Giles Fraser has worked hard this easter grinding his axe against the necks of evangelical Christians. Together with Jeffrey John, the target of Giles's assault has been the doctrine of Penal Substitution - the belief that Christ dies in our place on the cross, taking upon himself the punishment we deserve for our rebellion against God's kingdom and rule and our rejection of his Messiah.

In an article in the Church Times this week Giles argues it is liberal Christians who really believe in the resurrection. Its the evangelicals that don't. The reason, he says is this; penal substitutionary atonement renders the resurrection irrelevant. "It is finished", the words Jesus uttered on the cross, for the evangelical, mean that salvation has been won, the wrath of God has been satisfied, sin has been paid for, humanity in saved - and all without any mention of the resurrection.

Now obviously this is a gross caricature, but like every caricature it has an element of truth to it. A few weeks ago, a friend of mine studying at the same theological college as I, someone taking the most prestigious course the college has to offer, asked what the resurrection meant. What was it for, what did it acheive, what did it add to the cross? Together we scanned a few systematic theologies. We looked at Calvin, we looked at Turretin and William Shedd, all important Reformed systematics and couldn't find any reference to the resurrection in the sections on soteriology. We were both puzzled and it was only after some hunting through the texts that we found a few pages on the resurrection in the sections on eschatology. It seemed as if the resurrection was a theological back water!

Today, my wife and I attended our local church. The Easter Sunday service was an all age service so the Vicar worked hard to make the death and resurrection of Jesus comprehensible to us all. He spoke about winners and losers, he argued that though the cross looked like a defeat, it was actually a victory. Then, he used an analogy. He asked when it was that England won the rugby world cup in 2003. Was it when Jonny Wilkinson dropped the goal for 3 points with a few minutes remaining? Or was it when the final whistle blew? The vicar went on to say that the cross was like the drop kick, the cross made the difference, on the cross Jesus bore our sins, bore the wrath of God and even defeated death. The resurrection, that was just game over, the final whistle, the full stop, if you like, in the drama of the cross.

Surely, as evangelicals we must have more to say about the resurrection than this. Surely, the evangelical Gospel is about new life as well as atoning death, surely it is a message of vivification as well as mortification.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the vindication of his Son as the Messiah, yes it is the acceptance of the Son's offering of himself on the cross, but it is more than that. Jesus bore our sins on the cross, with the resurrection, death is defeated and the work of Christ is complete. As Paul says in Romans 4:25 "He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification." Both cross and resurrection effect our salvation, they cannot be separated from each other.

Sin has been dealt with on the cross, now new life erupts into the world, the resurrection is the first fruits of the new creation, the kingdom, the reign of God. The future has broken into the present and we are caught up into this move of God as we are incorporated into Jesus Christ.

But there is a problem. The mistake popular evangelical accounts of penal substitution make is this: they say that Jesus dies so that we might live, we don't have to face death, the wages of sin, because Jesus has died for us.  If this is true, then the resurrection really is redundant

But it is not true because Jesus is not only our substitute he is also our representative. Now this might sound a little radical, but look at the evidence. 2 Cor 5:14 says "we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died" On the popular account it should read, "one died for all, and therefore all lived", but it doesn't.

Jesus is the Messiah, the representative human, so what is true for him is true for those 'in him'. Galatians 2:20 says that just as Christ was crucified so we too have been crucifed with him and no longer live.  Colossians 3:3 says that we have died and our life is now hidden with Christ in God.

Perhaps most emphatically of all Romans 6 uses the imagery of baptism to explain the relationship of the death and resurrection of Jesus to the Christian believer. Paul argues that we have been baptised into Christ's death, we have been united with him in his death, our old self was crucified with him, we have been buried with him. Why? "In order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of God the Father, we too may live a new life", so that "we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his", because "we believe that we will also live with him."

Not only are we incorporated into the death Jesus died on behalf of humanity, we are also incorporated into the new life of the resurrection. Without the resurrection, there is no eternal life, without the resurrection, there is no new creation. Properly understood, resurrection is far more than the final whistle, it is a whole new ball game.

I'm glad to hear that liberals these days really do believe in the resurrection. This Easter lets make sure that as evangelicals we celebrate the resurrection of our Lord and saviour with them.

"Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him" (Rom 6:8)

Christ has Died
Christ is Risen
Christ will Come Again