The Resurrection of Christ and the Authority of Scripture
Answering biblical minimalism with the infinite majesty of the Christ event.
What is more of an obvious and unmistakable symbol of Christianity than the Bible? In the pews of many churches a copy can be found in a cubby underneath, Scripture readings are held during every service, Bible classes meet in the mornings or evenings, and in the more liturgical churches a special Gospel Book can be found that specially and beautifully contains the Gospels. The best-selling and most influential book in history, the Bible is of unparalleled significance and it and Christianity are virtually indistinguishable from each other.1 While this is true, it’s a reality that is becoming increasingly underappreciated and overlooked in modern (American) Christianity, as numerous Christian-oriented outlets have reported the dismal statistics of religiosity and Bible engagement among the general public.2 To globalize this trend, and not be so Americocentric, considering how America is still considered the most Bible-literate nation despite these aforementioned trends, along with the depth of secularization within modern Europe it’s not a stretch to assert there’d be even greater churchlessness beyond America. Now, as it has also been reported widely, many Americans (and, again, we can certainly extend this to the various post-Christian nations beyond America) have adopted very minimalistic views of Scripture, with only 20% still viewing Scripture as the inspired literal word of God as of a recent Gallup poll. While we can discuss what exactly it means to believe Scripture is the “literal” word of God3 I don’t believe these semantic or methodical issues serve to undermine the basic observation of how unchurched most moderns have become.
This is certainly something we must reckon with. The Church has accepted the authority of Scripture and centered it in its worship, theology, and culture for centuries. This sudden and radical reversal of this can’t be passively accepted or considered a neutral inculturation of the faith, that is plainly preposterous. This trend is dangerous, and it’s engendering a post-Christian society that has no ethical or eternal foundation and thus must lack a stable superstructure; it reduces us, as C.S. Lewis termed it in his scathing critique of post-truth society The Abolition of Man, to “men without chests.” What can we do about it?
Strategies abound, from the presuppositional to the missional, but these are primarily oriented toward the out-group, to the unchurched and Christless. Since the Christian’s first loyalty and first devotion is to the Church, the kingdom of Christ, to the building up and edification of each other (1 Thess. 5:11), I believe it should be toward conservation that the Church is (primarily) directed, rather than growth. A good shepherd is not focused on having the biggest flock but on having the most cared for and maintained flock, and by taking good care of his flock his prudence will pay off and that will contribute to future growth. That being the case, in-group (ecclesial) apologetics, conserving believers and their belief, has a higher priority.4 This being the case, a defender of the faith should seek to take a preexisting foundation and strengthen or renovate it.
As it concerns the increasing biblical illiteracy of modern Christianity I have been thinking about this and made some observations that I think should provide a very good basis to affirm Scripture’s authority to the weak or uncertain Christian. All this requires of the believer is acceptance of the Christ event, of His life beginning with Incarnation and culminating in Resurrection, which is the most basic article of faith a professed Christian should have (if they don’t, they’re immediately moved into the realm of out-group apologetics). Accepting that, the rest of my argument can unfold.
So, when I speak of a “weak” or “uncertain Christian” what I have in mind has also been captured by the term “lukewarm.” This is a Christian who (might) (infrequently) attend(s) church, definitely enough to be considered a member and recognized within the congregation, but whose commitment, whether participatory or theological, is wanting. Anyone familiar with the dismal state of contemporary mainline/evangelical churches (whether in terms of stagnation or banality)5 should know what I mean. As it regards Scripture, this type of Christian will take certain verses or passages and rather than hold himself to their standard or seek to truly understand them will instead apply them to his standard. I’ve experienced this myself, both directly and indirectly, shocked to hear a Christian proclaim “Well that’s just wrong” about Scripture.
Now, as I said, at the least what one should have in common with this type of Christian is the life of Christ, His authority and majesty. I don’t doubt the sincerity of their faith in Christ, although dogmatically and practically there is room for great improvement (toward authenticity). With this in mind, I move to affirm that the authority of Scripture is directly tied up with the authority of Christ. Consider this: when Christ was crucified people “assumed Him stricken, struck down by God and afflicted” (Isa. 53:4), and that, according to Paul, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13). Christ was at His lowest point on the Cross (although only afterwards would we learn it was truly His highest, constituting His coronation). While we often chastise the disciples for cowering and hiding after the Crucifixion the truth is their reaction was totally understandable (even if not appropriate), for as Cleopas put it, “we had hoped that He was the One Who was going to redeem Israel” (Lk. 24:21). What hope was to be found in following a dead man? All this is true, ante Crucem.
