We should get started again this morning. At this time, a few people may be trickling in as we go ahead. What I'd like to do this morning is to go on to the material in the fourth gospel, and then either later on this morning or this evening, take a look at some of the material in Paul, and then after that, bring the treatment of the resurrection and the whole program to a conclusion. First, though, a few words on the fourth gospel. One of the reasons for not beginning to look at the fourth gospel last night is that this text does not just provide us with a fourth resurrection narrative, which you'd expect from the fourth gospel, but instead with a fourth and fifth resurrection narrative. We have two here, which complicates matters further. Most of the time when we look at the fourth gospel, it's not possible to give an exact parallel to text in any one of the first three gospels.

[01:04]

We don't have parallels in the first three gospels for the long story of Jesus' healing of the blind man where he presents himself as the light of the world. We don't have a parallel for the Lazarus story. We don't have a parallel for the lengthy discourse of Jesus at the Last Supper that we've been hearing liturgically recently. We do, however, have a parallel for a few places, and the story of the visit to the tomb is one of them, even though the parallel isn't absolutely complete. So it would be helpful to keep in mind what we've seen here in the three synoptic accounts. Once again, the starting point is just before the resurrection material itself, with the end of the passion narrative, Like the other evangelists, John relates the story of Jesus' trial, crucifixion, and burial. There's a little difference in his burial story because in addition to Joseph of Arimathea, The fourth gospel also has the figure of Nicodemus who participates in the burial, but basically the burial story is similar to what we've seen in other places with one exception.

[02:18]

The exception is reflected in chapter 19, verse 39. Nicodemus also, who had first come to him by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh of aloes, about a hundred pounds weight. They took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. Think back to two of the three synoptic accounts where the idea of anointing the body of Jesus is prominent in the purpose of the women's visit to the tomb. That's ruled out here. This is an enormous quantity of material, far more than would be needed for the purpose. The anointing already takes place, as far as John is concerned, in the course of the regular burial procedure, which is quite dignified and quite honorific. When we come to chapter 20, which is the first set of the resurrection narratives, on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.

[03:29]

So the beginning here is very similar to the synoptic story. No motivation is given, but it seems that she's gone there to pray and to mourn. One difference from the synoptic accounts is that there's only one woman, just Mary Magdalene, that's involved. That leads to some, well, it's something to keep in mind with regard to what follows. Verse 2 says, so she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, they have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him. Now, the obvious difference here is that in the synoptic stories, there are events at the tomb before the group of women leave. Here, Mary Magdalene leaves right away. But you notice that even though she's alone, when she goes to Peter and the other disciple, she does use the plural. We don't know where they have laid him.

[04:32]

The reason for that is not clear, but again, it may be some combination of a tradition that had more than one woman at the tomb, that the plural form has been retained. Then there's a story of a kind of race between Peter and the other disciple going toward the tomb. For the time being, Mary Magdalene disappears from the picture. They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and he went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in. And he saw and believed. For as yet they did not know the scripture that he must rise from the dead.

[05:37]

Then the disciples went back to their homes. And there are a couple of things to say about that before we go on. This part, of course, does not have a parallel in the synoptics. The only thing that you could connect it with at all are the references in Luke to the disciples going to the tomb to check out the woman's story, but that's not related there in any detail. Here you have a fully developed story of the matter. You notice that in some respects there is a certain priority to Peter and in other respects there's a certain priority to the other disciple. The other disciple gets to the tomb first. Peter follows. However, Peter is the first one into the tomb. The other disciple has stood outside until Peter gets in first. Yet it is said only of the other disciple that he saw and believed. It doesn't say explicitly anything about Peter believing.

[06:38]

That may be implied, may not be implied. It's certainly not stated explicitly. In any case, just note that priority of each in certain respects. Notice also that here There is no heavenly messenger in the two. It's hard to imagine that there's a heavenly messenger there and that they don't see him. That's not plausible. They simply go in. They see the absence of the body. They see the cloths, the burial cloths, neatly folded, which may be a sign that the body has not been removed surreptitiously. In any case, what they see is enough to evoke faith. Now that's quite different from the way things have been presented in some of the other Gospels. Here, the emptiness of the tomb.

