Matthew's Gospel

The layout for the rest of the evening is, for the next few minutes, we're going to have a think about, the the case, really, the historical case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And, it's very, very important that we do that because Paul's actually says in 1 Corinthians, that if Christ is not risen, we are to be pitied, more than all people. And, he makes it very clear in that chapter that if the lord Jesus isn't who he says he is and didn't do what he promised he would do, then our whole gospel completely collapses. If Jesus didn't rise bodily from the dead, the most significant foundation of Christianity is just shattered and knocked out of the way. So it's very important not only for us to understand what the resurrection means, theologically, and what it means for us as, as believers and for the world, but to have a look at the history of it and to see whether there is good reason to, trust the gospel narratives that we that we find in the bible.

And then after that, we are going to watch a film called the case for Christ, which is all about a man who, who investigated these things, for himself, and, we'll we'll find out what, what happened to him in the film. So this, this talk is based loosely around an article in Cambrey Pye, called the resurrection of Jesus fake news. And, if you still have managed to, be around without getting a copy of Cambry pie, then there are a few left here. And after this evening, they sort of go out of date, don't they? So it'd be good for you to take 1 of these and, and read them, before you go.

Now you probably have heard of saying that a few weeks ago, we put on the Easter experience here. And, we had hundreds of kids from local schools coming in. And, as we do at Christmas, we had kind of an of drama, and the kids would come through and, basically visit different scenes and hear the story of Easter through through the characters, that were there. And, then afterwards, we would get the classes together in here, and those of us who would play different parts in the drama would come in, and take questions about the Easter story. And, it was quite interesting this year to hear what what the questions were And, 1 of the most common ones that we we kept hearing from different classes in different schools was, who made this story up?

Who who invented this story. And it was quite interesting because, although they may not have been thinking quite as far down the line as I'm going to suggest, it it seemed that, in their minds, the assumption was that the Easter story about Jesus is is kind of disconnected from history, and geography, and eyewitness account, and fact, and is more like a a kind of religious myth that is that was written by someone and and and made up for people to believe alongside other myths and stories that they might read. So it was quite interesting to to see them and to listen to them, thinking that it was in some way disconnected from, from real history. And there are lots of people I think who would believe something similar, even if they would express it differently, that although Easter may have some historical basis because There aren't many people who would seriously claim today that Jesus never existed or that he wasn't crucified. It's It's it's pretty, well proven history.

There are certainly lots of people who would say, yes, but the spiritual realities, the supernatural realities, things like a resurrection from the dead. Well, it's it's fake news. It's not real news. It's not true news. It's something that's made up by religious people to make them feel better.

And therefore, to believe that supernatural aspect of the Easter story requires a kind of faith which has to reject evidence. Science is about reason and evidence and the things that we can test and prove, whereas Christianity in the Easter story is about faith. But that actually reveals a very big misunderstanding of of almost everything. The gospel of Jesus Christ is not just a religious myth, And it's not just good advice. It is a gospel, which means it's good news.

It's news about events, which really happened. And the word gospel was actually very common in the first centuries, and it was used of all kinds of things. So if Caesar declared that taxes were to be lowered, somebody would announce, Caesar has declared taxes are going to be lowered. That was a kind of gossip It was news that had happened and was now being announced. Or, we've just had news from the front line, the the empire of 1, another war.

It's not it's not really advice, or or sort of giving you a moral framework. It's just announcing something that has happened. History has taken place, and and this what it means. And the gospel is in that category of thinking. It's about news, it's about things that have taken place.

And the Bible is very clear that when we come to the resurrection of Jesus, the same the same thing is true. This event took place in real history in a real part of the world with genuine eye witnesses who testify to the truth. And so we have to remember that faith, as defined by the Bible, is to trust in Jesus on the basis of historical evidence, not in the absence of it, is to trust in Jesus on the basis of history evidence. Never a Christians required to close our eyes, hold our nose, jump into the dark with fingers crossed wishing it would be true. God never asks us to just remove our brains as we approach the gospel accounts, but rather to see there is good historical archaeological evidence for us to believe the things that Jesus said about himself.

And as I said at the beginning, because the resurrection is at the heart of the Christian faith, then that is what I want us to focus on briefly this evening. So I want us to kind of investigate the case for the resurrection and to put 4, alternative arguments to you about what could have happened instead, and try to dismantle them, as a as a way of showing us the the evidence. So the first thing is that that people who deny the resurrection of Jesus deny that that really happened, have to explain the empty tomb, don't they? They've got to explain it. Why was the tomb empty?

And if there is an answer to that question, which doesn't involve a resurrection from the dead, how do we explain the reports? How do we explain those eyewitness accounts? Because there is 1 thing that you cannot argue with, and that is that on Easter morning, Jesus's tomb was a very busy place. Things were happening. People said that they saw things and heard things, and that they were changed by some of the encounters that happened around that tomb.