Three days afterwards, however, things changed. Not a little, not a tad, but monumentally. Christos anesti, as the Church has long-declared. God’s Holy One, the Messiah of Israel, wasn’t allowed to see corruption and desolation in Hades (Acts 4:27). Christ’s Resurrection served as His vindication, as the removal and conquest of His (our) curse. As Paul told the Corinthians, Christ was “declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Rom. 1:4). Crucified and buried, Christ was a dead and failed prophet, but resurrected and triumphant He is the Lord of Lords and the firstborn over all creation (Col. 1:15). The Resurrection is beyond essential to the Christian faith; it is the Christian faith. Accordingly, Paul also says that (Rom. 8:11; 10:9; cf. 1 Cor. 15:12-19):
Moreover if the Spirit of the One Who raised Jesus from the dead lives in you, the One Who raised Christ from the dead will also make your mortal bodies alive through His Spirit Who lives in you.
…because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
Therefore, the Resurrection is required to understand Christ’s mission, saving work, and identity.6 Christ is not Christ if He is not risen.
This is step one. The next step is to understand what followed from Christ’s Resurrection. After Christ’s Resurrection, particularly in the Lukan narrative (esp. Acts 1-2), we find that Christ ascends to be enthroned (after having been crowned and vindicated) in Heaven with His Father, but that the Holy Spirit is also sent to empower and lead the Church in the new age inaugurated by Christ’s triumph.7 The Holy Spirit descends on the disciples to lead them in their new commission to “go and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19) and to indwell all believers. This same Spirit is the One Who breathes out the word of God (2 Tim. 3:16) and carries along God’s prophets in their work (2 Pet. 1:21), the One Who makes Scripture Scripture by making it inspired. This Spirit that guided the prophets guided the apostles in their works and writings, and so Peter confidently makes it clear to his brethren that Paul, like him, possesses canonical authority (2 Pet. 3:16).
Here’s the important thing, however: the Spirit would’ve never been sent if it wasn’t for the Resurrection. Not sure what I mean? I’ll let Christ explain (Jn. 16:7-16):
“But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I am going away. For if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you, but if I go, I will send Him to you. And when He comes, He will prove the world wrong concerning sin and righteousness and judgment— concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; concerning righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see Me no longer; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been condemned.
“I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own authority, but will speak whatever He hears, and will tell you what is to come. He will glorify Me, because He will receive from Me what is Mine and will tell it to you. Everything that the Father has is Mine; that is why I said the Spirit will receive from Me what is Mine and will tell it to you. In a little while you will see Me no longer; again after a little while, you will see Me.”
This all makes it precisely clear what the significance and connection between the Holy Spirit and Christ is, and between the Spirit’s sending and the Lord’s ascension. The Apostles have our backs because they directly ask, “What is the meaning of what He is saying?” While Jesus still answers them a bit cryptically it’s obvious, from hindsight and what follows in John’s narrative (which is the beginning of his Passion), that He is speaking of His approaching death. Since this death is presented as necessarily tied to the sending of the Spirit, and since we’ve learned that Christ isn’t Christ if the Crucifixion was all that happened, we can therefore reasonably conclude that the sending of the Spirit was dependent on Christ’s death, Resurrection, and vindication. For, as Christ Himself says, “For if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you,” (v. 7) and, “For He will not speak on His own authority…He will glorify Me, because He will receive from Me what is Mine and will tell it to you” (vv. 13, 14). The Crucifixion leads to the Resurrection which leads to the Vindication which leads to the Ascension (enthronement), and the Ascension precipitates the Spirit being sent forth by the Son’s authority.
This is step two. Since we understand that the Resurrection vindicates Christ and His authority, that it is this selfsame authority that permits Christ to send the Spirit, and that it is the working and indwelling of this Spirit that permits inspiration to occur we can clearly establish a direct relationship between Christ’s authority, the Spirit’s inspiration, and hence the authority of Scripture. To put it another way, Christ’s authority is Scripture’s authority. This is the conclusion of the argument. To put it syllogistically what I’ve demonstrated is this:
Christ’s authority is grounded in the Resurrection.
The Spirit was sent forth by Christ’s authority.
Therefore, the Spirit wouldn’t have been sent if the Resurrection didn’t occur (1 & 2).
