Luke 24 verse 1, but on the first day of the week at early dawn, they went to the tomb taking the spices they had prepared.
And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb.
But when they went in, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.
And while they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel.
And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them,
Why do you seek the living among the dead?
He's not here. He's risen.
Remember how he told you while he was still in Galilee that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.
And they remembered his words.
And returning from the tomb, they told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.
Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles.
But these words seemed to them an idle tale.
And they did not believe them.
But Peter rose and ran to the tomb.
Stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves.
And he went home marveling at what had happened.
Amen.
As I mentioned last Sunday when we looked at the triumphal entry in Luke 19,
we really need to understand Luke's objective in writing the book.
And for it to get a good grasp of this text, even a familiar resurrection text like this one.
Remember, he didn't seek in writing this to provide a biography of Jesus' life.
That's not what the gospels are.
They're not really biographies, though they certainly contain biographical information.
That's not really the essence of what they are.
He didn't write this to entertain us with some amazing stories about Jesus' works
or stimulate our minds with some rehearsing of Jesus' teachings either.
Now, all of those things happen, but that's not the reason why Luke is writing.
Neither is it why Matthew, Mark, and John wrote their gospels either.
The New Testament gospels are collections of historical data
meant to persuade the reader to trust that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah of God,
the Son of God, sent from heaven to save us from our sins.
That's why he's writing.
That's his purpose in writing the book, collecting the material, and arranging it the way that he did.
Now, the other New Testament books, particularly Acts and the Epistles,
they focus on interpreting the data.
But the gospels aren't doing so much interpretation of the data.
They're really presenting the historical data
in order that the data itself might convince us of the good news of salvation in Jesus.
That's what gospel means.
It means good news.
So they're writing, they're collecting the data,
they're describing what happened, they're telling us what happened,
they're arranging it in order that they might convince us of good news.
And that good news is that salvation has come in the person and the work of Jesus Christ.
But as with all information that is meaningful and pertinent,
the data needs to be carefully examined.
But the problem seems to be that not too many people seem inclined to give it a close examination.
One author writing in the mid-20th century said,
the Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting.
It has been found difficult and left untried.
I think that's pretty helpful for us in understanding our own times.
How many people in our lives, how many of us even today,
maybe you count yourself a believer in Christ and a believer in the resurrection,
but not because you've actually closely examined the evidence that the gospels give us,
just because for whatever reason in your life,
your parents believe that,
or that's just kind of the culture you've come up in,
so you've subscribed to the same things that the people around you believe.
Now, I'm grateful that you believe the truth of it,
but it demands our close examination.
Of course, there are many others who would outright deny the things that Christians claim are true of the resurrection of Jesus,
not because they've examined the evidence and found that it is lacking,
but they just find the concept itself to be difficult,
and they refuse to even really try it out.
Now, my aim this morning is to examine at least a small portion of the material that Luke gives us,
and in these 12 verses,
what we find is that Luke is not interpreting the events.
He is describing them based on eyewitness testimonies he recorded,
and as he does this,
the fact that he is giving us a description of events
means that he's making an assumption about the reader,
the reader in this case being you and me.
He's making an assumption,
and the assumption is that we are actually interested in sorting these things out.
We're actually interested in considering the facts of the story
to determine whether or not this whole ordeal is actually valid.
And that's the idea that I want to build on this morning in the time that we have together.
It's really to ask this question,
is the resurrection of Jesus worthy of our consideration?
Is it worthy of our consideration?
Luke assumes that we think it is.
But when I ask that question,
whether you're a believer or not,
the question really holds true.
If you're an unbeliever,
I want to convince you that actually,
yeah, it is worthy of your consideration.
In fact, it actually demands your consideration.
But even those of you who are already believers,
perhaps you've gotten to a point in your Christian life
where you've lost the perspective of joy and hope
that rests solely in the resurrection of Jesus.
And for you, I also want to say,
this is worthy, again, of your consideration.
In fact, it demands your consideration day by day.
Now, looking at the text,
I want to say something of the resurrection's credibility
as in a historical event.
I want to say something of its essential nature
in Christian theology.
That is to say that the resurrection matters.
And then, of course,
I want to say something of its power
to compel us to saving faith.
Okay, so those are the three categories
of consideration for the morning.
First thing is this,
the resurrection is historically credible.
The resurrection of Jesus is historically credible.
Look with me again at verses one to five
and then verses 10 to 12.
