RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST (ἀνάστασις, G414, and [once] ἐγερσις). After Jesus Christ died and was buried on Good Friday, He was raised from the dead in body and soul on the first day of the week. His resurrection was not a mere resuscitation, as was the case with Lazarus and others whose resurrections are recorded in Scripture. They returned to temporal life only to die again. Jesus Christ, however, was raised to life eternal and everlasting glory (Rom. 6:9, 10; Heb 7:16; 1 Pet 1:21; Rev 1:18).

I. Place of the resurrection in the NT kerygma. In the kerygma—the NT proclamation of the good news—Jesus’ resurrection occupies the central and all-important place. The gospels find their climax in the description of Jesus’ resurrection (Matt 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20; 21). In the first kerygma of the Early Church the resurrection is the focal point (Acts 2:24-32; 3:14-16, 26; 4:10; 5:30; 7:55f.; 10:39-43). It also has this central place in Paul’s letters. In 1 Corinthians 15:17-19 the apostle states that the whole Christian faith and the salvation it brings stands or falls with the resurrection of our Lord. (See also Acts 17:31; Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 6:14; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:20; Col 2:12.) Everywhere in the NT the resurrection is proclaimed as the decisive turning point in the life of Jesus and in the history of the world’s redemption. This is due to the uniqueness of Christ’s person, as being both God incarnate (John 1:14), and the promised Messiah (4:25, 26), and to the uniqueness of the work He had come to do, viz. to reconcile sinful mankind to God by dying an atoning death on a cross (Matt 20:28; Rom 5:10; 2 Cor 5:18, 19; Col 1:21, 22; 1 Tim 2:5, 6); while as the risen Lord He imparts to sinners the redeeming fruit of His death: justification (Rom 4:25; 5:9, 10), sanctification (8:1, 2; 1 Cor 1:30), and glorification (Rom 8:30; 2 Cor 3:18; 4:17).

II. The resurrection a historical fact to be accepted by faith. The sources for the knowledge of Christ’s resurrection are the Scriptures, esp. the revelation given to Paul (Acts 9:1-6; 1 Cor 15:3-8), and the gospels which contain the records of the experiences of eyewitnesses to whom the Lord “presented himself alive after his passion with many proofs, appearing to them during forty days....” (Acts 1:3). These sources proclaim the resurrection as a historical fact of supernatural character. Since the Scriptures are given by inspiration and therefore can be trusted as the infallible revelation of God (see [http://biblegateway/wiki/I. Known from the infallible Scriptures. HOLY SCRIPTURE]), the resurrection is an object of faith and of faith alone. Liberal theologians of older and recent schools, rejecting the infallibility of the Bible, have been trying to find out precisely what happened in connection with Jesus’ resurrection by applying the historical method of higher criticism as a tool of human research and reasoning in the field of revelation. The result invariably was—and is—a denial of the resurrection as Scripture speaks of it, i.e. Jesus Christ’s real and literal rising from the tomb in His own body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39, 40; John 20:27). According to the critics, many statements in the gospels and the rest of the NT are without proof and must be rejected as “later embellishment of the primitive tradition” (R. Bultmann, Kerygma and Myth, ed. H. W. Bartsch, I, 38). A physical resurrection is also considered inconsistent in the 20th cent. with the findings of “the natural sciences, especially biology” (Paul van Buren, The Secular Meaning of the Gospel, p. 17). These sciences are declared to leave no place for anything supernatural. Liberal theology cannot deny, of course, that the faith in a bodily resurrection as recorded in the gospels must be explained. According to some, it originated from the loving esteem of the early believers for their dead Master and their longing for His return from death, which led them to believe that they had seen Him. Others presume that after His death Jesus actually “appeared” to His disciples, but only in a “spiritual” way. In a later paragraph these and other theories will be discussed.

At this stage it may suffice to emphasize that the resurrection of Jesus Christ, though a historical fact, cannot possibly be established by historical verification if “historical” means according to modern methods of historical research to the exclusion of faith in the trustworthiness of Scripture. Even if modern historians could prove that a certain man, Jesus of Nazareth, after His death became alive again, it would not mean a historical verification of Christ’s resurrection. As has been stated, this was not merely the resuscitation of some dead person called Jesus of Nazareth, but the resurrection to eternal life and glory of God’s Son in the flesh, the Messiah of Israel and the Savior of a lost world, by whose resurrection the reconciliation, which He brought about by His cross, was made effective unto eternal life for all who believe in Him as He is revealed in the Scriptures.