[07:39]

takes on an enhanced significance. And it does seem also to be important to know that precisely in the gospel where the bare fact of the emptiness of the tomb picks up in symbolic importance, that that's precisely the gospel where Peter is the first one to go into the tomb, where in a sense the story of the women at the tomb is interrupted Just as the story of the disciples on the way to Emmaus was interrupted to get the report the Lord is truly risen and has appeared to Peter, similarly here the story of the woman at the tomb is interrupted to let Peter and the other disciple get into the tomb first. That seems to be the work of the evangelist and not the way in which the tradition was originally told. It's not the way it's told in the other Gospels. Now, if you look then at verse 11. Verse 11 says, but Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept, she stooped to look into the tomb.

[08:51]

If you drop out verses 2 to 10. If you drop out the part about Mary going to the disciples and the disciples rushing to the tomb, verse 11 fits in very well after the first verse of the chapter. Mary goes to the tomb, sees the stone roll back, but stands weeping outside and looks in. The only thing you really have to change is the repetition of her name. You'd probably use a pronoun instead of repeating the name Mary. But basically, it flows very smoothly from 1 to 11. There's another indication that in all probability, at one point, verse 1 and verse 11 and what follows was an original telling of the story of a woman going to the tomb. into which the rest of the material has been inserted, apparently for the theological reasons of putting it in a head. When she looks into the tomb, she sees two angels in white. Now, again, that's a sign that we're dealing with a combination of different stories because just a minute before, there were no angels in the tomb.

[10:03]

It doesn't make much sense to think that they weren't there when Peter and the other disciple went in and then suddenly come at the stage. They're seated where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. And they said to a woman, why are you weeping? She said to them, because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him. That's very similar to what she says in the earlier verse to Peter and the other disciples. And it seems to be the case that what we now have up in verse two, where she says it to the other disciples, is taken out of the earlier material in verse 13, where she says it to the two angels, and duplicated in the other text. You notice, however, that when Mary goes into the tomb, she sees that the body is gone, she sees the angels there, but her reaction is one of not knowing what has happened to the body.

[11:07]

It's not a reaction of faith here. It's more similar to the other stories in that respect we've seen in the synoptics. Saying this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, but did not know that it was Jesus. So here we have a vision of Jesus at the tomb that's like what we had in Matthew, but unlike Mark and Luke. The nature of the vision is something like what we've seen in different circumstances elsewhere. A seeing of Christ, but non-recognition. at least at first. Now, one thing that's noteworthy in this case is that the figure that Mary sees is not presented as a glorified figure. This is someone who looks quite ordinary. She doesn't recognize it as Jesus, but she thinks it's the gardener. Jesus asked a woman, why are you weeping?

[12:11]

Whom do you seek? Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus said to her, Mary. She turned and said to him in Hebrew, rabboni, which means teacher. She recognizes him. at his initiative, not hers, and she recognizes him precisely when he calls her by name, which in this context in the fourth gospel evokes the memory of the good shepherd material, the good shepherd who knows the sheep and calls each by name. This is an element of this telling of the story that we don't find in the other texts. Jesus tells her not to hold him because he has not yet ascended to the Father. He gives her a message to take to the disciples. I am ascending to my Father and to your Father, to my God and to your God.

[13:12]

The text was just used this morning. Again, we have a certain parallel to the synoptics in that a message is given. Here it's given directly by Jesus himself because the angels don't give a message in this case. They ask the question why she's weeping, but Jesus gives the message on his own. The message here differs in substance from what has been present in the other Gospels. In the other Gospels, we found either the direction to go to Galilee or a reminder of the passion predictions. Here, we have a different type of message, a message that's in much more Johannine terminology about Jesus ascending. Mary Magdalene went and said to the disciples, I have seen the Lord. And she told him that he had said these things to her. So she does carry out the command. But notice that before she carries out the command, she gives a kind of preliminary statement, which is a sort of brief confession of Easter.

[14:18]

I have seen the Lord. vocabulary there, seeing the Lord, is significant because it's similar to what we find in other reformulations of the faith. That's the end of the story at the tomb. And it's at that point that the stricter parallels to the other texts are completed, because the resurrection appearances which follow, which don't take place right at the tomb, are not strictly in parallel to the text that we've seen in the synoptics, just as even the synoptic texts are not strictly parallel to each other. Before I go on to the appearance stories, are there any questions or problems about the the tomb story in John. Well, There's an issue with the angel.

