Romans #20

GOD IS MERCIFUL

There was a variety of reactions to last Sunday’s sermon on God’s election. Those reactions ranged from confusion to deep gratitude, from frustration about the destiny of loved ones to assurance about God’s calling.

            It’s not surprising since Romans 9 has been called the most controversial chapter in the NT. Churches have split over it and misunderstandings of its teaching have led some to a life of sin with the false notion that they were not destined to be saved anyways.

            God’s purpose in election may seem unfair. We could push it aside and deal with it in a theology classroom. Why bring election into the preaching of the church? One reason: because it’s there. We can’t avoid it. Verse 11 talks about God’s purpose in election. We have to talk about it because it is a part of who God is.

            If we say, “God couldn’t be like that,” what do we mean? If we say that our years of Bible study have led us to a view of God that is incompatible with this doctrine, we can dialogue with that. We can come to an understanding.

            But if we mean that this simply doesn’t fit my idea of what God is like, we have to ask, where did we get that idea of God? Is it a picture drawn from culture or from a popular conception of God? If this is the case, can such a perception stand against the authority of Scripture? Can we really challenge the Bible with our own picture of God?

            Time and again in the Bible God reveals his hand in electing some for specific purposes. How this works is a mystery to us. God elects us by and for his will.

            Charles Spurgeon strongly believed in election and applied it to himself. He said, “I believe the doctrine of election, because I am quite sure that if God had not chosen me I should never have chosen him; and I am sure he chose me before I was born, or else he never would have chosen me afterwards; and he must have elected me for reasons unknown to me, for I never could find any reason in myself why he should have looked upon me with special love. So I am forced to accept that doctrine.”

            As we continue this study of Romans 9 and the questions concerning God’s election, I would ask that you take the sermons together and not alone. The teaching of these truths must be taken as part of the larger story. Let’s follow Paul’s argument for God’s fairness in chapter 9.

1. Is God unjust in his election?

We asked ourselves last Sunday whether God was fair when it came to some being saved and others not. His concern was for the Jews who, with all the advantages they had, still did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah.

            Paul’s treatment of the question moves on to God’s justice or fairness as it relates to mercy. Paul writes, “What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!” (9:14).

            This is a question asked by those with faith and submission to God’s ways. It accepts the justice of God but seeks an explanation that would assure the seeker that grace is involved in election. Is God unjust?

            The answer comes from the experience of Moses in Exodus 33. As an affirmation of Moses’ leadership and the presence of God in that leadership, Moses asks to see the glory of God. The LORD places Moses in the cleft of a rock and covers him with the shadow of his hand. Then the LORD passes by allowing Moses to see his back and hear these words, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” (Ex 33:19).

            From this we get the idea that mercy and compassion are connected with God’s name. Note that God does not say, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and show cruelty to whom I will show cruelty.” At the heart of God’s nature is mercy and compassion.[i]

            What Paul is pointing to here is that no one can stake a claim on God’s mercy. He gives it freely where he chooses to according to who he is, not according to our merit, works or worthiness or even our unworthiness.

            “It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy,” Paul says (9:16). If we could in any way imagine that our capacities could draw God’s mercy for ourselves, this verse denies it. God will show his mercy according to his plan. So if the Jews do not believe in Jesus as Messiah, or make no effort and show no desire, God’s purposes will carry on. God will reconcile humankind to himself through Jesus whether or not the Jews accept or reject Jesus. It doesn’t stop God.

            God even uses the hardness of people’s hearts to accomplish his will. Paul refers to Pharaoh in the Exodus story to prove his point. God had put Pharaoh in power to oppose the Israelites, subjugate and persecute them, and enslaving them, so that God could show his power to deliver. Now Paul punctuates this example saying, “Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden” (9:18).

            A theological question pops up in this example: Did God harden Pharaoh’s heart or was his heart already hardened? Some might say that God does not harden anyone’s heart who had not first hardened himself. So God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart was just in that God was abandoning him to his own stubbornness. Remember Romans 1 where God “gave them over”?[ii]

            The only problem with this view is that the LORD told Moses before he even went to see Pharaoh that God would harden his heart (Ex 4:21). So Moses was an object of divine mercy and Pharaoh was object of divine wrath according to the will of God. Both were intended to display the glory of God through their roles.

