Sual ChungChang

Sual Chungchang

Sual chungchang ah, sual hi engtia lo awm nge? Eng vanga lo awm nge tih leh tu siam nge tih thu te hi tunhma atanga inhnialna tawp awm thei lo anga ngaih a ni thin. Tunlai in Mizo thangtharte ah he zawhna pawh hian hmun a khuar thuk hle a, hei vang hian rinna kawnga pachhiatna pawh a thlen fo thin. Chuvang chuan nakin lawk a Kohhran kutke la ni mai tur te hian kan hriat chian angai hle mai.

Sual hi engtia lo awm nge?

David Hume Pathian awm ringlo mi chuan ti hian inhnial theihna turin a rawn chhawp chhuak a “Pathian hi engkim bul a ni kan tih chuan sualna pawh hi Pathian siam a ni ang, chuti anih chuan kan Pathian hi Pathian tha leh sual hua Pathian a ni lovang. Pathianin sual a siam lo kan ti a nih chuan sual chu a awm tho si a, Pathian hi engkim siamtu leh thuneitu a ni lo tihna a niang” tiin.

Ti zawng hian sawi ta ila, Pathian hi engkim bul a nih chuan sual hi engtinnge a lo awm ve ngawt mai le? Pathian chuan sual chu a haw hle si a (Deut 25: 16; Sam 5:4; 11:5; Zak. 8:17; Lk.16:15), Amah chu Pathian thianghlima ni tih (Is.6:3) ah kan hmu bawk a, fel lohna reng reng nei lo (Duet. 32:4; Sam 92:16), niin “Pathian chuan thil suaksual tiin, Engkimtitheia chuan thil dik lo chu a ti teuh lo vang” tih (Job. 34:10) kan hmu bawk a. Kan Pathian ni lo hi siamtu dang an awm em ni?

Mizo Bible-ah Isaia 45:7 hi “Eng ka siam thin a, thim pawh ka siam thin a ni; remna ka siam thin a sualna pawh ka siam thin a ni; kei hi LALPA, chung thil zawng zawng ti thin tu chu ka ni” tia dah a ni a. chuti a nih si chuan Pathianin sual a siam em ni?

Lehlin Tharah thung chuan sualna pawh ka siam thin a ni tih hi ‘vanduaina te ka thlen tir bawk’ tiin a dah a. He tia lehlin hi a fuh zawk mah awm e, a sawi duh ber chu chang 5-6 a mi, Pathian pakhat chuah lo chu Pathian dang reng reng awm loh thu a ni a, chuvangin sual hi Pathian siam a ni lo a, siam theitu dang pathian pawh an awm hek lo. Chuti a nih bawk si chuan sual chu a awm tho bawk si a, engtia lo awm nge ni ta le?

Synod-in Rawngbawltu Chawimawina apek dawngtute zinga pakhat Pu Lalkhera khan Sual hi Pathian siam em ni tih zawhna ti hian thiam takin a chhanga, “Pathian lo siamtu dang an awm lo va, mahse sual chu Pathian siam a ni lo: a thilsiam te hmangaih takin zalenna a pe a, a thilsiam atang chuan sual chu a lo awm a ni. Mizo pa in hmun awih-ah in kan sa a, kan sa kan sa a, a tawpah chuan kan sak ve miah loh inhnuai a lo awm ta ang hian Pathian thilsiam te atang chuan sual chu a lo awm a ni” ti in. 

Evil eh Adama tlukna atangin Bible chuan Sual a chhui ber a, Pathian anna hloh emaw, Pathian laka thi tih emaw in a sawi bawk thin.Khaikhawmna atan chuan Sual chu Pathian thu awih lohna leh Pathian hawisanna, Pathian laka helna tiin sawi tai la a chiang mai awm e.

Sual chu enge ni?

Bible-ah sual sawina tawngkam chi hrang hrang hman a ni a, nih tur ang ni pha lo, tum thelh, khawlohna, dan bawhchhiatna, fel lohna, thuawih lohna, helna, tih ang te hi a langsar pawl an ni awm e. Bible- ah hian sual chungchang a sawina tawngkam hi a tam hle mai a. Bible ah hian ‘Sual’ tia a lehlin tlangpui ber ‘Sin’ tih ang chi hi vawi 527 a awm a, thil tha lo lam sawina ‘Evil’ hi vawi 454 vel zet a awm.

Greek ho chuan sual hi tisain thlarau a bawihna niin an ngai ber a. Greek ho finna (Platonic dualism) -ah chuan mihring hian eng lal ram atangin thlarau a dawng a, tisa leh ramsa te nunna ang nunna chu thim lalram atangin a dawng bawk a. Sual chu tisa leh thlarau a lo inbelhbawma, tisain thlarau a a tihbawlhhlawhna a ni a, chuvangin sual hnehna pawh he tisain thlarau a hruaina atang a zalenna (thlarau zalenna) a ni an ti. Hetiang ngaihdan ang chi hi Gnostic zirtirnaah te leh sakhaw lian pui pui Hindu leh Buddhism-ah te pawh a lian hle ni a ngaih a ni.

Hmanlai atanga sual Kristian ten sual an sawifiah dan lar tak pakhat chu ‘Pathian hawisana thilsiam lam hawi’ tih hi a ni. Chu chu Paula’n ti hian a sawi a; “Pathian hre siin Pathian angin an chawimawi lo va; lawmthu pawh an sawi hek lo; thil lawi lo an ngaihtuah ta zawk a, an thinlung a chu a lo thim ta a. Finga inngaiin mi a ah an lo chang a, thi lo Pathian ropuina chu thi thei mihringte leh sava te, fuliafa te rannungte lemah an chantir ta a” (Rom 1:21-23), tih leh “a Siamtu biak aiin a siama chu biain a rawng an bawl ta zawk si a” (Rom. 1:25) tiin a lo sawi a ni.

Pathianin mihringte hi mahnia tlahrang (independent) tur ni loin Amah rinchhan a nung (dependent) turin a siam a, chuvangin Pathian nena lendun chu mihring nihna tura duan a ni. Mihringin Pathian a anna leh mihring a nih famkimna chu Pathian nen an len dun chauhin a ni (Mika 6:8).

