P1 Faith Deconstruction And Reconstructing Faith - What Is Deconstruction?

Introduction:

    Years ago my wife and I helped a family pack for their next move. The family had a massive treadmill that needed disassembled. The husband and I worked on the equipment. I asked him if he had the instructions, to which he replied: “Eh, we lost those years ago”.

    As we kept taking things apart, he tossed some parts in one container and some parts in another. I asked him if we needed to label the items, to which he replied: “Eh, we’re just winging it”.

    As we loaded vehicles for transporting their possessions, I noticed we had leftover nuts and bolts, which my friend dumped in a bag to put in yet another unmarked container. Moving can be a difficult time for many people, especially if you don’t have things marked, or instructions, or at least a well thought out plan (trust me, we’ve moved 11 times in our thirty years of marriage!)

    In our culture a similar disorienting experience has taken shape called “faith deconstruction” or what some call “exvangelicals”. In the next several days I'll participate with other speakers in an upcoming apologetics conference here BCNY Apologetics Conference 2026 | Baptist Convention of New York I plan to lead a breakout session that will deal with this very subject.

    Just like the illustration above, those who choose to “deconstruct” a faith they once professed attempt to do so apart from the Bible while winging it and letting go whatever they feel is unacceptable. Alisa Childers and Tim Barnett define faith deconstruction as follows: "Faith deconstruction is a postmodern process of rethinking your faith without regarding Scripture as a standard“ [Alisa Childers and Tim Barnett. The Deconstruction of Christianity: What it is, why it's destructive, and how to respond. Tyndale Publishers, 2023. Page 26.]

    In our Scriptural text for this post, we find Paul urging young pastor Timothy to persevere in His preaching of God’s Word as those he knows or others around him walk away or drift away from their profession of faith. Deconstruction is nothing necessarily new – only in name and expression.

    Perhaps someone reading this is going through a crisis of faith. Whether or not your salvation experience is genuine is often part of the reason why such struggles occur (2 Cor. 4:16-18; 2 Peter 1:7). Only as you yield to the Word of God and the Lord’s process can you truly affirm that indeed you are truly born again (2 Cor. 13:5).

    It is to Jesus Christ and our current trust in Him we look to for objective (that is, outside of ourselves proof). It is in detecting trust, love, and joy in the Savior we find personal or subjective proof. With that said, understanding how someone picks apart a faith they once professed and how to reconstruct your faith that is in crisis is the goal of this blog series.

Introductory issues about deconstruction. 2 Timothy 3:13-17

    The denial of Christ by people in Paul’s time motivated him to write what he did to Timothy. Notice 2 Timothy 3:13-17 -

“But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”

What is faith deconstruction?

    Now I already gave the definition for this at the beginning of today’s message, but let’s hear Childers and Barnett’s definition again: "Faith deconstruction is a postmodern process of rethinking your faith without regarding Scripture as a standard.“

    Let me first comment on one word in this definition that might be new to some – “postmodern”. Postmodernism is a
philosophical approach that denies
objective truth in favor of relativism,
decrying any one right way to 

understand all of life. Postmodernism defies ultimate meaning in favor of personal preferences. Its cousin concept, relativism, states there is no one 

“capital-T” “Truth”, but only person-specific “small-t” “truths”. Over the years I’ve observed those who deconstruct adopting the “true for you but not true for me” view of truth.

More to come.....

What Truth Is And Why You Cannot Have It Without God's Existence

Introduction:

    In John 18:37-38a, Pilate, the Prefect of Judea representing the Roman Empire of His day (26-36 A.D.) was having a final conversation, a cross-examination if-you-will of Jesus Christ, whom He would sentence to die by crucifixion. In the exchange we pick up the following short dialogue:  

"Therefore Pilate said to Him, 'So You are a king?' Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” 38 Pilate said to Him, 'What is truth?'" 

What is truth?

    No greater question was ever asked by an unbeliever in all the Bible at a more pivotal point than this one - "What is truth?" Philosopher and theologian Douglas Groothius in his book "Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case For Biblical Faith", page 124, notes the following observations about truth:

"A belief or statement is true if it matches with, reflects or corresponds to the reality it refers to. For a statement to be true it must be factual. Facts determine the truth or falsity of a belief or statement. It is the nature nature and meaning of truth to be fact dependent."

    When Jesus stood before Pilate, He did not respond to Pilate's question "what is truth". If anything, Jesus Himself was (and is) Truth incarnate, as He Himself revealed in John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father by me". 

    This is a startling statement by Jesus, since no other religious figure in all of religious literature - ancient or modern, and no other philosophical figure have ever claimed themselves to be "the truth". What Jesus meant by that statement in John 14:6 and the question Pilate raised later in that same book of the Bible tells us is that truth as a reality is impossible without God's existence. 

The God who is truth

    The reason Jesus' statement is so startling is because the God of the Bible is truth by nature. John MacArthur notes in his book "The Truth War," page 2: 

"Truth is that which is consistent with the mind, will, character, glory, and being of God."

MacArthur later notes:

"Reality is what it is because God declared it so and made it so."

