I wish I knew the name of the author of this piece that I took from the Internet, but unfortunately he/she did not provide it on the website (the web address of which I have now lost). I cannot agree with the author on every particular, but it is such a very good and complete summary that I just had to share it with my readers. If any of my readers come across it and can identify the original author, I would be delighted to give that person the credit that is most assuredly deserved. I have edited only to correct typos and obvious grammatical infelicities, and have omitted a helpful chart that unfortunately would not reproduce here.
Introducing the Resurrection
When the first Christians began to preach, they taught a single doctrine, "salvation" by faith in Jesus, based on one historical event, the Resurrection. The Resurrection changed the way in which Jesus’ followers perceived Him, and in changing their perception of Him, it transformed them too. The second book of the Lucan corpus, which we call Acts, describes the disciples after Easter and before Pentecost going each day to the Temple, rejoicing, worshipping together. This represents a substantial change from the bedraggled band who fled, terrified from the scene of Jesus’ arrest, watched the crucifixion from a safe distance, and cowered in the Upper Room in the early hours of Easter morning.
So what was this event that has changed world history? What did the early church think had happened? What did they think it meant? What aspects of it can we today think of as being historical, scientific, “true”? What continuing relevance can it have, 2000 years later? These are the questions that we will be asking below.
The Marcan Resurrection Narrative
The first thing the student needs to recognize is that the original Marcan resurrection narrative ends at verse 8. There are two reasons for this conclusion:
1. There are linguistic and stylistic differences in the Greek.
2. Verses 9-20 do not appear in the very oldest manuscripts. If you ask a resurrection question that involves Mark, do not discuss verses 9-20, as these verses were not a part of the original.
Instead you should discuss other aspects – the literary and theological connections to the rest of the Gospel, and the reasons why Mark appears in chapter 16:8 to end mid-sentence, and does not include any appearances by Jesus.
There are several theories, which fall into two categories as follows:
Category 1 - Mark’s is for some reason, unfinished.
• Mark might have died before completing it, possibly in the persecution of Christians carried out by Nero in the wake of the fire in Rome in the 60s CE.
• The original ending of the Gospel might have been lost, for many reasons, before it was copied.
Some reasons for supporting this view are:
• Verses 9-20, which summarize resurrection appearances of Jesus, appear in a few quite early manuscripts, suggesting that the early Church felt very early on that the Gospel as it originally stood was incomplete without resurrection narratives.
• Why, then, should the author of the Gospel of Mark not have felt the same?
• The feeling, then, is that either the ending has been lost, or that the author would have “finished it” if he could.
• Mark 14:28 and 16:7 seem to point the reader towards a resurrection appearance in Galilee, which is omitted.
• The Gospel of Mark appears to end in mid-sentence (with the word “for,” or “however”), suggesting that there was something intended to follow it. As it stands, the grammar is, to say the least, idiosyncratic!
• Possibly the most powerful argument in favor of a lost ending – that “If St Mark did intentionally end his with these paragraphs, he was certainly behaving with considerable literary sophistication and making great demands on the understanding of his readers, whom he expected to find the whole of the resurrection in his eight allusive and enigmatic verses.” (Dennis E. Nineham, St. Mark, p.442.) Nineham refers to W. L. Knox whose work, he says, shows that this type of ending, although it would suit “the technique of a highly sophisticated type of modern literature,” is quite without parallel in the literature of the time.
Category 2 - Mark intended to complete his work at verse 8. The ‘unfinished’ feel is no mistake.
This is by far the most fashionable and popular view today, espoused by such scholars as Morna Hooker, Magnus, Dennis Nineham et al.
Here are some of the answers people who subscribe to Category 2 give to the arguments put forward in Category 1:
• If the ending of one copy of the Gospel was lost, why was it not completed from another copy?
• If it was the original copy that was unfinished for whatever reason, why did not the author, or one of his colleagues, complete it?
• The bad grammar at the end of the last verse echoes the bad grammar all the way through the Gospel.
There are various interesting theories as to why Mark should intentionally have ended his Gospel in this way. I will summarize some of Morna Hooker’s, from The Message of Mark pp. 118-121:
• The Gospel ends on a note of fear, awe and amazement. This theme brings to an end certain other sections of the Gospel, for example, the Stilling of the Storm, the Transfiguration, etc. This reaction indicates lack of understanding, another Marcan theme.
• The women with whom the story ends act as links between the Passion and Resurrection narratives. The Messiah cannot be raised without the ignominy of the cross. The glory cannot come without the suffering.
• The lack of what Hooker refers to as “cast iron evidence” forces the reader into the position of active discipleship – another Marcan theme. Mark’s message, she insists is “Go and you will see him.” not “You will see him, and then you must go.” p. 119. ,
• The invitation to his failed followers demonstrates that in spite of all their disloyalty and fear, they are still disciples, even Peter.
• Galilee is the place of discipleship, where Jesus called the disciples, trained them, taught them and sent them out.
Hooker’s analysis ends with the suggestion that Mark’s message is summed up with “Follow Jesus; that is the only way in which you will find him.”
This is a very rousing argument. But is it convincing? That is a matter on which you will have to make up your own mind.
Matthew’s Resurrection Narratives
The Power of God
Matthew’s use of apocalyptic imagery associated with the resurrection starts in Ch 27, during the crucifixion narrative – the earthquake, the raising of bodies of the saints which later appear in Jerusalem, all confirm that God has intervened in a decisive way in human history, through the passion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Something new has begun, and the world will never be the same. The eschatological imagery continues in Ch. 28, with the removal of the stone door of the tomb by an angel from heaven, the terror of the guards, and the women. All serves to underline the sovereign power of the God Who has planned this from the beginning and proclaimed it through His prophets.