But on the first day of the week at early dawn,
they went to the tomb,
taking the spices they had prepared,
and they found the stone rolled away from the tomb.
But when they went in,
they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.
And while they were perplexed about this,
behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel.
And as they were frightened
and bowed their faces to the ground,
the men said to them,
why do you seek the living among the dead?
Now, I want you to skip down to verses 10 to 12.
Now, it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna,
Mary the mother of James,
and the other women with them
who told these things to the apostles.
But these words seemed to them an idle tale.
They did not believe them.
But then Peter rose and ran to the tomb,
stooping and looking in.
He saw the linen cloths by themselves,
and he went home marveling at what had happened.
The resurrection is historically credible,
and there's a few things here
that I want to point out to you to prove my case.
Now, let me start with it this way.
August 16, 1977,
Elvis Presley died in his home in Memphis.
Multiple physicians examined his body via autopsy
to determine the cause of death.
Two different morticians prepared his body for burial.
His wardrobe manager dressed him.
His cosmetologist made him up.
His hairstylist colored his hair jet black.
And then finally, his family was brought together
to view his lifeless body before its internment.
But despite all of that testimony,
some people bought into a theory
called the Graceland hoax,
which insisted that Elvis is still alive,
that he never died.
Now, still, the evidence of his death was so great
that the burden of proof,
it didn't actually fall on those
who were claiming he was dead.
The evidence was tremendous
in putting forth the probability of Elvis's death.
The burden of proof really fell on those
who were denying that he was dead
and that he was still living,
but no such proof was ever actually given.
Now, Jesus's resurrection
is routinely considered a grand hoax by skeptics,
but the sheer amount of evidence
for the resurrection is so great
that the burden of proof
really falls on those who reject it.
And like with the Graceland hoax,
no such proof has ever actually
satisfactorily been provided.
And of course, the skeptics try.
They've presented many different theories,
but ultimately, those theories,
when it comes down to it,
they actually require more faith to believe
than the biblical narrative itself requires
to believe in the resurrection.
Now, my objective is not to address
each of those theories.
We've done that before on Easter Sunday,
and you can find all those recordings,
and we can engage about that later.
My purpose is not to address all of them.
What I'd actually like to do in these 12 verses
is to present just a few of the pieces of evidence
that Luke presents
that need to be considered.
Three types of evidence are here in these verses.
First, there is circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence,
and we see this with the empty tomb
in verses one to three.
There is a tomb.
Supposedly, Jesus' body was laid in,
and it is no longer there.
Circumstantial evidence.
Now, we have to be careful with this, don't we?
Circumstantial evidence.
Though it provides the context for certainty,
it doesn't actually prove anything.
The fact that there's an empty tomb
doesn't prove anything.
There are all kinds of explanations
for an empty tomb
that do not involve resurrection,
and of course,
many possible explanations have been provided.
Some of them certainly more rational than others.
Some have said,
well, they just went to the wrong tomb
on that Sunday morning.
Well, if they went to the wrong tomb,
then so did the angels go to the wrong tomb.
So did the Roman soldiers go to the wrong tomb.
So did Joseph of Arimathea,
whose tomb it actually belonged to.
It just doesn't hold water, right?
But that's one of the more ridiculous notions.
Others are a little more worthy
of our consideration
and of our thoughts for sure.
But the point is
that the empty tomb itself
doesn't actually prove anything,
but it is circumstantial evidence
that we must take into consideration.
Now, those who actually saw the empty tomb
being even Jesus' closest friends and followers
never even considered the possibility
of a resurrection
based on the fact that the tomb was empty.
That just wasn't in their thoughts at all.
These women, they go to the tomb,
they don't assume that,
oh, he must have risen from the dead.
That's the furthest thing from their minds.
Peter doesn't do that either.
Peter runs to the tomb in verse 12,
and he marvels,
but the marveling of Peter in this moment
is not a marveling of faith.
It is a marveling of confusion.
Confusion, perplexing disbelief
is what dominates Luke's account
of the resurrection here,
at least in terms of those who saw the empty tomb.
Now, John's gospel fills us in
a little bit more on the details,
at least as it relates to Mary Magdalene.
Mary was the first one to the tomb,
and when she finds that it's empty,
her first assumption
is not that Jesus rose from the dead.
Her first assumption
is that somebody stole his body,
and she immediately leaves
to go and tell somebody
they've stolen the body of the Lord.
Later, she returns to the empty tomb,
and the Lord himself encounters her.
