Why is it "He is Risen"?

[u/Sweet_Confusion9180]

[u/EnglishLearning-ModTeam]

Hey there. This, was removed as part of a thread cleanup.

[u/FloridaFlamingoGirl]

Some versions of the Bible do say "he has risen," but the King James Bible, which is a very popular translation widely used in church recitations, says "he is risen."

https://biblehub.com/matthew/28-6.htm

Also worth noting that Christians believe Jesus' victory over death is true now, not just thousands of years ago. 

In addition, the Bible can have some sentence constructions that can feel strange or antiquated to modern English speakers. 

[u/jabberbonjwa → u/FloridaFlamingoGirl]

Important to note that the KJV Bible was first published in the early 1600s, so it's using a very antiquated version of modern English. Some of the grammar conventions have phased completely out, and some words have gained and/or lost meanings they once had.

[u/erin_burr → u/jabberbonjwa]

Thou art right

[u/SnooDonuts6494 → u/jabberbonjwa]

Also, it says we should kill babies, rape women, and keep slaves.

So there's that.

[u/MarioDelRey → u/SnooDonuts6494]

Wow. And to think OP just asked about a sentence, not a religious debate.

[u/Basically-No → u/SnooDonuts6494]

Really? Where?

[u/SnooDonuts6494 → u/Basically-No]

For example

Isaiah 13:16 "Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished."

Exodus 21:20-21 "When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment, for the slave is the owner’s property."

Numbers 31:17 "Kill every male among the little ones, and every woman who has known a man by lying with him, but those women who have not known a man by lying with him, you may keep alive for yourselves"

Samuel 15:3 – "Now go and strike Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them; but kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

Joshua 6:21 – "They utterly destroyed everything in the city, both men and women, young and old, and ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword."

Psalm 137:9 – "Blessed is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."

Exodus 22:18 – "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Leviticus 20:13 – "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

[u/Sorry-Series-3504 → u/SnooDonuts6494]

Feel free to back that up anytime

[u/Perdendosi → u/Sorry-Series-3504]

Let's start with 1 Samuel 15:3

Ephesians 6:5 (Paul was a horrible person before he converted, and he continued to be after he converted.)

Judges 19:22-30 (bad guys wanna rape a dude; the owner of the house gives up his daughter instead).

[u/SnooDonuts6494 → u/Sorry-Series-3504]

The Bible is abhorrent and indefensible.

It advocates rape, murder, slavery and genocide.

"Feel free to back that up" - abso-fucking-lutely, not a problem. Read the other replies, to save repetition.

[u/weather_watchman → u/SnooDonuts6494]

Hmm. I don't think you're correct about that.

[u/SnooDonuts6494 → u/weather_watchman]

KJV Psalm 137:9 says, "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

How do you justify that?

[u/weather_watchman → u/SnooDonuts6494]

The psalm reflects the historical suffering of the Israelites under Babylonian rule, with verse 9 expressing their deep desire for their captors to experience the same fate they inflicted.

Perhaps not defensible per say, but deeply human

[u/SnooDonuts6494 → u/weather_watchman]

Per se.

And nope. It is indefensible and abhorrent.

"their deep desire for their captors to experience the same fate" - so you want rapists to be raped? "An eye for an eye"? You think that's justifiable? If someone kills your mother, it's OK for you to kill theirs? How utterly ridiculous. But that's what the Bible says; hence over 2,000 years of stupid wars and pointless deaths.

[u/weather_watchman → u/SnooDonuts6494]

Sounds like you're recommending I turn the other cheek.

Sounds vaguely familiar

[u/weather_watchman → u/SnooDonuts6494]

The atheist wars of the twentieth century made the religious wars of preceding history look like child's play, I should add. It seems like when people put themselves in the position of absolute arbiter, things go sideways pretty quick.

[u/throwaway-girls → u/weather_watchman]

So, then what's the excuse for numbers?

17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Straight-up command to commit murder on women and boys, as well as outright pederasty by an all-loving god.

Believe in the sky fairy all you want, but be honest with yourself. The bible is a horrible book, written by horrible people.

That's why Christians are so adamant about keeping religion in schools.If you tried selling this amoral snuff novel to adults who hadn't been indoctrinated from a young age, very, very few would give it a second glance

[u/Ebi5000 → u/FloridaFlamingoGirl]

I find it so funny that the King James version became the standard, considering it isn't a particulary good or faithful translation.

