Easter - Jesus Really did Rise!

Matthew 28.1-11 -  Jesus Really did Rise! 

Does anyone else think Easter's a little odd? I mean, how did we ever get to the point where the world stops to remember a man rising from the dead? I guess, someone actually coming back from the dead is worth remembering, but look, we all know death is the end, dead men don't rise.

So how did the idea that this man – Jesus – rose from the dead ever take hold?

Maybe you think the whole thing's so unbelievable that you don't even give it a moments thought – it's just another weird religious belief. Religious beliefs aren't about true or false, just faith – believing things that aren't real.

Well if that's you, you need to know that Christians don't think like that, the first Christians certainly didn't. They didn't think 'faith' meant a blind leap in the dark. Quite the opposite – they were confronted with facts that left them with no choice but to believe something they would never have believed without compelling evidence.

In the New Testament they set out the reasons for the faith that they had. Again and again we see they believed in Jesus' resurrection because they were sure, convinced, that it happened, try as they might they couldn't deny it.

So can we believe it? Can we come to a reasonable conclusion that a man who was dead and buried came back to life?

It doesn't sound like the sort of thing a rational person would believe, but I think the NT gives us reason enough to believe it – in fact I would go so far as to say that the events of the first Easter can only be explained by Jesus rising from the dead. And this morning I want to talk you through the evidence in Matthew's gospel.

And I want us to ask honestly 'where does the evidence point us?' 'What is the most reasonable explanation for Easter belief?'

So please turn to Matt 28v1-15, page 705. This passage answers the question of how people came to believe in the resurrection. Interestingly it shows there were competing explanations from the very beginning – the disciple's explanation versus the high priest's explanation: The disciples said Jesus rose from the dead; the high priests that the disciples stole the body.

So we'll look at how plausible each explanation is. But first I want to explore a very significant area of agreement between these two theories: They both agree that the tomb was empty.

So that's where we're going – first one undeniable fact: the tomb was empty; then two possible explanations – either the disciples stole the body, or Jesus rose from the dead.

So first there is one undeniable fact – the Tomb was Empty;

Both the disciples and the High Priests agree that the tomb was empty; have a look at verse 1:

After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. The angel said to the women 'do not be afraid, for I know you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here he has risen, just as he said. Come see the place where he lay ...When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "You are to say,'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.

The soldiers and the women both reported the tomb was empty. The high priest's story and the women's story both claim to explain how the body came to be missing. If there was still a body in the tomb there then the story of the resurrection would have got nowhere, the chief priests could simply have pointed to Jesus' dead body.

But as it is, the empty tomb is the basic fact both the disciples and the high priests try to explain.

Jesus' tomb was well known, lots of people saw the burial, even today we know it belonged to Joseph of Arimathea (look across to Matt 27.57ff). It was sealed by the chief priests and guarded by Roman Soldiers (Matt 27.62ff). That was on Friday evening.

Come Sunday morning the seal was still there, the soldiers were still outside, the women went where they'd seen Jesus laid.

It was Jesus' tomb that was empty. To believe that there was another tomb with Jesus body in it we have to assume that the soldiers, the chief priests, the disciples and everyone else who came to believe, including the man who owned the tomb – all looked in the wrong place! And we have to believe that when stories of the resurrection started spreading not a single person came forward to point out the stupid mistake.

So before we've even got started we've already answered one of the big modern explanations for resurrection belief … Some people have tried to make the resurrection more believable by changing the definition so that it doesn't include a man coming back to life. By the new definition Jesus' body stayed in the tomb, and the 'resurrection' was just a new feeling of life: somehow Jesus' ideas came to make sense to his disciples in such a new and vivid way that they began to speak as if he had actually come alive again. He hadn't, but it was so exciting that it was just as if he had.

But not only does this explanation raise huge questions about what could cause such a change in the disciples, it doesn't fit the one fact that both Jesus followers and his enemies agree on – it doesn't explain the empty tomb. If that's what happened then there was no way anyone would have believed it, the chief priests could still have pointed to the body. Do I need to point out there was no way point spreading rumours about the disciples stealing the body either, because the body was still there! Why would anyone make up a story like that?