But in that moment,
at least in the initial moment
of the encounter,
she was so convinced
that someone had stolen
the body of the Lord
that she didn't even recognize
that it was the Lord himself
standing before her.
Now, my point is
that the empty tomb,
in and of itself,
it doesn't actually mean anything,
and yet,
it is still a necessary piece of evidence
because it provides the context
in which a resurrection
is one possibility.
So, this notion
that Christians are claiming
a resurrection
merely because
there is an empty tomb
that they suppose
at one point,
Jesus was laid in,
his lifeless body was laid in,
well, no,
that's not what Christians
are saying at all.
We recognize
that the tomb being empty
in and of itself
doesn't actually mean anything,
but it does provide the context.
If the tomb is not empty,
then the Lord isn't risen.
Provides the context.
Now, whether you believe
the Bible or not,
you're going to have to answer
the circumstantial evidence.
You have to provide
a solution for that.
Maybe your solution
is, well,
just somebody stole it.
Maybe Mary was right,
but you're going to have to deal
with some other pieces
of evidence
that seem to contradict that.
There's lots of things
you might say,
but you've got to deal
with the fact
that the tomb
was actually empty.
Circumstantial evidence.
The second type of evidence here
is supernatural evidence.
Supernatural evidence.
This is seen
in the heavenly messengers,
the angels,
who appear to the women
in verses four and five.
Now, a naturalist
will dismiss this evidence
on principle
because the naturalist worldview
doesn't allow
for anything supernatural at all.
But, of course,
the burden of proof
rests on the naturalist
because there is
so much evidence
contrary to his basic principle
of naturalism
that all things
are only what can be observed,
that there is no
supernatural occurrences
that ever happen
or have ever happened.
There's so much evidence
to the contrary of that,
not only within Christianity,
but across cultural
and religious divides.
It's just there.
I read an article this morning
in the New York Times.
They were running an ad
on some research
or an article
on some research
they've done
on spirituality
in the United States
over the last year.
And the article said,
this is not in relationship
to Christianity,
the article said
92% of Americans
now have an understanding,
a worldview
that acknowledges
that supernatural things happen.
Now, again,
that's not just about Christianity.
It's not saying 92%
of Americans are Christians.
It is far from that.
It is just saying
that most people,
the vast majority of people,
do not follow
that line of thinking
that the naturalist,
the secularist,
secularist follows anymore.
So, given the probability,
then,
of supernatural occurrences,
the presence
of heavenly messengers
at the tomb
actually makes
a lot of sense,
doesn't it?
God regularly uses angels
to accomplish His purposes
in the Scriptures.
In Luke,
angels are often seen
as messengers
specifically at Jesus' birth,
resurrection,
and ascension.
This kind of explanation
that they give
to the women here,
this explanation
of the empty tomb
of resurrection,
had to come
from a divine source
to strengthen
its credibility.
A purely human explanation
would not have sufficed
if it was a purely
human messenger
standing at the tomb
telling the women,
He is not here,
He has risen,
who would have believed that?
It's actually
the supernatural evidence
itself
that doesn't diminish
the credibility
of the resurrection.
It actually increases
the probability
of the resurrection.
It increases its plausibility.
It doesn't diminish it.
So, we've got
circumstantial evidence.
There's an empty tomb.
We have to deal
with that, right?
There's a lot of explanations
potentially,
but we have to deal
with it.
There's supernatural evidence
that we're going to build
on top of that.
Well, there's a lot
of stories here.
There's a lot of accounts
that are saying
that there were
these heavenly messengers.
This was kind of
a unique moment.
They're the ones
who interpret
the empty tomb
for the women.
But the strongest evidence
is the third type.
It's eyewitness testimony.
And of course,
the eyewitness testimony
in these verses
is the group of women
who have gone to the tomb.
Now, we'd be foolish
to say that eyewitness testimony
is inerrant.
It isn't.
Keith's a lawyer.
He'll tell you
just because somebody
says they saw something
doesn't necessarily mean
that they really did see
what they think they saw.
I understand that.
Yet, it's still
a very powerful form
of proof, isn't it?
There were literally
hundreds of eyewitnesses
of the resurrected Christ
who at the time
the Gospels were written,
at the time
the New Testament epistles
were written,
could have taken
that material
and found
more than 500 witnesses
!
and asked them
to cooperate
their accounts
of actually seeing
the resurrected Christ.
they're plentiful.
