← Back to sermon library

Well, you can turn with me in 
your Bibles to John's Gospel, John chapter 20, as we continue 
to work our way through this fourth gospel. We've looked at the crucifixion, 
the seven sayings of the Savior on the cross, the signs and wonders 
associated or the phenomena associated with the death of our Lord from 
Matthew's gospel. In Matthew 27, we saw the confirmation 
of His death in John 19, His burial, and now we come to His 
resurrection. So I'll read chapter 20, verses 
1 to 10. Now the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene went 
to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the 
stone had been taken away from the tomb. Then she ran and came 
to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and 
said to them, They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, 
and we do not know where they have laid him. Peter therefore 
went out, and the other disciple, and were going to the tomb. So 
they both ran together, and the other disciple outran Peter and 
came to the tomb first. And he, stooping down and looking 
in, saw the linen cloths lying there, yet he did not go in. 
Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. 
And he saw the linen cloths lying there, and the handkerchief that 
had been around his head, not lying with the linen cloths, 
but folded together in a place by itself. Then the other disciple 
who came to the tomb first went in also, and he saw and believed. For as yet they did not know 
the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. Then the 
disciples went away again to their own homes. Amen. Well, 
let us pray. Our Father in heaven, we thank 
you for this wonderful, beautiful passage of Holy Scripture. We 
thank you for that life and the death of the Savior and for that 
resurrection again the third day. We thank you that the tomb 
is empty. We thank you that we are confident 
of all that you have promised in the Word of God. As Paul says, 
he was delivered up because of our offenses and raised for our 
justification. And we rejoice in your saving 
mercies. We rejoice in your saving grace 
and your loving kindness. And now as we come to this passage, 
may it encourage us. We confess from the outset our 
remaining sin. We confess as well our troubles 
in this present evil age. Give us grace to look beyond 
those troubles, this veil of tears, to that blessed Emmanuel's 
land. We pray this morning for Vadi 
Bakam's family. We just commend them to you and 
to the word of your grace and pray that you would sustain. 
Bless them, God. We know they don't grieve the 
way that the world does. And also for Michael Montague's 
family, we just pray for them, that you would bless them. that 
you would uphold them and that they too would look beyond this 
present distress to the wonderful glory that awaits your people. 
We ask that you would guide us now by your Holy Spirit, give 
us grace to receive these things with happy hearts and with the 
desire, Lord God, to live in a manner that is consistent with 
what we find revealed in the gospel of our salvation. We pray 
this in Jesus' name, amen. Well, as we come to this particular 
passage of Scripture, all four writers of the Gospels indicate 
the resurrection of our Lord Jesus. We see it in Matthew 28, 
Mark 16, Luke 24, and of course here in John's Gospel in Chapter 
20. So I want to look first at the 
discovery of the empty tomb in verses 1 and 2, and then secondly, 
the investigation of the empty tomb in verses 3 to 10. But first, with reference to 
the discovery, we see in this, the Lord Jesus reveals himself 
or appears first to the women, and you see that in verses 1 
to 18, and then specifically to the disciples in verses 19 
to 29. So that's sort of the overarching 
structure, but here we have specifically the appearance to Mary Magdalene. 
Now, in terms of the purpose for which Mary went to the tomb, 
we learn from the synoptics from Matthew and Mark, or rather, 
yes, from Mark and Luke, that the women came to bring spices 
to his body. And it wasn't just Mary Magdalene. If you look at verse 2, toward 
the end, she says, they have taken away the Lord out of the 
tomb and we do not know where they have laid him." So she is 
with other women, and the synoptic gospels fill in for us who that 
was. You had Mary, the mother of James, 
and Salome in Mark 16 and Luke 24, and then Joanna according 
to Luke 24 as well. So there's a plurality of women, 
but the gospel writer focuses specifically on Mary, probably 
because he's going to deal in more detail with the Lord's dealings 
with Mary Magdalene later in our chapter. But in terms of 
the time, if you look at Matthew, John 20 at verse 1, it says, 
Now the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb 
early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been 
taken away from the tomb. Again, gone there so that they 
could anoint the body of our Lord Jesus, with spices in a 
manner similar to what Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus does 
with reference to his burial. But note that emphasis, the first 
day of the week. This is why we gather together 
on Sunday versus Saturday. And I think there's a lot of 
theology going on in John's passion narrative concerning our Lord 
Jesus Christ. Remember the emphasis on the 
garden motif, the fact that Jesus went to a garden to pray according 
to John 18 and verse 1. The fact that Jesus is buried 
in a garden and when Mary Magdalene later in the chapter sees him, 
she supposes initially that he is the gardener. And that idea 
of garden is reminiscent of the Garden of Eden. And so what we 
find, say for instance in Romans chapter 5, the Apostle Paul deals 
with mankind on the basis of two men, Adam the first and Adam 
the last. Adam in the garden and Jesus 
Christ our Lord who is the last Adam in fulfillment of all that 
Adam the first was supposed to do and all that Israel was supposed 
to do in covenant with the living God. In fact, Paul in 1 Corinthians 
15, 22 says, for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall 
be made alive. Adam the first was placed in 
a garden and sinned against God and forfeit life. This Adam the 
last is placed in a garden and secures everlasting life. So 
I think there's a strong parallel. As well, oftentimes in theology 
we talk about old creation and new creation, and I think this 
marks the new creation. In fact, Thomas says, for this 
day of the resurrection was the beginning of a new creation. 
When God spoke the old world into being, He started with light. Jesus is the light of the world. 
And so when we come to a passage like this, it doesn't tell us 
in verse 1, now as Christians, Sunday is the Christian Sabbath 
and therefore everything that was peculiar to the old covenant 
on Saturday has been shifted over to Sunday. But the pattern 
of the early church was to meet on the first day of the week. 
