Some Free Grace people don’t believe that Christ’s burial is part of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 because according to them, “it’s only a proof”. This is one of the favorite talking points of groundless gospel advocates. Their mantra goes something like this: “The burial of Christ is only a proof, it’s not really part of the gospel.”[1]
But here’s something eye-opening to think about: All four statements in 1 Corinthians 15:3b-5 are proofs! Notice the following biblical truths:
- Christ’s death is proof of His passion: His love (Jn. 15:13; Rom. 5:8)
- Christ’s burial is proof of His perfection (Isa. 53:9; 1 Pet. 2:22-23)
- Christ’s resurrection is proof of His payment (Jn. 19:30; 1 Cor. 15:17)
- Christ’s manifestation is proof of His physicalness (Lk. 24:39; Acts 1:3)
So if groundless gospel advocates were consistent with their reductionist reasoning, they would have no gospel to preach because each element of the gospel is distinctly a proof. For example, Jesus’ resurrection is said to be “proof” of His deity (see Acts 17:31; cf. Rom. 1:1-4). So, is the resurrection of Jesus Christ now not part of the gospel because the Bible says it’s a “proof”? Of course not! Such reasoning is groundless; it’s not true in regards to Christ’s resurrection and it’s not true in regards to Christ’s burial either. Both elements are proofs and yet both elements are part of the gospel. And so we see that the proof is in the gospel.
Notice what Christian apologist Justin Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.) says about the power of proof. He writes: “For every proof is more powerful and trustworthy than that which it proves; since what is disbelieved, until proof is produced, gets credit when such proof is produced, and is recognized as being what it was stated to be.”[2]
Notice what Christian apologist Justin Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.) says about the power of proof. He writes: “For every proof is more powerful and trustworthy than that which it proves; since what is disbelieved, until proof is produced, gets credit when such proof is produced, and is recognized as being what it was stated to be.”[2]
Here is John Wycliffe’s testimony to the truth of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-5; he highlights the significance & meaning of Christ’s burial in the gospel:
Wycliffe affirms “that Christ...was buried to prove the truth of his death more than by miracles (as is clear in Matthew 27 [:57-66]”. That’s truly a powerful fact of the gospel! Have you believed it? If not, do so today.
References:
[1] Such a view of the gospel, however, is not according to sound doctrine. Commenting on Isaiah 53:9, Warren Wiersbe affirms the biblical truth when he says: “The burial of Jesus Christ is as much a part of the gospel as is His death (1 Cor. 15:1-5), for the burial is proof that He actually died.” (Wiersbe, Be Comforted [Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2009], p. 162.) In his commentary on John, Edwin A. Blum similarly states: “The burial of Jesus is part of the gospel (‘He was buried,’ 1 Cor. 15:4).” (Edwin A. Blum, John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, Editors, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament Edition [Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 1983], p. 341, comment on John 19:40-42.) Norman Geisler, the Christian apologist, likewise affirms that “Paul used Jesus’ burial as part of the Gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15. Burial is an essential part of the ‘gospel’ since Paul defined the ‘gospel’ as involving death, burial, and resurrection appearances.” (Norman L. Geisler and Douglas E. Potter, “Christian Burial: A Case for Burial” [April 14, 2009], Christian Research Institute, Article ID: DC765.) Note: Groundless gospel advocates respond by saying that only Christ’s death and resurrection are followed by the phrase “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3, 4), surmising that only these two facts are really part of the gospel. There are, however, at least three glaring problems with such a view: 1) It assumes that the other two facts mentioned by Paul in the passage (i.e. Christ’s burial and resurrection appearances, vv. 4, 5) are not “according to the Scriptures”. This assumption is clearly false in light of the resounding testimony of God’s Word: e.g. Deut. 21:23; Psa. 16:8-11, Psa. 22:22, Psa. 40:3; Isa. 53:9-10; Hosea 6:2-3; Jonah 1:17; Zeph. 3:8; Matt. 12:40; Rom. 1:1-2; Rom. 10:16, etc. These are just some of the Old Testament Scriptures that predict Christ’s burial and/or His resurrection appearances; so these two facts are obviously “according to the Scriptures”. Indeed, Jesus specifically said that His burial is according to the Scriptures (see Matt. 12:38-41)! To be consistent, groundless gospel advocates would have to say that Isaiah 53:9 and Jonah 1:17 (just to cite two examples) are not part of the Old Testament Scriptures! Of course they would never make such an admission because that conclusion is obviously false, but this only highlights that their no-burial interpretation of the gospel is flawed. Their interpretation of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 is not based on solid exegesis, but rather it’s based on a skewed theological bias imposed upon the text. For more information see my blog posts titled “Getting the Gospel Right” and “God’s Word on the Gospel”. 