[15:33]

Well, I can say... The first thing that I have to say is that you have to take the tomb as described in a given text, because you have to stick with the formulation as they have it. The closest thing you have here is in the burial narrative at the end of chapter 19. It's quite clear from the burial narrative in this text, also in the synoptics, that Jesus is buried in a single grave. It's not a mass grave. It's specified here as a new tomb in a garden, and it's sufficiently large that a big stone blocks the entrance. So the suggestion is that it's dug somehow into a hillside or cave or something and that it's then blocked up. It's also described as having sufficient room for people to go in.

[16:42]

I'm not thinking here of the angels, but rather Peter and the other disciple go in, Mary goes in. So there's enough room to do that, and there's enough room to have the linen cloths lying on the side. Beyond that, it's not likely that it's very large. That's the way it's described. And the problem with the angels is partly this, that angels at the tomb figure in all four. of the narratives. In some cases they're spoken of as a young man or something, but the implication still seems very clear that this is supposed to be an angelic figure. They're described in some cases in rather dramatic terms. Here they're in white, some of the others seem to be not as dramatic in the description. Two of the Gospels speak about two angels, two of the Gospels speak about one. And the message carried by the angel varies. In this case, the angel asks a question, but then is supplanted to a certain extent by Jesus, so there's nothing further for them to say.

[17:49]

The question would be whether that is intended to be taken as a historical report in the first place, or whether that is a literary device for saying that the recognition of the Easter message is a gift of God. If it's the second, if it's part of a literary presentation, then the question of the woman's reaction doesn't really come in. It's part of the way things are described. Even in the other Gospels, there are places where the woman's reaction is fear, awe, matters of that sort, but it's not specified as being precisely because of the angel. It's because of the overall events that have occurred, and the same thing seems present here. So that may also be a sign that you can't take these texts

[18:50]

as a direct historical description in the sense that would let you raise psychological questions about how would someone react on seeing this or seeing that. Because then you would get into further questions that if Mary Magdalene has seen two angels and she must presumably know from that that something is out of the ordinary here. Why then take Jesus for the God? There are different pieces that make sense in themselves, but I think they point to a different interpretation. Question about the other disciple, the one with Jesus alone. You know, I don't think it's very traditional to say that that was John the Evangelist, but on what basis is there that kind of speculation? Well, that is the traditional And one of the reasons, there are some reasons in the text that in a way cause him to point to it.

[19:57]

One of them is that in, that's presuming that you identify the evangelist with the name John. That's a further step. At the end of the crucifixion story in the fourth gospel, There is the story of the soldier opening the side of Jesus with a spear and the blood and water flowing out, which you only have in the fourth gospel. And then the text says, he who saw it has borne witness, his testimony is true and he knows that he tells the truth that you also may believe. And there's often a link is made between that and the authorship of the gospel. The one who has seen it is, of course, the disciple who was standing under the cross, and that's the same figure. So that's one of the reasons, traditionally, for the link. Second is that people apparently went through, or have gone through, looking for places where this disciple is mentioned. and have drawn the conclusion that if this disciple is described simply as the one whom Jesus loved, then he can't be anyone else who's named in that particular passage.

[21:08]

Can't be Peter, because Peter's another figure. Can't be so-and-so, depending on the text. And that left John, to a certain extent, by process of elimination. Providing that you presume that it's a historical figure, and secondly presume that it's somebody who's who's mentioned by name elsewhere from among the twelve. It's difficult to carry out that kind of historical argumentation. What can be said certainly is that this is a figure that, while people speak a lot about the Johannine community, the gospel, it comes from a particular group within the early church. This is a figure that they seem to identify as being at the origin of their community, whether he's the evangelist or not may be another question. And they see on the one hand a certain rivalry with Peter reflected in the text.

[22:15]

It comes up again in the text that we'll be coming to later. On the other hand, a desire to maintain some type of a link between the two. That's where the theme of the other disciple getting to the tomb first, Peter following. Following is the word for discipleship, actually. So there's an implication to that. On the other hand, Peter is the first one in. And in some of the later scenes, Peter is the one who does various things that the other disciple doesn't do. So they seem to be representatives The other disciple, representative of the Ohanian community, Peter, the representative of the Church as a whole. And one of the purposes of the Gospel seems to be to try to maintain the link expressed through the references to these figures. Now whether that is also reflective of certain historical material, as well as having that symbolic significance, that's another question.

