21: Person of Christ: Death, Resurrection, Ascension

It was the world’s blackest hour. It was the world’s brightest hour. This is the paradox of the Cross.

It was the blackest hour because human hate came to its fiercest focus. It was the brightest hour because divine love came to its fullest flower. There hate was seen in all its heinous horror. But there also love revealed the heart of God.

Calvary stands at the crossroads of human history. All the divine paths of the past led to it. All the divine paths of the present and future lead from it.

At the Cross all the sin of the ages was placed on the heart of the sinless Son of God, as he became the racial representative of all humanity. From the Cross salvation flows to every believing soul. This is the Gospel, the greatest good news the world has ever heard.

The Departure. On the Mount of Transfiguration Moses and Elijah appeared to the praying Christ and “spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem” (Luke 9:31). To us “decease” means death. But the Greek word is exodos—exodus, departure. Precisely it means here the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, by which three events he made his departure from this world back to the heavenly glory.

The Death. The death of Jesus differed from that of every other man. He “dismissed his spirit” (Matt. 27:50). His was a completely voluntary decease—“No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself” (John 10:18). Death was not forced upon him. He accepted it as the will of God for the salvation of man.

What did Jesus’ death mean for Him? The answer is best suggested by his prayer in Gethsemane. There he cried out in agony of soul, “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.” Then he bowed his head in humble submission and said: “Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Matt. 26:39).

What was this cup from which he prayed to be delivered? Carping critics have said that Jesus cringed with cowardly fear at the thought of death. But such cavilers are utterly ignorant of the true significance of that hour. Jesus was not afraid to die!

What was it, then, from which he shrank in anguish of spirit? It was his Father’s face turned away from him in the awful hour when “Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21, ASV). Our Substitute took the torturous trail of a lost soul, walking out into the labyrinthine depths of outer darkness. He tasted death for every man (Heb. 2:9). That means more than physical death. When Christ cried out on the cross, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me” (Mark 15:34), he was experiencing something far deeper. He was paying the penalty for sin—not his, but ours. The penalty for sin is separation from God. This was the price that Jesus must pay for our salvation. There was no alternative. The final words of Christ in the Garden were these: “The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?” (John 18:11). To secure man’s salvation the Son of God let the blow of divine justice fall on himself. He who could say, “I do always those things that please him” (John 8:29) had to endure the displeasure of the one he delighted to serve.

In those few but fateful hours on the cross Jesus tasted the unspeakable horror of eternal death. Spiritual darkness shrouded his soul. His cry of dereliction is the measure of his sacrifice. Olin A. Curtis has well expressed it thus: “And so, there alone, our Lord opens his mind, his heart, his personal consciousness, to the whole inflow of the horror of sin—the endless history of it, from the first choice of selfishness on, on to the eternity of hell; the boundless ocean and desolation he allows, wave upon wave, to overwhelm his soul” (The Christian Faith, 1905, p. 325). This terrific cost reveals God’s moral concern for sin. His holiness forbade him to treat it lightly. That he would forsake his Son shows the ethical intensity of the redemptive deed.

We have noted what Jesus’ death meant for him. What does it mean to us?

First, it means that a guilty sinner has access to a holy God. The writer of Hebrews speaks thus: “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh …” (Heb. 10:19, 20). This Was symbolized by the fact that at Jesus’ death the inner veil, which closed off the Holy of Holies, was torn in two.

Secondly, it means the forgiveness of sins. At the Last Supper Jesus spoke these symbolic words: “This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). In the same vein Paul writes: “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins” (Eph. 1:7). Both “remission” and “forgiveness” are translations of the same Greek word, aphesis. It comes from aphiemi, which is used for the canceling of debts, the remitting of a penalty, the pardon of the guilty. All these ideas are wrapped up in the thought of divine forgiveness. The essential thing in forgiveness is the separation of the sinner from his sin. This required Calvary. Only the Cross could meet the moral crisis.

Thirdly, it involves the crucifixion of self. Paul declared: “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me” (Gal. 2:20, ASV). His crucifixion must become our crucifixion. What was potential and provisional at Calvary must become actual and experimental in our own lives.

The death of Christ seemed to be stark tragedy. But in it he triumphed over sin. The Cross, symbol of shame, has become the sign of victory. Ethelbert Stauffer states it thus: “The ignominious raising on the cross is really a majestic elevation to glory” (New Testament Theology, 1955, p. 130).

The Resurrection. “Biblical theology finds its clearest starting point and interpreting clue in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Thus Floyd Filson asserts the importance of this event (Jesus Christ the Risen Lord, 1956, p. 25). Alan Richardson makes a similarly emphatic statement: “Christianity is a religion of miracle, and the miracle of Christ’s resurrection is the living centre and object of Christian faith” (An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament, 1958, p. 197). The doctrine of the Resurrection is not peripheral, but central. It is not secondary, but primary. Brunner asserts: “On the resurrection everything else depends” (Letter to the Romans, 1959, p. 131).

Without the Resurrection the Crucifixion would have been in vain. It was the Resurrection which validated the atoning death of Jesus and gave it value. Paul describes it strikingly this way: “Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification” (Rom. 4:25). The resurrection of Jesus proved that his sacrifice for sins had been accepted. The whole redemptive scheme would have fallen apart without it. For by his resurrection Jesus Christ became the first fruits of a new race, a new humanity.

