The Resurrection And The Life
Sermon
I took a funeral last year where a close relative of the deceased came up to chat with me after the burial. He began to relate to me an experience he'd had, some years previously, where he himself had "died" in a serious motor-bike accident. He remembered hurtling down a tunnel at great speed, then emerging into a brilliant light at the gate of the most beautiful garden he'd ever seen. But someone at the gate had gently turned him back. Had said: "Not yet. It's not time for you yet. You have to return." And he'd woken to find himself in a hospital bed.
It had clearly been an immensely powerful experience for him, an experience of great depth, yet until he spoke to me, he'd never told a soul about it. He was terrified that in this age of reason, no-one would believe him, that he'd be mocked and pilloried. And so he'd kept it to himself.
Yet many people have had similar experiences, which have been well documented. There've been television programmes about them from time to time. But television doesn't seem to handle this sort of thing very well. It seems unable to reach any real depth, but rather retreats into superstition and superficiality. And that's a pity.
But I suppose the burning question is: Is there any truth in these stories? Is there really life after death, or is it, as some psychologists suggest, a comforting myth which helps us avoid facing our own mortality?
And for Christians, perhaps that question translates as: Did the resurrection really happen? Suppose those ancient ossuaries labelled "Joseph, Mary, Jesus" which were discovered in 1997 by BBC religious journalists in Israel, really did contain the bones of Jesus of Nazareth. What would that do to our faith? If, after all this time, his bones were found, would it be historical proof there was no resurrection?
Throughout the Bible there are instances of people being raised from death back to life. Elijah revived the widow of Zarephath's son (1 Kings 17:17-23). Later, Elisha, the prophet who followed Elijah, revived the Shunammite woman's son (2 Kings 4:32-37). And there's a lovely little story slipped into just one verse of the second book of Kings, where a dead man was thrown with inordinate haste into Elisha's grave because those who were burying the dead man caught sight of raiders and legged it in panic across the fields. But the story goes, as soon as the body touched Elisha's bones, the dead man came back to life again (2 Kings 13:21).
In the NT, Jesus restored the widow of Nain's son to life (Luke 7:12-15). And he raised Jairus's little daughter (Luke 8:49-55), and as we've heard today, raised Lazarus from the dead. And later, after Jesus had died and the first Christians had begun to meet as a church, Peter brought Tabitha the widow back to life (Acts 9:37-40), and Paul restored Eutychus to life (Acts 20:9-12). Incidentally, Eutychus was a young man sitting on the window ledge while Paul was addressing the meeting. We're told: "Eutychus grew more and more drowsy as Paul went on talking, until, completely overcome by sleep, he fell from the third storey to the ground and was picked up dead." As far as sermons are concerned, nothing changes!
I wonder whether it's significant, that apart from the raising of Lazarus, every recorded raising from the dead in the NT was recorded by Luke. Luke wrote his own gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. And neither Matthew nor Mark, who was thought to be the earlist gospel writer, record any instances of miraculous revivals.
Why is this? Luke was a story teller. His concern wasn't to present a history of religion, but was to present the gospel, the good news, in a way which would be attractive to non-Jews, to gentiles. Luke was writing at a time when Greek myths and legends held enormous importance in the Greek speaking world. And remember, the NT was written in Greek. Written at a time when life was full of magic and superstition and tales of mighty heroes overcoming all the odds. And a time, two thousand years ago, when people's expectations and thoughts were quite different to those of today.
And so Luke wrote good, colourful stories, which grabbed people's attention. It was Luke who wrote in so much detail about the birth of Jesus, and about the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and it's Luke who tells us about the ascension. Luke wrote at a time when there was no science, and therefore no rational explanation for unusual events. So that unusual events were always attributed to the gods. In the Greek and Roman pagan world of the first century, any leader worthy of any consideration whatsoever, would have to be associated with supernatural events. Because that was the background of the people Luke was trying to reach.
Luke wrote about all the NT raisings from the dead except one, the raising of Lazarus. John is the only gospel writer to describe the raising of Lazarus, and his writing is rather different.
John wrote for a totally different purpose, and a totally different audience. He's thought to be the latest of the gospel writers, writing some sixty years or so after the death and resurrection of Jesus. And writing for both Jews and gentiles, but writing for people who probably already knew something of Jesus and his life and death. So the purpose of John's gospel is to reflect theologically on those events. To say: "Where was God in this?" and "What does this teach us about God and his purposes for humanity?" And John's ultimate purpose is to present Jesus as divine, as the human face of God.
