would take us through not only tonight, but also the last two talks tomorrow morning and evening. To begin this, again, there are a few preliminary things that are best cleared away at the start. First, two further bibliographical references, the last two references of this sort. A book by Reginald Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, published in 1971. Fuller's book goes through a gospel by gospel, and it also includes a section on major texts in Paul, giving you first the text of the resurrection narrative and then his commentary on it. It's a good account of the different issues. Obviously, with any individual text, different exegetes are going to accent different points in their interpretation. I don't want to suggest that Fuller is the last word on every subject, but this is a good, clear, and reliable presentation of the issues.

[01:03]

Secondly, a more recent book by Gerald O'Collins, the same O'Collins whose overall Christology was mentioned at the very beginning of these discussions. O'Collins has written a number of comparatively short books on the Resurrection, one entitled The Easter Jesus, His most recent one is this book entitled Jesus Risen, published in 1987 by Paulist. That also is a good account of the Resurrection material. Unlike Fuller, O'Collins here does not go through text by text in the Gospels, but rather gives an overview of the New Testament material and then goes through the history, various high points in the history of thought on the Resurrection. over the course of the church's history. So it's a different style of presentation. In substance, Fuller and O'Collins have very similar things to say about the Resurrection, but because the organizations of the books differ so much, it's not repetitious to read both of these volumes. By way of transition to the Resurrection, and also by way of suggesting some of the issues we'll be coming back to later,

[02:14]

I'd like to offer first just one further comment with regard to the crucifixion material, something which links the crucifixion material more closely to the resurrection. All of you, in one form or another, are familiar with the liturgical use of the passion narratives. During Holy Week, we hear one of the three synoptic passion narratives on Palm Sunday And then here, the Passion Narrative from John's Gospel on Good Friday. Some of you remember back before the liturgical reform when the structure was a bit different and all four Passion Narratives were read. Matthew on Palm Sunday, Luke and Mark during the weekend, and John on Good Friday, which is a long established custom. One reason why reading one synoptic account and then John's account in the same week is not repetitious is that there's quite a difference in accent in the presentation of the crucifixion in the different narratives.

[03:20]

The synoptic accounts tend to be somewhat more graphic in their depiction of the suffering. undergone in the crucifixion. John's gospel presents the crucifixion as a being lifted up, as an exaltation, almost as a kind of ascension, a lifting up on the cross with the play on words, also the lifting up to heaven. That runs through the whole gospel, but it comes to a bit of a peak in the passion narratives. If you read through the synoptic passion narratives, Jesus is usually presented as the one who is being handed over. He's passed on from Pilate to the people who arrest him. from the soldiers who arrest him to the Jewish authorities, from them on to the Romans. In Luke, he goes back and forth between Pilate and Herod. He seems to be a pawn who is manipulated by other people who are playing with him. In John's Gospel, Jesus is in charge all the way.

[04:24]

Obviously, there are some things he doesn't do. He's not the one who drives the nails into the cross, but he is presented, you would have no power over me if it were not given you from above, he says to Pilate. Pilate, of course, doesn't think that's the case at all, but that's what Jesus says to him. Now, think of those somewhat contrasting depictions of the crucifixion, and then think of what that inevitably does to the presentation of the resurrection. Against the background of the synoptic narratives, you can think of the resurrection as a kind of correction of the injustice, of the evil that has been perpetrated on Jesus. But against the perspective of John's gospel, it's very, very difficult to think of the resurrection as a correction because the crucifixion is already a triumph. What is there to correct? You can go beyond it in some ways, but you're not in any sense undoing what has been done before.

[05:33]

I just suggest that you keep those in broad terms somewhat contrasting. They're not ultimately incompatible. They're speaking on certain different levels there. But keep those somewhat contrasting perspectives in mind if we come later I have a chance to discuss some of the individual theologians who have written on the subject in recent years. Two of the people that have been mentioned so far, Wolfhard Pannenberg and Edward Skilbeck, think very strongly in terms of the synoptic material. not just with reference to the text, but that's the mentality with which they approach things in the presentation of the crucifixion and then correspondingly in the presentation of the resurrection. The great example of the Ohanian perspective among contemporary theologians is Kahlrana. who has very Johannine perspective both on Jesus' death and then correspondingly on his resurrection.