Insistence on a physical resurrection in the face of opposition
Indication of local dispute with synagogue. These Jewish Christians were concerned to demonstrate the physical nature of the resurrection. The rumor that the disciples stole the body demonstrates two things.
(1) That the body of Jesus really disappeared from its burial place.
(2) That for whatever reason, no one produced it afterwards to dispel the rumor of the Resurrection. No mucking about with ‘spiritual’ resurrections, or with the ‘conviction of the continuing presence of Jesus in spirit with His disciples here.’
New Moses on the Mountain
Mountains play rather an important part in Matthew’s Gospel - the sermon on the mount, the feeding of the 5,000, the transfiguration, and now the resurrection appearance, as a new command is given by the prophet from “among you,” predicted in the Torah. God has often spoken to his chosen ones from a mountain – Abraham on Mt. Moriah (Gen 22), Moses and the people of Israel on Mt. Sinai in Exodus, Elijah on Mt. Carmel, and afterwards at Mt. Horeb (Sinai) in the “still small voice.” The Temple, of course is on Mount Zion, and here, within the Holy of Holies was the Shekinah – the cloud of God’s Presence with His people. Now, on this mountain, outside Jerusalem, which has rejected its King and been deserted by the Presence of God, symbolized by the tearing of the “veil of the Temple,” “Emmanuel,” God with us, speaks to His people gathered around Him.
New Israel’s mission to “All Nations”
In Matthew’s view the Church constitutes the “new Israel,” commissioned to succeed where the old Israel has failed. They, like the nation of Israel, have a mission to the world, to show the world what its Creator God is like, and how He wants them to live. They are to introduce the “new covenant” to the world, a covenant in which “all nations” (an expression meaning Gentiles) are invited to participate. This is in fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham that “in your seed shall all nations of the world be blessed.” (Gen 12:3)
Discipleship, Discipling and the Church
Matthew’s Gospel is the only one of the four to call the community of Jesus’ followers “The Church.” His has more to say about the duties and responsibilities of members of the church community than any other . How to treat recent converts and children, what to do if one member of the community falls out with another, and the duty of each member to use the talents he or she has been given, are all considered in the Gospel. Current speculation centers around whether this was a community that expected converts to Christianity also to live as Jews, be circumcised, keep the Torah etc. Such communities were common in the early years of Christianity, and the first major doctrinal split within the Church (described in Paul’s letter to the Galatians, and in Acts 15) was over precisely this issue.
It is clear, then, that for Matthew, conversion was not enough. Followers of Christ, members of the Church, must also be disciples, learners, marked out by baptism from the world, and the function of the Church is to teach. Matthew’s Gospel uses the Trinitarian formula for baptism, rather than the “in the Name of Jesus” formula more commonly used in Acts. Scholarly opinion varies on whether Jesus would have used this formula or not, with, for example, R. V. G. Tasker suggesting that Jesus could have used the formula, and John M. Fenton suggesting that as the earliest disciples baptized in the Name of Jesus, that probably He did not, and that this is a later addition by Matthew.
Fulfilment of prophecy – Emmanuel/I am with you always
The implicit prophecy contained within the title “Emmanuel,” given to Jesus, is fulfilled as He declares that “I am with you always, even to the end of the Age.” God has inaugurated a new Age, the Age of the Church, the Age when He has visited His people to stay. His “glory” is now to be found within His new people, the Church, which must go to all nations, and to which all nations will stream.
Luke’ Resurrection Narratives
The Nature of the Resurrection
One of the questions that you may need to address is that of the nature of the Resurrection. Few scholars doubt that Jesus’ disciples were convinced that He was, in some sense, alive after the crucifixion. There is much more dispute, however, about the nature of that “alive-ness,” and what the disciples, and the evangelists understood the word “alive” to mean.
Luke’s presentation appears to be unambiguous at first sight. The risen Jesus impacts the physical world. He can walk, talk, enter houses, pick up objects, tear bread, eat. The risen Christ explicitly denies that he is a ghost, or any form of disembodied spirit, inviting His disciples to touch His flesh and bone, as though to reassure them of His physical reality.
Yet the body with which He is provided has some unusual properties. He walks for several hours beside a (married?) couple, two of His followers, talking to them, without their recognizing Him. He can enter locked rooms without using the door, and appears to defy the laws of gravity, ascending into the sky, where his disciples finally lose sight of Him in a cloud.
So is this “body” physical or spiritual – real or unreal? George B. Caird, in his Pelican Commentary on Luke, suggests that the answer is to be found in Paul’s First Letter to the Church at Corinth, Ch 15, where the “spiritual” body is discussed. Caird suggests that the word “spiritual” used by Paul does not mean non-corporeal, insubstantial, but instead refers to a changed substance, a reality that requires a physical body for its development as its seed in the way that a plant develops from its seed. The body of the risen Jesus has qualities that can be identified as real in the sense of being physical (it occupies space, can impact upon its surroundings etc.) but with qualities that transcend those normally associated with the physical. The non-recognition of Cleopas and his companion (wife?) of the risen Jesus is explained by their not expecting to see Him, and only recognizing Him in the familiar action of giving thanks over the food.
Marcus Borg, however, thinks that 1 Corinthians 15 is “a chapter that strongly suggests that the resurrection body is not a physical body.” He invites the reader to consider whether a video camera would have caught Jesus walking with Cleopas and his companion, talking with them, going into their house. He has already made clear his difficulty believing that they could have spent so much time talking with their beloved Master without recognizing Him, the sudden recognition over the blessing, and Jesus’ disappearance. The conclusion we are to draw, he suggests, is clear. “I do not see the Emmaus Road story as reporting a particular event on a particular day, visible to anybody who happened to be there, but as a story about how the risen Christ comes to his followers again and again and again.”