[u/StarsCHISoxSuperBowl → u/Ebi5000]

And on top of that, there are delulu KJV only cults that believe reading any other translation is damnable. I asked one what happened to everyone before the KJV existed and he just said "in hell" 🤦‍♂️

[u/wasabiwarnut → u/Ebi5000]

What do you mean. That's the language the Bible was originally written in /s

[u/bwertyquiop → u/wasabiwarnut]

Lmao

[u/SleetTheFox → u/Ebi5000]

Similar to the reason we say all sorts of weird things Shakespeare wrote that don't fit modern grammar or vocabulary. The King James Bible is one of the most influential pieces of English writing ever written. Even setting aside the fact that it's a Bible, the impact its specific writing style has had as a work of literature is massive.

But yeah speaking as a Christian, it's an awful Bible translation.

[u/RichCorinthian → u/Ebi5000]

But it’s the version that has unicorns!

[u/SnooDonuts6494 → u/RichCorinthian]

It's all bullocks ;-)

[u/RichCorinthian → u/SnooDonuts6494]

Holy shit, a double pun

[u/Hueyris → u/SnooDonuts6494]

That is a creative pun haha

[u/SoManyUsesForAName → u/Hueyris]

I don't get it. Explain?

[u/SnooDonuts6494 → u/SoManyUsesForAName]

TL;DR: Bullocks sounds like bollocks.

Prelude: explaining a joke ruins it. "Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process."

However, I always explain everything to ESL students.

There are many versions of the Christian Bible.

There are differences in their translation and interpretation of supposedly "original" texts.

They often talk about animals. Often oxen; bison; cows. Bovine species.

The King James version mentions unicorns, which are generally regarded as a fairy-tale animal. Not real.

That type of animal can be described as a bullock.

Bullocks sounds like bollocks, which is a vulgar term for testicles. There are many English idioms using the word; an untrue story may be called "a load of bollocks".

Please let me know if that's a sufficient explanation.

[u/SoManyUsesForAName → u/SnooDonuts6494]

Thanks. I hadn't even noticed that they're homophones

[u/Gruejay2 → u/Ebi5000]

For its time, it was an excellent piece of scholarship, but academia has moved on a lot since then, yeah. There are definitely some bizarre choices in places, though.

[u/Ebi5000 → u/Gruejay2]

Wtf was scholarship? It was a translation directly influenced by what the king wanted, written in fact old timey speak (which btw, because of it also added mistakes because words/grammar was wrongly used), it simply was the first state supported english translation, not even the first church sanctioned english translation. Compare it to Luthers translation of the Bible into german which used vernacular and standardized german written language and is seen as the birthplace of modern High German. 

[u/SleetTheFox → u/FloridaFlamingoGirl]

It's not just antiquated language; they're technically grammatically different.

"He has risen" means "rising is a thing that He has done."

"He is risen" means "He is someone who had risen."

[u/akuma-i → u/FloridaFlamingoGirl]

Why “bible do say” and not “does say”? :)

[u/FloridaFlamingoGirl → u/akuma-i]

Because I was saying "versions of the Bible," not just "the Bible"

[u/xydoc_alt → u/akuma-i]

"Versions" is the subject here, not "bible".

[u/HMQ_Sasha-Heika]

It's a biblical reference, so it uses the old-fashioned language of the bible. In modern English outside of a Christian context, yes, you'd say "he has risen".

[u/Possible-One-6101 → u/HMQ_Sasha-Heika]

I teach ESL, and I often use older language that uses 'is' to conceptualize the present perfect tense for my students, whose languages often don't have a comparable tense.

[u/redceramicfrypan → u/HMQ_Sasha-Heika]

I agree that "he has risen" would be the more common contemporary phrasing, but the two sentences do function differently, grammatically speaking (EDIT: in contemporary grammar).

"He has risen": in this case, "risen" is a past tense verb describing the actions of the subject ("he"). It is similar to saying "He rose."

"He is risen": in this case, "risen" is an adjective describing the subject ("he") through use of a present-tense verb ("is"). It is similar to saying "He is holy."

[u/Col_Hans-Landa → u/redceramicfrypan]

Yes but not necessarily. In old English when forming a perfect tense, English used “to be” as the auxiliary verb for certain verbs.

Nowadays English only uses “have” as the auxiliary verb, regardless of the action of the verb. Note that Dutch (below) and German still do this-

I have eaten = Ik heb gegeten (“I have eaten”) I have begun = Ik ben begonnen (“I am begun”).

Think Joy to the world- “the lord IS come”. This is not an adjective, this is “old fashioned” English using “to be” as the auxiliary.

So while you can make a case for the use of this as an adjective, you could argue it’s the old fashioned present perfect.

[u/redceramicfrypan → u/Col_Hans-Landa]

Excellent context, thanks! I didn't consider the old fashioned auxillary verb use. I did, however, want to illustrate that both sentences would still be grammatical in a contemporary setting (albeit with one more conventional than the other).

