Blumenort EMC - November 5, 2017

THE TESTIMONY

Have you ever been to court? Have you ever been on trial? Have you ever been on trial for your faith?

            It was 1940-something when my father received a brown letter telling him that he was required to enlist in the army. The war was raging in Europe and young men were being called up to fight the Germans.

            As you can imagine, my dad was a Mennonite and did not want to fight. In order to register as a conscientious objector, dad had to appear in court before a judge and state his case. The justice on the bench for Manitoba was a no-nonsense kind of guy who did not like shirkers.

            J.E. Adamson took an aggressive approach to handling objectors.[i] Dad said Adamson stared him down and said something like, “Are you a coward? Don’t you love your country? If the enemy invades are you just going to run and hide in the woods?”

            Dad, and other young Mennonite men like him, had no representation and stood alone accused of being unpatriotic. My father was not a theologian or a pastor and not one for explaining his faith in grand terms. So he simply stated what he believed, “I believe that Jesus Christ commanded us to love our enemies, so I cannot go to war and kill.”

            Each one of us stands trial every day. Whether you know it or not your faith is being examined by what you do and what you say. Friends and co-workers are looking for authenticity in your walk of faith and they need to see Jesus in you. What is your response?

            In a similar way, Paul stood trial for his faith in Jesus and his gospel of the risen Christ. He was falsely accused of not loving his country and his people. His response ought to be our response as we testify to our faith in Jesus. I want to share this truth with you today: The heart of the Christian testimony is the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

            Let me explain why from Acts 26:1-23.

The Context

We will not look at every detail of Paul’s trial in chapters 24-26, but I do want to give you the context of this event.

            Following the ruckus in the temple and Paul’s subsequent arrest, Paul faces three different trials in 24-26.

            First he faces the Roman governor, Felix. Hoping for a bribe, Felix keeps Paul in prison for two years.

            Festus takes over from Felix and hears the case against Paul again. But he does not understand the issue. Paul appeals to Caesar and Festus can’t refuse him. But he doesn’t know how to write up the charge. So Festus calls on the Jewish puppet king, Agrippa II (great-grandson of Herod the Great).

            Paul’s third trial is before Agrippa and his sister-lover Bernice (yes, it’s weird).

            The original charges by the Jewish authority three years past seem to have faded but are still on the table. Paul is accused of

1) Stirring up riots throughout the world (The Jews called Paul a “pest” as in pestilence; like a disease that rots the body).

2) Being a ringleader of a sect (illegal religion).

3) Profaning the temple (bringing a Gentile into the sacred area).

            We could look in great detail at how Paul responds to these charges, but I would rather focus on one detail. Each time Paul’s case is heard, one element concludes his defense like the final word on the whole matter: the resurrection. This is what struck me as I studied this passage.

            This is more than a personal defense. Paul defends the gospel and the ministry with the resurrection. He is not trying to prove his innocence so much as he is trying to explain the reasons for the Jewish opposition to his ministry.

            In fact, the book of Acts, the resurrection emerges as the key to most sermons and testimonies in Acts as the main reason for faith in Jesus.

1. The resurrection is where people stumble

As Paul addresses Agrippa and explains his position, he takes pains to show how the gospel of Jesus does not oppose Jewish faith, but actually grows out of it. Paul did not abandon the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but sees them fulfilled in Jesus. As Paul said, “And now I stand here on trial because of my hope in the promise made by God to our fathers…” (6).

            This is the same God who created the world with the breath of his mouth. This is the same God who delivered the Israelites out of Egypt in a series of miracles. Then, Paul asks, “Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead?” (8)

            And yet, that is where many people stumble. God can do amazing things in your life, but can he raise the dead?

            Think back to Paul’s speech on the Areopagus (17:22ff). He notices the altar to the “Unknown God” and proceeds to tell them about God. Interesting, they think. Then he concludes with a challenge (read 17:30-31). When they heard this teaching on the resurrection, they mocked him.

            Just last week we heard how Paul was before the Sanhedrin, and Paul, being the scamp that he was, declared that “It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial” (23:6). This caused a great division in the council so that the attention was taken off of Paul.

            Here in our present chapter, Paul tells how the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light to all people (26:23). To this, Festus cannot contain himself and says, “Paul, you’re out of your mind. You’re nuts. Give me a break. No one survives Roman crucifixion,” (my version).

            The resurrection of the dead troubles people – they can’t handle the idea.

            I have stood at many gravesides to conduct committals. Often I will have the mourners look around at the cemetery and consider it as a crop that will one day spring up. I will point to the body of the deceased and say, “God’s not done with this body. At the voice of Jesus, the earth will give up the dead and they will rise to life and have a transformed body.”

            Do you know what kind of looks I get? Incredulous! And this from Christians. They look at me like, “Hey, we’re grieving here. This is sad. Don’t tell me this old, broken body with its diseases is going to rise. Tell me Grandma’s in heaven.” Resurrection makes for a nice theology, but we miss the reality, and we stumble over it and can’t really grasp it.

            But Jesus is the first-born of the dead. He conquered sin on the cross and conquered death by being raised from the dead. That should be our great hope.

2. The resurrection is foundational to the witness of the church

For the past several months we have studied the book of Acts in our morning worship. What is the main thrust of Acts? We might say that the overall theme is that the Holy Spirit empowers the church to witness. And you would be right. But witness about what?

            As much as the Holy Spirit plays a major part in the story of Acts and the early Church, that part is primarily to hold up the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the central message of the gospel. The first significant words in Acts come from the resurrected Christ to wait for the Holy Spirit (1:5).

            Then we hear Peter’s sermon at Pentecost. And his argument centers on the prophetic proofs for the resurrection of Jesus and why these once-shy apostles are now preaching in the streets. He says, “This Jesus God raised up, and of that we are all witnesses” (2:32), and in this resurrection receives validation and vindication as the Son of God. “Let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified” (2:36). How do the people respond to the message of resurrection? They are cut to the heart! And then they repent and believe. The resurrection of Jesus is cause for belief.

            When Peter and John heal a lame man, they are taken into custody to explain this healing and why they are teaching the resurrection of Jesus (4:2). Their answer to the Sanhedrin shakes the establishment. “…let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead – by this man is standing before you well” (4:10). The resurrection of Jesus is the power behind the healing of the sick and the lame.