And so we need to ask what happened in that place. Now, 1 possible answer is that the authorities got rid of the body. The authorities had heard Jesus preaching about his resurrection, and so they had a preemptive strike. They went to the tomb They took the body, they got rid of it, and the disciples were fooled into thinking, well, we can't find him, so Jesus must be risen from the dead. Let's begin our preaching of that truth.

But Matthew tells us, and this is really interesting that those same authorities were ready to accuse the disciples of stealing the body. So it would be kind of strange. It might be part of the plan, but if they were the ones who stole the body, it would be kind of strange for them to accuse the disciples of planning to steal the body. Here's just a verse from Matthew 20 80 don't have bibles, but if you've got a mobile and want to turn to it, Matthew 28, this is verse 11, it says while the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city, and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests have met with the elders and devised a plan, They gave the soldiers a large sum of money telling them, you right.

Here's what we're gonna say. His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep. If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and we'll keep you out of trouble. So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed and this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day. So that was their plan, but it would be odd, wouldn't it then If they had stolen the body for them to come up with a plan that pins it on the disciples, it doesn't fit very neatly with with the kind of records.

But more importantly, and I think this is just a nail in the heart of this argument. If the opponents did have the body of Jesus, And they hated them preaching that Jesus was resurrected. What would be the easiest way for them to squash the gospel in 1 afternoon. They just have to get the corpse and parade it for all to see or display it publicly and announce that he was not in fact risen. He was dead, and you can go and see him.

And just think about those Roman guards again. It's so interesting that they come in on this plan because if they failed to guard the tomb, they would forfeit their lives. It's as simple as that. If they, you know, their duty was derelict or whatever the phrase is, they would they would have to they they they would die. They were responsible for doing something, and they would be held accountable for their failure.

And so the question is, why did they agree to this cover up story with the priests if there was a reasonable explanation for why the tomb was empty? Doesn't make sense? Does it? The chief priest is saying right. Okay.

Here's what happened. Okay. Here's what we're gonna say, and and we're gonna say that decide stole the body, and that's gonna satisfy the governor. And they're like, yes, that's it. That's right.

That's a great that's great plan. We'll agree to that. That sounds good. We're we'll all be in on it together. Okay?

Why would they agree to that if there was another more sensible explanation for why the tomb was really empty? It just doesn't fit that they would so quickly agree to a hoax and a cover up if they knew there was a logical explanation. So do you see this is actually a this is a super critical point. The reaction of the authorities tells us they did not know what had happened to the body. And therefore they were unable to disprove the gospel.

Now they certainly opposed the preaching of the resurrection We know that from moving acts and everywhere. They really opposed it. But what is the 1 thing they never attempted to do? What is the 1 thing that no authority attempted to do? They never attempted to refute the claims with evidence.

They never provided evidence that the preaching of the resurrection was untrue. They had to come up with hoaxes and scams. If they had something to do with the disappearance of Jesus' body, if they knew what had happened, Why didn't they bring evidence to shut down the gospel? Doesn't fit. So firstly, did the did the authorities Still the body.

I don't think that fits very neatly with what we find. Secondly, did the disciples steal the body? Is that true? Could they have done that? And I mean this sort of not quite seriously, actually.

I think it is a reasonable argument against that theory. When you read through the gospels, do the disciples strike you as the kind of people who could pull off that sort of scam? When I read about them, they tend to be putting their foot in it more often than not, and they're not very subtle and crafty. Most of the time. They tend to be fairly open with their wrongness.

And and so for them to pull off this kind of hoax I think there's a legitimate question mark over whether they actually had the ability to do that. But secondly, if you wanted to pull this off, you wouldn't have women giving testimony. They wouldn't be your primary source. Because in a male dominated culture, which this was, where women weren't even allowed to speak freely in court on their own, it would be a major error to base your deception upon their testimony. It would be much more likely to fly if you had a whole crowd of male disciples arriving at the tomb at the same time.

You might then be able to get away with it a bit more easily, but you wouldn't put Mary Magdalen there as your primary source. If you were creating fake news, there is no way that you would start like that. But I think I think the biggest problem with this 1 is that if it's a hoax, it is probably the most successful hoax ever. That is its actual problem. It's too successful.

I mean, you just think about this. For for this to happen, the disciples would have to suffer and to die for something that they knew was a lie. Now, dying for a lie doesn't prove or disprove anything. People die for lies all the time. But dying for something that you know is a lie and suffering for it in the most terrible way shows a commitment to a hoax, which is just incredible.

And you imagine when it comes to people like Paul who came later. Imagine Paul, you would have to persuade him of this. You'd have to say, look, Paul, what we're about to tell you never actually happened. Okay? We stole the body, but here's what we want you to say.

We want you to buy in to this hoax We want you to suffer extremely badly for the rest of your natural life, and then we want you to probably be beheaded for its sake. It just it doesn't it doesn't ring true. What we find in the gospels is actually the opposite. We find confused, skeptical people who were not I mean, you take doubting Thomas, You know, he's not put in there as a compliment to being debt to doubting. That's not why he's there.

