, sand dunes, and mountains of sand. From time to time Jesus traveled from Galilee to Jerusalem, a trip of about 90 miles one way (John 2:13; 4:45, 47; 5:1; 6:1; 7:1, 13; 8:1; 10:40; 11:7, 54. The account of Jesus’ last trip to Judea covering the last week of his earthly life before the crucifixion commences about John 12:1. Jesus’ travels from Galilee down to Jerusalem, or over to Samaria, or up to Caesarea Philippi, or to Cana, or the mount of transfiguration, or down to the Jordan beyond Jericho where John baptized  all these were done on foot. No, Jesus was not a milquetoast! I remember one hot September day when these tired bones made the climb from the pool of Siloam up to the temple mount, a distance of about a quarter mile. I have great respect for the stamina of the people of Bible times who traveled everywhere on foot.

What kind of man was Jesus? He was a man of such self-assurance and self-knowledge as the Son of God that he could peacefully sleep through a rough tempest on the sea of Galilee while all around him were wringing their hands in fear and dread (Matt. 8:23-27).

Jesus had the strength of character to do nothing while Lazarus, a close personal friend, grew sick and died in order to establish an important principle (John 11:1-13). On the other hand, Jesus could be, and was, deeply moved to the point of groaning and weeping (John 11:33-35) when he saw the grief of Lazarus’ sisters and friends.

He could discuss the most sublime principles in the simplest of terms (Matt. 13).

He could transcend racial, ethnic, and religious differences (John 4:9; Mk. 7:24-30; Luke 7:1-10).

He could be gentle with children (Mk. 10:13-16), yet stern with adults (Matt. 21:12-13).

He could place the kingdom of God above personal relationships (Mk. 3:31-35), yet he could be tender and gentle toward an aging mother whose tired eyes gazed upon his dying body as he hung upon the cross (John 19:25-27).

He had a large following of women (Luke 8:2-3; Matt. 27:55), yet he was not an attractive man (Isa. 53:2). His drawing power was character, not charisma. Even strong men swore allegiance to him (Matt. 26:33, 35).

He could admire the lilies of the field for their beauty (Matt. 6:28), yet curse a barren fig tree for its impotence (Matt. 21:19-21).

With “strong crying and tears,” he could beg his father to let him avoid the death on the cross (Heb. 5:7), yet he could stalwartly proclaim, “nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done” (Luke 22:42).

He could stand by silently while his enemies plotted his death (John 19:8-10), then pray for their forgiveness as he hung dying on the cross (Luke 23:34).

He could endure the railing of the malefactors who were crucified with him, then promise eternal life to the one who expressed remorse and penitence (Luke 23:39-43).

What kind of man was Jesus of Nazareth? He was one who could leave the glories of heaven (Phil. 2:5-11; John 3:16; Luke 19:10) and suffer personal deprivation (Matt. 8:20) in the prospect of eternal glory (John 17:5) that we, through his suffering, might have life everlasting.

What do the miracles of Jesus prove? First we ought to determine what a miracle is. Many people use the word “miracle” loosely to describe almost anything that they don’t understand. For example, childbirth is not a miracle although it is truly an amazing event which defies comprehension by even a rational mind. Nor is childbirth even under the most difficult circumstances a miracle. There have been exceptions to this, however. The birth of Jesus was a miracle because it involved parthenogenesis (Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:18-25), or the conception of a virgin. Also, other biblical examples of miracles in connection with human birth would include that of Isaac whose parents, Abraham and Sarah, had both passed the age of childbearing (Gen. 11:30; 25:21; Heb. 11:12).

One of the best working definitions of a miracle that I have seen was given by Harry Rimmer who declared, in essence, that a miracle was an orderly event which occurred on a plain of law higher than that which governed the daily operations of the universe. To illustrate, fish breathe underwater through gills, and birds of the heavens routinely fly, but it would require a suspension or an intervention of the laws of nature for men to do this. Such an intervention would not be difficult for God, but it is impossible for men. R.C. Trench commented that “the miracle is not greater manifestation of God’s power than those ordinary and ever-repeated processes; but it is a different manifestation” (Notes, page 8).’

The Bible uses the terms signs, wonders and miracles to describe these events. Peter taught that God approved Christ among men by working signs, wonders and miracles through him (Acts 2:22). Later, the Hebrew writer taught that God confirmed the preaching of the apostles through signs, wonders, miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost (Hebrews 2:4). Since workers of miracles could suspend laws of nature and perform deeds which would have been otherwise impossible, the divine stamp of approval was placed upon their works and words.

