Please Click Here For Sermon Video
It is no secret that the most convincing evidence in a trial by jury is eyewitness testimony. There’s the belief that for the prosecution to win, they need only put the victim on the stand to tell what happened and provided the defence cannot find a way to discredit the witness (and they will try), victory is a given especially if there are corroborating witnesses.
Well, that works on TV, but in reality, it has been shown beyond reasonable doubt by study after study that eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable evidence that can be submitted in a court of law. Even and especially if it’s the victim giving the testimony. 75% of all exonerations by DNA cases involved people who were convicted on false eyewitness testimony. Most notable among these exonerations was a man named Ronald Cotton who was convicted of sexual assault on the eyewitness testimony of the victim who picked him out of a line-up. He was sentenced to life in prison. Ten years in, some DNA evidence was found and the true perpetrator was identified and he confessed. Cotton went free but the victim remains convinced against all evidence it was still Cotton who assaulted her.
Human memory is an odd animal. We remember images, feelings, smells, etc. These are what could be called raw data. But the story with which we tie the data together into a “memory” is actually a creation of the imagination. Brain scientists have found that when people recount a memory, the part of the brain that lights up on the brain scan is the part we use to create fictional stories. Our memory of something that happened to us that we think is as factual as a history book is actually a story that we make up and… that story gets rewritten every time we set out to remember it. And…, every time we rewrite the memory, we mysteriously alter the raw data so that the raw data fits the memory according to the way we want to remember it, not according to what actually happened. Studies in memory have shown time and again that the further in time we get from an event, the less likely what we remember is really what happened. This is because we can and will alter the details of the raw data according to the story we want to remember. This is why when something happens at work that might wind up going to Human Resources for one of those special reviews, we are told to write it down as soon as possible after the incident.
It gets worse. We can be motivated in how we shape our memories. If a memory is of something that we did that we’re not proud of, we will instinctively - not on purpose - change and narrate the details of the memory to paint ourselves in the best light so that we can live with ourselves. If the memory involves something that someone did to us for which we would like to seek revenge, we will remember what happened in a way that makes that person look their worst. And even worse, we can create very vivid memories of things that never happened; memories that are so vivid that we will never be convinced it never happened. When it comes to memory a person can believe something to be absolutely true, when in fact they made it all up to serve their own purposes. Human memory and thus eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Now you can guess where I might be going with this since here in our reading Peter says that he and the other disciples were “witnesses” to all that happened with Jesus. They witnessed his ministry in Judea and Jerusalem, his being hanged on a tree (wait a minute, I thought it was a cross), and that God raised him from the dead and that God had chosen Peter and the other ten disciples to see Jesus alive (that seems a bit cliquish, don’t you think? But to their credit the Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that over 500 men and women at the same time saw Jesus after his resurrection. In fact, Peter goes on to say, Jesus was so bodily alive that they even ate and drank with him. Given that human eyewitness testimony is so notoriously unreliable, how can anything Peter has to say here about being a witness, especially to Jesus’ post-resurrection, be taken not just as true but as reliable?
I don’t know if this will make sense, but just because someone believes their own testimony to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help me God does not therefore entail that their testimony is reliable. Peter, as do I, believes it absolutely true that Jesus was raised from the dead. So did the other ten witnesses, the other ten disciples. Their joint testimony can be and quite often is dismissed as the fabrication of a cadre of revolutionaries who see religious belief as a powerful way to get people to join your quest to take over the world. Hence, the interesting relationship between authoritarian regimes and the religious nationalists that back them. So, how do we know their testimony is true and reliable? Well, let me ramble some stuff off.
First, we have to give some credit that they all saw him together rather than having their own individual moments. People try to say that they were just having an experience of grief induced mass hallucination. But that would be the only time ever something like that has happened. Yes, it quite often happens that in the wake of the death of a loved one, individuals will see the deceased, maybe even talk with them. But, a whole group of people having the same experience, indeed multiple shared experiences including meals over the next forty days? That mass hallucinations don’t happen is what leads people to say Jesus never died in the first place. But, there is no way anyone could have survived what the Romans put Jesus and others like him through before they crucified him. Moreover, Pilate confirmed with the executioners that Jesus was dead before allowing Joseph of Arimathea to take his body several hours after he died. And that Joseph of Arimathea, a powerful Pharisee serving on the council that had the Romans crucify Jesus would allow himself to be remembered by name as the one who personally looked after Jesus’ burial in his own tomb says more for reliability than anything else.
About those eleven eyewitnesses, their testimony has persisted for almost 2,000 years. Religious movements, political movements, even empires don’t last that long. They especially don’t last that long under adversity. Why did these eleven and especially the early Christians of the first three centuries who did not see Jesus post-resurrection continue to witness to him often under severe persecution? Peter and the others stuck to the story. They never recanted nor did they seek to use their role to grow rich. They just did what Jesus told them to do: go into all the world making disciples. If they were lying, they certainly would have recanted in the face of death. Peter was crucified upside down in Rome. Andrew was crucified on an x-shaped cross in Patras, Greece. James, son of Zebedee, was the first martyr. He was beheaded by Herod Agrippa II in Jerusalem starting a persecution that caused the church to spread out from Jerusalem. Phillip was either stoned or crucified in Hierapolis in Turkey. Nathaniel was skinned alive in Armenia. Thomas went to India where he was impaled by soldiers. Matthew was killed by sword or spear in either Ethiopia or Persia. James son of Alphaeus was stoned in Jerusalem. Thaddeus was axed to death in either Persia or Syria. Simon the Zealot was either sawn in half in Persia or crucified in Britain. John was the only one to see old age but he spent a good deal of time in exile on the island of Patmos. Facing persecution and horribly painful deaths why would they further a fabrication and why would anyone listen to them and become followers of Jesus? The obvious reason, I think, is they knew it was true and reliable. But how?
The answer to that. Well, it isn’t a matter of simple rational belief so that we do what we can to convince someone to rationally accept that God raised Jesus from the dead and thus validated everything about him. Although, in my humble opinion, the evidence to that fact is as credible if not surpassing in credibility to the details of the lives of any historical figure from that time. It is also not simply a matter of accepting Jesus’ teachings nor with coming to grips with how his death was for us and for our healing. It is certainly not a matter of scaring the Hell out of people, literally, “Believe this stuff about Jesus or you’re going to Hell”.
The proof of it all is what happens when Jesus is proclaimed. Our text says, “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came down on all those who heard the message.” Where Jesus is proclaimed as living, witnessed to, lived according to, the Holy Spirit shows up. Healing happens whether it be emotional, physical, or relational. People are “touched” by him. They sense his presence. His peace. The Presence of God is what makes the message of Jesus true and reliable.
Jesus is alive and that means there is reason to have hope in this very messed world. Be his witnesses. Live like you have hope. Amen.