[06:40]

I'll leave those issues for the time being, but it might be something to keep in mind as we get on further. Then we have one other point to note. This has to do with a certain contrast between the material that we have in the New Testament with regard to the crucifixion on the one hand and the resurrection on the other. We speak of passion narratives in the Gospels. That's not the only form of talking about the crucifixion, but let's focus on that for the moment. We speak of passion narratives in the Gospels, and we speak of a crucifixion narrative as, in a sense, the climax of the passion narrative. We also speak of resurrection narratives. It's a very common way of speaking and in fact it's even enshrined here in the title of Fuller's treatment of the biblical texts.

[07:46]

But that way of speaking conceals an enormous difference. The passion narrative is in fact just what it sounds like. It's the story told individually by the four evangelists of Jesus' arrest, suffering, the trial, the hearings, and so on. Correspondingly, the crucifixion narrative is just what it sounds like. It's a narrative of the crucifixion, relatively brief and compact in each of the four Gospels. The resurrection narratives, or what we call the resurrection narratives, however, are never a narrative of the resurrection. There are stories of the empty grave, the finding of the empty grave, stories of appearances of the risen Christ, but there is no place in the New Testament that purports to be a narrative of the resurrection itself. The resurrection is approached less directly.

[08:50]

Now, the reason for that presumably lies in the nature of what the resurrection is. It's something that you get at less directly. But by way of contrast, before we look at the text more specifically, I'd like to read to you a short section from what is called the Gospel of Peter. which does more or less present itself as a narrative of the resurrection, not in the sense of a story of finding the empty grave or the appearances, but rather a more direct account of the resurrection. Text that is known as the Gospel of Peter does not come from the apostle Peter, simply that his name is attached to it. It's a second century text, Christian text, that is not part of the New Testament. It's a highly imaginative work, but it has a couple of unusual points in it, and this is one of them. I'd ask you, in listening to this, to keep in mind, in at least rough terms, your own familiarity with the resurrection narratives from the Gospels.

[10:00]

You'll notice places where this picks up on the Gospels and goes further. Now, in the night, whereon the Lord's day dawned. As the soldiers were keeping guard, two by two in every watch, there came a great sound in the heaven, and they saw the heavens opened and two men descend, shining with a great light, drawing near unto the sepulchre. And the stone which had been set on the door rolled away of itself and went back to the side, and the sepulchre was opened, and both of the young men entered. When therefore those soldiers saw that, they woke up the centurion and the elders, for they were also there keeping watch. And while they were telling them the things which they had seen, They saw again three men come out of the sepulchre, and two of them sustaining the third, and a cross following after them.

[11:11]

And of the two they saw that their heads reached unto heaven, but of the third who was led by them, that it surpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice out of the heavens saying, have you preached to those that sleep? And an answer was heard from the cross saying yes. It's not part of the New Testament. It's an imaginative text. You can see where it has its springboard in the Gospels, the soldiers keeping guard, but then there's a further population. The centurion is brought in, the elders are brought in, there's a large crowd present. The event of the resurrection takes place presumably in the sepulchre, so there's still a little restraint about the description, but not very much. And there's a showing not only of the risen Christ coming forth, with the two angels, but also apparently the cross has been buried along with Jesus and comes forth triumphant at this point.

[12:13]

I mention that by way of contrast to what we find in the Gospels, but we can come back to it perhaps at the end because there are some themes reflected even in that highly imaginative form that do have a legitimate Christian basis to them. I think the best way to look at the material here is to run through the accounts in the different Gospels briefly. I do this because it's helpful to look at the details, and the significance of some of the details will become more apparent as we go on, less so in the very beginning. In this regard, I would draw your attention to a very helpful chart This is taken from the New Jerome Biblical Commentary. It's in a section on aspects of New Testament thought, page 1376. It's a section written by Raymond Brown.

