Know Your Bible: Is Christ's Burial an Essential Part of the Gospel?

Is the burial of Christ part of "the essential substance of the gospel" in 1 Corinthians 15:4? Notice what C. I. Scofield writes in his Scofield Bible Correspondence Course on the New Testament. In his correspondence course there are 179 exam questions on the book of 1 Corinthians. For question 146, Scofield asks: "What three facts in [1 Corinthians] xv. 3, 4, constitute the essential substance of the gospel?"[1] No doubt Scofield is referring to the three facts of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.[2] Thus, contrary to what groundless gospel advocates would have us believe[3], Scofield affirms that Christ's burial is an "essential" part of "the gospel" in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4!

If you were to take Scofield's exam, would you get this question right?

ENDNOTES:

[1] C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Bible Correspondence Course, Vol. 2: New Testament (Chicago: The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, 1934), p. 366, question 146. Note: The original copyright is 1907 by C. I. Scofield.

[2] Elsewhere Scofield affirms: "Jesus Christ brought life and immortality to light through the gospel....Atoning for man's sin by the blood of the cross, coming again from the dead in eternal triumph over the grave, Jesus Christ begins to carry the salvation of the cross into all the world." (C. I. Scofield, In Many Pulpits [New York: Oxford University Press, 1922], p. 65)

[3] For example, one groundless gospel advocate writes the following in reference to The Scofield Reference Bible's note on the two goats in Leviticus 16: "Scofield also makes no connection to the burial but includes references to Christ’s death and resurrection, saying, 'The living goat typifies that aspect of Christ’s work which puts away our sins from before God (Heb. 9:26; Rom. 8:33-34).'" (Thomas L. Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ [Milwaukee: Grace Gospel Press, 2009], p. 587.) It should be a clue to Stegall that we agree with him that Christ's burial is not redemptive (i.e. Christ's burial didn't pay for sin, His death did), but Stegall is going beyond this to conclude that Christ's burial is not part of the gospel. In other words, proving that Christ's burial is not redemptive is different from proving His burial is not part of the gospel. They are two different things. Yet Stegall tries to equate them. For example, in a 2007 church handout titled "Proposed Change" (to the "SOLE CONDITION FOR SALVATION" section of the Word of Grace Bible Church Doctrinal Statement), Stegall claims that "His [Christ's] being buried was not a work which accomplished our eternal redemption, and it is therefore not absolutely essential for someone to know about it and believe it in order to go to heaven, as the original statement seemed to indicate." Stegall is correct to point out that Christ's burial did not accomplish our eternal redemption, but his conclusion that it is therefore not part of the gospel is non sequitur. First, let's make sure we understand what redemption is, and then I will make my point. In the Bible, "redemption" involves the payment for sin; Christ redeemed us by His death on the cross (1 Cor. 15:3; Gal. 3:13; Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12-15; 1 Pet. 1:18-19, etc.). This is an important point: Christ redeemed us (paid our sin penalty) by His death, not by His burial, and not by His resurrection. "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3). In other words, Christ's burial did not pay for sins, nor did His resurrection. Redemption was accomplished on the cross. It was there that the ransom price was fully paid (see John 19:30, Greek tetelestai = "paid in full"). Even Stegall affirms that "[Christ's] resurrection didn't pay for our sins, His death did." (Stegall, "THE GOSPEL OF THE RESURRECTED CHRIST," [1 Corinthians 15:1-11], March 27, 2005.) Similarly, in an article titled "TRUTHS ONE MUST SEE AND BELIEVE IN ORDER TO BE SAVED," Stegall writes: "[Christ's] sacrifice for our sins paid the penalty in full, satisfying God's holy demands completely...Christ fully paid for our sins when He died". (Stegall, "TRUTHS ONE MUST SEE AND BELIEVE IN ORDER TO BE SAVED," Word of Grace Bible Church website [accessed April 5, 2011].) In his book The Gospel of the Christ, Stegall makes several more statements connecting full redemption with Christ's substitutionary death on the cross. He talks about being "redeemed by the blood of the Lamb". (Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, p. 30.) He goes on to explain that, "The Lord has seen fit to use a multiplicity of metaphors, images, and diverse terminology to depict the one truth of the Savior's death for our sins. These terms include 'cross,' 'tree,' 'blood,' 'gave,' 'offered,' 'sacrificed,' 'redeemed,' 'suffered,' 'slain,' etc. Yet, despite such rich diversity of expression, there is still a unity of content, as each of these terms point to the same substitutionary, atoning death of the Savior." (Ibid., p. 312.) Stegall also says: "Jesus had in fact provided redemption for Israel by that very crucifixion, and this redemption was proven by virtue of His resurrection." (Ibid., p. 660, italics his.) Stegall is echoing the words of John Hart when he says: "The resurrection proved our justification, but it did not provide for our justification." (Hart, "Why Confess Christ? The Use and Abuse of Romans 10:9-10," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 12 [Autumn 1999].) Dennis Rokser of Duluth Bible Church also affirms this same basic truth, saying in reference to 1 Corinthians 15:4: "'and rose again' (which is the proof that God was satisfied with Christ's payment of our sins)." (Rokser, "EXAMINING LORDSHIP SALVATION Pt. 2," The Grace Family Journal [Fall 2007]: p. 13, italics his.) One last statement by Stegall is particularly to the point. Commenting on "the redemptive and propitious aspect of Christ's death in Acts 20:28," Stegall emphasizes: "The redemption price for every member of the Church was clearly the death of Christ". (Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, pp. 660-661.) My point is simply this: Stegall doesn't believe that Christ's resurrection "accomplished our eternal redemption" (i.e. the resurrection didn't pay for our sins in any way, shape, or form) yet he still includes it in his gospel! Thus, for him to exclude Christ's burial for the same reason is the logical fallacy of special pleading (i.e. a double standard). If Stegall were consistent with his own reductionist reasoning, he would not only have to exclude Christ's burial from the gospel but he would also have to exclude Christ's resurrection because it wasn't redemptive either: "His resurrection didn't pay for our sins, His death did." (Stegall, "THE GOSPEL OF THE RESURRECTED CHRIST," [1 Corinthians 15:1-11], March 27, 2005.)

