THINKING ABOUT CHRIST’S RESURRECTION:
DAILY MEDITATIONS FROM EASTER TO PENTECOST - Iain McKillop
1 INTRODUCTION
These studies began through exploring and attempting to clarify in my own mind what I was what 1 trying to say in my new series of painted ‘Stations of the Resurrection’. I had designed the paintings and begun to paint them all, but my thoughts always develop and deepen as I work through paintings over many months and explore their potential meanings. I came to realise that my representations were proving inadequate. As usual, when I work on pieces on religious themes, I furthered my reading of the biblical accounts, commentaries and books exploring different scholars’ theories about the Easter story, I recognised that the images were at first representing the scenes over-literally, rather like 19th Century biblical paintings. They began by emphasising the evidence for the physical nature of Jesus’ Resurrection, but were failing to convey sufficiently the spiritual meaning that is to be found through faith in Christ’s risen nature and his achievement of salvation. I was really struggling with the images, finding them the hardest works I had ever attempted, particularly in making them convey what I personally felt about the scenes and the potential meanings within the Resurrection. I halted the painting process temporarily, partly to rethink the images, partly due to an operation and quite a serious post-operative period of illness. During the hiatus I turned to writing these studies as a way of reconsidering my beliefs about the narrative that I was representing and to refocus on what I might want to convey through them. Returning to painting after much study, I found that my mind was far more ready to deal with the subjects. However, these writings and the images remain tentative, as the subjects are understandably mysterious and firm knowledge about the Resurrection is illusive. As is so often said about faith: ‘the more you think you know, the more you realise that you do not know.’ But I hope that the thoughts explored in these studies might help readers deepen their appreciation and thoughts about the Resurrection stories in the Bible.
What happened on that first Easter morning? To be as truthful as Christians should always be, no-one can be sure. Something happened soon after the death of Jesus of Nazareth that ignited the Christian faith. If Jesus had just been executed or if he had just been one of the many ‘would-be Messiahs’, healers or rabbis who arose in the centuries around his life and death, he might have earned a single mention in some Jewish or Roman annals, but little more. However, something significant must have occurred to bring about the rise of people’s faith in and through him. The development of the early Church cannot surely be accounted for by Jesus just being appreciated as a wise and charismatic teacher.
Those Christians who find it hard to believe in the possibility of miracles tend to consider that the disciples somehow came to believe that their friend and teacher was still with them in spirit through their memories of him, and convinced themselves of the Resurrection appearances. Some sceptics believe that the Resurrection stories were invented to retain the commitment of those who had followed Jesus during his life. Other believers assume that the whole biblical narrative happened literally and physically in the ways related in the Gospels. Literalists and fundamentalists are nevertheless forced to recognise that there are discrepancies between the Gospels in the accounts that they give. Having studied the Resurrection for years I have come to a conclusion that there may be some aspects of truth within each of these conclusions. But I cannot believe that the entire story could have been imagined and promoted by Jesus’ disciples. Nevertheless, it is hard to balance the differences between the narratives in the different Gospels without thinking that the stories contain elements that were elaborated in the transmission from oral to written form over the years between Jesus’ death and the Evangelists compiling the canonical Gospels. It has been recognised for years of anthropological study that those cultures which rely on transmitting history, stories and traditions orally are more accurate in passing on to other information and detail than many modern cultures. Nevertheless, mistakes in transmission can still occur over time, where names, numbers and the order of events can change. This could account for the discrepancies of the Gospel accounts, but that doesn’t mean that the basic facts are inaccurate. It just implies that the accounts passed down within various early Christian communities and groups from which the Gospel-writers drew, may have differed.
Some sermons on the Resurrection tend to give the impression that because, as orthodox doctrine claims. Jesus was divine, it was inevitable that he could not remain dead. I mentioned in the Lent Meditations that I believe that the achievement of ‘salvation’ was far more complex than the common explanations of ‘substitutional atonement’. Similarly, I sense that the Resurrection is a far more complicated issue than Jesus bouncing back to life after three days because God cannot die. I do not pretend to have any idea of what such a complicated issue might involve, but from our knowledge of life, we should not assume that simplistic answers could be correct.