            Later on, Peter has the opportunity to cross the Jewish-Gentile boundary and preach to Cornelius. Again, Peter said that the Jews put Jesus to death by hanging him on a tree, but that God raised him on the third day. Peter concludes by saying, “To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (10:43). The resurrection of Jesus, then, is the basis for belief AND the forgiveness of sins.

            The Church in Acts persistently declares that everything they do and say is rooted in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why do we as Christians insist that Jesus is the only way? Because that is what Jesus says about himself. We believe him. And we believe him because he has demonstrated that he knows life better than anyone else who ever lived. The supreme demonstration of that fact is that he rose from the dead.

3. The resurrection was the hinge of Paul’s defense

Before Agrippa, Paul relates, for the third time in the book of Acts, his conversion experience. This time he adds an odd quote from Jesus, “It is hard for you to kick against the goads” (26:14c).

            You men from Steve’s Livestock know what a goad is; a goad is like a cattle prod. It is a sharp pointy stick that a shepherd might use to get the sheep going. A goad is also a sharp point on a chariot so that when a horse kicks its legs too far back it gets a reminder not to back-kick so far.

            When Paul meets Jesus on the road to Damascus, he meets the risen Lord. Jesus tells him to stop kicking the goads; stop resisting what you now see is true.

            Paul described his life to Agrippa before meeting the risen Lord. He was a man who was convinced he knew the truth. He was zealous for Jewish culture, tradition, and practice. Paul was so convinced that he was right about his worldview and his paradigm for living that he persecuted the Christians, throwing them in jail, voting for their deaths. Paul was a religious man; a privileged and educated man; a man in whom few could find fault (Philippians 3:4-6).

            Then Paul met the risen Christ and it radically changed his life and his worldview. He got crushed. Paul wasn’t just persecuting some weird cult members; Jesus told him “you are persecuting me.” Note: what happens to the church happens to Jesus. But it wasn’t a rebuke Paul received, it was a calling. The resurrected Jesus raised Paul from the deadness of his legalism and religiosity. (read 26:16-18)

            From that point on – I don’t think I exaggerate in saying this – Paul was obsessed (in the positive sense) with the resurrection of Christ. It was the hinge of his testimony. Everything rested on the historical fact of Christ being raised from the dead. He considered all of his gains, his birth rights (as a Mennonite), his education, his righteousness and all else as loss compared to knowing Christ Jesus as Lord (Phil. 3:7-8). Why would he risk everything now and throw away his reputation as a learned teacher of the Law? “…that I may know him and the power of his resurrection and may share in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain to the resurrection from the dead” (Phil 3:10-11).

            Oh that we all would be so obsessed…

My dad was not an articulate man when it came to theology. I have told you that already. He could gab with the best of them, but he never learned to express his faith in deep terms.

            So when J.E. Adamson confronted him about his conscientious objection, well…let me put words in Adamson’s mouth. “You mean to tell me that you are refusing to join the army because you say that God raised Jesus from the dead, and now you are ordering your whole life around this one event 2000 years ago? Is that what you are saying Abe?”

            Dad said, “Yes.”

            I believe that was my dad’s one defining moment of faith. That day he stood larger than he ever stood before. His “yes” declared before the judge that he believed in the resurrection of Christ and that changed everything for him.

            And I want you to know this morning that you are a testimony of the risen Christ if you believe He is the Son of God. If you call yourself a Christian, your co-workers can automatically assume that you believe in the resurrection.

            This church building stands as a silent, immovable testimony to the fact that the people who gather here every week believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

            But the problem with Christianity today is that the things we believe in principle, we refuse to believe in practice. Just like the people at the graves of their loved ones. Yes, we grieve, but not without hope. We put more stock in the idea of “going to heaven” than we do in the resurrection of the dead. And in so doing we allow death to defeat us. Why? Because we surrender this world to sin and Satan and bank everything on “going to heaven.” As a result, we leave justice for the End Times, we allow the world to go to pot, because at least we’ve got heaven.

            The resurrection of Jesus transforms our beliefs. I will order my thinking, speaking, and behavior on the basis of the resurrection so that I am not the same. The Holy Spirit takes the introvert and makes her a lioness for the gospel because of the hope of the resurrection. The Holy Spirit gives new courage to the weak and the scared to stand up and simply say “yes” when asked “Do you really believe the resurrection?”

            The gospel we declare begins with the resurrection. What about the crucifixion? The death of Jesus is important but it does not make a person stumble like the resurrection does in principle and in practice.

            How core is the resurrection to our gospel?  Allow me to summarize Paul’s argument from 1 Corinthians 15:12-20

If there is no resurrection – Christ has not been raised.

If there is no resurrection – our preaching is in vain/your faith is in vain.

If there is no resurrection – we are misrepresenting God in saying that he raised Jesus from the dead.

If there is no resurrection – the dead are not raised.

If there is no resurrection – your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

If there is no resurrection – those who have died are lost forever.

If there is no resurrection – we can only hope for this life; woe is us.

BUT, Christ has been raised from the dead, the first of those to be raised from the dead. Hallelujah.

                                                            AMEN

           

---

[i] CBC video “The Last Objectors” from the TV series “Absolutely.”

Whatever happened to sin? #3

SINNERS IN THE HANDS OF JESUS

How are we to respond to sin in our community? How do we imagine a confrontation of sin playing out?

            On July 8, 1741, Jonathan Edwards was invited to preach at a church in a neighboring town. It was the height of the Great Awakening in the colonies, but the town of Enfield, Connecticut stood out numbly against the revival. Despite the fact that he had delivered the sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” to his own congregation with little effect, Edwards felt led to use it in Enfield.

            Edwards’ preaching style was unimpressive. He read his sermons in a monotone voice and when he did look up he stared at the back wall. Edwards was not theatrical, did not shout, but spoke with great conviction.

            The result of “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” was unexpected. People began to moan and cry out that they felt they were going to hell. Some even thought that the very fires of hell were licking at their feet through the floor boards of the church. Edwards taught them the horrors of hell and the dangers of sin. And the people were awakened to Christ and his saving power.    

            For that time and context, the message was clearly effective. I don’t think that message would work today. I’m not saying that the truth of hell and the dangers of sin should not be shared; I just don’t think people are scared of hell anymore. We wish they were. Certain sins anger us and we would like for sinners to feel the heat of hell on their feet and repent. But fear doesn’t motivate.