There will be more discussion of the nature of the resurrection in another section.
Jesus’ continuing presence in the Eucharist?
Very early on, the Church noted that the resurrection accounts in Luke took place within the context of table fellowship. The resonances of the language used in the account of Jesus’ taking, blessing and breaking the bread in Emmaus take us to the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, our earliest account of the institution of the Eucharist, and possibly the way it was celebrated, and to the Institution itself in the Synoptic accounts of the Last Supper.
However, the two disciples were not, as far as we are aware present at the Last Supper, so possibly the implications are wider than an evocation of that meal. Here are a few suggestions: Here is the first “Messianic Banquet,” the Christ eating with His people in His new Kingdom; the first token of the extent to which the Kingdom would reach as the risen Christ is present to His disciples as they share table fellowship – men and women alike.
Just an aside here. This concept of table fellowship is a vital one throughout Jesus’ ministry. Even now, observant Orthodox Jews cannot easily observe table fellowship with non-observant Jews and Gentiles. In Jesus’ day, who you ate with was often viewed as a measure of your spirituality. Eat with the wrong people, and your whole status before God was in question, certainly your status as a Jew. And it seems that Jesus ate with all the "wrong" people – Jews who worked for the Romans, prostitutes, women who were not immediate relatives, etc. In this resurrection account, it seems to me that table fellowship is placed at the center of what Christianity is all about. It is a central sign of being “in Christ,” which is why Paul got so hot under the collar when some Jewish Christians tried to limit which Christians could eat with other Christians.
So let me here offend the whole of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic world by saying that I think that, for once, the Church of England has got it right, when it invites all who are baptized, communicant members of their churches to the Eucharistic Table, without presuming to judge their spiritual state. To refuse on principle to share this table fellowship with another person who owns the Lordship of Christ because, for example, they don’t recognize the Pope as the main representative of Christ on earth, or the Orthodox Church as the only true one, seems to me as disgraceful an act now as Jewish Christians’ refusal to share table fellowship with Gentiles because of Kashrut (dietary laws) was in Paul’s day. Either we are “in Christ” or we are not. I agree with Tom Wright who argues that the table fellowship of the Eucharist should be the starting point of our search for unity between churches, and not some “prize” to be aimed for as the end of unity.
It seems to me that Luke is saying two things to his readership. Firstly that the Risen Christ really is “in the midst” where “two or three are gathered together” in His Name. And secondly, the principal gathering is around the table of the Eucharist, and that table is presided over by Christ Himself and not by anyone else. At this table, those called by Him and by His Name are His guests – no one else’s.
Teaching the disciples - the meaning of the Resurrection
To me, one of the most interesting aspects of the resurrection appearances in Luke is the teaching given by Jesus over the 40 days between Easter and the Ascension. Of course, the number “forty” has its significance in Biblical terms. It is always a period of preparation for some God-given task. God purged the earth of evil with rain for 40 days. Israel was in the desert 40 years being prepared and purged of unbelief before entering the promised Land. Moses received the Torah over 40 days on Sinai. Elijah journeyed to Mt. Horeb for 40 days before he met God to receive his next orders. Jesus Himself spent 40 days in the desert after His baptism, preparing for the ministry upon which He was about to embark.
Now, Jesus’ followers, the twelve and others, apparently, are prepared for the receiving of the Holy Spirit and the expansion of the Community by 40 days’ teaching from Jesus. He started off, apparently on the road to Emmaus, expounding the reason for the Messiah to suffer to the two disciples, for whom the crucifixion was a stumbling block to Messiahship. As George Caird points out, “We look in vain for Old Testament predictions that the Messiah must reach his appointed glory through suffering, unless we realize that the Old Testament is concerned from start to finish with the call and destiny of Israel, and that the Messiah, as King of Israel, must embody in His own person the character and the vocation of the people of which He is leader and representative.” This is the theory that N. T. Wright takes, and expands in his work – that Jesus realized, possibly during His time of preparation in the desert, that the Kingship of God on earth could come only through the predictions about Israel being fulfilled, and that it was Jesus’ destiny to submit to the fulfillment of those predictions, including the ones about judgment, in His own body.
Next, Jesus teaches those gathered in Jerusalem, including Cleopas and his companion, on that same evening, expounding from the whole of the Tanakh (the Jewish Bible, which includes the Torah (Law), the Ketuvim (Writings, Psalms, etc) and the Nebi’im (prophets)), the way in which His life has fulfilled the conditions and promises made to and about the nation of Israel. In Acts Ch 1, Luke informs his readers that Jesus spoke of the things concerning the Kingdom of God to His disciples, instructing them to be witnesses. Interestingly, it is in Acts that scholars believe that we have the earliest kerygma (preached message) of the Christian Church, found in Acts 2 and 10. There is the tantalizing possibility that it was the risen Christ Himself who passed this on to His disciples.
The Promise of the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit has played a key role within Luke’s Gospel (see the birth narratives, temptation etc), and now, Jesus informs the disciples that the prediction of John the Baptizer that they will be baptized with the Holy Spirit (3:16) is about to come true. They are to remain in the city of Jerusalem, where they will receive the gift of the Spirit from the Father. Compare with John 20, where it is Jesus Himself Who imparts the Holy Spirit to the disciples in (a more literal) fulfillment of the Baptizer’s prediction.
The Holy Spirit is a pre-requisite for the continuance of Jesus’ work by His followers, in exactly the same way as it was a pre-requisite for Jesus’ own existence (1:35) and work (4:1-2, 14, 18), and His followers are instructed to wait for the power of the Spirit to come upon them, as Jesus waited.