It is the Lord's Day, or what we call in our confession the 
Christian Sabbath. And the Christian Sabbath is 
specified this way according to chapter 22, paragraph 7. It 
says, as it is the law of nature. As it is the law of nature. You 
don't need scripture to tell you to worship God, is what they're 
saying. In other words, God made us in His image, there's natural 
sort of theology communicated to us through the created order. The Confession says, "...as it 
is the law of nature that in general a proportion of time 
by God's appointment be set apart for the worship of God, so by 
His Word, in a positive moral and perpetual commandment, binding 
all men in all ages, He is particularly appointed one day in seven for 
a Sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning 
of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of 
the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the 
first day of the week, which is called the Lord's Day, and 
is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian 
Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished. 
So there's a lot of emphasis on the first day of the week 
as the day that Christ rose from the dead. And as I said, in Acts 
chapter 20, the church worships on Sunday. In 1 Corinthians chapter 
16, the apostle Paul tells the churches to set aside collections 
for pickup on the first day of the week, which is the Sunday. 
And then John in Revelation chapter one says that he was in the spirit 
on the Lord's day. And the Lord's Day there doesn't 
mean the general coming of God again in glory to judge the living 
and the dead. The Lord's Day is that day specifically 
owned by the Lord, set aside by Him. The only other place 
in the New Testament where we see that use of Lord is in 1 
Corinthians 11 when it talks about the Lord's Table. Of course, 
God owns the tacos and the burritos on your table on a Tuesday night, 
but He particularly owns the Lord's Supper when the church 
gathers together for worship. He owns your Monday through Saturday, 
to be sure, but He peculiarly and particularly owns the Lord's 
Day. It is the day when we announce 
that He is risen, when we rejoice in the empty tomb, and when we 
acknowledge the Lordship of Christ over this new creation. And I 
know that some would say, well, the Bible doesn't tell us that 
the day has been changed. Hebrews chapter 4 actually does 
tell us that the day has been changed, and you can turn there. 
Hebrews chapter 4 deals specifically with the change of day. There's 
a lot of theology going on, we're not going to deal with all of 
it, but understand this, that an emphasis in chapters 3 and 
4 is upon rest for the people of God. And the Apostle, I take 
it to be the Apostle Paul, uses a common word for rest all throughout 
chapters 3 and chapter 4, except when he gets to verse 9 in chapter 
4. There, he says, there remains, 
therefore, a Sabbath rest for the people of God. There remains, 
therefore, a Sabbath rest for the people of God. And then if 
we ask the question, well, which day is that? The apostle answers 
us in verse 10. Notice, for he, this is Christ. The New King James does not capitalize 
it, and it should in terms of interpretation. Because what 
you see there is not us ceasing from our works, because in verse 
11, we need to be diligent to enter that rest. Verse 10 is 
speaking of one who's already ceased from his labors, one who's 
already entered into his rest, and that one is, of course, the 
Lord Jesus. So after verse 9, there remains 
therefore a rest for the people of God, a Sabbath rest, a Sabbath 
keeping. Verse 10 gives us the rationale 
for Sunday worship. When did Jesus cease from His 
works? At the resurrection from the dead, on that first day. And there's a parallel working. 
If you go back to verse 4, notice it's speaking of God the Father 
in the creation of the material world. It says, for He has spoken 
in a certain place of the seventh day in this way. And God rested 
on the seventh day from all His works. The Father rests on the 
seventh day, the Son rests on the first day. This picks up 
an emphasis that you see in the giving of the Ten Commandments 
in both Exodus and then in Deuteronomy. In Exodus, the rationale for 
Sabbath-keeping is creation. The rationale for Sabbath-keeping 
is, for in six days, God made the heavens and the earth, and 
then He rested on the seventh. In the book of Deuteronomy, the 
emphasis is on redemption. And so when the apostle comes 
to chapter 4 in the book of Hebrews, those categories of thought are 
in his mind. Creation, verse 4. Redemption, 
verse 10. So when the authors in the gospel 
narratives indicate to us that it was the first day of the week, 
that is to resound in our hearts and minds and to understand the 
perpetuity of the fourth commandment has not been obliterated by our 
Lord's coming. Rather, it has been affirmed, 
it has been confirmed, and while its positive law has changed, 
the moral abiding validity has not changed. We're supposed to 
be in church on Sunday. We're supposed to cease from 
our earthly labors on Sunday. We're supposed to give ourselves 
to glorifying and honoring God on Sunday. So back to our particular 
text, we then note from this indication of the first day of 
the week, we notice the discovery that is made by the women, specifically 
Mary Magdalene. It says at the end of verse 1, 
and she saw, they saw the stone had been taken away from the 
tomb. So the discovery in verse one, 
and then the report given in verse two. Notice in verse two, 
then she ran and came to Simon Peter. The synoptic gospels tell 
us, and by synoptic I mean Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the synoptic 
gospel writers tell us that the angel instructed the women to 
do this. In fact, it says such in Matthew 
28, but look specifically at Mark 16. Mark 16, there's something 
significant I want you to appreciate. And while you're turning to Mark 
16, know that Simon, Peter, and Mark were good buddies. They 
were good friends. They were tight amigos. They 
were, you know, BFFs, as the kids might say today. And so 
typically, those who comment on gospel literature say things 
like, we see Peter's emphasis upon Mark in terms of crafting 
his gospel. Others of us believe that it's 
probably the case that Peter preached the gospel, and Mark 
was his scribe, and Mark wrote down the things that Peter had 
said. So, in Matthew 28, at verse 7, the angel gives instruction 
to the women to go tell the disciples. And here in Mark 16, you see 
that same emphasis, but something interesting. Verse 7, Go, tell 
his disciples and Peter that he is going before you into Galilee. 
