Sunday School | Post-Gospel Death of Christ References

We are knee-deep in the series looking at all the major doctrines of Christianity. We're running through all kinds of things, but we're in a subset right now talking about Christology, the doctrine of the second person of the Trinity. As we look at Christ's ministry, we've talked about his incarnation and his birth, his obedient life, his miracles, his teaching, and we've gotten to the point where we're talking about his death.

There are a few more things we want to talk about because Jesus is unlike most people—Jesus' story doesn't end with his death. We're going to move on and talk about his resurrection, his ascension, his reign, his giving of the Spirit, his intercession for sinners, and his coming again to restore all things. But right now we're talking about his death, and the lens through which we have talked about the death of Christ is what we call the theories of atonement.

I would suggest that there are three primary theories that are true. First, penal substitutionary atonement, which is what most evangelicals are most familiar with—which is true and good and necessary. We've also talked about the atonement theory called Christus Victor, that it was the defeat of Satan. He won, and not just in his resurrection but even in his very death he was defeating Satan by the cross. And then finally, the moral exemplar, that the cross is a picture of the life that we are to live. We looked at all those, and that's relatively honestly a pretty comprehensive look at his cross.

However, I want to do one more thing before we move on from his death and share with you this resource which I emailed out. If you're on our email list, you received this this week. And if you're not, all you have to do is email chsdoctorin@gmail.com, and we'll add you to the list so I can send you a copy of this and whatever else we have going on.

I sent this out so you have a chance to look at it ahead of time, which perhaps some of you remembered to do and probably most of you didn't, and that's okay. What this is—I went through the New Testament a couple years ago and made note of every time the New Testament, post-gospels, talks about the death of Christ. Every single time the cross gets mentioned. It was a really fun project to do, to run through it and read through it without a lens. If you've never done an exercise like that, I would recommend it. It's actually interesting to read through the New Testament with a particular filter on it like this.

I have some Bible software that helps me make note of passages and copy them out. If you want to know how I do that, I could show you sometime. But when I did it, I created this compilation of every time the New Testament ever refers back to the cross. I've read through this a number of times, and I think it's pretty stunning to see all of them compiled into one.

So I give this to you in the hopes that as you're walking through this Lenten season leading up to Holy Week, this might be something you would choose to take some time and read through. All we're going to do for this class today is look at this together. I've gone through and created my own annotated version where I made note of all the things that were striking to me. Some of the things that struck me might strike you, or very likely something else. Different keys turn different locks, and there may be something here that grabs you.

Looking at Post-Gospel References to the Cross

Here's what I mean. The very first time that the cross of Christ is mentioned after the gospels is, as you might expect, the book of Acts. Acts follows immediately after John, and in the third verse it says:

After his suffering he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of 40 days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

When I read through this, I'm like—I had never noticed before that the first time the cross is referenced, the circumlocution that is used is "his suffering." It could have said "after his atonement," "after the death," "after the cross," "after his crucifixion," anything. But what it says is "after his suffering." That struck me.

That's such an apt description of the cross—it was just so unspeakably miserable. And then if you skim through, you'll see that there's a number of other times that the cross is described in those same terms.

In Acts 17:3, explaining and improving that Christ had to suffer

Acts 26:23, that Christ would suffer and as the first to rise from the dead

As you skim through these, you'll find that it's just a handful of times.

Philippians 3:10, Paul wants to enter into the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings

Other places it's called his afflictions, there in Colossians 1. But those are the sorts of things I'm just looking forward—I don't have any particular target here. I just like, okay, what? How does the New Testament reflect on the cross, and what are the lessons that we can draw from that?

What Do You Notice?

Having said that, some of you may have had five seconds to look at this, some of you may have been looking at this for a couple of days. But of this total compendium of references to the cross, what do you notice? What are some of the lessons that you took, or things that struck you as you see these things?

When you look at these things, as you go through, you're gonna find not only language of suffering, but you're gonna see that in Acts 4, it's called a conspiracy. Sometimes it says in Acts 5 that he was killed. In Acts 7, look at how the crucifixion is described—it's a betrayal and a murder. In Acts 8, it's a slaughter. In Acts 13, it's an execution. That it actually might be interesting just to go through: How does it refer to it? It's a murder. It's a betrayal. It's a slaughter. It's an execution. It's a whole bunch of—we make this whole list—and there might be something in there that, as you look at that, might give new insight, new facets to what was going on. Death penalty—yes, it is a biblical death penalty. And in fact, that's curious. The only time that Jesus ever commented on the death penalty was when he commented on his own.