“Jerusalem, Samaria, and the whole world”
For Luke, Jerusalem is the hub of God’s plan for the entire world. It has in the Temple that the fulfillment of God’s plan for Israel was announced to Zechariah, to Simeon and to Anna. It was from the Temple that Anna first proclaimed the Messiah to the world. It was only in Jerusalem that a prophet could die, and in Jerusalem that the disciples have encountered the risen Christ. There is no mention of the disciples going to Galilee here, although Galilee is mentioned in the other three Gospels as a place of appearance. We could note that the central place of Jerusalem in Luke’s account need not preclude awareness on his part of a Galilee tradition. But for Luke, Jerusalem is the place where the “pebble has been dropped into the pond,” and the ripples will flow out from there to Samaria and the world, and so, it is only here that Luke’s Gospel can end, where it began, in the courts of the Temple.
Johannine Resurrection Narratives
It was still dark
Of course, we know that the events happened early on the Sunday morning, but we could have known that for the 4th Evangelist, it would have to be “dark.” Jesus’ followers have not yet understood that the resurrection must happen to fulfill the Scriptures. They have not yet encountered the risen Jesus, and their understanding is darkened. Also, light symbolizes the Presence of Jesus, the day, when, He says, He can work. By the end of the Garden scene, the day has come, both the natural day, and what the Benedictus (Luke Ch 1) calls “The Dayspring from on High,” the risen Jesus Himself. From now on, the light will always be in the world, for the Holy Spirit within the community of the Church will continue the enlightening work of Jesus.
Personal Encounters with the Risen Jesus
John’s has a series of appearances that are focused upon encounters with individuals. This, it seems to me is a characteristic of John’s throughout. It is John’s Gospel that most clearly emphasizes the interest that the Father has in each person, and the necessity for each individual to respond to Jesus. In the resurrection narratives, the evangelist makes it clear that whether one has been in the physical presence of Jesus or not the same relationship of personal calling and personal response is available to all.
Mary Magdalene – She is a friend of Jesus, and portrayed as bereft at His death. The loss of the body is the final twist of the knife, and not even the appearance of two angels assuring her of the resurrection is enough to stem her tears. Only Jesus Himself can comfort her, and in her grief, she fails to recognize Him. Only when He calls her by name does she understand to Whom she speaks. For Mary, only Jesus Himself would do, and it is a mark of the love that He has for her that He halts on the way to His Father, to comfort and reassure her. It is when He calls her by her name that she recognizes Him and comes to faith. This reminds me of Isa 43 vs 1. “I have called you by your name, you are Mine.”
Thomas – good old Thomas, the doubter’s friend. The disciple for all of us of a more “I’ll believe it when I see it.” disposition. In fact, he does believe when he sees. (So few people who make this boast actually do believe evidence when it’s really presented to them. They continue to find excuses not to believe). However, this story is really a vehicle for the saying of Jesus, addressed to all the readers of John’s Gospel “Blessed are they who have not seen and still believe!” The need for faith, and the promise that those who have not had a bodily encounter with Jesus can still share the same relationship with Him as His disciples, is typified in the resurrection account by . . .
The “Beloved Disciple” – who accompanies Peter to the tomb, sees that the body has gone, and, we are told, “believes.” He is the example for all readers who “have not seen and yet have believed.” His faith is commended and rewarded.
Peter, appropriately enough, has his encounter last of all in Chapter 21, which was probably added after the Gospel was originally finished. The reasons for the addition to the Gospel may be twofold. Firstly, Peter’s reinstatement to discipleship is symbolized by his “baptism” in the lake of Galilee, when he outruns the Beloved Disciple this time, to swim through the lake to reach Jesus, Who welcomes him back to table fellowship. Peter, having denied knowing Jesus three times, is now asked whether he loves Him three times – and commissioned to feed Jesus’ flock of sheep. Once again, though, the 4th Evangelist uses this encounter as a vehicle, this time for correcting a misunderstanding about the Beloved Disciple. Apparently, it has been widely believed within the community reading the Gospel that this disciple would still be alive when the Parousia occurred. The evangelist, or possibly his scribe, seems anxious to establish that this was not what Jesus said.
“Touch Me Not”
An interesting statement, the command given to Mary Magdalene, in the garden, particularly in the context of Jesus’ later encouragement of Thomas to touch Him in order to prove to himself the reality of the physical resurrection. Earlier in the Gospel, the disciples have been told that “it is good that I go away. If I do not go away, then the Paraclete will not come to you.” The coming of the Paraclete, then, is dependent on Jesus’ going away, or ascending to His Father. However, this need not preclude Mary’s touching Jesus.
Probably the best explanation is to be found as the passage is translated “Do not cling on to me!” This, in fact would tie in with the previous passage about the Holy Spirit – the disciples were not to cling on to the physical presence of Jesus because only if He departed could His Presence be with them always in the Person of the Paraclete.
Jesus, furthermore, indicates the nature of the relationship that is now available to those who have faith in Him. Relationship is the very essence of Christianity precisely because the Godhead Himself is in relationship, in the person of The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (The Holy Trinity). This relationship of love, obedience, mission and joy is the one to which we Christians believe that God calls every human being. Jesus demonstrates this by proclaiming (I suspect with a huge beaming smile on His face), that He is returning to “My God and your God, My Father and your Father” The relationship that the Only Begotten has with His children is now open to all those who “know” Him and “believe” in Him. Perhaps those old Gospel song singers were right after all, when they sang “Blessed Assurance, Jesus is Mine! Oh, what a foretaste of Glory Divine!”
The Commission of the Disciples and the Gift of the Holy Spirit
The gathering described here seems to correspond to the encounter with the disciples recounted in Luke 24, on Easter Evening, in the Jerusalem room, where they have all been gathered, locked in, for fear that the Jewish authorities will come after them next. Carson, however notes that “the function of the locked doors in John’s narrative . . . is to stress the miraculous nature of Jesus’ appearance amongst his followers.” This is not to suggest that His resurrection was non-corporeal. On the contrary, Jesus shows them the wounds in his hands and side.