There you will see him as he said to you. Why and Peter? Well, if I'm Peter, and I'm coaching 
Mark, or I'm Peter and I'm preaching Christ, I'm gonna note, as the 
gospel authors do, that I denied the Lord Jesus prior to his death. I denied the Lord of glory before 
his death. I had promised fidelity to the 
bitter end and yet, I, like the others, fled from him. So perhaps, 
go tell his disciples, and Peter, Peter, you're not a disciple 
anymore. Peter, you've not been disowned 
by our Christ. Peter, there is forgiveness with 
God that he may be feared. So the disciples are told, or 
rather the women are told to go and advise the disciples and 
that is precisely what happens. The women contact Simon Peter 
and the other disciple whom Jesus loved. In our study of John's 
gospel, we know this other disciple whom Jesus loved is John, the 
author of the fourth gospel, an evangelist and a theologian. You can see that emphasis throughout 
John's gospel, John 13, 23, John 21, 7, John 21, 20. He is the 
beloved disciple. That doesn't mean that Jesus 
loved him more than everybody else, but Jesus had a special 
relationship with John. And this particular John was 
standing near the cross according to 19, 26, and 27. This particular 
John investigated the empty tomb according to 20, verse 2 and 
following. This John wrote the fourth gospel 
by inspiration of the Holy Spirit according to chapter 21. So, 
this John is an eyewitness both of the death of our Lord and 
the resurrection of our Lord. We need to remember that. Eyewitness 
testimony. It's not hearsay. It's not third, 
fifth, twentieth, you know, twentieth party. Well, you know, I think 
this guy might have rose from the dead. No, no. We have eyewitnesses 
at the scene telling us under inspiration of the spirit of 
truth that these things occurred. These things are true. So notice 
the report that they give to the disciples. So verse 2 again. 
First thing we ought to observe is that even though Jesus is 
in the tomb, she still refers to him as Lord. It's an amazing thing, isn't 
it? If ever there was something that might give you cause to 
sort of adjust your vocabulary, you've been used to calling him 
Lord all these days, all these months, all these years. Well, 
now he's dead. What kind of Lord dies? As well, 
we ought to observe in this particular statement, obviously the alarm, 
the alarm. They have taken the Lord out 
of the tomb. We don't know where they have 
taken it. I'd be alarmed too, especially 
at the thought that grave robbers or others had come and pillaged 
the tomb of my Lord. But then notice as well, she 
says, they have taken away the Lord out of the tomb. Who's they? 
Well, some commentators are divided. The commentators are divided 
on the nature of grave robbing. Later, Claudius, the emperor, 
would make a law, a capital offense, for those who did rob graves. 
But who do you think she's referring to? They. Probably not the Romans. They had no vested interest in 
that whatsoever. They killed Jesus as a political 
dissident, as one who was vying for, you know, the authority 
of the emperor. Why would they take the body 
out? I think she's referring to the 
Jews, the unbelieving Jews. They had a vested interest in 
taking the body out and then pinning that crime on the disciples. Matthew 28, verses 11 to 15. She's fearful of her own countrymen 
that they have come and stolen the body of our Lord out of the 
tomb. Again, a fear, an alarm, a concern that is certainly appropriate 
in such a setting. So we've got the discovery of 
the empty tomb. Now let's look then at the investigation 
of the empty tomb. First, you've got a journey to 
the tomb. Second, an investigation proper. And then thirdly, ignorance 
concerning the tomb itself. But first, note the journey according 
to verse three. Peter therefore went out and 
the other disciple and were going to the tomb. Again, this is Peter 
and the Apostle John. Peter and the author of the fourth 
gospel. Now, the author of the fourth 
gospel doesn't give us an explanation for everything that happens, 
doesn't give us every jot and tittle of the details or the 
rationale or the why, but he tells us as an eyewitness those 
facts or those key points that are absolutely crucial for us 
to establish on this side of the narrative that yes, He was 
raised from the dead. Notice in terms of the arrival 
to the tomb according to verse 4, so they both ran together 
and the other disciple outran Peter and came to the tomb first. 
Again, commentators suggest there was some sort of rivalry between 
the two. And not even between the two 
per se, but between the communities of the two. You know, Peter's 
disciples and John's disciples had some issues with one another. 
That's not what's going on here. This is probably gonna stretch 
the limits of your mind in terms of exegesis, but John was a faster 
runner. Most likely because he was younger. I often think about conspiracy 
and you can take that for what it's worth. And I've had to issue 
cautions to those like me who think about conspiracy. Not everything 
is something. There's a lot of things that 
are something but not everything is something. Well, I don't know 
why that sun's shining because, you know, the government, because 
the sun shines. That's its job. That's what it 
does. Not everything is something when it comes to one man being 
a faster runner that would suggest some rivalry between the two 
or some rivalry between the two communities that these men represented. Gil says it this way, and that 
other disciple did outrun Peter and came first to the sepulcher. John was a younger man than Peter 
and so more nimble, I love that, and swift of foot, and got to 
the sepulcher before him. But then he adds something that 
I think is legit, that I just directed our attention to in 
Mark 16.7. Peter had denied his Lord. So listen to what Gil goes 
on to say, and besides, he's talking about John, not just 
was he swift of foot and more nimble, and besides, had not 
that concern of mine to retard him, Peter might have, as supposing 
Christ was risen, and he should see him, how he should be able 
to look him in the face whom he had so shamefully denied. Interesting, nimble, swift of 
foot, faster, younger, but perhaps because he didn't have the potential 
concern that Peter might have had when he sees a resurrected 
Lord with the understanding that he had denied the resurrected 
Lord. Remember when, after the denial, 
Jesus looks at Peter? What does Peter do? He weeps 
bitterly. I don't think that Jesus, my 
son taught me this, mean mugged him. You ever been driving on 
the road and somebody cuts you off and you restrain your hands 
and then you mean mug them? I've always feared this is gonna 
happen to me on the way to church on a Sunday morning and somebody 
that I mean mugged is gonna come in as a visitor. They're gonna 
say, you're that guy that looked at me funny on the road. I don't 
think Jesus scowled at Peter. He looked at him. And knowing 
our Jesus, he looked at him and loved him. And yet, Peter weeps 
bitterly. So there might have been some 
of that as well. But then notice, in terms of 
the investigation of the tomb, verse five, and he, this is John, 
stooping down and looking in, saw the linen cloths lying there, 
yet he did not go in. Again, he was first because he 
was faster. He was unwilling as well to enter 
into the tomb at this particular point. So he visually examines 
the tomb from his vantage point. And the reason why he stoops 
down in order to look in As Edward Klink reminds us, the beloved 
disciple knelt because the tomb, like most ancient tombs, had 
a low entrance and stepped down into the central rectangular 
pit with shelves cut into the rock around the pit. So that 
was the way that you were able to navigate so that you could 
get a view of that central pit where they would have laid the 
body. Now notice then that Simon Peter arrives according to verses 
6 and 7. Then Simon Peter came following 
him and went into the tomb. Don't we love that about Peter? 
