Chag Yom haBikkurim sameach kol beit Yisra'el and Mishpachah and welcome to this later-than-usual assembly on this the Day of Firstfruits of whom Yah'shua (Jesus) is the Firstfruits of the Resurrection. I was honestly unsure that I would be able to speak to you today as I was quite ill again last night having had no time to prepare for this important day. But by the grace of Elohim (God) I pray that will be able to relay at least a short davar (word) to you, because I want this to especially be my personal testimony.

For those of you who are new to the festivals or who are otherwise a little rusty, a brief word as on the past two days if I may be permitted, today. Aviv 16 and the second day of Chag haMatzah is the day ordained by Yahweh anciently when the first of the barley harvest was brought as an offering to the cohen or priest in the Tabernacle/Temple during this the third of the four spring festivals. The cohen (priest) would present the first of the harvest to Yahweh by waving the sheaths of barley back and forth. This reminded the Hebrews that Yahweh had given them the land, and that the harvest belonged to Him.

The apostle Paul explained the messianic significance of this divine moed (appointment) in his first letter to the Corinthians:

"But now Messiah (Christ) is risen from the dead, and has become the bikkurim (firstfruits) of those who have fallen asleep [in death]. For since by man (Adam) came death, by Man (Yah'shua/Jesus) also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Messiah (Christ) all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Messiah (Christ) the bikkurim (firstfruits), afterward those who are Messiah's (Christ's) at His coming" (1 Cor.15:20-23, NKJV).

Yah'shua (Jesus) is therefore the firstfruits or bikkurim of those who are restored to physical life and immortality. And His resurrection marked the beginning of the harvest of souls. In the Gospel of John, Yah'shua (Jesus) is likened to a grain of wheat falling to the ground and dying to produce a great harvest:

"Yah'shua (Jesus) answered them, saying, 'The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified. Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain...And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself" (John 12:22-24,32, NKJV).

Last year (2020) we had a 7-part series called The Resurrection Narratives for those who want to dig deeper. In those we made an extremely thorough study of the resurrection which I recommend to those of you who may be new to this work and are listening in for the first time to the happenings of the spring festivals. Whereas the orthodox churches (Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox) celebrate the resurrection which they call 'Easter', named after a pagan deity called Astarte, and therefore really quite blasphemous, in New Testament times it was observed on the Day of Firstfruits - Yom haBikkurim - because Yah'shua (Jesus), the firstfruits of the resurrection, rose on the Day of Firstfruits which was prophetically named for Him. All the Israelite festivals point to Christ, as does this one. And that is why they are even more relevant to us in the New Covenant than they were in the Old, if for no other reason that four of these festivals - the spring and summer ones - have already been prophetically fulfilled.

Today I want to share my personal testimony which seems appropriate given how mortal I am feeling currently and if I were ever to leave the world a 'last sermon' I would want it to be on this theme. Though I was brought up a cultural Christian in my homeland of Malaysia, I had no knowledge or experience of spiritual regeneration or rebirth. Perhaps because of this I slipped fairly easily into atheism when I was sent to boarding school in England. And though having a cultural affinity to Christian values doesn't make you a Christian or Messianic in the biblical sense, there is no doubt I was blessed to have been raised in that Anglican matrix before that denomination embraced modernism, and then postmodernism, and finally apostatised. Today it is little more than a political and social lobbying group for Western neo-Marxist governments.

Though it is true there were a lot of supernatural encounters that led me to faith and committment to Christ about which I mostly speak when I am sharing my testimony [1], there was also the intellectual, rational side too of an Oxford undergraduate in Biochemistry. It suprises my atheist and agnostic friends and acquaintaines when I tell them that the case for the physical resurrection of Yah'shua (Jesus) is supported by an overwhelming amount of factual evidence.

Why is that important? Because the resurrection is the lynchpin of Christianity and our final hope, something that the apostle Paul realised when he wrote:

"But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your emunah (faith) is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of Elohim (God), because we have testified of Elohim (God) that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up -- if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your emunah (faith) is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable" (1 Cor.15:13-19, NKJV).

This then is, arguably, the most important area of study for any prospective believer. I'm going to leave a list of some of my favourite books, both for the layman and the scholar, that will ground you well in the data. Two in particular I'd like to mention here and now. First, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Garry Habermas and Michael Licona which is very thorough and readable, and for the craniacs among you, The Resurrection of the Son of God by Anglican scholar and former Bishop, N.T.Wright, who has come under enormous fire from his liberal friends at Canterbury but which, if you can aborb it, can really leave no excuse for unbelief.