I believe that the Gospels were written with the sincere belief that their contents really did happen as the narrators wrote. Too much integrity was expected in the leadership of the early Church to accept invented fiction. There may well have still been some alive who were, or more likely had known, first-hand witnesses of some of the recorded events of Jesus’ ministry, who would correct mistakes, and I believe that the Gospel writers were honest. The longer ending of Mark’s Gospel [16:9-20} does seem a possible exception: it seems to be an addition to the text, and has caused some problems in Church history, when believers have tried to apply the miraculous promises to their own churches. This has led to some sect-like beliefs that the truly spiritual person will be able to perform miraculous and sometimes dangerous acts as the words imply (lifting deadly snakes, casting out demons, drinking poison, feeling over-sure that one can heal the sick [16:18]) . The spirit of self-confident and self-centred desire to have miraculous gifts at your fingertips is very far from the spirit of Christ’s teaching in the rest of Mark and in all the other canonical Gospels.
Although Jesus talked about his Resurrection several times in the Gospels [Mk. 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:28} it is clear that the Disciples and his other followers were not expecting it. N.T. Wright discusses in depth the expectations of afterlife in Jewish traditions. It seems certain that no-one was expecting Jesus to physically return as a living tangible body.
Whatever is the truth behind the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, the issue is probably the most important aspect of the entire Christian faith. So it is important to try to get our heads round its meaning and issues. Since the first Easter billions of words will have been spoken, preached and written about it. Yet so much about the resurrection remains a ‘mystery’. If orthodox belief about the Resurrection is true, it is probably also the most important event in world history. Arguably if Jesus was the Christ, God’s self-revelation to humanity through a human being, his Resurrection shares importance with his incarnation, crucifixion, achievement of salvation, Ascension and the more permanent sending of his Spirit at Pentecost. Even a reader who does not believe, or who finds such belief difficult, would surely admit that belief in the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth has been of significant importance in the history of the world. Many cultures from the early Church, Byzantium, Orthodoxy in the West, East and Coptic societies, the Holy Roman Empire, Mediaeval, Renaissance, 18th, 19th and 20th Century revivals to Christian cultures throughout the world have been affected by the application of the Resurrection to their own understandings of present and future life.
I believe Jesus’ Resurrection to be a significant and important event, but we cannot be sure in what ways the records of it are ‘true’. No one can claim to truly know the details of what happened after Jesus’ death and how the event known as ‘the Resurrection’ came about. There is no mention in any of the Gospels of what actually happened to his body at the point of resurrection. We can be sure, I believe, as historical fact that an historical character, Jesus of Nazareth, died on the cross and we know that from three days later reports circulated that he was seen to be alive again by various of his followers. Something significant happened, and it may be that reasoned scrutiny of what the Gospels say about the events are the closest that one might be able to get to understanding what convinced the early Church of Jesus’ new life beyond his crucifixion and entombment.
If one explores the stories in scripture and issues that relate to them I believe that the basic evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection is convincing, though it may have been elaborated in the telling. I list some of the reasons for my personal conviction in my appendices and discuss them in this series of meditations. However, it is not an easy subject to reason through for any thinking person, whether a theologian, historian, philosopher, Christian with even the strongest belief and more forensic minds than my own propensity to question. There is also valuable reasoning in arguments like those of Borg and Crossan, that the importance of the Resurrection is not necessarily in it being physical, but the meaning behind it. Many believe that the most logical approach to the Resurrection is to imagine it as a realisation that developed in the mind of Jesus’ followers that he was still with them after his death. Borg and Crossan call the Resurrection stories ‘parables’, which to me misinterprets the genre of literature of the Gospels, especially their concluding chapters. Parables are fictional tales designed to convey spiritual truths and meanings. I consider that the Gospels were being written with the belief that they were ‘history’. The ancient writing of history did not seek to be as empirical as some modern history attempts to be. It might exaggerate the power of character, numbers of the dead in battles, or the power and significance of events, in order to maintain the bias of the writer or get his point across, But it was largely writing about events that were firmly believed to have happened. It is not metaphorical or fictional. I believe that the Evangelists and St. Paul were finding words to describe what they truly believed had happened. They may be exaggerations or misinterpretations of certain events, but they believed that they were conveying truths. Our role is to find the meaning for today of those beliefs.