Where this faith controls the investigations into “what happened,” the gospels provide ample “proof” that Jesus really and literally arose from the tomb in His own physical, though glorified, body. Where such faith in the Scriptures is lacking, any attempt to “historically verify” Jesus’ resurrection must of necessity fail. God does not permit man to find out His secrets by way of human research and reasoning, but only by faith in Him as the Revealer of truth through His word and Spirit (Matt 11:25; 16:17; 1 Cor 1:20-25).

III. Christ’s resurrection and history. Claiming that the resurrection is a historical fact does not exclude the fact that it also transcends history and may be rightly called “the beginning of a new history, which is no longer part of this our history” (K. Runia, The Resurrection and History, in The Reformed Theological Review, May/August [1966]). By this new history is to be understood the history of human life in its immortal, glorified condition regarding body and soul. That new history is the end of God’s ways for the believers. For them it will begin when Jesus returns from heaven, creating a new heaven and a new earth, which will be the suitable dwelling place for God’s children in their glorified condition (Rev 21:1-4). Then the river of present history, full of sin, misery, and death, will flow into the ocean of the never-ending new history of human existence in immortal glory, a history without sin, misery, or death. It was upon that new history that Jesus entered as the “forerunner” of all believers, when He rose from the dead. From that moment on, history was affected, guided, and fully controlled by Him (Matt 28:18), but He has transcended it. That is why during the forty days Jesus, though several times appearing to His disciples, did not live with them in constant physical fellowship as before. The only reason why He stayed on earth these forty days was to give convincing proof of the reality of His resurrection to the disciples, and through them to all believers (Acts 1:3). Except for that reason, He could have ascended into heaven immediately after His resurrection, as One who no longer belonged to current history but who had reached the goal of the new, eternal history of the End. This Mary had to learn when she laid hold on Jesus in a way that meant, “Master, now we shall never let You go again.” Jesus’ reply that she should not hold Him fast because He was in the process of ascending to the Father (John 20:17) makes it clear that in the resurrection He had crossed the dividing line between mankind’s history and the new eternal history in immortality and glory. This is also the reason why He did not appear to the unbelieving Jews but only to His followers, through whose witness the unbelievers of that day and those of all ages had to be brought to faith (John 20:17).

IV. Raised and risen. In the Gr. NT as a rule the noun anastasis is usually employed to denote Jesus’ resurrection and only once the noun egersis. Since both nouns can mean “rising” as well as “raising,” their use is not decisive for the question whether Jesus was raised up or actively rose from the dead. The situation is different with the related verb anistēmi, which can be used transitively (raise up) as well as intransitively (rise). When it is transitively used, as is often the case in the epistles (e.g. Rom 4:24; 6:4; 8:11; 1 Cor 15:15; Gal 1:1) the resurrection is clearly proclaimed to be the work of the Father. Many times, however, the verb anistēmi is used intransitively (rise) esp. in the gospels but also now and then in the epistles (e.g. Mark 8:31; 9:9, 10, 31; 10:31, 34; Luke 18:33; 24:7, 46; John 20:9; Acts 17:3; 1 Thess 4:14). In such cases the emphasis is on Jesus actively rising from the dead. It is true that this intransitive use of the verb in itself is not sufficient proof of Jesus’ rising from the dead by His own power, since the intransitive meaning is sometimes also employed to denote the resurrection of the dead (e.g. 1 Thess 4:16), of whom it certainly cannot be said that they will arise by their own power. Nevertheless, against the background of Jesus’ own words in John 10:17, 18 that He has power to lay down His life and to take it again, the frequent use of the intransitive verb “rise” for Jesus’ resurrection becomes significant as indicating that He arose by His own power. There is no contrast between Jesus’ “being raised” by the Father and His “rising” by His own power. As the obedient Servant of the Lord, who took man’s sins and curse upon Himself, He had to wait for the Father to raise Him up, thereby proving that Jesus’ atoning work was indeed finished (John 19:30). On the other hand, as God incarnate He had also the authority and power to take again the life He had voluntarily laid down, thus actively abolishing death, bringing life and immortality to light (2 Tim 1:10), being “designated Son of God in power” (Rom 1:4). (For further implications of the resurrection see the last paragraph.)