Pathiana innghat lo va, amah ring lo a hawisanna hi sual nihna zepui chu a ni. Chuvangin sual chu Pathian nena inkar thil a ni ber a, Pathian leh mihring inkar dik lo chuan mihring leh mihring inkar te, mihring leh thilsiam inkar te a nghawng khawlo zo ta a ni.

Mihring suala an tluk hnua an dinhmun Pathianin a sawi “…mihring chu a chhhia leh tha hriain keimahni ang a lo ni ta..” (Gen 3: 22b) a ti a. Helai ah hian zawhna awm thei chu..tlukna awm hmain “Pathianin Ama anpuiin mihring a siama” tih kan hmu a..nimahsela, mihring suala a tluk hnuin “Keimahni ang alo nita” tih kan la hmu cheu mai si a, enge maw awmzia ni ta tih zawhna a awm thei a. Hei hi ti hian sawi ta ila, tlukna awm hma chuan Mihring chuan Pathianin tha a tih kha tha ti a, tha lo a tih kha tha lo ti a, nimahsela tlukna awm hnu ah chuan Pathian ring loin anmahniin tha leh tha lo chungchangah ngaihdan hrang an nei ta tihna a ni mai awm e.

Chuti chuan, Mihring chuan Pathian a hawisan rualin innghahna dang a zawng lo thei lo a, Pathian lak ata then a nihin amaha Pathian hmun ruakawm luah turin thil dang a zawng a, chu chu thilsiam lam hawi (conversio ad creaturum) an tih chu a ni. Tichuan amah leh amah a indah pawimawh ber loh pawhin ama thil siam chawp emaw Pathian thilsiam emaw te biain, chu chu a nun kaihruaituah a hmang ta a ni. Chu chu Pathian lam hawisanna nun, Pathian nena inpawl leh lendun theihna dal thin tu chu Sual kan tih chu a ni.

Source:

Rev. Challianngura., “Chhandamna”

Rosiamliana Tochhawng., “Kohhanin Sual Thu leh Chiandamna Thu a Kalpui Dan”

Robin boyld., “Kristadvaita”

INPUMPÊKNA

Chhiar Tur: Philippi 1:29; 2:5-8; I Thessalonika 5:16-23    HK. Hmingthanzuala

Inpumpêkna Awmzia

Inpumpêkna tih hian ‘a bo a bang awm lova rilru leh taksa inhlanna, hrehawm tuar huama nun zawng zawng inpêkna’ a ni ber mai awm e. Kristian nun leh thlirna atanga sawifiah tur erawh chuan, Rilru, Taksa leh Thlarau Krista hnena inpumpêkna ti ila a fiah kim thei ber zâwk awm e.  Rom. 12:1-2-a kan hmuh angin Pathian khawngaihna avanga Pathian lawm tlâk leh thianghlima kan awm theihna tur leh khawvel dan zawm lova Krista duhzâwng keimahniah a lan chhuah theihna tura Pathian tana inserh hranna leh mi dang tan pawha malsawmna ni thei tura harsatna leh hrehawmna tuar huamna hi inpumpêkna chu a ni.                        

Inpumpêk hi Eng Nge a Pawimawhna

Inpumpêkna tel lo chuan khawvel thil tak pawhin a vawrtâwp thleng lovin kawng chanve vel chauh zawh ang a nih theih. Krista nunze dik tak mihring nunah hian a lang chhuak thei lova. Mihring pianpui nunzia hrim hrim hi mahni duhzâwng a tal chak tlat nun, thu neitu dang awm lova mahni lawm zâwng zâwnga nun duh \hin a ni. Chu chu Rom. 8:5 a, ‘tisa mi, tisa dan’ tia a sawi, nu pum chhung a\ang renga Pathian laka then nunzia a ni (Sam 58:3). He tisa dan hian thlarau thianghlim rin chhanna tak tak tel lovin, pianpui \hatna te, insum theina te, tih tak zetna tello te hmangin ringtu min hruai \hin. Nimahsela mihring \hatna hian tawp chin a neih avangin kan tlu chhe leh fo va, thui tak rawng kan bawl thei lo va, hnehna nun kan nei thei lo va ni.

Ringtute hian harsatna hrang hrang kan tawk \hin, mahni tha chakna hmanga beih kan tum hian kan tlu sawp leh \hin. Hnehna kan neih theihna tur chuan Thlarau Thianghlim hnena kan inpumpêk chauh hian inpumpêkna tluantling a lo thleng thei a ni. “Chakna ni lovin, thiltihtheihna ni hek lovin, ka Thlarau zâwkin le,” tih thu chauh hi inpumpêkna tihlawhtlingtu ber chu a ni. Chu Thlarau Thianghlim chuan he tisa dan hi hneh a tum tawh zâwk a, mihring duh dan leh \ha tih dan kalsanin a chhuhsak ta zâwk a, Thlarau Thianghlim chu thuneitu lal berah a dah a, a hruaina ang zela awma thuawihna famkim nena kan intukluh hnuah chauh sual hnehna nun, thlarau rah; hmangaihna, hlimna, remna, dawhtheihna, ngilneihna, \hatna, rinawmna, thuhnuairawlhna leh insumtheihna te kei mahniah a lo lang \hin (Galatia 5:22-23). Chu inpumpêkna ngei chu kan van kai theihna tur atana permit pawimawh tak chu a ni.

Krista Rilru Pu-a Inpumpêkna

Inpumpêk tur chuan Krista rilru kan \awmpui a ngai a ni. Chu rilru zia chu in han zîr leh dawn teh ang.