What matters most in our relationship with God through Christ is to remember and act upon the presence of the Spirit in our lives. But St. Paul’s assertion also seems true that if Christ was not actually raised from death the hopes of salvation and our actions in response are futile [1Cor.15:12-19].
The Resurrection narratives in the Gospels are very varied. They sometimes do not all appear to tell the same story. Few include the same narratives. Luke includes sightings of Jesus as if they are occurring on a single day, though in Acts 1:3 he suggests that they were spread out over 40 days. Many include very different sightings of the risen Jesus to different people, sometimes around the same time – for example was Mary Magdalene alone in the first meeting with Jesus [Jn.20:14] or was she with a group of other women when Jesus first appeared [Matt.28:9] . It is also hard to order the meetings with the disciples, when for Luke their all the encounters are in Jerusalem or on the road to Emmaus, while in other gospel accounts he first appears in Galilee. It is not possible, therefore, to create a unified chronological narrative by attempting a comparison and compilation of the Gospels. It seems evident that the writers were not primarily writing through copying material from each other, and were reliant on a variety of different source material. In only a few instances are sightings of the risen Christ similar in a few Gospels and even there, details sometimes vary significantly. Rather than suggesting that such material is invented, I believe that the variation may imply the authenticity of some of the events included. Too much agreement over details might suggest that the writers were attempting to corroborate the story by editorial harmonisation with the writings of the other Evangelists. The variety within the stories can be interpreted to imply that the records, memories and impressions of different witnesses had been handed down in various oral reports.
Due to the variations within the Resurrection narratives, I have come to the conclusion that it is best to explore each story separately within the broad compass of the whole. To attempt to harmonise them, as Stations of the Cross do, into one chronological narrative encounters too many problems. In order to create a certain progress through the whole group of Resurrection appearances, I have formed the scenes into a general order. But they cannot be made to follow each other as precisely as a continuity editor might wish. This is why I sense that it is more important to ask of each separate incident “Why did the Evangelist include it and what did he intend us to glean from the inclusion of each scene?”
If we think about the reason for writing the ‘Resurrection narratives’ in the canonical Gospels, they seem to be telling the stories of sightings of Jesus to give evidence that Jesus was truly raised from death. The Gospel narratives themselves do not seem to be trying to persuade readers that Jesus is offering life beyond death to us. Jn.20:31 would seem to be the exception, “These are written so that you may come to believe that \Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.” However even here the allusion is not specifically to Christ’s Resurrection. Other resurrection passages do not mention the Christians’ hope for the future, which seems strange if they were intended as evangelistic literature. (Matt.27:52-53 records people rising from their tombs at Jesus’ death and Resurrection but this supernatural phenomenon does not necessarily imply that others believers will rise.)
The earliest extant Christian literature in St. Paul’s letters, does allude to the Christian hope of salvation and our belief that Christ’s followers have been given the promise of human life through Jesus’ Resurrection [1Cor.15; 2Cor.4-5; Rom.8:9-11; 1Thes.4:14]. Most Christian sermons, liturgies, hymns and other forms of literature or art about the Resurrection rarely omit reference to the promises for believers that stem from Jesus’ resurrected life. The Resurrection is often used as a vehicle for promoting faith and trust for believers’ own future security and exultation. Some commentators suggest that this content may be lacking in the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection because, at this stage in the first two centuries of Christian thought, belief in the link between Christ’s Resurrection and the future life of believers was unsure. But Paul’s letters cited above seem to contradict this.