My journey as a scientist coming to faith largely proceeded from my own scientific disciplines of Biology and Chemistry as I faced the whole evolution-creation controversy. I was myself a Darwinist initially since that's all I had ever been taught though I did have nagging doubts when I was about 17 or 18 because the evidence just didn't seem to add up. I was also, at this time, developing a keen interest in history which led me to start writing a book (an historical atlas) at the same age which I finished just after I got my degree from Oxford. Theology wasn't that important to me at first but only later as I was forced to confront the confusion of the denominations. It was then I turned to Yahweh for a direct revelation to start sorting the mess out.

To disbelieve the resurrection accounts in the Bible you either have to believe Christ got His own predictions completely wrong or that someone faked the Gospel texts altogether. We have discussed textual accuracy and reliability over the years and most recently that of the Book of Daniel, you will remember, which we devoted 2½ weeks to close historical examination. Like the Book of Daniel, though, the Gospels hardly read like a fake or counterfeit.

Yah'shua (Jesus) repeatedly predicted His death and resurrection yet His talmidim (disciples) didn't seem to have a clue what He was talking about [2]. Even when His empty tomb was discovered, the immediate conclusion they drew was that His body had been stolen (Jn.20:2,13-15) not that He had been raised from the dead. And when the ladies discovered the empty tomb, the men though they were just telling an idle tale (Lk.24:10-12). And even when the talmidim (disciples) all turned up, they had no idea what to think (Jn.20:9). Thomas adamently refused to believe (Jn.20:24-25). If the talmidim (disciples) had faked the Gospels, do you think they would have presented themselves in such a bad light? You don't deliberately set out to embarrass yourself. So human nature is one piece of evidence. Dishonest people just don't want to make asses out of themselves but will do everything they can to present themselves in the most flattering light possible. And would you have written four fake Gospels, thus multiplying the chances of internal contradiction, or just one which would be easier to control?

As scientists we are trained to be sceptical. To be believable, sceptics insist on two things:

• 1. First, that the data is strongly evidenced; and
• 2. Second, that the data are accepted by virtually all scholars on a particular subject, even the sceptical ones.

Aside from the unbelievers themselves, the most sceptical of all the talmidim (disicples), Thomas, not only believed when confronted with the overwhelming evidence but virtually alone testified that the resurrected Yah'shua (Jesus) was Elohim (God) and worshipped Him! (Jn.20:28) Yah'shua (Jesus) did not begrudge him his scepticism but did add there was a price to be paid for it because those who believe without the kind of evidence that Thomas demanded are far more blessed (Jn.20:29).

Actually, I think we are all like Thomas at times, and if you are not, give me your name and address afterwards and I will come and sit at your feet as a willing pupil because I don't want to make scepticism my default! Rather, it can be a tool in my armoury both for the untrusting side of my continuing unredeemed nature as well as for witnessing to those who do not yet believe.

I don't envy the sceptic, actually, because he (or she) is obliged to respond to every fact presented. And the more facts you can present, the more the sceptic will have to alter his position, until in the end he gets himself in a hopeless muddle and is forced to reconsider. Those who refuse are, well, just not honest.

The death of Yah'shua (Jesus) by crucifixion is no longer contested as an historical event by the vast majority of scholars of all stripes because at least five disparate non-Christian sources attest to it:

• 1. Josephus;
• 2. Tacitus;
• 3. Lucian;
• 4. Mara Bar-Serapion; and
• 5. The Talmud.

The vast majority of scholars - Christian as well as atheist - attest to the historicity of the New Testament. That wasn't so 50 years ago when the sceptics were in the majority. Many of them may not believe in the supernatural bits but they agree these texts are authentic and what's in them is what the writers and witnesses they described (who were real) believed. That's quite important because then we can look at the various internal witnesses to see if what they said is credible.

Numerous people, many named (but as many as several hundred) testify that Yah'shua (Jesus) rose from the dead and appeared to them. They claimed this literally happened - Paul writes the most about it, but an oral tradition quickedly developped (a kind of pool of testimonies) consisting of creeds and sermon summaries, plus a written tradition consisting of the Gospels themselves and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. Most importantly, all these people believed He rose from the dead and at least seven ancient sources attest they were willing to suffer and die for their claim. Many are the martyrs from those earliest days as recorded by (and often including) Paul, Luke, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Tertullian, Dionysius of Corinth and Origen, who write about the martyrs. Contrast that with the witnesses to the Book of Mormon gold plates, most of whom denied their 'testimonies' eventually. None of the Resurrection winesses is ever known to have denied their testimony.

