Resources for Jesus' Resurrection is a Sign the Father Accepted Jesus' Sacrifice?

[KeithW]

Hello, I am looking for resources to explain the concept that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a sign that the Father accepted the sacrifice of Jesus' death. I have heard and read this idea from different Reformed teachers, but I have never come across a Scriptural exposition of the concept. This is what I'm looking for, hopefully with Scriptures which closely follow this wording.

I tried searching confessions without success. On the internet I found an article at Ligonier Ministries and at Bible.Org. And here at PB I found an excerpt from J. C. Philpot. But these do not point to Scriptures. Instead they only state the concept.

Any help would be appreciated.

 

[Joshua]

I guess I don't really understand the angle. The resurrection is part and parcel to the whole work of Christ for our justification, sanctification, and ultimate glorification. He received a command from the Father both to lay down His life, and to take it up again (John 10), so I do not believe the resurrection was some reaction to Christ's previous work, but was a part of the whole package of His doing, dying, and ascending to His place at the right hand of the Father, interceding for us.

 

[py3ak]

R. S. Candlish, Life in a Risen Saviour explains the point very lucidly.

 

[KeithW]

R. S. Candlish, Life in a Risen Saviour explains the point very lucidly.

This book is available in archive.org. The current link is:
https://archive.org/details/lifeinarisensav00candgoog

Since Candlish's book is a commentary on 1 Corinthians chapter 15 I read that chapter. The only possible place which could open the door for Candlish's view on this specific subject is v.17.

1 Cor. 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.​

He quotes this verse early in his book and follows with these questions. "But how is this? How should the denial of the resurrection of Christ lead to so fatal a result? How does it follow, that if Christ be not raised, my faith is vain, and I am yet in my sins?" He doesn't follow the flow of Paul's thought in the surrounding verses which explains what Paul meant, but instead seems to isolate a specific phrase and wants it to be explained in a certain way. He states, "Paul, indeed, apparently does not apprehend the necessity of an answer; he does not anticipate the putting of any such question at all." Paul did not anticipate Candlish! He then proceeds to speculate on what both Paul and his audience were thinking as Paul wrote this chapter.

In my following of Candlish's argumentation, he seems to have presupposed his conclusion of the text, and all of his argumentation flowed from that presupposition. His argumentation on this specific subject is poor, it takes ideas out of context, and it does not consider anything else Paul may have written on the very subject of what effect denial in a belief of resurrection might have. On the other hand, his argumentation and explanation on other subjects seems to be quite good.

Part of Candlish's conclusion of the argumentation for his viewpoint is, "If this is the real force of the apostle's argument or appeal, and one can scarcely see how otherwise it has any meaning,.." He can see no other possibility.

This is not meant as an extensive criticism of this book. I am only seeking a source with better Scriptural argumentation on this specific subject.

I guess I don't really understand the angle.

My only "angle" is a desire to have my theology founded strongly on Scripture. A multitude of doctrines have been written in the past and we often then take it for granted on whether or not they were based on good argumentation. From the original post,

I have heard and read this idea from different Reformed teachers, but I have never come across a Scriptural exposition of the concept.

 

[py3ak]

Keith, I would suggest you take a look at Discourse IV from Candlish, where he expounds 1 Corinthians 15:18-19.

Christ died for our sins. That much is explicitly stated by Scripture. In so dying for our sins, he behaved as the Lamb of God, crucified from the foundation of the world and taking away our sins. But he also rose again. Now if our sins, so to speak, killed him, what does his resurrection mean? That our sins were overcome, dealt with, put away. In context of the fulfillment of the sacrificial system of the OT, it means that the sacrifice was accepted for us, to make an atonement (e.g., Lev. 1:4). If Christ is not raised, we are still in our sins and those who have fallen asleep in him have perished -- why? Because in that case he would still be dead in our sins. The resurrection is much more than a declaration that God accepted Christ's sacrifice on our behalf; but it is not less than that.

Another way to arrive at a similar result is to ask how Christ's resurrection was for our justification (Rom. 4:25)