    Theologians over the years have noted how much the Bible speaks about God as "truth" by nature (Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 31:5; Isaiah 65:16; John 10:35; John 14:6; John 17:17; 2 Corinthians 6:7; 2 Timothy 2:13; Hebrews 1:3; 1 Peter 1:23; 1 John 2:21). 

    For instance, when Jesus was on the cross, He as Truth incarnate cried out of His humanity to the Father in Heaven these words in Luke 23:46 “'Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit.' Having said this, He breathed His last." Interestingly enough, Jesus was citing Psalm 31:5 "Into Your hand I commit my spirit; You have ransomed me, O Lord, God of truth." 

    When Jesus arose from the dead, He proved Himself to be what He claimed - The Truth. His resurrection was the public self-vindication of His character, claims, and teachings. He taught that He Himself was The Truth because He was God incarnate and He taught that God by nature is truth.

    Truth by its very nature demonstrates the existence of God. God's very existence and character as truth is the basis for it. I call this "the interdependence of God and truth". One must not see these two as eternal, independent realities. 

    In other words, something is not true because God says it is true, rather, something is true based upon the fact God Himself is true. He is the ultimate standard. Truth is the very nature of God - He is truth by His very essence. The late Christian apologist Norman Geisler has pointed this out in the first three steps of his argument for Christian theism.

1). Truth about reality is knowable.

2). Opposites cannot both be true.

3). It is true that the theistic God exists.

    I do not have time to expound on Geisler's three points. They do however express what I noted already of the interdependence of the reality of truth and God's existence (readers may look further into these three points of Geisler's here 12 Points - NGIM.)

    Due to God being truth by nature, it follows that creation would bear the tell-tale marks of the reality of objective truth in its fabric. Truth, as Geisler notes, is "telling it like it is". Before creation, the Triune God was all there was. When He created the heavens and the earth, He endued it as a truth-bearing reality, awaiting discovery by the creatures He had made. If there was no truth, there would be no reality, and thus no God. Conversely (or put another way), if there is no God, there is no reality, and thus no truth. 

Current post-modern spirituality and three leading worldviews fail in their attempts to deny the reality of objective truth

    Sadly, so much of what passes off as "spirituality" or even movements such as the current "Christian deconstruction" movement, which features a growing number of former professing evangelical Christians denying key doctrines of the Christian faith in place of ideas of their own making, will deny objective truth and will deny much if not all of what the Bible reveals about God Himself. 

    MacArthur again notes: "The goal of human philosophy used to be truth without God. Today's philosophies are open to the notion of God without truth, or to be more accurate, personal spirituality in which everyone is free to create his or her own God."

    Such an approach to spirituality fails because of the influence of three worldviews upon it that I'll spell out below: pluralism, naturalism, and relativism.

    Pluralism, Naturalism, and Relativism are among the three leading worldviews today that rule the academy, the media, postmodern spirituality, and many people in our current generation. They all have in common the denial of objective truth and their rejection of the God of Biblical revelation. In noting each of their weaknesses, we can then note why God's existence is necessary for there to be truth.

    The first of these, pluralism, claims all religions are the same and that no one religion has "the truth". Pluralism proceeds on the assumption that religion is mankind's response to what he or she cannot explain to an otherwise inexplicable sense of mystery. 

    The famous (or rather infamous) parable of the blindmen and the elephant is often evoked to prove their point. In the parable, one of the blindmen holds the trunk and says it's a snake; the second blindman touches the side and claims it's a rock; the third has the tail and claims it is a rope; the fourth as an ear and claims it is a leaf; the fifth has a leg and claims it's a tree. The alleged moral of the parable is all truth claims are relative and personal, with no one having the true picture of "what is real" or "what is true". 

    The parable actually is self-defeating for the pluralist, since the one question not being answered is: who said it was an elephant! Pluralism is self-defeating, since it denies objective truth and claims itself to be objective. 

    It is often alleged that pluralism proceeds on the basis of neutrality and tolerance, claiming that since all religions are equal, then no one of them have the right to claim to be "the one true religion". Yet, this very assertion shows pluralism to be intolerant and non-neutral! This appears especially in its attacks on Christianity as being intolerant and verging on immoral. It fails to recognize that other religions that it touts as tolerant and neutral are themselves claiming to be "the truth". Buddhism in its Dhammapada chapter 14 has these words within its text:

"He who has gone to refuge to the Buddha, the teaching, and his order demonstrates with transcendental wisdom the four noble truths."

    To have such wisdom is a claim to be outside other systems devised by men. Hinduism in its Bhagavad-Gita 18:66 notes an alleged conversation between the main character, Krishna, to the protagonist Arjuna: 

"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear."

    Pluralism not only fails because of its self-defeating nature, but also due to its ignorance of what other religions that it touts as holding the pluralist ideology say about themselves.     

    Naturalism, our second worldview, denies objective truth, and would claim the search for truth to be irrelevant. According to naturalism, all that exists is physics + chance + time + chemistry. We can never know the true nature of reality, ourselves, or even meaning. As philosopher Alvin Plantinga has noted, naturalism fails because if I cannot know anything to be true (or truth itself to exist for that matter), then we would have to say we cannot know if naturalism itself is true! (see a summary of his argument here Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. Alvin Plantinga, Templeton Prize 2017 )

    The third view, relativism, claims "what is true for you is true for you, but is not true for me". Thinkers such as Paul Copan and Norman Geisler have pointed out how relativism, the notion that there is no such thing as "objective truth", but only "personal truths" or "your truth", is actually making an objective truth claim: namely, that it is absolutely the case that there is no such thing as absolute truth.