V. The empty tomb as evidence of Jesus’ resurrection. The fact that on Sunday morning the sepulcher was found empty is recorded in all the gospels. According to the synoptics there were heavenly messengers in the tomb, who adduced as convincing proof of Jesus’ resurrection the fact that His body was not there (Matt 28:6; Mark 16:5, 6; Luke 24:1-5, 23). John 20:1-8 describes how “the other disciple,” obviously John himself, believed that Jesus was risen, for upon entering the sepulcher he not only found it empty, but noticed how carefully Jesus’ grave clothes had been folded and laid aside. This to him excluded Mary’s theory that Jesus’ body had been taken away and buried somewhere else. John must have realized that if this had been the case, those who removed the body would certainly not have undressed it first and left the clothes lying in such an orderly condition. In the light of this the empty tomb must certainly be reckoned among the convincing evidences of Jesus’ resurrection. Ancient and modern unbelief has tried to explain away the evidence of the empty tomb. This process began immediately after the resurrection. When the guard had informed the Jewish leaders of what had happened, the latter bribed the soldiers to spread the rumor that the disciples had stolen Jesus’ body while they were asleep (Matt 28:11-15). That this was an obvious lie is clear for the following reasons: (1) While the soldiers were asleep they could not possibly have seen the disciples doing their work! (2) It is unthinkable that a number of disciples could have approached the tomb through the midst of the sleeping soldiers, removed the heavy sealed stone, carried away the corpse, etc., all without even one of the soldiers waking.

Other “explanations” are equally unacceptable and unreasonable. To mention a few of them: (1) The suggestion has been made that the women, misled by the darkness, went to the wrong sepulcher, where a young man told them that they were mistaken. In this case one must reject the words the “young man” spoke: “He is risen.” Without any textual evidence these words are simply discarded as not belonging to the original text. This theory is to be rejected for the following reasons: (a) According to Mark 16:2 the sun had risen and the women who had seen where Jesus’ body was laid (Mark 15:47; Luke 23:55) knew the place. (b) If the theory were correct Mary Magdalene must have made the same mistake twice. (c) Not only the women but also Peter and John found the tomb empty. (2). The so-called “Swoon Theory”: Jesus allegedly had not died on the cross but fainted. In the tomb He revived. This suggestion is unacceptable on the following gounds: (a) Jesus’ death was officially verified and ascertained (Mark 15:44, 45). (b) His side was pierced with a spear, which would have killed Him had He not been dead already. (c) A cruelly wounded, crucified man would not have been able to “disentangle himself from the long windings of the grave clothes” (W. Barclay, Crucified and Crowned, p. 145) nor to remove the heavy stone before the entrance of the tomb. (d) Even if He had been physically able to do all these things, the guard would have prevented His escape. (3). Either the disciples removed and hid Jesus’ body in order to create “evidence” for an alleged resurrection, or thieves stole it. Regarding the latter suggestion, one can imagine thieves stealing the costly spices and expensive linen grave clothes (John 19:39, 40), but not a corpse which they first undressed, leaving the spices and clothing behi nd in the tomb, nicely folded at that. Moreover, as already indicated, the guard would have noticed and prevented all this. For these reasons alone this suggestion is simply ridiculous. Concerning the disciples’ stealing the body, this theory implies that they were the most impudent deceivers. Even a Jewish scholar declares this to be impossible: “The nineteen hundred years’ faith of millions is not founded on deception” (Joseph Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, p. 35). (4). Jewish or Rom. authorities may have removed the body from the tomb and taken it into their own safe keeping. The main objection is that in this case it would have been very easy for the authorities to prove that the disciples were deceivers when they publicly proclaimed that Jesus was risen (Acts 2:24f.); the authorities could then have produced the body. (5). According to several critics the empty tomb is not mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4. Since 15:1-8 prob. represents the earliest tradition of the resurrection, the fact that it does not speak of the empty tomb is presented as evidence that the Gospel stories of the empty tomb must have been created by the Early Church, in order to make the case for the resurrection stronger. Against this theory the following objections can be raised: (a) It intimates that the Early Church was capable of such deception that it created fancy stories and then passed them on as records of historical facts. (b) The empty tomb is clearly implied, for to the words “Christ died” Paul adds “he was buried” (vv. 3, 4). There is a special reference to the fact that Jesus’ dead body was laid in the tomb. Against this background Paul’s statement, “He was raised on the third day,” can only mean that according to the apostle, Jesus came out of the tomb alive. This is confirmed by Paul’s speech recorded in Acts 13:29, 30, where the to mb is emphatically mentioned. (6) Often the sign of the empty tomb is rejected on the ground of alleged contradictions in the stories concerned. Matthew and Mark, e.g., mention only one angel, whereas Luke speaks of “two men.” However, there is no reason to speak of a contradiction in this respect. Why, for instance, is it not possible that there were two angels, as Luke says, but that the one who spoke was in the foreground and made the deepest, unforgettable impression on the women? Could this not be the reason why Matthew and Luke put all the emphasis on that spokesman, without thereby denying that there was another angel in the background? In general: If all the details of what happened in and around the empty tomb were known—which is by no means the case—many so-called contradictions would certainly vanish. The evangelists were not fools, who contradicted each other while proclaiming the truth of Jesus’ resurrection in days when eyewitnesses of the empty tomb were still alive. Such contradictions are particularly unlikely if it is correct, as most scholars claim, that the evangelists consulted each other’s writings and that Matthew and Luke inserted parts of Mark’s gospel in their own. Concluding our discussion of the empty tomb one can say that the fact that so many different and obviously unconvincing explanations are offered by those who try to overthrow the evidence of the empty tomb strongly confirms the Biblical truth that the tomb was empty solely because the Lord had actually and physically risen from the dead.

