That will be glory when we see him in the
power of the resurrection. Let's pray. Our Father and our God, as we consider now
the mighty work that you performed by the power of the Spirit to raise Him from the
tomb. That certain sign that you have given by which
the whole world is judged. We pray that we may see the full import of
that moment in history when you raised Him from the grave. For we ask it in Jesus' name - Amen. Just a couple of days ago I was reading an
article in the newspaper about the recently discovered bones of Jesus, which I refer to
as the journalistic phase and sensational phase of theology. To get the press' attention in religion the
more bizarre the proposition is, the more attention they give it. I was somewhat surprised at the beginning
of the article than the writer indicated that this recent assertion had be responded to
by scholarly archeologists with a certain amount of scorn, revealing it for the absurdity
that it was. So I was beginning to warm up to this journalist,
thinking "wow, finally we find one that fights for the angels." Then he went on to give the results of the
most recent poll in which he said 78 % of Americans (and that is how we determine truth
you know - by counting noses.) believe in the resurrection of Jesus. The author inserted a little extra phrase
there. He said "78% of Americans believe in the myth
of the resurrection of Jesus." He just couldn't hold it back. He had to get it in there. The myth of resurrection. One of the oldest questions if not the oldest
question of theology was the one asked by Job "if a man dies shall he live again?" And before we get to the New Testament answer
to that question as set forth by the greatest apologist of the Christian church, the apostle
Paul, I want to spend a little bit of time in background to refer your attention to two
watershed events that radically changed the world in the decade of the 70's. But I am not thinking of the 1970's. I am not even thinking of the 1870's. But I am thinking of the 1770's where most
Americans believe the most important watershed event took place in that decade when some
disgruntled colonists on this side of the ocean rose in protest against certain illegal
procedures by parliament by declaring their independence, and inaugurating this country's
birth as an independent nation. But I believe that something else happened
in that same decade in Europe that had even far greater ramifications then the American
Declaration of Independence. It was the work of a single man in Prussia
who was a professor whose chief at the University of Cornisburg was the field of Astrophysics. And he had contributed significantly by way
of essays in the 18th century to the discipline of astro-physics. But his real claim to fame that catapulted
him into international significance, this name who never traveled more than a hundred
miles from his birth place and who was know to take a walk every afternoon at exactly
the same time, and was so punctual, indeed punctilious, was he that the villagers would
check their timepieces by the afternoon stroll of this gentleman whose name ironically was
Emmanuel, which hardly meant God with us, but came to mean "God unknown to us." This man was Emmanuel Kant who in the decade
of the 70's of the 18th century wrote the most definitive and comprehensive critique
of the classical arguments for the existence of God in his book that was titled The Critique
of Pure Reason, in which Emanuel Kant set the bar for the centuries to follow for religious
agnosticism. As a scientist he argued that we can not move
from the visible world to the invisible world as the apostle Paul declares that not only
can, but do in the first chapter of Romans. He said we can't move from the physical to
the metaphysical, from the phenomenal world, as he called it, to the pneumenal world, which
was the residence of God, the self, and the thing in itself. And so this critique of the classical arguments
for the existence of God, given by Kant in an effort not to save theology but to save
science from the skepticism of David Hume, was as I say a watershed moment in western
history because thereafter there was a seemingly un-breechable rift between science and theology. But though Kant is known for ushering God
out of the front door of the house, he ran around to the kitchen and opened the back
door and tried to let God in through that entrance by the route not of metaphysical
pursuit, but by reason of practical thinking. Kant was very much concerned about morality
and ethics. By the way when he considered his skeptical
stance on the knowing of God, the one argument that he felt was most impressive was the argument
to design. It was that which he could not explain. But he was concerned with the study of man,
that it would seem that in the heart of every human being there was this universally present
sense of duty, or sense of "oughtness." For which, he is famous for identifying as
the categorical imperative. It was Kant's Germanic version of the golden
rule if you will. But then he asks this question from a practical
view point. Thinking transcendentally, what would the
necessary conditions be to make this sense of oughtness, this sense of duty which provokes
the pangs of conscience in human beings; what would be transcendentally necessary for this
sense of duty to be meaningful? That is, he asked the question: What would