So we have one thing fixed before we've even started to look at the two explanations for Easter belief. On that first Easter morning the tomb was opened and the body was gone. The rest of the chapter invites us to make up our minds about what happened.

So let's move on to our two explanations, we'll start with te sceptics first: the High Priests answer was that the disciples stole the body.

So could the disciples have stolen Jesus' body?

At first glance this seems by far the most likely explanation. I mean, dead people don't come back to life, if the body's missing we look for someone who took it. Have a look at verse eleven:

While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "You are to say,'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

Let's consider it – can we believe that Matthew and the other disciples were part of a conspiracy that first stole the body and then made up a story about a resurrection? Is this explanation plausible?

Well, it does have the definite advantage that we don't have to believe that a man rose from the dead. Theft and conspiracy, well they happen all the time.

But on the negative side there are one or two holes in this story, it raises more than a few tricky questions, here are just a few:
1. if the guards were asleep, how do they know that the disciples stole the body?
2. If they woke up to see them, why didn't they stop them? Bodies aren't the easiest things to carry, it would have been an awkward, heavy, stinky load and they would have been moving slowly at best. And these were heavily armed soldiers charged with making sure no one stole the body!
3. If the chief priests knew that the disciples stole the body why did they never prosecute them? Stealing a body was a serious offence in Roman times (we know that in 55AD it was punishable by death) – and the chief priests were clearly not above prosecuting their enemies. They controlled the courts, they pushed through Jesus' execution, if there was any chance that they could prove this we would expect them to take the disciples to court. But they didn't.
4. More significantly – Roman soldiers were literally charged to guard with the lives – and if they failed they forfeited their lives. If these guards had let Jesus' disciples come and take the body, the very thing they were charged with preventing – then why weren't they executed as the law required?
5. Then there's the issues with the disciples. The crucifixion clearly shattered them. Last we saw them they were either fleeing or denying Jesus, they'd given up on him being the Messiah. How could they get the courage to attempt something so audacious as a fake resurrection when they were ready to give up?
6. If the disciples did steal the body, what did they do with it? How was it never found?
7. If the disciples masterminded a brilliant fraud, why didn't any of them break down later and admit the lie, especially when so many of them were put to death for insisting Jesus was alive? Yes, we might imagine someone making up a religion for personal gain – look how the rich the church is, what influence it has had. But back then there was no power or influence, only persecution and hatred, and for all but one of the disciples - execution. It's highly implausible the disciples would lie for the sake of gaining death. But of course they could face execution if they were convinced that Jesus had already overcome death and offered them resurrection too.
8. Finally this argument only explains the empty tomb, not the subsequent preaching, confidence and miracles of the disciples. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead why did they preach it so confidently, where did their new understanding of the Old Testament come from, and how were they able to perform so many miracles? The apostle's credited all these things to the risen Jesus – they certainly demand explanation if those same men knew they had Jesus' body rotting away somewhere.

When we step back and look at it, these are the sort of holes you would expect from a hastily made up cover story – look closely and it unravels. Matthew's version of events begins to look more and more plausible. We know that the Priests wanted Jesus dead – they even bribed false witnesses at his trial to have him killed. We know they had a lot to lose if people thought Jesus rose from the dead, that's why they posted a guard on the tomb and sealed it to make sure no one could steal the body.

It's quite plausible that these men who had so much to loose would try to make sure that Jesus' resurrection was discredited right from the start. It's reasonable to conclude that this story is just as false as Matthew says it is. The Chief Priests didn't want people to believe Jesus had risen from the dead and they made spread lies to discredit the disciples.

So that leaves us with only one other possibility to explore - the story the disciples told: that Jesus actually rose from the dead!

Matthew explains this story by the experience of the women at the tomb. Look at verse 5:

The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said.

Let's consider if this version of events is plausible. The first thing we see is that the women react in a very believable way. They went to view a tomb, to pay respects to a dead friend. But when they got there they found something else entirely. They were confronted with an open tomb, a group of guards struck down as if dead and an angel. Fear seems an appropriate response - fear, and confusion and curiosity.