He's very impetuous. He's not going to stoop down 
and look into the tomb. He's going to go right in. That's 
Peter. He's a ready, fire, aim kind 
of guy. Remember Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane takes his 
sword out and goes for the head shot of Malchus and hits him 
in the ear? That's Peter. Peter is, in some sense, like 
a lot of us. We probably need a bit more Paul 
in us. We probably need a lot more Solomon in us. We might 
need a bit of the Apostle John in us. Fast running, yeah, but 
a bit of hesitancy about diving right in. But Peter's impetuous. And so Peter enters into the 
tomb, and notice what we find, verses 6 and 7. Then Simon Peter came, following 
him, and went into the tomb, and he saw the linen cloths lying 
there. Remember, they wrap the body 
with these things. We see that of Joseph of Arimathea 
and Nicodemus, not only the hundred pounds of of myrrh and aloes 
that Nicodemus had to pour on the body. As well, this was the 
pattern, the practice, it was the custom to wrap the body in 
these grave clothes. So notice in verse 7, in the 
handkerchief that had been around his head, not lying with the 
linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself. So you 
get the body wrapped, and then you got the head wrapped separately. 
So he sees the linen cloths on one part, and then he sees this 
handkerchief that was wrapped around the head, folded neatly, 
and laid on the bench, or laid on the shelf. Well, that obviously 
suggests this wasn't the work of grave robbers. I've never 
engaged in grave robbing, but if I did, I doubt that after 
I pillaged or plundered that body and that tomb, I'd fold 
things up when I was ready to depart. That's not the MO of 
a grave robber. As well, it wouldn't be the MO 
of the disciples. Remember, the disciples are the 
ones that are suspect of perhaps potentially being those who go 
in and steal the body according to Matthew 27. When the body 
is gone, then the Jews, as I said in 28.11.15, make that plan. Well, say that the disciples 
came and stole the body. Again, if the disciples who are 
timid men, you know, these weren't the bravado mercenaries carrying, 
you know, guns. These were scared men. They fled 
or forsook Jesus at the time of the cross. But if they had 
stolen the body, they wouldn't unwrap the body from the linen 
cloths that surrounded the body. They wouldn't unwrap the head 
from the, with the handkerchief and then, you know, fold it up 
and put it neatly over by itself. Now what we have here is an eyewitness 
detail, eyewitness account as to what was seen from a general 
perspective, John the Apostle, and then with a specific view 
from the Apostle Peter. Again, two or three witnesses 
are necessary to confirm every fact. We've got the two or three 
witnesses. I mentioned a couple of weeks 
ago, everybody has a problem with the scripture, not everybody 
who names Christ, at least we shouldn't, but the God-hater, 
that's all fake, it was all falsified, it's untrue. How is it then that 
we take any regular robber or any regular thief or any regular 
malefactor in civil society, we put him in the dock and we 
have him raise his hand and swear to tell the whole truth, or the 
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God. 
We accept that eyewitness testimony. We accept that witness testimony. Why don't we accept John? Why 
don't we accept Peter? Why don't we accept Paul? Because, 
typically, those who don't are those who have an ax to grind 
with God. They're Psalm 2 types of people. They rage against 
Yahweh and against his Christ. Whatever scripture says, it would 
never be enough for them. Whatever scripture claims, it 
would never be enough for them. Whatever scripture demonstrates, 
it would never be enough for them. But in terms of satisfying 
legal requirements, you've got your two or three witnesses. 
You've got a general appearance, and then you've got the specific. 
What happens inside of that tomb? Now, at the suggestion of Edward 
Klink, I'm not sure he would go the same way I would go, but 
there's a theology of this headcloth. There's a theology, I don't wanna 
keep saying handkerchief, but there's a theology of the headcloth. 
Remember when Lazarus was raised by Jesus from the dead? When 
Lazarus comes forth, guess what? He's still wrapped up in his 
grave clothes. The fact that Jesus is not wrapped 
up in his grave clothes, the fact that Jesus took the time 
to fold the head cloth and put it there on the shelf, underscores 
something that Jesus says in John 10. He is the one that raises 
himself up. Now, the scripture ascribes to 
God, Father, Son, and Spirit, the resurrection of our Lord 
Jesus. At times it appropriates the 
resurrection specifically to the Father, and it appropriates 
the resurrection specifically to the Son. And in John 10, it's 
appropriated to the Son. He says specifically, I will 
raise up again. I have the power to do that. 
But as well, we see something of the glory of the resurrection. 
the glory of the resurrection. Remember way back when in the 
book of Exodus, in Exodus chapter 34. If you track with Exodus 
chapter 34, you're kind of familiar with that particular context. 
It follows Exodus 33. And in Exodus chapter 33, Moses 
asks God, show me thy glory. And what does God say? God says, 
you can't look upon my glory and live. So I'm going to put 
you in the cleft of this rock, and then I'm going to make my 
glory pass by you, and you're going to see the hind parts of 
it. It's beautiful. It's amazing. And what is the 
glory? What is the nature of that glory 
there in Exodus 34? It's God's loving kindness. It's 
God's graciousness. It's God's compassion. It's God's 
mercy. Do you know what Moses does after he witnesses the glory 
of God? He covers his face with a veil. 
