Over the past two weeks Jeff Purswell has been answering some key questions about the relationship between the cross and the resurrection. Here's an index to the questions and Jeff's answers:

1: Will focusing on the cross lead us to neglect the resurrection?

2: Why focus on a crucified Savior when we serve a living Christ?

3: Will a cross-focus lead us to be more aware of our sin than of our new life in Christ?

4: Doesn’t the book of Acts stress the resurrection more than the cross?

5: Will paying so much attention to the atonement lead us to make too much of the cross?

Some readers may find it easier to read the series as a single PDF document. You’ll find that file here.

[The following post is part of a series addressing common questions about how Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection relate to each other in Scripture.]

Question 5: With all the preaching and writing about the atonement that we see in evangelicalism, isn’t there a danger that the resurrection will get lost?

I don’t think there is, if teaching on the cross is handled responsibly. Once again, the cross and the resurrection are two aspects of a unified whole (see for instance 1 Corinthians 15:3-4), and they should never be fundamentally separated. One without the other is meaningless. Attempts to subordinate one to the other are wrongheaded.

This does not mean, however, that we can’t speak at length about one without mentioning the other—an impulse that is well-meaning but often unnecessary. We hear and read a great deal about various facets of Christ’s atoning death for good reason: Scripture reflects extensively upon the death of Jesus in ways that don’t directly apply to the resurrection. Howard Marshall makes a similar observation about Paul’s treatment of the gospel: “The central event in the gospel is the death and resurrection of Jesus. These two actions belong closely together (Rom 4:25; 8:34; 1 Cor 15:3–5; 2 Cor 5:15; Phil 3:10; 1 Thess 4:14), but the weight lies on the former” [New Testament Theology (IVP, 2004), 436].

This is in no way to create a hierarchy among the redemptive acts that make up the gospel. It is simply to recognize Paul’s priority of expounding the implications of Jesus’ sin-bearing death for the spiritual health and nurture of the churches to which he wrote.

Take “propitiation,” for example. By definition, it was in his death that Christ endured God’s wrath in our place. The same is true for “redemption”: the ransom price for our redemption was the giving of Christ’s life. This is clear in texts like Mark 10:45, where Jesus says that he came to “give his life as a ransom for many,” and Ephesians 1:7, where we’re told that we have “redemption through his blood.”

And on the face of it, Christ’s death is itself a sacrifice, fulfilling massive structures of Old Testament teaching and practice (the Passover lamb, the sacrificial system, etc.). Without detailed study of the atonement, vast swaths of Old Testament revelation, which molded the thinking of New Testament writers, remain in the shadows.

In this context it bears repeating: in no way do I want to minimize the resurrection, or to neglect its truth or implications for our lives. Indeed, at least one biblical metaphor for the atonement, Christ’s conquest in Colossians 2, richly illuminates it and has perhaps been neglected in some segments of evangelicalism. But I think Scripture itself leads us to place an emphasis on the cross, exploring as it does the significance of Christ’s death with great depth and richness, and at length. It is our privilege and responsibility as teachers of God’s Word to do the same.

There’s another point that I find missing in such objections about cross-centered language, writing, and preaching. It’s instructive that the one ordinance instituted by our Lord to be observed repeatedly among the gathered people of God is designed primarily to picture and call to mind his death for us. In the Lord’s Supper, we partake of bread, symbolizing Christ’s broken body, and we drink from a cup, symbolizing his shed blood. And in doing so we “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Corinthians 11:26).

Of course, the resurrection and exaltation of Christ are also in view in the Lord’s Supper, for we partake in anticipation of his return, when we will feast with Christ in the messianic banquet (Matthew 26:29; Revelation 19:9). But the primary focus of the Supper is Christ’s atoning death and the benefits that accrue to those who share in it by faith. If Christ calls his church regularly to celebrate such a “cross-centered” sacrament, are we wrong to give consistent attention to the cross in our preaching and teaching and praise?

[The following post is part of a series addressing common questions about how Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection relate to each other in Scripture.]

Question 4: In the book of Acts there seems to be a greater emphasis on Christ’s resurrection than the cross. Shouldn’t we follow the early church’s example and emphasize the resurrection over the cross?

Interpreters of the book of Acts have long recognized the centrality of the resurrection—or better, the exaltation of Christ through his resurrection and ascension—in Luke’s presentation. (So much so, in fact, that some scholars have questioned whether Luke even has a theology of atonement!)