[13:21]

And it has the heading, the various accounts of resurrection appearances. The heading is a little misleading, because in addition to the resurrection appearances, the table also includes the different accounts of the women at the tomb. And some of those don't involve appearances. So it's more complete than the heading suggests. But this is a very helpful one-page comparison of the various texts. It doesn't cite the text word for word, but gives a little summary of what's contained I should mention also before we talk about the gospel text that the gospel narrative form of text is not the only New Testament presentation of the resurrection. The other form, which we'll come to later, is the type reflected chiefly in Paul's epistles, brief, compact confessions of the resurrection, like the one that was mentioned the other day. was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures. There you don't have a story.

[14:22]

You just have a statement that just takes a couple of words in English and even fewer words in Greek. That, too, is a way of proclaiming the resurrection. First, though, let's take a look at the gospel resurrection material. I'd like to start here by looking at Mark's gospel Again, on the principle that this is usually considered the oldest of the gospel texts. To begin with, of course, Mark has already told the story of Jesus' passion and crucifixion. He has then told the story toward the end of chapter 15 of Jesus' burial by Joseph of Arimathea. And the story of the burial is recounted in a bit of detail. The one verse that I'll mention here in particular is verse 46.

[15:25]

He, that is, Joseph, bought a linen shroud and, taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb, which had been hewn out of the rock. And he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. Mark then says that two women, Mary Magdalene and another Mary, saw where Jesus had been laid. That paves the way for the telling of the finding of the empty grave. It's important because the women in question have to know where the grave is and also know that the stone is placed at the entrance to the tomb. Let me run through the text, making just a couple of comments as I go along. When the Sabbath was passed, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices so that they might go and anoint him. That's the first point to note. The motivation behind the visit to the tomb is to complete the burial rites, which apparently were not

[16:32]

taken care of fully two days before, although you wouldn't know that from reading the burial account. Very early on the first day of the week, they went to the tomb when the sun had risen, and they were saying to one another, who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb? And looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back, for it was very large. Entering a tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were amazed. He said to them, Do not be amazed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen. He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him as he told you. And they went out and fled from the tomb for fear and for trembling and astonishment had come upon them.

[17:35]

And they said nothing to anyone for they were afraid." You make a couple of comments on this. At this point, we'll see perhaps some of the further implications when we get to the other stories. First of all, one word about the text which I'll just mention very briefly here without going into detail. It's generally believed by exegetes that the gospel of Mark originally ended here with verse 8. In the text that you may have with you, there are also another dozen verses which follow, nine through 20. These verses are part of the canonical gospel, but they're generally thought not to be part of the original gospel, but rather to be an added element brought in still fairly early, but not by the original author. We won't go into that at this point, except to say that if that's correct,

[18:42]

It accents the significance of the first eight verses because they mark the culmination of the gospel. What is to be noted about the text? First of all, you'll notice in the beginning a repetition of names. Some of the names have just been mentioned in the previous verse at the end of the burial account, and yet the text doesn't say they went or she went. It starts in again, which may be an indication that originally separate stories are being linked together here in the present form of the gospel. Then I'd note the intention of the women in going to the tomb, the intention of anointing the body. Let's just hold on to that for a moment. Despite the fact that they know the stone is at the tomb, they expect that there will be problems. They don't think they can roll the stone back themselves, but they're still presented as going with the intention of anointing the body.

[19:47]

Then note the fact that the climax of the story as it is told here, is not that the women notice the tomb empty. The tomb is empty, at least empty as far as the body of Jesus is concerned, but what the women notice is the young man in the tomb. They don't see for themselves that the tomb is empty. They're told that as part of the message they receive from the young man. So despite the emphasis in this story on the visit to the tomb, the story doesn't present the picture of the women seeing the tomb empty and therefore concluding that Jesus must be risen. They hear the message. The young man is an angelic figure. They hear the message from heaven that Jesus has been risen and has been raised and are then pointed to the empty tomb. a couple of other points that will seem minor at this stage.