[23:16]

Because in the places where you can make comparisons, You don't have material of this sort. You don't have another disciple under the cross with Jesus' mother. Of course, you don't have Jesus' mother under the cross either in that gospel. So you don't have the conversation, behold your son, behold your mother. You don't have any references to this other disciple in the resurrection material in the synoptics, unless you imagine this other disciple as part of the larger group, which is certainly possible, but not singled out in any way. So that seems to be the background of it. I was thinking more in terms of the fact that everybody would know him at that time. Instead of naming him by name, he was just called the beloved disciple or the other disciple. Then using that fact to authenticate the validity of the eyewitnessship of the Gospel itself in the eyes of the community. Well, maybe perfectly well-known, but... Well, for one thing, there are other people that were very well-known and they didn't hesitate to mention by name.

[24:30]

Peter is one of them, but the name constantly keeps recurring. For the very purpose of not trying to say he was better than Peter, to leave him unnamed for that matter. Well, it's possible. It's certainly true that there is a link intended between the other disciple and the particular standing of this community. People have argued. Raymond Brown has developed a number of arguments about the history of the Ohanian community, their tentative conclusions, of course. But he's taken the position that, first of all, it was a distinct community within the larger church with very distinctive characteristics. And that would be confirmed by the fact that this gospel was not immediately accepted. by the Church as a whole. It struck people as strange. It doesn't strike us as strange, because we're used to it. But if you grew up just with the synoptic Gospels, you would find this unusual.

[25:36]

And probably a little suspect at first hearing, not this particular scene, but a good bit of the Gospel as a whole. It doesn't have an account of the institution of the Eucharist. It doesn't have the type of material you have in the Sermon on the Mount. doesn't have an infancy narrative. Instead, it's got a hymn to the Logos. It sounds a little suspicious to people until you become familiar with it and see links. So, it may well be that within the Ohanian community, there were people who wanted to maintain links with the rest of the church. That's what the gospel represents. And others who considered themselves superior to other Christians were quite prepared to go it alone. And the gospel, and perhaps even more so the epistles, are intended to keep the Ohanian community linked with the rest of the church.

[26:38]

Well, this may be a part of that picture. Anything else? All right. All right. Then at the end of this, we turn to some appearance stories. Chapter 20, verses 19 to 23, first of all, we have an appearance in Jerusalem. So that's more comparable to Luke. That evening, the first day of the week, Jesus comes to where the disciples are, despite the fact that the doors are closed. He says, peace be with you. Shows them his hands on his side. And then there is a mission command. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. He gives them the Holy Spirit and says, if you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven.

[27:45]

If you retain the sins of any, they are retained. That's a scene very much like the Pentecost material in Luke. It's also in some respects like the last scene in the Gospel of Matthew, the mission command that's present there. The difference lies in the circumstances. Here it's presented as Easter Sunday evening and consistent with that in Jerusalem rather than at a later date in Galilee. 24 through 29. A further addition to this story has to do with Thomas, who is now said not to have been present. You wouldn't have thought that from the initial telling of the story. all seem to be there. Thomas was not with them. He's not willing to believe until he sees the print of the nails and places his finger in the mark of the nails and in his side.

[28:54]

You'll notice, of course, that some of the specifics of this can't be transposed from this gospel to another one, because it's in the fourth gospel precisely that the side has been opened. The nail marks would be possible out of the context, but not the sign. Eight days later, the scene is roughly repeated. Jesus again comes while the doors are closed. He offers Thomas the possibility of seeing and touching the wounds. It's not said that Thomas actually touches them. Instead, Thomas responds with a profession of faith, my Lord and my God, and is told part through a rhetorical question, have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe. And the implication of that is that the time for seeing in this direct sense is now over.

[29:59]

and that the next generation of Christians is able to believe but also required to believe without having seen in this fashion because there won't be a repetition of the opportunity that was given to Thomas. There's another element there that I'll come back to later, but I'll just note it in passing here. The very close identification between the crucifixion and the resurrection. The resurrected Christ bears the wounds of the crucifixion here. Again, it's an indication of why it goes in a false direction to make too close a link between one story and another. The wounds are not visible when Mary Magdalene sees Christ in the tomb. She wouldn't take him for the gardener if he were wounded in that way. Here, however, where there's no question of him being mistaken for a gardener, the story accents particularly the connection between the crucifixion.

