The Credible Incredible Story of Jesus and His Resurrection
John
20:24-31 and 1 Corinthians 15 (selected)
I’m so glad
we’re beyond this Easter thing, aren’t you?
I mean, now that we’re modern we no longer need to embrace the myth of
Jesus actually being raised from the dead. Now we can be reasonable about things and
focus on the important parts of the Christian faith:
that Jesus is raised again in our
hearts and hearing
his story gives us spiritual renewal, even rebirth; you might even say our hearts are resurrected once again
today. I’m so glad we’re beyond this Easter thing, aren’t you?
*****
There are
those who will preach and others who will believe exactly what I have just
spoken. There are those whose agenda it
is to make of the resurrection a spiritual rather than a physical event, a
merely religious rather than a historical reality. There are those whose agenda it is to make Christianity more
acceptable to the modern mind, and they think that eliminating the supernatural
from the Gospels will make the faith easier to swallow. There are those whose agenda it is to
recover “what really happened” and since the supernatural can’t be proven and,
therefore, must be ignored, the resurrection cannot actually have happened and must be a story the church created
much later and wrote back into the gospels.
For such folks, the story of Jesus and his resurrection is an incredible
story but without credibility.
Let’s give
the skeptics their due.
There are
good reasons why skeptics wonder about the resurrection. If any one of us reads through the
resurrection accounts this evening and pays close attention to what we are
reading – (and I encourage you to do so) – we will all wonder the same things:
how many women were at the tomb and which women were there? Matthew says it was
Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary,” while Mark says it was Mary Magdalene,
Mary the Mother of James, and Salome, while Luke says it was Mary Magdalene,
Mary the mother of James, Joanna and still some “other women” and John says only
“Mary Magdalene” went to the tomb.
Humpf. It would be nice if the
gospel writers got their facts straight.
Or again, how many angels were at
the tomb and what did they look like?
Matthew and Luke both say there were two angels at the tomb dressed either
“like lightning” or “in dazzling apparel.”
Mark, however, says there was only one angel and not even an angel but a
“young man” dressed merely in a “white robe.”
John, though, doesn’t mention angels one way or another. Once again, it would be nice if the gospel
writers got their facts straight.
Or what about what the different
gospels say about what happened? Luke
tells the story of Jesus appearing to two disciples on the road to Emmaus, but
none of the other gospels tell this story, although Matthew may allude to it
briefly. John tells the story of Jesus
appearing to “doubting Thomas” and telling Thomas to look at his wounds and
place his fingers in his side, but none of the other gospels tell this story. For goodness sake, Mark, in his original
ending in 16:8, doesn’t even have Jesus appear in his resurrected form; was he
or wasn’t he resurrected?
Given the
differences in the gospels, I understand why someone might view them with a
skeptical eye. No wonder there are skeptics who think that maybe they were made
up. No wonder there are those who only
want to talk about a “spiritual resurrection”; after all, if we keep it
spiritual the story is so much less messy, no loose ends. Given the differences
in the gospels, I understand why
someone might think the story of Jesus and his resurrection is an incredible
story but without credibility. But upon closer examination and deeper
reflection, we, like the earliest disciples, might be surprised by what we
find.
*****
Think about
this. The gospels were being written
between 30 to 40 years after Jesus. Now
in an oral culture, that’s no time at all.
Even in our culture, that’s not all that much time. Let’s do a thought exercise, shall we? Let’s use the larger of the two numbers and
imagine four of us were going to write about Kennedy’s assassination. What might we say? Well, we might have a different perspective on whether or not Lee
Harvey Oswald acted alone or not. I
might tell the story as if there was only one shooter, while you might tell the
story as if there was a second shooter, the so-called shooter on the grassy
knoll. We might differ on how many
shots were fired. One of us might say
two shots were fired, two of us might say three shots were fired and the fourth
author might say four shots were fired.
We might have some differences of opinion about whether or not there was
a conspiracy – was the CIA involved or not? – and we might differ regarding our
political analysis and how it affected U.S. history.
But on what
will we agree? First and foremost, we
will agree that Kennedy was shot. He
was shot in Dallas, Texas. He was shot
while riding in an open convertible. He was shot as he passed the book
depository. He was shot with his wife, Jackie, sitting right next to him. We will recount how Jackie appeared to try
to climb out of the car. We will
recall, each and every one of us, how Jackie stood right next to Lyndon Johnson
as he was sworn in as the new president.