VI. The post-resurrection appearances.

A. The record. During the forty days after the resurrection, Jesus appeared some eleven times to His followers, in order to give them “many proofs” of the reality of His resurrection (Acts 1:3). Some of these appearances took place in or near the holy city and are the so-called “Jerusalem appearances.” They are those to: (1) Mary in the garden (John 20:11ff.); (2) the women by the wayside (Matt 28:9, 10); (3) Simon Peter (Luke 24:34; (4) the disciples on the road to Emmaus (24:13ff.); (5) the company of apostles and disciples gathered in the evening of the resurrection day (24:33, 34; John 20:19ff.); (6) Thomas a week later; (7) the disciples, who saw Jesus ascend into heaven from the Mount of Olives (Luke 24:50, 51; Acts 1:9). Other appearances occurred in Galilee and are the so-called “Galilean appearances” to: (1) The seven disciples on the seashore (John 21:1ff.); (2) Jesus’ followers gathered on the mountain (Matt 28:16), which appearance in all probability was the same as that to the five hundred brethren, recorded by Paul (1 Cor 15:6). In addition to these Jerusalem and Galilean appearances, the risen Lord showed Himself to James (15:7) and finally to Paul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9), an appearance which Paul puts on a par with all the other appearances (1 Cor 15:8).

B. The appearance narratives under attack The reliability of the appearance narratives has been denied mainly on the following grounds: (1) In the earliest record (1 Cor 15:5-8), Paul mentions only five appearances. One of these is not even found in the gospels. The critics conclude that at a later stage the Church must have “created” some extra “stories” for apologetic purposes. This suggestion is unacceptable for two reasons: (a) Without any ground, it accuses the Early Church of committing “pious fraud”; (b) the alleged incongruity between the two records can easily be explained. Paul apparently related only “those incidents that were of special force, appearances to leaders of the community or to a number of witnesses” (E. L. Allen, NTS. July, 1957, p. 351). The evangelists strengthened this early evidence by adding other material gathered from eyewitnesses and therefore equally true.

(2) The critics assume an irreconcilable conflict between Matthew’s record of a Galilean appearance and Luke’s tradition of Jerusalem appearances. Here, however, there is no conflict but only a difference which can easily be explained. A comparative study of the gospels shows clearly that each evangelist made his own selection from the material he collected from his sources, in accordance with the special aim he had in view. Luke restricted himself to the appearances in Jerusalem because it was the main center (Luke 24:47), without thereby denying that Jesus also appeared elsewhere, as Matthew and John record.

