What is the theological importance of Jesus’ resurrection? Simply put, the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, according to the Bible, as believed by the church throughout history, fits together as the central truth of Christianity without which the Christian faith is worthless.

But how does someone arrive at the conviction that the resurrection of Christ is the central truth of Christianity without which the Christian faith is worthless? A helpful method for answering this question theologically is to study what the Bible says, what the church has historically believed, how it all fits together and how it impacts the church today; this is the theological method this paper will follow to discern the centrality of the truth of the resurrection of Christ.2

#1: WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST?

            In 1 Corinthians 15:1 – 19 the apostle Paul argues that the resurrection of Christ is central to the gospel (vv. 1 – 5), central to preaching (vv. 6 – 11) and central to the Christian faith (vv. 12 – 19).3 The resurrection of Christ is so central to the gospel, preaching and the Christian faith that Paul asks “if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (v. 12) and then goes on to argue that “if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is vain… your faith is futile… those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished… we are of all people most to be pitied” (vv. 14, 17 – 19). Paul’s argument regarding the resurrection of Christ is that it is a historically valid and accurate event, witnessed by many (vv. 4 – 11), that is the source of great hope in the life of many the believer.4 Paul is so certain of the centrality of believing in the resurrection of Christ that he vehemently refutes all who deny it and asks them to consider the implications of it not being true, namely the hopelessness/worthlessness of Christianity.5 The resurrection of Christ is so central to the gospel, preaching and faith that literally everything Jesus said and did hangs in the balance; therefore the truth of Christ’s resurrection vindicates and verifies all of the person and work of Christ.6

            In Romans 6:1 – 14 the apostle Paul argues that the resurrection of Christ is central to a believer’s baptism (vv. 1 – 4), a believer’s walk (vv. 5 – 11) and the doctrine of grace (vv. 12 – 14).7 Christ’s resurrection is so central to baptism, the believer’s walk and the doctrine of grace that Paul claims “if we have been united with him [Christ] in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his” (v. 5) therefore believers must “consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus… For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under the law but under grace” (vv. 11, 14). Paul’s concern in these verses is that the believer would experience the spiritual benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection in this life through the ordinance of baptism, growth in holiness and the application of grace; this spiritual reality and experience would be bankrupt if the resurrection of Christ were not true.8

#2: WHAT HAS THE CHURCH BELIEVED ABOUT THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST?

            The Fathers preached the centrality of the bodily resurrection of Christ. Chrysostom, Ambrose and Augustine taught that the bodily resurrection of Jesus gives believers great hope, death does not get the final word and Jesus is building an eternal home for Christians who will take part in the resurrection of the saints and receive eternal rewards in heaven unlike those who believe lies and reject the resurrection.9

            The Reformers preached the centrality of the bodily resurrection of Christ as well. Reformers such as Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, Philipp Melanchthon and John Calvin taught that the resurrection of Christ is central to the resurrection of a believer and that both are intertwined to give the believer great hope and assurance because Christ reigns victorious over Satan, Sin and Death in his resurrection; the believer can live with boldness unlike those who are foolish enough to reject Christ’s resurrection.10 Against those who reject the resurrection of Christ, John Calvin encourages believers to be strengthened by the eternal security that is promised to those who stand firm in the central truth of Christ’s resurrection as they “straighten up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near” (Luke 21:28).11

            Many Modern Theologians preach the centrality of the bodily resurrection of Christ. Craig R. Blomberg points out that, throughout the book of Acts, the resurrection is central to the message of the early church (for example Acts 2:22 – 36; 17:18; 26:6 – 8).12 Wayne Grudem argues that the bodily resurrection of Christ is central to ensuring the believer of the truths of regeneration, justification and personal resurrection.13 Bruce W. Longenecker and Todd D. Still aptly remind us that the resurrection of Christ is central in Pauline theology because, through Christ’s self-sacrificing death and subsequent resurrection, believers are enabled and empowered to resist the effects of sin and death.14

            Likewise, Gary M. Burge, Lynn H. Cohick, and Gene L. Green argue that in the resurrection of Christ, believers find hope in looking forward to their own personal resurrections unlike those who reject the centering truth of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:12 – 16; Phil. 1:20 – 24; 3:21).15 Matt Chandler and Jared Wilson remind believers that the resurrection of Christ and the subsequent resurrection of every believer is the central truth that ensures Christians of their future authority to rule and reign with God over his new creation in the eschatological consummation of His redemptive plan.16