So John has a number of long discourses which try to unpack the spiritual meaning of different events. For instance, after the feeding of the 5,000, there's a discourse on Jesus as the Bread of Life. And there are a number of sayings which begin: "I am ..." tying in with God's name in the OT revealed to Moses, "I am that I am."
The raising of Lazarus introduces one of these "I am" sayings - "I am the resurrection and the life." Many scholars believe this story of Lazarus is a reflection on the death and resurrection of Jesus himself, for there are a number of similarities.
Lazarus's sisters, Mary and Martha, pleaded with Jesus to save their brother from death, but Jesus appeared not to care. He didn't come when they called him. Just as God himself appeared not to care, and didn't come when Jesus called him from the cross.
Lazarus was raised when he'd already been dead for four days. Jesus was raised on the third day. Jesus showed his love for Lazarus. He wept when he heard the news of his death, and eventually raised him to life again. God showed his love for Jesus by eventually raising him to life again.
Many people put their faith in Jesus because of this event, just as many people put their faith in God because of the raising of Jesus.
So what does all this say about our faith? We'll never know for certain what happened in first century Israel, because we weren't there. And it's highly unlikely any concrete evidence will arise after 2,000 years. And it's extremely difficult for us to begin to imagine what life was really like in those days. With the help of archaeology we may be able to piece together what people wore, what utensils and tools and weapons they used, what they ate, and how their society was ordered. But it's much less easy from this distance to understand their attitudes and belief systems.
It may be, that in 2,000 years time, even with our improved record-keeping today, somebody watching the first episode of "Star Trek" from the archives may well believe that's exactly how our life was ordered in the 20th century.
For me, my faith in the resurrection of Jesus rests in the fact that resurrection, new life after terrible darkness and agonising pain, can be experienced today by anybody. And that Jesus, through his spirit, can be experienced today by anybody. I know Jesus lives, because I have experienced him. I have occasionally had unmistakeable answers to prayer. I have occasionally had a spiritual experience. I have occasionally "met" with the living God.
I believe the gospels are based on historical fact. But I also believe some parts of the gospels are written as stories, in order to make a particular point. My faith does not depend on whether every word in the Bible is literally true. I don't actually care whether Jesus's bones are found or not. Because my faith depends on a risen and living Lord, with whom I can, if I wish, having a living relationship.
I depend on a Lord who helps me order my life. Who guides me. Who strengthens me. Who sometimes appears not to care, but who always eventually proves his love for me. Someone to whom I can turn. Someone who is real.
I learn about him from the pages of the Bible. But I learn him through direct experience. And that experience tells me he is undoubtedly alive today.
It had clearly been an immensely powerful experience for him, an experience of great depth, yet until he spoke to me, he'd never told a soul about it. He was terrified that in this age of reason, no-one would believe him, that he'd be mocked and pilloried. And so he'd kept it to himself.
Yet many people have had similar experiences, which have been well documented. There've been television programmes about them from time to time. But television doesn't seem to handle this sort of thing very well. It seems unable to reach any real depth, but rather retreats into superstition and superficiality. And that's a pity.
But I suppose the burning question is: Is there any truth in these stories? Is there really life after death, or is it, as some psychologists suggest, a comforting myth which helps us avoid facing our own mortality?
And for Christians, perhaps that question translates as: Did the resurrection really happen? Suppose those ancient ossuaries labelled "Joseph, Mary, Jesus" which were discovered in 1997 by BBC religious journalists in Israel, really did contain the bones of Jesus of Nazareth. What would that do to our faith? If, after all this time, his bones were found, would it be historical proof there was no resurrection?
Throughout the Bible there are instances of people being raised from death back to life. Elijah revived the widow of Zarephath's son (1 Kings 17:17-23). Later, Elisha, the prophet who followed Elijah, revived the Shunammite woman's son (2 Kings 4:32-37). And there's a lovely little story slipped into just one verse of the second book of Kings, where a dead man was thrown with inordinate haste into Elisha's grave because those who were burying the dead man caught sight of raiders and legged it in panic across the fields. But the story goes, as soon as the body touched Elisha's bones, the dead man came back to life again (2 Kings 13:21).
In the NT, Jesus restored the widow of Nain's son to life (Luke 7:12-15). And he raised Jairus's little daughter (Luke 8:49-55), and as we've heard today, raised Lazarus from the dead. And later, after Jesus had died and the first Christians had begun to meet as a church, Peter brought Tabitha the widow back to life (Acts 9:37-40), and Paul restored Eutychus to life (Acts 20:9-12). Incidentally, Eutychus was a young man sitting on the window ledge while Paul was addressing the meeting. We're told: "Eutychus grew more and more drowsy as Paul went on talking, until, completely overcome by sleep, he fell from the third storey to the ground and was picked up dead." As far as sermons are concerned, nothing changes!