He was talking to Pilate, and he told Pilate: "You would have no authority to kill me unless it was granted to you from above."

He is affirming—it's crazy that Pilate had the authority to execute him, even though it was a betrayal and a murder and all these things.

What's curious about this is when you read—you see the word "you" a lot, right?

"This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge, and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death, nailing him to a cross."

And then it's gonna say this is a bunch of these. Well, they respond:

"We gave strict orders not to teach in this name, yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood."

The contemporaries—it's always Peter. Peter's always the one who's like, "You did this. You murdered him. You betrayed him." And they're like, "Oh, stop hanging this on us."

"Whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree."

It just shows up over and over again. And then what's curious is that language drops off. Because after you get out of the book of Acts, Paul's not gonna speak that way. When Paul talks about the crucifixion of Christ, it's not in language of "you murdered him," but can you guess where it picks back up again in the New Testament? In Peter's letters. Peter's still ticked off about this, right?

When Peter says, "Let's see—you get more—let's see where we go." Go to the Peter section. He's gonna get back on "the stone the builders rejected." He's gonna say—and there's another one I can't find it—there's another one where Peter gets more pointed, and it's just not as fresh. He's not as angry about it as he was in the book of Acts. Maybe it's just the rejection language: rejected by God, rejected by men, chosen by God. "The stone the builders rejected, he suffered for you." Yeah, but that's still more of Jesus's agreement, Jesus's cooperation with this is in there. But you get—Peter was hot in the book of Acts. Super ticked about the whole thing, right?

What other observations do you get here? "Acts, deprived of justice—deprived of justice." Really speaks to our time and our generation. Yes, absolutely. And that you can add that to that list: It was an execution, it was a murder, it was a betrayal, it was an abrogation of justice. Absolutely. Yeah, what else do you guys see as you kind of flip through this, the references of the—

Okay, so it's not just that he's killed—that he's buried, he's laid in the grave. Kelly, Suit, and Acts 3, he says: "You killed the author of life." It's just so much—that's not just you took his life away, you took away the author, right? The great irony of this: the author of life is killed. And how is that even possible, right?

Now you're gonna find—well, I'll just, you keep going. I'll wait for the lulls, but give me your thoughts here. What do you notice? This is harder to do, I know on the first pass here. Gil, Romans 5:10?

Absolutely, it's totally insane that he would do this.

So that's Romans 5:8 of course is famous, and Romans 5:10.

Romans 5:8 demonstrates his love for us, and while we were still sinners Christ died for us. And then if while we were God's enemies we are reconciled to him through the death of his son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life. — Romans 5:8-10

You'll see if you stick around in that section: how many times is the death of Christ referenced as being for us, right? So in 5:6, "Christ died for us"—the purpose of it was to reconcile us. You see in Romans 5:15 that it was a gift, right? It's fascinating to see the ways that the cross is described. It's a gift, it's a reconciling act. That's helpful with our theories of atonement.

Look at this one. I think Romans 5:18 is interesting. The cross here is not described as a murder, as a betrayal, as an execution. It's described as an act of righteousness, that it was an obedience.

Consequently, just as the result of one trespass—that's Adam's sin, by the way—was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. — Romans 5:18

That one act of righteousness is unmistakable. If you read Romans 5, that is the cross. The cross was an act of righteousness, even as it was an act of somebody else's disobedience.

For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. — Romans 5:19

We could make a big long list: the cross is simultaneously righteousness and obedience, betrayal and murder—depends on which side of the thing you stand.

By the way, if folks are still coming in, we still got a bunch of these. Does anybody—anybody made it in and they snuck past Bob? Made me one of these? Judy? Jake? You guys need him here? Just run it. You can run around for a minute—just that'll be nice to people.

Okay, so Kelly, Suit. Okay, this is so good.

Kelly says in Romans 6 you begin to see language of our joining in that, and that you're exactly right.

The Romans 6 is really the place for that. This was a tricky thing when I made this document—it's like, first of all, what counts? Like one, is he talking about the cross? It could be. Is this act of righteousness the cross? The answer is it is, but it may not be immediately obvious. And then we're gonna have this other thing where he says in Romans 6:

Don't you know that all of us who are baptized in Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead to the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. — Romans 6:3-4

This is the baptism—this water baptism—will put you into the tank. We're symbolically burying you in death and bringing you out in resurrection. And Paul's whole point of Romans 6 is: we are united with him in his death. His death becomes our death. And Paul's gonna say that over and over and over again.

