He also glorified

Preaching on Romans 8:30 last Sunday, I've been thinking about what it means for believers to be glorified. Glorification does not mean that that our humanity will be absorbed into the divine. That would not be the redemption of man, but his obliteration. Rather, in glorification we shall become all that we were intended to be as God’s image-bearers.

There is an analogy between the glorification of the believer and that of Jesus' own humanity. At his incarnation Jesus became a divine person with a human nature. There is an unbreakable union between the divine and human in person of Christ, yet there is no confusion between his two natures. That which was God in Jesus did not become less than God when he was made flesh. That which was human in Jesus did not become more than human when his flesh was glorified. Jesus became like us in humiliation, that we might become like him in glorification. We will be glorified together with Christ. We shall partake of his glory and so we shall become partakers of the divine nature.

I've also been reading my way through The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way, by Michael Horton. He has a remarkable chapter on The Hope of Glory: "Those Whom He Justified He Also Glorified". A key theme in Horton's work is that the Christian account of the relationship between God and human beings is not that of 'overcoming estrangement' so that the finite is absorbed in the infinite. Instead the Bible teaches that finite human beings 'meet the Stranger', our infinite Creator, and in that encounter the creator/creature distinction is maintained.

It is with this in mind that Horton gives proper emphasis on the resurrection of the body in relation to glorification, as opposed to a contemplative vision of disembodied souls being infused with the divine.

Rather than sending the human soul upward, away from history and embodiment, this view [that of Calvin and the Reformed tradition] sees redemptive history moving forward to the consummation. Because of this emphasis on the historical economy of grace, Calvin and the wider tradition emphasized the the future resurrection of the dead as the place where the consummation occurs. It is the cosmic, eschatological, and redemptive-historical event of the parousia, not the allegorical, contemplative, striving ascent of the lone soul, that characterizes the Reformed expression of the beatific vision. (Zondervan, 2011, p. 697)

Glorification is the ultimate fruit of the believer's union with Christ. It is the final link in the 'Golden Chain' of salvation that Paul details in Romans 8:30. It is because we are in Christ that we will be made like him and be with him where he is in resurrection glory. Death may sever the union between the Christian's body and soul, but they remain united to Christ body and soul. Horton cites the remarkable words of the Puritan Thomas Watson in his Body of Divinity, "The bodies of the saints in the grave, though separated from their souls, are united to Christ. The dust of a believer is part of Christ's mystic body". (Emphasis added, p. 702, - from A Body of Divinity, Banner of Truth Trust, 1978, p. 309).

To be glorified is to share in the glory that God gave his own Son, "and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him." (Romans 8:17, see also John 17:4-5, 22, 24). 

Christ the firstfruits

The other day I was reading Leviticus 23 which sets out the major festivals in the Old Testament religious calendar. I was struck for the first time with the close proximity of The Feast of the Passover and Unleavened Bread to The Feast of the Firstfruits. On the 'day after the Sabbath' [of Passover/Unleavened Bread], worshipers were to bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of their crops to the priest as an offering to the Lord, Leviticus 23:10-11, 13-14. This burnt offering made in spring time was a token of the full harvest that was to come. It was intended to invoke the Lord's blessing upon the whole crop, Ezekiel 44:30. 

One of the things that interested me was the timing of the Feast of the Firstfruits. The 'day after the Sabbath' could be taken as the day following the 'holy convocation' that marked the beginning of the Feast of Unleavened Bread on the fifteenth day of the month Abib (Leviticus 23:6-7). Gordon Wenham, however, takes the view that 'day after the Sabbath', is the Sunday that follows the first Saturday after the beginning of the Festival of Unleavened Bread. In that case, the token sheaf was offered on a Sunday, the first day of the week. 

As Wenham elaborates, the Last Supper was a Passover meal (Matthew 26:17) and the Gospels identify Jesus as the true Passover lamb (John 19:36 cf. Exodus 12:46. Note also 1 Corinthians 5:7). He comments, "Easter Sunday was probably the day the first sheaf was offered as a dedication offering. It is this ceremony which led Paul to speak of Christ in his resurrection as the firstfruits (1 Cor. 15:23)." [See The Book of Leviticus NICOT,  G. J. Wenham, Eerdmans, 1979, comments on p. 302-304 & 306]. 

Philip Eveson also notes, "In the year that Christ died, Passover fell on a Friday, so that the following day (Saturday) was not only the special Sabbath of the the first day of Unleavened Bread but the ordinary weekly Sabbath...It is of profound significance that the Lord Jesus Christ, who died at the time of Passover, rose from the dead 'on the day after the Sabbath' to become the 'first fruits' of those who sleep in Jesus (1 Cor 15:20). The resurrection of Christ is the guarantee that all who belong to him will be raised from the dead to be like him." [The Beauty of Holiness: The book of Leviticus simply explained, Philip H. Eveson, EP, 2007, comments on p. 318].

Richard Gaffin pays close attention to Paul's use of 'firstfruits' language in connection with Christ's resurrection. He cites Johannes Weiss to the effect that, 'This little word contains a thesis'. Gaffin locates the Old Testament background to the  apostle's wording in Leviticus 23 and other similar passages. He draws attention to the representative character of the firstfruits offerings and remarks, "'Firstfruits' expresses the notion of organic connection  and unity, and the inseparability of the initial quantity from the whole."  Applying this insight to Christ's resurrection, Gaffin explains, "it brings into view Christ's resurrection as 'firstfruits', of the resurrection-harvest, the initial portion of the whole. His resurrection is the representative beginning of believers. In other words, the term seems deliberately chosen to make evident the organic connection between the two resurrections...His resurrection is not simply a guarantee; it is a pledge in the sense that it is the actual beginning of the general event. In fact, on the basis of this verse [1 Corinthians 15:20] it can be said that Paul views the two resurrections not so much as two events but two episodes of the same event." [Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul's Soteriology, Richard B. Gaffin Jr, P&R, Second Edition 1987, p. 34-35]. 

As the firstfruits offering was organically connected to the harvest that followed under God's blessing, so Christ's resurrection is organically connected with that of his people. That is why there is such a tight link between the resurrection of Christ and his people in the New Testament. Such is the organic bond, that those whom God has savingly united to Christ by his Spirit have already been raised to new life in him (Romans 6:4-5, Colossians 3:1). But just as Jesus was bodily raised from the dead as the firstfruits, so the full harvest of resurrection glory is sure to follow for his people. The one without the other is unthinkable, Romans 8:11, 2 Corinthians 4:14. This is further underlined by Paul's language in Romans 1:3-4, where he writes,

concerning his Son 

who was born of the seed of David 

according to the flesh,

and appointed the Son of God with power 

according to the Spirit of holiness,

by the resurrection of the dead,

Jesus Christ our Lord.