            How does Jesus respond to sin and the sinner? In the controversial passage of John 8:1-11, we get a great picture of how Jesus feels about sin.[i] We could examine a lot of passages about Jesus and sin, but this one dramatically reflects the heart of Christ toward the sinner. What we learn from this passage is this: When confronted with the sinner and his sin remember that Jesus displayed both truth and grace to us.

How we handle Sin and Sinners

“It is a terrible thing for a sinner to fall into the hands of his fellow sinners” – F.B. Meyer.[ii]

            Though we revile and look down our noses at the scribes and Pharisees in this episode, we cannot deny that there is a little bit of them in us. Meyer was bang on in his statement that sinners are hard on sinners. We are hard on sinners because, perhaps, we are afraid of what we see in them – ourselves.

            Jesus was teaching at the temple during the Feast of Booths. This was likely a Sabbath day when the scribes and Pharisees approached him with their captive. She had been caught in adultery.

            There are all kinds of things wrong with this picture. They got the girl, but where’s the dude? Was she a pawn in their scheme and the guy a patsy, bait for the girl? Did the schemers follow the couple as they went out for drinks and then back to his place? If so, they were guilty of voyeurism. Why wasn’t the man brought to Jesus? Why did they choose a sexual sin over a murderer or a thief? They clearly wanted to trap Jesus. Why clearly?

            The place where Jesus taught was the temple, and around the temple were Roman guards keeping the peace. Now the scribes and Pharisees came to Jesus and said, “Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” (8:5). If Jesus says let her go, he is breaking Moses’ law; if Jesus says stone her, the Romans can charge him with sedition because Jews did not have the power to execute anyone. It’s a trap.

            But as for the scribes and Pharisees, how can this preacher say that they are us? I think that as Christians we can slip into a pious exterior. For instance, like the scribes and Pharisees we like to be offended by sin. Identifying the sins of others can make us feel better about our own sins. We can say “I’m not as bad as that.” Other people’s gross sins allow us to feel like we are on a better path. In the same breath, we feel compelled to judge the sinner. If they choose to live a lifestyle that contradicts our sense of godliness, they are begging us to condemn them. And deep in our hearts, don’t we want sinners to pay the penalty? Sin has its consequences and you have to pay the piper. If you abuse your body, you have to expect that cancer, disease, or an early death will be the bill to pay. If the child-molester goes to prison and gets beat up daily…well, that’s justice.

            In the end, what the scribes and Pharisees really desired was to regain their turf. Jesus had invaded their world and upset their lifestyle with his teaching and behavior. Compassion, bah! What mattered to this group was the law; the law matters, people do not. Control was more important than truth or justice, or people. We don’t want control do we? We want new people to worship with us, right? If we bring in new people they come with baggage, sin, a different worldview. Don’t tell me you don’t want them to conform just a little bit. We want to be in control…even here.

How Jesus handles Sin and Sinners

The beauty of this episode is how Jesus navigates the trap and shows us how to balance hating sin while showing mercy. What does Jesus teach us about confronting sin and the sinner?

a) Jesus shows compassion on the sinner – The woman caught in adultery was frightened, trembling, and poorly covered. Since the men caught her in the act, it is likely that they dragged her as she was from the bed. She may have been half-naked. Someone suggested that Jesus wrote on the ground to distract the crowd from her nakedness. He took the spotlight off of her and put it on himself. Maybe.

            The men wanted justice. But what is justice? Is it the strict application of the law? Deuteronomy 22:22 states that she must die for her adultery. Or is justice found more purely in the Messianic song of Isaiah, “A bruised reed he will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice” (Is. 42:3). Jesus takes the risk of himself getting hurt to save her. He would not reject her even though she violated a sexual code. She is a faintly burning wick and Jesus will not allow her to be snuffed out.

            Jesus loves sinners. You know that right? He was often accused of eating and drinking with sinners and tax collectors. Why, they asked, why do you do this Jesus? He replied, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners,” (Mk 2:17). The kicker is that the righteous are sinners too, they just don’t know it. The sinners know what they are.

b) Jesus upholds the law – The eighth day of the feast was a Sabbath. You don’t work on the Sabbath; you don’t even write – writing is work. Writing, they said, was making some kind of permanent mark on paper. That’s why Jesus writes in the dirt – it leaves no lasting mark. Jesus isn’t stupid. He knows the law and the laws that uphold the laws.

            Concerning the law of Moses itself, Jesus was never against the law. He said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Mt. 5:17).

            So what did Jesus write on the ground? No one really knows. But one scholar is convinced he wrote, “death” or “kill her” or “stone her with stones.”[iii]Why? Because the insinuation of what he says next is that he decreed the death penalty. Jesus said, in effect, “go ahead.” She broke the law. And the law states that both the man and the woman be stoned. Jesus did not contradict the law or tell them they were wrong, as they expected he would.

c) Jesus takes sin seriously – Let us not become wistful in our impression of Jesus, where we imagine that his grace and compassion blind him to the seriousness of sin. Jesus gives the green-light to stone her, but then adds the caveat: “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her” (7b). Jesus puts a name and a face on each person in the crowd. He says, “Okay, ‘fess up.” Never mind your voyeurism, your seedy perverted stalking of this girl and your conspiratorial minds, if you are truly without sin – throw! Anyone who steps out and claims to be sinless would be shamed by the others. You wouldn’t dare.

            Jesus takes sin seriously. Our companion passage (Matt. 5:27-30) shows us just how seriously. Jesus took sin to a new level of understanding when he said that looking at a woman with lustful intent is adultery. Not just the act is condemned, but the attitude as well. We are to cut off in drastic measure the avenue through which this lust finds root. And it’s not just adultery – all sin begins in the heart, before it becomes an act. That is why these men knew they were busted.

            One by one, beginning with the eldest of the men, the crowd disperses. Elders were more respected for their wisdom in those days. If the older guys walk away, that says a lot. Jesus goes back to writing so that they can keep their dignity. He doesn’t look at them. Jesus is pretty cool that way.

            With everyone gone, Jesus asks, “Has no one condemned you?” “No one, Lord.” And then Jesus says the most profound thing any sinner would love to hear, “Neither do I condemn you.” He could have. Jesus was the one person in the crowd who was without sin. He could have stoned her. That’s not his mission.