[20:56]

Notice the reference to Galilee as the place where Jesus is going, the place where they will see him. In a sense, they're being pointed ahead to Galilee. And that's consistent with what Jesus has said earlier in Mark's gospel, Toward the end of the Passion narrative, chapter 14, verse 28, just after the Last Supper, Jesus says to the disciples, but after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee. So that, too, points in the same direction. Then I draw your attention to the special mention of Peter. The women are given the command, go tell his disciples and Peter. Why mention Peter again? Peter is surely already grouped among the disciples.

[21:59]

The text doesn't explain, but the mention of Peter by name certainly accents Peter's position. That's something we'll notice as we're going through. Apart from Jesus, Peter is the most prominent figure in the resurrection material, much more prominent here than in other parts of the gospel tradition. And finally, I'd notice the very odd conclusion. The women receive the message from the angel. They are given the command to relay a message to his disciples and Peter. And then verse eight says, they went out and fled from the tomb. But trembling and astonishment had come upon them and they said nothing to anyone because they were afraid. That may seem to be the wrong reaction. For one thing, of course, you automatically get the question, if they didn't say anything to anyone, how did the story get into the gospel?

[23:06]

But as it's presented here, at least it breaks off with a response of fear. Fear not, I think, in the sense of terror, but the kind of reverential fear that's reflected in some of the psalms that we were singing earlier this evening. It's fear in that sense. But in any case, the gospel presents them as not conveying the message. Now, if you look back in the earlier part of Mark's gospel and also some of the other gospels, there's a pattern that repeats itself rather frequently that's often called the messianic secret. Jesus performs some sort of messianic deed, usually a miracle. And at the end, the people for whom that has been performed respond in some way to Jesus. And then he tells them to say nothing to anyone. Think of the story of the lepers, that they're supposed to go show themselves to the priest, but on the whole, to keep quiet. And that's almost always accompanied by a further verse saying that, nonetheless, they went out and told everybody what had happened.

[24:12]

Here, at the end of the gospel, you get just the opposite. For the first time, people are told to take a message to someone. And again, they don't do what they're told. They say nothing to anyone because they're afraid. The gospel ends at that point. You'll notice that in the text, as Mark has it here, there is no appearance of Jesus at the grave. It's an appearance of a heavenly figure. It doesn't use the word angel, but the implication is an angel, one heavenly figure who speaks with the women. Before we go on, some of the questions won't come up until we look at the other text. But are there any questions about this initial passage in Mark before we go on? That's a lot of good sense. What does it mean? Well, Frabs. It's not I who left you with Lucinda, it's Mark.

[25:13]

But some of them, yes, I think will be tied together. Let's turn then to Matthew's Gospel, again to the end. And here I should say just a word about the presumed procedure in which the Gospels were composed. The generally accepted position at the present time, and I think with reason, is that both Matthew and Luke made use of Mark, that Mark is the common source from which Matthew and Luke drew. Now, in this particular instance of the empty grave story, John also draws in quite a bit of the same material, but that's another question that we can leave aside at the moment.

[26:22]

So there is likelihood, at least, that Matthew is drawing on Mark when Matthew writes this text, that Luke is drawing on Mark, but there is no presumption that Luke and Matthew were familiar with each other. So the fact that we're taking Matthew second does not mean anything relative to Luke. It simply means that it comes after Mark and is probably based on certain reworking of Mark. Some differences, however, will stand out. First of all, Matthew has the story, of course, of Jesus' crucifixion. He also has the story of the burial, and substantially this story is the same as far as comparison with Mark is concerned. The one difference

[27:25]

is that the day after Jesus' burial, Matthew has a story of the chief priest and the Pharisees going to Pilate and obtaining a god to be placed at the tomb. We'll come back to the god later, but the god is not figured at all in Matthew, in Mark's story, and really doesn't fit very well with Mark's story, because if you have a god at the tomb, The women are never going to be allowed into the tomb to anoint the body. Those things don't jive at all. We come to Matthew, however, then he reaches, in the beginning of chapter 28, the start of his own Easter story. After the Sabbath, toward dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the sepulcher. Now, that's a first difference. Still two women going to the tomb.

