Death and Resurrection

Death having been put to death by him, what else should happen than that the body should rise and be shown as the trophy over it? Or how else could death be shown to be destroyed, unless the lordly body had arisen?

On the Incarnation by Saint Athanasius

Having demonstrated that it was not possible for another to turn what was corruptible into incorruptibility except the Savior Himself, and that it was not possible for one made in the image to recreate other than the One who was the Image of the Father, St. Athanasius turns to the death and resurrection – why this was necessary, and necessary in precisely the manner as recorded.

…he now offered the sacrifice on behalf of all, delivering his own temple to death in the stead of all. …there was need of death, and death on behalf of all had to take place…

There had to be a death – a sacrifice. In order to die, the body had to be human; yet, with the indwelling of the Word, the body was not corruptible. Being incorruptible, He could not die in some natural, non-violent, manner – illness, for example.

…it was neither fitting for the Lord to be ill, he who healed the illness of others, nor again for the body to be weakened, in which he strengthened the weakness of others.

Could He not have contrived some other death – He was, after all, God. However, if it was a death of His own choosing, the idea that He conquered death would be lost. It had to be a death that was understood by the people to be certain, a method that was understood to be final.

…our Lord and Savior Christ did not contrive death for his own body, lest he appear fearful of some other death, but he accepted and endured on the cross that inflicted by others, especially by enemies…

Without this death, the Resurrection would not be possible. But for the Resurrection to be believed, the death had to be public, brutal, certain. Death on a Roman cross was all of these. Had He died privately and without witness, then after appeared and said that He died and rose, who would believe Him? What value would be the Resurrection if the death was not believed?

But, why the cross? Why not some other violent means – say beheading or some such?

…let him hear that no other way was it beneficial for us…

How else could He become a curse other than by the death occasioned by the curse – cursed is he who hangs from the tree, as it says in Deuteronomy.

…it was fitting for the Lord to stretch out his hands…

With one hand He might draw the ancient people, and with the other those from the Gentiles, joining both together in Himself. He had to be hung in the air, to defeat the prince of the power of the air.

As for the Resurrection, an appropriate interval was necessary. Had He arisen within the same day, the victory over corruption would not be known; this victory was demonstrated only with an appropriate interval between death and resurrection.

So, why not even longer (setting aside the prophecies, etc.)? the event had to remain fresh enough that people would be clearly aware of what they witnessed both with His death and with His resurrected body.

Conclusion

…death upon the cross for our sakes was fitting and suitable … that the salvation of all had to take place in no other way than by the cross.

Due to this, death is no longer fearsome to believers in Christ. They know that death does not lead to destruction.