            Jesus said, “…God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him” (John 3:17).

d) Jesus Challenges the Sinner and his/her lifestyle – Incredible grace has been shown to this woman, but there is more needed than just grace. Jesus came to us full of grace and truth (John 1:17). Love tells the truth. If Jesus truly loves this woman, he can’t just tell her to go. Jesus wants what is best for her and so he says, “…from now on sin no more” (11c). You can’t do this anymore. You can’t live this lifestyle of sin. God wants more for you.

            Jesus has walked the fine line between trivializing her sin and condemning her. She is not acquitted, but neither is she judged. Just as the crowd had to reform their thinking concerning sin, the woman must reform her way of life. She cannot justify her actions in any way.

            Oprah once aired an episode on her program with women who were having affairs with married men. When the women were challenged on the morality of their adultery, one woman said, “Wait a minute. I’m a Christian, but I want everyone to know that my personal life and my religion don’t interfere with one another. I believe in a God who wants me to be happy. And if this man makes me happy, then God approves of the relationship.” In response, I recall a preacher once saying, “God does not want you to be happy. He wants you to be holy.” And I challenge you to find a verse that says otherwise.

e) Jesus lives out the message of the cross – Love is costly. Jesus does not condemn the woman, but takes the condemnation she deserved on himself and allows his body to be nailed to the cross.

            How did the woman respond? We have no idea. But can you imagine that she sniffed contemptuously at this act of grace? You and I, the readers of this narrative, are obliged to consider how the woman responded, and in the process consider our own response to the costly love of God offered on the cross.

            Can you deny so costly a love? And if such amazing love has been shown to us, how can we condemn others who have sinned and are waiting, even longing, for compassion? Sinners don’t need a rock to the head; sinners need grace and truth, understanding and forgiveness. They need a gentle hand to help them and correct them.

Consider one last word picture. I had a math teacher who carried a yardstick (a meter stick if you have converted) and would use it to get our attention. If the class was chattering too much or not paying attention to him, he would slam that yardstick down with the edge on one of the student’s desks. (I think he had anger issues – but back then we just called them “teachers”). Do you think that we learned math better because of the stick?

            Jesus did not come with a stick to beat us into conformity to the law. He came with a gentle hand and loving countenance to draw us into obedience. The motivation was costly love – the cross; not condemnation.

            Aren’t you glad we are sinners in the hands of Jesus, instead of sinners in the hands of an angry God? Jesus came as an example of truth and grace. We are challenged this day to be Jesus to the sinners among us.

                                                                        AMEN

Prayer:

Father God, we confess that there are times when we have stood in the midst of the crowd, condemned. And there are times when we have stood in the crowd, condemning. There are times when my own heart has been filled with adultery. There are times when my hands have been filled with stones. Forgive me, forgive us, for hearts that are prone to wander, to forget the grace that has been shown to us. Forgive us for being too willing to bring the sins of others before you, and forgetting to bring my own to you. Help me, help us all, to be like you, Jesus, full of grace and truth, to show compassion to the sinner, and to say along with you to them “neither do I condemn you.” And in the strength of those gracious words, we will go forward and sin no more

                        In Jesus name we pray, amen.

---

[i] John 8:1-11 is controversial because most early Greek manuscripts do not include it in their copies of John’s Gospel. Some scholars are not even sure it belongs in John at all since it is the only place in John where scribes are mentioned together with Pharisees. Early Church Fathers did believe, however, that though it was not Johannine in character, it did fit the personality of Christ very well. Kenneth Bailey, among others, suggested that early copyists were told to leave it out because it appeared to show Jesus being too light on sin. So it may have an early origin but if copyists were paid to leave it out…

[ii] F.B. Meyer was a British preacher, a contemporary of D.L. Moody and A.C. Dixon (1847-1929)

[iii] Kenneth Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, 235.

Whatever Happened to Sin #2

THE OT PERSPECTIVE OF SIN:

MARRIED TO GOD, BUT DATING THE WORLD

How do we typically view sin in the OT? When you and I read the OT we often see a God who is angry, who wants to pour out wrath on all humankind, and who eagerly judges the world. God seems pretty grumpy. (By "OT" I mean "Old Testament")

            We can focus on those emotions and write off the God of the OT altogether. But we need to pause for a second and think about why God is angry? We could look at this theologically and point out that God is holy and he hates sin. When his people sin they are breaking his commandments. This is true, but there is more to it than that.

            Suppose a woman’s love language is quality time spent together with her husband. Quality time doesn’t have to be romantic dates at fancy restaurants. She just wants to have a meaningful time together. So they may sit together on the couch watching TV. But while they are watching her shows, he plays a game on his phone or scrolls through Facebook. If they do go out for a coffee, he sits there with nothing to say until an acquaintance walks by and all of a sudden he’s a chatterbox. Shouldn’t she begin to feel angry that her significant other finds everything and everyone else more interesting than her?

            This is a very simple illustration, but it is meant to turn off your theological perspective for a moment and think relationally. God is a relational person. The reason we see his anger, wrath, and judgment in the OT is not just because his rules were broken, but because man’s relationship with God has been disrupted. Sin disrupts our relationship with God in the same way that adultery breaks down a marriage.

            Our text today relates how Ezra, a priest who is sent to minister to returning exiles in Israel, reacts to the sins of his people. They had begun to take pagan wives for themselves after coming home from captivity in Babylon and Ezra begins to pull out his hair. Let me tell you why.

Remembering Covenant Promises

For those of us who are married I ask this jarring question: How often do you go back and read your wedding vows? Do you ever think of them and evaluate how you are doing in your role as a husband or wife?

            One of the first things Ezra did when they returned to Israel was to read the Scriptures to the people. They had not heard these words in a long time and it convicted them.

            Some of the officials, leaders in the community, came to Ezra and confessed that “The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands with their abominations, from the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites” (9:1b). Now this is an odd confession because some of these peoples did not exist at this stage of history. Why would they mention these people groups if they aren’t around?

            The key is that these names are a link to a commandment of God. Those leaders were referencing Exodus 34:11-16 where these names were first mentioned (read).    

            Now the men of Israel were taking wives who were not Jews. Likely there were few Jewish wives to go around. Thus they were intermarrying with unbelievers and so threatening the purity of their faith. It was not a threat but a reality that if they married these pagan women their hearts would be turned from God to idolatry. It was inevitable. They would replace the living God with gods that are not gods.

            When the people heard the words of Moses it was like a husband and wife reading their wedding vows and seeing how far they fell short of their promises. God had chosen this people to be a holy people, his own people, and had made (in effect) a marriage covenant with them, and they were breaking it with this seemingly insignificant act. But it was not insignificant in the big picture of faith.