Are Christ's Resurrection Appearances Prophesied in the Old Testament?

Are the resurrection appearances of Christ to His disciples ever prophesied in the Old Testament? For those who may think otherwise, this question is important because it relates to the gospel. 

When the apostle Paul reminded the Corinthian church of "the gospel" (1 Cor. 15:1) that he preached to them, he included the fact that Christ "appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve" (1 Cor. 15:5). Commenting on Paul's gospel in 1 Corinthians 15, W. Harold Mare affirms: "Part of the gospel message Paul passed on to the Corinthians was eyewitness reports of the resurrection of Christ."^[1]
   
Another reason this is an important question is because in the book of Romans the apostle Paul writes: "The Good News was promised long ago by God through His prophets, as written in the Holy Scriptures" (Romans 1:2, GNT). Those who hold to the non-traditional Free Grace "groundless gospel" argue that the resurrection appearances of Christ to His disciples are not prophesied in the Old Testament, and therefore the resurrection appearances are not part of the gospel. One groundless gospel advocate named Greg Schliesmann puts it this way:

Paul says this gospel [in 1 Corinthians 15] is “according to the Scriptures”. This phrase only modifies Christ’s death for sins and resurrection in v. 3 and v. 4 about the death and resurrection of Christ “He died for our sins according to the Scriptures” and “He rose from the dead according to the Scriptures”. Aside from that, we know the Scriptures did not predict anything referenced in [1 Cor. 15] vv. 5-10 regarding who saw Christ. In Romans 1:2, Paul indicated that the gospel was promised before in the Scriptures. The extra elements Paul mentions do not constitute the truths promised before in the Scriptures but serve as proofs of them.^[2]

What I noticed after reading Mr. Schliesmann's statement is that he actually had to rewrite the Bible to fit his groundless gospel! In 1 Corinthians 15:4, the apostle Paul says that Christ was raised "on the third day according to the Scriptures". But in Mr. Schliesmann's quotation of 1 Corinthians 15:4, the words "on the third day" are nowhere to be found! It reminds me of the Bible created by Thomas Jefferson, commonly referred to as the Jefferson Bible. If any part of the New Testament didn't fit with Jefferson's theology of Jesus, he literally cut those statements out of the Bible. When Jefferson got through with it, his New Testament looked like Swiss cheese—there were lots of holes in it! The Bible has severe warnings against those who take away from the Word of God (see Deut. 4:2, 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19). "So dangerous a thing it is to meddle ever so slightly with the words of—GOD."^[3] The fact that groundless gospel advocates must re-write the Bible to fit their unique interpretation of the gospel is a glaring problem! Maybe Mr. Schliesmann took a cue from the agnostic Bart Ehman who also omitted the words "on the third day" when he misquoted 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. (See my blog post titled "Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus on 1 Corinthians 15:3-4".) But regardless, when someone in the Free Grace movement meddles with the Word of God, it's truly a tragedy.

