B (4:06)

what some would do to Christianity.

A (4:08)

But what we need to remember right

B (4:10)

now is that that is impossible now.

A (4:13)

I think at the end of the

B (4:14)

day, it's impossible to have Judaism without the Old Testament. I think it's also impossible to have Christianity without the death, burial and resurrection

A (4:24)

of the Lord Jesus Christ.

B (4:25)

The resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead. That is to say, I don't believe there is any future for Christians without Christianity. And by that I mean, of course, all that is revealed in Scripture. I want to say that we're on good grounds making this claim. So I want to go ahead and step a little further out on a limb. If Jesus Christ is not raised from the dead, then there is no Christianity, there is no gospel, and we are still dead in our sins and trespasses.

A (4:54)

When I think of this truth and the tandem truths concerning the crucifixion and the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, I think of the apostolic proclamation of the Gospel. And I think the quintessential text, it is always one to which I turn, is 1 Corinthians 15. Because in this passage, Paul writing to the Corinthians, makes this point first, Corinthians 15. Beginning in verse 3, Paul writes, For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures. Okay? In Just a few words. Consider all that is declared there, the central truths of the Christian faith. That Christ died for our sins and that God raised him from the dead. On the third day, he was raised from the dead. Okay, I also want you to note something else. In both of those statements, the Apostle Paul finishes where he says that Christ died for our sins. He goes on to say in accordance with the Scriptures and that he was buried. That he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. This is just so rich. It reminds us that Biblical Christianity is the only Christianity. The Gospel revealed in the Holy Scriptures is the only gospel. The doctrine that is revealed in Holy Scripture is the only true doctrine. And here that doctrine is summarized, as is so often the case in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, you have summaries of the faith as God had delivered it to Moses and to the prophets. You have, in the New Testament, the Christian faith, the Gospel distilled into several passages where we are basically told, this is the summary of the faith. This is the bare minimum of the faith. That's exactly what Paul says here. He says that he delivered this message as of first importance to the church there in Corinth, and that he did so in accordance with the Scriptures. In other words, the Apostle Paul says, here are the two most important things you need to know about Jesus Christ. Number one, he died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures. And secondly, that God raised him from the dead in accordance with the Scriptures. Those are the two pillars. And of course, we find that we are at this point in the Christian calendar where we once again, just in the cycle of the Christian tradition in the course of a year. We are back at the declaration on the day we dare to call the Good Friday, where we speak of the very Lamb of God, the Son of God, God in human flesh, true God and true man, where he dies on the cross as our substitute, the Father imputed to the Son the sins of all the redeemed in such a way that Christ purchased our salvation. And then, of course, his vindication and a continuation, the completion of a saving work, is the fact that God raised Christ from the dead. So I just want to remind you all, I want to remind all of us, as we are commemorating, of course, every Sunday is the day in which we celebrate the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead. That's what is declared in the New Testament. And so this is not something we declare only on what is set aside as the festival of the resurrection. Every single Lord's Day is a celebration of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ and every single proclamation of the Gospel is the affirmation of the substitutionary atonement accomplished by the Lord Jesus Christ for us and for our salvation. But it is really sweet to see how simply the Apostle Paul clarifies this for the Church. How simply he clarifies the that these two things are absolutely necessary for our salvation. That Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. Thus we preach the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. We preach the good news of salvation of sinners from our sin precisely because of who Jesus is and what he did. So to bring it back. Let's just remind ourselves and this is not something that is lamentable. This is something that is glorious. And that is the fact that there is no Christianity without the risen Christ. There is no salvation from our sins without the crucified Christ. There is no hope for humanity apart from the truthfulness of what we celebrate and commemorate on Good Friday and on the Sunday we celebrate the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead. There is no Christianity without the crucified and resurrected Christ. There's nothing left. But Christ did die for our sins and he was raised gloriously on the third day. And thus, brothers and sisters, we are saved. Okay, now let's turn to questions. As always, I appreciate the questions sent in. We're going to take a range of questions today with the time that remains, and we'll get some particular attention to questions related to the crucifixion and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Very interesting question came in from a nurse practitioner who says that this listener is a daily listener to the briefing. I really appreciate that. And this nurse practitioner says, a couple years ago I came across the debate about John 1934, where John writes that water and blood came out of Jesus side when he was pierced. Do you think that was water that flowed out of Jesus side or do you think it was postmortem plasma or an effusion that John saw? In case you aren't familiar, he says it is common for plasma separation to occur post mortem, which would explain why clear liquid would come up before blood. If it was precardial