In three of the Gospels, Jesus commissions His disciples to go. In John’s Gospel , Jesus links their “sending” to His “sending.” “As the Father sent Me, so I send you.” He has promised earlier that His followers will do as He does “and greater works than this.” Presumably these works refer to the work of manifesting the “Glory” of the Son, that is, His relationship with the Father, and drawing the world to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, so that those who believe might have “Life” in His Name. Thus the disciples of Jesus are to share His mission and purpose.
As part of this sending, Jesus breathes on his disciples and bestows upon them the Holy Spirit. And here a problem arises. Luke’s Gospel, with which John may well have had some acquaintance, insists that the Holy Spirit was bestowed upon the disciples after Jesus’ ascension. Luke emphasizes the instruction of Jesus to wait in the city until My Father sends the promised gift of the Holy Spirit. This happens of course, at Pentecost. Can John deliberately have placed the bestowal of the Holy Spirit on the Community at a different time, in different circumstances, and by a different person, i.e., Jesus?
Several possible ‘solutions’ have been put forward. Here are some of them
1. The impersonal energy of the Holy Spirit was bestowed as an emblem of the later fuller blessing of the Paraclete. (Johnston). But in order to sustain this, Johnston has to “separate out” the “personal” and “impersonal” aspects of the third person of the Trinity, whose unified ministry the 4th evangelist has worked really hard to establish.
2. The Holy Spirit was given at this stage, but room is left for a greater impartation, a sort of second blessing received at Pentecost. (Calvin, Westcott, Bruce etc) Roughly speaking, scholars who espouse this theory suggest that one bestowal was the power of new life, and the other the power for ministry. There is some disagreement about which bestowal was which. The problem with this view, is that as both John and Luke seem clear that it is important that Jesus had returned to His father before the Holy Spirit could be given to the Community, in what sense, can Jesus have been said to have returned to the Father in John’s? Were there two “returns”? Or two bestowals? Or a “divorce” in ministry between the power of renewed life and the power for ministry?
3. The view most commonly held amongst scholars today, particularly those who feel no need to insist upon the verbal inerrancy of the Bible, is that this episode is, in fact John’s Pentecost, and that he either does not know, or does not hint, at another event in Jerusalem. (e.g., Charles K. Barrett, Rudolf Bultmann). This view has the merit of linking up all of the ministry of Jesus in terms of His mission from the Father. He has created the world, been sent to redeem it, to give life to all who believe, and never again to leave it. The central theme of the “glorification of the Father through the Son” is brought full circle in this way. It also has the merit of not requiring a harmonization of accounts that might be ultimately irreconcilable.
You might already see the objections that a scholar like Carson would bring to this interpretation. It calls into question the reliability, accuracy, inerrancy even, of the accounts. Personally, I feel that this is the root of objections to solution number 3, but there are grounds for supporting these objections.
4. Carson wants to follow Theodore of Mopsuestia, in suggesting that the “breathing” on the disciples was emblematic of the bestowal of the Holy Spirit, rather than the reality. He supports this with the following points. Firstly, Carson questions the word used for “breathe” in v22. Traditionally, this passage has been associated with the passage in Genesis 2 where God breathed into Adam to bestow new life. Here, Jesus appears to be breathing new life into the Community, creating a new order of humanity. Carson appears to want to make a break from that interpretation, so Jesus simply breathes out, and the “breathing” act does not have that Genesis significance of giving divine life. (A bit tenuous, this objection, I think)
Secondly he suggests that as there was no noticeable change in the behavior and attitude of the disciples, therefore, the Holy Spirit could not have been given. For example, they do not begin a preaching ministry; they still stay in Jerusalem behind locked doors. There is no hint of the tremendous triumphal difference that the enduing of the Holy Spirit appears to have given in Acts 2. Carson observes “If John 20:22 is understood to be the Johannine Pentecost, it must be frankly admitted that the results are desperately disappointing. . . . The alternative is surely preferable. The episode in 20:22, . . . is best understood as symbolic of the endowment that is still to come.”
For these, and other reasons, not least, the witness of some present day charismatic Christians to the reality of the empowerment of the Holy Spirit after conversion, and the adoption of Pentecost as a Christian feast very early on, Carson is deeply reluctant to set the Lucan and Johannine accounts against each other as telling the same story – the bestowal of the Holy Spirit on the Church.
5. The final point in this section concerns the authority of the Church to forgive or to retain sins. This appears to parallel Mt 16:19 and 18:18, although the Matthean passage may well refer to the internal discipline of the Church Community, and this passage is set firmly within the context of mission. Traditionally the Church Catholic has seen this passage as their authority to define mortal and venial sin. Naturally, Protestant commentators would suggest that the Paraclete within the Body of the Church is actively convicting of sin, righteousness and judgment, and therefore this passage refers not to the Church pronouncing judgment on sin, but to its very presence as the vessel of the Paraclete, Who is pronouncing God’s judgment always on sin.
[The author had a very informative comparative chart here that I cannot reproduce]
[The author had a very informative comparative chart here that I cannot reproduce]
At this point, the direct comparisons end. This is because a quick scan at the Greek (even I can tell this), shows that Mark’s Gospel has ended [i.e., at verse 8], and that the Early Church has tacked an ending onto the end, which appears to comprise a summary of the appearances related in the others. We also have a cheery little saying from Jesus about drinking poison and handling snakes. Whether He said this, or whatever He meant by it, it has led to the emergence of various exciting little sects in the more rural parts of America where it is a sign of faith to handle rattle snakes. The death toll from the snakes is surprisingly small, but regular!
However, I think we can make the following points.