[28:29]

That part's the same, but the motivation is different. They're going to see the sepulcher, presumably to pray, to mourn, whatever, but not with the intention of anointing. That's not specified here. And behold, there was a great earthquake. For an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat upon it. His appearance was like lightning and his raiment white as snow. And for fear of him, the gods trembled and became like dead men." Once again, a couple of differences in comparison to Mark. The earthquake, the rolling back of the stone, takes place while the women are there. It's not that they come and find that it's already happened. They don't exactly see the resurrection. You can't say that, but you can say that they're present when some of the extraordinary events happen. They don't find the angel already there.

[29:32]

The angel comes roughly at the same time that the women come. The angel is also a more impressive figure in Matthew's description, but that's a minor difference. Notice, however, that this angel in Matthew is sitting on the stone outside the tomb. He's not in the tomb. We'll come back to that point later. There's at least one possible explanation for that. The story then goes on, but the angel said to the women, do not be afraid for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here for he is risen as he said. Come see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead and behold, he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him. Lo, I have told you. In substance, the message of the angel is the same here.

[30:33]

as in Mark. The one difference we might notice that Peter is no longer singled out as he was in Mark, but the basic message is still the same. The reaction, however, is different. So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy and ran to tell his disciples. There's still the reverential fear, but it's now intermingled with joy, and they're on their way to carry out the command that they have received rather than keeping quiet about it out of fear. At this point, however, there is a new element. Behold, Jesus met them and said, Hail. And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshipped him. Then Jesus said to them, do not be afraid. Go tell my brethren to go to Galilee and there they will see me.

[31:36]

You'll notice that the words of Jesus here are fundamentally a repetition of the words of the angel. While they were going, behold, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place. This goes on then from verses 11 to 15. In substance, the gods report to the chief priests and are bribed to spread the false story that Jesus' body has been stolen. Verse 15 says, they took the money and did as they were directed, and this story has been spread among the Jews to this day. Now, perhaps in the light of that material, We can see one possibility for some of the shifts between Mark and Matthew. We certainly find in Matthew a concern to refute the story that the body has been stolen.

[32:44]

That's the way the story about the gods functions in the long run. It's an explanation of how the falsehood arose and an argument that, in fact, this is not what happened at all. Now, given that interest on Matthew's part, it's perfectly plausible that he does not want to present the women as going with the intention of entering the tomb. Because it's much too easy for someone to say they're entering the tomb not to annoy the body, but to whisk it away someplace. Similarly, he does not want to present a story of the women looking in the tomb and finding a young man in there, an angelic figure in the tomb. Anything that suggests that people favorable to Jesus were in the tomb unobserved is, from Matthew's perspective, too open to manipulation by opponents of Christianity.

[33:53]

Now, we can't pin down for certain that that's the reason for the differences, but it's a possible explanation of why the differences may exist. The anointing, of course, it may simply be that Matthew did not consider it plausible or necessary to conduct an anointing so long after the burial had taken place. He may have other reasons for rewriting the story somewhat at that point. Up to this stage, we have been largely dealing with a parallel between Matthew and Mark. Now we come to a point where Matthew has something quite new. He has from verses 16 through 20 an appearance story, not now to the women, but rather to the 11 disciples on a mountain in Galilee. This is a very well-known story where Jesus tells the disciples, all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

[35:01]

They receive the mission command to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you, and finally they received Jesus' promise to be with them to the end of the world. That's the first really developed appearance story that we've met. Here, Jesus does far more than just repeat the words of the angel at the grave. This, in a sense, is the fulfillment of the promise of the angel, that he goes before them to Galilee, will see them, and then gives them this instruction and this command. So for the first time now in Matthew, we have not only an empty grave story, but also an appearance story, and then the comparatively minor appearance at the empty grave that's stuck in between the two. Again, there may be some questions at this point.