Now, to demonstrate how this relates to the matter of Scripture. If a Christian were to state “that’s just wrong” about some part of Scripture that would mean they find some deficiency in Scripture, that it is somehow compromised. If we find Scripture to be in error, however, then clearly it couldn’t be inspired, yes? How could we say that the Spirit is responsible for errors? We can’t, for being God, Who is without error, such a defect can’t be attributed to Him. Therefore, if Scripture is defective then the all-perfect Spirit couldn’t be responsible for it. However, if Scripture wasn’t inspired by the Spirit, then that means Christ’s claim that He could send the Spirit is wrong. Often, the type of Christian I am highlighting in this article will state that “our savior is Jesus, not Paul” or that they’re “red-letter Christians.” However, if you’re so devoted to Jesus above “men,” then how aren’t you devoted to His words, highlighted above, about the sending of the Holy Spirit to indwell and sanctify His Church and establish it as “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15)?8
I hope you can follow what I’m saying here. Since there is a clear and firm link between Christ’s mission and the Spirit’s, and the Spirit provides the authority for Scripture, and since the Spirit’s mission is commissioned by the Son’s authority, and the Son’s authority is derived from the Resurrection, if the Spirit “failed” His mission then clearly He isn’t responsible for Scripture, which means He wasn’t sent to the Church, which means Christ didn’t, or, rather, couldn’t send Him, which means Christ wasn’t raised to glory. Therefore, as Paul laments (1 Cor. 15:14-19):
“And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is futile and your faith is empty. Also, we are found to be false witnesses about God, because we have testified against God that he raised Christ from the dead, when in reality he did not raise him, if indeed the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless; you are still in your sins. Furthermore, those who have fallen asleep in Christ have also perished. For if only in this life we have hope in Christ, we should be pitied more than anyone.”
Therefore, the denial of Scripture’s veracity is the denial of Christ’s authority, which requires the denial of His Resurrection. Now, since the denial of Scripture by certain Christians often comes when they perceive Scripture as being “judgmental” or “immoral,” but the [theo]logical consequence of their denial is the damnation of all men, how much more terrible are they? Let us put a pin in any discussion of Scripture’s alleged “ugliness,”9 but this alone should make us consider, “Would I rather not be able to make sense of some parts of Scripture (for now), or be dead for eternity?” It’s a Pascal’s wager of sorts,10 and even more so a dilemma, “Would you rather deny Christ or accept Him, however uncomfortable it makes you for the time being, and genuinely demonstrate the love you say you have for Him?” If we are speaking with a sincere Christian they should, hopefully (especially if we are speaking sincerely and brotherly; Tit. 3:2; 1 Pet. 3:15; Prov. 15:1; Jas. 3:17), realize their error and repent, coming to possess an authentic faith as well.11 That we must pray for, for the future and integrity of the Church. “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Heb. 4:12).
Let us put a pin in any discussions of bibliology and sola scriptura for the time being.
E.g., Zach Dawes Jr., “‘Unprecedented Drop’ In Bible Engagement Among U.S. Adults;” Jeremy Weber, “Surprising Stats on Who Reads the Bible from Start to Finish;” Adam Macinnis, “Report: 26 Million Americans Stopped Reading the Bible Regularly During COVID-19.”
For example, I can say I believe that, but for a fundamentalist Christian that entails a wooden one-to-one literalism, while I stand by the fact that Scripture can be “literally figurative.”
However, I do want to note that I don’t disvalue out-group apologetics. The presuppositional and missional approaches I mentioned earlier are just as effective toward Christians as they would be toward nonbelievers (as they’re both ultimately focused on defending the faith; although, missional tactics would more so take the form of pastoral care). My introduction to Christianity was first fostered through out-group apologetics, but it was also accompanied by an active church community. There are still important nuances, as I’ve noted.
I also recommend to you this article by Bruce Davidson.