Thuawihna

1 Kor. 6:20 Mahni ta pawh kan ni tawh lo va, mana lei kan nih tawh zâwk avangin Thlarau hruaia kan awm hi ringtute awm dan tur pawimawh tak a ni. Lal Isua nun kan thlir chuan thuawihna ropui ber chu Pathian anga awm kha thil thlakhlelh hleihtheiha ruat lova thi khawp hiala thu zawma a awm kha a ni. Hei hi ringtuten kan entawn tur pawimawh tak chu a ni. Kan tuarna tur, kan mualphona tur leh tihretheiha kan awmna tur pawh ni se, Pa thu zawm tlat hi ka tih makmawh a ni. Thuawih famkimna hi inpumpêkna a lo ni a, nimahsela mahni inkhawngaih \hin mite tan chuan thil theih niin a lang lo.

Tlâwmna

Tlâwmna hi Lal Isuan khawvel a hnehna hmanrua ber pakhat a ni. Isaia 53:7-ah, “Ani chu hnehchhiahin a awm a; nimahsela a inngaitlawm a, a ka pawh a ang lo; Beram talh tura an hruai ang leh, Beram a hmul mettu hmaa ngawi renga awma ang maiin; a ni, a ka a ang lo”, tih ziak kan hmu. Lal Isuan mahni in chhanhimna turin thil tih theihna a nei lo a ni lova, Lei leh Vana thuneihna zawng zawng neitu khan thiltihtheihna chu a nei teh meuh mai. Nimahsela, a thiltihtheihna leh ropuina mahni inchhanhim nana hman a tum miah lo va, mi dang tana a luang ral kha a inngaihtlawmna lairil ber leh inpumpêkna nun tichiangtu ber chu a ni. Mihring rilru chapo leh mahni lam in haivur duhna hmun a\ang chuan thil harsa tak a ni ngei ang. Inngaihtlawm chawp leh \hat chhuah chawp lam a ni lo va, Pathian thu anga kan tih tur dik tak ti tura tlawm mai hi a ni zâwk.

Inpêkna

Inpêkna tih hian a chunga kan sawi tak thuawihna leh tlawmna nen khian inang khat reng pawhin a ngaih theih awm e. Rawngbâwlna chungchângah emaw thilpêk chungchângah pawh nise mahni lam tuipuizawnga rawngbâwl leh mahni lam hek lo tawk vela thilpêk pek hi mihringte chuan kan duh tawk mai \hin. Nimahsela, hla thu-a, “Ka nun I tan ka pe, eng nge min pek ngai le?” tih kan hmuh ang khan, Lal Isua kan tana nun hlantu khan A tan kan theihna zawng zawng nena kan luan ral, kan inpumpêkna hi a phût tlat a ni.

Inpumpêkna Hlutna

Gal 2:20 ah “Krista hnenah khenbehin ka awm ta; nimahsela, ka nung a ni...” tih ziak kan hmuh ang khan inpumpêkna hi nun tam kan neihna tur leh chhandama kan awm theihna tur chu a ni. Thlarau thianghlima kan inpumpêknaah chuan nun a danglam lo ngai lo va, miten keimahni nunah pawh Krista hmel an hmu thei \hin. Mahni lam tuarin emaw hrehawmin awm mah ila, midang ten malsawmna an chang thin. He hmun a\ang hian tuarna phêna malsawmna te, lungngaihna ruama hlimna te, lawm zel nun te ringtuten kan chhar chhuak \hin. Hlim tlang taka chhungkua min phuar khawmtu, kan hmelma te nen lam pawh inremna min siam sak \hin.

Tlipna

Atawp ber ah chuan Tirhkoh Paula’n “He rilru, Krista Isua pawha awm bawk kha, nangmahniah awm rawh se;” a tih hian kan rilru ah Krista rilru awm rawh se a ti satliah mai a ni lo va, a taka hmanga, nun chhuahpui tura min fuihna a ni. Chu nun ze mawi tak chu engtin nge kei ni hian kan lan chhuah tir ve ang le? “Miten min chhiar, min thlir reng e, ka awm dan zawng zawng min hai lo...” tih hla te hi ram danga awm tan hlei hlei hian a pawimawh awm e. Zirlai kan nih chuan theih tawp chhuah a kan zirlai kan zir mai tur a ni. Materialism chungchang ah pawh kan in ngaihtuah chian angai viau awm e. Mahni phu tawk mil zela zahawm taka inchei te, dehchhuah mil tawk thil neihte, kan nun pawh Krista Chanchintha nena in mawi nun a ni zel tur a ni (Phil. 1:27). Pathian rawng kan bawlna ah pawh thlei bik nei lo leh mite tlawn pah in rawng kan bawl tur a ni lo va, mahni lamin a duh tawk chin nei lovin dik tak leh huaisen tak in kan thawk mai tur a ni. Chutiang zelin, sawrkar hnathawk tan pawh mahni hna ah rinawm takin kan thawk tur a ni. Dik lo taka neih belh thur thur ai chuan dik taka tih avanga chan ngam hi he dam chhunga kan hlimna tur leh Van a kan lawmman ti tam tu tur pawh a ni ngei ang.

Lalpa'n malsawm rawh se. Amen

DEATH. From one point of view death is the most natural of things: ‘it is appointed for men to die once’ (Heb. 9:27). It may be accepted without rebellion: ‘Let us also go, that we may die with him’ (Jn. 11:16). From another, it is the most unnatural of things. It is the penalty for sin (Rom. 6:23), and it is to be feared as such. Both points of view are to be found in the Bible, and neither should be overlooked. Death is a biological necessity, but men do not die simply as the animals die.

I. Physical death

Death seems to be necessary for bodies constituted as ours are. Physical decay and ultimate dissolution are inescapable. Yet the Bible speaks of death as the result of sin. God said to Adam, ‘in the day that you eat of it you will die’ (Gn. 2:17). Paul tells us that ‘sin came into the world through one man and death through sin’ (Rom. 5:12), and again that ‘the wages of sin is death’ (Rom. 6:23). Yet when we look more closely into the matter we see that Adam did not die physically on the day that he disobeyed God. And in Rom. 5 and 6 Paul is contrasting the death that came about through Adam’s sin with the life that Christ brings men. Now the possession of eternal life does not cancel out physical death. It is opposed to a spiritual state, not to a physical event. The inference that we draw from all this is that that death which is the result of sin is more than bodily death.