Conclusion: God's existence is necessary for truth.

    We've traced out the Biblical data for God being truth by nature. We've also spelled out what we mean when we say that God's existence and truth are interdependent. The three worldviews of pluralism, naturalism, and relativism were shown inadequate in their accounts of truth. Hopefully this post has caused readers to think more deeply of the interdependence of God and truth. 

Post #30 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - the phrase "whose kingdom shall have no end" - interpreting the millennium and its relevance to the Nicene Creed

Introduction:

    In the last post in this series here Growing Christian Resources: Post #29 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - the phrase "whose kingdom shall have no end" and evaluating millennial views, I spent time overviewing the major interpretive options for the millennium in Revelation 20. Our whole point was to interact with the Nicene Creed's affirmation "whose kingdom shall have no end". 

    In today's post I intend to wrap up this part of our study of the Nicene Creed by noting key hermeneutical or interpretive assumptions that govern where and why people conclude premillennialism, amillennialism, or postmillennialism. I will then make some final remarks on the relevance of this whole discussion to the Nicene Creed's statement about Christ's never ending kingdom. 

What interpretive issues in Revelation 20 govern the millennial discussion?

1. Is Revelation 20:1-10 recapping current history from Christ's resurrection to 2nd coming or is it following from His 2nd coming in Revelation 19:11-21?

2. Is the reference to "First Resurrection" speaking of salvation or of a future resurrection of the righteous at Christ's return?

3. Is Revelation 20:1-10 detailing more than one resurrection or is there only one general resurrection of both righteous and the wicked at the end of history? Many will include discussion of 20:11-15 in answering this question.

4. Is the Kingdom of Jesus Christ only spiritual and present, spiritual and earthly with an already/not yet component or entirely earthly in the future?

5. Is the number "1,000" a literal reference to a future 1,000 year reign of Jesus or is it a symbolic round number referring to His current reign in Heaven over the earth or a little bit of both?

Why does the millennial discussion have relevance to the Nicene Creed's statement "who kingdom shall have no end"?

    As I noted at the beginning of this post, the Nicene Creed does not tilt either way in the direction of any of the above millennial views. The Nicene Creed's main purpose is to summarize key affirmations of the Christian faith that Christians in all places and at all times may confess in a worship service. 

    The millennial discussion is relevant because of how it has us refocus our attention on the second coming of Jesus Christ and the manifestation of Himself, His Kingdom, and the end of the age. Furthermore, the millennial conversation draws our attention to how Christ will bring about what will be the perpetuation of His Kingdom into eternity long after this age and its kingdoms have passed off the scene. 

    Even how the first four or five centuries of church history construed these things reveals a lack of pure consensus. Yes, Chiliasm or Classical Premillennialism was the majority report in the beginning, however, a minority of church fathers held to some type of allegorized view of the millennium or in some cases, a half-way point between chiliasm and the allegorized view. 

    For the church fathers, the emphasis was on the resurrection of the body and the anticipation of Christ's "at-any-moment" return (which by the way is a hallmark detail of modern pretribulation, premillennial thought).  

    The eternal kingdom of Christ far exceeds the systematic expressions of eschatology found in the early church or even in the four main positions I outlined above. The Nicene Creed's standard, generalized expression of eschatological expectation keeps us focused on Christ's physical, bodily return and the unending nature of His Kingdom. In other words: keeping the main thing is the main thing. 

Closing thoughts and what's next

     As we've been at this series on the Nicene Creed, we journeyed through the detailed confessions of the deity and personhood of God the Father, the deity and humanity of the Son and His atoning work, resurrection, ascension, and soon return. In our next post we will begin to explore the Nicene Creed's statements on the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit. Stay tuned!

Outlining The Historical Argument For Jesus' Resurrection

Matthew 28:6 "He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying."

Introduction:

What Happened on that first Easter morning? This key question is the focus of today's post. I aim to present the case for Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. Many people may not realize that in addition to being the central article of the Christian faith, the resurrection of Jesus Christ also occupies a place in the realm of historical investigation. What follows below is a standard way of historically approaching the question about what happened on Easter morning. 

Some good resources to consider

Before we get underway, let me point the reader to reputable websites that specialize in the subject of Christ's resurrection from the dead. The websites feature key defenders of the Christian faith to whom I'm indebted in gathering together a working outline for presenting the case that presents the proposal: "God raised Jesus from the dead":

1. www.reasonablefaith.org

2. www.garyhabermas.com

3. www.crossexamined.org

In addition to the above websites, some great books are available that can help readers begin their journey in studying this subject. Other topics related to defending the Christian faith are also included in the following resources:

1. “Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?”,   

     William L. Craig. Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?: Craig Ph.D., William Lane, Morrow, Jonathan, Drennan, Miriam: 9780991597703: Amazon.com: Books

2. CASE CLOSED: A Detective 

           Investigates the Resurrection - Cold 

           Case Christianity

3. “Case For Easter”, Lee Strobel. The Case for Easter Bible Study Guide + Streaming Video, Updated Edition: Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus: Strobel, Lee, Butterworth, Bill: 9780310179733: Amazon.com: Books

Knowing and showing that Jesus raised from the dead. 

a. When I say “knowing”, I mean in the words of the hymn: 

“You ask me how I know He lives, He lives within my heart”. 