(3) The narratives allegedly contradict each other. Mary, for instance, is not permitted to touch Jesus (John 20:17), whereas Thomas is invited to do so (20:27). Here again there is no conflict. The situations were different. Mary, as has been discussed already, wanted to keep Jesus on earth, in continuous physical fellowship with the disciples as before. She was not forbidden to touch but only to hold Him. Doubting Thomas, however, was a future apostle on whose witness depended so much for the spread of the Gospel. He had to be able to convince himself fully of the reality of Jesus’ resurrection.

C. Various theories. Most theologians who reject a physical resurrection admit that “something happened” which created the Easter faith of the Church. Regarding the question, “What happened?” they suggest various theories. The most important are the following:

1. The Subjective Vision Theory, which suggests that the disciples as a result of their extremely strong longing for their dead Master, imagined that they saw Him and heard Him speak to them. Some speak of hallucinations, others of illusions or visions but all agree that the experience was completely subjective, taking place not in reality but in the excited minds of the disciples. This theory is unacceptable for the following reasons: (a) Hallucinations of this kind always “happen as the climax to a period of exaggerated wishful thinking” (John R. W. Stott, Basic Christianity, p. 55). The disciples, however, instead of being “on the lookout” for Jesus’ resurrection disbelieved or doubted when they were told about it, and even when they saw the risen Lord Himself (Matt 28:17; Mark 16:8, 11, 14; Luke 24:11, 37; John 20:24, 25). (b) The sober, detailed, matter of fact appearance narratives exclude the idea of hallucinations as the source of the Easter faith. (2) The Objective Vision Theory, suggesting that Jesus’ immortal soul or the spiritual Christ who was “the continuation of Jesus of Nazareth” (P. Tillich, Systematic Theology, pp. 156, 7) granted the disciples some objective but immaterial vision, showing that the Lord was still spiritually alive. This theory founders on the fact that the appearance narratives place special emphasis on the reality of Jesus’ resurrection body and its identity with the body that was buried; an identity of which Jesus Himself gave ample proof (Luke 24:39, 41; John 20:17, 18; 21:9ff.) The gospels offer no ground whatever for discarding these parts of the records as pious frauds, created by the Early Church.

D. The truth. There can be no doubt then that the appearances were real and that Jesus showed Himself to the disciples in a risen, physical body of “flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39), the same body in which He had died, with even the scars of the wounds still visible (John 20:25ff.). On the ground of these appearances the Church may have absolute certainty that her Saviour really conquered death in all its horrible aspects, including its disastrous effect on our physical body.

VII. Jesus’ resurrection body.

A. Spiritualizing views. All through history there have been opponents of the idea of a real physical resurrection, either of Christ or of the dead in general. Many of them were, and are guided by the ancient Gr. conception of the body as intrinsically evil, the soul being by nature divine and therefore immortal. Recent liberal theologians reject the Gr. concept as far as the terms are concerned. They speak of the resurrection of the body. However, to them the latter is not the physical body, for which they say there can be no hope in the light of our modern world view: “A resurrection which consists of a dead man being raised to physical life is crudely mythical” (E. Brunner, Das Ewige als Zukunft und Gegenwart, pp. 26, 122). To them “body” denotes “the person,” “I,” or “Self” (e.g., J. A. T. Robinson, The Body, passim). This “body” exists after death in an immaterial state and its continued existence is called its “resurrection.” It is obvious that there is hardly any essential difference between this widespread theory and the Gr. concept. “While its advocates speak of Jerusalem, one suspects that the accent is Athenian” (E. E. Ellis, Paul and His Recent Interpreters, p. 48). Little wonder that some of them declare that the only physical resurrection body of Christ is the Church (e.g., O. Cullmann, Proleptic Deliverance of the Body, pp. 168, 172). Jesus’ personal resurrection body is considered completely non-material or consisting of some ghost-like “spirit-matter.”

B. A real body of flesh. All spiritualizing concepts of Jesus’ resurrection body are contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture. There is first the fact that often His followers recognized Him by His face and voice (Matt 28:9; Luke 24:31; John 20:16, 19, 20; 21:12). Futhermore several of them touched His body or were invited to do so (Matt 28:9; Luke 24:39; John 20:17, 27), whereas He also ate before their eyes and had a meal with them (Luke 24:30, 42, 43; John 21:12, 13; Acts 10:40, 41). In addition, Jesus Himself declared emphatically: “A spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have” (Luke 24:39). There can be no doubt that Scripture teaches the physical reality of Jesus’ resurrection body.