            Does God elect some to salvation and harden others in their unbelief? If he does is God unjust? Or is that what their sin deserves? We can equally ask whether God is unjust in showing mercy since we really don’t deserve that either. The wonder is not that some are saved and others are not, but that anybody is saved at all. For we deserve nothing but judgment.[iii]

2. “There is a God but you’re not him”

This next question is asked, not from a place of faith, but from unbelief and rebellion. It challenges the justice of God as to his decisions: “One of you will say to me: ‘Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” (9:19).

            Questioning God is not a problem. We can ask out of our confusion for the Lord to clarify an issue. What we find in this question is a tone of quarreling with God, talking back to God. There is a refusal in this tone to let God be God and to remember one’s place. It is sort of like Job in the OT who wanted to have a face-to-face with God and tell him off.

            Here’s the essence of the question: If Pharaoh, and later Israel, are just playing the role God has for them in the plan of God, why should God judge them for resisting his will? If I was meant to do bad or harden my heart, can God blame me and judge me?

            Paul’s answer is a classic OT image: God as the potter and we as the clay. “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?” (20b-21).

            As an artist, whether you draw, paint or sculpt, do you not have the right to crumple your work and throw it away if it is not turning out the way you imagine? You have that right.

            However, that is not the illustration. God as the potter takes some clay and makes a vase for decoration in a fancy home, and some other clay to be a common pot for watering plants. God has the right as the Creator to do what he wants with either pot. He even has the right to destroy the pot if he chose to, doesn’t he?

            This is what God says in the Jeremiah passage describing God as the potter: (Jeremiah 18:6-10). So if God hardens some hearts, it’s for his glory; and if he shows mercy to others it is for his glory; for whatever God does, it’s for his glory, to show that God is God.

            If your God has been put in a box that doesn’t allow for God to be God then get a different God. Our God does not fit in a box anyways. But we want God to be all nice and tidy and to fit into a clean little structure so we can keep an eye on him and figure him out. We can’t do that; God is sovereign and he reigns over us, not us over him.

            A newcomer to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting was approached by a crotchety veteran who had been to several meetings. He said to the newcomer, “The first thing you need to learn about this program is that there is a God and you’re not him.”[iv]

            You may have noticed that Paul didn’t answer the question from verse 19. Instead, he took the route of God’s sovereignty and right to do as only God can do. In effect, Paul calls the questioner a hypocrite. For don’t we all want to “be like God” making our own decisions and practicing sovereignty over our own lives.

            God is the maker and redeemer. He can take a pot and use it for whatever purpose he chooses. He can take us and use us however he pleases. Therefore we can trust him because, not only is he our Creator, Redeemer and Lord, he is also merciful and loves to show mercy to those who seek it.

            There was a hint of his mercy in Jeremiah and we will see more of his mercy as we go on.

3. God’s power displayed in mercy

On this foundation of God’s sovereign right to elect, Paul now shows us God’s mercy. Two questions of the “What if” variety are posed:

            “What if God choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath – prepared for destruction?” (9:22).

            Back in Romans 1 we were introduced to the gospel, the power of God for salvation for everyone who believes, and to the wrath of God being revealed against sinners. Here again we see his wrath and power simultaneously highlighted. This is what the question points to in regards to objects of wrath.

            What are the objects of wrath? In biblical language, an object of wrath is an object deserving of wrath. The objects of wrath are people who haven’t yet experienced God’s saving power through Jesus Christ. Everybody who has lived or will ever live is an object of God’s wrath until they trust in Jesus Christ. So let’s not miss this very crucial detail: Someone who is an object of wrath does not need to remain an object of wrath.[v]

            That’s the impression we get from the letter to the Ephesians where Paul said, “Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath” (Eph 2:3b). This letter was written to Christians and they are reminded that they too were as morally bankrupt as the pagans around them. And only one thing transformed them from objects of wrath: “But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ when we were dead in our transgressions…” (2:4-5a). The mercy of God…

            But the phrase “prepared for destruction” makes it sound like those people are destined for annihilation. Is that true? Not exactly. The language again suggests that it is not God preparing it for destruction so much as it is preparing itself for destruction. So God is showing incredible patience of those objects of wrath, people who do not believe giving them time to repent and experience God’s saving power, or giving them time to heap up more judgment for themselves. Even while people are rebelling against God and his love, God shows great patience and gives every opportunity for repentance.

            The second “what if” question focuses on the objects of God’s mercy: “What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory – even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?” (9:23-24).

            Paul answers this with two examples.