effusion, then it will be clear liquid drainage that was surrounding the heart. Okay, so let me just tell you, I am not a nurse practitioner. I am neither a nurse nor a practitioner. When it comes to issues related to medicine. But I do understand the question because this has been an issue of discussion, especially in the English speaking Protestant world for some time. And the bottom line is I have no idea exactly how all these things came together. I can say that I believe because of the authority of God's word, that the observational reality was that it was water and blood that came out. Exactly how that happens or what that means, and frankly, what would be the water content of the effusion as you define it here? I just simply don't know. I will tell you, it's not wrong to ask the question, but it is simply right to declare the fact that for us and for our salvation, Christ died on the cross and suffered and died precisely for our sins in such a way that his death was made absolutely manifest by the fact that following observations about death, when his side was pierced, water came out and then blood, clear liquid. So let me just say, observationally, I'm not able to speak exactly of the composition, but I appreciate the question sent in and the point made. But the point is that all of this came together absolutely perfectly in the perfect obedience of Christ for us and for our salvation. Okay. Another very interesting question that was sent in. This is from a listener who, by the way, is an alumnus of Boyce College. I'm very glad to know that. And looking through John's gospel, this listener writes in saying, quote, I've been wrestling with a question about Thomas doubting. Do you think that there's a difference between Thomas's doubt and that of many modern atheists and unbelievers? Or do you think that Thomas doubting was different than atheistic doubt in some way? To put it another way, is Thomas Doubt a kind of believer's doubt that, while sinful, might be akin to the father of the demonized boy in Mark 9 who cried out to Jesus, lord, I believe, help my unbelief. Yeah, I think it's a very good question and I think I would reframe it just slightly. I think I would have to say right up front that Thomas is affirmed first as a believer and then secondly as a doubter. And that doubt was not a permanent doubt. As a matter of fact, he came face to face with the risen Christ. And Christ, understanding his doubt, actually commanded him to put his hand in his side in order to see that he was indeed the crucified Christ who was raised from the dead. And, you know, the declaration comes then that blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe. So here's the interesting thing. I don't think Thomas is held up as a model we are to emulate, but he is held up as an honest model we are to understand. And quite frankly, at times, at times any one of us may be Thomas like. And we are desperately in need of the sovereignty of Christ and the ministry of the Holy Spirit to us in such a way that that doubt is overcome. But I do want to say that I think the model of Thomas is of a believer doubting, not of a doubter believing. And that's an important way. I would mean to say this. In other words, I think Thomas had followed Christ, he had stayed with Christ. He clearly is wavering, but he's wavering in belief, he's not wavering in unbelief. And so I think that's also important for us to recognize. The Bible doesn't valorize doubt in any form. It's just honest about doubt. And I think that this is very, very helpful to us. And I think it's not the case that most Christians are like Thomas, but I think it is true that most Christians have Thomas moments. And this is where we need the same grace and mercy of Christ directed to us that was directed to Thomas. And yet again, even as the Scripture says, blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe. And so the simple proclamation of the Gospel, the simple proclamation of biblical truth should be sufficient. But we understand that we are weak vessels. And so from time to time we may have Thomas moments. Thanks be to God. Those who are in Christ are kept to Christ in such a way that that doubt does not become a, it does not become a distraction long term in terms of the long story for faithfulness in Christ. Okay, another listener writing in from Puerto Rico, very, very glad to receive this, writes in and this is one of those listeners who knows and is paying attention to doctrinal conversations. And I appreciate the fact that this is an informed question. So you're going to be, if you don't know about all this, you're going to be informed even by how this listener asked the question. Here's what he says. He says one of the more common arguments I've come across, especially with authors like John Mark Comer channeling NT Wright is that's a, that's a pastor channeling a well known New Testament scholar in the UK is for a Christus Victor view of the atonement. It seems like Christus Victor is true in that Jesus did overcome evil powers on the cross, for example John 12:31. But I do not understand why there is such Hostility towards holding both the Christus victor and the penal substitutionary view of the atonement as descriptions of a different array of things that God accomplished through the cross of Christ. Are these two in contradiction to one another? And why do you think there's such animosity towards penal substitutionary atonement right now? Oh, I love this question. And we are thrown right into the deep end of the pool. And trust me, this is important. Okay, so we are talking about different models of the atonement. What happened in the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ? What was happening on the cross? What happened in light of the empty tomb? What was God doing? Why did Christ die? For what effect did Christ die? Did Christ die as simply an illustration to us of how much God loves us? There's biblical language about the cross revealing the unspeakable love of Christ for us. But his death was not merely a revelation, a message, as much as his obedience to the cross is something that comes to us as that overpowering message of how much God loves us. But it's not just a message of how much God loves us.