He covers his face because of the shining glory of God that 
radiates from him such that the people couldn't handle the look 
upon it. Moses got it from the cleft of the rock, Moses got 
it via hind parts, and Moses was radiated to such a point 
that he covered his face with this veil and in order that the 
people could get around him and could be near him. Again, maybe 
this isn't what John is suggesting, but that John does a lot of theology, 
I don't think it's a stretch. What do we have with Jesus? We 
have the revelation of the glory of God in spades. And that connection 
is made by John in John 1, 17 and 18. In fact, you can turn 
there. So I think this is probably, 
at least maybe, we're supposed to glean from this resurrection 
narrative where the head cloth is folded up and put aside. Notice 
in John 1, in the prologue, verse 16, and of His fullness we have 
all received and grace for grace. For the law was given through 
Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one 
has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son who is 
in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. Again, verse 
17, for the law was given through Moses. And in the revelation, 
the law given through Moses, it necessitated the covering 
of his face with a veil so that the people of God could hear 
him and understand. In other words, Old Covenant 
revelation came through the mediation of Moses and in some sense was 
veiled. But new covenant revelation comes 
through the only begotten son. And that's the specific purpose 
in verse 18. No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten 
son who is in the bosom of the father, he has declared him. So perhaps with Exodus in the 
background, perhaps with John's prologue in the background, we're 
to understand the revelation of God in the old covenant was 
glorious. It was wonderful. There's nothing 
bad about it, there's nothing insufficient about it in terms 
of what God had intended, but it's the revelation through the 
New Covenant, in the new creation, ordered by, reigned over by our 
blessed Savior King as the mediator of the New Covenant, where we 
have the full revelation of God Most High, Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit. And then back to our text in 
verse 8, we see the conviction. And again, by that I mean a firmly 
held belief. Verse 8, then the other disciple, 
this is John, who came to the tomb first, went in also. He went in also because Peter, 
who had come to the tomb second, had gone first into the tomb. We just want to make sure we 
get our characters right. So then the other disciple who 
came to the tomb first went in also and he saw and believed. Now that's interesting. He saw 
and believed. What did he believe? Did he believe 
what Mary had reported in verse two? They have come. They have 
taken away the body? We don't know where they have 
laid the body? Is that what he's believing now? I've seen the empty tomb. Mary's 
right. We don't know where the body 
is. I think a lot of it depends on how we interpret verse nine. 
I think verse nine is explanatory. And verse nine explains why it's 
now at the site of the empty tomb that John believed that 
Jesus had been raised from the dead. Not that somebody else 
had come and taken the body. Mary had said they have taken 
the body. John is convicted now in the 
other use of conviction. John understands now. They didn't take away the body. 
He understood rather that he has risen. And the explanatory 
note there in verse 9, I think, corroborates this. Notice, for, 
as yet they did not know the scripture, that he must rise 
again from the dead. Now, we read that and we say, 
well, how could they not know? Say in Matthew's gospel, for 
instance, in Matthew 16, Matthew 17, and Matthew 20, the Lord 
Jesus says, he must go to Jerusalem, he must be tried by godless men, 
he must be crucified, and in two of those instances, he says, 
and must be raised again. Again, we ask the question, well, 
how did John and Peter not know this? How do we not know a lot 
of the things we've read over and over again? How do we not 
know, you know, a lot of Bible facts that have been poured into 
our brains through parents or Sunday schools or pulpits? How do we not know? And again, 
if we push a little further, they had seen Jesus according 
to his humanity in their midst. They had seen him eat. They had 
seen him drink. They had seen him get weary. 
They had seen him suffer. They had seen him die. They had 
seen him buried. So again, their hesitance or 
their inability or their lack of knowledge at this point in 
terms of the empty tomb or the resurrection, Yeah, I don't think 
we should throw stones at them at this point. I think verse 
9 corroborates that in verse 8, what he believes is not Mary's 
testimony about they took away the body, but rather what he 
believes is that he is risen. And the scriptures all over the 
place in the Old Testament prophesied the resurrection of our Lord. 
You've got Psalm 2, verse 7. Psalm 16, verse 10. The exaltation 
passages in the latter part of Psalm 22 and then of course Psalm 
110 that we sang. You've got the prophets, Isaiah 
53 verses 10 to 12. You've got Hosea chapter 6 verse 
2. You'll read Hosea and you'll 
go, well this is talking about Israel. Absolutely, positively, 
if you ask the New Testament who's Israel, it's the Lord Jesus 
Christ and the church in union with Him. As well, you've got 
the prophetic statement of Jonah 2. You see that applied in Matthew's 
gospel, right? Doesn't Jesus liken his death 
and burial and resurrection to what happens to Jonah and the 
great fish according to Jonah chapter 2? So the Old Testament 
testified that the Christ would suffer, the Christ would die, 
but the Christ would be raised again. And then, as I said, the 
testimony of Jesus, Matthew 16, Matthew 20, Matthew 28 as well. The angels say, he is not here, 
for he is risen, as he said. This wasn't an isolated theme 
in the teaching ministry of our Lord. So verse eight, when he 
comes to that place and he sees it, and he confesses, or rather 
tells us that he understood and says, believed, He hadn't up 
to this point gotten his mind wrapped around all that the scriptures 
had said concerning the Christ. Now in terms of the connection 
between the eyewitness testimony of John and the experience of 
the scripture, of John's eyewitness experience and the testimony 
of scripture. Again, Edward Klink says, the 
resurrection explains the scripture, what is read. And the scripture 
explains the resurrection, what is seen and experienced. They 
work in harmony. They're not at odds. The Old 
Testament prophesied, the New Testament confirms. The Old Testament 
promised, the New Testament fulfills. The Old Testament anticipates, 
the New Testament records and theologizes. Paul in 1 Corinthians 
chapter 15 talks about the death and the resurrection of our Lord 
Jesus Christ. That's historical fact. But Paul 
gives us theology as well for our sin. Machen makes that distinction. Historical fact and the theological 
emphasis of those facts. But with reference to this, Klink 
goes on to make this observation, and I think it's very helpful. 
