Sunday School Questions and Coherent Doctrine
Thinking men and women of this age have been rebelling against the orthodox interpretation of the Bible as presented in denominational creeds.
There is almost no coherence of doctrine in any of our great denominational bodies.
We are confronted with questions which demand answers.
(E.W. Kenyon, The Father and His Family, at 9)
For the past eight months or so, we’ve written over a hundred essays exploring the doctrine of Jesus’s Descent into Hell (Hades). In doing so, we’ve sought out coherence, a straightforward factual narrative of Jesus’s work of redemption. What exactly happened from the time of the Garden until he met Cleopas and the other disciple on the road to Emmaus? What exactly was the depth of his sacrifice to redeem mankind? Was his death physical only? If so, how does that pan out with other scripture? As Kenyon observed, when you ask the hard questions and demand a coherent narrative (and doctrine), the answers will take you far afield from denominational creeds and what some claim to be the “orthodox interpretation” of scripture.
Before turning the corner from his descent to his ascension and getting into the specific scriptures, let’s set the stage. From our past essays, we see Jesus offering himself on the cross and becoming sin (2 Corinthians 5.21 - “he made him sin”) and a curse (Galatians 3.13 - “having become a curse”). As such, he died apart from God (Mark 15.34 - “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” and Hebrews 2.9 - “died apart from God” variant reading). Consistent with the type of the goat to Azazel (see 2 Corinthians 5.21 - A Tale of Two Goats - Azazel), he descended into hades (Ephesians 4.9, Acts 2.27) until he was to be raised by God, the Father. Even when he was raised by the Father (he was then “behind the veil of the flesh” - see Hebrews 10.20), he was still required to present his blood before the Father in order to eternally redeem mankind (Hebrews 9.12 - presented his blood in the holy place).
“Orthodox” Christianity calls this short narrative outright heresy. It says that Jesus could never have become sin, could not have gone to hell, and was not made alive spiritually from sin (or separation from God) while in hell. “Orthodoxy” says that Jesus’s crucifixion was only physical (see McConnell, A Different Gospel at 127-128 - “The atonement of Christ was a physical act involving the shedding of his blood in bodily crucifixion.” ) and anyone who says anything differently is a theological enemy combatant.
Much of the trouble with denominational creeds and our modern orthodoxies is that while their cheerleaders pump up their ballyhooed pedigrees, they can’t give us answers to even the most sophomoric of Sunday school questions:
You say that Jesus never became sin and we know that Lazarus was sinful. We know from John 11 that Lazarus’s body had already started to decompose when Jesus raised him from the dead. You say Jesus’s body never began to decompose (Acts 2.27). Looks to me like the raising of Lazarus was the greater miracle - a sinful man and a decomposed body. Why, then, does Ephesians 1.19-21 -
(And that the surpassing greatness of his power unto us who believe, - According to the energy of the grasp of his might which he energised in the Christ when he raised him from the dead, And seated him at his right hand in the heavenlies, Over-above all principality, authority, and power, and lordship, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the coming one (Rotherham))
demonstrate that the raising of Jesus was the mightiest working ever recorded in the Word of God?
Some NT scholars (“orthodox” scholars, mind you) say that the difference between the resurrections is that Lazarus still had his grave clothes on after he was resurrected and Jesus didn’t. And that is supposed to knock our “because Jesus was raised out of hell” answer out of the running? Are you kidding me?
Instead of jumping on the lemming creed train for the sake of pseudo-orthodoxy, we’re gonna keep on thinkin’ and keep on rebellin’.
Peter,
Graveclothes? That’s almost humorous. The only notable difference between the two resurrections is that Lazarus would die again, Jesus would and could not. If the difference in graveclothes attaches to any meaning whatsoever, that is it.
slw,
“The only notable difference …”
I beg to differ. When Lazarus died, his soul most likely went to Abraham’s bosom. Jesus died apart from God and descended into hell. While in hell, he was raised by the Father, glorified, and made to sit on God’s right hand. Quite a bit more than differences in the physical body.
Yes, Peter, there’s a lot more packed into the difference than my comment implied. It was late when I read your post, and the gravesclothes thing just popped me in the eye, and I fired off a quick response. To hang a doctrinal point on something as flimsy as that is astonishing, and I think we are in agreement on that….
“And that is supposed to knock our “because Jesus was raised out of hell” answer out of the running? Are you kidding me?”
slw, thanks for the response. I don’t know how many times I’ve done the same thing - rip off a response and then find that I didn’t say what I wrote. (yeah, pun intended)
BTW, when we had the IE fiasco, we missed your comments.
Why is Jesus’ resurrection greater than Lazarus’ resurrection?
1.) Jesus’ resurrection established the resurrection as a reality for all men. “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.” (1 Cor 15:21)
2.) Jesus’ resurrection is greater than Lazarus resurrection, because Jesus raised himself from the dead. Lazarus was raised from the dead by Jesus too. But Jesus raised himself by his own power, whereas Lazarus was raised by another person’s power (that being again, Jesus’ power). So Jesus says in John 10:18 “No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.”
3.) The fact that Lazarus after 3 days stunk and was corrupted shows the deity of Christ, for Jesus after 3 days was not corrupt, being that he was God and thus able to make his body remain incorrupt even after it was dead.
On my 3rd point above, your conclusion is the opposite of reality, since you judge the resurrection of a corrupted body as more amazing than a non-corrupt. The point, however, is in Jesus’ power to maintain the incorruptability of his own body even after his soul had departed from it, which clearly is a power that Lazarus did not have, since Lazarus was not God as Jesus is.
Now, the fact is that your doctrine is not from Scripture, but from heretical Calvinism, specifically from Calvin’s Institutes, Book 2, Chapter 16, Section 10, as I note on my blog. [Edited]
egomakarios,
Thanks for the comment. This is the first (and we’ll have to see if it is the last) time that we’ve ever been accused of heretical Calvinism.
Ephesians shows us that God, the Father, raised Jesus from the dead and that is consistent with Romans 4.25. As to your third point, you might take a look at our post on Acts 2.27 (we’re currently putting together our search button).
Again, thanks for the comment.
“Ephesians shows us that God, the Father, raised Jesus from the dead and that is consistent with Romans 4.25.”
But John 10:18 shows how the Father raised Jesus from the dead, namely by giving Jesus a commandment to raise himself from the dead. Jesus said that according to the commandment of his Father, he would lay down his own life and he would take his own life it up again. He clearly presents it as within his power to do this. We recall also that Jesus is the brightness of the Father’s glory, the express image of the Father’s person, and that Jesus upholds all things by the word of his power, according to Hebrews 1:3. We, therefore, must not conceive of his resurrection as being like Lazarus’, by the power of another, seeing he is the very one who upholds all things by the word of his power. Even while in Abraham’s Bosom, he upheld Abraham’s Bosom, and indeed all things.
It is interesting… because Rom 8 says “if the same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead”… so we have Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit all referenced in scripture as raising Christ from the dead… ok… so an interesting question… did one part of the Trinity raise one part of Christ… so in Rom 8 it specifically afterwards talks about “quicking your mortal body”… so was the Spirit responsible for the Body… and say Jesus responsible for the Spirit?… something like that?