2) The second glaring problem with the groundless gospel interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:3-5 is that it begins with a theological premise rather than with the exegesis of the passage. In other words, rather than beginning with the Greek grammar of vv. 3b-5 and the four hoti content clauses which clearly describe the content of the gospel, groundless gospel advocates skip past that (pun intended!) and begin instead with their theological assumption that the content of the gospel is defined by the twice repeated phrase “according to the Scriptures” (vv. 3, 4) – two phrases which, amazingly, they don’t even include in their redefinition of the gospel! However, such a method of Bible interpretation is flawed because it in effect “puts the cart before the horse.” Charles Ryrie has correctly stated: “Accurate theology rests on sound exegesis.” Groundless gospel advocates turn this around; in effect their motto is: “Accurate exegesis rests on sound theology.” But that’s backwards! For we would not have theology if it did not first come from exegesis. So in order to interpret the Bible correctly, we must begin with the exegesis of the passage. For more information on this, see my blog post series titled: “Getting the Gospel Right”. 3) The third glaring problem with Rokser’s and Stegall’s (mis)understanding of the phrase “according to the Scriptures” in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 is that they don’t even include these two phrases in their gospel! According to them, the twice repeated phrase “according to the Scriptures” merely marks out the content of the gospel but is not included in that content itself. It’s truly a tragedy that groundless gospel advocates exploit “the Scriptures” in this way. Is it any wonder that a man-made gospel doesn’t even include the references to “the Scriptures”?! They are deceiving many. Remember, Satan was masterful at twisting the Scriptures and leaving bits and pieces of Scripture out (see Gen. 3:1-4; Lk. 4:10-11, compare Psa. 91:11-12), just like Rokser and Stegall do with the gospel. The Free Grace theologian William R. Newell warns against distorting the gospel when he says: “This story of Christ’s dying for our sins, buried, raised, manifested, is the great wire along which runs God’s mighty current of saving power. Beware lest you be putting up some little wire of your own, unconnected with the Divine throne, and therefore non-saving to those to whom you speak.” (Newell, Romans Verse-By-Verse, p. 21.) Newell goes on to say: “Therefore, in this good news, (1) Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, (2) He was buried, (3) He hath been raised the third day according to the Scriptures, (4) He was manifested (1 Cor. 15:3 ff),—in this good news there is revealed, now openly for the first time, God’s righteousness on the principle of faith. We simply hear and believe: and, as we shall find, God reckons us righteous; our guilt having been put away by the blood of Christ forever, and we ourselves declared to be the righteousness of God in Him!” (Ibid., p. 24.) The apostle Paul says: “But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his trickery, your minds will be led astray from sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, this you tolerate very well!” (2 Cor. 11:3-4, NASB)
“I make known unto you the gospel which I preached to you. 1 Cor. 15:1....Paul delivered to the Corinthians the faith which he received from the Lord, the faith should be the source of meritorious works that follow. The four articles of the faith of Christ preached to the Corinthians which presupposes the incarnation of Christ and the birth. For he taught them first that Christ died for our sins not for His own (as is clear from Isaiah [53]:5); was buried to prove the truth of his death more than by miracles (as is clear in Matthew 27 [:57-66]); thirdly He rose again the third day according to the first day and ultimately a synecdoche of the fourth [day], beginning the natural day from the middle of the night; fourthly He appeared to Peter and others (the end of Matthew). 1 Cor. 15:3, 4, 5.”[3]
Wycliffe affirms “that Christ...was buried to prove the truth of his death more than by miracles (as is clear in Matthew 27 [:57-66]”. That’s truly a powerful fact of the gospel! Have you believed it? If not, do so today.