In fact, I'm not sure we can do it quickly, but if you stay in Romans 6, you'll notice there—let's see, there's a bunch more. But let me see if we can find him. You guys are welcome to try to beat me to it.

The cross certainly, by the time he gets to Galatians, he's gonna talk about it several times, but maybe even before that. Look at Galatians 2:20.

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live; Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. — Galatians 2:20

So Paul sees that he is entering into that crucifixion. He doesn't—in Corinthians, where does he do it? In Corinthians, well, certainly when we take communion. According to Paul, he says, look at 1 Corinthians 10:

Is not the cup of Thanksgiving—he's talking about this, the Lord's table for which we give thanks—a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? — 1 Corinthians 10:16

And then he's gonna do it again. Maybe you could look at 2 Corinthians 1:

Just as the sufferings of Christ overflow into our lives. — 2 Corinthians 1:5

That's moral exemplar, by the way. We are imitating him. We are entering into his sufferings. For 2 Corinthians 4:

We carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. — 2 Corinthians 4:10

Right. So there is something to this—it's not merely a thing that we observe, but we are participants in.

We are crucified with him—his death becomes our death. There's a whole world of theology in that. Thanks for pointing that out, Kelly. Bianca, that Romans 15:3—that is priced in that place itself, and this document kind of has a different perspective, right? Yes, as you were saying, we can participate in his suffering if I'm reading this correctly. And the context in Psalms—he's participating in the insults that were directed towards the Israelites and those who were faithful. Yes, okay.

So let me restate that first. I'll talk about it. So Bianca's looking at Romans 15:3, which says:

For even Christ did not please himself, but as it is written, "The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me." — Romans 15:3

Now, this would be one that you might be like, "Is that about that? Why did you include that in your document? Is that really about the cross?" And my answer—I think it is, obviously, because that's why I wrote it. But when it says "the insults of those who insult you have fallen on me," I think he's referring to the totality of his suffering.

And yes, Jesus could have avoided it. When he's in the garden, it says, "Father, if there's any way we can accomplish the purpose for which I come without me going to the cross, can we do that? If this cup can pass from me, let it do so." Obviously, he doesn't want to get crucified—it's terrible. However, just as there is in all of us multiple layers of will, right? You simultaneously want six-pack abs and a donut, right? So which is it? There is a moment where your will is constantly conflicted. And when Jesus's will is conflicted between avoiding the insults and the agony and the misery and the humiliation and the degradation and the just terrible, terrible suffering of the cross, or giving the Father what he wants—he's like, "Well, okay. I will subdue this will in preference to that will." Okay? So he does that. He does not please himself. He does not give himself the one thing he wants. Instead, he gives himself the other thing he wants, which is the smile of his Father. Okay, so that's the setup for that verse.

And then Bianca, say again your observation about that Psalm? It's like, my Bible reference goes back to the Psalm of David in 69: "For zeal for your house is eating me up, and there approaches insults of those who approach and insult you have fallen on me." Yes. Love for the Lord—it's like he can't stand while... I guess I'm trying to knit those together, right? So he's got such a love for the Lord, and everybody that's coming against the Lord—he's taking that on himself, like he's gonna rally against those that are against the Lord. And then on the reciprocal side of it is the Lord hanging on the insults that are directed at it. Yes, okay, exactly.

So what Bianca is saying—in case you couldn't hear—is that this quote is from Psalm 69. Psalm 69 is one of those really profound crucifixion Psalms. And if you read through Psalm 69, you back... okay, obviously, this is about the crucifixion of Christ. And it is. And that Jesus—that the author here, Paul, is applying that to Christ, saying: So do you see it? He saw the shame and the degradation that is inflicted upon the Lord's people, and he just embraced it. Okay? Not only does he do that, but then we are invited to do the same thing.

Let me show you maybe the most pointed version of that. Going to an actual Bible—well, it's probably in here, but go to Hebrews 13, and we'll see kind of the classic take on that. Look at... hang on, you got to bear with me here, okay? Go to Hebrews 13:11. Check this out:

The high priest carries the blood of animals into the most holy places as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. — Hebrews 13:11

The idea is that the gross work, the disgusting work, we're going to do that someplace else because it's too gross. We don't do that in the camp, okay? So the bodies are burned outside the camp. Verse 12:

And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy. — Hebrews 13:12

The cross did not take place at center stage. It was in the ghetto. He was crucified in the ghetto. And then the author of Hebrews says:

Let us then go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace that he bore. — Hebrews 13:13

There is something about being associated with the Lord that is disgraceful, that is humiliating, that looks like failure and weakness. We burn the bodies outside the camp. Jesus was crucified outside the camp. And we too are those who go to him outside the camp. We would rather be center stage where all the love and admiration flows freely, but we don't. The cross is outside, and we follow him outside. And the insults that fall upon him will fall upon us as well, because we are co-participants in that cross. That's what's being said there.