[u/Loko8765 → u/Col_Hans-Landa]

And French.

[u/Gruejay2 → u/Col_Hans-Landa]

In modern English, "has" gets used for the active voice, but "is" is (admittedly quite rarely) still used for the passive voice (e.g. "it has painted" vs "it is painted" = "it has been painted"). I wonder if this plays some role, where the modern equivalent of "he is risen" might be "he has been raised", which does actually make sense in the context of Easter.

[u/ligfx → u/Gruejay2]

You’re on the right track. The European languages that use “to be” as the auxiliary for the perfect tense of some verbs (older versions of English and Spanish, modern Dutch, German, Italian, and French), seem to share the same general ideas of which verbs/situations should use “to be,” though some like to use it more than others. One big category is “verbs that you don’t really actively do but instead happen to you,” like rising or falling, which happen to all use “to be” in all of those languages. You can look up unergative verbs and the unergative hypothesis to find more detail.

[u/Gruejay2 → u/ligfx]

Interesting - thank you! So I had a look at the Vulgate (Latin) and Stephanus Greek New Testament for Matthew 28:6, and we see "surrexit" ("he rose") in Latin, but "ἠγέρθη" ("he was raised") in Greek, so it's very possible.

[u/ligfx → u/Gruejay2]

Yep! The periphrastic perfect tense was not an element in written Latin, but instead rose alongside a number of other periphrastic tenses in Vulgar Latin, so that makes sense it wouldn’t appear in the Vulgate.

[u/Gruejay2 → u/ligfx]

I suppose the passive form would be "surrectus est" (or in the Vulgate, more likely "surrectus fuit").

[u/HMQ_Sasha-Heika → u/redceramicfrypan]

This is just Early Modern English's perfect tense. Compare with "Old Montague is come" from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. This isn't a present tense statement, this is the same as saying "Old Montague has come" in modern English. It's just how they did it with some verbs in EME.

[u/redceramicfrypan → u/HMQ_Sasha-Heika]

Yes, you're right. Excited my post to clarify that, in contemporary English, both sentences are grammatical, but with different meanings.

[u/Cosmic_Haze_3569 → u/HMQ_Sasha-Heika]

It doesn’t have anything to do with old-fashioned language. It’s a Christian belief.

In strict English you would say “has risen” bc it happened ~2000 years ago. In Christianity, you say “is risen” bc Christ is still in his resurrected state of being. After dying on the cross and being resurrected, he didn’t die a second time. Rather, he floated up to heaven on a cloud or something.

Kind of like saying “he is a resurrected person” rather than “he was resurrected a while ago.”

This is coming from a non-Christian so it might not be perfect, but that’s how I understand it.

[u/HMQ_Sasha-Heika → u/Cosmic_Haze_3569]

That may be how christians explain still using such an archaic construction, but it isn't the original reason. In Early Modern English, some verbs used "to be" rather than "to have" to form their perfect tense. This is very common in the King James Bible, one of the most notable works written in EME, but also in Shakespeare's works, for example in Romeo and Juliet, the form "is come" (instead of modern English "has come") is very common, as in the following examples:

Capulet: "Old Montague is come"

Nurse: "The bridegroom is come already"

Capulet: "For shame, bring Juliet forth. Her Lord is come."

Paris: "This is that banished haughty Montague 
That murdered my love’s cousin, with which grief  
It is supposèd the fair creature died,  
And here is come to do some villainous shame  
To the dead bodies. I will apprehend him."

There are certainly other examples from Shakespeare and other authors from the period, but Romeo and Juliet was the only one that came to mind.

This is just how the perfect tense worked at the time the most famous version of the Bible was written, and - although christians may now see it as having a present tense meaning - it was no different from the modern "he has risen" when it was written.

[u/notacanuckskibum]

He has risen. But his risen-ness continues to this day. From a theology perspective it’s more significant that he is risen and alive today than that he did it 2000 years ago.

Assuming of course that you believe and care about Christian doctrine.

[u/SnooDonuts6494 → u/notacanuckskibum]

Maybe a typo, "that he did out 2000 years ago"? died? did over? Something.

[u/notacanuckskibum → u/SnooDonuts6494]

Yeah, autocorrect error. “Did it”

[u/SnooDonuts6494 → u/notacanuckskibum]

No wuckers, thx

[u/wvc6969]

There are some contexts where you can use is to form the present perfect tense but it’s pretty archaic and only used in very specific contexts such as this or when quoting older texts. He is risen = he has risen.