If Jesus’ Resurrection is basically true, it is an event that we should be able to defend, not be afraid to examine the details forensically. I would encourage all thinking Christians to question what and why they believe in order to strengthen their faith. At times in the history of churches, seekers and believers have been encouraged to merely accept the miraculous teachings of Christianity as fact. Some say that true Christians should “believe and not doubt”. James 1:6 appears to say exactly that. Rom.14:26; Lk.24:38; Matt.28:17; Jn.20:27 would seem to back up the idea that faith needs to overcome doubt. In order to work practically, we often have to take ‘leaps of faith’ in many aspects of life, faith and understanding, even in science, and relationships. But we have been given human minds which encourage us to question and challenge. This is part of a natural process by which we and societies develop. We grow and expand our knowledge through challenging our beliefs. If we didn’t question or doubt accepted understandings, we would never have advanced human society, scientific knowledge, technology, the arts and humanities, our use of our environment, or belief and spirituality.
Doubt and questioning are natural functions of all human minds. A strong Christian like St. Paul must have doubted and questioned. His writings regularly discuss his wrestling with beliefs and practices and his preaching and apologetic must have been stronger as a result. Simplicity and child-like belief are commended as Christian virtues and praised by Jesus as encouraging trust [Matt.18:3-4], but deliberate ignorance or naïve credulity are not to be encouraged. Too many invented false beliefs and superstitions have developed within churches and sects in the past, feeding on the ignorance and credulity of members. This has worked to the detriment of the Church and partially caused the present decline in belief and trust in Christianity in a world that offers so many other alternative beliefs and lifestyles. As several mystics since Socrates have reiterated “an unexamined life is not worth living”. Similarly a naïve faith that does not expand or educate itself does not worthily represent a faith that is open to reason, as Christianity should be. Moreover, an unexamined faith rarely satisfies the believer, nor does it give a sufficient witness in the contemporary rational world.
That is one reason why I undertook these reflections on Jesus’ Resurrection. Many more analytical examinations of the evidences have been published, from Morrison’s ‘Who Moved the Stone’ to N.T. Wright’s mammoth theological study. So I have not attempted to emulate or condense these arguments, though my thinking has benefitted from a plethora of writers on the subject, from varied perspectives. I have rather tried to imagine myself into the scenes and reflect upon meaningful details and significant feelings that support and encourage my faith.
My Stations of the Resurrection and written meditations were created during the Covid 19 pandemic, as a way of contemplating positive and hopeful themes through such a vulnerable time for so many. I wanted to examine the evidence and relevance of the Resurrection narratives through the imagination as well as revisit and reinvestigate the recorded details of the stories. Our imaginations can sometimes distort or distract from truth by following paths of fantasy and ideas unintended by the biblical writers. Unintentionally and intentionally some Christians have invented false ideas and doctrines for centuries, by flights of the imagination. However, applying the imagination can also help one to focus on details, examine, meditate upon and clarify the personal relevance of issues. (Contemplative prayer, Lectio Divina and St. Ignatius of Loyola’s Spiritual exercises all demonstrate this.) We can often think through our imagination and through our vision, as well as by analysing facts. So I hope that my imaginative inventions may help others to think through the meaning and significance of Jesus’ Resurrection for themselves.
Of course the paintings and poems are only imagined images of the scenes recorded in the Gospels. We do not know what the scenes or characters really looked like, but accurate topography or portraiture is not important. A picture is only a metaphor for the subject that it represents. The responses that really matter are how we interpret the scene, what we receive from it, how it affects, confirms or challenges our beliefs and how we apply its content to our understanding, practices and faith. Those considerations are true of the whole topic of resurrection, as well as the rest of scripture. It is of course important to work out whether we believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Saviour, that his Resurrection is true and whether we can believe and trust that he offers us the promise of life beyond death.
The Resurrection stories expand their meaning and relevance when we consider details within them. It is useful to meditate on what the various characters involved experienced and thought, and their emotional responses. The post-resurrection sightings of Jesus helped to convince the disciples and early members of Church that he really was the Christ, anointed by God to bring salvation. After years of consideration the Church councils eventually came to the conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth was not just a teacher or prophet sent by God, but God’s self-revelation in human form. For a community consisting of many monotheistic believers, this was an enormous step, both an enormous leap of the theological imagination and a huge challenge. Many of the Jewish faith would have formerly considered such belief anathema or blasphemy, and some were martyred by their contemporaries as a consequence.