This first way of understanding what occurred on that first Easter is reliable and is how all people arrive at a certainty of what took place. This way of “knowing” the risen Christ is obtained with or without “showing” the event to be the case. Most people in the world don’t have time nor access to the resources that one would utilize in historical research. Coming to Jesus Christ by faith is how people arrive at the certainty that Jesus raised from the dead. 

    Whenever we engage in presenting a case like the one outlined below, it can be viewed as a "second-line of defense". The New Testament heartily supports this experiential understanding of the risen Christ for the believer. Phil. 3:10-11 

“that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.” 

b. When I say “showing”, I mean presenting the historical case that demonstrates that the premise: “God raised Jesus from the dead” is the best explanation of what happened on Easter Morning. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is not only an article of faith, but also a historical fact. Thus, what follows in this post will focus mainly on “showing” how Jesus’ resurrection is a genuine event of history. 

How we can show that Christ’s resurrection from the dead was a historical event. 

To do this, we need to:

a. First express the facts surrounding the resurrection. 

b. Secondly, list the criteria used in judging which explanation of the facts best explains “what happened”. 

c. Thirdly, the typical explanations of those facts (naturalistic explanations and the one supernatural proposal: “God raised Jesus from the dead”). 

d. Then lastly, why the proposal: “God raised Jesus from the dead” is the best explanation of the facts. The Christian can readily affirm that "dead men don't rise naturally from the dead". However, in proposing that God raised Jesus from the dead, we are stating that the only way a resurrection could be brought about is by a supernatural, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God as referenced by Jesus Himself. 

When skeptics refuse to allow the possibility of the miraculous, the objection raised is not historical, but rather philosophical in nature. Including a supernatural explanation (i.e. "God raised Jesus from the dead") in the survey of explanations for what happened on that first Easter morning is part of the historical investigative process. Once we conclude the historical case, the post will then close with a brief appeal on how one can “know” the risen Christ by faith for themselves. 

What are the facts surrounding the resurrection event?

a. What do we mean by “fact”? An event of the past that is multiply attested in several sources and which is viewed as such by most historians living today. Gary Habermas did a landmark study, surveying over 2,000 publications by scholars of all stripes written from 1975 to present. (Gary Habermas, “Experience of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the early proclamation of the resurrection,” Dialogue 25 (2006): 292.). 

Wherever there were at least 75% agreements, that counted as a “fact”. The facts we will look at today are shared among 90% (per Habermas’ reckoning).

b. What are the primary sources for Easter? When it comes to multiple attestation (i.e. multiple, independent sources), we possess several primary sources for these facts: Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20; the materials particular to Matthew /Luke and 1 Corinthians 15:1-6. 

It must be noted that people must not dismiss these sources due to their being “in the Bible”. Before there was a gathering together of such sources into the bundle we call the “New Testament”, they were independently written. Although it is right for the Christian to rightly see these documents as inerrant scripture, historians approach them as reliable sources for the historical events surrounding the historical Jesus of the 1st century. 

Even non-believing historians regard the Gospels and 1 Corinthians 15 as reliable sources, despite whatever their personal beliefs might be toward these documents. The only people that try to pass off the Gospels and Paul’s letters are internet skeptics or people not familiar with even a general sense of how historical research is done in New Testament studies.

c. Four main facts.  For the resurrection of Jesus, four facts emerge: 

i. honorable burial, 

ii. discovery of the empty tomb by women followers, 

iii. the sudden shift to faith by the disciples 

iv. Jesus’ post-mortem appearances.

What criteria are used when evaluating various explanations for the facts at hand?

a. It is one thing to list the facts, and have most everyone agree that these are the facts at hand. However, whenever it comes to how to explain “what happened”, the disagreements emerge. 

b. Historian C. Behan McCullagh, in his book: “Justifying Historical Descriptions” (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), notes several criteria used by historians when investigating the best explanation for any event and its attendant facts. Just as a parent uses criteria to discern how to settle a recent set of events reported to them by their children, historians use standard criteria as well. The following derives from William L. Craig’s booklet: “Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?”

i. Explanatory scope: How much of the evidence does the explanation or hypothesis explain better than its rivals.

ii. Explanatory power: Does the given explanation make the evidence more probable as having occurred than rival explanations

iii. Plausibility. How well does the given explanation fit with other known background beliefs of that time period.

iv. Least contrived. Whichever explanation of the facts adopts the fewest new beliefs apart from independent evidence is most likely the correct explanation.

v. Disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs. Whichever explanation can withstand the scrutiny of comparison with other well-established beliefs is the more probable explanation. 

vi. The best explanation meets the first five conditions so much better than its rival explanations, that there is little chance of the other rival explanations being the better candidate for telling “what happened”.