The very purpose
of the apostles,
their mission
was to give witness
to Jesus' resurrection.
However,
to establish
the strongest
possible credibility
for the reliability
of the resurrection,
it was essential
that it be this group
of women
who were the first witnesses
of the resurrected Lord.
Essential.
Let me explain.
On one hand,
that these women
are recorded
as the first witnesses
of the resurrection
actually pushes
against the notion
that this was a hoax
perpetrated
by Jesus' disciples.
And here's why
we say that.
It is irrefutable
that the culture
in which they lived
generally viewed women
as inferior to
and less reliable
than men.
Now,
that's not to say
anything of what
the disciples believed.
It's what their
cultural culture
generally thought.
It's how they lived
and believed.
Now,
if the disciples
desired to fabricate
a hoax
that people
would readily believe
in their culture,
it is doubtful,
highly unlikely,
that they would have
used women
as their key witnesses.
witnesses.
That's an important
piece for us
to tuck into
our pocket there.
But the strength
of this evidence
is far greater
than that.
Had anyone
other than these
women been the
first to the tomb,
the evidence
would have been
insufficient
according to
their own customs.
A matter
could not be
established
without at least
two or three
witnesses
to corroborate
the account.
That was the law.
It had been the law
for a long time
in Israel
and it was
a law
even among
Rome to some
extent.
Because of the
faithfulness
of these women,
because of their
loyalty
to Jesus,
that in this case
exceeded the
disciples,
exceeded the
men,
because their
love for the
Lord,
there is an
unbroken
chain of
evidence
regarding the
details of
Jesus' death
and his
crucifixion,
his burial
in Joseph of
Arimathea's tomb,
and in his
resurrection
on the third
day.
Only one
of the disciples
was present
for Jesus'
crucifixion.
This group
of women
though,
they were
there.
Look at
chapter 23
verse 49.
And all
his acquaintances
and the women
who had
followed him
from Galilee
stood at a
distance
watching these
things.
Watching what
things?
The crucifixion.
They saw
his death.
They saw
the spear
plunge into
his side.
They heard
his words.
They watched
him suffer.
They watched
him die.
Only John
was present
among the
disciples.
John's
testimony
on its own
would not
have been
enough to
establish the
chain of
evidence,
but this
group of
women,
they were
there.
Multiple
witnesses.
None of
the disciples
were present
when Jesus'
body was
removed from
the cross
and laid
in Joseph's
tomb.
But these
women were
there.
Again,
chapter 23,
verse 55.
The women
who had
come with
him from
Galilee
followed
Joseph of
Arimathea
and they
saw the
tomb.
They saw
how his
body was
laid and
after seeing
it all,
they returned
and prepared
the spices
and ointments.
Now Luke
doesn't mention
it in that
verse,
but they
must have
saw a
massive stone
rolled into
place because
we know
on their
way to
the tomb
on Sunday
morning,
they were
asking one
another,
how are we
actually going
to move
this stone
so that we
can get to
the body
of the
Lord?
They saw
it all.
For the
strongest
eyewitness
testimony
possible,
it was
necessary
that these
women were
the first
to see
the empty
tomb,
to receive
the angelic
message,
and to
meet the
risen Lord.
All of
this evidence,
evidence of
the historical
credibility
of the
resurrection,
and there's
much more
than this
available for
anyone that's
willing to
actually look
at the
data,
including the
personal
appearances of
the Lord.
Still,
the credibility
of the
resurrection
doesn't say
anything about
its purpose,
which is where
we now turn
our attention.
So the first
thing to say
here with Luke's
little section
is that the
resurrection of
Jesus is
historically
credible,
but the
second thing
is to say
the resurrection
of Jesus
is theologically
crucial.
It's critical.
Without it,
nothing else
makes sense.
Look with me
at what the
angels say
in verse 5.
As the women
were frightened
and bowed
their faces
to the ground,
the men said
to them,
why do you
seek the
living among
the dead?
He's not
here.
He has
risen.
Remember how
he told you
while he was
still in
Galilee,
that the
Son of
Man must
be delivered
into the
hands of
sinful men
and be
crucified
and on
the third
day rise.
The resurrection
is so crucial
to Christian
theology that
the angelic
message here
reads almost
like a mild
rebuke.
Now I think
typically when we
come to this,
we imagine the
angels are making
this statement,
why do you
seek the living
among the dead?
almost tongue
in cheek as
if we got
you,
surprise.
I don't think
that's at all
how they're
saying this.