We will recall how Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald while Oswald was
under the protection of law enforcement.
We will recount the poignancy of the casket’s march through Washington
and little John-John’s saluting his deceased father.
Now the
question that we have to answer is this: was Kennedy really assassinated? We really can’t know, can we? After all, four different authors could not
agree on how many shots were fired; heck, they couldn’t even agree on how many
shooters there were! Maybe Kennedy
wasn’t really shot. Maybe the “myth” of
Kennedy’s assassination is merely a means to explain away why he had to resign
the presidency and leave public life.
Maybe his death was only a “spiritual” death to remind us of the
inherent limits of the political process.
Maybe….
Of course
we know this is absurd! Sure there may
be some differences, even discrepancies, in the way we tell Kennedy’s story,
but the core remains constant: Dallas, the convertible, Oswald, Jackie, Ruby,
Johnson, little John-John. We may
differ on the periphery, but we agree on everything that truly matters. We know
what happened. We would stake our lives
on it. So, also, did the early
disciples stake their lives on what they knew happened to Jesus.
*****
The early
disciples staked their lives, literally staked their lives, on the belief
in Jesus’ resurrection. Despite some differences in the way the incredible
story of Jesus’ resurrection is told, the core remains constant. Think about it: there was an empty tomb, the stone in front of the tomb was a
concern, women were the first to discover the empty tomb, the discovery was
early on Sunday morning, Mary Magdalene was definitely one of the women at the
tomb, some kind of stranger was present to announce that “Jesus is not
here. He is risen,” the disciples’ did
not expect to see Jesus, the disciples were hiding in the upper room, the
disciples’ encountered Jesus, Jesus was alive in bodily form doing ordinary
things such as eating, Jesus’ body was physical and tangible yet also somehow
different – “transphysical” in the description of one scholar, and finally
Jesus gives instructions to the disciples regarding their new mission on
earth. The story of Jesus and his
resurrection is an incredible story, and it is credible.
There are
other amazing things to consider in the way the gospels tell this incredible
story of Jesus and his resurrection.
For instance, the gospels tell the story independently.
In Matthew, Mark and Luke, it long has been noted that they are very
similar to each other. For the main
body of these three gospels, they obviously borrowed from one another, often
using the same, identical words, phrases and structure to tell their
stories. But in the resurrection
accounts, scholars who have examined and compared the language used have shown
that these are separate accounts: their wording, phraseology and structure are
their own and yet the core remains constant.
Now, how do you suppose it is that three authors well known for
borrowing from one another can write something without borrowing from each
other and yet tell the same story?
Or again,
the gospels tell the story contrary to cultural expectations. Jewish expectations as described in Daniel say the resurrected “will
shine like the brightness of the heavens” (12:3). The Wisdom of Solomon says
the resurrected “will shine forth and run about like sparks in the stubble”
(3:7). Instead, we have a fairly
ordinary Jesus who eats with his disciples, walks with them, talks with them.
Yes, Jesus also does some extraordinary things like enter a room whose door is
locked, but the general picture is not all that different from his
pre-resurrected state and clearly not “shining like the brightness of the
heavens.” Now, if the gospel writers
wanted to make up a story, create something from their imaginations, wouldn’t
they feed the myth? Why would they tell a story contrary to everyone’s
expectations?
Or again,
the gospels tell the story with an absence of personal hope. One of the truly remarkable
aspects of the resurrection accounts is that they don’t talk about what is
going to happen to the believer. Paul’s
letters talk about an after life in which we will live. Peter’s letters talk about an after life in
which we will live. John’s letters talk
about an after life in which we will live.
Clearly, the early Church believed in a personal hope, a life beyond
death, which would be for the believer a gift from God’s hand. But nowhere in the gospel stories of Jesus’
resurrection is there anything, not one word, about our living a life beyond
death. Instead, the gospels focus on
Jesus giving the disciples instructions about what we are to do while on this
earth; the resurrected Jesus is concerned about mission, about sharing good
news. Now, if the gospel writers wanted to bolster the early Christian belief
in an after life, wouldn’t it make sense to put into Jesus’ mouth some hope
filled teaching, maybe have him say, “Hey, in the same way that I’ve been
raised, so you will be raised someday, too!”