One of the biggest sceptics around was Yah'shua's (Jesus') half brother, James. He not only converted (recorded in numerous places) but he was willing to die for his testimony (as told by Josephus, Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria). Brothers living in the same family day in and day out tend know one another pretty well as a rule and at first all of the Saviour's biological brothers were sceptical. The resurrection turned them around completely. So the witnesses are many as well, in some cases, as being unlikely. The rabbinical Judaism of the day took a very dim view of women whose witness was regareded as lesser than that of a man, as remains true in one global religion still today. Yet the recorders of the Gospels state that women were the first witnesses, the last you would choose if you were faking an account because of the prejudice of the time.

The sceptic needs to bear five facts in mind when considering the claims of the Resurrection:

• 1. Yah'shua's (Jesus') attested death by crucifixion;
• 2. The belief of the talmidim (disciples) that Yah'shua (Jesus) actually appeared to them right at the beginning (not weeks, months or years later);
• 3. The astonishing conversion of the Gospel's arch-enemy and persecutor, the Pharisee Paul;
• 4. The conversion of sceptical James (who claims to have seen his resurrected Brother); and
• 5. The empty tomb.

The resurrection is an historical fact even if you cannot explain it. And ancient critics have been attempting to refute this without success now for two millennia. The more the scholarship grows (which is a long, slow process of accumulating and sorting through data), the weaker the sceptics' case gets.

What about the claims that other religions have resurrection stories?

• 1. Firstly, the accounts are very unclear and are not considered parallels by today's standards;
• 2. Secondly, the first clear parallel account is not until over 100 years after Yah'shua (Jesus);
• 3. Thirdly, it is questionable that an actual 'resurrection' was reported in the earliest versions of these pagan accounts. In any case, all these accounts lack evidence and can easily be accounted for by opposing theories; and finally;
• 4. Fourthly, these accounts cannot explain the evidence that exists for Yah'shua's (Jesus') resurrection.

Two 'fraud theories' are typically advanced which are very weak - either:

• 1. The talmidim (disciples) lied and stole the body; or
• 2. Someone else stole the body.

Then you get the outright silly stories like the witnesses went to the wrong tomb. Do you remember the silly theory advanced by the liberals that there were two Daniels, and the one in the historical records was a Baal-worshipper, even though there's not a shred of evidence?

Finally, there's the 'apparent death theory', that He fainted and then recovered later, to then go off elsewhere and die a natural death. One of these theories, advanced by a Moslem sect, is he went to India and died in Kashmir. There is supposedly a tomb to him in Srinagar there. But then linking Yah'shua (Jesus) to either Egyptian or Indian polytheism, or to the mystical land of Tibet, is the popular pastime of a number of New Age groups, from the made-up Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ to the fraudulent Gospel of the Holy Twelve that was channelled by spirits.

Next it's the turn of the sceptical psychologists. All these witnesses were delusional even though they were all, apparently, being 'delusional' at the same time and having the same delusion. That theory works for frauds to be sure and those of you who may know anything about Mormon history will know numerous witnesses claim to have seen and handled the original gold plates of the Book of Mormon though, as it turns out, they only 'saw' in some sort of 'vision' or hypnotic condition - in other words, it wasn't physical, no more than the original Book of Mormon was made of physical gold or any other material. When multiple people hallucinate they don't usually see the same thing because it's subjective, not objective. The thing about the resurrection appearances is they were very 'bodily' and 'physical'. They handled Yah'shua (Jesus) as Thomas did and groups of people spoke with Him for hours at a time over many days.

I could go on and I have only shared about a third of what I would like to say. It's one thing to be sceptical of a revelation, dream or vision, which noone else can see, because you only have their word. But in the matter of the resurrection we're dealing with the conceret and physical which theoretically every human alive could be a witness to and say pretty much the same thing. Yah'shua (Jesus) appeared physically and interacted with mortals in the same way mortals interacted with each other. Of the three things Yah'shua (Jesus) in His ministry - healing miracles, teachings and being resurrected - two of these (healing miracles and resurrection) were very physical indeed, easy to ascertain whether they had happened or not because of the multiple witnesses, and therefore impossible to rationally deny.

The hyper-sceptics, who are usually materialists and deny the supernatural, the spiritual, and a material-independent existence of consciousness, potentially face a mental crisis because the very fabric of their world-view is challenged. Just as the Books of Genesis, Daniel and Revelation are the most critiqued by the sceptics, so too, as expected, is the resurrection.