But with this we must take the other thought that the scriptural passages which connect sin and death do not qualify death. We would not understand from them that something other than the usual meaning attached to the word. Perhaps we should understand that mortality was the result of Adam’s sin, and that the penalty includes both physical and spiritual aspects. But we do not know enough about Adam’s pre-fallen condition to say anything about it. If his body was like ours, then it was mortal. If it was not, we have no means of knowing what it was like, and whether it was mortal or not.

It seems better to understand death as something that involves the whole man. Man does not die as a body. He dies as a man, in the totality of his being. He dies as a spiritual and physical being. And the Bible does not put a sharp line of demarcation between the two aspects. Physical death, then, is a fit symbol of, and expression of, and unity with, the deeper death that sin inevitably brings.

II. Spiritual death

That death is a divine penalty. We have already noticed that Rom. 6:23 regards death as ‘the wages’ of sin, i.e. as the due reward for sin. Paul can speak of certain sinners who know ‘God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die’ (Rom. 1:32). It is the thought of God’s decree that underlies John’s reference to the ‘mortal sin’ (1 Jn. 5:16). This is a very important truth. It enables us to see the full horror of death. And at the same time, paradoxically, it gives us hope. Men are not caught up in a web woven by blind fate, so that, once having sinned, nothing can ever be done about it. God is over the whole process, and if he has decreed that death is the penalty of sin, he has also determined to give life eternal to sinful men.

Sometimes the NT emphasizes the serious consequences of sin by referring to ‘the second death’ (Jude 12; Rev. 2:11, etc.). This is a rabbinic expression which signifies eternal perdition. It is to be understood along with passages wherein our Lord spoke of ‘eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41), ‘eternal punishment’ (set in contrast to ‘eternal life’, Mt. 25:46), and the like. The final state of impenitent man is variously described as death, punishment, being lost, etc. Obviously it would be unwise to equate it with any one of them. But equally obviously on the Bible view it is a state to be regarded with horror.

Sometimes the objection is made that this is inconsistent with the view of God as a loving God. There is a profound mystery here, but at least it can be said that the objection, as commonly stated, overlooks the fact that death is a state as well as an event. ‘To set the mind on the flesh is death,‘ writes Paul (Rom. 8:6). He does not say that the mind of the flesh will cause death. He says that it is death. He adds that it ‘is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot’. The same truth is put in a different way when John says, ‘He who does not love abides in death’ (1 Jn. 3:14). When we have grasped the truth that death is a state, we see the impossibility of the impenitent being saved. Salvation for such is a contradiction in terms. For salvation a man must pass from death into life (Jn. 5:24).

III. Victory over death

An interesting feature of NT teaching on death is that the emphasis is on life. If we look up a concordance we find that in most places nekros (‘dead’) is used of resurrection from the dead or the like. The Scripture faces death, as it faces all reality. But its interest is in life, and death is treated more or less incidentally as that from which men are saved. Christ took upon him our nature, ‘that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil’ (Heb. 2:14). The devil’s power is always regarded as subject to God’s overruling (Jb. 2:6; Lk. 12:5, etc.). He is no absolute disposer of death. Nevertheless death, the negation of life, is his proper sphere. And Christ came to put an end to death. It was through death, as the Hebrews passage indicates, that he defeated Satan. It was through death that he put away our sin. ‘The death he died he died to sin, once for all’ (Rom. 6:10). Apart from Christ, death is the supreme enemy, the symbol of our alienation from God, the ultimate horror. But Christ has used death to deliver men from death. He died that men may live. It is significant that the NT can speak of believers as ‘sleeping’ rather that as ‘dying’ (e.g. 1 Thes. 4:14). Jesus bore the full horror of death. Therefore for those who are ‘in Christ’ death has been transformed so that it is no more than sleep.

The extent of the victory over death that Christ won is indicated by his resurrection. ‘Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him’ (Rom. 6:9). The resurrection is the great triumphal event, and the whole of the NT note of victory originates here. Christ is ‘the Author of life’ (Acts 3:15), ‘Lord both of the dead and of the living’ (Rom. 14:9), ‘the Word of life’ (1 Jn. 1:1). His victory over death is complete. And his victory is made available to his people. Death’s destruction is certain (1 Cor. 15:26, 54ff.; Rev. 21:4). The second death has no power over the believer (Rev. 2:11; 20:6). In keeping with this the NT understands eternal life not as the immortality of the soul, but in terms of the resurrection of the body. Nothing could more graphically illustrate the finality and the completeness of death’s defeat.

Not only is there a glorious future, there is a glorious present. The believer has already passed out of death and into life (Jn. 5:24; 1 Jn. 3:14). He is ‘free from the law of sin and death’ (Rom. 8:2). Death cannot separate him from God (Rom. 8:38f.). Jesus said, ‘If any one keeps my word, he will never see death’ (Jn. 8:51). Such words do not deny the reality of biological death. Rather they point us to the truth that the death of Jesus means that the believer has passed altogether out of the state which is death. He is brought into a new state, which is aptly characterized as life. He will in due course pass through the gateway we call death. But the sting has been drawn. The death of Jesus means victory over death for his followers.

JESUS RESURRECTION : AN EVIDENCE FOR AFTER LIFE

JESUS RESURRECTION : AN EVIDENCE FOR AFTER LIFE

The Gospel of God appears in Galilee: but in the end it is clear that Calvary and the Resurrection are its centre. Jesus came not only to preach a Gospel but to be a Gospel, and He is the Gospel of God in all that He did for the deliverance of humankind. The resurrection of Jesus had been a serious issue that whether the resurrection really happens or not. As per the natural science, the resurrection of the death body is impossible, as what is decay already cannot be resurrected in to a new form of like the old being itself or so. Almost every religion have these kind of new transformation but unlike the Christian belief, e.g., Hindu beliefs is that they will transformed or resurrect again in to an animal according to their deeds. This paper will attempt to highlight the resurrection of Jesus from the Bible and as well as according to some theologians.  