The apostle did not say, 'by his resurrection from the dead' (contra ESV/NIV), but 'by the resurrection from the dead'. Commenting on this verse, Leon Morris quotes Nygren who says, 'the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of the dead are not two totally different things...For Paul the resurrection of Christ is the beginning of the resurrection of the dead.' [The Epistle to the Romans, Leon Morris, IVP/Eerdmans, 1988, p. 47]. Just as with the firstfruits, there is only one crop that is comprised of token sheaf and full harvest, so it is with 'the resurrection of the dead'. To use Gaffin's language Christ's resurrection and that of believers are 'two episodes of the same event'. 

Returning to 1 Corinthians 15, in Christ all shall be made alive (1 Corinthians 15:22). The last Adam will have his new humanity. As a 'life-giving spirit' the risen Lord will raise his people from the dead with spiritual bodies that we may bear his image. (1 Corinthians 15:45-46, 49). The resurrection of 'Christ the firstfruits' on the first Easter Sunday means there can be no doubt that harvest time is coming. And what an abundantly glorious harvest it will be, 1 Corinthians 15:50-55.  

Easter: Hope Reborn

When we say, ‘I hope so’ we often mean, ‘I’d quite like something to happen, but can’t be sure it will.’ Like our favourite football team winning the FA Cup, or getting that dream job, or whatever. Hope is a fragile thing in an uncertain world where we never really know what’s around the corner. But a fragile hope that things are going to turn out well is better than no hope at all, I suppose.

Easter is all about hope destroyed and reborn. Jesus’ followers were full of hope that he was the long-expected Messiah who was going to put the world to rights. The Saviour of the world, even. But it didn’t seem to work out quite like that. Jesus was rejected by the religious authorities, put through a mockery of a trial and condemned to be crucified on the first Good Friday. Some Saviour. Couldn’t even save himself from the suffering and indignity of public execution. Jesus’ followers dutifully buried their Master and thought that was that. All their grand hopes of a new and better world were gone.

They were wrong, however. On the fist Easter Sunday morning Jesus’ followers were amazed to discover that his tomb was empty and the body was nowhere to be seen. Later that day he appeared to them. Jesus had risen from the dead. At first they couldn’t quite believe their eyes, but it was him alright. The same Jesus who had been crucified was alive. The hearts of his followers burned with hope once more.

Jesus explained that it was by his death on the cross and resurrection from the dead that he had broken the power of sin and death. Now those who believe in him may be forgiven and restored to a right relationship with God. The power of God that raised Jesus from the dead will also raise his people to everlasting life and glory.

That’s the Christian hope. It is rooted not in an optimistic feeling that things are going to work out for the best, but in what God did in Christ on that first Easter Weekend. The believer has a sure and certain hope in the living Lord Jesus. 

*For Easter editions of News & Views and Holy Trinity Magazine

Jesus: A Reason for Hope

Hope realised

‘Well, you can always hope’ we sometimes say. Especially when things look quite hopeless. Hope can sometimes seem such a fragile thing when set against the stark reality of life with its disappointments and disasters. ‘You’re hoping’ is another one, by which we mean, ‘Get real and expect the worst’. Such pessimism might be excused given what’s happening in the world right now, with Russia flexing its muscles and the threat of Islamic terrorism looming large across the world.

It seems that human beings fail to learn the lessons of history and are doomed to keep on repeating its mistakes. But the situation is not hopeless. God promised that he would send someone to rescue us from sin and suffering. And that someone is Jesus. When he came into the world he specialised in giving hope to the hopeless. He healed people of incurable diseases. He promised forgiveness to people overwhelmed with guilt. He spoke of eternal life to people who lived in fear of death. The deepest human hopes were realised by Jesus.

Hope ruined

Jesus’ followers began to hope that their Master was the One who would make the world a better place, where kindness prevailed over cruelty and love over hate. But people turned against him. They took the very embodiment of hope and nailed him to a cross. As he hung and suffered there Jesus cried out, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’

When Jesus’ followers took his lifeless body down from the cross and laid it in a tomb their hopes perished with him. At least that’s how it seemed to them at the time.

Hope reborn

On the first Easter Sunday morning some of Jesus’ disciples went to visit his tomb. To their surprise and amazement thy found it empty. The body of Jesus had gone. Some thought that his remains had been stolen away. But Jesus had not been a victim of grave robbery. Rather, he had been raised from the dead. Later that day he appeared to his followers and showed them the marks of crucifixion in his hands. He explained that his death on what we call ‘Good Friday’ was not a tragic accident. It was all part of God’s plan that Jesus would lay down his life for the sins of the world. He was forsaken by God that we might be reconciled to him.

Jesus lives. He has broken the power of death by his death and resurrection. The Christian has been ‘born again to a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.’ (1 Peter 1:3). Life in this world can sometimes seem quite hopeless, but those who believe in the living Lord Jesus have a reason for hope.

The Son of God with Power

Paul begins his Epistle to the Romans with a summary statement of the gospel he wished to proclaim in Rome:

The gospel of God…concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead. (Romans 1:3& 4.)

Paul sets before us the broken symmetry of the life Jesus Christ who was “born according to the flesh” and “declared to be the Son of God with power”. The great transitional event in these two phases of the history of Jesus Christ is his resurrection from the dead. For Paul “flesh” is synonymous with human life in a fallen world. To be born “according to the flesh” is to be born weak. God sent his Son “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Romans 8:3). To be sure, Jesus Christ “knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21). Yet he came as flesh, without the trappings of kingly majesty.

But this man, Jesus Christ was “declared to be the Son of God with power”. This, at any rate is how the New King James Version translates the text. Scholars are divided on how exactly we are to translate the participle “declared” in question. In usage elsewhere in the New Testament, the verb can mean to “delineate” or “demarcate”. This meaning is apparent when regional boundaries or borders are described, “in the regions of…” (Matthew 4:13, 8:34). In this sense, Jesus was “marked out” or “delineated” as the Son of God. Another use of the verb is “to determine” in God’s purpose (Luke 22:22), (Acts 2:23). The word is also used to describe Jesus being appointed or ordained by God as judge of all mankind, (Acts 10:43, 7:31).