Today such beliefs are still persecuted in some cultures. But they are more often considered as naïve or over-credulous in cultures dominated by the idea that if something seems scientifically impossible or is not provable by empirical evidence, it cannot be true. This assumption is false: I cannot prove many things, yet still understand them to be true: We cannot prove that our partners love us, the origins of the cosmos, life, gravity or the wind. We do not know what is beyond infinity, and cannot even prove conclusively that homeopathic remedies and alternative forms of healing work. All we have are evidences. Jesus’ Resurrection similarly depends on evidences, even though some of the evidence that convinced believers in the past may not always be considered reliable today. The biblical narratives provide the majority of the written evidence to consider. Though the reliability and bias of ancient documents may understandably be questioned, it is undeniable that something significant happened to give confidence to the early church. Some dismiss as subjective, personal, or esoteric the experiences of Christians over centuries who consider that they have true, interactive relationships with a risen and ascended Christ. However many who have spiritual experiences and feel a relationship with God through Jesus, are in no doubt about the veracity of Christ being alive and real, communicating with them, though in a different dimension . Even those with faith who regularly question or have areas of doubt over various doctrines, can often point to evidences within their life-experiences that God and their spiritual relationship are real.
When I say that I believe in the resurrection of Jesus and that Jesus was the Christ, I do not want to imply that I no longer question or doubt. Even St. Paul recognised that we should be pitied if we are giving over much of our lives and energies, and resting our hopes on something that might eventually prove to be incorrect [1Cor.15:19]. From this it may be inferred that he too was sometimes forced to question whether his faith was all real, even though he claimed to have had a physical experience of the risen Christ [1Cor.15:8]. Even in the midst of problems and questions he was able to return to a basic belief that affirmed the Resurrection: “But in fact, Jesus has been raised form the dead, the first-fruits of those who have died.” [1Cor.15:20].
A key issue for the believer is not just ‘Do I believe that Jesus rose from death?’ but further: ‘Do I believe that Jesus’ Resurrection, offers me the promise of a life beyond death with him?’ We have no idea what that form of existence might be like. Christians have made assumptions and guesses, even doctrinal statements throughout time. Jesus gave hints about such a life: ‘you will be with me where I am’, ‘many dwelling-places’, ‘a place of light’, ‘eternal life’, ‘no more corruption’. The scriptural imagery of life beyond death may only be metaphors assuring us that our future beyond death is safe with him. 1Jn.3:2 acknowledges that “what we will be has not yet been revealed”, yet the epistle continues: “when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is.” The writer obviously felt assured that whatever spiritual or physical form life beyond death took, we would share our experience and something of our nature with the risen and ascended Jesus. This was not just written out of wishful thinking but at the opening of the letter he claimed first hand evidence that originated with Christ: “We declare to you... what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands.” [1Jn.1:1].
The Bible claims that the Resurrection of Jesus has wonderful implications for the future of Christians. The renewed life of Christ brought the promise of a similar renewal of life beyond all that we experience in our physical earthly existence. Exploring the relevance of the Gospel narratives of Jesus’ Resurrection therefore may offer us insights into what Christians trust in for their own future. The stories certainly convey what the Gospel compilers believed and wanted to convey as a message to their readers.
2 DEALING WITH APPARENT DISCREPANCIES IN THE GOSPEL ACCOUNTS
Even the most literalist or fundamentalist interpreters of scripture need to admit that the various Gospel accounts of Christ’s Resurrection contain discrepancies, even in places seem to include contradictions. When short sections of the post-resurrection appearances are read in Church or in daily meditations it is hard to recognise the differences since, to many, the stories are so well known. But when you read the full chapters in the Resurrection accounts simultaneously you realise how different they are. Some commentators, like John Wenham [Easter Enigma 1984; 1992] have sought to show that these are not necessarily contradictions, and that it is possible to read the texts in such a way that they complement the information in each other. But to do so you have to overlook or contrive some of the claims or details in the texts.