[36:08]

There may be some more questions when we go on to the further gospel. Let me just make one observation here. Obviously, the empty grave story is located in the vicinity of Jerusalem. That's the only possible place for it at the site of Jesus' burial. You notice that the appearance story here is located in Galilee. There's the initial brief appearance at the grave, but the major appearance story is located in Galilee. And that presupposes the passage of a certain amount of time for the disciples to journey. Well, the resurrection is Jesus rising from the dead or being raised from the dead, however you wish to formulate that. The appearance is Jesus who has already risen from the dead showing himself.

[37:13]

to someone. There are two distinct sayings. Maybe the best way to do it is to think of it with reference to time. Before you come to this appearance story, in verse 7, the angel at the tomb says, go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead. That's already occurred, not long before, but it's already occurred. And behold, he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him. The appearance hasn't taken place yet. That's the difference. There is a question. Well, there is a question. This appearance is not dated on the third day. Well, it has to be after the third day. If you take the third day to be Easter Sunday, let's put it in those terms, that's the day at which the women go to the tomb.

[38:24]

It's the day on which that briefly described appearance is narrated. But before you can have the final appearance, you have to have a certain passage of time. You have to have time for the disciples to go to Galilee. The appearance takes place there. It doesn't specify time, but you have to have an allowance of some time before that can take place. So there's the time difference. But even apart from the time question, the appearance is not the same thing as the resurrection. Mark has been able to talk about the resurrection without going through an appearance. Anything else at this point? All right, let's turn then to Luke. Here we find ourselves in some respects closer to Mark.

[39:35]

In some other respects, not so. We again have the crucifixion story. We also have a burial story. Toward the end of the burial story, there's a bit more of a way of preparation for what's going to follow. Luke says, it was the day of preparation and the Sabbath was beginning. The women who had come with him from Galilee followed and saw the tomb and how his body was laid. Then they returned and prepared spices and ointment. On the Sabbath, they rested according to the commandment. So we're going to be back in a minute to Mark's motivation for their visit to the tomb. It's going to be to anoint the body. But Luke seems already to anticipate the question, why are they waiting so long to anoint the body? And his answer is that they began their preparations but didn't have enough time.

[40:42]

They observed the Sabbath appropriately, and so they wait until the first opportunity after the Sabbath to conduct the visit to the tomb. On the first day of the week at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices which they had prepared, and they found the stone rolled away from the tomb. Again, more similar to Mark. But when they went in, they did not find the body. Now, this is not the way Mark has told the story. Mark has, as soon as they went in the tomb, they get the message from the, they see the angel and they get the message from the angel. In Luke's story, the angel's not there yet. When they go in, they see that it's empty. So we have a more direct statement here of unspecified number of women going into the tomb, finding the tomb empty, and what's the reaction? While they were perplexed about this, the reaction is that they don't know what to make of it.

[41:49]

So from the perspective at least of Luke, Simply seeing the empty tomb causes uncertainty but does not lead to faith. It simply leaves this questioning situation. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. And as they were frightened, they bowed their faces to the ground. And the men said to them, and the two men, again, these are angels, messengers from heaven. Here there are two instead of one. The angels give a message to the women. Why do you seek the living one among the dead? Remember how he told you while he was still in Galilee that the son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise. That's a different message.

[42:54]

That's a reminder of the passion predictions. You'll notice that in Luke's message, Galilee also gets mentioned, but it's not go to Galilee, there he'll see you. It's think back to what he said in the past in Galilee. Galilee here is the place of Jesus' past, not the place of his future. In Mark and Matthew, Galilee is both the place of the past and the future. There's a different, if you pardon the expression, there's a different theological geography at work, and the angel's message reflects it. They remembered his words and on returning from the tomb, they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest. There's no explicit command for them to do that, but it's not surprising at that.