Breaking Covenant Promises

Marrying an unbeliever is a risky choice. Some people call it evangelism, but it seldom works out that way.

            According to the Exodus passage it breaks God’s commandment and his intention to create a holy people. If we disregard this commandment we declare that to be married is the most important goal in life, more important than obedience to God.

            This is why Ezra confesses in v. 10, “We have forsaken your commandments, which you commanded by your servants the prophets…” The commandments were there to protect the people. But if the people don’t understand or appreciate the commandment, they choose another option. That option is none other than “sin.”

            The most common word for sin is found in the Hebrew word chata (in Greek it is harmatano). This verb is found in the OT over 600 times. It means “missing the mark.” Picture an archery target – we place it in the center aisle and I take aim. But instead of shooting as accurately as I can at the target, I deliberately aim to the far left and miss.

            We may think of “missing the mark” as making a mistake rather than a willful chosen sin. But in the Bible the term suggests not failure, but a decision to fail. “Missing the mark” is a voluntary and culpable mistake.

            When we choose these other things as more important than God, we make them ultimate. Ezekiel 14:3 says, “these men have taken their idols into their hearts and set the stumbling block of their iniquity before their faces.” God was saying that the human heart takes good things like marriage, career, possessions, and family, and turns them into ultimate things. Our hearts make gods of them, making them the central focus of our lives, because we think they can give us significance and security, safety and fulfillment. Idols are not just bad things; they can be good things – and the greater the good, the more likely we will expect it to satisfy our longings.

God’s view of Covenant Promises

Anything can serve as a counterfeit god, especially the very best things in life. An idol is anything that is more important to you than God. If it is an obsession, absorbing your heart and mind more than God, it is an idol.

            Think again of our opening illustration: a husband and wife that are distracted from their relationship by “other” things will be relationally broken.

            Consider how God views sin then. First of all, whatever distracts you from obeying him is an idol. The Bible sometimes uses a marriage metaphor to describe idolatry. God should be our true spouse, but when we desire and delight in other things more than God we commit spiritual adultery. Idolatry and adultery are synonyms in the OT.

            The best illustration of this metaphor comes to us from the prophet Hosea. God tells Hosea, “Go take for yourself a wife of whoredom, for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the LORD” (Hosea 1:2). Hosea becomes a walking parable of how the Lord feels about his people and their flirtation with idols. The people felt that they could worship Yahweh and mingle pagan idolatry on the side. They probably felt that they were covering their bases in this way.

            But this is what we call syncretism. It has always been a problem for God’s people. We don’t deny Christianity, but we add to our faith the beliefs and practices of our culture. Then, in a rather short time, we are virtually indistinguishable from the world in how we think and live. We want so desperately to blend in and not stick out in the crowd by being too holy.

            God calls this infidelity. We are married to God, but we want to date the world. We say we are happy with God, but we can’t shake the allure of the world and its temporary pleasures and satisfactions. But John said, “Do not love the world or the things of the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 John 2:15).

Renewing our Covenant Promises with God

After 25 or 50 years, some married couples will have a little ceremony to renew their wedding vows. They haven’t forgotten their promises per se, but they want to remind themselves and everyone that they are committed to loving each other. That’s a good thing.

            When we have broken our promises of faithfulness to God, and we do often, there is only one way to come back to God: confession. And then we can renew our promises.

            Ezra’s response to the sins of his people and his prayer are an outstanding model in the OT of renewal. Check out Ezra’s response to sin:

a) First, he is appalled at sin. Twice it says that Ezra “sat appalled” and pulled hair from his head and beard (3-4). One writer said, “Rare is the soul who is so shocked at disobedience that he is appalled.”[i] Does sin shock us? We see the tabloids at Sobey’s or Superstore while checking our groceries and we see that a superstar couple has split. Are we horrified or curious? What about when a step-father shakes his baby to death? Are we horrified to the point of dropping to our knees in confession before God? Ezra was beside himself with shock over the sin he witnessed.

b) Second, he mourns the sin. The source of this mourning was the realization that God’s commandments had been broken. “Then all who trembled at the words of the God of Israel…” (4). A distinguishing mark of a true Christian is that he mourns over sin, both his own sins and the sins of others. Jesus said, “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted” (Mt. 5:4). He wasn’t talking about people at a funeral; Jesus meant that the person who grieves sin will be blessed.

c) Third, he confessed the sin. Ezra makes no attempt to separate himself from the transgressions of the people. He doesn’t go before God and say “Look at these people; look how sinful they are.” No, he includes himself in the guilt of the people and says not “they” but “our.” “O my God, I am ashamed and blush to lift my face to you, my God, for our iniquities have risen higher than our heads, and our guilt has mounted up to the heavens” (6). Ezra was ashamed and yet did not hesitate to go directly to God and confess this breech. Adam and Eve tried to hide, and who wouldn’t? But the guilt and shame are too much of a burden for us to bear, why wouldn’t we go to God.

d) Fourth, he makes no excuse. Ezra recognized that God had punished the people less than they deserved even though God knew they would sin again. But Ezra plainly says, “we are before you in our guilt, for none can stand before you because of this” (15b). Ezra doesn’t cover up the guilt but throws himself on the mercy of God.

            Should a husband and wife have a severe disruption in their marriage, denying the existence of this issue between them would begin as a wedge and grow to become a chasm. Only confession and repentance could heal the marriage.

            So too with God, the lover of our souls, we find one who would show mercy and embrace us once again, if only we would agree with him that sin is not just law-breaking but is relationship-destroying.

This OT perspective changes our understanding of sin. Now we see that sin is personal, it pains the One who loves us and rejects the One who adores us. Sin can no longer be seen as a dusty law journal in a lawyer’s office. Sin can no longer be swept aside as culturally irrelevant. We cannot scorn our marriage vows with God.

            The marriage analogy continues in the NT. Paul speaks of Christ as the bridegroom and the Church as the bride in Ephesians 5. All at once he speaks of how a husband ought to treat a wife and vice versa, and then says “This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church” (32). What you do affects your spouse; if you hurt your body, you hurt “our” body. And when you sacrifice yourself for the other, you show the same crazy love that Christ showed on the cross.

            But just like a good marriage, with open communication, readiness to admit fault, quick to repair the hurts, God is gracious and merciful and ready to hold us close. So let’s not date the world and flirt with its toys. Christ is the lover of our souls and he died to set us free from the world.

