SermonCONCEPT
Sermon
These are written periodically for personal study. Conventionally, the
‘Text’ is taken from the relevant readings for the Japanese Holy Communion
Services. These sermons are written in Japanese and English, one of which
can be found in each language elsewhere on this web site
CHURCH OF IRELAND (TRADITIONAL RITE)
Easter Season
Lessons:
Amos Acts 10:34-43; Colossians 3:1-4; John 20:1-10
Text:And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes,
but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then went in that other disciple,
which came first to the sepulcher, and he saw, and believed. [John 20:7,8]
Introduction: Two Approaches to the Crucifixion and Resurrection:
(1) Historicity (The Truth;)
The task of the preacher on Easter morning is twofold: To take the second first, it is to tease out and expound with simple clarity the significance of the Resurrection, in particular as it impinges on the eternal life of each one of us. The preacher’s other task is to challenge his congregation to face up to the historical reality of the Resurrection. The Resurrection is at the core of Christianity, rendering true all that Christ our LORD revealed about GOD, and rendering accomplished all that He set out to do for Mankind. But the Resurrection only has significance if it actually happened in history. As St Paul correctly said:
Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among
you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection
of the dead, then is Christ not risen : and if Christ be not risen, then
is our preaching in vain. Yea and we are found false witnesses of God because
we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up,
if so be the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ
raised: and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain, ye are yet in
your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
[1Cor.15: 12-19]
Simply put, if the Resurrection did not actually happen, then there is no Christianity, and those who believe what the Gospels have to say about GOD are to be pitied because what they believe to be true is myth. In short they are in deception. However, St John wrote his Gospel specifically to tell the reader the truth of what actually happened. He concludes his Gospel as follows:
And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples,
which are not written in this book. But these are written that ye might
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of GOD; and that believing ye
might have life through his name. [Jn.20: 30,31]
Both writers are quite aware that they will be charged with lying when they faithfully record what actually took place. That is exactly what happened. From what we know, they were so charged from the start: When, for example, the rulers, elders and scribes of the Sanhedrin, headed by Annas the High Priest, arrested St Peter and St John for preaching the Resurrection of Christ and its significance, they threatened punishment if the disciples did not stop:
…but that it spread no further among the people …straitly threatened them that they speak henceforth to no man in this name. But Peter and John answered and said unto them…we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. So when they had further threatened them, they let them go. [Acts 4:5-21.] In the case of St Paul, as soon as he referred to the resurrection
of Christ before the Governor Festus and King Agrippa…, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul thou art beside thyself; much learning
doth make thee mad. But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak
forth the words of truth and soberness. [Acts 26: 24,25.]
The Gospel writers are writing already knowing that that is the charge against them. For the contemporary skeptic, the challenge is to demonstrate, as it was for Governor Festus, King Agrippa, and most importantly, for leaders of the Sanhedrin to whom the Roman guard reported what actually had happened at the Resurrection [Matt. 28:11] how it is that these writers are lying. It is to be noted that the leaders of the Sanhedrin, who had a vested interest in demonstrating that the Resurrection was a lie, who were intricately involved in everything that happened, and who did all in their power to prevent a false Resurrection from taking place, could not demonstrate that the Resurrection did not happen.
Contemporary believers of the Humanistic ‘Enlightenment’ Religion of Europe (HER) believe they know better and are content to write off the Resurrection as myth. They tend to overlook the fact, and we are dealing only with facts, and that from Resurrection Day -1, intelligent influential parties have had a vested interest in demonstrating conclusively that Christ’s Resurrection is a myth and did not actually happen. The challenge for the humanist skeptic is to demonstrate at which point in the recording of the events of Passion Week, from the Arrest of Christ to His Resurrection, does the lie begin.
The purpose of this sermon and its sequels is to put the facts before the reader, as we can reasonably know them. If it is not possible to point to what is lie, possibly it is because the Gospel writers are actually telling the truth, and what circumstantial evidence there is, serves to substantiate that the writers are telling the truth. Furthermore, it shows that the contemporary other players in the unfolding of events, who have a significant vested interest in proving beyond any doubt that the Resurrection did not happen, cannot do so, possibly because to do so is actually impossible as it would falsify what actually happened. When the reader is himself faced with this possibility, if he is to retain any degree of intellectual honesty, is also obliged to entertain the possibility that the Gospel writers are telling the whole truth. What they said happened, did actually happen. If the honest reader comes to that conclusion, or is put in the position of having to acknowledge that there is a case to be made for the possibility of the events described having happened in the way that they are described, then one would be wise, if not obliged to take very seriously what Christ says about Himself, and what the Resurrection signifies.