While it’s true that the resurrection is prominent in Acts, those texts must be understood within the larger framework of the book. Luke’s primary focus in Acts is the progress and triumph of the gospel. Within this scheme, we see the apostles time and again in evangelistic and apologetic situations. When one is proclaiming the message of a crucified messiah—particularly within a few years of his death—the resurrection (and, in Luke’s writings, the ascension) becomes the fundamental apologetic point for supporting the claims of Jesus. Here, then, we find a central focus of the theology of the book of Acts: it is through the exaltation of Jesus that God confirms his status as Lord and savior. Far from marginalizing the cross, this focus authenticates its reality.

This very point is made by Mark Seifrid: “In focusing on Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation Luke provides an apology for the claims of the gospel, supporting rather than diminishing the understanding of Jesus’ death as a vicarious atonement” [Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments (IVP, 1997), 272].

Therefore, an emphasis on the resurrection is precisely what we’d expect to find in such contexts, and it is in keeping with Luke’s overall purpose in writing his two-volume work: to provide assurance to his readers that the foundation of their faith is secure (Luke 1:1-4).

[The following post is part of a series addressing common questions about how Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection relate to each other in Scripture.]

Question 3: It’s through union with Christ’s resurrection that we have been raised to walk in new spiritual life. If we talk about the cross so much, won’t we end up focusing only on sin and ignoring this important aspect of the Christian life? Doesn’t a focus on the resurrection lead us to a more holy, victorious Christian life?

Texts that speak of our union with Christ are precious and should be proclaimed and cherished. The Holy Spirit transforms the believer, providing power for godly living. Absolutely.  But as in so many areas of biblical teaching, we must always beware of disjunctive thinking—of separating things that should be kept together.

For example, it is not only the resurrection that provides tremendous hope and motivation for a transformed life; the cross is meant to function this way as well.

It seems that for Paul, one of the primary motivations for living a holy life is that Christ died for his sins: “For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised” (2 Corinthians 5:14-15).

We see a similar connection in Galatians 2:20, which falls amid Paul’s argument concerning justification by faith. The indwelling of Christ in the believer’s life is real and true—and Paul will stress this elsewhere, such as Galatians 5:16 and following. But his primary point in Galatians 2:20 seems to be that his new life is lived by faith, based solidly on the truth of justification as a result of Christ’s death for him. For the believer, then, both the cross and the resurrection fuel our motivation for godly living—and it’s best that they do so together.

We should also recognize that the danger of isolating one set of truths from another cuts both ways. To be sure, the new birth, our union with Christ, and the gift of the Spirit decisively transform our lives. But our present existence is not simply one of unbridled glory and triumph. We still battle the flesh, and we do so in a fallen world that awaits Christ’s return before all is set right again.

And so, while we can know “the power of his resurrection,” at the same time we are to “share in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death” (Philippians 3:10). We rejoice that we’ve been “born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3), even as we trust God in the jaws of suffering, knowing that “Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps” (1 Peter 2:21). The Savior himself told his disciples that following him involved a life of cruciform self-denial (Mark 8:34-35; 9:35; 10:42-45).

To isolate either the cross or the resurrection in the Christian life is to distort and impoverish it. The cross and resurrection together shape the contours of our lives as disciples of Jesus. 

[The following post is part of a series addressing common questions about how Christ’s crucifixion and Christ’s resurrection relate to each other in Scripture.]

Question 2: Christ has been raised, and so both the cross and the grave are now empty. In light of this, isn’t it wrong to focus on a crucified Savior when, after all, we serve a living Christ?

This question creates a false choice—and a dangerous one—for how we are to view Jesus. The Savior we worship and serve is indeed a risen, glorious Savior, seated at the right hand of God (Colossians 3:1) and upholding all things by the word of his power (Hebrews 1:3). However, he is also the suffering servant who through his death ransoms many (Mark 10:45; see also Isaiah 53:10-11) and the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). A crucified Jesus was central to the preaching of Paul, who emphatically reminded the Galatians that “it was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified” (Galatians 3:1). It was precisely because Paul boldly proclaimed “Christ crucified” that the gospel was a stumbling block (1 Corinthians 1:23)!