Why would the gospel writers tell their story and forget to put in words
of personal hope?
Or again,
the gospel writers tell their story and women were the first
eye-witnesses. Now some historical background is in
order. Women were not allowed to be
witnesses in ancient courts; not in Jewish courts, not in Greek courts. The ancient men folk believed women weren’t
smart enough for that kind of thing! A
modern analogy might be if I were to try to convince you that a UFO came to
visit Pueblo by saying, “Hey, four schizophrenics from the state hospital saw
it!” And yet the gospel writers tell their
story in such a way that the women hold a primary place. Now, why would they do that?
The answer
to all these questions – to how the gospel writers could tell the same story if
they didn’t borrow from each other; to why they would tell the story contrary
to cultural expectations; to why they would tell the story with an absence of
personal hope; to why they would have women the first to see Jesus – the answer
to all these questions is that this is what happened. Yes, there are some differences, but the core remains
constant. The disciples staked their
lives on what they knew happened to Jesus.
*****
So the
question becomes for us: will we stake our lives on this credible incredible
story of Jesus and his resurrection?
To answer
this question we must search our hearts and ask ourselves whether we are merely involved with Jesus or are we
committed to Jesus.
The classic story that illustrates the difference between involved and
committed is the story of the kamikaze pilot who flew 40 missions: he was
involved but not committed.
Illustrations that hit closer to home might be the difference between
seeing a plane boarding at the far other end of the terminal versus seeing your plane boarding at the far other end of the terminal. Or again: we are all involved at some
emotional level in what is happening in the war in Iraq but those who are
serving in Iraq right now are committed to what is happening in the war. To return to our Kennedy analogy we might
say that many of us have some involvement in the historical questions regarding
what happened to the president that day, but we are not really committed to
knowing what happened. In a similar
way, many of you here this morning are involved in the story of Jesus and his
resurrection, but involvement is not commitment. I invite you to become committed to Jesus.
Involvement
with Jesus acknowledges Christmas and Easter as nice stories, perhaps even as
important stories, even true stories.
Commitment to Jesus involves opening your heart and mind to some
fundamental truths of the universe:
Ø You are beloved of God: you don’t
deserve God’s love, but he loves you anyway.
In fact, God loved you before the beginning of time and will love you
after the end of all things. God loves
you just the way you are, and too much to let you stay that way.
Ø God desires that you become, not
merely a nice, decent, law abiding person, but one of his children, a follower
of Jesus, a new creation in Christ. Such transformation of heart and mind will
not happen overnight but over a lifetime and, indeed, over an eternity. But God will walk with you throughout your
journey, and God will teach you how to love and give you the Holy Spirit to be
your guide and friend.
I have a friend named Jimmy with
whom I will be traveling to Israel later in the Spring. Jimmy was a star
basketball player in high school growing up in the South. He received a full scholarship to play at
Hofstra University. He was big time. But he forgot his upbringing, forgot how his
mama had raised him. Jimmy got involved
first with alcohol, then with marijuana and finally with cocaine. He dropped out of school; he lost his
way. Jimmy moved into New York City and
began to peddle drugs.
One day he was sitting around with
a few friends; they were planning to rob a McDonalds. The group leader was going over the plans when he mentioned that they might have to “pop”
somebody but “no more than two people.”
Jimmy thought to himself, “Whoa, this is out of hand. Is this what I’ve sunk to? Is this what I’ve become.” When Jimmy left that planning session, he
was walking down the streets of New York and passed by a public pay phone with
the receiver off, just dangling there. He looked at the receiver and thought,
“What’s the deal with this?” He picked
up the receiver and said, “Hello?” The
voice at the other end was his mama, “Jimmy, I called to tell you it’s time you
come home.”
Jimmy returned home. At his mama’s
suggestion, he went back to church. At
his preacher’s invitation, he committed his life to Jesus Christ. Jimmy is now a pastor in North
Carolina.
*****
God may not
be calling you to become a pastor this morning, but he is calling you to come
home. If you have been away, come
home. If you merely have been involved
but not committed, come home. Come
home.
Trust the credible incredible story of Jesus and his resurrection.