This is not to suggest that the first Christians manufactured 
a resurrection in their interpretation of Old Testament prophecy. In 
other words, based on what they're seeing, they don't go, okay, 
we can fit Jesus in to Isaiah 53. We can fit Jesus in to Jonah 
2. We can fit Jesus in to the Psalter. We can fit Jesus in to Hosea 
6. That's not what happened. So 
this is not to suggest that the first Christians manufactured 
a resurrection in their interpretation of Old Testament prophecy. Rather, 
the fact of the resurrection facilitated a fuller meaning 
in their reading of the same Old Testament. That's a better 
way to go. Now that the tomb is empty, oh. Remember that scene where Philip 
comes to the Ethiopian eunuch and Philip asks him in Acts chapter 
eight, do you understand what you're reading? And the eunuch 
is honest. He's not the modern narcissist 
that knows it all. The eunuch says, well, how can 
I unless somebody explains it? So what does Philip do? He turns 
to the prophet Isaiah, which the eunuch happened to be reading. And from Isaiah 53, preaches 
Jesus to him. Philip didn't put Jesus in Isaiah 
53. Philip now understood what Isaiah 
53 was talking about. The disciples didn't put the 
death, the resurrection, the ascension, and the exaltation 
of our Lord in the Old Testament. They didn't manufacture it, but 
rather when they saw the life, the death, the resurrection of 
our Lord Jesus, when they saw the ascension, when they understood 
the exaltation from the right hand of the Father, And when 
the one at the right hand of the Father gives the Spirit of 
truth, who will lead you into all truth, they became better 
interpreters of the Old Testament. And they realized that the Old 
Testament, always and everywhere, pointed forward to the Lord Jesus 
Christ. And again, this is an emphasis 
through the book of Acts. You see a change of leadership. 
The Jewish Sanhedrin increasingly persecutes the church. Who emerges 
as the authorized interpreters and teachers of Holy Scripture 
in the Book of Acts? It's not the Sanhedrin, it's 
the apostles of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Consider 
the apostle Paul, or better, Saul of Tarsus, as he's breathing 
out threats and anger and menacing and murder with reference to 
the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. You cannot suggest for 
a moment that Saul, having been a Pharisee, Saul being, according 
to law, blameless, that Saul being an Israelite, a Benjamite, 
circumcised the eighth day, that he was unaware of the Old Testament 
scriptures? Of course not. He understood 
them all too well. And it was that animus that drove 
him to try to destroy the church of the living Christ. Except 
on that road to Damascus, when Christ comes, when Christ saves 
him, when Christ converts him, now Saul has the interpretative 
key for the entirety of the Old Testament. Oh, now I get it. Oh, now I understand. Oh, now 
I see how Jonah and Hosea and Isaiah and David and the law, 
the prophets, the writings all foretold this age of Messiah. It's glorious, brethren. There's 
no animosity between eyewitness testimony and what the scriptures 
had written. And then we see in verse 10, 
then the disciples went away again to their own homes. It's 
kind of a throwaway verse just to fill in for us, the coming 
narrative that deals with Jesus and Mary Magdalene specifically, 
and then Jesus will come back to the disciples. But leaning 
on Klink once again, he notes that the same terminology is 
in John 1 11. Jesus came to his own and his 
own did not receive him. Jesus had told them in the upper 
room, you will be scattered each to his own in 1632. And now in verse 10 of chapter 
20, then the disciples went away again to their own. Why? To wait further instructions 
from the Lord of glory that they were gonna see. Those further 
destruction, not disruptions, but instructions are called the 
Great Commission. Jesus says, all authority in 
heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and 
make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of 
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching 
them to observe all things that I have commanded you. And lo, 
I'm with you always, even to the end of the age. So the apostles, 
Peter and John, go back to their own. They will see the Lord. They will verify and confirm 
with their own eyes that the Lord has indeed risen, corroborating 
what the Old Testament prophesied. And they'll receive from that 
one who's both omnipotent and omnipresent with them. He starts 
with omnipotence. All authority in heaven and on 
earth has been given to me. And he ends with omnipresence. And lo, I am with you always, 
even at the end of the age. It's a good question for the 
church. Why aren't we going? Why aren't we making disciples? 
Why aren't we baptizing them and teaching them to observe 
all things that the Lord has commanded? It's grounded in Christ's 
absolute authority. Christ has promised a special 
presence with us while we're engaged in this particular task. 
So we want to be about the Great Commission in our praying, the 
Great Commission in our giving, the Great Commission in our worshiping, 
the Great Commission in that which dictates the life and ministry 
of churches. It's not supposed to be entertainment, 
it's not supposed to be rah-rah sessions, it's not just supposed 
to be self-help or pep squads. We are to be Christ's soldiers 
engaged in the work of getting the gospel out to the uttermost 
parts of the earth so that God may save from every tribe, every 
tongue, every people, and every nation. This, again, is what 
we see in the book of Revelation. Now, in conclusion, just want 
to do two quick things. First, the historical reality 
of the resurrection, and then secondly, the theological significance 
of the resurrection. The historical reality of it. 
the historical reality of it. First, the scriptural testimony 
and the words of Jesus Christ. If asked the question, does the 
Old Testament promise the resurrection of Jesus, you should be able 
to say, yes, it does. Absolutely, positively, it does. 
Even in the typology with Abraham and Isaac, The apostle later 
fleshes that out in this way. Abraham knew that even if he 
followed through and killed Isaac, God was able to raise him from 
the dead. And remember when Isaac makes 
the query, I know we've got the wood, we've got the fire, we've 
got all those things for sacrifice, but where's the sacrifice, dad? What's Abraham's response? The 
Lord will provide. When the angel stays the hand 
of Abraham from cutting into his son, haphazardly, luckily, 
they turn around and they see a ram caught in the thicket. 