In fact, we cannot know Jesus rightly apart from the cross, for it is through that gruesome death that his identity is revealed (John 8:28; see also 12:32, 34).

Something profound is at stake here. To conceive of Christ apart from the cross is to distort his identity and his mission, much as Peter did when he rebuked Jesus for announcing his pending suffering and death (Mark 8:31-33). We can infer God’s greatness and power from his creation (Romans 1:19-20), but it is at the cross that his love and mercy are most fully revealed. In the new heavens and new earth we will undoubtedly worship Christ in hushed silence as we behold his transcendent glory (Revelation 1:12-17), extolling him as the victorious Lion of the tribe of Judah. But we will also forever sing his praise as the Lamb that was slain, whose blood ransomed the people of God (Revelation 5:6-10).

As a result, we are never to move on from beholding Jesus as our crucified Savior, relegating the cross to the past. The cross must always inform our understanding of Christ in the present, for it will indeed do so for eternity. 

As the author of two books with the phrase “cross-centered” in their titles, I frequently receive important questions about the relationship between the Savior’s death and his resurrection and whether centering on his death will lead us to neglect his resurrection. Those questions come in various shapes and sizes like:

• Why focus on a crucified Savior when we serve a risen Savior?
• Will a cross-focus lead us to be more aware of our sin than our new life in Christ?
• The sermons in the book of Acts seem to stress the resurrection more than the cross. Should our sermons do the same?

Over the years I have sought to address these and other questions and I want to revisit them here on the blog. But I wanted you to hear from someone more gifted than I am, so I enlisted the help of my friend Jeff Purswell. Jeff is both an academic and a pastor, blessed with both a scholar’s head and a shepherd’s heart. He serves as the dean of the Sovereign Grace Ministries Pastors College, where he has been entrusted with the primary responsibility for training our future pastors.

Over the next five days, Jeff will answer five of these questions. Stay tuned ...

Later in his NEXT conference message—”The Doctrine of Christ's Work Accomplished and Applied”—Mark helped make the connection between Christ as our Savior and Christ as our Example from his text in 1 Peter 2:21–25.

After stressing the atoning work of Christ (as we saw in the previous post), Mark focused on 1 Peter 2:21, “For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.” He said:

Now some of you are going to be surprised to hear talk about Jesus as our example when I am speaking so clearly from Scripture about substitutionary atonement. But he is also our example. That is what Peter says here very clearly.

There is a theory of the atonement that theologians call the “moral example theory” and it emphasizes the example that Jesus is to us. But, friends, this doesn’t make any sense at all without the substitution of Jesus being understood.

How so?

Fundamentally, you understand the substitution of Jesus. On top of that understanding of what Jesus did and how he did it—then you understand how his life can be an example for us as we are called to imitate him in giving our lives in loving service for others, in being willing to suffer and even to die for doing good.

In other words, until we fully appreciate the work of the Savior we cannot follow the example of the Savior.

To download and listen to this message—or any of the conference messages—visit thisisnext.org.

The main emphasis of Mark’s message—”The Doctrine of Christ's Work Accomplished and Applied”—centered on Christ’s atoning sacrifice for sin. In his message Mark made a critical distinction in how the word ‘atonement’ is sometimes spoken about as compared to a biblical definition. Mark used an illustration from the world of politics to make his point.

From time to time we hear prominent public officials resign from office because of some scandal. And then they always have the tearful news conference the next day. And they say something like, “In the past few days I have begun to atone for my private failings.”

And we all know what they mean, some guy is trying to make it up to his wife, trying to regain her trust, her love, though he had grievously and publicly abused that trust and love.

But what I want to make sure we understand is that, strictly speaking, a person can never atone for his sins. You and I can never atone for our sins.  

Do we have sins? Yes, we all have sins.

Can any one of us, the best among us, atone for our sins?  No. …

We have sinned against a holy God. We can’t go back. We can’t undo our sins. Even if we could, we can’t go back and undo the decisions that led to the actions, let alone the desires that led to the decisions that led to the actions. We have done them already. No amount of good we may do now can undo those things. We have already done them. Even if we think these other things morally outweigh our transgressions from our mind. They might make us forget them. But they have been done.

So what can be done?

Friends, this is the great good news of what only Jesus could do. And this unique work had a unique result—it worked. The death of the sinless Son of God actually atoned for our sins. That death brought us healing. And there are hundreds, and maybe thousands, of people around you in this room who can give personal testimony to that.