Cool, okay. Gil, I like Galatians 6:12 and 6:14. He's talking about those who make a good impression outwardly and are trying to compel you to be a certain size...

So Gil is looking at Galatians 6:12 and 14. Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ.

But may I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ through which the world has been crucified to me and I to the world. — Galatians 6:14

Kelly, this goes back a little bit to the participation in the cross. When the cross killed me—I died to the world when he died on the cross, and the world died to me. Because of that, because of our participation with him, our union with him in the cross, we're no longer chasing likes on Facebook. That's what that means, right? We're no longer concerned about getting points. The whole world lives to get points, right? Because you're so smart, you're so pretty, you're so funny, you're so whatever you are. We just love to collect points. But we're over the points game because we're dead. We died to the world and the world has died to us. And therefore his smile is our smile, and we don't need all your fake monopoly money anymore because we found real currency. That's what that is saying.

Nate, you said in the last message that nothing matters when you go to the grave—nothing matters when your earthbound doesn't matter. That happened on TikTok, Instagram, Facebook. That's right. It relativizes the significance of all sorts of other things.

Who is Responsible for the Cross?

Stephanie, I noticed that Romans 3:32 is one of these passages where two of the Trinity are talking about God the Father being opposed to Jesus. This is great—I was hoping somebody was going to bring this up.

You could run through these and say who's responsible. In fact, why don't you take a minute? Find the cross passages that comment on the responsibility for the cross.

In Romans 8:32, who's responsible for the death of Jesus? The Father is unmistakable.

He did not spare his own son but gave him up for us all. — Romans 8:32

The subject of the verb "give" is the Father. Where else do you see responsible parties?

Nate, Acts? Yes, so we are the cause of his death. Very good. Peter and Acts says:

You with the help of wicked men put him to death.

So it was the Father. There's a sense that it was us. There's a sense that it was the religious leaders of the day.

Kelly, Ephesians 2:14-16. Who's responsible there? So he himself is our peace.

He made the two one and destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose—meaning he was doing this on purpose—so he himself is our peace who made the two one and destroyed the barrier the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace. — Ephesians 2:14-16

You could go maybe even a little bit more explicit if you go one verse down. Ephesians 5:

Christ loved us and gave himself up for us. — Ephesians 5:2

Same thing in Ephesians 5. And in the husband and wife passage, he gave himself up for her.

So Jesus, the Son, is responsible. No, it's the Father who was responsible. No, it's the wicked religious leaders that are responsible. No, it is we who are responsible. Hear this: depending on how you look at this, a lot is going on here. A lot of parties participating in this death—betrayal, murder, execution, obedience, act of righteousness. It's a lot going on.

Brad, Acts 4:10 and 4:27? Yes, absolutely. Now we have not just the Jewish leadership, but the Roman leadership as well. And you see it as a conspiracy.

Dan, the insensitivity that was going around Jerusalem at the time—because inside Jerusalem, life was going on while this horrible thing was going on outside. But that was the Roman Empire. They were cruel and they killed people indiscriminately. They dragged people behind chariots. So that was the side of the times—it was cruel. It's just another day in the life.

Diane was observing that it just seems like people are buying bread and going to the store and just doing stuff. Can you imagine going back in time to Jerusalem on the day of the crucifixion of Jesus and you're just working on your taxes? It's like the most important thing happening in the world. But from the Roman perspective, how many crucifixions a day? This is a constant stream of cruelty and barbarism. Just another day in the life. And yet the most significant thing that ever happened.

So Pontius Pilate—they almost defend Pontius Pilate, okay? And there's something fair about that, right? He tries to wash his hands of this, but he doesn't. He's cowardly. And this is an example—I think you could make the case that one of the highest moral virtues there is is courage. Because it's easy to do the right thing when it's not costly. But for Pilate, he knew—he knew that it was wrong—he crucified Jesus—but he just did not have the courage to do it. And it was that cowardice that led to this.