It is no wonder, then, that the fact of the Resurrection has been vigorously attacked. A generation ago most liberal theologians scoffed at the idea of a literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus But the theological climate has changed a great deal in recent years. One need only note that the witness to the Resurrection is strong and incontrovertible.

Paul gives a brief summary, with some additions, in 1 Corinthians 15:4–8. In this same chapter he points out the importance of the resurrection of Jesus. He declares, “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain” (v. 14); “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins” (v. 17). Thus he affirms clearly that the Resurrection is essential to our salvation.

The Resurrection bulked larger in the earliest apostolic preaching than it does today. It was at times, at least, the central emphasis of the church’s kerygma. This is demonstrated abundantly in Acts. In the very first chapter we discover its primary importance. To take the place of Judas Iscariot, Peter proposed the selection of one who would “… be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection” (Acts 1:22). It would appear that an essential, if not the essential, function of an apostle was to witness to the resurrection of Jesus.

In the first recorded sermon in Acts, that of Peter on the day of Pentecost, considerable space is given to the Resurrection (2:24–32). Peter also asserted it in his second sermon (3:15). The first persecution of the believers was due to their preaching of the Resurrection (4:2). When again arraigned, the apostles once more declared their faith in this doctrine (5:30). So on it goes.

In fact, one can say that the Resurrection holds a more prominent place in the New Testament as a whole than in modern preaching—even that of evangelicals. This obvious fact provoked Dr. Merrill Tenney to write his excellent little volume, Resurrection Realities. Alan Richardson asserts: “Every book in the New Testament declares or assumes that Christ rose from the dead” (A Theological Word Book of the Bible, 1950, p. 193). And Floyd Filson writes: “The entire New Testament was written in the light of the resurrection fact” (op. cit., p. 31).

One striking feature of early apostolic preaching is the emphasis not only on Christ rising from the dead but on the fact that God raised him. The Resurrection was a divine act. This is stated over and over again in Acts—“whom God hath raised up” (2:24); “That Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses” (2:32; cf. 3:15; 4:10); “The God of our Fathers raised up Jesus” (5:30). Paul asserts the same thing. He says we should “believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead” (Rom. 4:24; cf. 8:11). Because of this emphasis Arthur Ramsey writes: “Christian theism is Resurrection-theism” (The Resurrection of Christ, 1946, p. 8).

The Resurrection is the keystone of the Christian faith. Without it we have no salvation from sin and no hope of our own resurrection (1 Cor. 15:17, 18). It is one of the main proofs of the deity of Jesus. Paul says He was “declared to be the Son of God … by the resurrection from the dead” (Rom. 1:4). William J. S. Simpson rightly asserts: “All distinctively Christian belief in Jesus has been founded on a knowledge of His Resurrection” (A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, edited by James Hastings, Vol. II, p. 514).

The Ascension. Actual descriptions of the Ascension are very limited in number and scope. Only two specific passages can be cited, both written by Luke (Luke 24:50, 51; Acts 1:9–11). But, as Filson notes, “… eleven New Testament books, by at least seven different writers, refer clearly to this Exaltation. It obviously was a constant feature of early Christian preaching and teaching” (op. cit., p. 50).

It should be noted in this connection that the Resurrection and Ascension are very closely united in the apostolic kerygma (e. g., Acts 2:32–35; Eph. 1:20; 1 Pet. 3:21, 22). Together they constitute the exaltation of the crucified Christ.

Because of the paucity of description of the Ascension, some have questioned its historicity. Even such a moderate scholar as Alan Richardson can say: “The ascension need not be thought of as an historical event” (op. cit., p. 199).

Of course Bultmann calls for a de-mythologizing of much of the Gospel narrative, including the Resurrection. For him it is simply a doctrine rising out of subjective experience. It is not a historical event. But Barth warns: “We must not transmute the Resurrection into a spiritual event” (Dogmatics in Outline, 1949, p. 123).

To us it seems inconsistent to insist, as some others do, on the historical reality of the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and yet deny the historicity of the Ascension, simply because one does not accept the three-story concept of the universe held long ago. The cosmic import of the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ is not affected by differing cosmologies.

The significance of the Ascension is clear. It means that Jesus Christ was exalted to the right hand of the Father, there to receive his proper place as Sovereign Lord (Acts 2:33–36; 5:31; Eph. 1:19–23).

But it also suggests that he carried his humanity with him back to heaven. This idea is emphasized in Hebrews, where it is stated that since he shared our human experiences he is able to be a merciful and faithful High Priest (Heb 2:14–18; 4:14–16). To know that we have an Elder Brother in heaven is a great comfort.

Our Identification with Christ. The Death, Resurrection, Ascension—these were epochal events in human history. But have they become epoch-making experiences in our individual lives? Do we know Christ in the forgiveness of our sins, in identification with him on the Cross, in the crucifixion of self? Do we know him in the power of his resurrection? Have we accepted him as Sovereign Lord of our lives?

Bibliography: J. Denney, The Death of Christ (the classic in the field); F. W. Dillistone, The Significance of the Cross; W. Milligan, The Resurrection of Our Lord; Richard R. Niebuhr, Resurrection and Historical Reason; J. S. Simpson, The Resurrection and Modern Thought; B. F. Westcott, The Gospel of the Resurrection.

Professor of New Testament

Nazarene Theological Seminary

Kansas City, Mo.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.