The Lord will provide the Lamb of God who takes away the sin 
of the world. We've got the first person that 
Jesus appeared to was a woman. Again, in our modern age, girl 
power and all that doesn't really slap us on the head. But in this 
age, the testimony of women was virtually useless. I said virtually 
to be nice. It was useless. The Mishnah reports 
that the testimony of a woman was not admissible in court. 
Why do you think the authors of the Gospels write that Jesus 
first appeared to women? Because they ain't got nothing 
to hide. In Matthew 28, when Jesus appears to the disciples, 
I don't mean just the 12, but a broader group of disciples, 
it says that some worshiped and others doubted. Why, if you're 
Matthew, do you record or indicate that some doubted? Don't you 
want to strengthen your story? Yeah, if you're a liar. Why does the author include David's 
fall into adultery and murder? Because it was true. As well, we've got unbelief connected 
with the fact among the early disciples. Liars and conspiracy 
try to get their story straight. Right? You know you pulled off 
a crime. I'm getting really wacky with 
the illustrations this morning, but indulge me. Not that I've 
ever had the desire to grave rob. I used that earlier. That 
was kind of odd. But imagine you committed a crime 
with your friends. What do you do before the cops 
take your statements? You collude. You iron out any, 
you know, seams. You alibi up. Oh yeah, I saw 
him in my kitchen at 342 in the afternoon when that bank was 
robbed. You don't get that in the gospel 
authors. You don't get that. You don't 
get collusion. You get different perspectives, 
not contradictory perspectives, but different perspectives, much 
the way you would if you saw an accident that happened in 
Five Corners and the police talked to four or five different people. 
We all saw something different. Not contradictory, but if you're 
on that side of the accident, you don't see what I see on this 
side of the accident. Again, the scrutiny applied to 
scripture by the God-hater, it couldn't have happened. Why couldn't 
it happen? MacArthur once well said, you 
believe in God, you know, if you believe in evolution, you 
have to believe in a million miracles. You believe in God, you believe 
in one, God, and then everything else makes sense. As well, in 
terms of the nature of his appearances, I've got texts indicated. If 
you want them, tell me, and I will make sure you get them. He appeared 
first to the women who had left the tomb, and then specifically 
to Mary Magdalene. He appeared to Cleopas and the 
unnamed disciple on the road to Emmaus. He then appeared to 
Peter sometime that same afternoon. He appeared to the 11, minus 
Thomas, on the day of resurrection in the upper room. He invited 
his disciples to touch him, and he ate broiled fish and honeycomb 
among them. He appeared a week later to his disciples. This 
time Thomas was present. He appeared to seven of his disciples 
by the Sea of Tiberias, or Galilee, and prepared and ate breakfast 
with them. He appeared to the 11 on a mountain of Galilee. 
This occasion could have possibly been the one when he also appeared 
to more than 500 people. He appeared to James, his half-brother. 
He appeared again to the 11 on the occasion of his ascension 
into heaven. And he appeared to Saul of Tarsus sometime later. Now think about this. He appeared 
to individuals. He appeared to a pair of disciples, 
to small groups, to large assemblies, to women and to men, in public 
and private, at different times of the day and both in Jerusalem 
and Galilee. Hard to pin this on mass hallucination. How could 
it possibly be the case that that many people mass hallucinated 
at a specific event? The idea that this is faked, 
that this is forged, or that somehow the disciples did go 
under the stealth of night and steal this body and then, you 
know, spirit it away and hide it, it's just, that's absurd. It's easier to believe in the 
resurrection than these 11 disciples going by night, stealing the 
body, hiding it somewhere, and then living happily ever after, 
which, by the way, they didn't. His preachers of the empty tomb 
that they were, they suffered. They were beaten. They were stoned. They were martyred for the cause. 
A couple of them were crucified. One was thrown into a vat of 
boiling oil. And he managed to survive that 
and ends up in exile on the island of Patmos for the word of God 
and the testimony of our Lord. This is not hallucination. This 
is not fabrication. This is not manufactured. This 
is the truth of God most high. The Christ lived for us men and 
for our salvation. The Christ died for us men and 
for our salvation. And the Christ was raised again 
for us men and for our salvation. in terms of the theological significance 
of the resurrection. The empty tomb here confirms 
for these apostles something that they had heard on many occasions 
from the Lord, that he was the one sent by the Father. He was the one sent by the Father, 
the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father who 
has declared the Father. As well, it affirmed that the 
incarnation was in fact the incarnation of the Word. Because if you get 
John 1, 1 down, in the beginning was the Word and the Word was 
with God and the Word was God, dropping down to 1, 14, the Word 
became flesh and dwelt among us, it makes sense that the Word 
would not remain in the tomb. As well, it demonstrates that 
he is the antitype of the temple. Chapter 2, verses 19 to 22. Remember, destroy this temple 
and in three days I will raise it up. What's their response? 
It took our fathers 46 years to build this temple and you're 
going to raise it up in three days? What's the theologian tell us? 
He was talking about the temple of his body. The temple and the 
tabernacle were types. Jesus is the anti-type. Jesus 
is the fulfillment. I have said it on many occasions. 
We shouldn't want to go backwards in redemptive history to an earthly 
temple. The true temple is here. He's 
enthroned at the right hand of the majesty on high. The idea 
that we want to build whatever dome it is, it's just going backwards 
in redemptive history. Christ is the anti-type. I would 
suggest as well from John's Gospel, the affirmation Or rather, the 
execution of judgment on the last day. John 5, 28 and 29. Jesus speaks of a God-befitting 
task that was entrusted to him, and it's judgment. John 6, 40. What does he say? I will raise 
him up on the last day. Doesn't that assume that if it's 
Jesus raising him up on the last day, that Jesus will be raised 
from the dead? Absolutely it assumes that. As 
well, go back just a moment to the upper room in John 14. The 
empty tomb affirms his promise, or rather is the application 
of his promise. Notice in John 14 at verse 18, 
I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you. A little 
while longer and the world will see me no more, but you will 
see me. Because I live, you will live also. At that day you will 
know that I am in my father and you in me and I in you. Jesus 
applies this at the resurrection. As well, moving a bit out of 
John's gospel in terms of theology of the resurrection is Paul. 