Naturalistic Explanations of Easter morning

When it comes to surveying the pool of naturalistic explanations of what happened on Easter, we can assess what are called: "full-tomb hypotheses" and "empty-tomb hypotheses". Naturalism is a philosophical view point that asserts that physical objects, physical laws or material properties are the only things that exist. For sake of space, I will briefly list the most popular naturalistic hypotheses with a sample of their weaknesses.  

a. Full Tomb Hypotheses: Explaining the events of Easter with a body in the tomb

i. Hallucination hypothesis = the disciples hallucinated the risen Christ. Doesn’t adequately explain post-mortem appearances. People that think they have seen a dead loved-one knows that the person is dead. The disciples' post-mortem visions of Jesus resulted in their message: "He is alive"! Hallucinations are individual experiences. The Gospel accounts and 1 Corinthians 15 record episodes where the post-resurrected Christ physically appeared to multiple people.

ii. Apparent death / mystery twin = Jesus switched with a look alike. Islam, Surah 4:157. Requires contrived beliefs (maybe a twin-brother, maybe they found a look-alike, they tricked guards, and so-forth). Doesn’t explain empty tomb nor post-mortem appearances.

iii. Visionary hypothesis = not a physical Jesus, but a “vision” only. Doesn’t explain how 500 people could see Him. Also, appearances are accompanied by physical phenomena. Doesn’t cover empty tomb.  

b. Empty Tomb Hypotheses: Explaining the events of Easter that include the empty tomb

i. Swoon Hypothesis = Jesus didn’t die, He fainted revived in the cool tomb. Doesn’t take seriously the brutality of crucifixion. Disconfirmed by what we know of crucifixion. 

ii. Conspiracy = disciples stole the body. Jewish leaders stole body. The Christian movement wouldn’t had gotten off the ground, disciples switch to faith is not explained. Jewish leaders could had ended movements by producing a body. They claim disciples stole body. 

iii. Hoax = Disciples lied. No one knowingly dies for a lie. Hoaxes fizzle out within a few years. 

iv. Wrong tomb.  The women followed. Joseph of Arimathea would not had been a Christian invention. The guards were situated at the tomb (Matthew 28:4). Pilate would had known where the tomb was, since he decreed for it to be sealed. These observations demonstrate, on historical grounds, that the location of the tomb was known by both followers and opponents of Jesus.  

Why the hypothesis: “God raised Jesus from the dead” is the best explanation of the facts.

i. Explanatory scope: How much of the evidence does the explanation or hypothesis explain better than its rivals. It alone explains four main facts.

ii. Explanatory power: Does the given explanation make the evidence more probable as having occurred than rival explanations. It best handles the facts. Furthermore, all other naturalistic theories break down here.

iii. Plausibility. How well does the given explanation fit with other known background beliefs of that time period. Jewish beliefs of resurrection as physical. Early church’s beginnings.

iv. Least contrived. Whichever explanation of the facts adopts the fewest new beliefs apart from independent evidence is most likely the correct explanation. Only one extra belief is need: God exists.

v. Disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs. Whichever explanation can withstand the scrutiny of comparison with other well-established beliefs is the more probable explanation. Nothing precludes this. To say: “miracles are impossible” is not a historical objection, but a philosophical one.

vi. The best explanation meets the first five conditions so much better than its rival explanations, that there is little chance of the other rival explanations being the better candidate for telling “what happened”. This hypothesis best fulfills the first five criteria. 

Final appeal to place your trust in the risen Jesus, so that you can “know” that He lives.

In this post I have given an outline of how one may "show" that the proposal: "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the best explanation for answering the question: "what happened on that first Easter morning". However, just knowing "about" the resurrection is not enough to reconcile you to God. Christian salvation promises that one can personally know the risen Christ. John 17:3 reminds us: 

"This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

As we close out this post, let me briefly make the appeal for any reader that has never trusted in Christ as Savior and Lord to do so. The scriptures below explain how one can know for certain, by faith, that Jesus raised from the dead and how He can become Savior and Lord of their life.

Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace are you saved through faith, this is not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, not by works, lest any man should boast." 

Romans 10:8-10 "But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."

You can know the risen Christ! Not just as having probably raised from the dead (that’s as far as reason will get you), but having certainty of Him having died on the cross and risen for you. As Hebrews 11:1 reminds us: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the certainty of things not seen." 

What Happened To Jesus Between His Death And Resurrection?

 

 

1 Peter 3:18-20 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

Introduction:

       I was once asked a rather interesting question: "What Jesus did between the time He died until He raised from the dead?" This post aims to answer that question. The question concerning what Jesus did between His crucifixion and resurrection is relevant to what is historically known in the Christian Church as "Holy Saturday". Central to this post is the notion that Jesus proclaimed victory over the powers of Hell. Furthermore, once Jesus declared His triumph, He then presented His once and for all sacrifice for sin to the Father between His death and resurrection.

The significance of the Saturday the falls between "Good Friday" and "Easter Sunday"

       Tomorrow is the Saturday that lies between "Good Friday" and "Easter Sunday". This day, simply called "Holy Saturday", considers what all was potentially taking place during the interment of Jesus' body in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. In the book "Preaching through the Christian Year", an ancient practice of the early church is recounted: 

"In the ancient church, the tradition of the Easter Vigil played an important role. Catechumens (young converts to the Christian faith), after remaining awake and watchful throughout Saturday night, were baptized early on Easter morning and then joined the Christian community in Holy communion." 1 

        I'm sure some readers, for instance, can recall "Easter Sunrise Services" and other Christian traditions that urge the church to recall her central identity in Jesus' death, burial and resurrection. As a boy, whenever our family would attend such sunrise services, the anticipation, the excitement, hung in the air. The great thing about Holy Saturday is the expectation that builds-up in the Christ-follower's heart as the look forward to Easter Sunday. 

