Tag: Reliability of the Scriptures

Posted on

Embracing what the Resurrection Means

Summary of my sermon, based on Luke 24:1-12. Preached at Greenhills Christian Fellowship Toronto on Resurrection Sunday – April 5, 2026.

Every Easter, believers across the globe—from our local congregations to those gathering in Honduras, and even the persecuted church operating in secret—declare the exact same truth: He is risen. Yet, year after year, skeptics and cable television documentaries attempt to explain away the empty tomb with naturalistic theories. One of the most persistent is the “swoon theory,” which suggests Jesus did not actually die on the cross but merely passed out, only to revive later in the cool of the tomb. Historically and medically, this is an absurd proposition. The Romans were professional executioners. Under Roman law, a guard who failed to carry out an execution was subject to “vicarious liability”—meaning they would suffer the execution themselves. The soldiers ensuring Jesus was dead were highly motivated to get it right.

The crucifixion is an established historical reality. What is truly in dispute for the skeptic is what happened on Sunday morning. When we examine Luke’s account of the resurrection, we have to ask a critical question: Is this just a “believable” story crafted to start a religion, or is it a record of something real?

If a first-century author were fabricating a story and trying to make it believable to a Greco-Roman or Jewish audience, they would have left out specific details that Luke actively includes. By looking at these “embarrassing” details, we see the absolute authenticity of the gospel narrative.

Detail 1: The First Witnesses Were Women

Luke 24 tells us that the first people to discover the empty tomb and receive the angelic message were women—specifically Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James.

If you were inventing a story in the first century and wanted people to believe it, this is the absolute last detail you would include. In ancient patriarchal societies, women were treated as second-class citizens. Their testimony was generally considered invalid in a court of law. The first-century Jewish historian Josephus specifically wrote that the testimony of women should not be admitted due to the “levity and boldness of their sex.”

To make matters worse for the story’s cultural credibility, Luke specifically names Mary Magdalene. Luke 8 tells us that Jesus had previously cast seven demons out of her, meaning she would have been viewed as a complete social outcast. If Luke were trying to craft a culturally acceptable, easily believable myth, he would have written that esteemed male leaders discovered the tomb. Instead, he wrote the truth exactly as it happened, regardless of the cultural stigma.

Detail 2: The Unbelief of the Disciples

When the angels speak to the women at the tomb, they say, “Remember how he told you… that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.” The fact that they had to be reminded shows that the followers of Jesus had completely forgotten or misunderstood His teachings.

Furthermore, when the women run back to tell the eleven apostles what they saw, Luke writes, “But these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them” (Luke 24:11). The Greek word used here for “idle tale” is leros, which translates to pure nonsense or utter garbage. The men who would become the foundational leaders of the Christian church initially treated the news of the resurrection as fake news.

Throughout the gospels, the disciples are repeatedly portrayed as dense, fearful, and lacking faith. Peter rebukes Jesus for predicting His death, and later denies Him three times. If you were inventing a religion, you would not portray your founding leaders as bumbling, skeptical cowards. Luke includes their stubborn unbelief because he is recording history, not writing propaganda.

The Power of the Empty Tomb

So, what changed? What transformed these fearful, skeptical men who hid behind locked doors into bold preachers willing to be executed for their faith?

They saw the empty tomb. They witnessed the risen Christ.

In Acts 3, Peter—the same man who thought the women’s report was pure nonsense—stands boldly before a hostile crowd and declares, “You killed the author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.”

The resurrection changed them, and it changes us. As the Apostle Paul writes in Ephesians 1, the exact same immeasurable power that God used to raise Christ from the dead is currently at work in those who believe. This is why we can confidently declare alongside the Apostle Paul in Galatians 2:20 that we have been crucified with Christ. Claiming to die with a convicted criminal only makes sense if the tomb is empty. Because He lives, we live by faith in the Son of God who loved us and gave Himself for us.

Posted on

The Heart of God’s Offer of Forgiveness

Summary of my sermon, based on Luke 23:26-49. Preached at Greenhills Christian Fellowship Toronto on Good Friday – April 3, 2026.

The crucifixion narrative in the Gospel of Luke provides a highly detailed theological and historical account of the execution of Jesus Christ. When analyzing this text alongside parallel synoptic accounts, specific details emerge that validate the historical authenticity of the event. A prominent example is the conscription of Simon of Cyrene to carry the cross. From a purely narrative perspective, this detail appears extraneous. If the gospels were fabricated theological fiction, the authors likely would have depicted the protagonist demonstrating supernatural endurance by carrying the cross the entire distance. However, physiological realities dictate that a trauma victim subjected to severe Roman scourging would be physically incapable of transporting a heavy wooden beam. The random conscription of a bystander aligns precisely with established Roman execution protocols. This behavioral realism confirms that the gospel writers were documenting objective historical events rather than constructing idealized myths.

Beyond historical validation, the crucifixion sequence underscores a central theme unique to Luke’s gospel: the deliberate inclusion of marginalized outsiders into the Kingdom of God. Throughout his documented ministry, Jesus consistently challenged the religious establishment by associating with outcasts. This trajectory culminates at the cross during his interaction with the two condemned criminals. Both men faced identical lethal circumstances, yet their responses established a definitive binary. One criminal mocked Jesus, demanding immediate physical deliverance. The other acknowledged his own culpability, recognized Jesus’s innocence, and requested entrance into his kingdom. The immediate guarantee of salvation to the repentant criminal demonstrates that justification is executed purely through faith, operating completely independently of accumulated moral works, institutional religious practices, or past behavior.

The timing of this specific conversion is frequently misinterpreted as a theological justification for delaying religious commitment until the end of life. Analytically, this is a flawed premise. The executed criminal did not systematically delay a faith response; the crucifixion likely represented his first genuine exposure to Christ. Furthermore, utilizing this narrative to plan a delayed conversion assumes guaranteed future opportunities, ignoring the statistical unpredictability of mortality. The functional purpose of the criminal’s narrative is not to endorse delayed repentance, but to illustrate that there is no neutral position regarding the cross. Observers either reject the sacrifice entirely or accept it unconditionally.

The theological magnitude of the crucifixion is visually represented by the tearing of the temple curtain. Under the parameters of the Old Covenant, this heavy veil restricted access to the Holy of Holies, limiting direct divine interaction to the high priest. The physical tearing of this barrier at the exact moment of Christ’s death signifies the permanent obsolescence of the localized, exclusionary temple system. The Messiah’s sacrifice acted as the ultimate mediation, establishing direct, unrestricted access to God for all humanity and extending the covenant beyond the Jewish nation to the global population.

Finally, the varied reactions of the execution witnesses highlight the insufficiency of mere emotional responses to the gospel. The Roman centurion, who actively managed the execution detail, objectively recognized and declared Jesus’s innocence. Simultaneously, the assembled crowds observed the spectacle and returned home beating their breasts in profound sorrow. However, neither cognitive recognition of an unjust execution nor intense emotional distress equates to biblical salvation. The necessary response to the cross is explicit faith. For those who exercise this faith, the subsequent mandate is a life characterized by active gratitude. The cross cannot be treated as a passive historical symbol; it demands a measurable lifestyle transformation. Believers are required to mirror the humility and sacrifice demonstrated by Christ, actively reallocating their time, resources, and operational focus to serve others, thereby reflecting the reality of the crucifixion in their daily routines.