Mon 24 Mar 2008
When most of us see a diamond, we immediately think oh, that’s a diamond, of course it’s valuable! But an appraiser is going to take it and literally look at the stone from every angle and they’ll tell you just how valuable that diamond is and why.
They’re not as popular now, but do you remember those pictures that at first look just a bit rough, like something’s a bit out of place? The closer you look, you realize it’s actually made up of thousands of smaller pictures. I don’t know how they do it, but all of those thousands of tiny pictures are arranged somehow to look like a larger image. The final product is certainly about the larger image, but it is also about more; it is about all of those thousands of other images. Similarly, we often think of certain things in the Bible only in particular ways, forgetting about the many facets that go into the larger truths.
We often think of Jesus’ resurrection only at Easter and even then, we often think in very limited terms. We think that Jesus rose from the dead, therefore Christianity is true or we think that Jesus rose from the dead, therefore there is life after death. The resurrection is certainly about these things but it is more. It is not less but it is more. I wonder how often we think of the Resurrection having very real impact on our lives today? Having to do, not just with who Jesus is but what our response to Him ought to be?Paul forces us to a larger view of the resurrection in Romans 1:1-6:
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ
Paul says that by His resurrection, Jesus was declared to be the Son of God but the Greek communicates more than just that He was shown to be the Son of God. The Greek literally communicates that at His resurrection, Jesus was appointed the Son of God. This doesn’t mean that Jesus wasn’t God prior to His resurrection but that after the resurrection, Jesus was a Son of God in a way that He was not prior to the resurrection. We might think of Acts 10:42, which uses the same word, saying: “And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead.”
The key is in properly understanding the term the “Son of God.” We’re prone to think of this as a term simply ascribing deity to Jesus. It is that, but biblically, it has other implications as well. Ancient Near Eastern and biblical text understand one aspect of the title “Son of God” to mean royalty as well. Paul has already primed the pump, so to speak, for this understanding, by reminding his readers that Jesus was a descendant of David. This of course is made clear in 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2.
In other words, by His resurrection, Jesus was appointed king, not just of Israel, not just of the Jews, not just of the Church but of all creation. Whereas some rulers conquer lands, Jesus has conquered sin and death. His resurrection is about the truth of Christianity, it is about life after death, but it is about more than that. I wonder the last time most of us thought of the resurrection demanding our allegiance to Jesus as the risen King? But that’s exactly what Paul says. Christ’s resurrection means that He is King. The question remains: what is our response?
on 24 Mar 2008 at 12:03 pm 1.Euphranor said …
Good points: I wonder if there isn’t something to your logic, and I am specifically thinking here about the last paragraph, that counts against limited atonement. If Jesus is appointed king of the world by virtue of his death and suffering, that seems to me to imply that his death and suffering had to be for the world. Otherwise, why is He king of the world and note merely the elect?
on 24 Mar 2008 at 12:58 pm 2.Brent said …
Well, but isn’t Jesus even King over those in Hell? I don’t see that this implies salvation or even the possibility of salvation for the non-elect, just that His resurrection seems to be the inauguration of His reign.
on 24 Mar 2008 at 1:51 pm 3.Euphranor said …
This is my point exactly: Jesus is King over everyone (even those in Hell) which (I think) means that He must have (in some sense) died for those in hell. If that reasoning is correct then doesn’t that count against limited atonement because how can Jesus have a universal reign but a limited atonement? The possibility or impossibility of salvation for the non-elect is open for people on both sides the atonement debate, my primary interest is the relation between the atonement and the rule of Christ. Also I guess I would say his resurrection is the Father’s affirmation of His claim to be king because we know there is no begining or end to His rule and the whole idea of inaugeration is sort of confusing to me but that too is a different matter than the atonement/reign issue at hand. Hope that makes some kind of sense and thanks again for the interesting post.
on 24 Mar 2008 at 7:46 pm 4.Chris said …
Brent, this reminds me of the sermon I heard on Sunday…well said.
In reponse to Euphranor…I think this is a great example of the type of distinction the doctrine of limited atonement is trying to make. I do not mean this rudely, but to say that Christ died for those in hell, or atoned for the sins of those in hell, seems to be an oxymoron. If your sins are (graciously) atoned for, you are not in hell (praise God). If they are not atoned for, hell is the just punishment for sin. Limited atonement does not mean limited Godness, or limited Kingness (is it okay to make up words here?). It just defines the specific purpose of Christ’s death. Maybe we could even call it “specific atonement”? I’d like to hear others thoughts. Brent?
on 24 Mar 2008 at 9:37 pm 5.links for 2008-03-25 « regeneration said …
[...] Colossians Three Sixteen » Appointed Son of God? I thought this was a good article on Jesus’ ‘appointment’ as the son of God. (tags: Jesus sonofGod theology scripture Bible colossians316) [...]
on 25 Mar 2008 at 7:05 am 6.Euphranor said …
Chris,
I don’t think it is an oxymoron unless you assume that atonement just is salvation. I would say the atonement is meaningless to you apart from union with Christ, which seems to be the issue for Paul rather than “did Jesus die for me” it is “am I in Christ” through faith. So the death of Christ provides atonement for all sinners but unless you are united with Christ through faith you are damned. For the damned, the fact that Christ took their place on the cross becomes further condemnation for Christ to judge the lost world by virtue of his having suffured for that same lost world.
on 25 Mar 2008 at 8:47 am 7.JakeT said …
On a related note, this is post is interesting to me–it gets at what I was thinking about this Easter, particularly in light of trying to explain the whole thing to my 5 year old, namely that we tend to focus all of our energy (the rest of the year) on Jesus’ death, but Paul seems to think the real turning point is not Jesus’ death but his resurrection.
His death is certainly illustrative and perhaps spiritually powerful, but it’s his resurrection that makes Christianity about life and not about death.
Never mind the fact that we spend a lot more time talking about ‘Jesus dying on the cross,’ as Jonah puts it, and not so much about Jesus being more powerful than even death (to boil the resurrection down to one aspect).