1. Mark’s Gospel contains no resurrection appearances. Why? This will be addressed on a separate page.
2. Mark’s account is distinctly understated. There is no angel, just a “young man,” and, of course, no resurrection appearances. The “bombshell” simply consists of the statement “He is not here. He has been raised” This, for me, rather adds to the mystery of it, and I can see why the women should have been frightened. It’s quite eerie, really, so stark. Of course, Mark is very economical with language, and this is an instance where it is very powerful.
Compare this with Matthew, who has depended pretty heavily on Mark throughout the passion and resurrection Narratives. He continues his technique of adding apocalyptic features – the earthquake, the shining angel from Heaven – and earlier on in Ch 27, he tells us that during this earthquake, tombs open and the bodies of the saints are raised, appearing to people in Jerusalem. This all reinforces the theme that he has continued throughout – the eschatological significance of the birth, life and ministry, and especially the passion and resurrection of Jesus. In these events, Matthew says, God has intervened decisively in response to the needs of His people, and in fulfillment of ancient Jewish prophecy.
3. The Reaction of the witnesses is distinctly different, too. Mark’s women continue the theme of abandonment and failure, as the women who have stood by Jesus until this time, finally fail Him and flee in fear. Compare this with the women in Luke and Matthew’s accounts who run to tell the others what they have seen and heard, excellent models of obedient discipleship.
And then, of course, there’s John, with his focus on personal encounters and faith. Without an angel or a young man to pass on a message, our attention is focused firmly on the reactions of the witnesses. At first. Mary, the love of her life taken from her, is distraught. Peter, probably still numb with grief and guilt is confounded. The “Beloved Disciple” exemplifies Jesus words later in the Chapter, “Blessed is the person who has not seen, yet has believed.” Mary and Peter will have their moments of revelation later on. But for now, we are called on to identify with the “Beloved Disciple,” as we are encouraged to believe, even though we, too, have not seen.
4. Where will the Resurrection appearances take place? Matthew follows Mark’s account in looking forward to Galilee as the place of encounter. Jerusalem has been the center of the rejection of Jesus from the beginning of the Gospel when Herod and his advisors trembled at the announcement of a new king in Bethlehem. Jerusalem has rejected and crucified her King. It can no longer be the center of the new Israel that the Creator is setting up around His Anointed. Therefore it is in Galilee, Galilee of the Gentiles as Isaiah calls it (Isa 9 vs 2) that Jesus will be found, commissioning his Church to go into all the world, to all the nations, fulfilling the promise made to Abraham that “in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.”
Luke refers to Galilee too, but only as the place where Jesus foretold his crucifixion and Resurrection, not as the place where the disciples will meet Jesus. For Luke, Jerusalem has always been the center of God’s purpose for His people, and it must be in Jerusalem that Jesus appears to his infant church.
5. You will have noticed that there are several discrepancies in detail – the exact time of day, whether it was dawn, not yet light, still dark. The number of messengers varies – one young man in Mark, one angel in Matthew, two men in white in Luke and two angels in John. The names of the women vary. There’s only one woman in John. In John, Mary fetches Peter and the other disciple before she goes into the tomb and meets the two angels.
The significance of this, of course is that these discrepancies may affect our view of the historicity of the narratives. You will have to decide whether you see them as the sort of natural discrepancies that occur when several people are telling the same story, and get it slightly wrong. Or whether you think that it demonstrates that the stories cannot be taken seriously as historical narratives, and have their root in Christian mythology, and possibly, theology.
One could say, for example, that it would still be dark in John’s Gospel - the Light of the World has not yet appeared to His people, and most of them still don’t believe. Of course, the faith of the Beloved Disciple is the beginning of the dawn. Likewise, Matthew would be unable to resist introducing apocalyptic elements into this eschatological story. Mark’s women had to run away to make the theme of abandonment complete, etc. You must decide!
What Relevance can Resurrection have today?
You might be asked to comment on the relevance of the resurrection narratives for today. Such questions can take various forms, and this section attempts to put forward some responses to typical questions.
Does a corporeal resurrection matter? (or, “If We Found Jesus’ Body, Would The Christian Faith Collapse?”)
Bultmann, and after him, members of the “Jesus Seminar” such as John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg etc, would want to say a firm “No!” in response to this.
They argue that the evidence of the empty tomb is later evidence, and that the main factors that influenced the earliest Christians were the resurrection appearances and the change that they found in their own perceptions of the “living” nature of Christ. They would suggest that the physical nature of the resurrection implied by the empty tomb is therefore secondary, and that if the body of Jesus were to be found, the essential truth of the resurrection would not be altered in any way. So what do these scholars view as the essential truths of the Resurrection?
In The Meaning of Jesus, Marcus Borg comments “For me, the historical ground of Easter is very simple: the followers of Jesus, both then and now, continued to experience Jesus as a living reality after his death.” He accepts that some early Christian experiences of the risen Christ took the form of “visions or apparitions” He therefore sees “the post-Easter Jesus as an experiential reality.” And it is in these personal experiences, not in objective measurable facts, that Borg claims that the truth of the Resurrection is to be found. Borg accepts the Christian truth that “Jesus is Lord,” but feels that the Easter stories sprang from the consciousness of the Church as they experienced Christ as Lord, rather than the claim that “Jesus is Lord” springs from the experience of the discovery of the empty tomb, and the encounters with the risen Christ. Borg makes further points about the theological and existential significance of the phrase “Jesus is Lord,” and we will consider these in a later section. Meanwhile, back to the body.