[31:03]

Right after the conclusion the text starts up again. After this, Jesus revealed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias. It's like listening to a speaker. You've been waiting for it to end and then suddenly launches into a new section after saying, this is my last point. Why is that the case here? It's generally held that after this gospel was written, but relatively soon after the gospel was written, a second author made a few additions and perhaps modifications in the text. The exact extent of that is disputed. Some people think there are fairly substantial modifications in the body of the text. Some others think that it's rather minor. But it seems that substantially chapters 1 through 20 are the work of the first author with perhaps a few adjustments here and there.

[32:12]

Chapter 21, however, is generally ascribed to the work of another author, an author within the same general community, not a foreign influence completely, but someone who wanted to add on further material and who did so, at least in this case, not by reworking the whole text, but rather by making an additional, what we call an additional chapter. Instead of putting this in before the conclusion, he tacks it on after the conclusion, and then if you look ahead, He duplicates the conclusion again at the end of chapter 21. But there are also many other things which Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. That's another way of finishing off. Now, what's distinctive? about chapter 21, there's a good bit of theological content to it.

[33:18]

The location of the appearance, one long appearance story with the discussion that follows, the location of the appearance is now in Galilee. So we're out of Jerusalem. We see now two different settings for appearance stories. In Luke and in John, 20 appearances in Jerusalem. In Mark, we don't have appearance stories, but there's an appointing toward Galilee. And in Matthew, and now John 21, appearances in Galilee. Then you also could take into account, in addition to that, a couple of places where there's an appearance right at the tomb itself. The disciples are at the Sea of Tiberias, and they're fishing. Now, the presumption here is, well, there are two ways of taking it. If you take it as it stands in the gospel at the moment, you have to say that the appearances so far have been utterly without effect.

[34:27]

There's been a mission command, but there's no beginning of preaching. Instead, there's a return to fishing. The one thing they've done is stick together in the process. The other way of taking it, probably the more likely way of taking it, is that this is a separate appearance story that is subsequently being put in after the other two. It makes more sense taken by itself. Simon Peter, Thomas called a twin, Nathaniel of Cana and Galilee the sons of Zebedee and two other disciples of Phishon. Peter, is the one who takes the initiative in that. They went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing. That's happened before. There's a story, and it's happened to lots of people, I suppose, but it's happened in the Gospels before. In chapter 5 of Luke, a very similar story is told leading to the vocation of Peter in the first place. Just as day was breaking, Jesus stood on the beach, yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus.

[35:35]

This is the theme we've seen before, seeing but not recognizing. Jesus said to them, children, have you any fish? The ants said, no. He said to them, cast the net on the right side of the boat and you will find some. So they cast it and now they were not able to haul it in for the quantity of fish. That disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, it is the Lord. So once again, we're going to have that same interplay between the two disciples. And here it's the unnamed disciple whom Jesus loved who was the first to recognize Jesus, apparently recognize him because of the miraculous catcher fish. Even he has not recognized him up to this point. When Simon Peter heard it was the Lord, he put on his clothes, for he was stripped for work and sprang into the sea." I don't know what the reason for that is. You'd expect the opposite if he's going to jump into the water.

[36:37]

But in fact, this is the way the story is told. The thrust of it, certainly theologically, is the same thing as going into the tomb. The other disciple recognizes the Lord. It's the other disciple who even tells Peter who it is. Peter doesn't catch on his own, but Peter's the first one to get there. It's not the other disciple who first reaches Jesus. So there's still, each has priority in certain respects. But the other disciples came in the boat, dragging the net full of fish, for they were not far from land, but about a hundred yards, off. When they get out on land, they saw a charcoal fire there. The charcoal fire is one word in Greek, and it's the same word that is used in the passion narrative when Peter warms his hands before denying Jesus. So there's a link back here to the earlier scene.

[37:41]

With fish lying on it and bread, again the theme of meal. Jesus has his own fish. Where the fish come from is not said, but they're not the fish that have been caught. Jesus then said to them, bring some of the fish that you have just caught. So Simon Peter went aboard. That's important. Simon Peter is the one that hauls the net in, and the others don't haul the net in. full of large fish, 153 of them. And though there were so many, the net was not broken. That's universally taken to have ecclesiological significance, the unbroken unity of the church. And that's why it's important that Peter is the one who is linked to the symbolism here, not the other disciple. Jesus said to them, come and have breakfast. None of the disciples dared ask him, who are you? They knew it was the Lord. Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them.

