Christ's death on Friday meant atonement. From the human side it was humanity making an offering to God for its sins. It was also the satisfaction of God's justice toward sin, a way for God to be "just and the justifier of those who have faith like Jesus."
Easter means victory over death and the "defeat of the one holding power over death, the Devil." From the human side it represents our future resurrection from the dead. From God's side it is the vindication of Jesus and all that he preached while he was on earth.
While some parts of the New Testament emphasize the meaning of the death of Christ (e.g., Mark, parts of Paul, Hebrews), others emphasize the resurrection (Matthew, John, Acts, 1 Corinthians 15). For Acts it is the key verse of every sermon except for Stephen's. And arguably Stephen would have come to that point of his sermon as well if he hadn't been interrupted with stoning! In Acts it implies God's exaltation of Jesus as the cosmic Lord of all, the enthronement of Jesus at God's right hand.
In 1 Corinthians 15 it is the guarantee of our own resurrection. Paul lock-steps Christ's resurrection with ours, to where if we will not be raised, then Christ could not have been also. Similarly, if Christ has been raised, then we will be also. Christ is the "first fruits" of the dead.
On this score yet again I am thankful for the Corinthian problems, for one of the strongest arguments for the resurrection comes from this chapter.
One part of any historical argument we might make for the resurrection is the empty tomb. Even opponents to Christianity are said to admit no body in Matthew 28. And surely one would not invent women finding the empty tomb if one was making the story up--the ancients by and large did not consider them credible.
The other part of any argument for the resurrection comes from the resurrection appearances, particularly those that Paul mentions here:
"For I delivered to as of first importance what was also delivered to me, that Christ died in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he rose again the first day in accordance with the Scriptures. That he appeared to Peter, then the twelve, then to over 500 brothers at once, many of whom are still alive [check my references]. Then he appeared to James and the other disciples. Lastly he appeared to me, as of one born out of season."
Paul has no reason to lie--after all some at Corinth don't like him and would love to catch him out. Further, he can refer to Cephas in passing in the letter, so they must know a little something about him. All our evidence indicates that so many of these witnesses went on to die for their conviction in the resurrection. That spells conviction in what they thought they had seen.
In short, if you believe that resurrections are possible, this must have been one of them.
May this be a blessed Easter (somehow happy doesn't seem to cut it)! I hope you will revel in the defeat of death, the enthronement of Christ as king, and promise of your own victory over death!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I just want to put a plug in for the lectionary, regular readings from Scripture for worship that cycle through the whole Bible over the course of three years. You can find it fairly easily by googling. I use the one I've found by googling "Methodist Lectionary."
I am not a born liturgist--it's a role that has found me. In fact, the former chaplain of St. John's College would no doubt be very concerned to find that I have become a kind of default liturgist around here. "Funny, since you didn't get up in time for morning prayer very often..." he might say. Frankly, he was very amused that I wished a copy of the psalter and daily liturgy from John's when I left.
But my point this morning is how impoverished my tradition is with its so called "the Spirit will tell you what Scripture to use" tradition. I'm actually not opposed to using that principle for preaching. But I have been struck over and over again to realize the genius--or dare I say inspiration--of those who have set the readings in relation to the church year. These people knew the psalms so well and picked just the right ones for the right Sundays.
But what struck me today is something I never realized before. During Eastertide, the lectionary has readings from Acts instead of the Old Testament. As I see what they did, it is so rich theologically, the readings they have picked and the way they embody by their very choice the principles of the new covenant.
There are many strengths to my tradition and I've talked about them here. But when such depth has been around for so many hundreds of years... when I have a PhD and seem to be doing more theology than most in my church... I am left ashamed not to have known and used this blessing in my life.
Lectionary, anyone...?
Hey, I was studying the first witnesses to Jesus resurrection, and I was a slightly befuddled by the difference between John(I think?) vs. all the other Gospels. I was trying to see the accounts to be complimentary. In that case, did all the women go to the tomb, but Jesus met with Mary Magdalene alone (in your opinion)?
It seems to me that we free churches (especially the Wesleyan Church, since we come from a more liturgical background than most) could really benefit from the use of the lectionary in Sunday morning Scripture lessons, if not a denomination-wide campaign for worship renewal. I appreciate the freedom given to us in the Wesleyan Church with regard to the direction we take our worship, but with great freedom comes great responsibility.
Excepting the Ritual section of the Discipline which gives direction for baptism and the Lord's Supper (which practice is not followed, as it is not expressly required), there is no direction given on the content or course of Christian worship for our denomination. The only direction given is that practices of worship should not be required since they will vary from place to place (taken from the Anglican articles of religion).
It seems that the Wesleyan Church could, either by way of putting something into the Discipline, or pushing some sort of campain, promote a bare-bones outline of the essentials for a regular Lord's day worship service. It seems that we have so many young people questioning the things we already do and the way we do them; and we have those who would defend the way we do things, but the only argument they can give is, "because it's supposed to be that way." Our congregations could greatly benefit from some education on the who, what, where, when, and why of worship.
Post a Comment