Why is it "He is Risen"?

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

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.”

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.

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").

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

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!”

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.

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

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?

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

Translation from Hebrew to english.

Locking this thread… as it has served its purpose. 

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.

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. 

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 out 2000 years ago. Assuming of course that you believe and care about Christian doctrine.

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

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.

It's biblical stuff; don't try to make sense of it.

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.”

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".

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

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.

He is rizzin'

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

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.

I am become death

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.

Now I ***am*** become Death, the destroyer of worlds.

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.

'im ris

Religious malarky

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

"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.

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

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"

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."

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.

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