Faithlife Sermons

Resurrection

resurrection  •  Sermon  •  Submitted
0 ratings
· 8 views
Notes & Transcripts
Sermon Tone Analysis
A
D
F
J
S
Emotion
A
C
T
Language
O
C
E
A
E
Social
View more →
: 3-9
3 Peter therefore went out, and the other disciple, and were going to the tomb. 4 So they both ran together, and the other disciple outran Peter and came to the tomb first. 5 And he, stooping down and looking in, saw the linen cloths lying there; yet he did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, 7 and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple, who came to the tomb first, went in also; and he saw and believed. 9 For as yet they did not know the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. 10 Then the disciples went away again to their own homes.
Raised from the Dead ()
Raised from the Dead ()
The passage.—John tells the story of the resurrection as he had recorded so many earlier events. He returned to the “staging” method. Three sets of characters are shown on the stage. They came face to face with evidences that Jesus lived. You could guess that the result was belief.
Peter and John were the first pair, running to the tomb which was reported to be empty. Mary Magdalene next spoke with one whom she took to be the keeper of the garden. Thomas was the central character in the third scene. It had two parts, one with Thomas absent, the other present. The time was Sunday through the following Sunday.
Special points.—It appears as though Peter and John had spent the night together. They were awakened by the anxious cries of Mary Magdalene who had been very early at the tomb. Her news excited the two men to great haste, as they both ran toward the garden (v. 4).
Note some genuine conclusions which may be drawn. John, indeed, does not mention his own name, as he never does (vv. 2, 3, 4, 8). The very number of indirect references to himself stresses the point. Also, the speed with which John outran Peter strongly suggests his youthfulness in contrast to Simon’s age. Moreover, each acted in character when he arrived breathlessly at the tomb. John hesitated; Peter rushed in.
One of the most profound truths in the Gospel is disclosed in John’s testimony. He stooped to peer into the darkened vault, but saw only vaguely. When Peter dashed into the tomb, John followed. Immediately he saw the graveclothes, lying undisturbed. Even the face napkin was folded, as if everything had been done in an orderly fashion (vv. 6, 7). Instantly he knew the truth. No one had stolen the body. If so, the cloths which wound the body would have been gone.
Only one conclusion could be drawn. Jesus, by the power of his divine nature, could not be held by death. In majestic calm, he had simply left the shroud-bodily had flowed out of its folds, and walked out of the grave! “And he saw, and believed” (v. 8). It was the condition of the clothing that he observed. It told him all he needed to know. John was the first to believe Jesus had risen without seeing him.
Mary Magdalene, having notified the men, returned to the garden tomb. It was her name, spoken as only Jesus had done, that told her it was he. Her impulsive move toward him brought a strange response. The language makes it clear that what he said was “Do not hold me” (v. 17, RSV) rather than not to “touch” him. Mary must learn that the conditions had changed. The old forms of friendship and discipleship could no longer prevail. They would not have his physical nearness. So, she might as well know from the first how to relate to his presence in spirit, not flesh.
That Jesus responded to Thomas’ doubt was like him (v. 27). John probably witnessed the lesson Thomas had to learn with a smile. It had not taken nearly so much proof for him to believe.
Truth for today.—It is reassuring to observe what Jesus did when he rose from the dead. He showed himself, not to those who had killed him, but to those who loved him. We might have done it differently. How it would have confounded Caiaphas and Pilate and the rest if he had stood before them!
But he sought the fellowship of his own. They needed to be certain that he lived. For to them, and to us, he gave his commission (v. 21). In the same manner as the Father sent the Son—to reveal God’s salvation—so he sends us, also his sons. If we live with him, we will tell.
1: 2-28