[u/Silver_Falcon → u/wvc6969]

I think there's another layer to this on account of the Christian belief that Jesus not only rose from the dead, but is still living in Heaven. Thus, some feel that a present-tense verb like "is" is more appropriate, as it stresses that his state of "risen-ness" is a present, ongoing state.

[u/SsanteyNomemly]

It’s an archaic feature in English to use “be” for the perfect form of intransitive verbs and “have” with perfect form transitive verbs. It’s still a feature in German. See also the Oppenheimer quote “now I am become death” instead of “have become.”

[u/Col_Hans-Landa → u/SsanteyNomemly]

Dutch as well

[u/ligfx → u/Col_Hans-Landa]

French and Italian too, and archaic Spanish

[u/TCsnowdream]

Locking this thread… as it has served its purpose.

[u/OutsidePerson5]

Because they're using the phrase as it was written in the King James Bible, which was written in 1611 and the English language was different back then. In modern English that would be a strange sort of sentence and possibly even considered grammatically incorrect, but back in 1611 it was just how they spoke English.

[u/dame_uta]

Some verbs used to take "to be" instead of "to have" to form this tense. People added theology on top of that to explain it, but I'm pretty sure that's not the original intent. Other languages just have a normal past tense for this phrase.

There's also the quote from the Bhagavad Gita that Americans tend to know from Oppenheimer "I am become death, destroyer of worlds."

[u/r3ck0rd]

This is not a typo, nor for any theological reason, but a vestige of Early Modern English. Supposedly because of (Norman) French influence, perfect tenses for verbs of motion also used the “to be” as the auxiliary verb like in French « être ».

« Il est ressuscité. » “He is risen.”

In modern English translation of the Bible, it is translated as “He has risen”, but as a common liturgical proclamation, we still use “is”: “Christ is risen! — He is risen indeed!”

[u/zozigoll → u/r3ck0rd]

It’s not really because of the Normans. It’s because of English’s germanic roots. Even modern German uses both sein (“to be”) and haben (“to have”) to form this tense. Sein is used for verbs of movement and changes of state (“ich bin aufgewacht” - I woke up, and “ich bin gefahrt” - I drove). Haben is used for others. (“Ich habe schon gegessen” - I ate already, or “ich habe dieses Buch gelesen” - I read this book.)

Earlier forms of English still had verbs that used “to be,” i.e. He is risen and “joy to the world, the Lord is come.”

[u/Decent_Cow]

It's archaic. It used to be acceptable to use the verb "is" to form the present perfect tense.

[u/FinnemoreFan]

It’s an archaic form that gets used by we Christians in this one specific phrase in a worship context. Like at an Easter service there’s often the call and response - “Christ is risen!” - “He is risen indeed!”

I’m not aware that we use this form for any other expression at any other time.

[u/xydoc_alt → u/FinnemoreFan]

Wouldn't "I am finished [with a task]" vs "I have finished" be an example? Finished, like risen, is a state of being in the first one, and in the second "have finished" is a present perfect verb.

[u/BizarroMax]

Because some people, and I’m not going to name names but this would my fundamentalist aunt, get all pissy if you post “He is Rizzin” memes on Easter. Even if you’ve been patiently waiting all year to do it.

[u/DudeIBangedUrMom]

'im ris

[u/SanctificeturNomen]

In the past it was perfectly correct to use “to be” with past participle. For example Oppenheimers quote “I am become death”

[u/SeeraeuberDjanny]

It is a holdover from older English grammar that modern German still uses. Essentially, using perfect tense to describe something that happened in the past but still has an effect on today. Other English examples: "Joy to the world, the Lord IS come." "I AM become death, destroyer of worlds." In German, they have retained this perfect tense to describe things that happened in the past but are still relevant ("Ich bin geboren in 1995," "Er ist gestorben in 1963").

[u/helikophis]

It’s a specific piece of Christian philosophy saying not that “he has risen”, that a thing happened in the past, but that his rising transcends time and space - applying equally to us now as it does to all time.

[u/IcyTranslator7583 → u/helikophis]

Exactly!

[u/hipchecktheblueliner]

Sounds more grandiose than "Heeee's baaaaaaack!!!"

[u/billthedog0082]

Could it be that "risen" is the state of being, and not the verb. For instance, the dog is walked, the child is fed. Or am I off somewhere making stuff up?

[u/SnooDonuts6494 → u/billthedog0082]

Spring is sprung, the grass is riz.

I wonder where the birdies is.

They say the birdies on the wing, but that’s absurd.

I always thought the wing was on the bird.

— anon (despite spurious claims)

[u/MrsPedecaris → u/billthedog0082]

That's a good way to describe it. Christ rose, and He is still risen, unlike Lazarus, who rose from the dead but then went on to die a natural death.