The term “sign” translates semion (Greek), and means “sign, mark ,or token.” Thayer comments that it is used of “miracles and wonders by which God authenticates the men sent by him, or by which men prove that the cause they are pleading is God’s.”2

The word “wonder” translates teras (Greek), and means “a prodigy, portent; miracle performed by any one; in the N.T. it is found only in the plural and joined with semeia” (Thayer).

The term “miracle” (or, power) translates dunamis (Greek), and means “strength, ability, power.” Thayer comments, “universally inherent power, power residing in a thing by virtue of its nature, or which a person or thing exerts and puts forth . . . specifically, the power of performing miracles.”

The apostle John rarely uses any of these terms, choosing instead to use the term works to describe the miracles of Jesus.

Nicodemus, an apparent member of the Jewish ruling body, the Sanhedrin, came quietly to Jesus under cover of darkness and addressed him as “Rabbi,” saying, “We know that you are a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that you do, unless God be with him” (John 3:2). To Nicodemus, the miracles of Jesus proved that God was working through him. We have already cited Peter’s statement that Jesus was “a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in your midst . . .” (Acts 2:22).

Near the end of the first century John wrote his gospel, or biography of the life of Christ. From all appearances he chose to write more for the Gentile audience. His approach was markedly different from that used by the synoptic authors; he limited the factual details, and emphasized relationships, thoughts, and feelings of Jesus. Excluding essential references to the birth and resurrection of Jesus, John basically made his case on seven miracles of Jesus which, he concluded, were sufficient evidence to invoke faith in the reader.

1. At the wedding feast in Cana of Galilee, Jesus turned water into wine (John 2:1-11). Tenney remarked that this demonstrated that Jesus was master over quality3 (because Jesus’ wine was better than the other which had already been drunk, John 2:10). Homer Hailey, who drew heavily from Tenney’s work on this point, added that this demonstrated that Jesus was “Lord of creation” and that he was “master of matter” (That You May Believe, page 110).4 The same Jesus who could speak the worlds into existence was unchallenged by the simple task of turning water into wine (Psa. 33:6-9; John 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:10-12).

2. The healing of the nobleman’s son (John 4:46-54) took place with Jesus at Cana and the son at Capernaum demonstrating that Jesus was master over space or distance.

3. Healing the man who had been lame for thirty-eight years (John 5:1-9) showed that he was master over time. Some modern medical doctor might be heard to say, “If we had only caught this sooner, we could have done some-thing . . .” but this proved no impediment for Jesus.

4. Feeding five thousand people by miraculously multi-plying one little boy’s lunch (John 6:1-14) certainly demonstrated that Jesus was master over quantity. Again remembering Trench’s comment (op. cit.), this was not a greater miracle than takes place every day with the multi-plying of the seed sown millions of times with various plants, but it was a different kind of manifestation of power, and it did specifically identify Jesus as having the endorsement of heaven.

5. Jesus’ walking on the sea (John 6:16-21) certainly demonstrated his power over nature. He defied the law of gravity, calmed the winds and the tempest and miraculously and instantaneously transported the vessel and its occupants a mile or two across the northern end of the sea of Galilee.

6. When Jesus gave sight to a man who had been blind from birth some forty years (John 9:1-12), he demonstrated his mastery over light and the power of darkness. He could conquer adversity and turn misfortune into blessing. Of course, believers are not surprised by this since we already know that he could bring light into the world with the simple utterance, “Let there be light” (Gen. 1:3)

7. The raising of his good friend Lazarus (John 11:39-44) showed that Jesus was master over life and death. If he could raise this man, why not others as he promised?

Conclusion

Although there were some thirty-five or thirty-six miracles performed by Jesus, John limited his argument to the seven cases cited, and concluded, “Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through his name” (John 20:30-31).

John uses various forms of the word “believe” about ninety-eight times in a book whose clear purpose is to show that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. If John felt that his case was made by the citation of only seven of the miracles, how well, then, is our case proven by citing more than five times that number of miracles in all the gospels to prove Jesus’ identity?

Footnotes

‘ Trench, R. C. (1878). Notes On the Miracles. Philadelphia: William Syckelmoore.