have to be for ethics to be meaningful? And his concern, as I say, was practical. Because what he was concerned about was the
survival of civilization. And he understood that without some sense
of ethics civilization can not survive for very long, as some of the other speakers have
already addressed. And so, as he pondered that question: What
would be necessary for ethics to be meaningful? He said the first thing is that there would
have to be justice. Because if there is no justice, then in the
final analysis the person who acts according to this sense of ethic, this sense of duty
would be involved in a fool's errand in an exercise of meaninglessness. So, for ethics to be meaningful there must
be justice. And so then he looked around and he says that
in the phenomenal world in which I live I notice that justice does not always prevail. And people were asking then as the Old Testament
sages were asking "Why do the wicked prosper and the righteous suffer?" And Kant said for justice to be true we must
survive the grave. And not only must we survive the grave, in
order for justice to prevail, but there must be beyond the grave to ensure justice a judge
who would meet out and dispense pure justice. And he went on to say: Well, what would the
necessary conditions be for such a judge to ensure the distribution of justice? And he said, well first of all that judge
would have to perfectly righteous and above reproach. Because if the judge on the other side were
an unjust judge then we would have no guarantee of the victory of justice and therefore no
foundation for a meaningful ethic. Then he went on to say that judge would not
only have to be righteous but we would also have to be omniscient. Because for a judge to execute perfect justice,
he would not only have to be just himself, but he would have to be free from being misinformed. A just judge could be responsible for a miscarriage
of justice if he erred in his understanding of the case. Then he went on the say that even if you say
that you had a perfectly righteous omniscient judge, those two conditions would not guarantee
the triumph of justice, because it would be possible that that perfect, just, and omniscient
judge could give the correct sentence, but be powerless to carry it out. So that judge in the next world would also
have to have all power and authority within himself to guarantee justice. You see where Kant is going? He's saying though on the basis of theoretical
thought we can't affirm the existence of God, metaphysically, never the less on the basis
of practical considerations for a meaningful ethic we must assume the existence of God. Otherwise life is meaningless. And so we must live as if there were a God. Now that as it were, was the dyke that held
back the full torrents of skepticism for a few years at the end of the enlightenment. But there were cracks in that dyke that soon
gave way. And a metaphysical and ethical Katrina happened
in western theoretical thought. Now, that is by way of introduction. Now, I'd like to show some parallel thinking
that goes on between Kant and the apostle Paul by looking at the fifteenth chapter of
Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. Hear the word of God, in chapter fifteen,
verse twelve. And I don't know which is going to come to
an end first, my message or my voice. So far the voice is losing. But we read in the text. "Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from
the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?" That's the question. If Christ has proclaimed that God has raised
Him from the dead, how is it that some of you (and he is writing to people in the church
who were trying to have a Christianity without resurrection.) say that there is no resurrection
from the dead. Now, what follows is a particular kind of
argument. It is a particular form of debate common to
ancient philosophers and one that was used regularly by the apostle Paul as an apologist. It is called the "ad hominum" form of argumentation. Now, be careful. Some of you studied logic in college or in
high school perhaps. And you learned to identify certain fallacies
of reasoning, both formal and informal. And one of the most frequent informal fallacies
is the fallacy of reasoning called "ad hominum abusive." That is where if you can't attack the cogency
of a man's argument, you attack the man. You say how can you believe what this speaker
says when he is an adulterer. Well, even adulterers who do not live the
truth can from time to time argue cogently. And so the man's character does not vitiate
the man's argument. But we do that all the time, particularly
in the criminalization of politics as we witness everyday in Washington D.C. So there is a fallacious form of argument
that is called "ad hominum abusive." And frequently to save breath and time, there
is a kind of short hand that refers to that fallacy by simply calling it the "ad hominum"
fallacy without qualifying it by the term "abusive." Now, I mention all this for this reason. There is another form of "ad hominum" reasoning
that is a sound form and that is a form that has been in use by philosophers from time
immemorial. And that is simply arguing to the man. And that means that I step into the shoes
of my opponent. We stipulate at the beginning agreement on