I think they're
asking a serious
question to the
women.
Why are you
here?
Why are you
seeking the
living one
among the
dead?
They're making
an affirmation,
something that
it seems like
from their
perspective the
women should
have already
known and been
expecting and
anticipating.
for the
heavenly
messengers
looking for
Jesus in
the tomb
was scandalous.
So they
proclaimed his
resurrection,
they reminded
the women that
not only is he
risen from the
dead, but
remember he
told you over
and over in
Galilee that he
was going to do
this, that this
is exactly how
things would
happen.
The son of
man must be
delivered,
they said.
He must be
crucified, he
must be
raised.
They insisted
on it.
And the
key word is
must because
the resurrection
is crucial.
It was
critical that
Jesus suffer,
die, and
rise if he
was to truly
be Lord and
Savior.
But as of
that moment,
none of
Jesus' followers
understood that.
They hadn't
yet comprehended
that Jesus'
death was an
atonement for
their sins.
So they had
no thought at
all in their
mind of him
being vindicated,
of his death,
of his crucifixion,
receiving vindication
through resurrection,
which is exactly
what the
resurrection does.
It wasn't
anywhere in their
thoughts.
But they would
quickly realize that
their salvation
hinged entirely
on Jesus'
resurrection.
If Jesus
remained dead,
if he was
still in the
tomb,
it would prove
only that he
was a sinner
like everybody
else,
and that his
death ultimately
was the justice
of God
for his sin.
But he didn't
stay in the
tomb,
and he wasn't
a sinner like
anybody else.
We get to
Acts chapter 2,
and Peter,
after all of the
encounters that he
has with Jesus,
of course he is
believing,
and he preaches
that amazing sermon
on Pentecost about
40 days after this,
or at least a few
weeks after.
What is it that he
says?
Acts 2, 24.
He proclaims,
God raised him
up.
God raised Jesus,
loosing the
pangs of death.
Why, Peter says,
because it was not
possible for him
to be held by it.
Why was it not
possible?
Well, the angels
tell us.
He is the living
one.
They're not just
asking the women,
why are you
seeking for people
who are alive
in a cemetery?
No, they're saying,
why are you looking
for the living
one among the
dead?
It wasn't
possible for him
to be held by
death.
His death meant
something different
than it means for
us.
Now, there's always
been those skeptics,
and we've talked
about a few of them
already, there's
always been those
skeptics who reject
the resurrection
outright from
outside of
Christianity.
But there are
also many who
attempt to reject
the resurrection
from inside the
realm of
Christianity.
Often, the reason
behind this, there
may be many
reasons, but I
think what seems
to me often to
be the reason is
they're attempting
to maintain some
form of
Christianity that
interacts well with
their understanding
of the natural
sciences.
So, they identify
with Christian
morals and ethics,
at least when those
things are convenient
to them, but they
reject notions of
the supernatural,
like resurrection.
They would reject
notions of miracles,
reject notions of
healings and such.
And there's many
inconsistencies with
that kind of view,
but the basic error
is that it supposes
Christianity can
stand apart from its
fundamental claims.
Christians.
But the truth is that
without the resurrection,
there is no
Christianity.
Without the
resurrection, you
would have never
heard the name
Jesus in your
life.
Christianity
wouldn't exist.
The resurrection is
essential to it.
It is critical.
It is a theological
necessity to the
Christian faith.
It's a theological
necessity if any of
us are going to have
any hope of eternal
life at all.
His resurrection,
it's crucial to true
hope.
We always think of
the crucifixion as the
central moment of the
Christian faith, and
indeed it is.
What is it that
Christians see when they
look at the cross?
They see the sinless
Son of God
bearing God's wrath
in the stead of
sinners.
It is not merely
atonement.
It is a substitutionary
atonement that we
believe in.
That it's not that he
died to be an example
to us.
It's not that he, in
some metaphorical sense,
died to give us a
pattern of atonement.
No, that's not at all
what the crucifixion
did.
His crucifixion was in
our place.
He bears God's wrath,
God's wrath, and
so that we can receive
his life.
That's the Christian
view of the crucifixion.
It is indeed the
central moment of
history and of our
faith.
But how is it that we
can be so certain of
that?
That interpretation of
the cross is only
possible in light of
the resurrection.
If there's no
resurrection,
there'd be no
atonement.
At least there'd be
no way to validate or
verify an atonement.
The resurrection was
necessary for the
crucifixion to actually
prove capable of
reconciling us to God.