But if we take the word here to mean “appointed”, in what meaningful sense could Jesus Christ be “appointed” as the Son of God? Orthodox Christology has always insisted that Jesus Christ ever was the Son of God. Our text itself suggests that it was “his Son” that was “born according to the flesh”. Also in Galatians 4:4 Paul affirms the pre-existence of Jesus as the Son of God. He did not become God’s Son at birth, it was as God’s Son he was sent to be born.

Evangelical expositors will want to avoid any suggestion that Jesus became the Son of God at his resurrection. This would be to fall into the heresy of adoptionism – the notion that Jesus was adopted as God’s Son, rather than being God’s Son from eternity.

Because of this difficulty with Jesus being “appointed” as the Son of God by his resurrection, some scholars prefer the translation that Jesus was “declared or “marked out” to be the Son of God”. Dr. Robert Reymond argues for this point of view (Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Nelson, 1998, p. 240-245). He takes the words “in power” as qualifying the participle “declared” or “marked out”. Jesus was thus “powerfully marked out as the Son of God …by the resurrection of the dead.” (Reymond, 1998: 242.) Reymond, understands the phrase “by the Spirit of holiness” to mean Jesus’ divine nature, that stands contrast to his human nature as “flesh”. Thus Reymond, paraphrases the text, “who was powerfully marked out as the Son of God in accordance with his divine nature by his resurrection from the dead.” (Reymond, 1998: 243.)

But is this necessarily the best interpretation of the text? Reymond has avoided any suggestion that Christ became the Son of God by his resurrection. However, his exegesis is not shared by other Reformed scholars who prefer the translation that “Jesus…was appointed [not simply marked out as] the Son of God with power ...”

At least as far back as Geerhardus Vos, conservative scholars have argued that, “The reference [in Romans 1:4] is not  to two coexisting states in the make-up of the Saviour - his divine and human natures - but to two successive stages in his life.” (Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, P & R, 1930, p. 155.) The contrast in the text is between Jesus Christ being born according to the flesh by incarnation and appointed the Son of God with power by resurrection. The words “with power” qualify the new resurrected state of the “Son of God”. In the flesh, Jesus was the Son of God in weakness, but after his resurrection he was appointed the Son of God with power.

The apostle is dealing with some particular event in the history of the Son of God incarnate by which he was instated in a position of sovereignty and invested with power, an event which in respect of investiture with power surpassed everything that could be ascribed to him in his incarnate state. (John Murray, Romans, Eerdmans, 1987, p. 11.)

The “spirit of holiness” need not be taken to mean the Son’s divine nature as Reymond suggests. Paul’s intention is not to reflect on the relative natures, divine and human than constitute the person of the Son of God. He is describing the Son’s incarnate state before and after his resurrection from the dead. “Spirit of holiness” is a unique designation of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. However, as Barrett points out, it was a common way of referring to the Holy Spirit in Hebrew and Aramaic writing. (C. K. Barrett, Paul, Geofferey Chapman, 1994, p. 24.) If, as Barrett suggests, Paul is using a pre-existing creedal formula here, this unusual way of describing the Spirit makes perfect sense. Murray comments,

Thus when we come back to the expression “according to the Spirit of holiness”, our inference is that it refers to that stage of pneumatic endowment upon which Jesus entered through his resurrection. (Murray, 1987: 11.)

Post-resurrection, the incarnate life of the Son of God was transformed and endued with new power by the Spirit. Paul can write that, “The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45.) Christ was conceived by the Spirit according to his human nature and endued with the Spirit at his baptism. But on his resurrection, the Son was lifted to an unprecedented plane of Holy Spirit dynamism. The time of incarnated weakness is over. Jesus is now the Son of God with power.

This interpretation, that Jesus was appointed as the Son of God with power by his resurrection, avoids the danger of adoptionist Christology, while doing justice to the language of the text. It was because Jesus Christ was God’s Son and the messianic seed of David, born according to the flesh, and who died for sinners, that he was appointed the Son of God with power. “He was raised because of what he was. He did not become Son by being raised: he was raised because he was Son.” (Donald McLeod, The Person of Christ, IVP, 1998, p. 91.)

Michael Licona, the resurrection of Jesus and biblical inerrancy

Michael Licona's book, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach is causing something of a stir due to his exegesis of Matthew 27:51-53. The scholar argues that these verses take the form of a "poetic device", rather than reportage of an historical event (p. 552-53). Some Evangelical scholars have accused Licona of compromising biblical inerrancy because of his handling of this text.  

Michel Bird gives us the low down, on the controversy, including links to Al Mohler and Norman Geisler's response to Licona and Licona's reply to Geisler. Bird backs up Licona on his understanding of this segment of Matthew's resurrection narrative. It comes down to the issue of the literary genre of the verses in question. It seems that some conservative scholars are using genre identification as a way of skirting round what they regard as historical difficulties in Scripture. This matter is ably addressed as far as the Old Testament is concerned in Lost in the Old Testament? Literary Genres and Evangelical Hermeneutics by Peter Naylor in Foundations. 

I posted a largely appreciative review of The Resurrection of Jesus back in March. But in my appraisal I flag up my concern regarding Licona's general approach to Scripture as he seeks to construct a persuasive argument for the historicity of Jesus' resurrection, see here. 

Calvin on Abraham's resurrection faith

I'm preaching through Genesis on Sunday mornings. Last Lord's Day I preached on Genesis 23, where Abraham buys a burial place for Sarah. It's always worth consulting Calvin's commentary on Genesis and his treatment of chapter 23 was especially insightful. He comments on the practice of the burial of the dead even among non-believers,

And certainly (as I have said) it has been divinely engraven on the minds of all people, from the beginning, that they should bury the dead; whence also they have ever regarded sepulchres as sacred. It has not, I confess, always entered into the minds of heathens that souls survived death, and that the hope of a resurrection remained even for their bodies ; nor have they been accustomed to exercise themselves in a pious meditation of this kind, whenever they had laid their dead in the grave; but this inconsideration of theirs does not disprove the fact; that they had such a representation of a future life placed before their eyes, as left them inexcusable.

Calvin deals with this point at greater length in the Institutes (see here). True to his promise in the Epistle to the Reader, treatment of theological points was kept as brief as possible in the Commentaries, as they were designed to be read alongside the Institutes. 