In discussing the significance of the Resurrection this is not to contrast it with or place it over the rest of Christ’s works, such as the Incarnation or Crucifixion. I’ve made this somewhat clear in other articles, but I’m a great fan of Greg Boyd’s “cruciform theology,” which posits the Cross as the core of all theology, that on the Cross the wisdom and character of God was made most manifest (cf. 1 Cor. 1-2). However, as Boyd himself acknowledges, placing such an emphasis on the Cross isn’t to the detriment of Christ’s other major works, such as the Incarnation and, especially, the Resurrection. None of these works could’ve happened without the other, and while the Resurrection couldn’t have happened without the Crucifixion (Christ’s death) neither could the Crucifixion happen (or matter) without the Resurrection. Accordingly, Boyd, in his summa of cruciform theology, marshaling support from a host of theologians, says the following:
Hence, we cannot think of the cross as an inglorious temporary interruption to the way God is otherwise sovereign. The cross is rather the quintessential manifestation of the glorious way God is always sovereign. In the words of Ernst Käsemann, the cross cannot be understood as a preparatory “chapter in the theology of the resurrection.” It must rather be understood “as the signature of the risen one.” So too, Balthasar notes that the resurrection “cannot be separated from the affirmation of Christ’s Crucifixion, with which it is, in its innermost reality, most closely united.” Indeed, as McCabe has put it, “the resurrection is the full meaning of the crucifixion.” For Paul, Moltmann argues, “the ‘word of the cross’ is based in the event of the resurrection of the crucified Christ…but it is a message about the cross of the Christ,” which is evident in the fact that Paul “spoke of the ‘cross of the risen Christ.’” Hence, “the risen Christ is the historical and crucified Jesus, and vice versa.” In this light, there can be no conflict between theologia crucis and theologia gloriae, as Balthasar notes. (Boyd, Crucifixion of the Warrior God, 2 vols., 1:169-70.)
Christ’s work is a unitary whole, not A, B, and C leading to D; since God’s saving work has been since before the world and time existed His character has always been constituted by these things (a fundamental element of cruciform theology as well; cf. 1 Pet. 1:20; Rev. 13:8; Eph. 3:9-11) and there is no differentiation involved. I think of the old Christmas carol “What Child Is This?” which in the second verse says this:
Why lies He in such mean estate,
Where ox and ass are feeding?
Good Christians, fear, for sinners here
The silent Word is pleading.
Nails, spear shall pierce Him through,
The cross be borne for me, for you.
Hail, hail the Word made flesh,
The Babe, the Son of Mary.
“Why lies He,” the Messiah and God’s Holy One, “in such mean estate…?” As the chorus answers, “Nails, spear shall pierce Him through, The cross be borne for me, for you.” What struck me about this verse is that it demonstrates that from His nativity, even as a sweet and innocent babe, Christ was condemned to die (which is made especially clear by the Massacre of the Innocents). So, Incarnation, Baptism, Transfiguration, Passion, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension, they are all one and the same: Christ’s salvation.
On Acts 1-2 see episodes 35, 36, and 37 of Dr. Michael Heiser’s podcast series.
Indeed, what’s just as problematic with this attitude is that it’s illogical, for the very Gospels themselves are not autobiographies but standard biographies, eyewitness testimonies (dare I say secondhand?). Hence the traditional titles of the Gospels: “The Gospel according to…”
Oh trust me, I do have a lot to say about this, I’m not shirking it or kicking the can down the road. I’ve mentioned him before, but Greg Boyd has offered the most comprehensive and sophisticated solution to this in his cruciform theology. I’ve marginally covered it on this blog (see “A Survey of Hebrews 1:1” and “Naaman: Hero of the Faith”) and intend to include it more in future articles, but I am fully satisfied with it. I do have some comments to make about Boyd’s theology and methodology, which you can find in brief in footnote 13 of my Naaman article (in lieu of a full article).
Pascal’s wager can get overlooked by many, even though it’s pretty insightful. For some helpful resources see Robert Verlade, “More Than A Wager;” Elizabeth Jackson and Andrew Rogers, “Salvaging Pascal’s Wager;” Paul Boaheng, “Gambling on God;” and Cameron Bertuzzi, “CC012: Is Pascal’s Wager Sound? with Dr. Michael Rota (2 Parts).” Some state that Pascal was a fideist and thus opposed natural-theological reasons for belief, as evidenced by his non-evidential wager, but this is a misrepresentation of his thinking and background. Accordingly, I’ve placed Verlade’s article first since it directly addresses those claims.
As I’ve established, this article’s focus is on in-group apologetics. Accordingly, no mention has been made of how to demonstrate that Scripture should be considered authoritative. While a Christian should, why should a non-believer? While it would certainly be quite long-winded to provide that now, suffice to say, since we’ve grounded this in-group apologetic on the Resurrection, all that needs to be done is to defend the Resurrection and then elaborate on the [theo]logical consequence of the Holy Spirit’s mission and animation of the Church. I’ll save that for the future for now.