There was a time the sceptics claimed Yah'shua (Jesus) never existed at all but that theory is long since dead. You won't find many advocating it now. You can criticise minor differences in the resurrection accounts but that is in the nature of eye-witness reporting, as any criminologist or courtroom judge will tell you. The fact that there are differences actually supports the case more, not less, because we all notice and highlight different things based on our personality.

At some point sceptics, who cannot marshall concrete evidence for their scepticism, cross an invisible line into psychology and emotionlism. The heart requires a different kind of evidence to the mind, but evidence it definitely needs. The heart needs meaning. A crisis of world-view occurs when the heart diametrically opposes what the logical mind cannot deny, or vice versa.

Believe it or not, the Jehovah's Witnesses are sceptics of the physical resurrection, one reason they are not Christians in any more than a cultural and moral sense. They, like many others in the New Age Movement, claim Christ was raised as a 'spirit' and not as a body-spirit combination. They appeal to 1 Corinthians 15:44-50 which I have commented on before where Paul says Yah'shua (Jesus) was raised as 'spirit' rather than in any physical sense (1 Cor.15:44-50). However, Paul is not here contrasting 'spirit' with 'matter' but 'spiritual' with 'non-spiritual' where 'spiritual' (pneumatikos in the Greek) means 'spiritually mature in this world' [3], or rather of something that has to do with, or has as its origin, the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit) [4]. With the possible, sole exception of Ephesians 6:12, the term is never used in the Pauline epistles to refer to or describe a being as immaterial. And so the Jehovah's Witnesses, who are not Bible scholars, claim that Yah'shua (Jesus) faked a physical body so as not to freak out His talmidim (disciples) and then quietly dissolved it again afterwards, returnning to being a spirit-being. The New Agers simply deny He was ever physically resurrected at all because...that's what they believe.

So for me personally, after I had dug deep enough (and I have been digging deeper ever since), it is quite as illogical for me to believe Yah'shua (Jesus) wasn't resurrected as it would be insane for me to believe that the fairy godmother of evolution made everything out of nothing. I just don't have enough faith to believe either because the evidence is utterly uncompelling. My faith is fact-based where facts are available and involved reason, because reason in Christianity/Messianism is a component of proactive biblical emunah (faith). In fact, we are commanded to reason (Is.1:18) and not exercise blind faith. So don't believe the lie that materialist scientists advance that faith and reason are incompatible. It's nonsense. Scientists live by faith and reason like anyone else otherwise they wouldn't advance hypotheses to test, nor would they make assumptions (another word for faith) that the universe runs on the basis of universal laws that allows science to function in the first place.

Habermas and Licona give a good illustration I'd like to share to conclude the evidence I want to present for the resurrection:

"If a number of credible witnesses testified that Joseph Stalin had risen from the dead last year and walked around Russia for two months, we would not be quick to believe, even if some evidences were present and no plausible naturalistic theories were available. Why is it different for Jesus (Yah'shua)? This is where context counts.

"Stalin never claimed divinity for himself, never performed miracles, and never predicted that he would return from the grave. His resurrection from the dead would be completely out of place. Yah'shua's (Jesus') life, on the other hand, created a context in which His resurrection from the dead would not be a surprise. He claimed that He was divine. He performed deeds that were interpreted as miracles. And He predicted His resurrection.

"This context is not evidence for Jesus' (Yah'shua's) resurrection. However, it presents an additional perspective when someone says, 'People just don't come back to life after being dead'. The context of Jesus' (Yah'shua's) life and claims cannot be ignored. For if God (Elohim) exists, there is no reason why the Author of life could not raise the dead. And Jesus (Yah'shua) was just the sort of person we might expect God (Elohim) to raise" [5].

All of this, and far, far more, provides intellectual backing, stability and security for what I already know existentially in my heart or spirit or whatever you want to call the invisible part of us. If you want to know all about that, then that's partly why I have created a whole website. You can read my conversion story in A Glimpse into Heaven.

If the resurrection is true - and it is, I firmly believe - then it demands a response from us, because it didn't just happen for its own sake, as a kind of freak show. The resurrection is to show us what we can enjoy if we will do what the One who was Resurrected asks of us, because He offers to do the same for us one day. Life doesn't end at death, nor are we simply consigned to be etherial spirits for all eternity when our body it cremated or inturned in the grave. Our Creator, Yahweh-Elohim, intends us to return here to planet earth, as physical beings, but without sickness and death, violence and oppression. We're here, in this world, on assignment, not to do whatever we please (but we can choose to do so, if we want) but to be refined and purified through the resurrected Messiah for a much better world to come and an eternal purpose. This life is like a school or college, a learning and testing-ground, and much more, but it's not permanent. It is full of contradictions as one would expect of a fallen world spoiled by man's sin, a world where heaven and hell intersect. We have things to do here, mostly pertaining to people, to help them along and be helped ourselves. It's a hard, hard world to make sense of at times, to be sure, but there is an underlying purpose for existence.