A reminder about the mystery of Christ's incarnation.

         Over 2,000 years ago, Christ's physical body laid at "rest" in the tomb while He, as man, in His immaterial soul, presented His accomplishment to the Father and proclaimed victory. The mystery of the incarnation reminds us that the Eternal Person of the Son came to take unto Himself true humanity (see Matthew 1:21-23; John 1:14; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 10:5-7). As He ever remained truly "God with us", He came to be also "man for us" (see Matthew 1:21-23; John 1:14; Romans 1:1-3; 9:4-5; Titus 2:11-13). 

    As truly God, the Person of the Son retained eternal perfections such as omnipresence, omniscience, and the inability to die. As truly man, that same Person of the Son experienced the limitations that come with being man, including being in one place at a time (locality, Luke 2:49; Philippians 2:5-7), finite knowledge (Matthew 24:36), and the ability to die (mortality, Mark 10:45; John 10:11). In this post, the focus rests upon all Jesus would experience as "man for our sakes", reminding the reader that whenever we speak about Him, we distinguish between who He remained to be as "God with us" and "man for us".

Holy Saturday is all about "rest" and "victory"

        The Apostle's Creed, an ancient confession of faith still recited by Christians the world-over, includes this phrase:

"He was crucified, dead and buried. He descended into hell, on the third day He raised from the dead." 

       Christians historically have emphasized this major theme of "rest" for Holy Saturday. Such rest, both spiritually and otherwise, could only be achieved as a result of Christ finished work on the cross and what was (then) His pending resurrection. The work Jesus did in-between death and resurrection cemented together the victory of the cross and what would be His victory over death. It honestly comforts me to think of how helpless the powers of darkness were in preventing Christ from these decisive actions. 

        Robert Webber in his book: "Ancient Future Time", comments on Holy Saturday in regards to the theme of "rest":

"Saturday is a day of rest and preparation for the great service of resurrection. It is a day to keep silence, to fast, to pray, to identify with Jesus in the tomb, and to prepare for the great resurrection feast."2

          So, with the twin themes of "rest" and "victory", Holy Saturday gets the Christian ready for the glory of the resurrection that is central to Easter Sunday. What follows from here is an attempt to draw together the New Testament testimony of what Jesus did.

Stitching together the New Testament passages that reference Christ's proclamation of victory between that first Good Friday and Easter Sunday

         The four Gospels detail the events of Christ's death, burial and resurrection.  The remainder of the New Testament (Acts, 21 Epistles and Revelation) unfold the meaning what He achieved. The Apostle Peter in his first epistle aims to show how we as Christians ought to stand firm in God's grace (1 Peter 5:12). Peter's letter ties in our ability to stand in such grace to what Jesus Christ accomplished.  1 Peter 3:18-20 will act as our telescope to view the New Testament passages that reference the events of "Holy Saturday. To do this, we will consider the following two main thoughts about Christ's accomplished work:

A. The Purpose of Christ's Accomplished Work - reconciliation.  1 Peter 3:18

B. The Proclamation of Christ's Accomplished Work - Victory.  1 Peter 3:19-20

A. Purpose of Christ’s Victorious Work – Reconciliation 3:18 

i. What did He do? He died 

He died for sins.  As Dr. Danny Akin of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary once noted: "He lived the life I couldn't live and He died the death I should have died."

ii. Whom did He die for? The unjust 

Romans 5:6-8 states - "For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." 

     Jesus' death on behalf of sinners accomplished two necessary effects required for reconciliation with God. The first necessary effect was expiation, that is, the removal of the cause of God's wrath upon us - our sin (Romans 5:10). The second effect had to do with propitiation, that is, the satisfaction of God's wrath (1 John 2:2). Below in the next thought (point "iii"), we see why expiation (taking away of sin) and propitiation (satisfying wrath) are necessary for reconciliation.

iii. Why did he die? To bring us to God (reconciliation) 

Dr. Michael Horton notes: 

"The result of God's wrath being satisfied is reconciliation. Just as we are first of all passive subjects of God's wrath when God propitiates, we are passive subjects of God's reconciliation at the cross.  We do not reconcile ourselves to God; God reconciles Himself to us and us to Him."3

iv. How did He do it? Death and resurrection

   Christ's death, burial and resurrection are at the heart of the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). The New Testament mostly focuses upon Christ's death and resurrection.  However, what went on during the three days He was buried is not explained in near as much detail as the two book-ends of the Gospel: namely Christ's death and resurrection.  

         Death and Resurrection serve to explain how Christ accomplished what he achieved. What He did in His burial (down below) reveals some of the behind (and under) the scenes work He did in insuring our ability to walk as believers in His Victorious work. 