1.   Meaning of Resurrection

            The reviving of something that once had life and it’s become lifeless, without power and inanimate. The rising of the dead to life. Physical resurrection is a person’s restoration from physical death to life in a body.   Christ resurrection is an issue on which the church stands or fall. The bodily resurrection of Jesus was the central to the early church’s proclamation. It provided a hope for the future bodily resurrection, and it promised a foretaste of aspects of that “eternal life” now. Belief in a resurrection of person from the dead finds expression in at least eight Old Testament passages (Job 19: 26; Psalms 17:15, 49: 15, 73, 24; Isa 26: 19, 53: 10-12, Dn 12:2,13), while resurrection terminology is borrowed on two notable occasion (Ezk 37:1-14; Hosea 6:2) to portray future national and a spiritual restoration brought about by a return from exile.The early Christian believers, confronted with the risen Christ, understood what had happen in the beliefs of first century Judaism. Several aspects of their interpretation of Jesus’ resurrection are in direct continuity. Firstly, Christ’s resurrection is understood to be the vindication of his righteousness and faithfulness, and his exaltation as the Messiah and representative of Israel by God, in contrast to his rejection, trial and crucifixion. Secondly, Jesus’ resurrection, his ‘exodus’ (Luke 9:31), is a sure sign of the inauguration of the new age, the promised Kingdom of God, in which Jesus ruled as Lord and Savior (Luke 20:35-36; Acts 5: 30-31; Rev 11:15). Five types of resurrection may be distinguished in the New Testament usage:

i)        The Past physical resurrection of certain individuals to renewed mortal life (Lk 7:14-15; Jn 11: 13, 43-44; Heb 11:35).

ii)      The past bodily resurrection of Christ to immortality (Rom 6:9).

iii)    The past spiritual resurrection of believers to new life in Christ (Col 2:12).

iv)    The further bodily resurrection of believers to immortality (I Cor. 15:42, 52).

v)      The future personal resurrection of unbelievers to Judgement (Jn 5:29, Acts 24:15).

The New Testament understands and interprets Jesus’ Resurrection in a variety of ways. The Bible had testified that Christ was indeed risen, when He appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). In I Corinthians 15:5ff, we see that Jesus appeared before Cephas and then to the twelve. And then He appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time.  

2.   Evidence of Resurrection in the New Testament

i)  The empty Tomb

The Gospels present four separate narratives of the discovery of the empty tomb by the woman. To a great extent the narrative as it appears in the fourth gospel represents an independent tradition, and a significant change of emphasis. In Mark (16: 1-8), the words ‘He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid Him’ appears to indicate an increased interest in the actual site of Resurrection. Luke maintains roughly the same level of interest in the basic fact, adding the specific statement that ‘they did not find the body…He is not here but has risen’ (24: 1-11). In Matthew, we find a different sense of supernatural. It writes, “His appearance was like lightning, and His clothing white as snow…he has been raised” (Matthew 28: 1-8). In the fourth Gospel, we find the description of the appearance of the inside tomb (John 20:1-10). It did not mentions like the other Gospels that ‘he is raised’ but describe that the tomb is empty.

ii)   Appearance to Mary Magdalene

In the Gospel according to John, we find that, Mary Magdalene was weeping outside the tomb. “As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb, and she saw two angels in white…they asked why are you weeping? She said to them ‘they have taken away my Lord’…she turned and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know it was Jesus…I have not yet ascended to my Father to my God and your God” (John 20: 11-18).

iii)    Appearance at Emmaus

In Luke 24: 13ff, we find that Jesus was with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. The two of them did not know that it was Jesus, but as the nightfall they invite him, and then when they surround the table, their eyes were opened and they recognized that it was Jesus.  

iv) The Upper Room: Easter Day

In Luke 24:36ff and in John 20: 19-23, we read that the appearance of Jesus Christ among his disciples was acknowledged. They were frightened and Jesus urged them to touch his body to show that he is not a ghost. It affirms that he has risen.  

v)   Appearance on the Lake-Side

            In John 21, we find that at day break while the disciples were casting their net on the sea of Tiberias, they saw Jesus standing on the beach…Peter cried out “It is the Lord,” this statement indicate that Jesus was resurrected.

vi) The Ascension

In Luke 24: 50ff and Acts 1:6-11, we find that after blessing them, he withdrew from them and carried up into heaven. Two men in white robes stood by them while he was lifted up, and the cloud took him out of their sight.

vii)  The Appearance to Paul

In Acts 9:3-9, 22:6-11 and 26:13-18, while Saul was on his was to Damascus, a light from heaven flashed him…why have you persecuted me. Then Saul asks: “who are you, Lord?” then reply came, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.” This statement proved the evidence that Jesus had indeed risen and ascended in heaven.

3.   Resurrection accounts in the New Testament

i)     The Markan Account (Mark 15-16):

            Joseph of Arimathae was the one who remove the body of Jesus. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses was present that time. Joseph bought a linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock, and rolled the stone against the door of the tomb. When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And they go early in the morning, but the stone was removed. They enter the tomd and saw a young man dressed in white robe, sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. He told them not to be like that, and ask whether they were looking for Jesus who was crucified. He told them that he was raised. They went back to tell what had happen. Before Jesus’ death, he promise Peter that he will go to Galilee before him (Mk 14:28). So they went out from the tomb and said nothing because they were afraid. Here it ends abruptly. In the Markan account, the only material fact is the removal of the stone. The risen Christ was made known by the young man whose presence on the grave is not explained. It looks as if there were some text missing.

ii)   Matthaean Account (Matthew 27-28):

            The Matthaean account accepted some of the Markan account but adds some changes. The principal changes in the account of the burial are that the tomb where Jesus was buried was Joseph’s new tomb (Mat 27:60). Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting opposite the tomb. Here we find that Pilate order the tomb to be guarded after the request of the Pharisees, if not his disciples might stole it, and proclaim that he was risen. There occurs an earthquake, the angels of the Lord rolled over the stone and sit on it. His appearance was like a lightning, and attire was white as snow. The guards shook in fear and become like dead men. The angels said to the women not to be afraid, and tell them that he is not here, he has been raised. After that, they met Jesus while returning back, and he greets them. And tell them to go to their brother that he is going to Galilee where he will be there. The earthquake which accompanied the death of Jesus, is the power that introduced him. The description of the angels in a white robe is also borrowed from Daniel apocalypse (Dan 10:6).