2 Thayer, Joseph Henry (1901). Grimm’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (4th Ed.). Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

3 Tenney, Merrill C. (1951). John: The Gospel of Belief Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Tenney, Merrill C. (1961). New Testament Survey. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Hailey, Homer. (1973). That You May Believe: Studies in the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

Guardian of Truth XL: 1 p. 8-10
January 4, 1996

Why Jesus Christ Came Into The World

By Walton Weaver

To say that Jesus Christ came into the world is simply to affirm an historical fact. The manner of his coming is a much more complex subject, but Scripture itself affirms that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), and that “God was manifested in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16). We accept as fact what Scripture itself affirms about the incarnation of Christ, and make no attempt to address the more complex questions associated with that subject. Our aim is briefly to touch on the question, why? Why did Jesus Christ come into the world? And even on this question we must limit the scope of our inquiry. There are reasons for his coming that are beyond the purpose of this article. Our study will be limited to four reasons which the Bible gives for Christ’s coming into the world. Each of these pertains directly to our salvation.

To Do The Father’s Will

Jesus himself said, “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me” (John 6:38). He came to do “the works of Him who sent Me,” and yet he had only a brief time in which to do them  a period described by him as “while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work” (John 9:4). Though he did many “works” all of which were a part of the Father’s will, there was one work in particular that was to be the ultimate outcome of all of these works. The last week of his life, and in anticipation of his death, he said, “I have finished the work which You have given me to do” (John 17:4). His statement looks back upon his life as brought to a perfect end by the sacrifice of himself which he was about to make. On the cross he said, “It is finished” (John 19:30), no doubt meaning that he had accomplished the work he had come into the world to do. God had prepared a body for him that he might offer himself to God in a very special way (Heb. 10:5). This offering of himself upon the cross was the ultimate goal of all that he had come into the world to accomplish.

God did not desire the sacrifices and offerings made under the law, but he prepared a body for Christ that he might come and do the Father’s will “through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10). To this end, Jesus affirmed, “I have come  In the volume of the book it is written of Me  To do Your will, 0 God” (Heb. 10:7). The Hebrew writer had already said, “who, in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death, and was heard because of his godly fear, though he was a Son, yet he learned obedience by the things which he suffered. And having been perfected, he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him . . .” (Heb. 5:7-9). Christ was obedient to the Father’s will in every respect. His perfect obedience qualified him to be offered up as a sin offering to God. His resolve to completely do the Father’s will is best illustrated in the length to which he was willing to go in the offering up of himself on the cross for us. Paul makes this point when he says that he “humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:8).

To Reveal The Father

Christ is the only one whose testimony of the Father involved an immediate apprehension of him. He is the only one to have himself observed the Father. The very fact that he “came down from heaven” (John 3:13) enabled him to bear witness to what he had “seen” with his Father (John 5:19; 6:46; 8:38) and what he had “heard” from him (John 8:26, 28, 40; 14:10, 24; 15:15  the same was true of the Holy Spirit, John 16:13). While he was in the world the same relation which he had all along with the Father continued. He continued to be “with” the Father who sent him (John 8:16, NKJV). His judgment was true because he was not alone; it was the Father’s judgment as well as his own because his relation to the Father was such that whatever he said the Father also said. Christ’s judgment was not merely a human judgment; it was a divine judgment because of his unique relation to the Father. His judgment was God’s judgment be-cause he was one with the Father. Is this not but another way of saying that whatever he spoke and whatever he did he spoke and acted as one with the Father because his very nature required that he speak and act as one with him (Heb. 1:3)? This is what he meant when he said that he could of himself do nothing (John 5:19, 30  nor could the Holy Spirit speak “of himself’  John 16:13).

This unique relation with the Father enabled Jesus to perfectly declare the Father unto us. This was another reason for his coming into the world. John 1:18 says, “No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” Again, the unique relation of the unique Son of God (lit., in the earliest manuscripts, “the only begotten God”) to the Father is what is affirmed. The words “who is in the bosom of the Father” suggest an abiding closeness between the Father and the Son. It is Christ’s intimacy with the Father while he was declaring him that is being described, and yet what is said describes what is permanently true of Christ. Alvah Hovey quotes Luke as pointing out that the “timeless present participle is here used, like the finite present in 1 John 3:3, 7, to express an inherent, permanent relation of the only begotten Son to the Father” (Commentary on the Gospel of John, p. 69). Because of this ever abiding relation to the Father, John says that Christ is the one who has declared him or made him known. What has been declared is what Christ knew by being in the bosom of the Father. Christ had immediate and intuitive knowledge of God (John 8:55). This could be affirmed of no other. Only the Son has such knowledge of the Father (see Matt. 11:27). He alone could say when asked of Philip, “Lord, show us the Father,” that “he who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). He was declaring the Father unto us in his every word and action.