            Lastly, Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears argue that the biblical evidence for the centrality of the resurrection of Christ is compellingly clear, without equal and unrivaled, because the resurrection of Christ: was previously prophesied (Is. 53:8 – 12), predicted by Christ himself (Matt. 12:38 – 40), followed Christ’s horrendous death (John 19:34 – 35), left an easy to find tomb, empty (Matt. 27:57 – 60), was witnessed by many who saw and touched Jesus’ risen body (Matt. 28:9; John 20:17; 20 – 28; Luke 24:36 – 43; Acts 1:3; 1 Cor. 15:6); unmistakably produced a recognizable Jesus (Luke 24:31; John 21:7,12; 20:16), was written into the Scriptural record very quickly (Mark 14:53, 54, 60, 61, 63), has been celebrated since and within the writings of early church faith statements (1 Cor. 15:3 – 4), elicited worship from Jesus’ living family members (John 7:5; 1 Cor. 15:7; James 1:1), and was even confirmed by some of Christ’s fiercest enemies (Phil. 3:4 – 7; Acts 7:54 – 60; 9).17

#3: HOW DOES IT ALL FIT TOGETHER?

            Despite the overwhelming biblical support and faithful teaching from the Fathers to the Reformers to so many modern theologians, the bodily resurrection of Christ has still been rejected by some who favor naturalistic theories that attempt to discount the centrality of the resurrection and gut the power of the Christian faith.18

1. The Swoon Theory. Those who advocate for this theory believe that Jesus never really died from his wounds leading up to and culminating in his crucifixion but instead he either passed out, faked his death or was drugged to appear dead.19

2. The Spirit Theory. Those who advocate for this theory believe that Jesus was never resurrected in his bodily form but instead returned in a spirit form or creature, possibly in the spirit of the archangel Michael as the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim.20

3. The Hallucination Theory. Those who advocate for this theory believe that the disciples never actually witnessed Jesus’ resurrected body but instead witnessed hallucinations or imaginations of Christ because of their deep desire to believe that he was resurrected.21

4. The Vision Theory. Those who advocate for this theory believe something that is similar to The Hallucination Theory in that they believe that Christ appeared to his disciples through visions where he continued to give them instructions.22

5. The Legend/Myth Theory. Those who advocate for this theory seek to strip the miraculous power from the truth of the bodily resurrection of Christ by claiming that Christ’s resurrection is merely an exaggerated tale of mythological proportions.23

6. The Stolen Body Theory. Those who advocate for this theory believe that Jesus’ body was simply stolen from the tomb by either Jesus’ disciples, Jewish leaders, Romans or even Joseph of Arimathea.24

7. The Wrong Tomb Theory. Those who advocate for this theory believe that those who found the tomb empty were actually mistaken and visited the wrong tomb.25

8. The Lie-for-Profit Theory. Those who advocate for this theory believe that Christ’s resurrection was a big “religious hoax” intended to aid the church in turning the disappointing murder of their leader into financial gain.26

9. The Mistaken Identity Theory. Those who advocate for this theory believe that the women who met the resurrected Christ actually encountered someone who looked like Christ instead of the resurrected Christ.27

10. The Twin Theory. Those who advocate for this theory believe that Jesus actually had an identical twin who showed up, stole the real body of Jesus and then impersonated him as the resurrected Christ.28

11. The Muslim Theory. Those who advocate for this theory believe, along with Islam, that the real Jesus never actually died but instead, God created a look-a-like substitute who died in Christ’s place.29

            It is absolutely mind boggling to observe the great lengths someone will go to just to explain how the bodily resurrection of Christ never happened through these so-called Naturalistic Theories. As goofy as these theories are, it is still sobering to see that despite the overwhelming Biblical evidence and teaching throughout church history, there are some whose hearts are so hardened against the truth of the resurrection of Christ that they will believe just about any fanciful tale so long as they do not have to submit, surrender or trust the God of the Bible.

            Nevertheless, while there is widespread rejection of the theories above and although one only needs to turn on the Discovery Channel to find someone attempting to resurrect these resurrection fallacies on a regular basis, there are five contemporary models for explaining the resurrection of Christ; models 1 – 4 contain variations and pieces of the theories above while the final model describes the historic and faithful position of the orthodox church.30

1. The Dismissive Model, held by scholars such as Bultmann, Marxsen, Koester, Küng and Van Buren, proposes that the bodily resurrection of Christ cannot be confirmed and therefore must be dismissed as highly questionable or historically inaccurate.31

2. The Unverified Model, held by scholars such as Karl Barth, Brunner, Bonhoeffer, Bornkamm, Rahner, Markus Barth [son of Karl Barth] and Torrence, typically proposes that the bodily resurrection of Christ did literally happen, but the disciple’s experiences of the resurrection cannot be historically verified.32