   
What's more, the groundless gospel error is even more extreme because it actually contradicts the Bible.  Does Mr. Schliesmann really want us to believe that Christ's resurrection appearances are not "according to the Scriptures"? The truth is, both Christ's burial (1 Cor. 15:4) and His resurrection appearances to His disciples (1 Cor. 15:5) are prophesied in the Old Testament. Isaiah chapter 53 is a key passage, and it predicts both Christ's burial (Isa. 53:9) and His resurrection appearances to "His followers" (Isa. 53:10, Berkeley Version).

Isaiah 53: The Gospel in the Old Testament

Christ's death for our sins: Isa. 53:5-6

His burial: Isa. 53:9

His resurrection: Isa. 53:10b

His appearances: Isa. 53:10b

There are also other Scriptures in the Old Testament which predict Christ's burial and His resurrection appearances, such as Psalm 22 and Psalm 40. These are Messianic Psalms, and these two passages of Scripture also predict Christ's burial and His resurrection appearances. 

Psalm 22: A Prediction of the Gospel
Christ's crucifixion: Psa. 22:16

 His burial: Psa. 22:15
His resurrection: Psa. 22:22

His appearances: Psa. 22:22

Psalm 40: A Prophecy of the Gospel
Christ on the cross: Psa. 40:1^[4]

His burial: Psa. 40:2a
His resurrection: Psa. 40:2b

His appearances: Psa. 40:3

In response to Mr. Schliesmann, I will focus on the fact that Christ's resurrection appearances to His disciples are predicted in the Old Testament. I already wrote about this in my paper Getting the Gospel Right, but it bears repeating:

Christ's resurrection appearances were prophesied in the Old Testament like the other elements of the gospel (Rom. 1:1-2; 1 Pet. 1:10-12; cf. Ps. 22:22; Isa. 53:10)....Commenting on the gospel in Isaiah 53, Herbert Lockyer relates the following true story from the life of D. L. Moody: "When Moody was asked to conduct his first mission in London in 1874, union meetings were comparatively new. The committee asked him to explain his methods. Everything went smoothly until one member asked him his creed. Moody calmly replied, 'My creed is already in print.' A member seized a paper and pencil and asked where it could be found. 'In the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah,' Moody answered."^[5]     

Commenting on Psalm 22, notice how C. I. Scofield draws attention to the prophecy of Christ's resurrection appearance to His brethren:

Psalm 22 is a graphic picture of death by crucifixion. The bones (of the hands, arms, shoulders, and pelvis) out of joint (v. 14); the profuse perspiration caused by intense suffering (v. 14); the action of the heart affected (v. 14); strength exhausted, and extreme thirst (v. 15); the hands and feet pierced (v. 16); partial nudity with the hurt to modesty (v. 17), are all incidental to that mode of death. The accompanying circumstances are precisely those fulfilled in the crucifixion of Christ. The desolate cry of verse 1 (Mt. 27:46); the periods of light and darkness of verse 2 (Mt. 27:45); the contumely [insults and harsh treatment] of verses 6-8, 12, 13 (Mt. 27:39-43); the casting lots of verse 18 (Mt. 27:35), all were literally fulfilled. When it is remembered that crucifixion was a Roman, not a Jewish, form of execution, the proof of inspiration is irresistible. At verse 22 the Psalm breaks from crucifixion to resurrection; fulfilled in the "Go to my brethren," etc., of John 20:17. The risen Christ declares to His brethren the name, "Father."^[6]

And commenting on Psalm 40, similarly notice how Scofield makes a point to highlight the prediction of Christ's resurrection testimony to those who saw Him:

The 40th Psalm speaks of Messiah, Jehovah’s Servant, obedient unto death. The Psalm begins with the joy of Christ in resurrection (vs. 1, 2). He has been in the horrible pit of the grave, but has been brought up. Verses 3-5 are His resurrection testimony, His "new song." Verses 6 and 7 are retrospective. When sacrifice and offering had become abominable because of the wickedness of the people (Isa. 1:10-15), then the obedient Servant came to make the pure offering (vs. 7-17; Heb. 10:5-17).^[7]

The gospel (1 Cor. 15:3-5) was promised beforehand in the Holy Scriptures (Rom. 1:1-2); all four elements of the gospel were predicted in the Old Testament—not just part of it, but all of it!

