Introduction:
Do you believe in the Resurrection? If so why?
A tougher question to ask is if heart of hearts you don’t believe in the Resurrection, why not?
Most if not all of us in church do, but it is worth thinking why might others not?
When I was a military policeman we had fun in modifying the official Police caution so that it read:
“ You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so, but anything you say will be taken down in pencil, rubbed out, mucked about and used in evidence against you.”
This re-imagining of Police caution caused much mirth at the time and though none of us would dare use it for real it, was nevertheless exactly what happened with Jesus.
The statement uttered by Jesus after he ejected the
money changers was misrepresented and twisted and used in evidence against him. He said, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” (John 2:19) What was reported to the high priest at his trial by two witnesses was, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’” (Matt 26:60). That coupled with his actions at the Temple would have been seen as very damning evidence indeed. At his crucifixion his
enemies hurled insults twisting those word still further, ““You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!” (Matt 27: 40).
As a military policeman we learned the Rules of Evidence so that whatever we presented before court- martial was admissible under law.
We learned that, “Evidence includes all the legal means exclusive of mere argument which tend to prove or disprove a matter of fact the truth of which is submitted to judicial inquiry.”
We also learned that there were different types of evidence that which was admissible in a court.
Primary evidence of which the best is real evidence,
material objects which that can be handled and touched by those sitting in judgement,
is optimal, but failing that and secondary evidence such photographs or drawings of real evidence can also be admissible as long as they are accompanied by sworn witness testimony regarding the authenticity of the material.
Another form of primary evidence is eye-witness evidence given on oath of someone who actually saw the crime committed or over- saw some aspect of the investigation that requires
sworn witness testimony to verify it. Equally admissible, however, is another form of secondary evidence and that is circumstantial evidence. This, though not direct evidence of the crime committed cast serious suspicion upon the accused. It is often evidence of the actions of a suspect after a crime has been committed which which point to their guilt. An example of this would be a suspect accused of arson burying a fuel canister after an arson attack
even though he was not actually seen setting fire to the building.
We shall see as a study that our readings today provide us with ample proof of both eye- witness testimony and circumstantial evidence that would stand up in a court of law. Such admissible evidence gives us every reason to believe and trust in the truth of the Resurrection.
The actions of Jesus in cleansing the Temple seem to
be nonetheless highly controversial. The synoptic gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke place the event at the end of Jesus’s ministry prior to his arrest and trial. It seems a logical place for it to have happened immediately after Jesus’s Triumphal entry on Palm Sunday. Jesus entered the city as the Messiah or publicly after the manner of the Messiah and like Judas Maccabeus before him who re-established the Temple for its proper use by rekindling the Menorah and
purifying the Temple after desecration by the Greeks, whereas Jesus cleared the Temple courts after they had been desecrated by vendors and swindlers.
Although John also records the Triumphal entry, he unlike the synoptic writers, places the cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of his gospel. It would seem that John wanted to establish Jesus’s position as the rightful Messiah right at the beginning of his gospel and build his case from there.
We shouldn’t be concerned by this conflicting chronology. John’s stated mission in his gospel is that those who read his work would come to believe in Jesus as the Christ (John 20:31)and so he uses the material from the gospels in such a way that serves his purpose rather than presenting a chronological account.
Does anyone know why Jesus did what he did?
Biblical historians argue that the market in the Temple was part an important part of the Temple economy. It had actually been placed there and authorised by the high priest himself. Pilgrims arriving from outside Jerusalem would have had to have changed their own currency into the Temple shekel in order to give their offerings and pay for the sacrificial animals that were used in worship. What upset Jesus so much was turning the Temple into a place to
fleece tourists. It would also appear that this market had been set up in the Court of the Gentiles or the Temple courts as it says in John’s Gospel. This was the only area where Gentiles were allowed access and it was also a place of teaching. Those entering the Temple courts that day wouldn’t have been able to hear themselves think because of the crowds and because of this bustling market. He was incensed and that’s why he behaved in the way that he did.
In typical Jewish tradition the Temple authorities demanded an explanation and that Jesus produce a sign of his authority to do what he did.
As an MP, I carried a Police warrant card that gave be great power and authority within the confines of my official duties. Jesus had no such warrant card instead he offered a cryptic statement: “Destroy this Temple and I will rebuild it in three days later.”
In Luke 11: 29 Jesus is recorded as offering a similarly cryptic sign when he said: “This is a wicked generation. It asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.”
At the time Jesus’s words meant nothing to those who heard them, but after Jesus had been raise those words made perfect sense.
I want to encourage you to see that both our readings this morning provide us with
ample reason for hope in the face of our own mortality.
As I explained earlier primary evidence presented before court can include real evidence and sworn eyewitness testimony, but secondary evidence such as circumstantial evidence is also admissible.
In our reading from Acts 2, Peter attests before the crowd that he was an eye-witness to the resurrection (Primary Evidence) and further more
over time he and all the other followers of Jesus ministered with such boldness and faith that they were prepared to suffer in even death in the belief that God had raised Jesus from the dead (Secondary Evidence.)
Not only that, but thousands of people were coming to face the truth that something real and concrete happened which was supernatural.
For me, however, the greatest comfort come from Jesus’s words “Destroy this temple
and after three days I will rebuild it.”
Jesus had the authority to rebuild that which the religious authorities had been hellbent on destroying, the temple of his body and that means us Jesus can rebuild us too. Jesus said I am the “Resurrection and I am the life.”
So next time someone says to you “I don’t believe in the Resurrection” point them to the evidence, explain firstly
that your faith is founded on evidence that would stand up in court and secondly you too are willing to face death either in the course of nature, accident or at the hands of others in the sure and certain hope that he who rebuilt his temple in three can and will re-build you.
Amen