            The first is from Hosea. If you know the story of Hosea in the OT you remember that he is the prophet God told to marry a prostitute. In doing this, Hosea was a metaphor of how God loved Israel even though they went after other gods. Israel was “married” to God but they had committed adultery with idolatry. Even still, God showed them love and wanted them to turn to him.

            Out of this book Paul takes a quote and uses it to reveal how God elected to show mercy to the Gentiles. “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,” (9:25). In this way he made the Gentiles, objects of wrath, into objects of mercy by including them in those that could be saved.

            On the other hand, Israel, objects of God’s mercy, were making themselves objects of God’s wrath by disobeying God. From Isaiah, Paul quotes two passages that speak of only a remnant of Israel being saved. They rejected the Messiah despite all their ability and advantages to recognize the Christ. So God declares that only a portion of the number of Jews will be saved from his wrath.

            This too is mercy. Oddly enough, in this rejection of Israel as God’s people, we are included in God’s mercy. And later we will hear that our acceptance is God’s way of making the Jews jealous for what we have and they should have had all along. Mercy!

Conclusion

We have talked about election.

We have talked about God’s sovereignty.

We have talked about his right to accept and reject.

            Some who are listening might conclude that either God has chosen to save me, or to reject me. It really doesn’t matter what I do then if God has already decided for me.

            If you think like this and put the responsibility squarely on God for your condemnation, then you are responding the way the rebel did in verse 19. The offer of salvation is plainly given through Jesus. Those who receive Christ will be saved. Those who reject Christ will be condemned.

            God is Sovereign – yes. When we speak of election it sounds like everything has been decided. But God is merciful. Bob Deffinbaugh discovered something very significant in the NT: No one who called upon our Lord for mercy was ever turned away.[vi] Think about it – no one ever came to Jesus and asked for mercy received a cold response: “No you are not my elect – go away!” Everyone who asked Jesus for mercy received it.

            There is one instance where mercy was refused. In Luke 16:19-31, a rich man and a poor man named Lazarus died at the same time. Lazarus went to Abraham’s side in Hades, the place of the dead, and the rich man was far away. The rich man was in torment and cried out to Abraham, “Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.” The response is not pretty – it was too late for mercy.

            But in this life there is a unique paradox. God is sovereign and we are responsible. God is so great that he can be in control and at the same time allow people to make choices. We are responsible for our choices. God is sovereign and we are responsible to choose Jesus and his mercy.

            If we are like the Pharisee in Jesus’ parable we do not see our need for mercy. We look at the man addicted to pornography with indignation; we are perplexed by the woman with abandonment issues; we can’t fathom the inability of some to succeed and keep a job; we observe the couple in marital difficulty and suggest that more prayer would have helped their situation. And we thank God that we are not like them.

            However, if we are like the tax collector in the same parable, we realize that we are exactly like those people. We are in need. We are broken. We are poor, foolish mortals who keep getting drunk on the material prosperity of capitalism and fail to recognize true blessings. We are poor, pitiful, blind and naked – so spiritually naked. And then we cry out, “God, have mercy on me a sinner.”

            At the mercy seat of Jesus, we find rest for our weary souls when we cry out, “God, have mercy on me a sinner.”

                                                            AMEN

---

[i] Timothy Peck, sermon The Potter’s Freedom

[ii] John Stott, the Message of Romans, p.269.

[iii] Stott, p. 269

[iv] Peck

[v] Peck

[vi] Bob Deffinbaugh, sermon Divine Election is Questioned

Romans #19

IS GOD FAIR?

You are looking at this text and thinking, “What does Paul’s passion for the Jews have to do with me?” I know you are thinking this because I did too.

            The apostle Paul has given us the most comprehensive description of our salvation in Jesus Christ that we could ever read in the first 8 chapters of Romans. Now it is as if he turned a sharp corner and veered off to talk about Israel for three chapters.

             Mentally, our computers turn off. We are tempted in our reading to skip over to chapter 12 where Paul brings in some practical counsel. What, after all, do the Jews have to do with us in our struggle to be faithful? What does Israel have to do with the 21^st century Christian and his or her salvation?

            Quite a bit, actually. Remember how this letter began? What was Paul’s purpose in writing this letter? He wrote, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes…” and note this “…first for the Jew, then for the Gentile” (1:16). And this gospel was promised in the OT by the prophets regarding God’s Son “who as to his human nature was a descendent of David” (1:4).