B (17:16)

In the Christus victor model, and by

A (17:18)

the way, this has a long lineage

B (17:20)

in terms of the history of the Christian church going back to the early Church fathers. The Christus victor model is that what was the essence of Christ's work and his work in atonement was to defeat the powers of evil, to defeat sin

A (17:35)

and the power of evil in such

B (17:36)

a way that he is revealed in the resurrection as Christ, the victorious one. And it is not so much in that understanding of the atonement centered on a substitution for sin or the removal of a judicial penalty, but it is more about the great cosmic battle that Christ won on the cross and which was vindicated in his resurrection. Okay, now, the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement is, I believe, the main New Testament message. I also believe it's irreducible and it's undeniable. That is to say, I believe if you reject a penal substitutionary understanding of the atonement, you're in big theological trouble. Penal substitution. Penal means he died paying the penalty for our sin, that penalty paid in full. He died in our place in terms of substitution. He died in our place. He died in the. In the specific place of specific sinners for the total payment of sin. He died in our place in such a way that had he not borne our sin on the cross, we who are sinners, who come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, our sin would still be upon us. But Instead, the Father imputed our guilt and our sin to His Son on the cross in light of His Son's perfect obedience. And. And he who was true God and true man died on the cross in such a way that our penalty for those who are in Christ is removed. And he was our substitute, paying the full penalty of our sin. Our sin and guilt was imputed to him by the Father righteously because he required a full penalty for sin, and Christ provided the full penalty for our sin.

A (19:27)

Okay, so that penal substitutionary, you might say, model of the atonement. I think it's absolutely essential. I think it's absolutely necessary. I think it's right in what I just read. It's in wonderful text, 2 Corinthians 5, 21. Just incredibly important texts that just center us in the essence of the Gospel. But the question that's asked here is, can there be elements of these different models that are true? Well, let me even go back to the imitation of Christ model, the more subjective model. You know, the cross does have that effect on us because among the redeemed, because it does show us the love of God. It is incredibly moving. But if the Gospel comes down to the cross being just something that moves us, we're dead in our sins and trespasses, it does move us. Therein is the love of God, infinite love, displayed for us. But we are saved because of Christ's full obedience and absolutely achieving our atonement by his substitutionary death. So this listener says, can there be elements of both? I just want to say, yes, of course there can be elements. There can be something contributed to the fullness of our understanding of the cross. But here's the issue. I believe that if you deny the penal substitutionary dimension, which is, I believe, central to. To the New Testament revelation of the cross and the resurrection, I think you're missing the Gospel. And so I just want to say, I think there are those who would like to get away from a penal substitutionary model for all kinds of theological reasons that I will just say are downright dangerous and when it comes to theology, can be absolutely deadly. And I appreciate this listener in Puerto Rico asking this final question. And why do you think there's such animosity toward penal substitutionary atonement right now? Well, I think it's in the New Testament. I think the cross has its enemies. I think there are those who see the revelation of the cross as the just penalty for our sin, Christ as the substitute who dies in our place, sin requiring that substitutionary atonement for Our salvation. I think there are people who want to deny that, and. And I think, first of all, it's a great insult to human pride. It is also something that is rather awkward if you're bent towards liberal theology. This is just awfully messy and bloody. But of course, that's exactly what it is, and that's exactly how the New Testament is declared to us. And the Bible itself tells us without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. So if you have a problem with blood atonement, you've got a really big problem. All right. I really appreciated a question coming from a listener, and he wrote and said in one of the briefing episodes prior to Christmas, you answered a question about your favorite Christmas hymns with Resurrection Sunday this week. I was wondering if you have any favorite Resurrection or Easter hymns. He said, I'd love to hear them. Okay. Boy, do I have an answer to this question. I just have to tell you that one of the hymns I most love singing in the entire hymnal is Christ the Lord Is Risen Today. And I believe it should be sung more than just on the Resurrection Sunday. It is the declaration of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead. And I just think it's absolutely glorious. And thankfully, it's available in several good recordings, but even more so, thankfully, it's just sung, you know, in our churches. And we need to sing it with. With absolute gusto and just great joy, unspeakable joy. It's one of those songs in which the words and the music, they just match in that absolutely joyous declaration that Christ the Lord is risen today. There are some others that are sweet, sweet songs, even from the revivalist era. But I want to mention one that I just really love, and it's not one you hear so often in churches, and that is the hymn Thine Is the Glory, and it is based upon the tune. Usually it is accompanied by the tune, a joyous, joyous chorus from George William Frederick Handel and from his oratorio Judas Maccabeus. And I just have to tell you, I have even heard those two fused together in one unit. And so I'm just going to tell you, there are a lot of things coming out of the pulpit at the chapel at Duke University I would not approve of. But let me just tell you, There is a YouTube you can find of Easter or Resurrection Sunday at Duke Chapel. And there is the most glorious arrangement