C. The same body, but in a Glorified Condition. That Jesus’ resurrection body was the same in which He had been buried is proved by the fact that He showed His disciples His hands, feet, and side, in which the scars of the cross were still visible (Luke 24:39; John 20:20). Thomas was even summoned to touch these very scars for the purpose of identification. It is obvious that “those marks were the infallible proof that His body risen was identical with His body buried” (Marcus L. Loane, It is the Lord, p. 17). All this does not exclude the tremendous change brought about in the condition of Jesus’ body at the moment He was raised from the dead. There are mysterious elements in the appearance narratives as, for instance, that the risen Lord could appear and disappear at will in a surprising way. He “vanished” out of the sight of the men at Emmaus (Luke 24:31), which in view of the word aphantos, used in this connection, means “a supernatural disappearance” (J. M. Creed, Comm.). Luke 24:36, stating that Jesus Himself “stood among them,” also suggests a sudden and miraculous appearance, which perhaps was also the reason why the disciples supposed they saw a spirit (v. 37). Recording the same event, John states that Jesus came and stood among them “the doors being shut” (20:19). Since Scripture does not tell how Jesus overcame the obstacle of the closed doors, one cannot be dogmatic about it. To conclude from the mysterious and miraculous features that since the resurrection the Lord’s human nature partakes of the divine omnipresence (R. C. H. Lenski, Comm.) seems unwarranted. This interpretation contradicts the continuous teaching of Scripture that Christ, though true God, was also true man, and that He still is man (1 Tim 2:5). In His human body as man, Jesus was not divinely omnipresent, nor could He ever become that. It would mean the annihilation of His true humanity and deprive the Ascension of any reality.

Another mysterious element is the fact that Jesus was often not recognized at first sight. “Some doubted,” which is best understood to mean that they doubted Jesus’ identity (Matt 28:17). Mary Magdalene mistook Jesus for the gardener, and did not even recognize His voice (John 20:14f.). While this may have been caused by Jesus Himself, as was the case with the disciples at Emmaus (Luke 24:16), it is equally possible that the change which the resurrection had brought about in Jesus’ body also played a role. “Now none of the disciples dared ask him, ‘Who are you?’” (John 21:12). They knew it was the Lord. One may conclude that Jesus’ appearance was more or less unusual and made some disciples uncertain as to His identity. But for the miraculous catch of fish which had convinced them, His appearance would have led them to ask, “Who are you?”—All these mysterious and miraculous elements, together with the miraculous ascension, show that Jesus’ body, though consisting of flesh and bones, was now in a glorified condition and capable of acting independently of the laws of time and space. This does not imply that He Himself was beyond time and space, for this again would mean the annihilation of His true humanity. His body was what Paul called a “spiritual body,” the pattern for the believers’ resurrection body (1 Cor 15:44; Phil 3:20). The word “spiritual” in this connection does not mean “immaterial,” as those who adhere to spiritualizing views understand it. In Paul’s vocabulary the word “spiritual” invariably means Spirit controlled, i.e. controlled by the Holy Spirit. A spiritual body is a body that is able to do all that the Spirit of God wants it to do, with unlimited possibilities. Such was and is the resurrection body of the Lord, imperishable, glorious, powerful, incorrupti ble, immortal and victorious as Paul describes the spiritual body (1 Cor 15:42-50). It is impossible to explain such a glorified, mysterious body of flesh and bones in scientific terms. One must believe the Word and leave to God the things he cannot understand. (See also Spiritual Body.)

VIII. The significance of Jesus’ resurrection. Because Jesus’ person and work are quite unique, His resurrection is therefore of unique and paramount significance.

Jesus’ resurrection in glory is a most wonderful manifestation of the power of God, who raised Him from the dead. The believer may rest assured that this same power is also working in him, unto salvation (2 Cor 13:4; Eph 1:19, 20; 1 Pet 1:5-7). By His resurrection Jesus was “designated Son of God in power” (Rom 1:4). The Jewish leaders had condemned Him to death because He claimed to be the Son of God and equal to God (Matt 26:63-65; Mark 14:61-64; Luke 22:70, 71). By raising Him from the dead the Father gave undeniable evidence that Jesus is indeed the Son of God.