3. The Probable Model, held by scholars such as Grass, Moltmann, Wilkens, Reginald H. Fuller, Jeremias and O’Collins, proposes that the bodily resurrection of Jesus probably did happen and the tomb was literally empty, but Christ’s appearances to the disciples were probably spiritual rather than physical in nature.33

4. The Appearance Model, held by scholars such as Pannenberg, Hunter, Brown, Dunn, Goppelt and Ramsey, proposes that the bodily resurrection of Christ did literally happen, leaving the tomb empty, but Christ appeared to his disciples in a spiritual rather than physical form.34

5. The Historic Orthodox Model, held by scholars such as Craig, Ladd, Osborn, Daniel Fuller, Geisler, Wenham, Bruce, Green, Hoover, C.S. Lewis, McDowell, Montgomery, Moreland, Nash and Habermas, proposes that there is adequate historical evidence for the literal physical resurrection and appearances of Christ to his disciples.35

            So how does this all fit together? From the Scriptures to the church Fathers to the Reformers to modern theologians to natural theories to modern models, the bodily resurrection of Christ is not only a point of major contention, but it remains the pivot point on which the wheel of the Christian faith either spins in miraculous colorful wonder or gets stuck in the mire of confusion and doubt.

Those who believe in the literal bodily resurrection of Christ hold to the historic gospel, possess a vibrant faith and live in the fullness of priceless grace while those who do not believe in the literal bodily resurrection of Christ, trust in a false gospel, participate in worthless preaching and possess a futile faith; they are “of all people most to be pitied” (1 Cor. 15:1 – 19).

#4: HOW DOES THIS DOCTRINE IMPACT THE CHURCH TODAY?

            The effects of believing or not believing in the literal physical resurrection of Christ on the church today are pervasive to the extent that those churches who do not hold to a doctrine of Christ’s bodily resurrection produce religious adherents who are more captivated by their social club then they are by the historic gospel of Christ crucified, risen and returning. On the other hand, churches who do hold to an orthodox historical doctrine of the bodily resurrection of Christ tend to produce believers with a vibrant hope in the resurrection life.

            Yet, even in churches who hold to an orthodox historical position, there is still some confusion as to how the resurrection of Christ can be true. Despite the confusion, there is a compelling contemporary apologetic for the resurrection of Christ that will undermine the failure of naturalistic theories by highlighting the radical faith of the disciples, the empty tomb and remaining burial clothing, the women as first eyewitnesses, the transition from Sabbath to Sunday worship, the validity of hallucinating masses, the number and length of post-resurrection appearances of Christ, the period of time between resurrection day and Pentecost, the fact that the Jews and Romans couldn’t disprove the empty tomb, the surprising nature of Christ’s resurrection, the truth that James the half-brother of Jesus and Saul of Tarsus experienced conversion from skeptics to believers, the trustworthiness of the eyewitnesses, the faith statement of the early church (1 Cor. 15:3 – 7), the undisputed person and work of Christ himself, and the availability of faithful eyewitness documentation.36 With this apologetic there should be no confusion for any true believer, for with this apologetic, the church wields a powerful tool to see many released from the darkness of spiritual bondage through the gospel (Eph. 2:1 – 10).

            The impact of this doctrine can also be witnessed in the theological significance of the resurrection of Christ. Simply stated, the bodily resurrection of Christ is as important as the penal substitutionary work of Christ at the cross because both of these miraculous works are inextricably woven into the work of salvation (1 Cor. 15:1 – 30); without the resurrection of Christ (securing future hope for the believer) the cross of Christ (paying the penalty for sin) is pointless, worthless and vain.37

CONCLUSION…

            The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, according to the Bible, as believed by the church throughout history, fits together as the central truth of Christianity without which the Christian faith is worthless.

            Those who trust in natural theories or modern models (except the orthodox historical model), have shipwrecked their faith and “are of all people most to be pitied” (1 Cor. 15:19).By contrast, the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Reformers and faithful modern theologians agree that the bodily resurrection of Christ is historically accurate and is also the center around which the Christian faith revolves, therefore the believer has great hope that just as Christ has risen, indeed every believer who is “in Christ shall all be made alive” at the end of this age (1 Cor. 15:22; 24). Christ is risen… He is risen indeed!!!


          1 Unless otherwise specified, all Bible references in this post are to the English Standard Version Bible, The New Classic Reference Edition (ESV) (Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers, 2001).

          2 Daniel L. Akin, Bruce Riley Ashford and Kenneth Keathley, A Theology For The Church (Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Publishing Group, 2014), 3.