I wonder whether it's significant, that apart from the raising of Lazarus, every recorded raising from the dead in the NT was recorded by Luke. Luke wrote his own gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. And neither Matthew nor Mark, who was thought to be the earlist gospel writer, record any instances of miraculous revivals.
Why is this? Luke was a story teller. His concern wasn't to present a history of religion, but was to present the gospel, the good news, in a way which would be attractive to non-Jews, to gentiles. Luke was writing at a time when Greek myths and legends held enormous importance in the Greek speaking world. And remember, the NT was written in Greek. Written at a time when life was full of magic and superstition and tales of mighty heroes overcoming all the odds. And a time, two thousand years ago, when people's expectations and thoughts were quite different to those of today.
And so Luke wrote good, colourful stories, which grabbed people's attention. It was Luke who wrote in so much detail about the birth of Jesus, and about the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and it's Luke who tells us about the ascension. Luke wrote at a time when there was no science, and therefore no rational explanation for unusual events. So that unusual events were always attributed to the gods. In the Greek and Roman pagan world of the first century, any leader worthy of any consideration whatsoever, would have to be associated with supernatural events. Because that was the background of the people Luke was trying to reach.
Luke wrote about all the NT raisings from the dead except one, the raising of Lazarus. John is the only gospel writer to describe the raising of Lazarus, and his writing is rather different.
John wrote for a totally different purpose, and a totally different audience. He's thought to be the latest of the gospel writers, writing some sixty years or so after the death and resurrection of Jesus. And writing for both Jews and gentiles, but writing for people who probably already knew something of Jesus and his life and death. So the purpose of John's gospel is to reflect theologically on those events. To say: "Where was God in this?" and "What does this teach us about God and his purposes for humanity?" And John's ultimate purpose is to present Jesus as divine, as the human face of God.
So John has a number of long discourses which try to unpack the spiritual meaning of different events. For instance, after the feeding of the 5,000, there's a discourse on Jesus as the Bread of Life. And there are a number of sayings which begin: "I am ..." tying in with God's name in the OT revealed to Moses, "I am that I am."
The raising of Lazarus introduces one of these "I am" sayings - "I am the resurrection and the life." Many scholars believe this story of Lazarus is a reflection on the death and resurrection of Jesus himself, for there are a number of similarities.
Lazarus's sisters, Mary and Martha, pleaded with Jesus to save their brother from death, but Jesus appeared not to care. He didn't come when they called him. Just as God himself appeared not to care, and didn't come when Jesus called him from the cross.
Lazarus was raised when he'd already been dead for four days. Jesus was raised on the third day. Jesus showed his love for Lazarus. He wept when he heard the news of his death, and eventually raised him to life again. God showed his love for Jesus by eventually raising him to life again.
Many people put their faith in Jesus because of this event, just as many people put their faith in God because of the raising of Jesus.
So what does all this say about our faith? We'll never know for certain what happened in first century Israel, because we weren't there. And it's highly unlikely any concrete evidence will arise after 2,000 years. And it's extremely difficult for us to begin to imagine what life was really like in those days. With the help of archaeology we may be able to piece together what people wore, what utensils and tools and weapons they used, what they ate, and how their society was ordered. But it's much less easy from this distance to understand their attitudes and belief systems.
It may be, that in 2,000 years time, even with our improved record-keeping today, somebody watching the first episode of "Star Trek" from the archives may well believe that's exactly how our life was ordered in the 20th century.
For me, my faith in the resurrection of Jesus rests in the fact that resurrection, new life after terrible darkness and agonising pain, can be experienced today by anybody. And that Jesus, through his spirit, can be experienced today by anybody. I know Jesus lives, because I have experienced him. I have occasionally had unmistakeable answers to prayer. I have occasionally had a spiritual experience. I have occasionally "met" with the living God.
I believe the gospels are based on historical fact. But I also believe some parts of the gospels are written as stories, in order to make a particular point. My faith does not depend on whether every word in the Bible is literally true. I don't actually care whether Jesus's bones are found or not. Because my faith depends on a risen and living Lord, with whom I can, if I wish, having a living relationship.
I depend on a Lord who helps me order my life. Who guides me. Who strengthens me. Who sometimes appears not to care, but who always eventually proves his love for me. Someone to whom I can turn. Someone who is real.
I learn about him from the pages of the Bible. But I learn him through direct experience. And that experience tells me he is undoubtedly alive today.