Having thus, as it were, paved the way [in the Institutes], I shall not feel it necessary, in any Commentaries on Scripture which I may afterwards publish, to enter into long discussions of doctrines or dilate on common places, and will, therefore, always compress them. In this way the pious reader will be saved much trouble and weariness, provided he comes furnished with a knowledge of the present work as an essential prerequisite. 

Getting back to Genesis 23, Calvin explains that  unlike the pagans, Abraham believed not simply in life after death, but that God will raise the dead. This was presumably on the basis of special revelation given to Abraham by the Lord. 

Abraham however, seeing he has the hope of a resurrection deeply fixed in his heart, sedulously cherished, as was meet, its visible symbol. The importance he attached to it appears hence, that he thought he should be guilty of pollution, if he mingled the body of his wife with strangers after death. For he bought a cave, in order that he might possess for himself and his family, a holy and pure sepulchre.

Calvin continues to reflect on the fact that Abraham was concerned to purchase a family tomb in the promised land, 

He did not desire to have a foot of earth whereon to fix his tent; he only took care about his grave: and he especially wished to have his own domestic tomb in that land, which had been promised him for an inheritance, for the purpose of bearing testimony to posterity, that the promise of God was not extinguished either by his own death, or by that of his family; but that it then rather began to flourish; and that they who were deprived of the light of the sun, and of the vital air, yet always remained joint-partakers of the promised inheritance. For while they themselves were silent and speechless, the sepulcher cried aloud, that death formed no obstacle to their entering on the possession of it. A thought like this could have had no place, unless Abraham by faith had looked up to heaven.

Identifying himself with the promise made to Abraham, Jacob also insisted that he be buried in the field purchased by his grandfather, Genesis 49:29-32. His coming out of Egypt to be buried in the promised land prefigured the exodus, Genesis 50:13. Joseph left similar instructions concerning his remains, Genesis 50:22-26. Moses honoured Joseph's request, Exodus 13:19. And so he was buried in Canaan, Joshua 24:32. The patriarchs died believing in God’s promises of redemption and inheritance, Gen 15:13-14 cf. Hebrews 11:13-16. That is the only way to die, 1 Peter 1:18-19, 3-5. We are "heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ" (Romans 8:17). Death will not deprive us of our promised inheritance. We look beyond the grave to the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.

When I tread the verge of Jordan,
Bid my anxious fears subside;
Death of death, and hell's destruction
Land me safe on Canaan's side:
Songs of praises, songs of praises,
I will ever give to thee;
I will ever give to thee.

See here for a series of posts on John Calvin and the resurrection of the body. The Commentaries are available for free online, here. 

The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach by Michael R. Licona

The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach

Michael R. Licona, IVP Academic/Apollos, 2010, 718pp,

The author’s main thesis is that biblical scholars often engage in the study of history in a way that is quite different from historians who are not involved in the world of biblical studies. Frequently critical scholars regard the biblical texts with a high degree of scepticism. They demand an almost impossible degree of historical certainty before they will acknowledge that an event described in the Bible actually happened. Licona wants to see what biblical scholars might have to learn from the methods and practices of other students of ancient history. He then proposes to apply the methodology of non-biblical historians to the question of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

The first main section of the book gives attention to historical method (that is what is meant by “historiography”). Here Licona faces the issues such as the historian’s horizon or worldview prejudicing his reading of the facts, whether it is possible to recover the past in any meaningful way, and what is the burden of proof. He concludes that the best explanation of the historical data will pass five basic criteria: 1. Explanatory scope. 2. Explanatory power. 3. Plausibility. 4. Less ad hoc, meaning no need to employ extraneous arguments. 5. Illumination.

Next Licona discusses whether it is legitimate for historians to investigate miraculous events. Many would say, “no”. But after laying down some careful safeguards against naïve gullibility regarding the miraculous, the author argues that historians should not simply rule out the serious investigation of supernatural events like the resurrection of Jesus.

Attention is given to the evaluation of historical sources. For the sake of this study, Licona wants to determine what is the most plausible source of historical data for the resurrection of Jesus. He argues that greatest plausibility should be awarded to the earliest witness to apostolic teaching on the resurrection. This is largely found in the writings of Paul, especially 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Other biblical writings such as the canonical Gospels are regarded as “possible” sources of information for the early apostolic tradition, alongside Josephus, while 1 Clement is awarded a “possible plus”. This is in keeping with Licona’s methodological neutrality, where, for the sake of this study he does not regard the Bible as the inspired Word of God, but a merely human source of historical data. I will return to this point later in the review.

A chapter is devoted to The Historical Bedrock Pertaining to the Fate of Jesus. By “historical bedrock”, Licona means strongly evidenced facts accepted as such by nearly all contemporary historians. There is some good exegetical material here on "spiritual" nature of the resurrection body in 1 Corinthians 15. Having surveyed the evidence, Licona boils the historical bedrock down to three main points: 1. Jesus died by crucifixion. 2. Jesus' disciples had experiences that led them to believe that he had risen from the dead. 3. Later, Paul was converted after experiencing what he understood to be a postresurrection appearance of Jesus.

Finally Licona weighs six different hypotheses that attempt to explain the historical bedrock against the five basic criterion set out earlier in the book. The first five hypotheses offer various naturalistic explanations of the facts, claiming that the disciples' experience of the risen Jesus were hallucinations or grief-induced sates of altered consciousness. Licona finds these theories wanting. The best explanation for the historical bedrock is that Jesus rose bodily from the grave. Thus, Licona concludes, having deployed rigorous historical methodology, that it is “very certain” that Jesus rose from the dead.

We are pleased that Licona reached this conclusion after almost 600 pages of close argumentation. His attempt to bring the rigour of responsible historical method to bear on the world of biblical studies is to be welcomed. But I question his general approach to apologetics, especially his claimed neutrality on the Bible as God’s inspired Word. The Christian apologist should begin with the presupposition that God is there and that his Word is truth. The Gospels are more than a “possible” source of historical fact. Holy Scripture may be trusted on historical just as much as theological matters. That is the starting point for attempting to give a reasoned defence of the Gospel, including the claim that God raised Jesus from the dead. The task of the apologist is to endeavour to demonstrate that the known facts are fully in accord with God’s self-revelation in the Bible and that competing views and theories cannot offer an adequate explanation of reality. This does not mean that the apologist is bound to prove that the Bible is God's inerrant Word before saying anything else, but it should be made clear that this is one of his underlying presuppositions. That said, this volume should stimulate biblical scholars to give fresh and serious attention to the Bible’s witness to the resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ from the dead.