20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26

: 2-28
20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.
A) Commentary
A) Commentary
5. Christ’s Resurrection is the pledge and pattern of the believer’s resurrection (15:20–23)
5. Christ’s Resurrection is the pledge and pattern of the believer’s resurrection (15:20–23)
This thought is stated in verse 20, explained in verses 21 and 22, and qualified in verse 23.
This thought is stated in verse 20, explained in verses 21 and 22, and qualified in verse 23.
The statement of the fact is found in verse 20. “But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.” “But” (ASV: “But now”) marks the point that the argument has reached. Its force is: “As the matter now stands.” “Has indeed been raised from the dead” gathers up the central thought of the preceding verses and boldly affirms its truth as an established fact. In describing Christ as “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” Paul shows that He has been raised in a representative character. The word “firstfruits” suggests three things: First, Christ was the first to rise from the dead. Second, His Resurrection is a guarantee of the resurrection of all who are in Him. As Hodge explains, “The apostle does not mean merely that the resurrection of Christ was to precede that of his people; but as the first sheaf of the harvest presented to God as a thank-offering was the pledge and assurance of the ingathering of the whole harvest, so the resurrection of Christ is a pledge and proof of the resurrection of his people.” The earth is eventually to yield a great harvest of glorified bodies, and Christ is the firstfruit of that harvest. His people’s resurrection is assured by His; His Resurrection is the first installment, a pledge that many more are to come. Third, as the first sheaf offered to God was the same in kind as the rest of the harvest, so Christ’s Resurrection is the pattern of His people’s.
The fact is explained in verses 21 and 22. Verse 21 shows that just as there is a causal relation between the death of Adam and the death of his descendants, so there is a causal relation between the Resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of His people. “In different ways, Adam and Christ were each of them Head of the human race and could represent it” (Robertson and Plummer). We die by virtue of our union with Adam; we live by virtue of our union with Christ.
This is qualified in verse 23. Christ’s Resurrection secures that of His people, but the two events do not occur at the same time. There is a proper order for each. The word for “turn” (Gr., tagma), originally a military term for a detachment or company of soldiers, is used here to suggest simply that those experiencing resurrection are in two divisions—one made up of the solitary figure of Christ, the other composed of those who belong to Him (His people). He, as firstfruit, is raised first; they are to be raised “when he comes” (lit., “at his coming”). The latter word, in ancient times a technical term used for the arrival of a king or his representative, refers to Christ’s second advent at the end of the age.
The statement of the fact is found in verse 20. “But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.” “But” (ASV: “But now”) marks the point that the argument has reached. Its force is: “As the matter now stands.” “Has indeed been raised from the dead” gathers up the central thought of the preceding verses and boldly affirms its truth as an established fact. In
1 Corinthians 6. Christ’s Resurrection Is the First State in His Complete Triumph over Evil (15:24–28)

6. Christ’s Resurrection is the first state in His complete triumph over evil (15:24–28)

Death is the last enemy to be destroyed, but the process of destruction was begun with the Resurrection of Christ. With His Resurrection the decisive battle was won and ultimate victory was assured. All that remains is the “mopping up” work. At the coming of Christ His people will be raised, all opposition to the rule of God will be abolished, and the kingdom will be delivered up to the Father.

“Then the end will come” is a reference to the termination of world history. It is debated whether there is an interval between Christ’s coming and the end. Robertson and Plummer conclude that it is not possible to say, for the Greek word for “then” “may introduce either what is subsequent or what is immediately consequent.” Those who argue for an interval ordinarily see this sequence in the resurrection of the dead: (1) Christ, “the firstfruits,” (2) believers in Christ “when he comes,” and (3) all the rest of mankind at “the end,” when the final judgment takes place. These interpreters commonly interpose the millennium between (2) and (3). It must be admitted that the text is not decisive on this matter. Hodge, who argues against an interval, says the text “marks the succession of certain events, but determines nothing as to the interval between them.” He adds, however, that “the natural impression is that nothing remains to be done after the resurrection before the end comes.” In other words, the coming is the end. Bruce thinks the context suggests that the interval is short. Fisher interprets “end” to mean “goal.” “The implication is that God has a goal toward which he is working in history. The decisive event in history was the Christ event, but the climactic event in which that event finds its consummation is the perfect rule of God.”

“The end” (or goal) is defined as the time (or event) “when he [Christ] delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every [hostile] rule and every [hostile] authority and power” (RSV). “Destroying” is the translation of a Greek word that essentially means “to put out of work,” “make inoperative,” “render null and void.”

1 Corinthians 6. Christ’s Resurrection Is the First State in His Complete Triumph over Evil (15:24–28)

6. Christ’s Resurrection is the first state in His complete triumph over evil (15:24–28)

Death is the last enemy to be destroyed, but the process of destruction was begun with the Resurrection of Christ. With His Resurrection the decisive battle was won and ultimate victory was assured. All that remains is the “mopping up” work. At the coming of Christ His people will be raised, all opposition to the rule of God will be abolished, and the kingdom will be delivered up to the Father.