John’s Realization of the Truth
St John writes of his discovery of the empty tomb in great detail, much of it seemingly irrelevant. Why? First, it is reasonable to suppose that he is doing so because he is simply recording truthfully, and as accurately as he can remember, everything that happened, however incidental, and very importantly, just because that is how he remembered it. He is not so concerned with the significance of every detail, just with the fact that it happened. Why? He wants to tell the truth about an event that is immensely important. Immediately, St Peter and he had news that something had happened at the tomb, they went to investigate. The ladies who had gone over to the tomb were reporting the startling news that it was both open and empty. Like the ladies, St Peter and St John’s first thought was that someone had broken into the tomb and stolen the body. St John records that St Peter and he set out at once from where they were and ran to the tomb. He remembers that as they ran he, John, probably because he was younger as we know he was and so fitter, ran on ahead of St Peter. There is no need for St John to have recorded this, other than that he is conscientiously and meticulously recording what actually happened, simply because he does not want to omit anything at all.
If the actual tomb was of the same type as the one known as the ‘Gordon Tomb,’ located not far from the Damascus Gate, and is contemporary in design with the one in which our LORD was laid (as it is believed to be), then, the grave entrance opened into rectangular antechamber carved into the rock. Leading off this chamber to the right, i.e. parallel to the outside surface of the rock face, and separated from the antechamber by a low wall on either side of its own entrance was the burial chamber itself. This chamber could have had at least three flat horizontal slabs on three sides of the chamber carved from the rock. On one of these slabs Christ’s body would have been laid, wrapped tightly in the shroud bands, impregnated with spices, in particular myrrh, to preserve the body. A napkin would have been place over the head. Either stooping to peer through the confined rock face entrance, or having gone into the antechamber and peering over the low dividing wall into the burial chamber, St John said he could make out the linen shroud, but dared not go in. St Peter, having fewer qualms, brushed passed him and went straight into the burial chamber itself. There, they could clearly see the burial linen. What riveted St. John’s attention was the napkin and the manner in which the shroud was lying. Only the napkin was wrapped neatly in a place by itself.
St John’s detailed description of what he did and saw has the hallmark of an eyewitness, such that it easy to imagine accurately what actually happened. Such is the detail that it suggests that the memory was indelibly printed on his mind. Why? Well, he tells us why. It was the sight of the burial linen, presumably, because of the way it was lying collapsed on itself, just as it would be if the body had departed from it leaving the folds of linen quite untouched or disheveled. It was that sight which convinced him, or made him realize, that Christ had bodily risen. Everything was there exactly as it had previously been when he was last at the grave, except that the body of Christ had gone. What fascinated him was that in contrast to the seeming lack of movement of the linen body shroud, the napkin that had covered Christ’s face, had been neatly folded and put in a place by itself. Otherwise everything was quite undisturbed.
The accuracy of the account thus far, can be accounted for, because it
is first hand reporting. This accuracy is in marked contrast to St John’s
description of the women’s experience. They had come with the shocking
news that the tomb was empty, for St John writes, The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early when it was yet dark,
unto the sepulchre,…. [John 20:1]. Contrary to what he records, we know that Mary did not initially
go to the tomb alone, but was accompanied by Mary the Mother of James and
Salome [Mt. 28:1; Mk 16:1; Lu 24:1,10] Matthew, Mark and Luke, in different
accounts indicate that there was a plurality of women. Notice how St John
notes that St Mary Magdala had jumped to the conclusion that the body had
been stolen, and he does not record that she had relayed the message she
was instructed by the angel to deliver, namely that the disciples were
to go to Galilee where they were to meet Christ. Was Mary Magdalene more
inclined to believe her own thoughts as to why the tomb was empty, namely
that someone had stolen the body, than she was to believe the apparition
of the angels? St Mark tells us that they were so shaken they did not dare
to tell anyone what they had seen and heard. Having quickly left the tomb,
or as St Mark describes it, …And they… fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed; neither
said they anything to any man; for they were afraid. [Mk. 16: 8.] It seems from St. John’s account that he and St. Peter were
on their own in a different place to the other disciples. It is possible
that the women decided that Mary Magdalene should take the news to Saints
Peter and John, while the other women searched out the other disciples
[Mt.28: 8]. In the course of trying to locate them, these other ladies
met Christ [Matt.28: 9,10.] This may explain why St John may initially
have thought that only Mary Magdalene had been to the tomb. Note the lesser
degree of accuracy in the telling. It is reasonable to attribute this to
the fact that, unlike his account of his own visit to the tomb, he was
not personally present when the women went to the tomb. Hence his record
is second hand.
That moment of conversion to the truth of the Resurrection was different for different people. For the men that met Christ on the way to Emmaus, the manner in which Christ broke the bread is what opened their eyes to the truth that the Man before them was actually the risen Christ. So startling was the realization, and the sheer joy that the real truth was out, the extraordinary fact that He then disappeared from their sight seems not to have troubled them at all. The point is that it would not have done so, if the events had occurred actually as they are described. For St Thomas, the realization came when he put his finger into the side of Christ and made that extraordinary exclamation, the significance of which is lost in its familiarity: “My Lord and My GOD” [Jn. 20: 28] Yes, this was his teacher and Master, the Jesus whom he
had known so well. But He was more than that. Because of what had recently
happened on the cross, and because that very same person who had been nailed
to it, then speared by the soldiers and placed in the tomb dead, was actually
that same man standing there before him now, as real as St Thomas had ever
known Him, that St Thomas could then say “…and thou art GOD!”
- April
- 2025