Christians have
understood this for
2,000 years now.
It's why we worship on
Sunday, the day that
commemorates the
resurrection of the
Lord, and we don't
worship on Friday, the
day that would
acknowledge and
commemorate the
crucifixion of the
Lord.
The bottom line is that
without the resurrection,
the cross means nothing.
It doesn't mean anything at
all.
That's not in any way to
diminish the cross, but it
is to acknowledge the
essential nature of the
resurrection.
And this is the
interpretation the
apostles give later in the
New Testament.
Paul says in 1 Corinthians
15, if Christ has not been
raised, then our preaching
is in vain and your faith is
in vain.
If Christ has not been
raised, your faith is
futile, and you are still
in your sins.
Now, why does he equate
forgiveness of sins to the
resurrection of Christ?
Because the resurrection of
Christ is what proves the
atonement of the cross.
And he says if Christ isn't
actually raised, we're wasting
our time, and we are of all
people to be most pitied in
the world, he says.
Without the resurrection,
there is no salvation.
So then the question
becomes, what is the
motivation for this?
No one strong-armed God
into sending his son to die
and be raised.
Why would he even do it?
God determined this plan.
God set the plan in motion.
He orchestrated the events.
God performed all of this
for our salvation.
But why?
The only reasonable answer
is love.
It's the only possible answer.
God does not need you,
and he does not need me.
There is nothing for him
to be gained
by doing all of this.
The crucifixion and
resurrection
is the ultimate expression
of God's love for you
and of his love for me.
Indeed,
of his love for the world.
This is why we sing songs
of God's love.
What love, my God,
would hold you to the tree
to bear the overwhelming debt
for me
to go through hell
and down into the grave
to raise me up
to see you face to face.
What love is this?
It's an indescribable love,
a compelling love,
a divine love.
The resurrection
is historically credible.
It is theologically crucial,
and we might say theologically joyful.
What a joy it is.
But there's one more thing
I think we need to grasp
before we close our time.
The third thing is this.
The resurrection
is spiritually compelling.
It is spiritually compelling.
Now, I want you to look
at verses 8 and 9.
The women have arrived
at the tomb.
They've seen it empty.
They're perplexed.
Two angels appear before them
with a mild rebuke, perhaps.
Explain that Jesus has risen,
that that's the explanation
for the empty tomb.
But then what the angels do
at the end is they say,
remember he told you
that this was going to happen.
He told you all of this
was going to unfold this way.
Now look at verse 8.
I think this is the most important
verse of this section.
And they remembered his words.
And what was the result
of them remembering his words?
Verse 9.
They returned from the tomb.
They told all these things
to the 11 and to all the rest.
They ran and told.
There's an indication of faith
at work here.
Something has happened
in the women.
Now I want you to contemplate
here at the end
what compels an individual
to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
what actually compels
our faith.
Because we would have
to acknowledge
that evidence itself
is not enough
to compel belief.
I thought it was funny
what Alistair Begg
said about this.
He said,
if evidence compelled belief,
nobody would smoke.
But it will not
compel belief.
The evidence
gives sufficient basis
for further consideration.
That's what it does.
So we can't go
to point number one
and just say,
well the resurrection
is historically credible
and end it there.
Because that's not enough
to actually compel us
to do anything
other than just to acknowledge
that well the plausibility
of this is quite high
when you consider
the evidence.
You can see the empty tomb
but it will not be enough
to convince you
that Jesus lives.
You can agree
that Jesus lives
but it will not be enough
to convince you
that his life matters.
You can have
a supernatural experience
without believing the gospel.
You can even see
the risen Christ himself
and still refuse
to trust him as your savior
and follow him as your Lord.
It can't just be
about the evidence.
So if you're here
and you're looking,
you know,
if somebody could just
finally convince me
on the basis of evidence
that all of this
is real,
it's not possible.
We can give you
all the evidence
in the world.
Jesus himself
can appear to you
and it will not make
a difference
in and of itself.
Saving faith,
that which compels
your spirit
to believe
in the resurrection,
it is not equivalent
to agreeing
about the plausibility
of the Bible's claims.
That is not what we mean
when we say
you must believe
to be saved.
That is not what we mean
by Christian faith.
If that were the case,
all we would need to do
is examine
the various evidences
so that we can come
to an intellectual agreement
on the facts.
But we must not do that alone.