certain premises, and now I take my opponent's premise and I say "I grant you, your premise. But let's see where this premise goes out
of logical necessity." And so I take my opponents argument to its
logical conclusion showing that if his premise is sound and true his conclusion will be absurd. Again going back to Zeno the ancient philosopher;
this form of argument was called "reduxio ad absurdum" - arguing from the opponents
premise, taking it to its logical conclusion and showing by a resistless logic that the
conclusion would be absurd. That is exactly what the apostle Paul is doing
here with these folks in Corinth who are denying the resurrection. And they say there is no resurrection of the
dead. That is a universal negative. That means it admits to no exceptions. It is universal in the sense that it encompasses
everybody because no on escapes it. It is called a universal negative because
it is articulated in the negative form. If, let's go now, there is no resurrection
of the dead. That is premise A - no resurrection of the
dead. If that is true, then what else would be true? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then
not even Christ has been raised, obviously. We get that from the laws of necessary inference. If there is a universal negative, there can
not be one positive. So if there is no resurrection, than that
means Christ can not have been raised. So, let's see where that leads us. If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching
is in vain, and your faith is in vain. So let's face facts the apostle is saying. Let's not live like Alice in Wonderland in
some kind of religious dream world. If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching
is an exercise in futility. I'm wasting my breath. I'm wasting my time. We're all here wasting our time at a conference
like this, if Christ has not been raised. And not only is my preaching an exercise in
meaninglessness, my faith is useless and worthless as is yours. Your faith is in vain, because you've invested
your trust and your hope and your faith in a man whose man have just been dug up along
with Mary Magdalene’s so recently. Not only that but we are found, he says, to
be misrepresenting God. Because we've said and testified that it is
God who has raised Him from the dead. And if He has not been raised from the dead,
then we ought to change the name of our church to Jehovah's False Witnesses because we have
been attributing the power of this resurrection of Jesus to God. And that attribution is a false one. ”We have testified about God that He raised
Christ, whom He did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.” He has to keep rubbing our noses in the consequences
there. “For if the dead are not raised,” if you
missed it the first time and the second time, not even Christ has been raised. “And if Christ has not been raised your
faith is futile. And you are still in your sins.” You are still in it. You are contained in sin. You are still enmeshed in sin. You are still in jail to sin without bail;
because our justification does not end with the cross, but Jesus was raised for our justification. The resurrection is God's apologia, certifying
to the world that He accepted atonement that Jesus made on the cross. But if He is not raised from the dead you're
still in your sins. You see, you look at the world religions today,
Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism; the thing that they don't have is an atonement
and because they don't have an atonement. You can't expect them to have a resurrection
either. It wouldn't cause any crisis of faith for
any Muslim to dig up the bones of Muhammad. Muhammad is dead. Buddha is dead. Confucius is dead. But Christianity stands or falls with a resurrected
Jesus. And that is what Paul is saying here. If he is not raised, your faith is nonsense
and you are still in your sins. Not only that, those also who have fallen
asleep in Christ, (let's face it) our beloved ones, our husbands, our wives, our children,
our parents, our friends who have died in the faith have perished. That's the grim reality if there is no resurrection
from the dead. If in this life only we have hoped in Christ
we of all people, are the most to be pitied. I say to the enemies of the Christian faith;
if you don't like what we preach; if you don't like what we teach, don't be mad at us. Pity us. Because if we are preaching a false doctrine
of resurrection, if we are conjuring up a hope with no real foundation for it, then
we forfeit much of the fun, supposedly, of this world, where you only go around once. And you might as well go around and get all
the gusto you can because you are on a fast pace to oblivion, to perishing without hope. It is a pitiable condition to be in. That is why the Bible says without Christ
you are without hope. So, I am just going to stop for a second and
consider what Paul has just done here. Paul has drawn for us a ghastly picture of
the consequences of no resurrection, no life after death. He is saying that if there is no resurrection
then life itself under the sun is meaningless. As Kant understood, your ethic, your sense
of duty, your conscience is meaningless and without ethics of our society, civilization
can not last. You are doomed ultimately to barbarianism,
which our nation right now is rushing toward with such a velocity one wonders if anything