“Then the end will come” is a reference to the termination of world history. It is debated whether there is an interval between Christ’s coming and the end. Robertson and Plummer conclude that it is not possible to say, for the Greek word for “then” “may introduce either what is subsequent or what is immediately consequent.” Those who argue for an interval ordinarily see this sequence in the resurrection of the dead: (1) Christ, “the firstfruits,” (2) believers in Christ “when he comes,” and (3) all the rest of mankind at “the end,” when the final judgment takes place. These interpreters commonly interpose the millennium between (2) and (3). It must be admitted that the text is not decisive on this matter. Hodge, who argues against an interval, says the text “marks the succession of certain events, but determines nothing as to the interval between them.” He adds, however, that “the natural impression is that nothing remains to be done after the resurrection before the end comes.” In other words, the coming is the end. Bruce thinks the context suggests that the interval is short. Fisher interprets “end” to mean “goal.” “The implication is that God has a goal toward which he is working in history. The decisive event in history was the Christ event, but the climactic event in which that event finds its consummation is the perfect rule of God.”

“The end” (or goal) is defined as the time (or event) “when he [Christ] delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every [hostile] rule and every [hostile] authority and power” (RSV). “Destroying” is the translation of a Greek word that essentially means “to put out of work,” “make inoperative,” “render null and void.”

guarantee
6. Christ’s Resurrection is the first state in His complete triumph over evil (15:24–28)
1 Corinthians 6. Christ’s Resurrection Is the First State in His Complete Triumph over Evil (15:24–28)

6. Christ’s Resurrection is the first state in His complete triumph over evil (15:24–28)

Death is the last enemy to be destroyed, but the process of destruction was begun with the Resurrection of Christ. With His Resurrection the decisive battle was won and ultimate victory was assured. All that remains is the “mopping up” work. At the coming of Christ His people will be raised, all opposition to the rule of God will be abolished, and the kingdom will be delivered up to the Father.

“Then the end will come” is a reference to the termination of world history. It is debated whether there is an interval between Christ’s coming and the end. Robertson and Plummer conclude that it is not possible to say, for the Greek word for “then” “may introduce either what is subsequent or what is immediately consequent.” Those who argue for an interval ordinarily see this sequence in the resurrection of the dead: (1) Christ, “the firstfruits,” (2) believers in Christ “when he comes,” and (3) all the rest of mankind at “the end,” when the final judgment takes place. These interpreters commonly interpose the millennium between (2) and (3). It must be admitted that the text is not decisive on this matter. Hodge, who argues against an interval, says the text “marks the succession of certain events, but determines nothing as to the interval between them.” He adds, however, that “the natural impression is that nothing remains to be done after the resurrection before the end comes.” In other words, the coming is the end. Bruce thinks the context suggests that the interval is short. Fisher interprets “end” to mean “goal.” “The implication is that God has a goal toward which he is working in history. The decisive event in history was the Christ event, but the climactic event in which that event finds its consummation is the perfect rule of God.”

“The end” (or goal) is defined as the time (or event) “when he [Christ] delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every [hostile] rule and every [hostile] authority and power” (RSV). “Destroying” is the translation of a Greek word that essentially means “to put out of work,” “make inoperative,” “render null and void.”

Death is the last enemy to be destroyed, but the process of destruction was begun with the Resurrection of Christ. With His Resurrection the decisive battle was won and ultimate victory was assured. All that remains is the “mopping up” work. At the coming of Christ His people will be raised, all opposition to the rule of God will be abolished, and the kingdom will be delivered up to the Father.
“Then the end will come” is a reference to the termination of world history. It is debated whether there is an interval between Christ’s coming and the end. Robertson and Plummer conclude that it is not possible to say, for the Greek word for “then” “may introduce either what is subsequent or what is immediately consequent.” Those who argue for an interval ordinarily see this sequence in the resurrection of the dead: (1) Christ, “the firstfruits,” (2) believers in Christ “when he comes,” and (3) all the rest of mankind at “the end,” when the final judgment takes place. These interpreters commonly interpose the millennium between (2) and (3). It must be admitted that the text is not decisive on this matter. Hodge, who argues against an interval, says the text “marks the succession of certain events, but determines nothing as to the interval between them.” He adds, however, that “the natural impression is that nothing remains to be done after the resurrection before the end comes.” In other words, the coming is the end. Bruce thinks the context suggests that the interval is short. Fisher interprets “end” to mean “goal.” “The implication is that God has a goal toward which he is working in history. The decisive event in history was the Christ event, but the climactic event in which that event finds its consummation is the perfect rule of God.”
“The end” (or goal) is defined as the time (or event) “when he [Christ] delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every [hostile] rule and every [hostile] authority and power” (RSV). “Destroying” is the translation of a Greek word that essentially means “to put out of work,” “make inoperative,” “render null and void.”
Vaughan, C., & Lea, T. D. (2002). 1 Corinthians (pp. 156–157). Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press.
Related Media
Related Sermons