I made my final commitment to Christ on 30 March 1977 as an Oxford undergraduate, 44 years ago almost to the day, and I was born-again of the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit). Everything changed. I got a new heart, a new life, a new beginning, a new purpose, a new empowerment, and a new hope. There's been a lot to learn and there's doubtless a lot yet to be learned, if Yahweh will give me the extra days to serve longer. I love Yah'shua (Jesus) with all my being and, imperfect though I am, I am happy to be His servant and to help others along the way as so many have helped me. The physical resurrection is the foundation of my belief and pretty much everything else flows out of it, including the spiritual empowering I have enjoyed over the years. I am glad I could have shared this with you today - I wasn't sure if I'd be able to prepare it, let alone deliver it, but I am glad I have been able to do it. It's a good way to me to end and it might possibly be someone else's beginning.

May the grace and peace of our Master Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) be with you all this day and forever more, is my sincere wish and prayer. Amen.

Endnotes

[1] See Christopher C. Warren
[2] Mark 8:31-33; 9:31-32; 14:27-31; Luke 24:13-24
[3] 1 Corinthians 2:15; 3:1; 14:37; cp. Galatians 6:1
[4] 1 Corinthians 2:13-14; 9:11; 10:3-4; 12:1; 14:1
[5] Gary R.Habertmas & Michael R.Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Kregel Publications. Grand Rapids, Michigan: 2004), p.171
[6] Gary R.Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (College Press Publishing Company, Joplin, Missouri: 1996)

Recommended Reading on the Resurrection

[1] For teachers and those with a scholarly bent, then by far the most authoriative works on the subject from an historian's point-of-view are undoubtedly N.T.Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (SPCK, London: 2003) & Gary R.Habertman & Michael R.Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Kregel Publications. Grand Rapids, Michigan: 2004)
[2] For the layman, Sir Norman Anderson, Jesus Christ: The Witness of History (Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, UK: 1985), chapter 4 (pp.111-157) & Philip Yancey. The Jesus I Never Knew (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan: 1995), chapters 10-11, pp.187-220 are also good reads

Recommended Reading for Sceptics in General

[1] Norman L.Geisler & Frank Turek, I Don't Have Enough faith to Be an Atheist (Crossway, Wheaton, Illinois: 2004)
[2] Dr. Eben Alexander, Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife (Piatkus, London: 2012)
[3] Paul C. Vitz, Psychology as Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship, 2nd edition (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan: 1994)
[4] Jonathan Gray, The Killing of Paradise Planet: Lost History from the Pre-Flood World (Teach Services, Inc., USA: 2005), Surprise Witness: Global Events During the Flood (2005) & The Corpse Came Back: Post-Flood Evidence Revealed (2005)
[5] Dr.John C.Lennox, God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (Lion, Oxford: 2009) & Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target (2011)
[6] Alister McGrath, Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life (Blackwell Publishing, Oxford: 2005) & The Dawkins Delusion: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine (SPCK, London: 2007)
[7] Ravi Zacharias & Norman Geisler, Who Made God? And Answers to Over 100 Other Tough Questions of Faith (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan: 2003)
[8] Haim Shore, Coincidences in the Bible and in Biblical Hebrew (iUniverse Inc., New York: 2008)
[9] Peter S.Williams, C.S.Lewis vs. the New Atheists (Paternoster,Crown Hill, Milton Keynes, England: 2013)
[10] Ravi Zacharias, The End of Reason: A Response to the New Atheists (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan: 2008)
[11] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd edition (Crossway, Wheaton, Illinois: 2008)
[12] Eds. Paul Coplan & William Lane Craig, Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics (Academic, Nashville, Tennessee: 2012)
[13] Norman L.Geisler & Ronald M.Brooks, Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking (Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, Michigan: 1990)
[14] Richard Barns, The Dawkins Proof for the Existence of God, 2nd edition (www.thedawkinsproof.com: 2020)
[15] Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan: 2000)
[16] Dr.William Cooper, The Authority of the Book of Genesis (Creation Science Movement, , UK: 2011)