[43:55]

is what takes place. Now at this point, Luke names the women, some of the women. Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary, the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles. Then you come to a very important part, very important for Luke. But these words seem to them an idle tale and they did not believe them. You have the finding of the empty tomb. You have a message here, not from one, but from two angels, reminding directly the women, indirectly the apostles, of Jesus' prediction of the resurrection. But then you also have Luke's editorial comment, all this seems to be idle tale and they did not believe. So that raises for the reader the question, if this doesn't lead to faith, what is going to lead to faith? because this same sort of material seems to have been sufficient in the other cases.

[45:01]

Now at this point we get the Emmaus story. And I should mention that while there are parallels, as we see, for the stories of the women at the tomb, when you go from one gospel to another, strictly speaking, there are no parallels for the appearance stories. The appearance stories are unique to each of the, individual appearance stories are unique to each of the gospels. You can't put the appearance stories in Luke and the appearance stories in Matthew side by side and compare them the way you can compare the tomb stories. Here we get the story of two unnamed disciples, but not members of the Twelve, on the road to Emmaus. I won't read the full text because it's quite long, quite developed. I'll just pick out some of the major features. They're on their way to this village just outside of Jerusalem. So they're not in Galilee.

[46:06]

They're still right in the vicinity of Jerusalem. While they're going along, Jesus appears to them. but their eyes are kept from recognizing him. That's a point that's accented not only in this story, but it's going to come up in some of the others. People, even people who knew Jesus, do not recognize him when he first appears. He asks them what they're talking about, and that leads to a conversation in which they explain a bit about Jesus and say, we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. The hope, this came up the other day also, the hope was in the past. That's gone. Besides all this, it is now the third day since this happened. Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They went, they were at the tomb early in the morning and did not find his body. They came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels who said he was alive.

[47:09]

Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see. Now that begins to accent something that Luke is very concerned with, that all of this that has gone before has not been sufficient to bring these disciples to faith. And the reason seems to be him they did not see. that it's going to have to be a seeing of the risen Lord to lead to faith. Now, I emphasize that this is the perspective that's being suggested here by Luke. It's not the perspective that's been suggested in some of the other texts. Jesus then goes on to instruct them in the interpretation of the scriptures, beginning with Moses and all the prophets. They draw near to the village where they're going. They finally recognize him at table in the breaking of the bread.

[48:12]

And when that happens, he vanishes. They decide immediately to return to Jerusalem. They rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem. And here we run into another point in the story that interrupts the flow, apparently deliberately. They return to Jerusalem. They find the eleven gathered together and those who were with them. And at this point, what you expect, if you're not familiar with the story, is that the two disciples are going to get the chance to say what's happened to them, but they don't. Instead, as soon as they come in, they are told The Lord has risen indeed and has appeared to Simon. Then they told what had happened on the road and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread. Now what has happened?

[49:13]

Luke has emphasized one particular point. The faith of the church, in the sense that that's represented by the core group in Jerusalem, the faith of the church, as Luke sees it, does not come from what has happened at the tomb. It also does not come from what has happened on the road to Emmaus, despite the fact that he tells that story in great detail and with great emphasis. The faith of the church comes from the appearance to Simon. The Lord has risen indeed and has appeared to Simon. The second part of that seems intended to buttress the first part of the statement. So once again, we have here an accent. Simon, of course, is the same as Peter. It's a different name for the same person. Once again, we have an accenting of the position of Peter. Here, however, a little different aspect to it, the suggestion that a first appearance is an appearance to Peter.

[50:15]

You remember that in Luke's account, the women at the tomb don't see Jesus as they do in Matthew. And the suggestion here is that before any of the Emmaus stories unfolded, Jesus has already appeared to Peter. It's just that the other disciples are on the road and they're not yet informed about what had happened. At this point, we have a further appearance story. Jesus now appears to the whole group. They're startled and frightened and suppose that they saw a spirit. They shouldn't be reacting that way, having just recognized that the Lord is truly risen. But nonetheless, this is how they react. He shows them his hands and feet. and eventually asks them for something to eat and receives and eats a piece of fish.