[38:43]

There's perhaps Eucharistic overtones to that as well. and so with the fish. Then you get verse 14. This was now the third time that Jesus was revealed to the disciples after he was raised from the dead. That seems to be part of the process of linking this in with the rest of the gospel. Through verses 1 through 13, there's no suggestion at all that this is the third time. It seems to be the time as far as the story is concerned. But now it becomes the third time. The first time was the disciples without Thomas, then the disciples with Thomas, and now this scene in Galilee. After this, there is an extended conversation between Jesus and Peter. He's asked three times, do you love me? And three times receives a command to tend Jesus' sheep. Again, ecclesiological significance to it.

[39:43]

Then there is a veiled reference to Peter's martyrdom. and a command finally in verse 19 to discipleship, follow me. Peter turns and sees following them the disciple whom Jesus loved, picking up that theme again. When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, Lord, what about this man? Jesus says, if it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? And then there's a further discussion about that, the situation of the other disciple and the question of his death. Once again, at that last point, the interplay between Peter and the other disciple, the question of their relationship. Then the evangelist brings the whole text to a close by repeating basically, although in slightly different words, the formulation which was used at the end of chapter 20.

[40:53]

So this is the last of our resurrection narratives in the Gospels, the last of that type of resurrection material. We've seen a lot of variations from text to text. differences in the tomb story in the number and identity of the women, the number of the angels, messages of the angel. As far as the appearance stories are concerned, the divergences are even greater. Differences in location between Jerusalem and Galilee, differences especially in the words of the risen Lord, and some variations in the nature of the appearance of the risen Lord. What links these various stories together? The one thing that does link them together is a certain common set of theological themes that are reflected in different ways in the different stories.

[41:56]

The evangelists do not seem to have been concerned to keep all the references identical from one text to another. Instead, they felt quite free with the formulation. And that freedom is present apparently not only with the evangelists themselves, but also with those who told the stories beforehand, quite free to develop the stories for theological purposes. The themes that are common, not universal, but fairly widespread in them, are both Christological and Ecclesiological. Christological themes include the identity of the crucified Jesus with the risen Lord. There are a lot of references that seem intended to hammer that point home. The Risen Lord still has the marks of the crucifixion. The heavenly messenger, in one case, repeats the prediction of the passion and resurrection.

[43:01]

tells the women, you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. Any idea that this is someone else or that the crucifixion can now be forgotten about because of the resurrection, that's ruled out. Secondly, there is considerable interest in sacramental themes. Baptism in some cases, Eucharist in other cases. There's no institution account here, but there's the imagery of the meal and specifically the imagery of the bread in somewhat varying circumstances. Then there's a mission theme, also ecclesiological. The specifics of that in description vary, but the point of mission, the point of the disciples' representation of Jesus for the future is strong. And finally, there is a certain emphasis on the origin of faith as divine gift.

[44:09]

That seems to be the element which underlies the very frequent references to not recognizing Jesus at first, recognizing him only later. The story on the way to Emmaus says only when their eyes were open, the implication when they're opened by God. that recognition takes place. That's not said explicitly in the other cases, but there are indications that it's only at the initiative of Jesus that recognition of who he is is possible. That theme of faith, of course, becomes very explicit in the story with Thomas, where the appeal for faith is what the story culminates in. And then finally, I'd note one more theme. That's the extraordinary emphasis on Peter in this context. Peter's taken a fairly prominent role throughout the Gospels, more so than other individuals, but not in as concentrated a form as is present here.

[45:11]

And it's worth noting that none of the references to Peter are strictly parallel to each other. It's not that one evangelist had a reference to Peter that was then taken over by the others in specific form. Instead, it's that each in a different way, Matthew's an exception here, but the other texts, each in a different way, link specific attention to Peter as the most prominent figure, if you go through the text as a whole, in bearing witness to the resurrection. Even though the specifics of that vary when when there's any kind of an effort made to account for that, more specifically. That too has ecclesiological significance. It's tied in very closely with the theme of the unity of the church, which is also reflected in some of the texts. So those are the gospel appearance narratives Are there any final thoughts or questions?

[46:14]

There's no reason why that whole chapter couldn't be somewhere else in the Gospel. Isn't it rather reminiscent of other on-the-wing situations? It could be... have been transposed there and just that line put in to make it a post-rhetorical appearance, which has nothing to say about Christological... Well, certainly the Christological ramifications are there in any case. Some people have argued that it's the reverse that's happened, that what was originally a resurrection story, as reflected here in John 21, was in some other cases, in Luke specifically, transposed into the gospel because, as you say, it's the type of scene that can readily be placed, it is in Galilee anyway, can be readily placed in the context of Jesus' life.