            The implication of these verses is that we cannot understand the gospel of our salvation apart from its relationship to Israel. Through these special people we have come to know about the Messiah and God’s plan to save us. This is why Paul turns to them now and says, “What about the Jews?”

            However, this text is not about the Jews. No, in fact, this text is about God – which gives us even more reason to study it.

            Is God fair? This question may not be precisely the right question but it touches on part of the problem Paul addresses concerning the Jews. Out of this question comes a follow-up question: Why do some people believe when others do not? So in this chapter we are going to be faced with some of the toughest questions ever faced by God’s people as Paul reflects on the actions and workings of God.

            Is God fair in his saving work? And does God fail?

1. When some people don’t believe

a) Paul’s passion for the lost – Having a passion for the gospel grows a like-passion for those who don’t know Jesus. It breaks the heart of the believer to see those who do not believe, especially loved ones.

            Paul’s passion is palpable in his choice of words. He says, “I speak the truth in Christ – I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit” (9:1). First he affirms positively his intentions, then negatively, and finally as coming from the Spirit’s work in his own spirit.

            “I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel” (9:2-3).

            We have to understand how the Jews felt about Paul. He was a zealous Pharisee for the Law and a persecutor of the Christians. Then he is converted and begins preaching for Christ. It is a difficult pill to swallow that Paul cares anything for the Jews if you yourself are a Jew. Someone said it would be like Hitler, a Jew-killer, suddenly writing a history of the Jews. One could hardly take this seriously.

            From Paul’s perspective, he never lost his love for his people and in actual fact, loves them intensely. He expresses this in his prayer (not “wish” as in NIV) that he could be cut off from Christ for their sake. This is harsh stuff.

            He sounds like Moses when the people of Israel sinned against God by building a golden calf to worship. Moses met with God and said, “Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. But now, please forgive their sin – but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written” (Ex 32:31-32). Paul, like Moses, was so grieved for the Jews that he would go so far, if it were possible, to sacrifice himself like Jesus for the salvation of his fellow Jews. He would bear the wrath of God for them, if he could. This is not a possibility but it shows his heart was for them.

            This is the kind of heart we receive when we come to understand the grace of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We weep and groan over those we know who are far from God.

b) Lost despite having all the advantages – What is incredibly sad is that the Jews of all people ought to believe. They had all the advantages, all of the opportunities, and all the blessings of God in their favor.

            - They were Israelites, God’s chosen people.

            - They were adopted as sons of God, and as such, lords of creation in the kingdom of God.

            - They were privileged to have the Shekinah glory of God in their midst. Israel saw this glory in being led by the pillar of fire in the wilderness and when God’s presence settled on their temple.

            - They possessed the covenants. The Abrahamic covenant set them apart as God’s people; the Mosaic covenant gave them the Law; the Davidic covenant promised them that the Messiah would come through them and rule as King.

            - They had the precious Law of God. In this they possessed God’s teaching for how to live a holy life.

            - They had temple worship of the one True God.

            - They had the promises of God that he would be faithful to them no matter how they behaved, good or bad.

            - They had Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

            - And from them and their gene pool, their blood, their race, came the promised Messiah. Jesus was and is a Jew. He is King.

            But they didn’t believe in Jesus. And having these incredible advantages for faith in God makes their failure to believe even sadder. If anyone was going to believe in this gospel it would have been these Jews.

            We have a hard time with this contradiction in our own families. Many grow up in a home with Christian parents, go to church and hear the Word, know their Bibles and memorize verses. Then something happens – we don’t know what exactly – but they slip from the faith of Christ. With all the advantages of a gospel home some children still fall away.

            I have even heard of some who attend Bible College who suddenly come to the realization that they don’t really believe what they are learning. Or they were fooling themselves and found that their faith was not genuine.

            It is a painful reality that the children of Christians choose not to follow Christ, even with all the advantages.

2. God’s purposes despite unbelief

a) Does God’s word ever fail? Israel had failed. They failed to recognize and receive their Messiah, Jesus Christ. They failed by rejecting him and crucifying him. They even failed after the resurrection to admit their guilt and repent. They failed to enter into the blessings of the kingdom of Jesus.

            Now the question is really a matter of “who failed?” They fell short of the glory of God – certainly. But what does this say about the reliability of Scripture? Did God fail them in giving them an unclear word? What use were his promises and blessings if Israel failed to believe in their own Messiah?