N. T. Wright entitles his section on the resurrection in The Meaning of Jesus “The Transforming Reality of the Bodily Resurrection.” He begins by considering what a Jew in the time of Jesus would have meant by “resurrection” and concludes from a study through Ezekiel to Maccabees and Daniel, that what may have begun as a metaphor for the revival of Israel’s fortunes (The valley of dry bones in Ezekiel 37), had turned into a literal belief in the resurrection of the body, as exemplified by the Maccabean martyrs who declared under torture that they would receive their bodies back from God, whole. The resurrection would be like an awaking from sleep and would be a more wonderful mode of existence than the current one. Wright goes on to claim that this belief in the “concrete re-embodiment of those who have died” became commonly accepted belief amongst the Pharisees in the time of Jesus. Wright accepts that there were disputes over whether God would give a totally new body, or whether he would reconstitute an old one, but his conclusion is that such disputes would only have relevance “if the concrete physicality of the resurrection of the body were taken absolutely for granted.” “There is,” he says, “no evidence for Jews of our period using the word 'resurrection' to denote something essentially non-concrete.”
From this point, he goes on to argue at some length that Jesus’ disciples would not, therefore, have used a word like "resurrection" to describe their conviction that Jesus was still alive and with them solely in some spiritual form, or even ghostly form. What Wright does see as odd, is that the early Christians believed that the Resurrection awaited by so many religious Jews of the day had happened, not to the whole nation, or world at the end of time, but to one man in the middle of time. This, Wright claims, was a radical departure from the Resurrection belief of the 1st century, and this departure from the norm of interpretation deserves, he says, consideration in and of itself.
Indeed, for Wright, the deepest meaning of the Resurrection requires a physical resurrection. This is because, unlike Borg, who views the resurrection as essentially a metaphor for personal spiritual renewal and liberation, Wright views the meaning of the Resurrection as the firstfruits of a new order of creation. “God’s new order had been brought to birth.” The evangelists saw all the symbolism and meaning behind the Resurrection and expressed it without wishing to detract from the reality of the historical event. It was “the first day of God’s new week, the moment of sunrise after the long night, the time of new meetings, new meals, or reconciliation and new commissioning. It was the beginning of the new creation.” The implications of this will be discussed in another section.
Theology of the Resurrection
Some suggestions from theologians. Take your pick.
Raymond E Brown (He of the New Jerome Biblical Commentary and The Birth of the Messiah)
Focuses on the Christology of the resurrection as reflected in parts early Christian writings, such as the Pauline Epistles, and the Kerygma passages in Acts 2, Acts 10 etc. The early Church’s belief about the resurrection is presented in these ancient writings as the exaltation of Jesus to the status of “Lord and Messiah” “Leader and Savior.” “That which God promised to the Fathers, He has fulfilled for us their children by raising Jesus, as it is written (in Ps 2): ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you.’” Of these passages, Brown comments “The resurrection of Jesus, considered as His enthronement in Heaven, could be spoken of as his royal coronation and thus in the Davidic context, as the moment of His being begotten as God’s Son.” For Brown, the Resurrection is a kind of “birth” for Jesus into a new identity. “Here, although by natural birth, Jesus is the Messiah descended from David, by resurrection he is the Son of God through the Holy Spirit in power.” Brown calls this two-step Christology. Jesus becoming, through the resurrection, something that He was not, prior to the resurrection. However, Brown argues, this “two step Christology” developed further. Christian writers, such as Luke, and Paul do not believe that Jesus “became” something at the resurrection; rather, that what He had always been was revealed to the disciples through the resurrection.
Brown also suggests that with the resurrection, the Church came to realize that blessings of the Kingdom of God are now transferred from earth (which was where Jews believed, and still do believe, that they will be realized) to Heaven. “ . . . now the victory, peace, prosperity and divine worship are all transferred to heaven from the earth of Jewish expectation.”
Peter Walker (Lecturer in Theology at Wyclife Hall in Oxford)
For him, the central truth of the Resurrection is that Jesus is alive today. That means that a relationship with Jesus is as possible for believers today as it was for the disciples who knew Him in Galilee two thousand years ago. The means by which this is achieved is through the Holy Spirit. Walker points out that the first disciples who preached Jesus to Jews and Gentiles alike in the Roman Empire discovered that those who whom they preached “most of whom had never met Jesus in a physical sense, were able to meet with this Risen Lord as well. They too were able to enter into a relationship of love with Him.” (1 Peter 1:18) The reason, Walker suggests, why this was, and is possible – is because Jesus was, and is alive. “If they could meet him then, we too can meet him today.”
Marcus Borg (Jesus Seminar)
Links interpretation of Resurrection firmly with the interpretation of the Death of Jesus, and (conveniently!) makes 5 points:
1. Rejection of pattern of ‘world power’ systems and vindication of Jesus as Lord. As Jesus’ death was the world’s rejection of what God wanted to establish, so Jesus’ resurrection was God’s ‘No’ to the plans of the world. Borg quotes the early kerygma as uttered by Peter in Acts Ch 2 - “This Jesus whom you crucified, God has made both Lord and Christ.” Borg observes that this formula is both religious and political: "the lords of this world crucified Jesus, but Jesus is Lord and they are not.” So the story of Jesus becomes part of what Borg calls “the age-old conflict between the domination system and the God of Israel, beginning with Moses and continuing through the social prophets of the Hebrew Bible. It is the continuation and climax of the conflict between the lordship of God and the lordship of Pharoah.”
2. Defeat of the Powers By which Borg means the “powers and principalities” against which Christians fight (see Ephesians 5, full armor of God and all that. The battle is not simply an earthly one, it’s a cosmic one. Borg identifies these powers as metaphors to describe those things to which we, in the human condition, are in bondage. He doesn’t actually define what ‘those things’ are, which isn’t surprising, really, as neither he nor anyone else in the “Jesus Seminar” are going to enjoy the New Testament’s insistence that these powers are spiritual beings, great archons that exercise control over nations, religions, world systems and world leaders, which oppose God and the rule of His Anointed. (Ps 2 “Why do the nations so furiously rage together against the Lord and His Anointed? The Lord laughs at them . . . ”) Satan, the Prince of the Power of the Air, heads up this unpleasant group of dark rulers.