In the end,
intellectual assent
doesn't accomplish anything,
doesn't do anything for you
in a spiritual sense.
you can agree
while remaining
in a state
of unbelief.
Unbelief, then,
is not about
insufficient evidence
as if more compelling evidence
will actually move you.
Unbelief
is about the hardness
of your heart.
what, then,
can compel
belief?
What, then,
can actually
transform
the heart?
Now, I think
that's one of the things
that Luke is emphasizing
in this chapter.
It's not only that
he's noting it,
I think he's emphasizing it
in his account.
Consider the three big scenes
of the chapter.
The first one,
of course,
is the women
at the tomb,
verses 8 and 9.
Just look at the verses again.
And they remembered
his words,
and it was upon
remembering his words
that they moved
toward an act of faith.
The determinative factor
in their faith
was not the empty tomb,
and it was not
the presence of the angels.
That doesn't mean
those things didn't matter.
I'm saying those aren't
the determinative factors
for them.
What made the difference
was their recollection
of Jesus' words.
Remembering his words
triggered something
in their hearts.
Their faith
had less to do
with the tomb
and the angels
than it did
with believing
the word of God.
God,
when the word of Christ
takes root
in someone's heart,
the only possible outcome
is a joyful trust
that runs and tells
all that you have seen
and heard.
God's heart.
But it's not just
the women at the tomb
that we see that in.
We also see it
with the disciples
who are on the road
to Emmaus.
Now, you can read
this account
in verses 13
all the way to 35,
and the gist of it
is there's two disciples
of Jesus.
They're very discouraged.
This is the day
of the resurrection.
They've heard
the testimony
of the women,
but they didn't believe it,
and they decided
to go home,
presumably,
to a town called Emmaus
a few miles away.
And they're just walking
on the road
and they're distraught.
They're mourning,
grieving,
because Jesus is dead.
Jesus appears to them
and in some sense
he conceals
his identity to them.
They're not able
to recognize
that it's him at first.
And what he does
is he opens
the scriptures
for them to understand
that the Messiah
must suffer,
die,
and rise from the dead.
He does it
from the scriptures.
Now I want you
to look at verse 32.
They said to each other,
this is after Jesus
leaves them,
they said to each other,
did not our hearts
burn within us
while he talked
to us on the road,
while he opened
to us the scriptures?
And they rose
that very hour
and they returned
to Jerusalem
and they found the eleven
and those who were
with them gathered
together saying,
the Lord has risen indeed
and has appeared
to Simon.
Then they told
what had happened
on the road
and how he was known
to them
in the breaking of bread.
What was the thing
that moved them
to faith?
It wasn't this amazing
experience they had
with the risen Lord
with them.
That's not the thing.
That's not what made
their hearts burn
within them.
The burning of their hearts
came before that.
The burning of their hearts
came as he opened up
the word
and he explained
the gospel
from the scriptures.
As amazing
as their experience
was,
the scriptures
are what compelled
their belief.
But there's a third
instance in the chapter
of the same thing.
It's the disciples
in Jerusalem.
They're gathered together
in the house there.
They're scared.
They're distraught.
They're confused.
The women are saying
they've seen Jesus,
that the tomb is empty
and all this stuff.
Most of them don't
actually believe
that that's true.
And then suddenly
Jesus appears
in the room.
Even when he appears,
the risen Lord,
right in front of them,
they're still just
perplexed about the whole thing.
They don't know
what to think about that.
They're even frightened
by it.
But look at what it says
in verse 44.
Jesus said to them,
these are my words
that I spoke to you
while I was still with you,
that everything written
about me in the law
of Moses and the prophets
and the Psalms
must be fulfilled.
Then he opened their minds
to understand the scriptures
and said to them,
thus it is written
that the Christ should suffer
and on the third day
rise from the dead
and that repentance
for the forgiveness of sins
should be proclaimed
in his name
to all nations
beginning from Jerusalem.
You are my witnesses
of these things,
he says.
Everybody likes to pick
on Thomas
in the resurrection story.
Everybody likes to look
at Thomas and say,
we even coined the name
Doubting Thomas.
He wasn't there that night.
I don't know where he was
but he wasn't there.
And when they told him
about it later,
he said,
unless I see it myself,
I don't think
I can believe it.
Is that not exactly
what every one of the disciples
did to these women?
Look again at verse 11.
These words seemed to them
an idle tale
and they did not believe them.
You know what the disciples
said to the women?
Unless we see it ourselves,
we won't believe it.
So we need to ease up
on Thomas a little bit.