B. Proclamation of Christ’s Victorious Work – Victory 3:19-20 

i. What did He do between His death &    resurrection? Proclaimed victory 3:19 

John MacArthur has perhaps explained this text better than just about everyone I've read or heard: 

"He was announcing, proclaiming (and) heralding a triumph. About what? It must be pretty obvious, about His triumph over sin, about His triumph over death, about His triumph over hell, about His triumph over demons, about His triumph over Satan." 4

ii. To whom did He proclaim His victory? The  demons reserved for judgment. 3:19-20 

         If we were to attempt to offer a faint outline of what Jesus did between His death and resurrection, we could maybe understand why He went to proclaim His victory to the demonic realm.  Much activity was done by Christ in this short-span of time. 

         First He went immediately into the presence of His Father by way of the Holy Spirit in his human spirit to present His once and for all sacrifice (Hebrew 9:15). 

          Next, He went down into those regions of hell where some of the demons (especially those who rebelled in Noah's day, the notorious "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4) are being reserved for judgment (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6). 

          Thirdly, Christ would have released the Old Testament saints from the righteous realm of the dead (i.e. paradise) to lead the captives out to where they could come with Him to where the saints go in this age (Ephesians 4:8-11). Some have connected this particular event to when the saints came out of their tombs in Matthew 27:52-53.

          Fourthly, Christ's proclamation of victory insured that hell will not prevail against the church (Matthew 16:18) as well as fulfilling the fact of His triumph over the demonic realm (Colossians 2:14-15). 

         Fifthly, Christ's resurrection from the dead meant He had completed His mission of proclamation and thus He arose as a victorious King, subduing all cosmic powers under Himself (Acts 2:24; 1 Peter 3:22).

iii. Why did he proclaim His victory? To  guarantee Christian victory 3:19-20 

         He did this to pave the way for what would be His ascension into Heaven 40 days after His resurrection from the dead (Ephesians 4:7-10). 

iv. What was His victory over? Sin (1 Pet 3:18), hell (1 Pet 3:19-20; Col 2:11-12), grave (3:18,21b)

Revelation 1:4-5 states - 

"John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood".

Closing thoughts

    As we draw this post to a close, let's remember our two main thoughts for today's post:

1. The Purpose of Christ's Accomplished Work - reconciliation. 1 Peter 3:18

2. The Proclamation of Christ's Accomplished Work - Victory. 1 Peter 3:19-20

        What Jesus accomplished was proclaimed by Him both in heaven and to the defeated demonic realm. Such activities provided grounds for which future generations of Christian could stand who by grace through faith trusted in Jesus. The cross of Good Friday and the work of Holy Saturday pointed to what would be the great victory of Easter Sunday. He has risen! As Christians, we rest in these works of Jesus.

Endnotes:

1. Fred B. Craddock; John H. Hayes; Carl R. Holladay and Gene M. Tucker. Preaching Through the Christian Year - Part A. Trinity Press International. Harrisburg, PA. 1992. Page 227

2. Robert Webber. Ancient-Future Time: Forming Spirituality Through The Christian Year." Baker Books. 2004.

2. Michael Horton. The Christian Faith - A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way. Zondervan. 2011. Page 500

3. http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/60-37/the-triumph-of-christs-suffering-part-2

P3 How The Hebrew Old Testament and Jesus Pointed To Good Friday

Introduction:

    In my last two posts I wrote on how the ordering of the books in the Hebrew Canon are used by Jesus to point to what would be His crucifixion - what Christians call "Good Friday". In today's post we will finish up this short series of posts by noting how Jesus took the Old Testament and combined it with His institution of the Lord's Table to point to Good Friday. 

Jesus pointed to Good Friday.       Matthew 26:17-30

     We’ve witnessed how the Old Testament in its Hebrew ordering pointed to Good Friday. Jesus knew this of course. When He was preparing His disciples on the eve of His crucifixion for what would follow – He reminded them of Scripture. Whenever He raised from the dead, He reminded His followers of what the Scriptures taught. What a good reminder to us all here. Let’s note how Jesus pointed to Good Friday.

A. Jesus’ timing pointed to Good Friday.  Matthew 26:17-19

     Let’s then turn to Jesus and the disciples in the upper room on the eve of His crucifixion as He instituted the Lord’s Supper with them. In Matthew 26:17-19 we see Jesus predicting what will take place on Good Friday – the next day: “Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus and asked, ‘Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?” 18 And He said, “Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, “My time is near; I am to keep the Passover at your house with My disciples.’ 19 The disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover.” Jesus is clearly connecting what He is doing to the Passover which we saw was instituted in the Torah, the Law portion of the Old Testament – Exodus 12. 

    We noted already how its central portrait of the “Lamb of God” now is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Even the timing of events of the Passover would come to fall on Good Friday itself. It is no accident. Our Lord in His timing pointed to Good Friday and used the first part of the Old Testament to do so.

B. Jesus terrible prediction pointed to good Friday. Matthew 26:20-25

      Matthew 26:20-25 “Now when evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the twelve disciples. 21 As they were eating, He said, ‘Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me.’ 22 Being deeply grieved, they each one began to say to Him, ‘Surely not I, Lord?’ 23 And He answered, “He who dipped his hand with Me in the bowl is the one who will betray Me. 24 The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.” 25 And Judas, who was betraying Him, said, ‘Surely it is not I, Rabbi?’ Jesus said to him, ‘You have said it yourself.’”  