            Quite a lot rests on the answer. You see, prior to this text we read Romans 8:28-39 and were given hope and the promise that nothing will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus. Now we find that God’s own special people who possessed his very own word do not believe in his Son. If God’s truth has been frustrated with the Jews then what is the basis of our hope as Christians? Can we rely on God to be eternally loving when his own people seem to be rejected?

            Paul’s answer is straightforward: “It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (9:6). God’s word did not fail. His word is effective and his promises are being fulfilled. The problem, as Paul puts it, is that not every Israelite is a true Israelite.

            Earlier, at the end of chapter 2, Paul taught that not everyone is a Jew who is one outwardly. Circumcision of the heart is necessary to make someone a true Israelite. True Israel is a smaller group than physical Israel. And True Israel is made up of Jews who believe in Jesus, and Gentiles who believe in Jesus.

            What we are talking about is called divine election. This is a difficult teaching because it seems that some are selected for faith and others are not.

b) God’s choice of Isaac over Ishmael – As a way of explaining the concept of election, Paul turns to Abraham in Genesis 16-18. The LORD promises Abraham and Sarah they would have a child through whom the promise of a great nation would come. But they are old and Sarah beyond child-rearing age. As the years passed and still no child, the couple decides to help God out. Sarah gives her servant girl Hagar to Abraham and the girl gives birth to a boy whom they name Ishmael.

            Abraham presented Ishmael to God and asked whether this boy could be the one through whom the promise would come. This is an act of unbelief and disobedience since God said Sarah would have a son, even in her old age. “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned,” the Lord said (9:7), and “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son” (9:8c).

            Two things are clear in this example. First, God’s word did not fail. He did what he promised in giving the senior couple a son. Second, despite their disobedience, God stuck to his plan and chose Isaac to be the heir of the promise.

            Both sons were physical offspring of Abraham, but only Isaac was the child of the promise. We are only children of the promise by the will of the Father, God Almighty.

            Jesus also taught divine election in the gospel of John. He said, “All that the Father gives me will come to me…For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life…No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him…” (Jn 6:37,40, 44).

            God’s sovereign choice coupled with our acceptance of his will is the key to our salvation. I confess that I am not able to give a clear answer on whether God chooses and we are saved, or God chooses us and we have to decide to be saved as a result of our free will. One thing is certain: God chooses us.

c) God’s choice of Jacob over Esau – For a second example, Paul jumps down one generation to Isaac’s children.

            With Isaac and Rebekah there is a more dramatic demonstration of God’s election. Isaac and Ishmael had the same father but different mother. With Jacob and Esau, both boys were the children of the same parents. They were conceived together since they were twins and therefore equal in many ways. But God chooses Jacob and not Esau.

            “Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad – in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls – she was told “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (9:10-13).

            Esau was older and should have received preference according to culture. Esau had been a dutiful son to Isaac. Meanwhile Jacob was a conniver and the original prodigal son. He deceived and schemed and basically stole his father’s blessing by deception. Even his name means “deceiver.” He struggled with everyone he met including God.

            And yet in spite of his disobedience and rebellion, God was in control. The LORD changed his name to Israel reaffirming that God would bless him and all his descendants. God chose Jacob before he had done good or bad – in order that God’s purpose in election might stand. Not by works but by him who calls.

            Put this in perspective. On the one hand you have the good little Christian boy who goes to Sunday School and memorizes verses and attends Bible Camp. On the other you have a bully, a pest, a scourge to teachers in all his classes; one day he will be a member of Hell’s Angels. Who would you pick to be the pastor of your church? If God chooses the little rebel there seems to be nothing he can do to resist God’s divine election.

            Yet Scripture also teaches that we must make a conscious effort to repent, turn from our sins, and believe on the name of the Lord Jesus to be saved. There is a matter of our will involved and I am not ready to say that God’s grace is irresistible. However, it remains a mystery to me how two people can hear the same gospel; one is saved while the other refuses God.

             “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What we need to take away from this strong statement is that God chose Jacob to be the man through whom God would carry out his promises. He “hated” or rejected Esau as the promise-keeper, but he didn’t actually hate Esau. Jesus himself used this language when he said we must hate our fathers and mothers if we are going to follow after him. It is a powerful way of saying “I choose Jesus above all other persons or things.”

            God is sovereign over all history. What he says he will do he does. Those he chooses to do his will are going to do his will. This is divine election: God’s sovereign choice of whom he will bless and whom he will not.

Conclusion

Is God fair?

Now the question makes sense to us in the light of this text. Is God fair when some believe in Jesus and others do not? Does God choose some and not others to have faith?