Now, is the foreknowledge and predestination of God that it would come to pass? But what are those by whom it comes? You know, so it's rough. Booker, Stephen's speech to the city, okay? So we're going to Acts 7:8, yeah? Okay, it begins with the high priest saying, "Are these things so?" And Stephen ends with, "Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And then killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the righteous one you have now betrayed and murdered." Yeah, absolutely. So there's another who's responsible for it—these religious leaders are responsible for it, okay?

I don't remember reading so many times that the phrase "hung on a tree," okay? Carlton, thank you. I want to say it was somewhere in the Old Testament, and I want to say around Deuteronomy, that that phrase was used. Wasn't it like an example of God's curse or something? Capital punishment—that phrase was specifically used for that. It's a lot different than just being crucified. Like, there was some kind of symbolism that went with it.

Yes, okay. So let's go to Galatians. You guys can go to Galatians 3. I'll just read you these: Acts 5 and Acts 5:30—it says, "Whom you killed by hanging him on a tree." And then in Acts 10, "They killed him by hanging him on a tree." And then Acts 13, "When they carried out all those written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb."

And you might be thinking, "Well, hang on a second. I thought they like nailed the wood, you know? Was it a cross or was it a tree?" It was a cross. It was a tree that had been cut down, turned into branches, nailed together, nailed, okay? But they always use this language of tree. And so if you go to Galatians 3—let's see where we're going to be. Galatians 3, pick it up. I don't know, we'll start on verse 10.

All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the book of the law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because "the righteous will live by faith." — Galatians 3:10-11

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." — Galatians 3:13

And that's the line that you're looking for. And where is that from? I should have looked that up. Deuteronomy 21?

And so that's probably why Peter is using this framing of it being on a tree. It wasn't that they literally crucified him on an oak or something, but it is a reference back to the shame and the degradation—that your body is left out and exposed and not buried. But it is strange. There are certain phrases—it's funny when you read the New Testament—there are certain phrases that seemed very colloquial to them and very common to them that we never use, right? We never would talk about "the tree." We always talk about "the cross." We almost never say "Christ Jesus." We say "Jesus Christ," but the New Testament says "Christ Jesus" all the time. There's just so many phrases that, when you see them all strung together, it's just odd. Why do you do it that way? But that was their language, probably Deuteronomy 21:22 or 23. And it at the end of 21, so great, great catch.

The Power of the Cross

Other things you noticed here—when you look at all these cross allusions, what? Yeah, yeah, come back. The Corinthians, right off the bat, chapter 1:17 and 1:18 and 1:19, about the power, power, okay? Power of God. There's a connection there. Very good. I love that.

Okay, so go back to this. Go to 1 Corinthians. Where is 1 Corinthians? So it starts off—I think the first time is 1:17. I might be wrong. For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power, okay?

Now, Bob was talking about how many times the cross is alluded to with power. It's not just shame and degradation and weakness and insult, but it is a flex. So in 1:17—

Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. — 1 Corinthians 1:17

And later on, he's going to say in 1:20, let's see—it's kind of the end of that big paragraph:

We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. — 1 Corinthians 1:23-25

And that sets the language.

Of power in the context of weakness. His wisdom is your foolishness, his strength is your weakness. In between there, the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. It's just the ironic ways we can describe this. It is foolishness. It is power. It is betrayal. It is obedience. There's so much converging here. This is like the nexus of the totality of the human experience.

Okay, powers a big deal. Laura Beth, I know you said that you specifically pull these verses because they are specifically about the cross. But as I'm reading them, the cross and some of them—just his entire life, his entire life was suffering.

That's a great point. So Laura Beth is observing that though these are about the cross, you could zoom out a little bit. Well, is it just about that day? Are all these verses? Some of these verses aren't just about those six hours, but they describe the totality of his life. He suffered much more than just on the cross, right? So the cross is the focus, the concentration of what he is, but it wasn't an anomaly for his nature. He was obedient every day, right? He was willing to enter into people's shame every day. When he befriends these women of low moral character and people looked down their noses at him, he was entering into shame. And then when he goes to the cross and he's crucified in his underwear, it's just a more pointed expression of what his very nature was, right?

Zach, I'm noticing as I'm reading these, I'm trying to add the lens of time when these books were written—as a placement for this. It got like most of Acts written almost immediately after she's that. And then over time, Paul's letters for like 40 years in there. And then you got Hebrews a little bit later, Revelations later. Yes, that's right. It's a—and so you do see a sense of almost a development over time. I'm seeing a development, change of the some of the language. It's right—it's almost like processing the personal-ness of what happened. And now we're seeing it's not only is it necessary, but then the language changes to a connection to the Old Testament of the sacrifices that were necessary. Jesus's sacrifice was necessary. It's the use of the word lame in Revelations.

