Explore the Bible Series
April 4, 2010
Background Passage: Luke 24:1-53
Lesson Passage: Luke 24:1-8, 36-49
Personal Note: I have reworked a previous outline on Luke Twenty-Four for this week’s lesson. If we are honest, many earnest Christians have struggled with doubts about the resurrection of Jesus from the grave, and I trust this lesson will help address some of these concerns. My friend, if you encounter such uncertainty, do not be discouraged. I have encountered people who seem utterly certain about everything, and, frankly, I find such folk an unseemly, repulsive bore (can I be more blunt?!) Thoughtful, reflective people experience doubt, and, in many cases, sincere questioning leads to deeper faith. I encourage struggling believers to read two important works.
I trust all of you will have a blessed, meaningful Easter.
Everyone has a certain “life-lens” through which we interpret Scripture. I, for instance, see the Bible through the eyes of a historian; therefore, I give special attention to the methods of historical research and interpretation as I examine the Bible. Others, obviously, approach the Bible from a different direction. It is, I think, the universal book, and it addresses the deepest of human needs and inquiries. All of us come to the message of the Bible as sinners, moral failures who have desperately fallen short of the glory of God. This grand book addresses our needs in ways that wonderfully transcend what we could ask or think.
Historians have scrutinized the story of the resurrection in every way imaginable, and I have read some of these studies with great interest. Their task is two-fold: (1) historians determine, through careful examination of the extant evidence, what happened in a particular situation, (2) these scholars offer learned explanatory hypotheses to explain the meaning and significance of these occurrences. Antiquarians content themselves with merely ferreting out the data, but historians press beyond that preliminary task to venture on explanatory models. Dr, Jesse Northcutt, late professor of homiletics at Southwestern seminary, taught me the most important academic lesson I ever learned. After hearing a student sermon I delivered for my preaching class, the dear old master probed the value of my address by asked me a sobering question, “So what?” He did not intend to crush my fragile ego; instead, he taught me that our work (as historians or preachers) must center on meaning.
As a historian, I have examined the four Gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus. While the biblical narratives were not written by trained historians, in the modern sense of that term, they did give eye-witness testimony to what they saw and heard (We should note that no Gospel accounts actually record eyewitness accounts of the event of the resurrection, only post resurrection appearances of Jesus). It simply won’t do to dismiss these stories as fictional, theological accounts of the dogma of early Christians. Some believers grow frustrated with the variations in the Bible record of the resurrection (i.e. one angel at the empty tomb or two); however, these dissimilarities actually may authenticate the reliability of the accounts. If the early church had merely manufactured the “story” the writers would have, I think, ironed out the variant wrinkles. Historians cannot prove the reality of the resurrection, but they can affirm that these eye-witnesses really believed they had encountered the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Then, the scholar must ask, “So what?” What does this testimony mean?
Scientists view the accounts of the resurrection somewhat differently (if I may be so bold to speak for my scientific colleagues). People trained in the sciences deal with repeatable, testable phenomena. They can (and should) assert that the scientific method indicates that dead people do not rise from the grave. At the moment of death, the body begins to undergo certain irreversible processes that make resuscitation impossible. After a short period of time, the body simply cannot reanimate. Any reasonable person affirms this unbendable principle of nature, and Christians must acknowledge this. Jesus died as a result of the unspeakable violence of Roman crucifixion. The Roman soldiers received thorough training in this form of execution, and victims did not survive this efficient means of disposing of criminals. Moreover, men did not recover from these atrocities, and I have no doubt that Jesus died from the horrible wounds inflicted by the soldiers. Joseph of Arimathea and several female disciples had no doubt that he died, and, in the limited time they had, these discouraged followers hurriedly prepared the body for burial and entombed Jesus’ remains in a nearby grave. His body stayed in that tomb for approximately forty hours (three o’clock Friday afternoon until about six o’clock on Sunday morning). Jesus died, and his disciples laid his corpse in a rock-hewn grave. Like the remains of every other human being, scientists would affirm that this irreversible process of decay occurred during those hours. No man could possibly resurrect from that progression of decay.