    We already noted how the second part of the Hebrew Old Testament, the prophets, had the prediction of the Messiah, the lamb of God, going to the cross in Isaiah 53. Notice the language of betrayal. Isaiah 53:3 “He was despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.”  Why mention the word “betray” in the Lord’s Supper?

     That word “betray” can just as easily be translated “to hand over” (the Greek verb is “par-a-did-o-mee”). Judas was ready to hand our Savior over to the soldiers coming to arrest Him, which is why we see it often translated “betrayal”. It is interesting to note in the Greek translation of Isaiah 53:6 that that same Greek verb is used to describe God’s “handing over” of our sins on the shoulders of His chosen Messiah. Lancelot Brenton’s English translation of the Septuagint renders Isaiah 53:6 this way: “All we as sheep have gone astray; everyone has gone astray in his own way; and the Lord gave Him up for our sins.”  

    The incarnate Son was “given up” for our sins. This is why betrayal is so much a part of Good Friday. Jesus chose to be treated as an unwanted Son to die for those unwanted sinners whom God expressed as being wanted as His adopted sons. Paul includes this act of betrayal in the liturgy of his remarks on the Lord's Table in 1 Corinthians 11:23 “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread.” Jesus timing and terrible prediction pointed to good Friday. One more…

C. Jesus tells us what will happen on Good Friday. Matthew 26:26-30

Matthew 26:26-29 “While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body.’ 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”  

Jesus uses the bread and the cup to signify His body and blood. The Supper pictured and pointed ahead to Calvary. The Holy Spirit would seal this truth to the disciples not only in this initial Lord’s Supper meal, but also for every follower of Jesus who partakes of the bread and the cup. The Lord’s Supper is the Holy Spirit’s way of reminding the faithful of all He did for us. We can also note too how the meal would not only point to Good Friday, but also what will be our Lord’s return on a yet-to-be revealed day – one which I hope everyone here looks to by faith.

Matthew 26:30 “After singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.”  As I noted already, the final Hymn sung by Jews at a Passover was Psalm 118. Jesus had ridden into Jerusalem at the beginning of the week hearing the words of this Psalm, and He would end the week with this same Psalm on His mind. 

That final part of the Hebrew Bible, in all its particulars pointed to Good Friday. Jesus Christ, the Living Word, and the Bible, the written Word, ever remind us not to forget Good Friday. May we heed the Lord Jesus Christ and the Old Testament’s insistence to keep in mind the great things He did on Good Friday.

P2 How The Hebrew Old Testament Pointed To Good Friday

Introduction:

    In the last post we noted how the Hebrew Old Testament pointed to Good Friday. I wanted to continue with where I left off by considering in this post the centrality of the lamb in each portion of the Hebrew Old Testament. By noting the importance of the "Lamb of God" in the Old Testament we can then see how Jesus and the Old Testament pointed to Good Friday. 

Lamb of God in the Old Testament.

     I laid out in the last post what Jesus would have had in mind when He spoke to His disciples following His resurrection. How would the Old Testament had pointed to Good Friday? A key idea common to all three divisions is that of “the lamb of God”. The “Lamb of God” is central to Good Friday.

      We firstly see the lamb of God imagery in that first division of the Hebrew Old Testament, what we know as the “Law” and they called “Torah” (Genesis -Deuteronomy). In Exodus 12 we read of God’s institution of the Passover to remind the Hebrew people of His deliverance of them from Egypt in the Exodus 12:6 “Your lamb shall be an unblemished male a year old; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats. 6 You shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month, then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel is to kill it at twilight.”  

      Then notice the second division of what we’d call the “historical books” and “Prophetic books” or what the Jews called together “the former and latter prophets” or “neviim” – “the prophets” (Joshua-2 Kings, Isaiah-Malachi). Isaiah 53:5-6 “gives us a prediction of Jesus and Good Friday: “But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. 6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.”      Jesus would be at Lamb led to slaughter, to be our sin-bearer.

 Now notice with me the third main division of the Old Testament Jesus noted in Luke 24:44, what He called “The Psalms” or what the Jews would have called “the writings” or “Ketiviim”. Now why did Jesus call it “the Psalms”? Just as you and have different names for our Bibles (“The Book”, “Scripture”, “God’s Word”), Jesus did the same. In many Hebrew Bibles today as well as the Old Testaments in Jesus’ time, the book of Psalms headlined the third division known as “the writings”. Psalms is full of predictions concerning Jesus’ death and resurrection.

For instance, Psalm 22:1 points us to Good Friday, starting out with what came to be Jesus’ first words from the cross “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”  (compare Mark 15:34). It is in Psalm 118:27 we find reference to the Messiah as God’s sacrificial lamb: “The Lord is God, and He has given us light; bind the festival sacrifice with cords to the horns of the altar.”  It was this very Psalm the people were reciting when Jesus rode into Jerusalem. Psalm 118 was also the final Psalm all Jews sung in the Passover and which Jesus and His disciples would had sung as they concluded (Matthew 26:30). Jesus came to be that Lamb of God, God’s final lamb, on Good Friday. The Old Testament pointed to Good Friday.

More next time...