other than the direct intervention of God will ever restrain it and stop it. Dostoevsky understood what Kant was arguing
for in his practical reasoning that if there is no God, all things are permitted. The post-modernist understands that if there
is not God and since there is no God and since there is no resurrection from the dead, then
what is left are personal preferences. Which can only be maintained if enough of
you can exercise power for your complete liberty, you will make is right by your might. For you know of know other recourse. What Kant was saying was this, since the alternative
to life after death is so grim, since the alternative to life after death would make
ethics impossible except for the fool. And since life without ethics is meaningless,
we must live as if there is a God. Talk about a justification for using religion
as a bromide or as a crutch against facing meaninglessness. Here it is with a vengeance. Didn't I say this put up a dyke that only
lasted a little bit of time in western civilization? A guy like Nietzsche comes along, and says:
hey, let's quit playing Alice in Wonderland. I'm not going to affirm the existence of God
or the existence of life after death simply because the alternatives are grim and unbearable. Why don't we just face it? There is not God. There is no afterlife. There is no meaning. We are left with the nothingness, the nihil,
the abyss of absurdity. This motion was seconded by Jean Paul Sartre,
particularly in his little monograph, which title gave to the world his final evaluation
of human existence: Nausea. That's the end of human existence: Nausea. Albert Camus said the only serious question
left for philosophers left to examine is the question of suicide, because we are overwhelmed
with the pressing and oppressing reality of the absence of God and the absence of hope. So you see Kant's arguments didn't stand up
for the next generation. They said "Kant gird up your loins like a
man, face the inevitable. Quit trying to argue for the practical necessity
of believing in God. And some can look at what Paul is doing here
as the same thing. Where he is saying if there is no resurrection
your faith is in vain, your false witnesses, you preaching is an exercise in futility. But Paul does not argue for the resurrection
on the basis of the hopelessness of life without it. Yes, in the section I just read he agrees
with Kant that without it life is hopeless, but that is not the foundation for his assertion
that Christ is risen. He goes on to talk about the analogy that
exists in nature with animals and plants and grass and human beings. That you put a seed in the ground and before
the life can come out of the ground there is a sense in which, at least metaphorically,
that seed must die. It must rot to such a point that it releases
and germinates the essence of life within it. And in like manner, when our bones go into
the ground, they await their final metamorphosis where God takes that which was mortal, sewn
in mortality, is raised in immortality, sewn in corruption, raised in incorruption. And this analogy that the apostle uses in
this same chapter closely resembles the argument that Plato had used centuries before in arguing
for life after death based upon analogies drawn from nature. When you think of the almost infinite varieties
of life forms on this planet, it is hard to imagine that our life form, as high as it
is, is the zenith of all life in the universe. It could be, but what are the odds. But again Paul does not rest his case on analogies
drawn from the butterfly or the seed. But why does assert the reality of the resurrection? At the beginning of the chapter, he reminds
his readers of something. He says "I would remind you brothers of the
gospel. I want to remind you of the gospel that I
preached to you which you received in which you stand and by which you are being saved. If you hold fast to the word I preach to you
unless you believed in vain, for I delivered to you as a first importance what I also received,
that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.” Now that was a compelling this to the Jew
of the first century. And it ought to be compelling to us. I said yesterday, or the day before that the
two major tasks of apologetics is the defense of the existence of God, and secondly the
defense of the scriptures as the word of God. And Paul now appeals to the scriptures. “Christ died for our sins in accordance
with the scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day, in accordance
with the scriptures." So, Paul's first line of apologetics is an
appeal to sacred scripture. He is saying I believe in the first instance,
in the resurrection of Christ because the word of God proclaims it. That is why I said it is so vital that we
address this question of the veracity and authenticity and trustworthiness of the scriptures,
because if you have that, the rest is easy. "That He was buried, that He was raised on
the third day in accordance with the scriptures." And then listen to this, "and that He appeared
to Cephas, then to the twelve, then He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one
time, most of whom are still alive. Then He appeared to James, then to all the
apostles, and last of all as to one untimely born, He appeared also to me." When Peter wrote to the church he says "My
brethren we declare to you not cleverly conceived myths and fables. What we declare to you is what we have seen