iii)    Lukan Account (23-24): 

Unlike Markan and Matthaean accounts, Luke omitted the appearance of the women. It seems all the disciples were present near the tomb. Luke also portray the inside drama of the tomb. Some of the events had share similar story, but adds the story of the Emmaus. Jesus appeared first to two of his disciples on the road to Emmaus, and disappeared after they notice him. There seems to be three main traditions despite the presence of minor variations in detail, which may be due to the writer’s imagination, or to floating oral traditions. There is the tradition of the women’s visit to the grave and their discovery that the tomb was empty, the latter point left vague by Mark and Matthew, is made definite by Luke. There is the Galilean tradition, implicit in Mark and made definite by Matthew. Finally, there is the Jerusalem tradition, represented by Luke’s two books, according to which the appearance of the risen Christ to his disciples, and his subsequent meeting with them for a specific period of time, all tale place near and in Jerusalem.

iv)    Johannine Account (19-21):

Johannine’s account tells of us that Joseph of Arimathea was one of the disciples of Jesus. A new person Nicodemus appear on the scene bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes weighing about hundred pounds. They laid in the garden where there is a new tomb in which no one has laid before. Here, the day after was portrayed in such a busy conditions. John also mention that after they all left, Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, she bent over to look into the tomb, and saw two angels. Here, the difference is conspicuous; with two angels which the other accounts mention one. John also mentioned that Mary was in doubt when Jesus was standing by her side. After knowing him, she called him ‘Rabbouni’ which was only found in Johannine account. John also mention about the aftermaths of Jesus’ resurrection that how Jesus will be, informing us that he will ascend to his Father. John also mentioned clearly that Jesus was really raised from the death, which we can know form Thomas’ encounter with Jesus. Unlike the other accounts, John was at its best in mentioning the reality of Jesus’ resurrection and the appearance with his disciples.

  

4.   Significance of Resurrection

            If Christ resurrection is not true:

i)              Preaching the Gospel is useless (I Cor 15:14).

ii)            Faith is worthless (I Cor 15:14, 17; Rom 10:9).

iii)          Witnesses of Christ’s resurrection are liar (I Cor 15:15).

iv)          Believers are still in their sins (I Cor 15:17; Rom 4:25; I Cor 15:54-57).

v)            Nothing was finished on the Cross (Jn 19:30).

vi)          Christ sacrifice was in vain (Acts 2:23-25; Rom 4:24-25).

vii)        Dead believers will not rise (I Cor 15:18; I Thess 4:13-17).

viii)      Living believers have no hope afterlife (I Cor 15:32).

Therefore, Christ’s resurrection power provides necessary spiritual power for believers (Eph 1:19-20; Phil 3:10; Rom 6:4-5), as well as God’s mean to regenerate believers to a living hope (I Peter 1:3-4). In his resurrection, Jesus earned for us a new life just like his. We do not receive all of that new ‘resurrection life’ when we become Christians, for our bodies remain as they were, still subject to weakness, aging and death. But in our spirit we are made alive with new resurrection power.

5.   Resurrection according to Gospel

The real resurrection of Jesus from the dead, the event itself, is not described in the New Testament. For it was the appearance of Jesus himself confirmed the notion that Jesus was risen. As already mention above about the evidences, the drama of the real events was omitted in the Gospels. The early apostles took seriously the fact that they had been commissioned to be the witnesses of these things (Lk 24:46-47) to the preaching of the resurrection. The New Testament scholar Joachim Jeremias remarks that the most striking literary problem in the texts about the resurrection is their differences in detail and their colorful multiplicity. One can talk of a basic framework at most in the sequence of empty tomb and appearance. The central theme of John is Life. The words and works of the Christ are manifestation of Life and they extend to the whole range of human needs, spiritual and bodily alike. The healing of the sick and impotent, the feeding of the hungry, the giving of sight to the blind, the raising of Lazarus from death, are all signs of the life giving mission of the Son of God. The Life is the life of the age to come; the life is realized already in the present age. It is received by believing on Christ. He is himself the Life. The synoptic Gospels talks about the kingdom of God, even here on earth. This could but can only mean the transformed life, which Johannine call Life. Jesus appear in the closed room is not demonstration against his flesh and blood existence. The point is that Jesus is physically among them as flesh and blood, yet resurrected being. This pictured the dialogue between Thomas and Jesus. But we have to know that unlike Paul, the Gospels does not define the afterlife, resurrected body.  

6.   Resurrection according to Paul

Paul believes in the literal resurrection of the Christ and that Paul’s sermon on the issue, I Corinthians 15, stresses both the bodily nature of Christ’s resurrection and its spiritual nature. Paul explicitly denies that flesh and blood can be resurrected (I Cor 15:44, 53-54). He says: “Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable” (I Cor 15:50). He is not merely denying mortality but suggesting that a transformation (I Cor 15:51) must take place before the spiritual body is manifest, which will be fully realized at the last trumpet, when death, sin, and the law shall be no more. Whether this spiritual body will be a newly created eschatological body or the same one transformed is doubtful. But the process itself is described as transformation of the believer into the body of Christ, which is already transformed by his death and resurrection. The process is progressive and will be realized only in the eschaton.