Zach, I think you're exactly right. So Zach's observing that there's a progression of thought as you look at this going through it. It makes sense that in Acts 4, Peter's just so hurt and so angry and so outraged by it, and that's reflected in the way he talks about it. And then Paul is writing about things, you know, a decade or two decades later, after more reflection, more discovery, more understanding of, "Oh my gosh, right?" And you know, there's things that you knew when you were 40 that you didn't know when you were 35, and there will be things that you know when you're 70 that you didn't know when you were 55. And so we see it—not that things are changing, it's not that they're moving from inaccurate to more accurate, right? But they're going from incomplete to more complete. And we all do. And the New Testament and the Old Testament both have what we would call a progressive revelation, where more things are being revealed. And so you do get a sense of, like, "Oh, oh, Paul"—there's probably a moment, maybe, where Paul realized, "Oh my gosh, he's not the only one who died here. If we're united to him, where his death is our death"—and that's not in Acts 1, right? And in Acts 1 they're still just reeling from the suffering. But over time, there's a deeper awareness of it. It's a great observation. It's not just you on this, but the New Testament is progressive revelation.

Gil, you just said, like, "Paul realized." I'm wondering, because he later tells Timothy "all scripture is God breathed," so I'm wondering how much of what he writes is you saying, "More complete," or is it more of him learning it? More and God explaining it?

Okay, this is great. So Gil just said you just said that Paul realized, but if the New Testament, if the Bible is God's word, if it's also inspired by God, and God didn't learn—then did you feel the tension there? Like, is it okay? Can we say that the authors, that the divinely inspired authors of the New Testament were learning and getting better as they went? And the answer is, we absolutely can say that, because there are two authors. God is sovereign. God learns nothing. He's omniscient. He's always known. We talked about this extensively, right? But the authors of the books that he chose, he brought them through real experiences. Paul was trained under Gamaliel. Paul had these experiences.

And so, for instance, when Paul writes—when Paul's the guy who writes literally the book of salvation, how does it work? Like, the actual process of conversion, how does that work? God was not whispering to Paul, "Hey, write this down. Hey, write this down. Hey, write this down." We do not have a view of the inspiration of scripture that is like essentially a transcription. Paul was writing exactly what he wanted to write based on what he knew and what he had learned and what he experienced. And so when Paul was writing about how salvation works, he was thinking about how he got saved. He's remembering going down the road to Damascus and the light blinding and all these kinds of stuff. So it's not—it shouldn't perhaps surprise us that—

When Paul writes about salvation, he does so with a profoundly God-centered view of this. We'll get to this and I'll annoy you more in a few months, but Paul was a Calvinist. Paul spoke of election as if salvation happened to him—and that's because salvation happened to him, right? And then curiously, the guy that God has explained how it works: if nobody in the history of the world was ever saved by God superintending, overriding their will, Paul was unmistakably. Do you see? It just makes sense. Paul was acted upon. God said, "Hey, believe," and he said, "Okay, I guess that's what we'll do." That's what happened. And then that guy writes the book, right?

So God doesn't have to tell Paul how to explain salvation because he had previously experienced it, and then he was assigned to write about it.

Now in a similar way, whenever Paul is writing something in Romans 6 about our union with Christ in death, God wasn't just whispering it to him. Rather, Paul had been steeped in the Old Testament scriptures. He'd studied it, he'd understood it, he pondered these things. And the spirit of God was alive in Paul. He was out doing ministry, and the total of his experience—which is progressive—shapes what he writes. That's essentially how the scriptures come together.

Closing Exhortation

So we gotta stop. I always hate that part. I give this to you and I hope you won't just throw this away. There's gold in here. The purpose of this class today wasn't so much to mine at all as much as to model: hey, you might have some fun in the next couple of weeks if you'll get this out and read through it. There will be more discoveries that you will make, because as I've told you a million times, the Word is filled with treasure. You can find it. Take the time.

This is just a tool. It's just a filtering of this book that I hope might cause certain things to pop as you see it all in juxtaposition with each other. And then if you like this and you do this, you can make your own versions of these for any other topic, right? This is just one way to study the scriptures—to let biblical theology really shape you. I'm going to trace an idea through the scriptures and see what I might have missed if I weren't slowing down and looking at it through a particular filter. That makes sense?

All right, I think that's going to be it for the death of Christ. So next week we will kind of move to the next step and talk more about his resurrection. So we will see you in a week. Thanks for coming.