* Reviewed for Protestant Truth magazine.

On my way to heaven by Mark Ashton

On my way to heaven: Facing death with Christ,

Mark Ashton, 10 Publishing, 2010, 26pp

Last Saturday we travelled to Harrow to visit my wife's father. He is dying cancer. It was sad to see him looking so weak and ill, but he is a Christian and is able to face the future with hope. This booklet was written by a man in just such a position. Anglican Vicar, Mark Ashton was diagnosed with inoperable and untreatable gallbladder cancer. He was given six to nine months to live. Here he tells the moving story of how he faced death as Christian believer.

Ashton reflects on his sadness at the thought of being torn from loved ones and the indignity of physical deterioration. With touching honesty he speaks of his character faults and besetting sins. Knowing that he was dying gave the writer a greater urgency in speaking to the lost of Christ and made him more determined to live for the Lord and walk closely with him.

What shines through above all is the way the resurrection of Christ enabled Ashton to confront the grave with hope. Not for him the empty bravado of My Way or the weak sentiment that the dead are "just in the next room". With biblical realism the writer saw death as "the last enemy" that severs body from soul and cuts us off from the land of the living. But this devastating foe has been defeated by Jesus. He  died and rose again so that all who believe in him might be forgiven and have everlasting life. Those who are united to Christ by faith will be raised immortal by the resurrection power of the Saviour.

This is an ideal booklet to give to anyone with a terminal illness. In these pages the non-believer will encounter the reality of the Christian hope. The believer will have his or her faith strengthened as they read the writer's testimony of God's grace to a dying man. I'll be sending my review copy to my father-in-law.

Avaliable from 10ofthose.com at 1 for £1.50 or 10 for £10.

What the Bible Teaches about the Future by Peter Bloomfield

What the Bible teaches about the Future,
Peter Bloomfield, EP Books, 2009, 256pp

As the author rightly says, the Bible is an eschatological Book that points toward a glorious future hope. It is important for Christians to have a sound grasp of what the future holds, yet many believers are confused at this point and clarity of vision is sometimes lacking. Our hope must be based on a clear understanding of Scripture, where God’s great purpose for the world is revealed. The writer's aim is to enable the reader to know for certain where their eternal destiny lies.

Bloomfield gives a convinced Amillennialist account of biblical eschatology. He begins by pointing out that we are living in the “last days”, the period between the “already” of Christ’s first coming and the “not yet” of his return in glory. The writer’s handling of the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24) is especially commendable and helpful. But his views on the future of the Jews as set out by Paul in Romans 9-11 will not command universal acceptance even amongst those who might agree with his basic stance. It is right to stress that the old covenant promises made to Israel regard to the Promised Land no longer apply in the new covenant age. What matters now is belonging to the Israel of God comprised of believers gathered from all the nations. Nevertheless, the people of Israel are still “beloved for the fathers’ sake”. Contrary to the way Bloomfield interprets Romans 11 it seems that Paul expected that there will be a widespread turning to the Lord by Jewish people before the end comes. In the reviewer’s opinion, John Murray’s exegesis of the passage in question in his commentary on Romans is to be preferred.

Be that as it may, Bloomfield sets before his readers the urgent need to be ready for the next big event in redemption history – the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. All people, both Christians and non-Christians alike will be summoned before his judgement seat and made accountable to him. The author speaks plainly and soberly of the eternal, conscious punishment of the wicked. He also makes it clear that the final state for believers is not simply dying and going to heaven. We look beyond that to the resurrection of the body by the power of the Lord Jesus and eternal life in the new creation. Having said that, not nearly enough attention is paid to the resurrection hope in this book. While five chapters are devoted to the future of the Jews, not one single chapter is dedicated to a consideration of the resurrection of the dead in Christ. It is regrettable that the writer barely refers to 1 Corinthians 15. Any book on biblical eschatology should offer at least some sustained reflection on that key chapter. There are many good things in this study and it will no doubt sharpen the reader's focus on eternal matters. But the omission just noted makes for a rather incomplete and patchy account of what the Bible teaches about the future.

The best recent book on the subject to my mind is The Promise of the Future by Cornelis P. Venema, 2000, Banner of Truth Trust. If you are looking for a readable and up-to-date study of eschatology that does justice to the biblical contours of the Christian hope, then that's the one to get.

*An edited version of this review will appear in a forthcoming edition of Protestant Truth. The books referred to may be ordered from the PTS Christian Bookshop, here.

Richard Gaffin Study Day: The Resurrection in the Theology of Paul

Session 3: The Resurrection in the Theology of Paul: An Overview

Introduction

Paul's "theology" is God's word: 1 Thess 2:13, and is to be received as such. The centre of Paul's gospel is Christ's death and resurrection: e.g., 1 Cor 15:3-4. The death and resurrection of Christ are mutually dependent in the salvation of sinners. The cross only saves because Jesus is risen. He was raised from the dead because he died on the cross for our sins, Romans 4:25.

The resurrection of Jesus has been the subject of relative neglect in Reformation theology. In general the church in the west has tended to think of salvation in terms of being saved from the guilt of sin. Hence the overwhelming emphasis on the cross at the expense of the resurrection. Often the bodily resurrection of Jesus is only mentioned in the context of an evidentialist defence of the facts. But Paul's focus is on the soteriological significance of the resurrection. It was good to hear Gaffin make this point as I've long felt this to be the case.

1. The unity between the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of believers

1 Cor 15:20: Christ the "firstfruits". The firstfruits were offered to God as a part of the whole harvest. The resurrection is one great event in two episodes. Christ the "firstfruits" guarantees the ingathering of the whole resurrection harvest.

1 Cor 15:12-19 stresses the inseparable bond between Christ and the resurrection of his people.

Col 1 : 18: Christ the "firstborn". He is supreme over death and able to save his people from the power of the grave.

2. The believer's resurrection as a present reality

In Eph 2:1-3 those who are dead in sin "walk according to the course of this world". In Eph 2:10, believers walk in good works. What makes the difference? They have been raised with Christ, Eph 2:5-6: the new "walk" (Col 2:12-13; 3:1; Rom 6:1ff.; Gal 2:20)

3. Summary

There are three factors in Paul's theology of the resurrection. 1) The resurrection of Christ. 2) The present resurrection of the believer's "inner self". 3) The future resurrection of believers.