What a glorious truth in light of our inability to atone for our sinful desires, our sinful decisions, and our sinful actions.

To download and listen to this message—or any of the conference messages—visit thisisnext.org.

John Piper’s T4G2010 message “Did Jesus Preach Paul’s Gospel?” defended the unity of Paul and Jesus in their understanding of justification and imputation. After his message John joined a panel discussion with Ligon Duncan, Mark Dever, Al Mohler, John MacArthur, and me. The following is an excerpt from that panel discussion.

Ligon Duncan: John, let’s suppose that there is someone here tonight that was wrestling with precisely the issue that you have been thinking about and wrestling with for many years in terms of how to articulate this [imputation/justification] and how to ground it not only in Paul’s teaching, but in Jesus’ revelation of himself and the gospel writers’ revelation of the way of salvation in Jesus. … Where would be some other places that you would point him to read and study and reflect, either in the Scriptures themselves or in the material that you found most helpful, so that he can keep on going?

John Piper: The cluster of texts that I think are most helpful about imputation would be Philippians 3:7–9, 2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 Corinthians 1:30, the flow of thought from Romans 3:20–4:6, especially 4:4–6. Galatians 2:16 and all of chapter 3. As far as biblical texts, that is where I would go.

John Owen is exhaustive on everything and so is his book on justification. If you can handle the kind of density that Owen writes with, I would go there before I would go to Edwards. Edwards becomes so philosophical at a few points that he ties himself in knots I am afraid. So I think Owen is probably a better guide. …  

So many of the books on justification are so doctrinally-oriented rather than exegetically-oriented that a person might do better to take the key texts and then read really faithful Don Carson-like commentaries on them. What happens when you read a big book like Owen or [James] Buchanan is that you just take several steps back from the text and things start to get hazy. Not many people are wired to handle the complexities that these guys go into. And the texts—when you read them all by themselves, with just a little help—they don’t feel that complex. For the average person—this includes me—I need to be right there. I need the text staring me in the face because I get less confident as I move steps away.

Those texts have had a lot of eye-to-eye time with John as evidenced in the two important books he has written on the topic. In 2002 John published Counted Righteous: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness? In an interview from that year he provided an extensive overview of other foundational texts on justification and imputation. You can read the interview here. He also discussed many of these same texts in his 2007 book The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright. Both books are available online as free PDF downloads and printed books. See the links here:

• Counted Righteous: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness? (Crossway, 2002) [PDF download | Amazon]

• The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright (Crossway, 2007) [PDF download | Amazon]

“The gospel cannot be preached and heard enough, for it cannot be grasped well enough,” wrote Martin Luther.*

By God’s grace I have been a Christian for 38 years. I agree with Luther—I still cannot hear the gospel enough. Each morning I seek to preach the gospel to myself by my study of Scripture and through the strategic reading of supplemental books about the cross. Over the past several months it has not been difficult to find enough books to fill this role. Six wonderful new books on the gospel have been published in the last five months, and they constitute a portion of my recent reading diet. Here they are:

God the Peacemaker: How Atonement Brings Shalom by Graham A. Cole (Dec 2009), 257 pages. This is a technical but reader-friendly addition in the NSBT series (New Studies in Biblical Theology). And not only is it detailed and readable, but I found it to be deeply moving, too. Many times throughout this book as I read about the atoning sacrifice of our Savior I ceased reading, looked up from the book, and broke into song. (In the interest of full disclosure, this often happens when I read. I am a noisy reader and often break into song while reading.)

God the Peacemaker is a wonderful book that explains why God's intention to restore shalom (peace) to his creation requires the death of Christ. Cole writes in the introduction:

We live in a troubled world. As I write, there are reports of a devastating cyclone in Myanmar, an earthquake in China, fighting in the Sudan and Iraq, shooting death after shooting death on the south side of Chicago. The list could go on and on. The waste of human life is enormous....Yet Christians believe in a good God who as the Creator has never lost interest in his world. The key evidence and the chief symbol of that divine commitment is the cross of Christ....Central to the divine strategy is Christ, his coming and his cross. The troubles and calamities will end. (19)

In recent years there have been many books that emphasize God’s restoration of shalom, but too few that highlight the central role of the cross in this plan.