with our eyes, and heard with our ears." We are not declaring to you, an unsubstantiated
theory or even a religious proposition that we learned in Sunday School. We are declaring something of which we had
an empirical experience. We saw it. We heard it. We beheld His glory on the plain of history. And this is what Paul is recounting here. He is saying that He appeared to Cephas - that
is to Peter, then to the twelve. He appeared. Again it is not like the disciples in the
story of the resurrection, and the disciples ran to the tomb on Sunday morning and the
stone was rolled away and they ran inside the tomb and they found the grave cloths still
in such beautiful arrangement. But there was no Jesus. There was no body - nobody. NO BODY there. There was nobody home. And then they came back and they scratched
their heads. And they said "what happened to the body? We found an empty tomb. What could that possibly mean?" And they figured it out. "Oh it must mean that He is risen so let's
go tell everybody that He is risen and let's start celebrating Easter Sunday based on an
inference drawn from an empty tomb." No. It is not the empty tomb that created the
faith of the early church. It was the appearance of the risen Christ. He appeared to Peter, then to the twelve. Well, these two could have cooked this up
among themselves. But Paul says "wait a minute. He appeared to more than five hundred at one
time, most of whom are still alive. Go and ask them.” That's their story and they are sticking to
it. Eye witnesses, five hundred of them. We have more witnesses from history to the
resurrection of Christ than we had to the life of Plato. Then He appeared to James and to all the apostles,
but what I am writing to you my dear friends in Corinth is not something that I believe
on the basis of hearsay. It is good hearsay. These are good witnesses who told me this. I trust James. I trust Peter. I trust the twelve, and you understand my
credentials that I was the number one enemy of this new Christian sect that was running
around proclaiming that Christ was raised from the dead. I was dragging them from prison, breathing
out fire. But last as all, "as one born out of due time,
He appeared unto me." See, the text that I just read to you was
written by an eye witness to the resurrection. You are going to have to decide whether this
is a credible witness or not. Now, the one reason why the newspaper reporter
says that this is a myth is not because he thinks that Paul was an idiot and fell out
of the stupid tree and hit head on every branch along the way, or that he was just an uneducated
fanatic from the first century. They understand that Paul was the most educated
man in Palestine when he wrote this apologia for the resurrection of Christ. His scholarly credentials were impeccable. The reason why the newspaper reporter would
say it is a myth is because judging from our twenty first century understanding of biology,
if there is anything we know now that primitive pre-scientific people in the first century
didn't know is that when people die they stay dead. And that it is impossible for the dead to
rise. Given that it is impossible for the dead to
rise, then obviously the New Testament story of the resurrection of Jesus has to be a myth. What else could it possibly be? And calling it a myth is being kind, it could
be an outright lie; if it's impossible for the dead to rise. What a different view of reality and of life
we find in the New Testament, where there the impossibility according to the New Testament
writers was for Him not to rise. The impossibility the premise in the New Testament
is that it was impossible for death to hold Him. And it is true that if there is any universal
finding of experimental empiricism it is that when people die, they stay dead. But if there is anything more universally
in our experience it is that when those people who died and stay dead, are people who are
sinful people. Now what happens if you get a people who is
not sinful? Now what happens to the premise? Biblically, morality, "thanatos" death itself
is inseparably tied to sin. It is the soul who sins that dies. So that if the New Testament testimony is
true, that there was in Christ no sin, why would anyone expect Him to die. I can't even believe - the real thing that
is hard to believe is that He would die at all on the cross. And He couldn't even die on the cross if it
weren't first that He took upon Himself the imputation of our sin. Having taken our sin, then He met the necessary
condition for human mortality. Apart from that the second Adam would never
have died. But having paid that price, and finished that
work, the Father raised Him from the tomb for our justification. I can't remember which speaker said what in
this conference there were so many wonderful things said. But, this was God's proof of the person of
Jesus. Paul debated with the philosophers in Athens
at the Areopagus, and I mentioned that when he debated with the stoics and the epicureans
he called attention to their monument to an unknown god. The philosophers were hedging their bets just
in case they missed one. Paul said "What you worship in ignorance I
proclaim to you in power. For the God who made the world and everything
in it being Lord of heaven and earth does not live in temples made by man, nor is He