The distinction between "inner self" and "outer self " is made on the basis of 2 Cor 4: 16. Better than talking about a present "spiritual" resurrection and a future "bodily" resurrection. As for Paul, "spiritual" means of the Holy Spirit, not immaterial, 1 Cor 15:44. The believer will never be more resurrected that he already is in the core of his being.

4. Conclusions and expansions

a) The resurrection and Christ

It is significant primarily for his humanity, not his deity, "by man" (1 Cor 15:21); "the last Adam," "the second man" (1 Cor 15:45, 47)

In Paul's teaching Christ was "raised," not "rose". He is the passive object of God's resurrection power. A different emphasis is found in John 2:19-22 & 10:17-18. In Paul the resurrection is not so much a proof of Christ's deity as the vindication of the incarnate Son who suffered and died for sinners.

The Holy Spirit: At his resurrection Jesus became "the life-giving Spirit" 1 Cor 15:45. This is Paul's commentary on Pentecost cf. 2 Cor 3: 17 & Rom 1 :3-4.

b) The resurrection, the Holy Spirit and the Christian

- (the future) 1 Cor 15:44: the "spiritual" body
- (the present) the Christian life: Rom 8:9-11; Phil 1 :6

c) The resurrection and the creation: Rom 8:19-23

In discussion we reflected on the way in which the resurrection of Christ tends to be neglected in Reformed systematic theology. In the traditional schema, discussion of the atonement is followed immediately by treatment of the application of redemption as if we could be saved by a dead Christ (see here). Also the believer's present "inner" resurrection is not often emphasised because of the focus on the ordo salutis. It would be better if the organising principle of Reformed soteriology was union with Christ. Only in that context should the ordo be discussed - as per Calvin in the Institutes. It is worthwhile noting that the final chapter of Book III of the Institutes is devoted to the resurrection of the body - Christ's and ours (see here).

In these notes I've only put a little meat on the bones of what Gaffin had to say at the Pastors' Forum. For more see his excellent Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul's Soteriology, (P&R). It was a real privilege to listen to Gaffin's lectures. His careful attention to Scripture and exegetical rigor in the mold of John Murray make him an exemplary theologian and teacher. He doesn't simply regurgitate great dollops of Reformed theology, he is a truly biblical systematic theologian.

Richard Gaffin Study Day: Biblical and Systematic Theology

I was really looking forward to hearing Gaffin at the Pastors' Forum, having appreciated his writings, especially the seminal Resurrection and Redemption, (P&R). It was well worth the trip across the Severn Bridge to Maesycwmmer to listen to the veteran WTS theologian. Here are some sketchy notes together with some thoughs of my own on what he had to say in the first session.

Session 1: Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology

I. What is Biblical Theology?

All revelation is divine self-revelation. Revelation falls into two categories, general revelation in creation and providence and special revelation. Special revelation is a redemptive-historical process. It includes verbal and nonverbal or deed revelation. Scripture is God's word: the record of redemption history. The focus of the written word on is on God's mighty acts, narrating and explaining what the Lord has done. Now that the work of redemption has been accomplished, biblical revelation has ceased. That does not mean that God no longer reveals himself to us. He speaks through his living and active word, the Bible.

"Biblical Theology" gives careful, methodical attention to the actual history of redemptive revelation. Its focus is the history of special revelation.

While it is true that Geerhardus Vos is the father of Reformed Biblical Theology, the church throughout its history has been aware of the historical character of biblical revelation. Calvin was especially sensitive to redemptive-historical concerns.

II. What is Systematic Theology?

Systematic Theology is topical in its nature nature, paying attention to different subjects in the biblical account of the history of redemption such as the doctrine of God and salvation. It treats Scripture as a completed and unified whole, asking, "What does the whole Bible say about this topic?" It is systematic not because the biblical data in its raw state is disorganised and therefore needs to be set out in a more orderly fashion. (A slight dig at Charles Hodge). Systematic theology proceeds on the assumption that underlying the diverse voices of Scripture there is a redemptive-historical unity and systemic harmony of truth, a "pattern of sound words", 2 Timothy 2:13. Systematics is not about erecting abstract systems unrelated to the biblical text. It must proceed from sound biblical-theological exegesis.

There is the biblical warrant for systematic theology in Scriptures such as Hebrews 1 :1-2. This text tells us 1) Biblical revelation is historical, God spoke "at various times". 2) In biblical revelation there is diversity in unity. Diversity: God spoke "in various ways". Unity "God spoke". 3) Christ is the end point of redemptive history and the manifestation of God's eschatological purpose, "in these last days [God] has spoken to us by his Son".

III. The relationship between Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology

Biblical theology is the historical and systematic theology is topical. Thesis: "Biblical Theology the indispensable servant of Systematic Theology". This is the case because biblical theology enables systematics to treat the topics of Scriptural revelation with an appropriate feel for the redemptive-historical nature of the Bible. Texts should not be isolated from their biblical-theological context. Gaffin's emphasis is helpful because systematics often fails when it comes to biblical exegesis. In some forms systematic theology can seem little more than a dollop of Reformed doctrine followed by string of proof texts - see John Murray on this deplorable tendency here. Biblical theology follows the plot-line of God's self-revelation in Scripture. Systematic theology is about plot analysis, analysing the roles of the different actors and events in the great drama of redemption. With Gaffin speaking of theology in terms of and drama, I would have liked to have asked him what he makes of Kevin Vanhoozer's theodramatic proposals (see here), but didn't get the chance. Ah well.

Preachers need a good grasp of systematic theology that is informed by the fruits of biblical theology to given us a Scripturally enriched vision of the whole counsel of God. Biblical theology will give us a sense of Bible's redemptive-historical flow and make us sensitive to the distinctive contribution of diverse voices of Scripture. Systematic theology helps us to see how biblical truth hangs together to form a coherent and harmonious whole, a "form of sound words".

Reports on sessions 2 & 3 on 'Christ in the Old Testament' and 'The Resurrection in the Theology of Paul' to follow.

Richard Gaffin at the Pastors' Forum

The next Pastors' Forum Study Day is coming up this Thursday, 5th November. The speaker will be Rev. Prof. Richard B. Gaffin Jr. (Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia). I've long admired Gaffin's work, especially in the fields of union with Christ and the resurrection of the body, and the relationship between biblical and systematic theology.