Praise the Lord!

ENDNOTES:

^[1] W. Harold Mare, Frank E. Gaebelein, General Editor, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, 12 Vols., Vol. 10 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), p. 282.

^[2] Greg Schliesmann, "The Technical Meaning of the Term, 'THE GOSPEL,' Part 3," In Defense of the Gospel blog, December 19, 2007, http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2007/12/technical-meaning-of-term-gospel-part-3.html. Note: Mr. Schliesmann was a member of Tom Stegall's church in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It was Mr. Schliesmann who compiled the Scripture Index for Stegall's book The Gospel of the Christ. I have responded to Mr. Schliesmann's views elsewhere, such as in my article "The Free Grace Gospel Debate".

^[3] Ivan Panin, Editor, The New Testament From The Greek Text (Toronto: The Book Society of Canada, 1979), p. xiii, italics and caps his.

^[4] Commenting on Psalm 40:1, C. H. Spurgeon writes: "'I waited patiently for the Lord.' Patient waiting upon God was a special characteristic of our Lord Jesus. Impatience never lingered in his heart, much less escaped his lips. All through his agony in the garden, his trial of cruel mockings before Herod and Pilate, and his passion on the tree, he waited in omnipotence of patience. No glance of wrath, no word of murmuring, no deed of vengeance came from God's patient Lamb; he waited and waited on; was patient, and patient to perfection, far excelling all others who have according to their measure glorified God in the fires. Job on the dunghill does not equal Jesus on the cross. The Christ of God wears the imperial crown among the patient." (Spurgeon, The Treasury of David, 7 Vols., Vol. 2, p. 261.)

^[5] Jonathan Perreault, Getting the Gospel Right, p. 10.

^[6] Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible (1909), p. 608, note 3; p. 609, note 1. Although Scofield does not specifically mention Christ's burial here in connection with Psalm 22 (it's implied, not denied!), his statement still supports my overall point because he does highlight how this passage of Scripture predicts the resurrection testimony of Christ to those who saw Him after He was raised from the dead (Psa. 22:22; cf. Jn. 20:17). And  concerning Christ's burial, Scofield clearly sees predictions of it in other Old Testament Scriptures, such as in the book of Jonah. In the introduction to the book of Jonah in The Scofield Reference Bible, Scofield writes: "THE historical character of the man Jonah is vouched for by Jesus Christ (Mt. 12:39-41), as also that his preservation in the great fish was a ‘sign’ or type of our Lord’s own entombment and resurrection.” (Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible [New York: Oxford University Press, 1909, 1917], p. 943.) Furthermore, Mr. Schliesmann even admits that Christ's burial is predicted in the Old Testament. Schliesmann says: "I agree that Christ's burial was prophesied in the OT." (See Schliesmann's comment for the blog post "The Technical Meaning of the Term, 'THE GOSPEL,' Part 3," In Defense of the Gospel blog.) This admission by Schliesmann highlights the error of his groundless gospel, because although the apostle Paul doesn't specifically say in 1 Corinthians 15:4 that the burial of Christ is "according to the Scriptures"—it's obviously "according to the Scriptures" because it was promised beforehand in the Old Testament!

^[7] Ibid., p. 618, note 1.

1 CORINTHIANS 15:3ff | by Robert H. Mounce

I'd like to share some excellent statements on the gospel from a book by Robert H. Mounce titled The Essential Nature of New Testament Preaching.[1] I have also included the original footnote numbers as they appear in Mounce's book.[2] 

In the chapter titled "CLUES TO A PRE-PAULINE KERYGMA" (pp. 90-93), Mounce writes the following:

"I CORINTHIANS 15:3ff. This passage is without doubt the most valuable piece of pre-Pauline Christianity in the New Testament. Not only is it authentic tradition, but it also furnishes direct evidence of the missionary kerygma [preaching] proclaimed by the early Church. It relates the very terms⁶ in which Paul (v. 1) and the others (v. 11) preached the Gospel.

     

What are the reasons for accepting this account of the Gospel as genuine pre-Pauline paradosis?

     

(1) The verbs that Paul uses for the reception and transmission of the Gospel are equivalent to the official Jewish terms for the taking over and passing on of tradition.⁷ This would indicate that what follows is to be understood as an authentic block of primitive material.

     

(2) The total structure of the passage with its fourfold repetition of hoti ('that') indicates that it is a creedal formulation.