The women were faced with the same question we're faced with this morning – how can we explain it? What happened to the body they saw wrapped up and placed in that tomb? Jesus rising from the dead probably wasn't the first possibility that came to mind. It won't have escaped their attention that dead people don't rise. They weren't expecting Jesus to come back.

So what could possibly convince them that Jesus was back? Well a visit from an angel would certainly help. Look at verse 5 again:

The angel said to the women "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."

The angel didn't expect them simply to take his word for it – dead people don't rise after all. So he adds two things for them to take hold of.

Firstly Jesus said this was going to happen. Looking back through Matthew we see Jesus' speaking about his resurrection at least four times:

Matthew 16:21 says:

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

That prediction is repeated in 17:22,23; 20:18ff and 26:26ff.

In the light of what the disciples saw Jesus do and teach – healing the sick, feeding the 5000 with a handful of food, calming the storm – even raising the dead – well it was just possible that he could also rise from the dead. But it seems that they had the same natural resistance to the idea that we have – whenever Jesus says it they just can't believe it!

But now the angel says it's actually happened.

And secondly, the angel showed the women the empty tomb. In the light of Jesus' promise to rise from the dead, this is very interesting. Just a couple of days ago they had seen Jesus body in that very tomb, now on the third day the tomb was empty – could it be that he had actually risen?

But this isn't enough – it's suggestive, but by no means conclusive. And the women weren't totally convinced, look at verse 8:

So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

They had mixed feelings, they weren't sure what to believe.

But verse 9 provides the missing conclusive proof, have a look there:

Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshipped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."

This is the clincher - here is the man himself – walking; talking. They can see him, hear him and hold onto him. Their doubts drop away in the light of the evidence that is undeniable, no more a corpse he was with them and they couldn't doubt he was alive.

For the women, this was enough. They met the man himself. But is it enough for us? Can we believe their testimony? Can we believe that Jesus did go on to meet with the rest of the disciples as we heard in 1 Cor 15? And that he subsequently appeared to groups of other people, and finally to his enemy Saul, winning him over to be his missionary Paul? Is this explanation for Easter belief, believable?

Well consider again what we've seen:

The women didn't expect Jesus to rise, and they didn't believe it, not even when an angel told them, not even standing there in front of an empty tomb, not even when they were reminded that Jesus had predicted it. Luke tells us no one believed them at first either!

They were just as sceptical as we are, but their doubts were answered; something made them and the other disciples believe that Jesus had risen from the dead. In their position would you believe unless you saw him alive?

So is Jesus' resurrection ultimately plausible? Well it explains the evidence:

At Jesus crucifixion the disciples were in complete disarray. All but two of them fled from his arrest, one of those vehemently denied even knowing him! Yet just days later they were preaching – in the temple, right in the faces of the high Priests – that Jesus was alive and even pointing the finger at very same authorities who put Jesus to death. They were all prepared to stake their lives on the claim that Jesus had risen again, they thought it was true.

How can we explain their belief in something so unlikely? Nothing less than a series of appearances by a resurrected Jesus would do it. Nothing less would explain the empty tomb, the angel's appearance, the women's belief, the confidence of the disciples, the success of their preaching at Pentecost and the world wide impact of Christianity from then to now. In the end it seems to be the only explanation that makes sense of all that happened.

Of course it's not scientific proof, but we're talking history and history can't be repeated in a test tube. The best we can do is to review the evidence and ask for a plausible explanation. And in the case of Easter no other explanation makes sense of all of the evidence. The only plausible explanation that's ever been offered is that Jesus actually rose from the dead.

And, of course, it goes against everything we know about death. But if it's true then it offers a rational basis for belief in God, life after death, Jesus miracles, the whole lot. In the light of the evidence we have to consider the possibility that in Jesus we might just come face to face with the God who created us. And in the resurrection we might just come face to face with the future that faces us. And like the women who met him coming from the tomb we must respond in faith and amazement, to throw ourselves at his feet and worship him because if he's risen from the dead we can't deny that he is Lord and God.