served by human hands as if He needed anything since He Himself gives to all mankind life
and breath and everything." If you stumble at the resurrection, the recovery
of life from the death let me take you back earlier. How about the beginning of Jesus' life? How about the beginning of your life? How about the beginning of anybody's life? How about life itself? Why is there life at all in this universe? When we understand as Ravi so eloquently pointed
out the necessary conditions for life can not be found in us. You did not create your own life. There was a time when you were not. There was a time when all of us were not. But the only one who has the power of life
in and of Himself eternally, the power of being in and of Himself eternally, the power
of motion in and of Himself eternally, is the eternal self-existent living God who is
the author of life, and the author of death. He has the keys of life and death in His hands. And if the one who creates life in the first
place in His Son can call a rotting corpse like Lazarus out of the tomb, so the same
author of life can call His Son who touching His humanity is now dead and bring Him back
to life. What is so hard about that to believe? It is the opposite that is impossible. If there is such a thing as life in this universe,
how can you attribute to the source of life the fountain of life, the essence of life,
the impossibility of bringing Jesus back to life and bringing you back to life? Paul goes on to say in Athens. "We ought not to think that the divine being
is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, the
former days." Let me just stop here and insert something. A few minutes ago I said that the assumption
of the newspaper writer is that the story of the resurrection must be a myth because
resurrection is impossible. And we know that by our sophisticated postmodern
understanding of biology. And those poor people in the first century,
pre-scientific, unsophisticated, people living in Palestine had no problem with the resurrection
of Jesus because they saw resurrections all the time. Every week they could go out to the cemetery
and see somebody or other getting up out of a tomb. Let me tell you what folks. It was as foreign to the experience of first
century man that a dead man would come out of the tomb, as it is today. That's why Thomas said "I’m not going to
believe it just because you guys think you saw something. I'm not going to believe it unless I see the
wounds, and unless I can put my finger in His hands." And when that man showed up before Thomas
and said “Here Thomas, put your fingers in my hand. Touch me." You know the Bible doesn't say whether Thomas
ever did. I don't think he did. He didn't have time to. He was on his knees. And he was saying "my Lord and my God." No apologist was ever more sophisticated than
the one who wrote "Sometimes it causes me to tremble, were you there? Were you there when He rose up from the grave?” Sometimes it makes me shout "Glory, Glory." You better believe glory. That's why we're here today folks. I hate to tell Al that it is Saturday and
not Friday. Would you believe an apologist that doesn't
even know what day it is? Somebody said it was impossible for us to
make mistakes. But, here is the final point that I want you
to get, the former times of ignorance God has overlooked, but now He commands all people
everywhere to repent. Because He has fixed a day in which He will
judge the world in righteousness by a man whom He has appointed and of this He has given
assurance to all by raising Him from the dead. There is no other sign that will be given
to you except the sign of Jonah. And if you don't believe that sign you are
in trouble because God has already set the day to judge the world. And His patience is not infinite. God as an evangelist never ever issues an
invitation. That is something we do. God never invites people to receive Jesus. He commands them. He commands all men everywhere to repent and
to come to Jesus because He has proven that Jesus is the one through whom He will judge
the world. How has God proven that? By raising Him from the dead. Well you say "I wasn't there, so I can't holler
glory. Other people God, but unless I see I'm not
going to believe it. You're going to have to send Jesus back again
into my neighborhood, put Him to death again, and then raise Him for me to see. " Too late. Too bad, He does it once for all. And if that is not enough for you, you are
in trouble. God is going to judge you by that historical
act of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We believe in the resurrection, not because
the alternative is grim. We believe the resurrection because of the
Biblical testimony of it's reality in time and space. Paul ends this section by saying "Therefore”
Here is the conclusion. "Be steadfast. Be steadfast. Immovable, always abounding in the work of
the Lord for now you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain." Your preaching is not in vain. Your faith is not in vain. Your labor is not in vain because God has
raised Him from the dead. And George Frederick Handel knew the only
appropriate response to that was to say what? Hallelujah. Let's pray. Father how we thank you for the testimony
of scripture to the reality of resurrection that transcends all levels of mythology and
in which we find our hope and our justification. Amen