            I don’t know.

            John Stott said, “It is the essence of worship to say: ‘Not to us, O LORD, not to us, but to your name be the glory, because of your love and faithfulness’ (Ps 115:1). If we were responsible for our own salvation, either in whole or in part, we would be justified in singing our own praises and blowing our own trumpet in heaven. But such a thing is inconceivable.”[i]

            If our belief in Jesus were in any way a credit or work of faith we would diminish the power of grace. God chooses to save us through Jesus Christ his Son and our salvation is due entirely to his grace, will, initiative, wisdom and power. So we in humility and grateful adoration confess in worship that God and the Lamb are the only ones worthy of praise.

            His election is a mystery to me. And to all of you, I am sure. It does not matter in the sense that the gospel is the power of God for salvation and everyone needs to hear it. It matters greatly in the sense that God is overall and chooses his people.

            His Word is effective and unfailing. Isaiah wrote for the LORD concerning God’s thoughts, and let us include election in this passage, “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it” (Isaiah 55:9-11).

            Amen, let the Lord’s will be done.

                                                                        AMEN

---

[i] John Stott, The Message of Romans, p. 268.

Easter Sunday sermon

CELEBRATING THE FACT OF THE RESURRECTION

In the 1962 movie, “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance,” elderly U.S. Senator Ransom Stoddard (Jimmy Stewart) and his wife Hallie arrive by train in the small western town of Shinbone, to attend the funeral of an apparent nobody, a local rancher named Tom Doniphon (John Wayne). As they pay their respects to the dead man at the undertaker's establishment, the senator is interrupted with a request for a newspaper interview.

            As the interview with the local reporter begins, the film flashes back several decades into the past as Stoddard reflects on his first arrival at Shinbone. He and the town were persecuted by a local gunfighter, Liberty Valance, whom Stoddard eventually faces down in a gunfight. Stoddard gains fame from shooting the outlaw and is elected to be a state representative, governor and then U.S. Senator.

            The startling truth is, he didn’t shoot Valance, Doniphon did. During the famous standoff, Doniphon hid in an alley and shot Valance, but Stoddard got the credit.

            When the interview concludes, the reporter tears up his notes, and Stoddard asks, “You’re not going to use the story, Mr. Scott?”

            The reporter replies, “No sir. This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”[i]

            As someone who enjoys reading history books I have begun to discover that various historical figures that we have always revered are more legendary than factual. It seems that the more time passes their legends grow and the truth gets buried somewhere in the legend.

            For decades we have fed on the legends of past heroes. Today the trend is to debunk the legend and find out the truth, even the hidden skeletons of said heroes. Everyone and everything is held up to scrutiny and heroes are humanized to the point of losing their hero status.

            Did George Washington chop down the cherry tree?

            Was Abraham Lincoln the Great Emancipator or an opportunistic politician?

            Did Jesus really rise from the dead?

            Or have the centuries built up a legend around the man that is larger than the life itself?

1. Legend versus Fact

Karen Armstrong, in her popular book A History of God, has stated that we know very little about Jesus. The first full-length account of his life was Mark’s gospel, written around the year 70, forty years after his death. She says that by that time historical facts had been overlaid with mythical elements which expressed the meaning Jesus intended for his followers. And it is the meaning that Mark primarily conveys rather than a straightforward and reliable portrayal.[ii]

            Armstrong, along with other scholars, say the gospels were written so far after the events that legend developed and distorted what was finally written down, turning Jesus from merely a wise teacher into the mythological Son of God.[iii]

            Their conclusion then is that in the forty years from the death of Christ till the first writing of a gospel his followers told bigger and bigger stories about Jesus to enhance his memory or to give greater attention to his teaching. But he didn’t rise from the dead – that’s the legend that grew up over time.

            But what about the witnesses? Many who had seen Jesus alive after his death were still around when the gospels were written. They could have deflated the legend with the truth. And what about the early creeds?

            Paul wrote many of his letters before the gospels were written and included several early church creeds that go back almost to the resurrection. The most famous include Philippians 2:6-11 and Colossians 1:15-20. But the earliest that Paul quotes is found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 (turn there).

            Consider this: If the crucifixion was as early as A.D. 30, Paul’s conversion was around 32. Paul was discipled by a Christian named Ananias after his Damascus road experience. Then he met with the apostles in Jerusalem about A.D. 35. Some time in that period Paul was taught this creed which was written and used by the early church. So you have Jesus’ death for our sins, his burial, his resurrection, and a detailed list of those to whom he appeared in resurrected body. All of this dates back to within two years of the event itself.