[47:24]

There is one thing that you have to, you probably have to alter if you do put it in Jesus' life. You can't have the recognition element. If it's an initial vocation story, as it appears in Luke, they haven't seen Jesus before. So you couldn't have the element of saying, this is the Lord or this is Jesus. It has to be presented elsewhere as an initial introduction. My question goes more to what did Christ do for the other thirty-seven days? You know, in other words, if he was shown up just those three times, let's assume there were three separate days, I'm just dying to know if there's any evidence, talk, speculation, if the people, you know, talked about... Was it... is it anywhere indicated that he just... he instructed, you know, the apostles, almost like the way that you're

[48:30]

grabbing us for four days here and giving us a little insight. Well, the 40 days, the first thing you say is this, that any retelling of these stories presupposes a certain bit of time. And if you put them in Jerusalem, you don't need too much time. If you put them in Galilee, you need some travel time. And if you're going to have both, well, they really don't have both in most cases, but if you're going to have both, then you'd have to allow some time for going back and forth. But the theme of the 40 days, that's Luke's number, and that's not a number that's found in the other texts. And a lot of what Luke puts at the end of the 40 days, or even beyond that, going ahead to Pentecost, is put at an earlier time in the other text, specifically in John.

[49:37]

The best illustration of that concretely is the gift of the Spirit. In Luke, and then going on into Acts, the Spirit is mentioned In the story, while it's at the end of the gospel and it's more specifically in Acts at the beginning, where Let me read two lines. One addresses your question directly and then the second one picks up on the other point. To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during 40 days and speaking of the kingdom of God. So there's a certain instruction going on. The only thing with that formulation, of course, is that he's already been speaking about the kingdom of God for a long time. This is not a new theme that's mentioned. And while staying with them, he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which she said, you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.

[50:47]

Then you have the Ascension story. And then after another brief interval during which Matthias is chosen to take Judas' place, the Pentecostal, which is the fulfillment of the promise and the gift of the Holy Spirit. So that's spread out. And what the days are filled with in that case, the 40-day period is filled with further instruction. And then the 10-day period is partly a matter of waiting, but also partly a matter of replenishing the number of the 12, which is short one. However, in John's gospel, the Holy Spirit is given on Easter Sunday evening. You receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven, and so on. What the two have in common is to say that the Spirit is present to the church. That's one thing. And then secondly, that the Spirit is present precisely as Jesus' gift and not as a spirit that leads away from Jesus.

[51:50]

So the link between Jesus and the Spirit is very strong. It's the same point that Paul makes in 1 Corinthians. No one can say Jesus is Lord except in the Holy Spirit and no one speaking in the Spirit can say anathema to Jesus. So the link between Jesus and the Spirit is important. But the question of time seems to be the evangelist's way of saying something and not more. Now Luke's time frame is, of course, what determines the liturgical year. And that's perfectly legitimate because you need time to absorb. It's the same point that the homilist made this morning. There's so much to the paschal mystery that you have to spread it out and you have to try to keep the whole thing in mind as you spread it out. Well, that's Luke's way of doing it. John gives a more compressed presentation and the issue of the 40 days doesn't arise then in that context.

[52:57]

Go ahead. contemporary, professed at the same time as Father Nemesis, that with the resurrection, it was with the Father. These are, as you have explained, these are accommodations to human mortality, but with his resurrection, So this, I guess, is just to fit in the space of the literature as well. This is a way of spelling it out. Yeah. See, I think the issue is that there are so many dimensions to what they're trying to say that you can't say it all in one story. And so you have different stories accenting different points. Now, if you try to reduce those stories to one, first of all, they don't reduce easily. They resist that. But if you were to be successful in reducing them, you'd lose more than you'd gain, because you'd lose the richness of the different themes that are accented.

[54:04]

So we can picture pretty much these guys kind of figuring this out in an informal council in the first century. But hey, this is a lot to absorb, so therefore let's lay it out in this way. Create the mechanism or the literary device to kind of... Well, that's a little more organized perhaps than they were. You're thinking they had something like the new Bishop's Conference building or someplace like that to go. I think there are themes. First of all, the 40 days, of course, 40 days is a great symbolic number. I mean the number 40 from the Old Testament, 40 years in the desert, from Jesus' 40 days in the desert being tempted by the devil, all the numbers which occur in these cases are significant. theological numbers. And there's a tie-in, as far as Pentecost is concerned, with Jewish feasts as well.