B (24:12)

of Christ the Lord Is Risen Today

A (24:15)

and Thine Is the Glory put together. And I can just tell you there's hardly A week that I don't play that loudly and just revel in the truth that is there.

B (24:25)

So boldly declared, Christ the Lord is risen today.

A (24:29)

Thine is the glory. It's just absolutely glorious to sing this, isn't it? Any Sunday of the year, any day of the year, any day of our lives. Amen. All right, I am going to work in one more question. And it's simply because it's asked by a five year old little boy. And I think it is just so sweet, it is so precious. You just need to hear this, especially with Sunday coming. Here's his question. If the Bible says that man can't see God and live, why didn't the people who saw Jesus die? And you know, I want to say to this little boy, that is one of the smartest questions I've ever heard. And it's one of the most important questions I could be asked. And here's the answer. The New Testament tells us that Jesus truly God and truly man. And we are told that he came as the Father sent him and he assumed a human body, true human body, in order to be like us. And so that the one who is true God and true man in one could come before us, could reveal Himself to us, could teach us, could perform miracles, and eventually would die on the cross and be raised from the empty tomb for our salvation. And the sweet thing is that it is the Father's plan that his own glory be revealed safely to us, safely to us in the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is the fact that Jesus became a little human baby. And that's one of the reasons why we talked about an Easter hymn, a resurrection hymn. Let me go back to a famous Christian hymn, Veiled in Flesh, the Godhead Sea. I know those are big words. Let me tell you what it means. It means that God the Father revealed Himself in the Son perfectly, but veiled in such a way that he showed Himself to us so that we could look at Jesus and not die. But you know, I want to say this, little boy, you're exactly, exactly right. Even Moses had to be hidden in the cleft of the rock as the presence of the Father passed by so that he could live. And let's just be so thankful that the Father sent the Son in order that we may see Him. And of course, I meant the disciples. As you asked a question. Those who saw him could see him and live. And you know, by faith, that's exactly what we get to do. What a sweet question, a smart question. Thanks for asking this question. It should make us all celebrate all the more as we think about these truths and as we get ready for worship today and Sunday. I want to thank all who sent questions. I pray that all of these are for God's glory and for our good. May it be so. Jesus Christ is risen indeed. Thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information, go to my website@albertmuller.com you can follow me at x or Twitter by going to x.comalbertmohler for information on the Southern Baptist Theological seminary, go to spts.edu. for information on Boyce College, just go to boycecollege.com I'll meet you again on Monday for the briefing.