7.   Resurrection according to Thinkers in the light of NT

a)      Augustine

Augustine not only affirmed that ‘the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is the distinctive mark of the Christian faith- indeed that Christian faith consists in believing in His resurrection.’ But further asserts that the whole of Christ’s work, including the incarnation, was in the service of the resurrection, and that his death would have profited us nothing had the resurrection not occurred. He repeated continually that Christ took on in the incarnation what he was not; he did not give up what he had, so you have Christ coming into the world, and yet he was already there, he rose again and ascended into heaven, and yet he had ever left it. He also asserts that that who acknowledges God is almighty, then resurrection is possible. Hence to Augustine, the culmination of the person and work of Christ is towards the resurrection, and it was his central theme of his theological approached.

b)  Justin Martyr

He trenchantly expound his beliefs in the bodily resurrection, over againdt some who claim to be Christian but disbelieve it, hold simply instead that their soul will go to heaven after they die. Justin again expounds Psalms 22 to the effect that Christ knew his father would raise him from dead. He speaks of Joshua giving the people a temporary inheritance, but declares that Christ, ‘after the holy resurrection,’ will give us eternal possession. Justin stands foursquare with the New Testament, not only on the continuity between the present and future bodies, but also on the difference between them. He offers no theory about an intermediate state, but from his cautions treatment of the question of the soul we may assume he would think in terms of continuity of the soul while awaiting renewal of body. He has no doubts that Jesus himself was bodily raised. Like the Apostolic Fathers, he does not use ‘resurrection’ language in the metaphorical way, though he stresses the continuity between present ethical life and the future resurrection.

c)   Origen

He provides a convenient chronological terminus for our study of early Christianity. his massive learning and speculative theology, much of it sadly lost, gained him a special place not only in his life-time, but also in succeeding centuries, and in theological debates to the present day. Origen’s view seems to have been that the human body is in a continual state of flux. He said that the body is like a river; the actual matter does not remain the same from one day to the next. He want to affirms bodily resurrection, and over against Gnostic, hellenizers, or no0nonsense pagans like Celsus. He says that if it is a body that dies, it will be the body that rises. When Paul speaks of a spiritual bodily, he certainly means a body; Origen here clearly means ‘body’ in what we would call a physical sense. He also said that body will rise in order that we may be clothed with them a second time at the resurrection. The word ‘spiritual’ here has to do with the casting off of corruption and mortality. This will involve a transmutation of the earlier, ‘animal’ body, but it seems not an abandonment of it. This transformation becomes the key to Origen’s view of the resurrection body.

  

d)  Luther

            Luther struggled against the Church itself in its understanding of the relationship of faith and works. He said: “When one wants to preach the gospel, one must treat only of the resurrection of Christ. For this is the chief article of our faith…the greatest power of faith is bound up in this article of faith. For if there were no resurrection, we would have no consolation or hope, and everything else Christ did or suffer would be futile (I Cor 15:17).” He further said that, Christ had overcome and taken away all misery…the Gospel is nothing else than preaching the resurrection of Christ. He affirms Christ as the Father’s agency in the resurrection emphasizes that an indivisible being, at the same time a Son of the virgin of the house of David and of God…cannot remain in death. He further affirms that if Christ be not risen, then sin has overcome him; and we too are helpless before sin. Therefore to Luther, resurrection is the foundation of our faith which is the vehicle of our believes that we can stands on the facts of Christianity. 

e)   Karl Barth

            In approaching Barth’s view on Christ’s resurrection, seven points can be mentioned:

i)  The Centrality of the Resurrection: It can seem that Christ’s resurrection forms the central theme for the Barth of the 1920s. In his book ‘The Resurrection of the Dead,’ he said that the resurrection of the dead “as such is only to be grasped in the category of revelation and none other.” It expresses miracle which God performs in revealing himself to man (sic).

ii)      The Resurrection as Historical Events: Barth admits that the resurrection may be called ‘historical’ in the sense that certain persons at a particular time and place came to know it and proclaim it. He writes, “The resurrection is…an occurrence in history, which took place outside the gate of Jerusalem in the year A.D. 30.” Even though there were different narratives, what is important to Barth is that of the decision of faith.

iii)    Cross and Resurrection: He said, “Only in the Cross of Christ we can comprehend the truth and meaning of Resurrection.” In his book ‘Church Dogmatic’ he writes, “One cannot understand the Cross of Christ otherwise than from his resurrection, the whole life and death of Jesus are undoubtedly interpreted in the light of the resurrection.”

iv)    The Empty Tomb: He does not bother about the empty tomb whether it is close or open. He said, “Christians do not believe in the empty tomb, but in the living Christ. But this does not mean that we can believe in the living Christ without believing the empty tomb.”

v)      Resurrection and Second Coming: Barth’s tendency to disengage the resurrection from time and place naturally involves a readiness to identify it with Christ second coming. According to Barth, parousia cannot happen without the resurrection. Resurrection is the initial stage of the second coming.

vi)    Reconciliation: According to Barth, Jesus’ act of obedience God acquitted and justified him by raising him from the death. God reorganized Jesus’ suffering death for us as our conversion, so that we were rescued from death to life. Through resurrection, the verdict of the Father, the reconciling will of God has been both effective and expressed.

vii)  Revelation: Barth points to the resurrection as the event in which Christ stands “wholly and unequivocally and irrevocably manifest.” The Easter time is simply the time of revelation of the mystery of the preceding time of the life and death of the man Jesus. In the resurrection this man stands “manifested in the form of God.”

f)    Wolfhart Pannenberg

His theology is called ‘Theology of Resurrection.’ His thought on Christ’s resurrection is very much in opposite to the authoritarian approach of Barth and Bultmann. Pannenberg writes: “the splitting up of historical consciousness into a detection of facts and an evaluation of them…is intolerable to Christian faith, not only because the message of the resurrection of Jesus and of God’s revelation in him necessarily becomes a merely subjective interpretation, but also because it is the reflection of an outmoded and questionable historical method. It is based on the futile aim of the positivist historians to ascertain bare facts without meaning in history…against this we must reinstate today the original unity of facts and their meaning.” He maintains that to accept Jesus’ resurrection is to make a judgement on the basis of historical evidence. Pannenberg emphasizes the necessity of the historicity of events of scripture for a valid faith. According to Pannenberg, Jesus rose from the dead is a powerful place from which to consider the relationship between faith and historical research. To him, it is impossible to proclaim the gospel without having it rooted in history. He understands all history to be revelation. Revelation comes through the events of history on the horizontal level, not on a vertical level from God. Thus he investigates the life of Christ from the historical perspective and not in terms of direct revelation from God. He further said that the climax of revelation is in the past- the resurrection of Christ. In contrast with Bultmann, Pannenberg does not understand the resurrection as myth but as a historical event.