                                                            AMEN

Prayer:

            (This prayer sounds like a wedding vow. It is a call to renew our covenant with God just as a couple renews their wedding vows at 10, 25 or 50 years)

            O Lord, Our God,

            I, Darryl (______insert your name), take you God , to be my God, to have and to love you from this day forward, in good times and in bad times, believing that you want my best, whether I am sick or well, poor or rich, I accept that you love me and I will not give myself to another, till death takes me and I enter into your eternal presence,

            In Jesus name, Amen.

---

[i] Edwin Yamauchi (Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Zondervan], 4:664)

Whatever Happened to Sin? #1

LET’S TALK ABOUT SIN

“Sin” is a word that we use very carefully. We cannot talk about sin, or that which we designate as “sin,” as openly as we once used to. Calling something “sin” suggests condemnation or judgment on our part, and we paint ourselves negatively to others if we throw the “sin” word around too loosely.

            If you want to know what Western society thinks of “sin,” television provides a very accurate gauge of public opinion. Consider the last time you have heard “sin” mentioned on your favorite show and in what context. No one talks about “sin” on prime time. If a commercial advertises a chocolate treat of some sort it might be described as “sinfully delicious.” In this way, “sin” becomes an adjective for “good stuff that you shouldn’t have.”

            “Sin” suggests guilt. And no one wants to feel guilty. Yet even with the removal the word “sin” people still feel guilty. A recent US survey revealed that 87 percent of American adults believe in the existence of sin – something that is always considered wrong. But some sins, like gambling, pre-marital sex, and drinking, no longer draw condemnation. So the list gets modified by popular culture.

            And popular culture influences the church. The drift of Western preaching today veers away from talking about sin. The result is that people know what sin is, they just don’t believe in it anymore. Pastors preach happiness instead of holiness; believers seek personal fulfillment instead of moral purity.

            But I believe that we need to talk about sin as a church. I believe that having a biblical view of sin leads us to a greater understanding of salvation through Jesus Christ. Acknowledging sin and the sinful nature accentuates the Good News of Christ in a way that ignoring it can never do.

            So let’s talk about sin…

How do we define sin?

Our first biblical encounter with sin comes to us in Genesis 3. Until this moment there was a perfect world. For a reason we are not told about, a crafty serpent enters the garden where the man and the woman live and work.

            Ray Stedman said that it was unfortunate that translators identified the word here as “serpent” when it is actually a shining creature. This is apt since the NT calls the devil a deceiver masquerading as an angel of light. And here the devil deceives the woman concerning God. The deception comes in stages:

First, the serpent says “Did God actually say…” creating doubt in the mind concerning the Word of the Lord.  

Second, the woman responds concerning the forbidden tree but adds that they should not even touch the tree. She adjusts the Word of the Lord to her own liking.

Third, the serpent refutes God’s command that they will die if they touch the tree saying “You will not surely die…” and then casts doubt on God’s love by inferring that God just doesn’t want the man and the woman to be as wise as him.

Fourth, the act of rebellion. The woman considers that the food on the tree is good and delightful to look at, so she takes and eats the fruit. She gives some to the man and he eats.

            As James later writes (1:14-15), this is the pattern leading to sin: desire, temptation, sin, followed by death. That’s the pattern, but what is sin itself?

            Sin is the transgression of the law of God. God said, “…of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat” (2:17). They had one law and they broke it. Why is this bad?

            Karl Menninger wrote, “The wrongness of the sinful act lies not merely in its nonconformity, its departure from the accepted, appropriate way of behavior, but in an implicitly aggressive quality – a ruthlessness, a hurting, a breaking away from God and from the rest of humanity, a partial alienation, or act of rebellion.”[i]

            Sin is the usurping of God’s rightful place as God by the rebellious human who thinks he knows better than God what is good. And the essence of this aggressive departure from God as Lord of your life is a violent “NO” to God. Sin puts “my self” first before God and others.

When did “sin” begin to vanish?

In truth, humankind has been trying to make sin vanish from the beginning. Adam blamed God for making the woman; Eve blamed the serpent. The guilt of sin is too heavy a burden and so we try to shift it onto someone or something else.

            No one described this better than the prophet Isaiah when he wrote, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness…” (5:20). In his own time, Isaiah saw how the people toyed with sin and morality, but he could have been describing our time as well (i.e. Abortion is called “a woman’s choice”).

            So the human effort to make “sin” vanish is ancient. But in the last few decades we have seen a ramped-up effort to annihilate sin. In the 1950s, the US Congress voted to require the President to proclaim each year a national day of prayer, beginning in 1952. The next year, President Eisenhower made his first proclamation and in it he made a reference to sin. He never did again. The word was not compatible with the President’s vision of a proud and confident people. No president since has ever mentioned the word.[ii]

            Do you see the stumbling block that is sin? It stands in the way of the ability of humankind to triumph and succeed. As of 1953, quipped Menninger, the US stopped sinning.

            Around this same time, the positive-thinking sermons of Norman Vincent Peale rose to popularity. Church-goers craved these “you-can-do-it” messages and groaned inwardly at the mention of sin (“here we go again”). Out of this arose Robert Schuler, and today we have Joel Osteen, who, in an interview with Larry King, was asked if Jews, Moslems and non-Christians were wrong. Osteen replied, “Well, I don’t know if I believe they’re wrong…But I just think that only God will judge a person’s heart.” If we are judged by our hearts, I think I’m in trouble.

What has “sin” become?

Sin may not have vanished exactly, but in the West we call it by different names. And by those different names come different solutions.

            In the world at large, sin is sometimes called “crime.” We address crime, not with theology, but with courts and a justice system and with fines and sentences. Sometimes sin is called a symptom. Bad behavior may be the product of an illness. And if one can be treated with medical science it would be absurd to punish the person.[iii]

            But if we remove sin from the human dilemma, what results? If no one is supposed to feel guilty, how could anyone be a sinner? Modern culture responds: people are victims. Victims are not responsible for what they do – they are casualties of what happens to them. Victimization covers over the idea of sin.[iv] Society does not see sin as the human problem, but illness, syndromes, and disorders which can be treated.