He's just doing what everybody
was doing
at that particular moment.
Even when Jesus
appeared in the room,
they didn't immediately
understand
or believe
what they saw.
What compelled
their belief then?
Because we know
it was compelled,
just flip to the book of Acts
and you'll see it.
What did it?
Jesus opened
their minds
to understand
the scriptures.
This isn't just about
the resurrection story either.
Do you remember
the story of Philip
and the Ethiopian eunuch
in the book of Acts?
What was it that compelled
the eunuch's belief?
An explanation
of Isaiah.
What about Lydia
and the other women
who had gathered
next to a body of water
outside of Philippi
when Paul showed up
and began to preach
the gospel to them?
What was it
that compelled
their belief?
The scripture literally says
the Lord opened Lydia's heart
to believe
the gospel
proclaimed from
the scriptures.
We just finished
studying 1 Thessalonians.
What was it
in 1 Thessalonians
chapter 1
that we saw
was evident
in the conversion
of the Thessalonian Christians?
It was the Holy Spirit
at work
in the proclamation
of the gospel
from the scriptures.
What about Peter
in Acts chapter 10
when messengers
from Cornelius
come to him
and say
would you please come
and tell us
this gospel?
What is it
that made the difference
for Cornelius
who was interested
in the things
but hadn't
come to faith?
It was the proclamation
of the gospel
from the scriptures
over and over
and over
and over.
The thing
that compels
belief in the scriptures
is not the basic
evidence
of whatever account
you may be considering.
It's not an intellectual
assent to the facts.
It is a move
toward believing
God's word.
It is a move
toward trusting
in what God
has said.
That is saving faith.
That is Christian faith.
That is what indicates
a true believer.
1 Corinthians 1
it pleased God
through preaching
to save those
who believe.
Not through
a great apologetic
of all the evidences
of why it's plausible
that Jesus rose
from the dead.
No, just the preaching
of the resurrection
is why God uses.
Romans 10
Faith
comes by hearing
hearing
specifically
the words
of Christ.
God
himself
compels
belief
through the
resurrection
of Jesus
and his
instrument
for calling
us to himself
is his
word.
The Bible.
You may
think
that what you
need
is greater
evidence
to become
a Christian.
Or you may
think that what
you need
as a Christian
is greater
evidence
to really
feel confident
about the
things that
are here.
It just
isn't true.
It just
is not
true.
Jesus
said as much
at the end
of his
parable of
the rich
man and
Lazarus
and Luke
16.
You remember
that parable.
Lazarus
was a
poor man
who ate
from the
crumbs
of the rich
man's
table.
He suffered
in this
life.
The rich
man had
great pleasure
and they
both died.
Jesus
said
Lazarus
wakes
up
and he's
in the
presence
of the
Lord.
As a
believer
though he
suffered
greatly
in this
life.
The rich
man though
he enjoyed
all the
pleasures
of this
life
opens
his eyes
in hell
and there's
this
interaction
in Jesus'
story
that he's
telling.
What is
the thing
that the
rich
man
asked
for?
He
said
you know
I've
got
some
brothers
if you
will
just
let me
go
back
they
will
believe
what I'm
saying
because I
will have
come back
from the
dead
to tell
them.
Here's
what Jesus
says.
If they
do not
hear Moses
and the
prophets
that is
the
scriptures
if they
will not
listen to
the
scriptures
neither
will they
be convinced
if someone
should rise
from the
dead.
That same
thing is
true for
you.
Jesus
himself
could stand
before you
right now
and it
will not
matter
in terms
of your
faith.
Evidence
may change
your
mind
only
God
can
change
your
heart.
And he
does that
through the
word.
A move
toward faith
is essentially
a move
to trust
what he
says
for it
is through
his word
that he
calls us.
And this
Easter morning
the question
is not
whether God
is calling
or compelling
you or not.
The question
is
am I
answering
his call?
Will I
trust
his word
repent
and follow
Jesus?
Because he
issues his
call
now
in the
scriptures
that you
have just
heard.
Now
is the
resurrection
then worthy
of our
consideration?
Absolutely
it is.
the
abundance
of
evidence
makes it
historically
credible.
Its
reality
is
theologically
crucial.
Without
it there
can be
no
salvation
for
sinners.
It's
also
spiritually
compelling
as God
uses
its truth
to draw
us
to saving
faith.
And we
all do
well
to take
it
seriously.
Let's
pray.
voy voy
!
voy