To Destroy the Works of the Devil

John says, “He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8). Both Jesus and other writers of our New Testament also had much to say about this same problem and how Jesus’ coming into the world was meant to deal with it. Questions on the origin, nature and consequences of sin, on the one hand, and the nature of God and how he must deal with sin, on the other, are central to the subject of salvation and why Jesus Christ came into the world. These are not new subjects; they are not first introduced in the New Testament. From the very beginning the problem of sin was present. God’s hatred for sin had also been demonstrated again and again throughout the Old Testament period. When John affirms that “the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil,” he is simply announcing what is God’s last effort to overthrow the power sin, and what is more important, what proves to be his triumphant act in accomplishing that fact.

With the lifting up of Christ on the cross a certain judgment would be brought against this world (John 12:31a). The ruler of this world would be cast out (John 12:31b). Jesus would through his lifting up draw all men unto him-self (John 12:32). “That world remained God’s world, even though it had become disintegrated by sin and had tried to organize itself without reference to its Creator, and in con-sequence stood under His judgment. But Jesus lifted on the cross, the supreme expression of the invincible power of divine love, would draw to himself like a magnet all who accepted in faith His victory over sin and evil; and over against all such believers the world and its prince would be impotent” (R.V.G. Tasker, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 150). Jesus Christ and the cross is the Christian’s victory over the world. To those who are called the cross is “the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24). Though Christ died in weakness, he is mighty in us (2 Cor. 13:3-4). John assures his readers that they are of God and have overcome those who have the spirit of Antichrist “be-cause He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world” (1 John 4:3-4). No Old Testament saint ever had such strong incentive to be an overcomer.

To Take Away Sins

Not only did Jesus come to destroy the works of the devil in our lives, but he was also “manifested to take away our sins” (1 John 3:5). Sin is a transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4). Sin reaps the wage of death (Rom. 6:23), or separates one from God (Isa. 59:1-2). The sacrifices of the law could not remit sins (Heb. 10:1-4) and bring sinful man back into God’s favor. A better offering was required; yet it must be a blood offering, for “without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb. 9:22). The better offering was the blood of Jesus Christ. We may now be “sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10). “So Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many” (Heb. 9:28). Christ “Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness  by whose stripes you were healed” (1 Pet. 2:24). We were redeemed by the “precious blood of Christ, as a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet. 1:19). “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us …” (Gal. 3:13); God “made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21).

Such an offering was necessary in order that God might be just: ” . . . For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth to be a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:22b-26). All men had broken God’s law. All were lawbreakers. The penalty was spiritual death, eternal separation from God. God had allowed this condition to continue all during the Old Testament period. No provision to take away sins had been provided. The demand of the law for punishment had to be met. God sent his Son to suffer the penalty for our sins. In his death upon the cross the just demands of the law had been met. God is just in saving those who believe. Christ’s sacrifice also made provision for those under the First Covenant (Heb. 9:15). Through the provisions of the New Covenant we have the assurance that “God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). The testimony of John the Baptist is, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin on the world!” (John 1:29).

Guardian of Truth XL: 1 p. 1
January 4, 1996

The Death of Christ

By Jim Ward

To appreciate the death of Jesus, we must understand something of law and the enormity of sin. What does it mean when Paul says, “The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law” (1 Cor. 15:56)? Taking the last clause first, sin is the violation of law (1 John 3:4), and the violation of law brings a penalty. Specifically, “The soul who sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:20), “for the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). A legal system, once breached, puts the violator under a curse: “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, `Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are writ-ten in the book of the law, to do them’ (Gal. 3:10). Clearly, then, law demands sinless perfection, and when men fall short  as all do (Rom. 3:23)  it puts them under the curse of death. Furthermore, since law accepts only flawlessness, it obviously makes no provision for failure. It only indicts and punishes men; it never justifies them. This, perhaps too briefly stated, is the “strength” behind sin.

Now we turn, even more concisely, to the first clause, “The sting of death is sin.” Though sin separates men from God, as long as they remain alive, there is hope of reconciliation. However, once they die physically, that hope is lost; they remain forever separated from the Lord. Thus is sin the “sting of death,” and thus, do we begin to see a glimmer of its dreadful effects. It destroys man eternally.

As the Old Testament vividly paints this half of the picture, no event of the patriarchal era is more to the point than the great flood. It destroyed all mankind, save for eight souls  and all because of sin! Later, the Law of Moses brought evil into clearer light (Rom. 7:13), often by focusing upon seemingly guileless men. The episode of Uzzah and the ark of the covenant is shocking. Untrained hearts are horrified at the “grossly unfair punishment” of this well-intentioned man. But this ruination which sin, however slight it seems to us, brings upon man is only half the story. Man is not the only one to suffer.

