They Remembered His Words

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.

Luke 24:1

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.

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,

Acts 2 · chapter mention

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 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

1 Thessalonians 1 · chapter mention

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

Acts 10 · chapter mention

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.