He's he's gullible and he's skeptical, and he has to be transformed. And that's what happens, isn't it? Take Peter, the Jesus denying coward who just a short while later will be standing in the middle of Jerusalem full of a Holy Spirit, preaching that Jesus is alive. What accounts for that transformation? What is more likely fake news, passionate about a hoax, or a transformation.

By meeting the real reason. Jesus. Thirdly, what about mistaken identity? It's not as popular, but it's 1 of the alternative theories. Did they think they saw Jesus, but actually it was someone else?

And to be fair, That is what we saw this morning, isn't it? The 2 disciples on the road to emmaus thought Jesus was a stranger. Mary thought he was a gardener. Why? Why didn't they recognize him?

If it really was Jesus. But again, as we saw this morning, and as we see in each of those cases, the doubt was only for a moment. And after Jesus opened their eyes, they were 100 percent convinced from then on that this was the Jesus that they had known and loved and who had suffered for them. And again, even doubting Thomas the skeptic, he is in this category as well. He wasn't just ready to believe It wasn't until he saw the wounds that he went away knowing that this really was Jesus.

And once more, just as a kind of side point against this argument, but a side point which utterly devastates it again. If it wasn't Jesus and they were mistaken. Well, the simple solution was just go to the tomb and get the body and shut them up. We've seen Jesus. No.

You didn't. He's he's here. He's here in the tomb. So you see, these kind of naturalistic explanations They don't add up. They rely on alternatives.

They rely on strange theories, which, but cannot be believed biological mind. They don't they don't stack up with what we find. But lastly, then there are these other theories that aren't naturalistic by which I mean they have a supernatural element, and they are worth knowing about because some of the cults that you might meet and engage with take this kind of line. And they would say things like, well, god god acted in a miraculous way to take Jesus away after the cross. Or they will say things like god raised Jesus from the dead, but only as a kind of spiritual being.

So the Jehovah's Witnesses believes something along that line. That Jesus Christ wasn't raised in the body. He was raised as a kind of spirit spirit being. But the problem with the problem with that is that if that is true, it makes our Jesus out to be a total liar. It makes him out to be the greatest deceiver of all.

Here is what Jesus said. Destroy this temple meaning his body, and I will raise it again in 3 days. That is a deception unless Jesus was raised in the body. The whole verse doesn't work unless Jesus is talking about his body, both sides of the cross. Or what about this 1 after the resurrection?

This is Jesus speak. It's just amazing. Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself, touch me and see a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have. Would he say such a thing?

If in fact he had only been raised as a spiritual being, would he say such a thing? If he had only been raised as a kind of ghost. It if Jesus didn't come back with a real body, He is a total liar, and the Christian faith is based on deception. It's just not acceptable to read that and to rationally conclude it unless you want to call Jesus a liar. So Loop 24 36, which that was, if you ever do encounter Jehovah's Witnesses and you get onto the subject of the resurrection, that's good place to turn.

So you see, these objections collapse under scrutiny. There is only 1 plausible explanation that fits the historical record, and that is that our Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead. We haven't even focused on the direct evidence. You know, the evidence that we find all over the end of the gospels, people saw him. They ate with him.

They touched him. They heard him. They observed his wounds. They grabbed his feet. The tomb was empty.

If there is another explanation for these things, it must account with what we find in the gospels. If the enemies made it up or the disciples lied about it, you cannot just beg the question. You've gotta tell me why I should believe that as opposed to what I find here. So at the core of Christianity, I hope you can see there's many more arguments we could attach on, but these are some of the critical ones, is a rock solid foundation. And it isn't just history, is it?

It's not just good news. All of this actually means something for us. This history means something for us. It means that the gospel is true that Jesus is lord, that our sins have been paid for. That resurrection life is coming, prays the laws.

It authenticates everything that he said and we can trust him. And maybe you're here this evening. I don't know, everyone here as well this evening. Maybe you're here tonight. And you're not a Christian, I would love to just gently ask you, are are you a reasonable person?

Are you serious about evidence? If you find good evidence for something, will you change your mind and believe it? Or are you brainwashed against the case for Christ? We would love you to consider these arguments to investigate them more and to see for yourself the implications of this amazing historical truth. Jesus has risen.

Your sins can be washed away. He is alive to receive you as his child, even today. It's good news. Good news. Jesus is alive.

Let's pray. And then we are going to see a story of a man who discovered just these things as well. Yeah. We need to clear up. Oh, yeah.

Okay. And then we can set up. Yes. Fine. Father, thank you so much that, the gospel is true.

We thank you that it doesn't just belong to a religious mythical category But what we are dealing with as we open a new testament is historical eyewitness records. Things that are substantiated by many, many good proofs, things that we can trust. But lord, we thank you that this doesn't just belong to history. The truth of it belongs to us today. If Jesus is alive, he is lord.

If Jesus is our sins can be washed away. If Jesus is alive, we will be raised someday. If Jesus is alive, he will come back again. And so, lord help us to see not only the good history, but also these implications, and all of us to leave here confident that our great gospel is indeed really true. We thank you in Jesus' name, amen.