It is not until the New Testament that we see the other half of the truth: that sin costs God dearly too. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have ever-lasting life” (John 3:16). When God exacted a penalty upon the ancient world of Noah’s day and upon Uzzah, and in-deed upon all sinners of all time, he committed himself to paying that penalty. Sin, running the gamut from black to white, as men view such things, calls for a price that men cannot pay and still be redeemed.

We readily understand how God can be either just or merciful, but not how he can be both. How is he to be just and merciful, to punish sin and to save the sinner? He did not renege on his prehistoric intention to slay Jesus (Rev. 13; 1 Pet. 1:18). Rather, he carried that plan through and “set forth” Jesus “as a propitiation by his blood, through faith, to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time his righteousness, that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:25-26). 1 Peter 3:18 says it this way, “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit . . .” (1 Pet. 3:18).

Never has the news of a death filled us with such joy. Usually we recoil at the very thought of it; we shrink from the shrill ring of an untimely phone call. But now, after struggling helplessly under the penalty of law, we learn the good news that the price has been paid for our sins. How-ever deeply sin has stained our souls, there is power in the blood of Jesus to cleanse. The sweet and awful truth hits home. I have been redeemed, but at what price? At what pain to my Heavenly Father? Only when the answer sinks down into our awareness, only when we understand the cost of sin to ourselves and to God do we see iniquity for all its ugliness. God’s “only begotten Son”  he’s the price.

And what a sacrifice! He’s not an animal  their blood would not suffice (Heb. 10:4)  but a man, a sacrifice tailor made by God to do his will (Heb. 10:5-10). But neither is he merely a man, for he is God, and higher than the angels. Which of the angels was ever called God’s Son, or was to be worshiped, or had an everlasting throne (Heb. 1:5, 6, 8)? Being himself God and man, he is the perfect mediator between his brethren and God (Heb. 2:17).

Jesus “was in all points tempted as we are” (Heb. 4:15); yet unlike us, he “committed no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth” (1 Pet. 2:22). He died an innocent man. Be-cause of this, we can live in spite of our true guilt. God forgives those who will trust in his Son because that Son bore the sinner’s guilt. He “himself bore our sins in his own body on the tree” (1 Pet. 2:23). “For he made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21). That, dear reader, is a hallelujah message!

Furthermore, Jesus forged his perfection in the arena of life’s temptation and the society of his fellowman. He was not some ascetic recluse who withdrew to a cave or mountain top to meditate and merely avoid harm to man. His morality and goodness were positive as well as negative. He “went about doing good and healing all who were op-pressed by the devil” (Acts 10:38). He gave sight to the blind, cured lepers, made the lame to walk, fed the hungry, raised the dead, taught principles which promote man’s happiness, forgave sin, preached repentance, and promised healing to a sin-sick world. From childhood, he was “about his Father’s business” (Luke 2:49). He came to do Heaven’s will, and at the end he could say to the Father, “I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do” (John 17:4).

From Gethsemane to Golgotha, he bore unspeakable anguish of spirit and pain of body. In the garden, he prayed, “`Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.’ Then an angel appeared to him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in agony, he prayed more earnestly. Then his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground” (Luke 22:42-44). The innocent Savior bore his rugged cross to the barren hill, while the murderous Barabbas went free. Between railing thieves, the Lord found a place of humiliation, and there hanged until about the ninth hour, when he cried out, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” Finally, in the rough mercy of a shortened moment, “Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up his spirit” (Matt. 27:46, 50).

On a hill far away stood an old rugged cross,

The emblem of suff’ring and shame,

And I love that old cross where the dearest and best

For a world of lost sinners was slain.

And never has the news of a death filled us with such shame and horror. That is how enormous our sin is! That is the measure of our evil and rebellious ways! For we most certainly understand that our God did not pay a greater price than was absolutely necessary to redeem us. He is not bloody and cruel. Yet he turned his back on his sweet and guiltless Son. And the reason is this: it had to be; our sins demanded it.

Tell of the cross where they nailed Him,

Writhing in anguish and pain;

Tell of the grave where they laid Him,

Tell how He liveth again.

Love in that story so tender,

Clearer than ever I see;

Stay, let me weep while you whisper,

Love paid the ransom for me.

Oh, how that last line cuts us to our very core: “Stay, let me weep while you whisper, Love paid the ransom for me.” How long has it been, my brothers and sisters, since we have wept at the story of Jesus? How long since we have ached for what we have done?

Guardian of Truth XL: 1 p. 11-12
January 4, 1996