[51:17]

He then goes on in the following verses to instruct them in much the same way as he had instructed the two disciples on the road to Emmaus in the interpretations of the scriptures. And it ends with a statement that repentance and forgiveness of sin should be preached in his name to all nations. Notice once again the missionary dimension, comparable, not word for word, but comparable in thrust to what we found at the end of Matthew's gospel. Beginning from Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Falluk, is the holy city from which everything goes out. You are witnesses of these things and behold, I send the promise of my father upon you, but stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high. Then the last few verses of the gospel, Jesus leads them outside the city to Bethany, blesses them and leaves.

[52:21]

This is a compressed account of the ascension, which is told in more detail in Acts. They return to Jerusalem with great joy and were continually in the temple blessing God. Notice their reaction. They're not sorrowful that Jesus has gone. They're not glad because he's gone, of course, either. They're glad because they recognize that his departure is an exaltation. Now, The main point that I would draw your attention to here is the different location of the appearance stories and corresponding differences in the words that are mentioned on different occasions. Here the disciples are not sent away from Jerusalem to Galilee. They're told to stay in Jerusalem. That's where they see the risen Lord. That's where they will receive the Holy Spirit. Jerusalem, Paluk, is not only the city of Jesus' enemies, it's the holy city which is the scene of Jesus' trial.

[53:33]

So the differences in the material can be seen from that point of view. It's consistent with that that the verse that I read earlier from Mark 14, 28, where Jesus tells the disciples that he'll see them in Galilee. Of course, in Luke's gospel, Jesus doesn't say that because that's not going to be where he sees them. We should probably break off here and defer consideration of the fourth gospel until tomorrow morning because that's a lengthy text, longer actually than the others. Before we break off though, are there any questions on the three texts that we've looked at so far? In the book of Matthew, we skipped over chapter 24, verse 12, where Peter got up and ran to the tomb. That's a complex issue.

[54:36]

It's a textual issue. Some of the ancient manuscripts have that text and some don't. And that's why I don't know about the text that you have. The one that I have prints the verse but prints it at the bottom to distinguish it out somewhat. an allusion to that in the Emmaus story. Some of our company have gone to the tomb. It doesn't mention Peter in particular, but you'll notice in verse 12 that Peter goes home wondering what had happened. But even Peter doesn't come to faith from what had happened there. And I would just say one thing. The other part of it, stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves. That's very similar to what we'll find tomorrow in John's Gospel. And it's hard to say, if it is a later edition, it might be drawing on the material from John. That's at least a possibility.

[55:39]

When you were describing the Emmaus story, you said that Luke was intent on developing the idea that what happened at the tomb was not essential, and what happened in Jerusalem was not essential. I thought you were going to say, as appropriate for a Gentile living outside Jerusalem, what happens in their experience of the liturgy in the Eucharist. is where you really find it in the world. I think there are a couple of things. There are certainly, not only in this text, but in a lot of the resurrection texts, there are very strong sacramental elements. The baptism in Matthew, there's a Eucharistic element here. And so that certainly is the focus of the Emmaus story in itself, that it's in the breaking of the bread that they recognize who Jesus is, even though he's been there all along. Luke also is making the additional point about Peter.

[56:48]

That's the part that I accented more. But you're right in emphasizing the breaking of the bread. And perhaps you can also, it's not exactly the same thing, but notice the emphasis on eating in the later appearance in Jerusalem too, though it's a piece of fish. There's still an eating element to the identification of Jesus there. I could add just one comment that, and we'll see this further later, but that this emphasis, the Lord has risen indeed and has appeared to Simon. If Luke is so interested in that, why doesn't he have a story of the appearance to Simon? Why is there so much on the appearance to the Emmaus disciples and yet no appearance to Simon? The only answer I can give to that is that the early church seems not to have had one, had a story about it, because there are references elsewhere also to an individual appearance to Peter.

[57:52]

There's a lot of emphasis placed on it, but nowhere in the New Testament is a story told. of that individual appearance. The appearances are always appearances to the women, appearances to the group of disciples, appearances to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus and so on. But we don't have a story of an appearance to Peter. We should break off here and we can pick up with Tom.

[58:18]

@Transcribed_v004
@Text_v004
@Score_JJ