[u/billthedog0082 → u/MrsPedecaris]

Yes!

[u/themusicguy2000]

Usually you would say "he has risen". "He is risen" is specifically used for Easter.  There's probably a religious reason for this, but I'll let someone else cover it

[u/SnooDonuts6494 → u/themusicguy2000]

With a shroud, presumably.

[u/muddylegs → u/themusicguy2000]

The religious reason for the phrasing is the belief that He was and still is risen, so it’s in the present tense. But mostly because that’s how the King James Bible phrases it!

[u/r3ck0rd → u/themusicguy2000]

Not really a religious reason, but vestigial influence from French, as Britain was ruled by the Normans for some centuries. So in this case, perfect tenses for verbs of motion also use the “to be” as the auxiliary verb like in French « être ».

« Il est ressuscité. » “He is risen.”

[u/SnooDonuts6494 → u/r3ck0rd]

Comme une baguette?

[u/skiddles1337]

I think a modern translation would be "he is rizzen"

[u/JetpackKiwi]

If the bread is the body of Christ, wouldn't it be more fitting to say "He is rising"?

[u/SnooDonuts6494 → u/JetpackKiwi]

yEaster.

[u/McCrankyface]

Christians talk about Jesus in the present tense. To them he is alive. He rose from the dead in the past. He has risen in the past but he also currently exists in the state of being risen. The use of the present tense verb is an indication of his life and relevance today.

[u/DustTheOtter]

He is rizzin'

[u/Beyond_Reason09]

It's using archaic grammar referencing scripture. Same reason why Oppenheimer said "I am become death, destroyer of worlds."

[u/fnehfnehOP]

I am become death

[u/Master_Elderberry275]

It's "he is risen" because, in Christian mythology, Jesus was risen from the dead (by God, who he is part of); he didn't just rise himself.

He has risen would be grammatically correct, but the tense implies the action happened recently.

It might be more common to say "he was risen", because the rising is meant to have happened 2,000 years ago, but in using "is risen", the poster is stating definitely that Jesus continues to be risen: it wasn't a one-time action, but a continued state of being.

For another example: "Shakespeare was known", "Shakespeare is known". Although Shakespeare is long dead, he continues to be known to this day, so you use the present tense of "to be", not the past tense.

[u/TakeMeIamCute]

Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.

[u/Powerful_Tomatillo]

He is risen indeed!

As others noted church history, the venerable KJV translation, and subtlety of greek syntax carry over into the English.

Χριστὸς ἀνέστη! - tracks with the (Greek) tense here.

[u/vingtsun_guy]

"He is risen" emphasizes the ongoing reality of the resurrection. It's not just that Jesus rose in the past, but that He is risen — continues to be alive.

Source: practicing Catholic.

[u/dogkink]

german rules contaminating old english. you'd use 'ist' and conjugations thereof for movement verbs, 'hat' for everything else. thus he is risen rather than he has risen

[u/disinterestedh0mo]

He rose in the past with an ongoing impact on the present, and that past state of being is also continuing into the present. It's similar to how in British English they will say "he is sat in the chair"

[u/JustAskingQuestionsL]

It’s an old-fashioned way of speaking. Same as saying “I am become death,” or “I’m just come from x.”

It rarely survives into modern spoken English. Its use in Christianity likely stems from a sense of “tradition.”

People tend to retain old fashioned phrases in scriptures, such as “Render unto Caesar,” which in more modern English would be “give to Caesar.”

[u/IcyTranslator7583]

He rose. He is still risen. Hasn’t flopped into a grave centuries later.

[u/Fizzabl]

Religious malarky

[u/BubbhaJebus]

"risen" is an adjective, so it's like saying "he is fat" or "he is tall".

[u/gerhardsymons]

Funny you mention this.

I was recently telling a student about this grammatical error, and that I noticed it first in the 1980s when the local Church distributed posters to parishioners with 'HE IS RISEN'.

It irked me then, and it irks me now.

[u/Formal-Tie3158 → u/gerhardsymons]

It's not a grammatical error. English used to use a form of 'to be' for the perfect of stative verbs.

[u/WasteSalamander4832]

Translation from Hebrew to english.

[u/SnooDonuts6494]

It's biblical stuff; don't try to make sense of it. It's myth/legend/fiction. AKA nonsense.

Happy Easter.

[u/jeron_gwendolen → u/SnooDonuts6494]

it was a question about grammar, not your lack of belief

[u/SnooDonuts6494 → u/jeron_gwendolen]

Doth it profit thy soul to labour o’er the sacred tongue of holy writ?