          3 Joe Marino, Resurrection 2, 1 Corinthians 15:1 – 19, Resurrection 2016 Series (MP3 Podcast), The Well Church, March 27, 2016. http://thewellhastings.com/wp-content/uploads/sermons/2016/06/Resurrection.2016.1Corinthians.15.1-19-1.mp3.

          4 W. Harold Mare, 1 Corinthians, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary with the New International Version, Romans – Galatians, Volume 10 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 281.

          5 Matthew Henry, Acts to Revelation, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, New Modern Edition, Complete and Unabridged in Six Volumes (Peabody: HendricksonPublishers Marketing, LLC, 1991), 471.

          6 Stephen T. Um, 1 Corinthians: The Word of the Cross, Preaching the Word (Wheaton: Crossway, 2015), 255.

          7 Joe Marino, Resurrection 1, Romans 6:1 – 14, Resurrection 2016 Series (MP3 Podcast), The Well Church, March 20, 2016. http://thewellhastings.com/wp-content/uploads/sermons/ 2016/06/Resurrection.2016.Romans.6.1-14.mp3.

          8 D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 6 – The New Man (Carlisle: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2015), 56 – 57.

          9 Gerald Bray, 1 – 2 Corinthians, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament, Volume 7 (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1999), 151.

          10 Scott M. Manetsch, 1 Corinthians, Reformation Commentary on Scripture, New Testament, Volume IXa (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2017), 363 – 367.

          11 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Carlisle: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2016), 815.

          12 Blomberg, Craig R., Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2009), 409.

          13 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 614 – 616.

          14 Bruce W. Longenecker and Todd D. Still, Thinking Through Paul: A Survey of His Life, Letters, and Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 183 – 184.

          15 Gary M. Burge, Lynn H. Cohick and Gene L. Green, The New Testament in Antiquity: A Survey of the New Testament within its Cultural Contexts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,2009), 307.

          16 Matthew Chandler, The Explicit Gospel (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 165.

          17 Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears, Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 287 – 291.

          18 Daniel L. Akin, Bruce Riley Ashford and Kenneth Keathley, A Theology For The Church (Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Publishing Group, 2014), 471.

          19 Ibid.

          20 Ibid., 471 – 472.

          21 Ibid., 472.

          22 Ibid.

          23 Ibid.

          24 Ibid.

          25 Ibid.

          26 Ibid.         

          27 Ibid.

          28 Ibid.

          29 Ibid., 472 – 473.

          30 Ibid., 473.

          31 Ibid.

          32 Ibid.

          33 Ibid.

          34 Ibid.

          35 Ibid.

          36 Ibid., 474.

          37 Ibid., 474 – 475.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Unless otherwise specified, all Bible references in this paper are to the English Standard Version Bible, The New Classic Reference Edition (ESV) (Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers, 2001).

Akin, Daniel L., Ashford, Bruce Riley and Keathley, Kenneth, A Theology For The Church. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2014.

Blomberg, Craig R., Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2009.

Bray, Gerald, 1 – 2 Corinthians, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament, Volume 7. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1999.

Burge, Gary M., Cohick, Lynn H. and Green, Gene L., The New Testament in Antiquity: A Survey of the New Testament within its Cultural Contexts. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.

Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion. Carlisle: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2016. Chandler, Matthew, The Explicit Gospel. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.

Driscoll, Mark and Breshears, Gerry, Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010.

Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Henry, Matthew, Acts to Revelation, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, New Modern Edition, Complete and Unabridged in Six Volumes. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers Marketing, LLC, 1991.

Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn, Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 6 – The New Man. Carlisle: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2015.

Longenecker, Bruce W. and Still, Todd D., Thinking Through Paul: A Survey of His Life, Letters, and Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014.

Manetsch, Scott M., 1 Corinthians, Reformation Commentary on Scripture, New Testament, Volume IXa. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2017.

Mare, W. Harold, 1 Corinthians, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary with the New International Version, Romans – Galatians, Volume 10. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.

Marino, Joe, Resurrection 1, Romans 6:1 – 14, Resurrection 2016 Series (MP3 Podcast), The Well Church, March 20, 2016. http://thewellhastings.com/wp-content/uploads/sermons/ 2016/06/Resurrection.2016.Romans.6.1-14.mp3.

Marino, Joe, Resurrection 2, 1 Corinthians 15:1 – 19, Resurrection 2016 Series (MP3 Podcast), The Well Church, March 27, 2016. http://thewellhastings.com/wp-content/uploads/ sermons/2016/06/Resurrection.2016.1Corinthians.15.1-19-1.mp3.

Um, Stephen T., 1 Corinthians: The Word of the Cross, Preaching the Word. Wheaton: Crossway, 2015.