References:
[1] Such a view of the gospel, however, is not according to sound doctrine. Commenting on Isaiah 53:9, Warren Wiersbe affirms the biblical truth when he says: “The burial of Jesus Christ is as much a part of the gospel as is His death (1 Cor. 15:1-5), for the burial is proof that He actually died.” (Wiersbe, Be Comforted [Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2009], p. 162.) In his commentary on John, Edwin A. Blum similarly states: “The burial of Jesus is part of the gospel (‘He was buried,’ 1 Cor. 15:4).” (Edwin A. Blum, John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, Editors, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament Edition [Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 1983], p. 341, comment on John 19:40-42.) Norman Geisler, the Christian apologist, likewise affirms that “Paul used Jesus’ burial as part of the Gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15. Burial is an essential part of the ‘gospel’ since Paul defined the ‘gospel’ as involving death, burial, and resurrection appearances.” (Norman L. Geisler and Douglas E. Potter, “Christian Burial: A Case for Burial” [April 14, 2009], Christian Research Institute, Article ID: DC765.) Note: Groundless gospel advocates respond by saying that only Christ’s death and resurrection are followed by the phrase “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3, 4), surmising that only these two facts are really part of the gospel. There are, however, at least three glaring problems with such a view: 1) It assumes that the other two facts mentioned by Paul in the passage (i.e. Christ’s burial and resurrection appearances, vv. 4, 5) are not “according to the Scriptures”. This assumption is clearly false in light of the resounding testimony of God’s Word: e.g. Deut. 21:23; Psa. 16:8-11, Psa. 22:22, Psa. 40:3; Isa. 53:9-10; Hosea 6:2-3; Jonah 1:17; Zeph. 3:8; Matt. 12:40; Rom. 1:1-2; Rom. 10:16, etc. These are just some of the Old Testament Scriptures that predict Christ’s burial and/or His resurrection appearances; so these two facts are obviously “according to the Scriptures”. Indeed, Jesus specifically said that His burial is according to the Scriptures (see Matt. 12:38-41)! To be consistent, groundless gospel advocates would have to say that Isaiah 53:9 and Jonah 1:17 (just to cite two examples) are not part of the Old Testament Scriptures! Of course they would never make such an admission because that conclusion is obviously false, but this only highlights that their no-burial interpretation of the gospel is flawed. Their interpretation of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 is not based on solid exegesis, but rather it’s based on a skewed theological bias imposed upon the text. For more information see my blog posts titled “Getting the Gospel Right” and “God’s Word on the Gospel”. 2) The second glaring problem with the groundless gospel interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:3-5 is that it begins with a theological premise rather than with the exegesis of the passage. In other words, rather than beginning with the Greek grammar of vv. 3b-5 and the four hoti content clauses which clearly describe the content of the gospel, groundless gospel advocates skip past that (pun intended!) and begin instead with their theological assumption that the content of the gospel is defined by the twice repeated phrase “according to the Scriptures” (vv. 3, 4) – two phrases which, amazingly, they don’t even include in their redefinition of the gospel! However, such a method of Bible interpretation is flawed because it in effect “puts the cart before the horse.” Charles Ryrie has correctly stated: “Accurate theology rests on sound exegesis.” Groundless gospel advocates turn this around; in effect their motto is: “Accurate exegesis rests on sound theology.” But that’s backwards! For we would not have theology if it did not first come from exegesis. So in order to interpret the Bible correctly, we must begin with the exegesis of the passage. For more information on this, see my blog post series titled: “Getting the Gospel Right”. 3) The third glaring problem with Rokser’s and Stegall’s (mis)understanding of the phrase “according to the Scriptures” in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 is that they don’t even include these two phrases in their gospel! According to them, the twice repeated phrase “according to the Scriptures” merely marks out the content of the gospel but is not included in that content itself. It’s truly a tragedy that groundless gospel advocates exploit “the Scriptures” in this way. Is it any wonder that a man-made gospel doesn’t even include the references to “the Scriptures”?! They are deceiving many. Remember, Satan was masterful at twisting the Scriptures and leaving bits and pieces of Scripture out (see Gen. 3:1-4; Lk. 4:10-11, compare Psa. 91:11-12), just like Rokser and Stegall do with the gospel. The Free Grace theologian William R. Newell warns against distorting the gospel when he says: “This story of Christ’s dying for our sins, buried, raised, manifested, is the great wire along which runs God’s mighty current of saving power. Beware lest you be putting up some little wire of your own, unconnected with the Divine throne, and therefore non-saving to those to whom you speak.” (Newell, Romans Verse-By-Verse, p. 21.) Newell goes on to say: “Therefore, in this good news, (1) Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, (2) He was buried, (3) He hath been raised the third day according to the Scriptures, (4) He was manifested (1 Cor. 15:3 ff),—in this good news there is revealed, now openly for the first time, God’s righteousness on the principle of faith. We simply hear and believe: and, as we shall find, God reckons us righteous; our guilt having been put away by the blood of Christ forever, and we ourselves declared to be the righteousness of God in Him!” (Ibid., p. 24.) The apostle Paul says: “But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his trickery, your minds will be led astray from sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, this you tolerate very well!” (2 Cor. 11:3-4, NASB)
[2] Justin Martyr, “Fragments of the Lost Work of Justin on the Resurrection,” The Writings of Justin Martyr, Revised and Arranged by A. Cleveland Coxe, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Editors, Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 (Buffalo, NY: The Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1885), Vol. 1, p. 294. Note: This is the American Reprint of the Edinburgh Edition. In the Edinburgh Edition, the reference is: Justin Martyr, “Extant Fragments of the Lost Work of Justin on the Resurrection”, The Writings of Justin Martyr, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Editors, Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1867), Vol. 2, p. 341.