Here, then, is the unique claim of Christianity, a claim that centers on the affirmation that what could not happen, did happen. Jesus rose from the dead. The scientist can rightly assert that the resurrection could not occur, but he cannot affirm that it did not happen. That is the nature of miracles: that which cannot occur, does indeed take place. Christians believe that the impossible, in this case, actually happened. Jesus rose from the dead in an unrepeatable, unique act of God. History seems to indicate that First-Century believers affirmed, based on eye-witness accounts, that Jesus resurrected from the dead. Our lesson for this week examines one of those records of this event. As the lesson progresses, the text will compel us to determine the significance and meaning of this occurrence.
Background Passage Outline:
I. The Encounter of the Women at the Tomb (24:1-12)
A. The arrival of the women at the tomb (vv. 1-3): The previous chapter reveals that several of Jesus’ female followers took great care to prepare the body of Jesus for proper burial. Each culture has its own practices and rituals related to disposal of corpses, and First-Century Middle Eastern groups insisted on wrapping the body in linen fabric and anointing it with expensive, aromatic spices. Circumstances on Friday prevented these Jewish women from completing the task of preparation; therefore, they returned to the tomb, early Sunday morning, to complete their funereal task. To their surprise the women found a disturbed gravesite (someone had removed the tombstone), and, of course, they curiosity compelled to them to examine the crypt. When the women stepped into the tomb, they found no corpse. The dismay these women felt on Friday was multiplied as they feared that someone had desecrated Jesus’ grave.
B. The appearance of the angels (vv. 4-8): The appearance of two angels (The text uses the word “men”), but this construction is not unique to this account. The angels appeared, as men, to the women (thus, the Gospel writer used the Greek term “aner” to refer to the heavenly messengers) and interrupted this brief moment of perplexity. The women, stunned by the glorious appearance of the angels, fell to the ground, and the messengers reminded them of the words of Jesus, “The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise from the dead” (See Luke 9:44 11:29-30, and 18:31-33).
C. The women’s report to the eleven (vv. 9-12): The other Gospel accounts record the angel’s instructions to the women concerning the report to the eleven, but Luke simply recounts the effect of their commission. The disciples did not believe the news of Jesus’ resurrection, but Peter, accompanied by John, ran to the tomb to affirm the women’s report. Peter, of course, found the sepulcher empty, just the women had said.
II. The Savior’s Encounter with Two Disciples on the Road to Emmaus (vv. 13-49): Only the Gospel of Luke records this incident (the long ending of Mark may make reference to this episode). The beloved physician, unlike other Gospel writers, did not chronicle several appearances of the Lord; rather, he gave an account of one event, Jesus’ meeting with two men from the extended group of disciples.
journey to Emmaus (vv. 13-27): These disciples remained in
arrival at Emmaus (vv. 28-32): The location of Emmaus is uncertain, but it was
situated about seven miles from
return of the two disciples to
immediate return trip to
2. The Lord’s sudden appearance (vv. 36-42): As the men spoke, Jesus suddenly appeared in the room. Of course, the disciples were startled. Mingled terror and joy filled their hearts, and they could scarcely believe what they saw and heard. Though the Savior appeared to them in such an unexpected and miraculous way (they thought he was a spirit), the text gives unmistakable evidence that the resurrected Christ possessed a real corporeal body: he invited the men to examine his wounds from Friday’s crucifixion, and he ate fish with them.
Lord’s teaching (vv. 43-49): Perhaps the Lord did not give further instruction
to the men in Emmaus because he anticipated this more strategic opportunity in
III. The Ascension (24:50-53): Interestingly, only Luke recorded the Ascension (See also Acts 1:6-11).
A. Bethany, the site of Jesus’ Ascension (v. 50): The village of Bethany lies about three miles from Jerusalem, and several important events in Jesus’ ministry occurred there (the raising of Lazarus and the anointing of Jesus by Mary, for example). Jesus raised his hands and blessed his followers; then he ascended into a cloud. Two men (probably angels) assured the disciples that Jesus would return just as surely as they had seen him ascend.
Conclusion: The lesson outline has addressed one aspect of
the historian’s task, an examination of the primary resources (in this case,
eye-witness accounts) to determine what these people believed had
occurred. Now, I challenge you to
complete the task. Determine, based on
the historical data, what all of this means.
Why did the writer recount the story as Luke did? Since we may surmise that Luke was not an
eye-witness to the events surrounding the resurrection, what resources did he
likely use to construct the narrative? Why did he select the story of the