    

(3)  This formula displays a number of un-Pauline characteristics:  (a) The phrase 'according to the scriptures' occurs nowhere else in Paul⁸ (who generally uses 'as it is written'). (b) Since for Paul hamartia (singular) is the principle of sin, it is doubtful that he would have used it in the plural, as in verse 3. (c) Certain other expressions, such as 'the twelve,' are not specifically Pauline.⁹

     

(4) The double reference to the Old Testament Scriptures suggests that it stems from a Jewish-Christian source. So also does the Aramaic 'Cephas,' and the reference to James.

   

(5)  Paul indicates in verse 11 that what he has reproduced has been the common proclamation of all the apostles.

     

It is not going beyond the evidence to conclude with Meyer that here we have the oldest document of the Christian Church in existence.¹⁰ But now we come to the more difficult task of defining the limits of this segment of paradosis [tradition]. Had Paul stopped quoting as decisively as he began, there would have been no problem. But he seems to add a parenthetic remark, extend the final issue, and then trail off into a personal testimony. In view of this we must ask, Where does the kerygma stop, and Paul begin?

     

The explanatory remark connected to the phrase 'more than five hundred brethren,' leads Goguel to strike out all of verse six as a Pauline addition.¹¹ The following phrase ('Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles') is taken as genuine kerygma because of its linguistic similarity to verse 5. The appearance to Paul, says Goguel, was added as a personal testimony.

     

While something can be said for this interpretation, it is much more probable that the original formula extended from 3b through 5. This gives a better balance to the entire passage and brings the final item into harmony with the conciseness with which the other three are set forth. This division is also supported by the definite syntactical break at the beginning of verse 6. The reason for expanding this particular section of the kerygma was to establish firmly the fact of Christ's resurrection. From this basic premise, Paul will argue the resurrection of the believer. The choice of witnesses - well-known leaders of the Church and a large body of people who could easily be found and questioned - shows the care with which Paul built his case.

     

Where and when did Paul receive this block of tradition? The usual answer is that it was passed on to him by Peter when they first met in Jerusalem for a fortnight visit (Gal. 1:18-20) i.e., about A.D. 35.¹² This does not, however, take into sufficient consideration Paul's prior ministry in Damascus (Acts 9). Paul's proof of the Messiahship of Jesus (v. 22) most certainly rested upon the kerygmatic foundation of Christ's death, resurrection, and exaltation.

     

It is much more likely that this bit of paradosis had a much earlier origin. Hunter suggests that Paul is here reproducing the baptismal creed of the Damascus church.¹³ A comparison with the baptismal formula that underlies 1 Peter 3:18-22 favors this view.¹⁴ But whatever its relationship to baptismal or catechetical confessions, it is primarily the terms in which the Gospel was preached (cf. v. 1). It is difficult not to infer from this that it was originally drawn up as a convenient summary of the missionary proclamation.

     

And where did it originate? Against Heitmϋller's thesis that it was an evangelical summary current in Hellenistic Christianity and radically different from the Palestinian kerygma, Hunter argues convincingly that it emanated originally from the primitive Palestinian church.¹⁵ If this be so, then I Corinthians 15:3-5 may represent the very message that won the first converts at Damascus. In any event, we may safely conclude that Paul received this kerygmatic summary from the Damascus church shortly after his conversion and before beginning his evangelistic ministry.

     

Let us now set this passage out as it might have looked had Paul used sermon notes:

           Christ died for our sins -

                  in accordance with the scriptures.

           He was buried.

           He was raised on the third day -

                  in accordance with the scriptures.

           He appeared to Cephas,

                  then to the Twelve."

  

FOOTNOTES:

⁶ tini logōi ("in what terms") refers to both the form and the substance of Paul's preaching.

⁷ Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, p. 21. Pirke Aboth 1:1 tells how Moses received the (oral) Law from Sinai, and committed it to Joshua.

⁸ Interestingly enough, the only other occurrence of this phrase is in James 2:8 - most certainly Palestinian in origin.

⁹ For further linguistic evidence, see Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, pp. 129-130.

¹⁰ H. A. W. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums, III, 210.

¹¹ Maurice Goguel, The Birth of Christianity, p. 42.

¹² Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching, p. 16.

¹³ Hunter, op. cit., p. 16. Cf. also J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, p. 17.

¹⁴ Note the similar pattern: death for sins, descent, resurrection, exaltation.

¹⁵ Hunter, op. cit., pp. 16-17.

References:

[1] Robert H. Mounce, The Essential Nature of New Testament Preaching (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1960), pp. 90-93.

[2] Ibid., pp. 90-93.