[55:09]

There's a link. Well, the 50 days, that's the link there. It gives you an occasion then for the preaching in Jerusalem that takes place after that. So Luke is tying in with that. If Luke's gospel is written, say, about the year 80 to 90, somewhere in that period, there's a fairly long period of time there for this to get developed. I wouldn't want to suggest that the evangelist created these stories out of nothing. These are stories that existed beforehand and were worked up, worked together in some form. But it seems that the individual evangelist had a certain flexibility in presenting this as a way of drawing together different themes.

[56:12]

They all had different audiences. They all had different audiences in mind. One would have mostly Jewish people. would have a lot of people that were Greeks. And then there's also possibly another factor that may tie in with this. It seems that in the very early period, there was a very strong consciousness that the end was near, that Paul gives that impression in some places. And he tells people, don't think you can just sit around and wait, but the end is near. Mark is written to a certain extent from that perspective. Ten years later, fifteen years later, people begin to wonder more. The end has not come. Christians are dying increasingly. Another generation is coming. And the perspective seems to be that it's going to be longer.

[57:16]

And that seems to be one of the reasons motivating Luke to write the Acts of the Apostles, to argue that this passage of time is in some respects for the good because it's a time in which the church can spread. You couldn't do that unless you had time for that to happen. But that also means that you have to present the gospel from the beginning as looking toward patience, toward endurance, toward lasting over a longer period. You notice that in the Ascension story, it's the part that we ended with this morning, after Jesus goes up, the angels tell the disciples not to stand around looking up to heaven. waiting for him to come. He will come, but they're not supposed to stand around waiting. Instead, they're supposed to fulfill his command, which is to go back to Jerusalem and then be the beginnings of the missionary activity that takes place.

[58:23]

So there's an accenting in that sense also, that a particular audience, as far as the time is concerned, that the evangelist wants to address. The underlying question which I always wonder about, with regards to all of these spirits and their stories, is what exactly... I suppose there are two questions. What does it mean when they said, we have seen the Lord? And the corollary to that, what do we mean when we talk about a resurrected body? You know, it seems to me there's kind of a spectrum. I went into the spectrum. It's kind of like a superman, because he essentially looks just as you or I would, but it's kind of like a superman body. He can walk through walls and fly, maybe, and do all sorts of things. But essentially, it's just a human body with extraordinary characteristics. The other extreme is that these are literary constructions

[59:29]

to describe an experience, a very powerful experience of faith and a presence that they had. But essentially, they did not see anything corporeal. In that respect, their experience is not different than ours. I mean, when you talk about experiencing. Let me just make one comment briefly and then perhaps we can pick that up later because this evening I'd like to say something about 1 Corinthians 15 and that'll tie in a bit more directly with these questions. The first thing I would say is that you can't get a description of the risen body, either Christ or what we hope for ourselves, out of these texts. that, for one thing, there's too much variation from one account to another. There's a difference between Mary Magdalene seeing something that looks like the gardener, Thomas seeing the wounds in the hands on the side, and Paul seeing

[60:50]

what seems to be some sort of dramatic, exalted figure. You can't say that the risen Christ is, in fact, all of these things. All you can say is that this is either a literary way of presenting things or it's the way Christ showed himself. Even if you take them very literally, there's a transposition to make a point with a given recipient of the vision. So that won't let you give a description. I suppose all you can say is that they have two themes which Paul reflects toward the end of 1 Corinthians when he starts talking about our own hope for a resurrected body, that on the one hand there is some type of continuity, that this is still identifiable as Jesus and specifically as the one who was crucified. And yet on the other hand, there's the theme of transformation about which we don't really have the categories to be very descriptive.

[62:00]

So that's kind of a short answer to a complex question. I might say that you find You find among contemporary theologians different accents, as you know, on those issues, that Skillebeaks takes the position that the experience of the first disciples was not all that different from our own experience. He doesn't say it's exactly the same. No one says it's exactly the same, but he tends to bring the two fairly close together. On the other hand, Casper and O'Collins more or less say it's not the same at all, that it's very different, that the beginning is quite different from what follows afterwards.

[62:52]

@Transcribed_v004
@Text_v004
@Score_JJ