Here's the programme for the day:

09.30 Registration & Refreshments
10.00 Welcome, Introductions and Devotions.
10.15 Richard Gaffin - "What is Biblical Theology & how is it related to Systematic Theology?"
11.00 Coffee
11.20 Richard Gaffin - "How to interpret and preach the OT in the light of the NT"
13.00 Lunch
14.00 Richard Gaffin - "The resurrection in Paul."
15.40 Close.

The Ordinary Hero: Living the cross and resurrection by Tim Chester

The Ordinary Hero: Living the cross and resurrection
by Tim Chester, IVP, 2009, 221pp

The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ lie at the very heart of the Christian faith. As Evangelical Protestants we preach that Christ died once and for all to save us from sin. We are also prepared to defend Jesus’ bodily in the face of unbelieving scepticism. But what impact should these gospel basics have on the life of the believer? As the subtitle suggests, this book is about living the cross and resurrection of Jesus.

Chester has the gift communicating his ides in crystal clear prose, with a generous sprinkling of vivid illustrations and telling quotations. He avoids technical jargon, apart from “eschatology”, which he goes out of his way to define. This work is evidently the product of careful scholarship, but Chester’s style is wonderfully engaging and accessible.

The writer delves into the Scriptures, basing what he has to say on a sound and insightful handling of the biblical materials. Chester writes with a keen awareness of the theological dimensions of his subject. He makes a good, biblically reasoned case for penal substitutionary atonement. He points to the cosmic implications of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. His resurrection is the first fruits of the new creation. However, Chester is incorrect to state that while in the tomb, Jesus’ flesh was “rotting into dust” (p. 185). As Peter is careful to point out in quoting from Psalm 16 on the Day of Pentecost, Jesus’ flesh did not see corruption (Acts 2:25-32 cf. Paul's similar words in Acts 13:35-37). His dead body was preserved from the corrupting effects of death by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Chester thoughtfully applies his teaching. Readers are challenged not simply to understand what the Bible has to say on of the death and resurrection of Jesus, but to live in the light of these things. The once crucified and now risen Saviour calls us to take up the cross and follow him, whatever the cost. As those who are united to Christ by faith, believers experience the power of his resurrection in their lives. But that power is not given to us so that we may breeze triumphantly trough life without a care in the world. Resurrection power is power that enables us to serve and suffer for Christ’s sake.

The author is pretty culture-savvy, referencing contemporary films and music. He gives a penetrating critique of today’s materialistic society. If the consumer is king, little room is left for humility, self-denial and sacrificial service. Only by being ‘ordinary heroes’, living the death and resurrection of Jesus will we find true joy and purpose in life.

Many believers tend to think of the Christian’s final hope in terms of dying and going to heaven. But Chester paints a more biblical picture of the eternal sate. When Jesus returns, our bodies will be raised up and made like Christ’s resurrection body. We shall live forever in the new creation in the presence of the triune God and in the company of his people. With this hope in our hearts we are motivated to live for Jesus in this fallen world.

Everyone who wants to know more about what it means to be an authentic follower of Jesus should read this most helpful and challenging book. Buy it and by God's grace, live it. Check out this video, where Tim Chester talks about what it means to be an 'ordinary hero'.
* An edited version of this review will appear in a forthcoming edition of Protestant Truth.

Some rough notes on John 20:24-29

At our fraternal last Wednesday we fell to talking about preaching without notes, as was the practice of John Calvin (see here). I only caught part of the discussion as I had popped out to buy a bacon roll for lunch. But amongst some there was a misconception that not using notes in the pulpit means preaching without premeditation or preparation. But this isn't the case. I blogged on this a while back. Extemporary preachers should still work on preparing a written sermon, even of the document is not used in the pulpit. Writing a sermon will enable the extemporary preacher to work on exposition, structure, doctrine, illustration and application. Structure is all important as it is the basic structure and thrust of the message that will be committed to memory rather than the whole sermon. The notes will be a bit rough and ready. They are not meant to be a polished literary text, so much as a framework for the preacher containing fragments of thought and prompts for further extemporary elaboration. Just to give an example of what my notes look like, even though I don't use them in the pulpit (aside from the non-Bible quotes, which I print out!), here is a lightly edited sermon text from last Sunday evening's preaching.

John 20:24-29

In his new book on the resurrection, Jesus: Dead or Alive?, John Blanchard recalls a long conversation that he had with an atheist in South Africa. As a parting shot, Blanchard asked, ‘What do you think of Jesus Christ?’ The atheist replied, ‘I am not sure, but I do know this: everything depends on whether or not he rose from the dead.’ That is a very perceptive answer. If Jesus is not risen, we can discount his claims and give up the Christian faith as a dead loss. But if he did rise from the dead, that changes everything. The early Christian movement sprang to life on the basis that Jesus had defied death. Their essential message was: “God raised Jesus from the dead”. But these bold witnesses took a lot of convincing that Jesus was alive. One of them was especially sceptical about the whole thing. That man was Thomas.

I. Thomas’ Doubt

Now, Jesus had appeared to his disciples on the evening of the first Easter Sunday. But it appears that only ten of the remaining apostles were present. Who was missing? Thomas, vs. 24. Where was he? I haven’t a clue. But wherever he was he missed out on something big, 20:19ff. The other disciples told him what had happened, vs. 25a. But he was having none of it, vs. 25b. Thomas knew as much as everybody else that dead people do not simply spring back to life. He knew that Jesus was a special teacher and miracle worker. It was so sad that he was dead. But dead he was and that was that. If Thomas was going to accept that Jesus was alive, he wanted proof. No ghostly apparition would have satisfied him. He wanted to see and touch the nail pierced hands and wounded side of the risen Jesus. Nothing else would do. Without that evidence he says, “I will not believe.”

Perhaps is why we label this disciple, “doubting Thomas”? But let us not be too hard on the man. It is not as if the others came to believe that Jesus was risen without hard evidence. Mary Magdalene’s journey of faith. John saw and believed, vs. 8. Other ten – vs. 19ff. Luke tells us, 24:10 & 11. It was only the bodily appearance of the risen Jesus in the locked room and the sight of his hands and side that convinced them that Jesus was alive. Thomas wanted no more than what his fellow disciples had experienced.

