Resurrection MorningHelen Setterfield, updated June 2016 The Crucifixion and Resurrection were, without a doubt, the most important events in the history of the world. The accounts differ, however, and for two very good reasons: first, nothing was written down immediately. Jesus was there, He showed Himself to a great many people, and in the shock and joy of the time, the disciples were just living it through, not writing about it. Even after the Ascension there was every hope and expectation that Christ would return soon to set up His Kingdom. It was not until several years had passed that the Gospels would be written. Internal evidence indicates all four Gospels were written before 70 AD, as none mention the destruction of Jerusalem. In fact, John’s Gospel, in John 5:2, says “Now there IS in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool….” Had Jerusalem been destroyed by the time John wrote, he would have said “There WAS in Jerusalem….” So the Gospels were not written immediately, but they all were written within about 35 years of the events. Memories had been seared by the events, but for each person, different aspects appeared to stand out. Second, these events were recounted by four different men. Three were eyewitnesses to the risen Christ (Matthew, Mark, and John, though only John was at the Tomb that morning) and Luke was a Greek doctor who researched the events after the fact. It is very evident in his narrative that he paid attention to what the women saw and remembered, and he must have interviewed them rather extensively to get the material he did. Men don't always see things the way that women do, or remember the same sorts of things. That does not make either sort of account invalid -- they just remember different things. All the accounts are accurate as per the memories of the men recounting them. And all show lovely insights into their characters. Please keep in mind some this analysis is conjecture, albeit based on other points brought out in Scripture, but I'll try to go through each account and then comment on it: From Matthew 28:1-15 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
You know what is striking about this rendition? Matthew knew what happened to the soldiers, and told it from their point of view for the most part! How could that happen? Remember that Matthew had been a tax collector before. Jews who worked for the Roman government in that capacity were among the most despised of people. They were seen as betrayers of their own people and even their lives could be in danger. They often had Roman guards with them. Matthew would have been in a position, then, due to past friendships and business associations, to find out from the guards themselves what had happened. Were the guards witnesses to Jesus' confrontation with the two Marys? Going into Mark, we read the Resurrection account in chapter 16. Here we run into a text note that is interesting, though. The first half of the story is in no dispute, but from verse 9 on, the text note reports, "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20." I will type the chapter below, putting a dotted line where the break between verses 8 and 9 occurs:
The last part of Mark -- the part that is disputed -- is much more reminiscent of apocryphal literature than of the way any of the gospels is written. It seems to have been inserted in such a way as to combine fact with some very questionable material which is concentrating on miracles rather than the Lord or the message. It seems to begin the narrative again, by saying "When Jesus rose early the first day of the week...." The style is different from Mark's. Jesus is never recorded by any other writer as saying the things about snakes and poison and such. When the four narratives -- especially the three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are in such agreement over so much of what was said and done otherwise, it is very hard to understand why they would not include such an assurance of the future miracle-working powers of those who would come later. Nor do we find anything like this related by Paul or encouraged by him. Therefore, we do not accept this as being original material. It appears to have been added later by some person or persons trying to divert attention from Jesus and onto miracles and such. So, paying attention instead to the first 8 verses (those above the dotted line), we find the point of view of three women. It seems to correspond roughly with what the guards remembered in Matthew. Mark also puts Salome at the scene, however. And I would guess, from the accounts that follow, that Salome did not enter the tomb itself, but stayed outside. Who was the young man? It does not say “angel.” Remember that there was also a “young man” who had fled naked from the scene of the arrest. That is also recorded in Mark and nowhere else. Was Mark the young man? This young man was wearing a white robe, and that appears to be significant. Were these night clothes, and thus a natural color or white? We really have no idea who this young man was. What we do know is that Mark writes the women were scared and said nothing when they went back to the disciples. It may well have been Salome who told the story to Mark. This would explain why Mark writes that the women said nothing. Evidently Salome was too frightened to tell. Was she somewhere else when the others told the disciples? Was Mark not with the disciples? Mark never mentions Peter and John running to the tomb, or what they found there. The very incompleteness of Mark's story seems to indicate that he was not an eyewitness to any of it. Leaving that one, let's go on to Luke. I am only going to quote the first 12 verses of Luke 24, which is the Resurrection account itself, and not go into the walk to Emmaus.
We learn some interesting things here. Luke, we know, got a good portion of what he learned from the women. But whereas Mark mentions three women who were then afraid to tell the disciples what they had seen, Luke mentions a group of women. Had the three then told the other women, all of whom then went to the tomb? This group did not see a young man in a white robe, but two beings in clothes that gleamed like lightning. It’s a different episode. It must be said, however, that it would have taken a brave person to approach, for if the seal had been broken, which it had, that meant that something illegal had happened and not many wanted to be associated with illegal activities with Herod around, especially in connection with the insurrections that were going on in Palestine. We then understand the fear and the shock and even the disbelief of those involved early that morning. We know Peter, for one, ran to the tomb. That was typically Peter. He was impetuous and often did not regard his own danger, as when he went after the high priest's servant's head and, being typically Peter again, missed and simply sliced off the man's ear. If you check Peter throughout the gospels, you will see why one of the pastors I had years ago referred to him, casually, as "old sandal breath." His foot was always in his mouth. (It is, actually, in Peter himself, that we see the incredible change from almost foolish to being very wise and bold in the Lord as evidenced in Acts and his own two letters. The fact that it did not all happen at once is evidenced by the public correction he received from Paul). At the last part of the account given by Luke, we see that Peter's reaction is simply what others saw of and in him. It was not from anything he would have told them. What he experienced is recorded in John, since John was with him when he went to the tomb. Here is John's account, from the first 18 verses of John 20:
John is the "disciple whom Jesus loved." So, for the first time, we have an eyewitness account of the tomb itself and not just what someone told someone else. What about the sequence of events? It looks like Mary Magdalene at least made three trips to the tomb that morning. One very early, starting even before sunrise (although evidently not arriving until after sunrise, or at least daybreak), one with the group of women later, and one following John and Peter. So although I find a lot of fragments here, I do not find any contradictions, actually. It was an astounding event. Certain things would burn themselves upon people's memories. John remembered exactly where the headpiece was folded and laid. Funny details like that are typical of that kind of incident which is so unbelievable all by itself. In short, I think when people are looking at the "discrepancies" in the Resurrection narratives, they are assuming that each is somehow being told from a "God's-eye view." None of them are. They are accounts being told by the people themselves, and from all four we can get a pretty good idea of how that morning unfolded, who was there, and what they remember seeing and talked about seeing later. It is the fragmentation and the so-called discrepancies themselves which lend the air of authenticity to the story of the Resurrection. If it were made-up, I would expect much more of a "God's-eye view" of the entire thing. * * * * * * * Prophecies of the Resurrection:
Feasts of Israel – a form of Prophecy. Feasts of Israel: Lev. 23 & Deut. 16. Israel came before Lord. (The new moon starts a month) All these events were fresh in the disciples mind as Acts begins 40 days after resurrection.
|