            There is no time for legend to grow up around the death of Christ. His resurrection was treated as a fact by the very witnesses themselves.

2. What’s a day?

Let us consider the gospel record itself. Paul mentioned the creed in Corinthians and that Jesus was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. Many of the prophets said Jesus would be in the tomb three days. Specifically, the sign of Jonah is used by Jesus to indicate a three day stay. Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days; so the Son of Man would be in the tomb three days.[iv]

            However, the gospels tell us that Jesus was crucified Friday and placed in a tomb, lay there all day Saturday, and rose on Sunday – that’s one full day, two nights and part of two days. Were the prophets wrong? Did Jesus rise early? Is this part of the legend?

            We think too much like Westerners when we read Scripture. We need to think like a first century Jew and forget our time-conscious reckoning of every minute. Early Jews considered that any part of a day counted as a full day. Jesus was in the tomb Friday, Saturday and Sunday, when he rose from the dead. The way Jews thought of time in the first century, this would have counted as three days.[v]

            So John writes, “Early on the first day of the week…” (20:1), Sunday, the third day.

3. Contrasting views of the Resurrection

If we consider the gospel records we have to concede that there are contradictions and contrasts between the four gospels. Do these contradictions confirm that there are four or more legends about the resurrection of Jesus? And do these discrepancies prove the story to be false?

            Dr. Michael Martin of Boston University summarized the empty tomb narratives of Matthew, Mark and Luke in this way: “In Matthew, when Mary Magdalene and the other Mary arrived toward dawn at the tomb there is a rock in front of it, there is a violent earthquake, and an angel descends and rolls back the stone. In Mark, the women arrive at the tomb at sunrise and the stone had been rolled back. In Luke, when the women arrive at early dawn they find the stone had already been rolled back.

            In Matthew, an angel is sitting on the rock outside the tomb and in Mark a youth is inside the tomb. In Luke, two men are inside.

            In Matthew, the women present at the tomb are Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. In Mark, the women present at the tomb are the two Marys and Salome. In Luke, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and the other women are present at the tomb.

            In Matthew, the two Marys rush from the tomb in great fear and joy, run to tell the disciples, and meet Jesus on the way. In Mark, they run out of the tomb in fear and say nothing to anyone. In Luke, the women report the story to the disciples who do not believe them and there is no suggestion that they meet Jesus.”[vi]

            Martin points out that John conflicts with the other three gospels as well. So logically, how can these accounts of the empty tomb be considered credible? Can this be true if there are so many contradictions?

            From a philosophical standpoint, and Martin is a philosopher, when two things do not agree, it is not true. But Martin is a philosopher and not a historian. What Martin points out as contradictions are secondary details; the heart of the empty tomb narrative is essentially the same. Jesus died, is put in a tomb, women come to visit the tomb, and find it empty. They all see angels who tell them Jesus is risen.

            The historical core is reliable and is trustworthy.

            When police or lawyers question witnesses of a crime one of the tell-tale signs that a lie is being told is that the stories are exactly the same. If they sound rehearsed something’s wrong.

            If Matthew, Mark, Luke and John told exactly the same story, we would say they plagiarized each other. But the differences in the story they tell shows us that they are witnesses who saw the event from their own perspective.

            There are two very different stories of Hannibal crossing the Alps to attack Rome. They are incompatible and irreconcilable. Yet no classical historian doubts the fact that Hannibal did attack Rome. The secondary details do not take away from the heart of the event: the tomb is empty.

4. A woman’s perspective

One of the witnesses plays a prominent role in this event. John tells us, “Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance” (20:1).

            Again, our 21^st century sensibilities do not catch the significance of a woman playing the part of the prime witness. In those days a woman’s testimony was of little public account. Celsus, the anti-Christian polemicist of the later second century, dismisses the resurrection narrative as based on the hallucination of a hysterical woman.[vii]

            If this is the case then why would the disciples and the early church pin the establishment of a religion and faith on the testimony of a woman? Why not insert a man into the story to give it credibility. Unless it was true. You don’t change the facts to make it fit your philosophical bent when this is exactly what happened.

            Mary runs to Peter and John and practically screams, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!” (20:2). Notice she said “we” suggesting that she was not in fact alone. John mentions her only as one who led the other women and possibly in honor of the role she plays next.