[3] John Wycliffe, “Sermon XLV [1 Cor. 15:1-11]”, Johann Loserth, Editor, Johannis Wyclif Sermones, Vol. 3 (London: Published for the Wyclif Society by Trubner and Co., 1889), pp. 384, 386, italics his, ellipsis and brackets added. The reference to 1 Cor. 15: 3, 4, 5 is cited in the footnotes in the book. Translated from the Latin by Jonathan Perreault. Note: Wycliffe’s reference to “the fourth [day]” seems to be an allusion to Psalm 16:10-11. In Jewish thought, corruption of a dead body would not begin until the fourth day after death; the body was supposed to be really dead by that time (Jn. 11:17, 39). Jewish Christian scholar Alfred Edersheim affirms: “It was the common Jewish idea that corruption commenced on the fourth day”. (Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah [London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1912], 2 Vols., Vol. 2, p. 324.) This Jewish mindset could explain why Jesus waited until the fourth day to raise Lazarus from the dead: by that time there could be no question that Lazarus was indeed really dead, and hence, no question that he was actually raised to life by Jesus. In distinction to Lazarus, Christ “was raised on the third day” (1 Cor. 15:4), thus fulfilling the words of David in Psalm 16:10: “Neither wilt Thou allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay” (see Peter’s explanation in Acts 2:27-32; cf. Acts 10:39-41). Wycliffe seems to be saying that by synecdoche (a figure of speech in which the part is exchanged for the whole, or one idea is exchanged for another associated idea) Christ’s resurrection on the third day still has meaning and significance in regards to the fourth day in Jewish thought. Although Christ in the tomb did not undergo decay, He was nonetheless truly dead and has truly risen!
[3] John Wycliffe, “Sermon XLV [1 Cor. 15:1-11]”, Johann Loserth, Editor, Johannis Wyclif Sermones, Vol. 3 (London: Published for the Wyclif Society by Trubner and Co., 1889), pp. 384, 386, italics his, ellipsis and brackets added. The reference to 1 Cor. 15: 3, 4, 5 is cited in the footnotes in the book. Translated from the Latin by Jonathan Perreault. Note: Wycliffe’s reference to “the fourth [day]” seems to be an allusion to Psalm 16:10-11. In Jewish thought, corruption of a dead body would not begin until the fourth day after death; the body was supposed to be really dead by that time (Jn. 11:17, 39). Jewish Christian scholar Alfred Edersheim affirms: “It was the common Jewish idea that corruption commenced on the fourth day”. (Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah [London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1912], 2 Vols., Vol. 2, p. 324.) This Jewish mindset could explain why Jesus waited until the fourth day to raise Lazarus from the dead: by that time there could be no question that Lazarus was indeed really dead, and hence, no question that he was actually raised to life by Jesus. In distinction to Lazarus, Christ “was raised on the third day” (1 Cor. 15:4), thus fulfilling the words of David in Psalm 16:10: “Neither wilt Thou allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay” (see Peter’s explanation in Acts 2:27-32; cf. Acts 10:39-41). Wycliffe seems to be saying that by synecdoche (a figure of speech in which the part is exchanged for the whole, or one idea is exchanged for another associated idea) Christ’s resurrection on the third day still has meaning and significance in regards to the fourth day in Jewish thought. Although Christ in the tomb did not undergo decay, He was nonetheless truly dead and has truly risen!
No comments:
Post a Comment