            What has sin become in the church? The fundamentalists of recent decades had their “sin lists” for which you could be condemned. Many of these major sins were never mentioned in Scripture. Sin was reduced to “sins.” Sins can be managed to some extent. When I wanted to go to the movies my mother would often ask, “Would Jesus go to the movies?” I can stop going to the movies; I can say no to alcohol. We feel better if we can manage our sins. But the Bible mentions actual sins that are not easily managed: gossip, envy, strife, coveting.

            The church has also helped to trivialize sin by reducing it to actions rather than a condition. If it were possible for me to stop doing ____ then it is logically possible that I can stop doing other sins. The truth is, sin is first of all a condition and only then, actions. So no matter what sins I conquer, I’m still sinful. No matter how well I do at managing my sin before God, one truth remains, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks God” (Rom 3:10-11). “All our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment” (Is. 64:6).[v]

            Can we get away with renaming sin? “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8).

Why does “sin” still matter?

Sin matters if we can put aside for a moment the “sins” we all have on our lists. Put aside “sins” and think of the real problem with humanity, with you, with me – the sin condition.

            In Romans 5, Paul takes us back to the Garden, to Adam’s act of disobedience, and breaks down the problem for us. “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (12).

First, we see that sin entered the world through one man. We know that man as Adam (note that Eve is not mentioned). In the light of this context it is best to say, “When Adam sinned, we all sinned.” God appointed Adam as the federal head of the human race. His sin involved all of us and was imputed to us when we were born. We call this “original sin.” We were born sinners.

Second, death entered the world through sin. The Lord God warned the man and the woman “the day you eat of (the tree) you shall surely die” (Gen. 2:17). They did not die immediately after taking a bite of that Macintosh, but they did die spiritually that day. But death came eventually.

Third, in this way death came to all men, because all sinned. The question people sometimes ask is, do we sin because we imitate our parents, or do we sin because we are of Adam’s race? As I said before, we all sinned when Adam sinned and were included in his sinning because he was the federal head.

            But that’s not fair, is it? Where else do we pay for the sins of a representative head? Well, when the leader of a country declares war we go to war and some soldiers die; when the CEO changes to an OS that no one understands and the company falters…their decision is by virtue of our association with them our decision because they represent us.

            Is it fair that Adam’s lust for an apple got us all messed up in this sinful condition? If it’s not fair that Adam represented you when he sinned, neither is it fair that Christ represented you when he died on the cross. Christ became the federal head that represented us because he was innocent and untainted by the Adamic curse (he was born of a woman and the Holy Spirit). “For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ” (5:17).

            This is a bad news/good news issue concerning the matter of sin. The bad news is that we don’t have a disorder or an illness and sin cannot be managed by mere human effort. This is bad news, not just for unbelievers and backsliders, but for the most pious believers who believe they have any righteous deeds to present God.

            The good news is that God in Christ has conquered the sin condition on the cross and offered to us a free gift of life. Before you can begin to enter into a program to deal with your sexual sins, you have to come before the cross of Christ and admit your sinful human condition. There is such freedom and deliverance in this. Only then can you begin to conquer your sins.

Let’s talk about sin. Let us not be afraid to utter that horrible condition that afflicts us all. When we have brought sin into the light, only then can we nail our sinful flesh to the cross where all sin has been dealt with in finality.

            The church must take sin seriously. If we do not talk about sin and its universal effect on all of us, we run the risk of numbing all kinds of people to the transforming truth of Jesus Christ and His Word. If there is no such thing as sin, there is no need for a Savior!

            But you and I see the evidence of our own actions and the secret thoughts in our minds. We know the truth about ourselves. And we know the One who has set us free from the power of sin.

            So let’s talk about sin and about Jesus who forgives our sinful natures.

                                                AMEN

---

[i] Karl Menninger, Whatever Happened to Sin?, 19.

[ii] Menninger, 14.

[iii] Menninger, 48.

[iv] John MacArthur, The Vanishing Conscience, 21.

[v] Michael S. Horton, “What Ever Happened to Sin?” Westminster Seminary article.

Cross Talks #5

THE “IFS” AND “BUTS” OF

THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS

Very early on Sunday morning, a group of women left the city carrying armloads of spices. When they arrived at the place of burial, they noted that the sun had peeked over the horizon casting a golden hew on the scene. The birds had been singing their morning song for an hour already. A gentle mist floated above the ground where some soldiers slept. Two other soldiers stood guard outside the tomb of the one the women sought.

            A heavy stone overwhelmed the entrance to the tomb. An unbroken imperial seal of Roman origin indicated that the stone had not moved. The guards themselves appeared gruff and unwelcoming. Would the guards help them move the stone to anoint the body with perfumes and spices? Trembling, they broached the question. No, the soldiers replied, this tomb will not be opened for anyone, by order of the governor.

            With ceaseless sorrow added to sorrow, the women left the tomb and headed home, leaving the one they loved uncared for in a borrowed tomb. Jesus of Nazareth was dead. And he did not rise on the third day, as he said he would.

            That’s the story of Jesus’ death without the resurrection. Makes for a depressing story doesn’t it?

            What if Jesus was not raised from the dead? This sounds like a question born of doubt. But it is actually a biblical question. Paul uses the word “if” to show us how much hangs on the bodily resurrection of our Lord. This little word, “if,” challenges us to think of the possibilities.

            What difference would it have made if Jesus had not risen from the dead?

            We talk about the cross of Christ, his death and what that accomplished. But what does the resurrection add to the redemption story? Paul presents us with a problem in 1 Corinthians 15:12-13, then gives us six history-changing facts if Jesus was not raised. Let’s explores the “ifs” and “buts.”

The Problem: What if there is no resurrection?

The Corinthians had a peculiar issue with the resurrection of Jesus. They believed that Jesus had risen from the dead, but they did not believe that there was a general resurrection where they would all rise from the dead. It seems strange to us that they would accept the first part but not the second. We see them as linked. But according to Paul in v. 12 that is exactly what they are saying.

            Paul just finished writing to them about the death of Jesus, as foretold in the prophets, and that he was raised on the third day, according to the Scriptures. They believed that, but they didn’t believe that Christians would one day rise from the dead. There were several reasons for this: false teaching, a faulty understanding of the Second Coming of Christ, etc.

            But Paul contends with their faulty logic. If you believe that Christ was raised from the dead, is that not evidence of the resurrection of all people? If you deny the resurrection of dead there are serious consequences to that thinking. “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised” (13).