Now, according to Richard Dawkins, faith is the great cop out, (Richard Dawkins' God, Alister McGrath, p. 84). It’s a bit like when Alice encountered the White Queen who informed her that her age was,

“one hundred and one, five months and a day”. "I can't believe that!" said Alice. "Can't you?" the queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again, draw a long breath, and shut your eyes." Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said. "One can't believe impossible things."
"I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

According to Dawkins, Christian believers are in the same position as the White Queen, self-deluded wishful thinkers, who believe things despite of what the evidence says. But that is not quite right is it? Thomas was not a gullible fool who simply accepted what the others had told him concerning Jesus’ resurrection because he had trained himself to believe “six impossible things before breakfast.” He was adamant that without evidence he would not believe. The Christian faith is not based on irrational wish-fulfilment, but on eyewitness evidence to hard facts.

We do not simply dismiss all doubts and demand that people exercise blind faith. There is a place for doubt and healthy scepticism in the Christianity. The writer and literary critic A. N. Wilson once professed Christianity. Then he became an atheist. In recent articles in the New Statesman and the Daily Mail, Wilson explained why he had converted back to Christianity. He explained that he had become weary with the undoubting dogmatism of the atheist community. He describes the time when Christopher Hitchens quizzed him to make sure that he did not have a lingering belief in a divine being. There could be no room for doubt that there is no God. But slowly Wilson began to doubt his atheist certainties. Regarding his old atheist cronies he wrote,

“Sadly, they have all but accepted that only stupid people actually believe in Christianity, and that the few intelligent people left in the churches are there only for the music or believe it all in some symbolic or contorted way which, when examined, turns out not to be belief after all.
As a matter of fact, I am sure the opposite is the case and that materialist atheism is not merely an arid creed, but totally irrational.
Materialist atheism says we are just a collection of chemicals. It has no answer whatsoever to the question of how we should be capable of love or heroism or poetry if we are simply animated pieces of meat.”

Wilson’s doubts concerning atheism led to faith in the bodily resurrection of Jesus,

"In the past, I have questioned [the truth of Jesus’ resurrection] and suggested that it should not be taken literally. But the more I read the Easter story, the better it seems to fit and apply to the human condition. That, too, is why I now believe in it.
Easter confronts us with a historical event set in time. We are faced with a story of an empty tomb, of a small group of men and women who were at one stage hiding for their lives and at the next were brave enough to face the full judicial persecution of the Roman Empire and proclaim their belief in a risen Christ."

Wilson is no naïve fool. He has been convinced by the biblical evidence for Jesus resurrection and the evidence of the transformed lives of those who believe that Jesus is alive. Thomas was not wrong to demand evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus. The Christian faith does not silence and suppress honest doubt. It confronts our doubts with a surprising fact that calls for genuine faith.

II. Thomas’ Surprise

Now it is the Sunday after Easter Sunday. Once more the disciples were gathered together. But this time Thomas is present. Something remarkable happens, vs. 26. He singles out “doubting Thomas”, vs. 27.

i. Jesus invites Thomas to examine the evidence that he is risen

vs. 27a The evidence is unmistakable. This is the same Jesus who was crucified. Yet now he is alive and not only alive but he has been strangely transformed so that vs. 26. He has not “done a Lazarus”. He has been resurrected from the dead. All that the other disciples had told him concerning Jesus were true. His doubt is confronted and unsettled by the surprising fact that Christ is risen.

ii. Jesus calls Thomas to believe that he is risen

Note that Jesus does not zap Thomas for his unbelief. His first word to the disciples including Thomas was “Peace to you!”. But now he does challenge his doubting disciple, vs. 27b. You have seen the evidence. Now believe! And does Thomas believe!

III. Thomas’ Confession

He not only believed that Jesus was alive from the dead, but in believing he was given understanding of Jesus’ true identity, vs. 28. In a sense Thomas’ statement here is the high point of John’s Gospel, told from the outset, 1:1, 14 etc. But it takes the resurrection of Jesus for his divine identity to be fully revealed. This risen Jesus, bearing the marks of his shameful crucifixion in his hands and his side is none other than Lord and God. Remember that Thomas was a religious Jew, Deut 6:4ff. By faith he sees that Jesus is included in the divine identity so that what might be properly said concerning Yahweh may also be said of Jesus. He was Lord, the sovereign ruler of the universe. He was God through whom all things were made. Remember that John 1:1ff was written in the light of John 20. It is only because of the resurrection that Jesus was confessed as Lord and God. Other than that, he would have been another failed Messiah.

This is the genesis of Christian theology. We confess the risen Jesus as Lord and God. He was with God, he was God, he was made flesh and now he is seen to be Lord and God in his resurrection. This is why the early church worshipped Jesus alongside God, because as the risen Lord he was shown to be the eternal Son of God.

Note that this is a deeply personal confession. The one who said, vs. 25 now says, “My Lord and my God.” Is that your confession too?

IV. Thomas’ Faith and Ours

Now Jesus addressed Thomas, vs. 29. Why are we blessed in believing without seeing?

i. Not because Thomas had evidence for his faith and we do not

We will not see the risen Jesus (until he returns), but that does not mean that our faith is a leap in the dark. We have the compelling eyewitness testimony of the apostles. The fact that they could be so sceptical and doubting adds to the integrity of their confession. We have the authority of Scripture. God is there. He has spoken. His word gives us many infallible proofs that Jesus is alive. Dawkins was so wrong. In believing in the resurrection of Jesus we are not in the same category of the queen in Alice in Wonderland. Faith is convinced by the demands of truth that Jesus is alive.

ii. Because we believe in the same Jesus as Thomas

We believe in the one who died for sins and has been raised again from the dead. We cannot see him. But he is a real and living object for our faith, Rev. 1:18.

iii. Because we have a living relationship with the risen Jesus

Not simply figure in history. Whitefield and Lloyd-Jones. He is alive, John 14:21. 1 Peter 1:8.

iv. Because we have been born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

If Jesus is risen, then we can trust his word, John 11:25 & 26. It is not irrational to stake your eternal destiny on that claim. You can entrust your death to Jesus knowing that he has conquered death himself. Consider the facts. Examine the empty tomb. Reflect on the resurrection appearances. Scrutinise the integrity of the apostolic witness. Then with Thomas confess concerning Jesus, vs. 28. Don’t be unbelieving, but believing. For, “Blessed are those who have not seen and have yet believed.”