g)   Rudolf Bultman

Three pairs of words gather together the main lines of Bultmann’s approach to Christ’s resurrection: history and faith, science and myth, kerygma and eschatology.

i)  History and Faith: To Bultmann, resurrection is partly determined by his view that facts of past history as such cannot and should not contribute to the decision of faith. No matter what our historical conclusions about the past happenings prove to be, they do not touch the resurrection and the decision of Easter Faith: “the Historical problem is not of interest to Christian belief in the resurrection.” He insists that when the resurrection is proclaimed, we are not asked to accept something- namely, a miracle- once happened but that new life can happen for us now. It is a reality that concerns our own existence here and now.

ii)   Science and Myth: Bultmann has certain presuppositions about what Jesus’ resurrection can or cannot be. He writes, “The impossibility of establishing the objective historicity of the resurrection no matter how many witnesses are cited.” He dismisses the historical fact which involves a resurrection from the dead. Bultmann is convinced that corpses cannot come back to life or rose from the grave. So he speaks of “the incredibility of a mythical event like the return of the dead person into the life of this world.” He based his certainty on the notion of natural sciences which postulate a rigid uniformity in the laws of the universe.

iii) Kerygma and Eschatology: Faith in the resurrection is for Bultmann really the same thing as faith in the saving efficacy of the cross that is to say that the same thing as believing in the cross as eschatological event. The resurrection of Jesus has no independent status as a further event. Christ is present only in the kergyma and in no other way, he meet us in the word of preaching and nowhere else. The risen Christ is only to be found in the Church.

h)  Jurgen Moltmann

Jurgen Moltmann came to be prominence in 1960s. His theology is called ‘Theology of Hope.’ One of Moltmann’s primary concerns in theology is to employ eschatological or ‘messianic’ theology to overcome the conflict between God’s immanence and transcendence through a creative reconstruction of the doctrine of God. He believes the concept of God as the ‘power of the future’ will also help overcome the modern conflict between classical theism and atheism. Moltmann theology may be summarized as follows. God is a part of the process of time, moving toward the future, where His promised will be fulfilled. Future is the essential nature of God. The resurrection of Jesus Christ as a historical event is unimportant. The importance of Christ’s resurrection is eschatological and should be viewed from the future because it gives a hope of a general resurrection in the future. Instead of looking from the empty tomb to the future, Moltmann suggests looking to the future that legitimizes the resurrection of Christ. Human being also is to be viewed from the future. He said, “Man (sic) can be understood only with reference to a restless, constantly unfolding history in relation to the future of God.” He also said that the church must look beyond ‘personal’ salvation and challenge all barriers and structures between different people. He rejects the significance of the historicity of Christ’s resurrection. In his concepts of God, Moltmann denies the immutability of God and suggests God is not absolute but ‘moving to the future.’

i)     Karl Rahner

Like Bultmann, Moltmann and Pannenberg, he knows that the human situation rightly enters into the making of a resurrection theology. In Rahner’s case, this means elaborating of understanding of death- of death itself and not just of all the painful sufferings which might precede death. He says, “The correct starting point for a genuine theology of Easter is a true theology of death.” This might mean that the reflection on death is needed to grasps the inner link between Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. To elements intertwine in bringing people to believe in Jesus as risen from the dead: the witness of the first disciples and our own primordial orientation toward a risen existence beyond death. Unlike Pannenberg, Rahner does not take it upon himself to establish the sheer historicity either of the Easter appearances or of the empty tomb. He leaves these matters to exegetes. Yet he is concerned to explore the disciples’ experience of the risen Lord and to stress its peculiar nature. Regarding glorified Christ, he says that glorified being cannot enter our world. If the risen Christ enter our world in that way, that will mean that he can be known, and subjected to laboratory tests. That would mean that he was an ordinary, earthly being, and no longer a glorified and eschatologically transformed being. By definition a solid sense experience of the risen Christ was and is excluded. He remarks that the resurrection can be adequately understood only in reference to the absolute mystery of the incarnation. Here the principle is that: “in my beginning was my end.” And he alleges that the successive phases of Christ’s life, death and resurrection were truly, if latently, already present and presently and operative in the primary event of the incarnation. Therefore, to Rahner, incarnation already represent the resurrection of Jesus.    

Evaluation and Conclusion

            The resurrection of Jesus is the central tenet of historic Christian belief and for that reason alone, a matter of great historical significance. The New Testament talks of the resurrection of Jesus Christ with different notions and ideas. The gospels and in the letters of Paul, we find different expression of how resurrection will be. The Gospels talks of it in regards to the Kingdom of God and Jesus’ is the life itself. Paul mentions about the bodily resurrection and of spiritual resurrections. Different theologians from the Church fathers to the contemporary thinkers have different values and expressions about the resurrection of Jesus. As Martin Luther had said that resurrection is the confirmation of Christian faith, which is very acceptable. The richness of Christianity lies on the faith that we have a risen Lord which no other religions have. It is a historical event which there is no other sources or proofs that Jesus really was resurrected apart from the Bible. It is our faiths that propels us to keep this miracle as truth but not known. At the same time, the resurrection had lots of things that it bore, the birth of the Church, the hope for the believers, etc. Without resurrection there is no point of saying that the Christian God is the true and powerful God. Resurrection confirms what kind of God he is, even death cannot defeat him. To human, dead is the most powerful force which no one will overcome, but Jesus overcome it. If Jesus’ promise is true, that we will rise again, and that’s hope is like an ember which keeps alive the Christian faith.

            From scientific point of view, resurrection is impossible. Which Moltmann believes in science facts that dead body cannot come to live again. As a norms of believes it might prove true. Knowing God is possible, but understanding God is impossible. Like the Hindu philosophy, God is beyond our knowledge and consciences. It will be wise to say that as God is incomprehensible, the best and the only thing that we can do is to belief that Jesus was resurrected, and he is still with us now. We can feel his presence through the Holy Spirit.      

---