            Paul’s logic is clear. The two facts are woven together. If human bodies cannot survive death, then Christ’s body did not survive death, because having a human body (flesh and blood) just like ours, you can’t argue, “Well, he rose, but we can’t.” If Christ was not raised from the dead there is no hope for our resurrection. But if Christ was raised then we will be raised from the dead also. The two cannot be separated.

            Underlying their logic was Greek thinking. Greek philosophy taught that all things physical were evil or corrupt. The Corinthians thus could not fathom that these bodies were of any use after we died. All things physical were but a shadow of the spiritual reality in heaven. Why would God want to raise our sinful, dying bodies from the grave after our death? But if these bodies are worthless, of no use in the spiritual realm, then Christ has not been raised either.

The Consequences

Paul continues to unpack their faulty logic with “if” statements. What would the world be like if Christ had not been raised? What if the women had found the tomb as I described it in the beginning? What would the church be like today without the risen Christ?

            There are six consequences of such a scenario:

1. Our preaching is a waste of time – Paul uses the word “vain” which means “empty” or “having no substance.” All the messages you have heard, all the services you have attended, all the Christian books you have read – all of it – would be a total waste of time if Jesus was not raised.

            But some would say that we still have Jesus’ teachings. The Sermon on the Mount is good ethical stuff – how to treat each other. Jesus would have died for our sins, even if he is not alive, right?

            Trouble is, Jesus said he would rise again. He said, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will build it again” and he was talking about his body. So since he did not rise again he’s kind of a liar, or deluded. And that makes his teaching null and void.

2. Our faith is useless – If we say that Christ died for our sins, but the resurrection is just a bonus, we miss out on a huge piece of the gospel. If Christ died for our sins, how do we know that his death actually accomplished anything? If Christ remained in the tomb, we would never know if God had accepted his sacrifice. The atonement would be without validation.

            Why go to church if our faith is only about ethical living? Why study the Bible if it’s just a book of outdated rules? Why pray if we don’t have access to God through Christ? Our faith is pretty flimsy.

3. We are false witnesses of God – As one writer put it, if the resurrection never happened, the apostles are the world’s greatest liars. And preachers, we are telling people that Jesus rose from the dead. Well, if God did not raise Jesus from the dead and we are telling everyone he did, then we are obviously saying things about God that aren’t true. Paul himself declared, “This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found faithful” (4:1-2). This is a serious charge of slander, in that case.

4. We are still sinners – Now it’s getting personal. If Christ has not been raised from the dead “your faith is futile and you are still in your sins” (17). If there is a God, we will have to stand before him and be judged because without the resurrection there is no forgiveness of sins. Paul makes the argument in Romans that Jesus “was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (4:25). Without the resurrection there is no justification – our sins have not been dealt with. As a result, there is no mercy for you and me. And without the living Christ, there is no advocate before the throne of God to defend us from Satan’s accusations, to say “I’ve paid the penalty.”

5. Our loved ones are lost forever – Paul says that those who have died have “fallen asleep in Christ.” The Greek word for “fallen asleep” is koimao, the root of koimeteria, from which we get the English word “cemetery.” So “cemetery” means “the sleeping place,” something deeply significant for Christians who believe in the resurrection. When you go to sleep, you expect to wake up. Christians have this hope that dying is sleeping, and sleeping we will awake to the Day of the Lord, the day of resurrection.

            But if Christ has not been raised, everyone who dies perishes. You can take that different ways. To some “perish” is to cease to exist; to others it is an eternity of torment. Either way it does not give us hope for a good post-death experience.

6. We are pathetic – Finally, “If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied” (19). If Christ has not been raised from the dead, why are we following a man who lied to us? Let me ask you this: Would you still be a Christian if there is no resurrection?

            If Christ has not been raised, then we have no message to preach.

            If Christ has not been raised, there is no God to hear our prayers.

            If Christ has not been raised, we are not saved.

            If Christ has not been raised, we might as well bring the missionaries home.

            If Christ has not been raised, Christianity is a joke and a farce that no one should even consider.

“BUT” – The Great Reversal

Paul has made his point. He has dismantled the foolish argument of a limited resurrection. And he turns this whole thing on its head when he says, “BUT in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (20).

            You have heard of the term “firstfruits” before; it refers to the first part of any harvest. For the Israelites in the OT, it meant the first part of the barley harvest or some other crop that was offered to the Lord. It was a day of thanksgiving and gladness because it meant that there was a bigger harvest yet to come. What the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead means then is that one day all who have died will be raised to life.

            Paul makes it very clear in the following verses of 1 Corinthians 15 that death will be destroyed (26) and that our bodies will be raised up and transformed (35-41). A lot of Christians look shocked when I tell them this: God’s not done with your body. We put it in the ground when you die, but, Paul says, at the sound of the trumpet, we will be raised with imperishable bodies (52). Heaven is not going to be full of disembodied spirits floating around; we will have bodies. We will have bodies because Christ’s body was raised to life. (And we won’t be living in heaven – heaven is the dwelling of God. We will be living on the new earth, which will somehow overlap the new heaven: Rev. 21:1-4).

            All of this will happen because Jesus is alive. The resurrection of Jesus is the exclamation point of God’s joy and celebration of what Christ did in dying for humankind. Christ is alive – he lives for us, to deliver us powerfully from sin and death.

            So because of this great reversal, all the “ifs” are turned over by the joyful “But in fact…” Therefore:

Our preaching has purpose. Testify about the hope we have in the risen Lord Jesus Christ.

Our faith is powerful. Believing in the risen Jesus gives credibility to our faith.

We testify that God raises the dead. And we are not misrepresenting God because he had done it.

We are forgiven and free. We are no longer slaves to sin. Jesus has set us free by his death AND resurrection. That is the whole gospel.

Our loved ones in Christ ARE with the Lord. We do not grieve like the rest of humankind that has no hope for we believe that Jesus is coming back to raise the dead from their sleep.

We are to be envied for the hope we have in Christ! For there is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved in such an awesome way.

Timothy Keller said of the resurrection: “If Jesus rose from the dead, then you have to accept all that he said. If he did not rise from the dead then why worry about any of what he said. The issue on which everything hangs is not whether or not you like his teaching, but whether or not he rose from the dead.”

What more can I say?

            “Up from the grave He arose

            With a mighty triumph o’er His foes,

            He arose a victor o’er the dark domain,

            And He lives forever with His saints to reign!

            He arose! He arose!

            Hallelujah! Christ arose!

                                                AMEN