Paul is a theologian of the resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15 to be sure, 
but Romans 4. Jesus was delivered up because 
of our offenses. If we ask the question, why did 
Jesus have to die? Because you and I are wretched. 
Why did Jesus have to die? Because we're sinful. Why did 
Jesus have to die? Because we transgressed God's 
law and we've lacked conformity unto it. He was delivered up 
because of our offenses. But Paul doesn't stop there. 
He says, and he was raised for what? Our justification. And then of course in 1 Corinthians 
chapter 15, he highlights that this pattern, Christ, going into 
the grave, Christ being raised from the grave, Christ being 
ascended, ascending on high, Christ in glorification is the 
blessed pattern for all of those who are in Christ. You all heard 
about Vati Bacchum this week. He's with Christ now. Charlie 
Kirk a few weeks earlier, he's with Christ now. John MacArthur 
earlier in the year, he's with Christ now. And a pastor none 
of us know is with Christ now. My daughter-in-law's brother 
was the pastor of the Christ Lutheran Church in Dryden, Ontario. They found him dead yesterday. 
38 years old. Cause of death unknown at this 
point, but you know what is known? He's with Christ. He is with 
Jesus. The pattern of death, burial, 
resurrection is the pattern that the Christian believer will follow. This world ain't have everything. 
It's a veil of tears as the prophet Isaiah said. It's a world marked 
with tribulation as our Savior promised in John 16. In this 
world, you will have tribulation. But we mustn't forget the end 
of verse 33, but be of good cheer for I have overcome the world. 
What our Savior did paves the way for us such that the grave 
is defanged. Death's victory is rendered moot. Christ is triumphant. And all 
of us, by the grace of God, who died justified freely by his 
grace, will know blessed glorification. We'll know the realization of 
that hymn that we sang prior to worship. We will dwell with 
Jesus in Emmanuel's land. That is what that empty tomb 
preaches. Come what may, come what will, 
whatever the devil throws at you, whatever this world throws 
at you, whatever your remaining flesh throws at you, oftentimes 
a lot worse than the devil in the world, but whatever it is, 
Christ has overcome. Christ is victorious. That empty 
tomb preaches to us that we have hope. It preaches to us that 
we have a victorious Savior. We have a Savior who didn't try 
and save us. We don't have a Savior who perhaps 
or maybe could save us. We have a Savior who on the cross 
said, it is finished. One other passage that we ought 
to consider and then we close. If you are not a believer, the 
Apostle Paul went to a place called Mars Hill or the Areopagus. And it was one of these places 
where philosophers would hang out. In this instance, Stoics 
and Epicureans. And they'd stroke their beards 
and they'd talk about new things. They heard about this Paul. This 
Paul that was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. They assumed, 
they thought he was what's called a seed picker. The text renders 
it idle babbler, but the margin, I think, is better. Seed picker. 
He picks up bits and pieces here and there, and he navigates and 
makes his own philosophy or theology. So their view of Paul was not, 
oh, this is the man of notoriety. This is the man of polish. This 
is the man of great learning and dignity. Let's hear him. 
No, it was more like, yeah, let's hear what this guy has to say. 
So he's accused of being a preacher of Jesus and the resurrection. 
Do you know what Paul does not do? He doesn't give the Stoics 
and Epicureans 10 reasons why they should believe in the resurrection. He doesn't do that. Well, there 
was an empty tomb. And I'm not saying it's wrong 
to give people 10 reasons to believe in the resurrection. 
There was an empty tomb. It was prophesied of old. There 
were eyewitness accounts. It wasn't a mass hallucination. 
All these things are true. But at the Areopagus, Paul doesn't 
take pains to explain the nature of the resurrection. He assumes 
the resurrection and makes that the proof of coming judgment. In fact, listen to what Paul 
says in Acts 17. These times of ignorance God 
overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 
because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world 
in righteousness by the man whom He has ordained. He has given 
assurance of this to all by raising him from the dead. So if that 
empty tomb preaches to Christians comfort and the promise of Emmanuel's 
land, if you are not a believer here this morning, understand 
that that empty tomb preaches to you the wrath and judgment 
of God most high. That's why Paul says, repent. Forsake your sins. Look to the 
one who lived, the one who died, the one who was raised again. 
Believe on him and you will be saved. Mark my words, we will 
all stand before the judge of the living and the dead. We will 
all stand to give an account of deeds done in the body, whether 
good or bad. 2 Corinthians 5.10. We will either 
be clothed in his righteousness and hear the blessed words, well 
done, good and faithful servant, or we will hear from the Lord 
Jesus, depart from me for I never knew you. I want to encourage 
you, if you're an unbeliever, believe. If you're not a Christian, 
be a Christian. If you're not saved, come to 
the Savior. If you're dead, look to Him who 
gives life. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. 
The scripture says, and you shall be saved. And you will be ready 
for that day of judgment, that day of judgment where God proved 
its coming by the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Well, 
let us pray. Our Father in heaven, we thank 
you for your word. We thank you for that empty tomb. 
We thank you for that life of perfect obedience, that death 
is a substitute and a sacrifice, that the Lamb of God who takes 
away the sin of the world was raised again the third day. that 
He ascended on high, that He sits enthroned at the right hand 
of God Most High, and we know He will come again in glory to 
judge the living and the dead. And I pray, God, for unbelievers 
here, that You would strike them, that You would not strike them 
dead, but strike them with conviction, show them their need for the 
Savior, and may they, by Your grace, call upon Jesus, that 
they might live. For all of us, as Your people, 
we see much in terms of discouraging things, perpetually see discouraging 
things, but help us to look beyond that, to Emmanuel's land, to 
the reality that you've promised, that those you justify, those 
you will also glorify. And we ask this in Jesus' name, 
amen.