            It is this same Mary Magdalene who has the honor of being the first to meet Jesus alive in John’s gospel. I can think of no more dramatic moment than when Mary crying begs the gardener to tell her where the body of Jesus was placed and the man replies, “Mary.” Simple and profound. She turns and discovers her Master alive and standing before her.

            You can’t make this up.

5. Faith in the “Looking”

The two male witnesses in John’s account went to the tomb and found it the way Mary Magdalene described – empty. Their assumption would be the same as Mary’s: someone has taken the body of the Lord Jesus. Except for one detail which we will come to in a moment.

            First, it is important to consider the suspects in this grave robbing. Obviously the disciples were perplexed at the missing body. So if they took it to make it look like Jesus rose, why didn’t they know where it was? And all but John died a horrible death for a lie? We know that is not plausible.

            If the Jews took the body then they would produce it later to refute the resurrection story. They did not take it and they could not produce any explanation as to why the body was missing.

            There is no reason the Romans would have taken the body except to protect it from vandalizing Jews. Grave robbing was punishable by death in the first century under Roman law. Even so, they too would have produced the body if the need arose to refute the resurrection.

            The one detail that convinced John of resurrection was the presence of Christ’s grave clothes. Why would a grave robber take the body but not the clothes? Why go to all that trouble to unwind the cloths and remove the spices and carry the body away?

            Peter and John go to the tomb. John sees the strips of linen lying there. “Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus’ head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed” (20:6-8).

            He saw and believed. Jesus had been brought back to life by the power of God and his body had resurrected and glorified so that he moved through burial cloths leaving them lay where they fell. John saw this and knew – Jesus lives.

            Interestingly, verse 9 says that they still did not know from scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead. When the Holy Spirit came they saw clearly, I believe, how the scriptures spoke to this necessity. We see it now. We see Isaiah 53:11, and Psalm 16:8-11, and the sign of Jonah, and know that prophecy told of Christ’s resurrection.

            We have the witnesses; we have Scripture; and we have the Holy Spirit – and we believe.

From Witness to Window

John Piper gives us a beautiful analogy to illustrate what is happening to us here.

            “Your doorbell rings this afternoon and one of your friends asks to talk to you. He comes and says, “I have some really bad news. Your brother Jim is dead.”

And you say, shaking your head, “I don’t believe it. I just saw him this morning. He was fine. I don’t believe it. It can’t be.”

            And your friend says, “We went to the game together, and as we were leaving, this car went out of control and jumped the curb, and hit Jim. I knelt over him. I waited for the medical examiner. I saw it. He’s gone.”

            And you say, softly, “I see.”

            What do you mean, “I see”? You mean that the witness of your friend has become a window. And the reality in the window has become plain. You were not there. You did not see (the way Mary saw), but still you say—and it is right to say—with all your heart, “I see.””[viii]

            On this Easter morning you have been invited to share in the witness of Mary and the disciples concerning Christ’s resurrection. And now we pray that by God’s grace you too can say, “I see.”

            Jesus is alive and I see!

            The barrier to belief in our generation is not the same as it was fifty years ago. Back then when science was king there was no room for the subversion of natural laws which dictated that dead men do not rise from the grave. Natural law does not allow for resurrection.

            Today, it is not these external laws that forbid belief in the resurrected Christ. No, today it is the internal law that has taken over. Today we obey the personal law that says this: Truth is what works for me. Truth is what I decide is helpful for my life. And I don’t have to adapt my life to anything I don’t find helpful.

            I can present the evidence like I have today but one thing prevents us from belief in this generation: Do I care? Our culture thinks that way. If I don’t care then I don’t have to do anything about it. I can take it or leave it. Like a legend. It doesn’t matter if it is true or not if it doesn’t affect me.

            But you see it does affect you. When you are faced with the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead you are faced with the only thing that really does matter. The choice is very stark: belief or unbelief. And if you believe in the evidence of history that Jesus is alive your worldview changes dramatically on that one fact. I see!

            Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep (1 Cor 15:20).

            And I see and I rejoice!

                                                                        AMEN

---

[i]  IMDb The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, 1962.

[ii] Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ, p.32

[iii] Strobel, p.32

[iv] Matthew 12:39-40

[v] Strobel, p. 217

[vi] Strobel, p. 214

[vii] F.F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, p. 384.

[viii] John Piper sermon, “I have seen the Lord”, John 20:1-31