By Grace Alone: How the Grace of God Amazes Me by Sinclair Ferguson (Feb 2010), 118 pages. Few have taught me more about the gospel of the grace of God than Sinclair Ferguson. I was reminded of the profound influence of his ministry in my life a couple years ago when I did this interview with him about the cross. Through his sermons and writing I am personally reminded of grace, affected by grace, and inspired to lead by grace. His latest book on the gospel of the grace of God is a gem—showing us why we should be amazed by it. Ferguson writes,

Being amazed by God’s grace is a sign of spiritual vitality. It is a litmus test of how firm and real is our grasp of the Christian gospel and how close is our walk with Jesus Christ. The growing Christian finds that the grace of God astonishes and amazes. Yet we frequently take the grace of God for granted. (xiv)

Ferguson writes as a man who is himself amazed by grace.

Scandalous: The Cross and Resurrection of Jesus by D.A. Carson (Feb 2010), 168 pages. In the preface Carson writes,

Nothing is more central to the Bible than Jesus' death and resurrection. The entire Bible pivots on one weekend in Jerusalem about two thousand years ago. Attempts to make sense of the Bible that do not give prolonged thought to integrating the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus are doomed to failure, at best exercises in irrelevance. (11)

This book is not only not doomed to failure but destined to serve readers in their appreciation of the gospel as he expounds on both the death and resurrection of the Savior. As Mark Dever says in his endorsement, "This professor can preach. These are model messages on crucial passages." They are crucial passages, presented as a model of exegesis and exposition. The book is developed around five core passages: Matthew 27:27–51, Romans 3:21–26, Revelation 12, John 11:1–53, and John 20:24–31. Pastors can easily adapt this structure and use these passages to develop a sermon series to serve their churches.

Atonement by various authors, edited by Gabriel N.E. Fluhrer (Feb 2010), 142 pages. This is a compilation of messages delivered over the years at the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology. Contributors include J.I. Packer, R.C. Sproul, and Ferguson. In his preface, editor Gabriel Fluhrer opens the book with these pointed words: "This is a book about blood and it soaks every page" (ix). And a little later he writes,

Today, along with other great doctrines of the Christian faith, the doctrine of the blood atonement of Christ is under attack. It is derided as “cosmic child abuse” and traded for a grandfatherly sentimentalism that muffles the piercing cries of the Savior being nailed to the cross. The pride of our sin dilutes the simple, clear, and shocking teaching of the New Testament: God killed his perfect Son to save hate-filled rebels from the wrath they deserve. (x)

The messages included in this book were finely chosen.

What Is the Gospel? by Greg Gilbert (April 2010), 124 pages. Gilbert's new book on the gospel is clear and compelling. I wrote in my endorsement that I hoped to place this book in the hands of every pastor and church member. And the only thing I would add is that I hope it finds its way into the hands of non-Christians as well. I agree with Mark Dever: "This little book on the gospel is one of the clearest and most important books I've read in recent years." Help me put a copy of this book into every hand. Buy a case of them and begin giving them away immediately!

It Is Well: Expositions on Substitutionary Atonement by Mark Dever and Michael Lawrence (April 2010), 223 pages. This series of sermons was published out of concern over the neglect of the gospel in the life of local churches. In the preface Dever writes,

Have you wondered about the cross lately? Have you wondered where it is in your own church, or in your own life? It's our prayer that these meditations will help you re-center your life on God's sacrifice for us in Christ and join in the celebration that's going on eternally as the saints in heaven praise God for the Lamb who was slain for us. (15)

Like Carson’s, this book can provide a pastor with a sermon series on the gospel. The 14 sermons are presented in canonical order on these texts: Exodus 12, Leviticus 16, Isaiah 52:13–53:12, Mark 10:45, 15:33–34, John 3:14–18, 11:47–52, Romans 3:21–26, 4:25, 5:8–10, 8:1–4, Galatians 3:10–13, 1 Peter 2:21–25, and 3:18.

I am grateful that we have many wonderful (and affordable) books about the gospel of Jesus Christ. We need these books because we cannot read enough about the gospel. We cannot read enough about the gospel because we cannot grasp it well enough.

-----------

* What Luther Says: An Anthology, compiled by Edwald M. Plass (St. Louis: Concordia, 1963), vol. 2, pp. 563–564.