Borg would probably refer to Paul’s words in Colossians 2:15 as another text to support Jesus’ defeat of the powers of evil by His cross and resurrection – if he believed in them!
3. Revelation of the way to new life Through the death and resurrection of Jesus, the way is opened to leave our old lives, dominated by self and sin behind, and to take the long walk into the new life of Christ. As Paul puts it “I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. And the life I live, I live by the power of Christ who died for me.” Borg helpfully links Jesus’ command to take up the cross and follow Him with this concept. As Christians daily follow Christ as disciples, they die to self and begin to find their new lives in Christ. The resurrection, then, is inextricably linked with the death of Jesus. In order to rise to new life, death must take place first, the death of self and rebirth to the new life of Jesus. Only then can He truly become “the Way the Truth and the Life.”
4. The triumph of God’s love The central meaning of the death of Jesus, for Borg, is the answer to the question “How much does God love me?” The answer, of course, is to be found in one of the Eucharistic prayers of the Anglican Church “He opened wide His arms for us on the cross . . . ” The apparent defeat of the self-giving love of God on the cross, Jesus going the way of so many prophets and radicals who have preached non-violence both before and since, is dramatically reversed as the evil of the world is shown to be transient in the face of the transforming love of God. The power of His love defeats even that ‘old enemy’ death.
5. Sacrifice for Sin (This section might also be useful as a comment on the theology of the Passion Narratives) Although Borg does not agree with Wright that Jesus saw his own death as a sacrifice for sin, nevertheless, he views the crucifixion and resurrection events as “a powerfully true metaphor of the grace of God.” His argument is that after the events which convinced Jesus’ disciples, and later the Early Church, that Jesus’ existence and life had not ended on the cross, they began to apply Jewish sacrificial terminology to his death in order to explain its significance.
Two points emerge: 1 An anti-temple statement. Jesus’ death is a sign that the Temple sacrificial system is now redundant. It no longer has “the monopoly” on forgiveness of sins (mind you, Borg doesn’t think Jesus has, either!) 2. “Jesus is the sacrifice” becomes a metaphorical “proclamation of the radical grace of God, and our unconditional acceptance.” That is, God has decided that our sin need not be a barrier between us and Him. He has “taken care of it” and the death of Jesus is not so much the means, but a sign that the early Christians could understand that this was so. Through this, people could recognize God’s unconditional love for them and respond to it. If they did this, their lives would (and presumably still will) be transformed. Humans no longer need see their relationship with God as dependent upon their measuring up to God’s high standards. As far as Borg is concerned, this view has the merit of continuing to teach the unconditional love of God to His creation, and the opening of a way to Himself, without the burden (as he sees it) of having to believe that Jesus was the means by which this was accomplished. All the events were signs, presumably, of a pre-existent truth that the Jews (?) had missed.
Where does the Resurrection come into all this? Well, again, it is a “sign” of this pre-existent truth, of the new life that all can lead when they come to the God who recognizes them and loves them unconditionally.
N. T. Wright (Canon Theologian, Westminster Abbey)
1. The Validation of Jesus as Messiah is where one must begin (see Romans 1:4) “Israel’s God, the Creator, has affirmed that Jesus really was, all along, his ‘son.’” In particular, the resurrection demonstrates that the cross was a victory, not a defeat. (See Col 2:15 – again). Paul puts this concept succinctly in 1 Cor. Ch 15, as he declares “If Christ is not risen, then your faith is pointless.” The resurrection and the resurrection alone demonstrates that the old barrier to God, our sins, has been dealt with, and effectively.
2. The new creation. Wright sets great store on the importance of the physical, bodily, corporeal resurrection of Jesus from the dead, as he insists that it is only through a bodily resurrection that all the prophecies of a new creation can be adequately fulfilled. Wright refers us to Romans 8, where Paul talks of the creation groaning for transformation. (how this phrase resonates with meaning today, as we humans threaten our environment to the extent that we feel it directly in terms of the effects of global warming on the weather, and diseases caused by abhorrent treatment of the livestock over which we are stewards!) The bodily resurrection, Wright argues, is the sign of hope that “the whole creation . . . would shake off its corruption and decay. The New Testament is full of the promise of a world to come in which death itself will be abolished . . . ” Personal faith in and hope for resurrection, then is “located within the larger hope for the renewal of all creation, for God’s new heavens and new earth.” He insists that the removal of the bodily resurrection from Christian theology and belief leaves us with “The development of private spirituality, leading to a disembodied life after death: the denial of the goodness of creation, your own body included.” (my emphasis)
3. This last point is central. Christianity is not a religion that denies the goodness of being human, despite what some Christians, even some Christian denominations would have us believe. The bodily resurrection of Christ seems to me to be the only possible fulfillment of the Incarnation, that ultimate sacrament, in which the Creator affirms totally, by complete identification, with the “very good”-ness of being human. All that it means to be human has been sanctified by the decision of the Word to be made flesh and to “pitch His tent among us.” Being human is affirmed as being the image of God, of being able to comprehend and to communicate with God. I think it is only by starting at the Incarnation that the significance and non-negotiability of the bodily resurrection can be fully appreciated.
4. (Back to Wright) The importance of “now” What is done for God’s glory now is genuinely building for God’s future. What we do now matters, and matters forever, because their nature is eternal, as is God’s Kingdom. God’s Kingdom is being built now in acts of kindness, mercy, grace and courage. This life of God’s Kingdom will last into the age to come, and opens the door to it now.