Jesus’ resurrection was the beginning of His exaltation as Lord and Christ, God’s anointed King, Prophet, and Priest on the heavenly throne (Acts 2:29-36; Phil 2:9-11), in accordance with Jesus’ own proclamation: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matt 28:18). By the power and in the name of the risen Savior the apostles performed miracles, as a sign of His lordship (Acts 4:17f.). There is no salvation but for those who confess with their mouth that He is Lord and believe with their heart that God raised Him from the dead (Rom 10:9). By raising Jesus from the dead God proclaimed Him to be the divinely appointed Judge of the world (Acts 17:31), according to our Lord’s own words (John 5:22, 27). Since the salvation of the world depends solely and completely on Christ’s death and resurrection, man’s attitude to Him is decisive for his eternal condition (John 3:16, 19, 35, 36).

In Jesus’ resurrection, the believer has the divine guarantee of his justification and reconciliation. The ground for these fundamental blessings is to be found in Christ’s atoning death (Rom 5:10, 17-19), but without the resurrection that death would have had no atoning power. The cross without the resurrection would mean that God had not been satisfied by Jesus’ death. The resurrection is God’s “Amen” to Jesus’ loud cry: “It is finished,” and therefore the guarantee that by Jesus’ death the believer has indeed been reconciled to God and made righteous. For this reason Paul can say that the fact that Christ has been raised is of greater importance than His death (Rom 8:32, 33).

When Christ was raised, the believers whom He represented in His death and resurrection, were raised with Him (Col 3:1). His death meant the end of the burden of sin that was upon Him, and when He arose He entered upon a life without that burden. From now on He lives to God in freedom and glory (Rom 6:9-11). Because of his union with Christ the believer must reckon himself dead to sin, and putting to death all sin, he must live the new resurrection life in fellowship with his risen Lord (Rom 6:5, 6, 12-14; Col 3:5).

Jesus’ resurrection in a glorious, immortal, powerful, spiritual body of flesh guarantees the believer his future resurrection in a similar body (Rom 6:5; 1 Cor 15:47f.; Phil 3:21; 1 John 3:2). (See Resurrection.)

Bibliography In addition to the works already referred to in this article, excluding commentaries and general works on Dogmatics, the following selection from the numerous books dealing with Christ’s resurrection is presented:

R. S. Candlish, Life in a Risen Saviour (1858); W. Milligan, The Resurrection of our Lord (1890); E. McCheyne, The Gospel of a Risen Saviour (1892); H. Latham, The Risen Master (1901); B. F. Westcott, The Gospel of the Resurrection (1906); K. Lake, The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (1907); J. Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus (1909); C. H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection of Christ (1911); F. Morrison, Who Moved the Stone? (1930); K. Barth, Die Auferstehung der Toten (1935); P. Althaus, Die Wahrheit des kirchlichen Osterglauben (1940); J. Knox, Christ the Lord (1941); A. T. Olmstead, Jesus in the Light of History (1942); S. Zwemer, The Glory of the Empty Tomb (1947); C. H. Dodd, “The Appearances of the Risen Lord” (in: Studies in the Gospels, ed. D. E. Nineham) (1955); V. Taylor, The Life and Ministry of Jesus (1955); F. V. Filson, Jesus Christ, The Risen Lord (1956); C. F. D. Moule, “Jerusalem and Galilee Appearances” (Art. in N.T.S. October 1957); R. R. Niebuhr, Resurrection and Historical Reason (1957); E. Sauer, The Triumph of the Crucified (1957); B. Kenrick, The New Humanity (1958), 54-71; F. X. Durwell, The Resurrection (1960); E. Stauffer, Jesus and His Story (1960); G. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth (1961); A. M. Ramsey, The Resurrection of Christ (1961); M. C. Tenney, The Reality of the Resurrection (1963); D. P. Fuller, Easter Faith and History (1964); J. A. Schep, The Nature of the Resurrection Body (1965), 107-181; W. Künneth, The Theology of the Resurrection (E.T.) (1965).