For many years commentators have shown that it is wrong to try to harmonise the Gospels. They were each written for different congregations, for varied reasons, by compilers who may well have had different intentions in their writing. They also used different sources. It has been long debated how much Mark, Matthew and Luke might have been dependent on another’s text or shared some particular as-yet unfound sources. But it is clear that each also used material that was not available to the others, or not used by them in their accounts and arguments to tell Jesus’ story and to convince their readers of faith. It therefore seems equally futile to attempt to harmonise their accounts of the Resurrection. Most of the Evangelists mention very different stories as evidence of Jesus’ Resurrection, though there are some parallels. Luke’s Gospel particularly includes different incidents, characters and places. Some claim the initial unbelief of the disciples, others claim that they saw and believed. Luke mentions no appearances in Galilee and sets all Jesus’ appearances in the vicinity of Jerusalem. So it would be wrong to try to falsify the differences by trying to force them into unnatural harmonisation.
It might be possible, as Wenham shows, to find some parallels in several of the scenes. However these are some of the apparent discrepancies:
While there are so many differences in the texts of the gospel narratives, most of these variations are relatively insignificant. The only really important differences are whether the appearances were just around Jerusalem [Lk.] or included the appearances in Galilee, and the place of the Ascension [a mount in Galilee or Olivet near Bethany.
The variations in the Resurrection narratives and the appearances of the risen Christ in the different Gospels are apparent in the following attempt to place them in chronological order. It will be seen from this how difficult it would be to harmonise them or be certain of their order. The order suggested below is only approximate and contains several passages that seem to run parallel or to contradict others. The discrepancies are the major reason why I deliberately suggest that each of the events, like the Stations should be considered separately, without attempting to relate them too precisely to the sequence of events in other gospels. The varied memories of the different witnesses which contributed to the Evangelists’ compilation of their narrative may well account for the discrepancies. Discrepancies do not mean that the basic story is incorrect; rather that the witnesses and sources may have had different perspectives and heard different permutations of the tale.
IN JERUSALEM:
FIRST DAY
Around dawn Mary Magdalene and the other Mary visit the tomb and may have witnessed an earthquake,
The angel of the Lord descends and rolls back the stone and sits on it [only in Matt.]
The guard at the tomb are struck down in fear, then flee [only in Matt]
Mary Magdalene visits the tomb and finds it empty [only in Jn.]
Mary Magdalene runs to tell Peter and John and others with them [Jn. and Lk.] (In Mk. the women keep silent about what they have witnessed, fearing that they will not be believed.)
Peter and John visit the tomb, see the grave-clothes but no angels and John believes [Jn.] Only Peter runs to the tomb [Lk.]
Mary Magdalene revisits the tomb and meets 2 angels [only in Jn]
The other women with Mary Magdalene visit the tomb [Matt. Mk. and Lk.]
The women meet an angel [Matt.], a man [Mk.], 2 angels [Lk.]
Although the angel tells the women to inform the disciples and to say that he will meet them in Galilee [Matt. and Mk.] “they fled from the tomb.. and said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid” [only in Mk.]... They briefly told Peter and his companions [short ending of Mk.]
The women meet Jesus and he tells them to inform his brothers that he will meet them in Galilee [only in Matt.] They went and reported the sighting and gave the message.
Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene [Jn. and longer ending of Mk.] who at first thinks him the gardener then recognises him [only in Jn.]
Mary runs to tell the other disciples [Jn. and longer ending of Mk.]
Meanwhile the guards run to the chief priests and elders, inform them of the loss, and are bribed to say that the disciples have stolen the body [only in Matt.]
Later in the afternoon, not long before evening, Jesus walks with Cleopas and his companion on the road to Emmaus then reveals himself at an Emmaus meal [Lk.]. Jesus appears to two disciples “as they were walking into the country” [longer ending Mk.]
In the evening Jesus appears behind locked doors to 10 disciples who are without Thomas [only in Jn].
SECOND DAY
Cleopas and companion return in the morning to inform the disciples [only Lk.] (in the longer ending of Mk. they return the day before and the disciple do not believe them).
While they are discussing Cleopas’ news Jesus first appears to the disciples. He proves his reality by showing his wounds and eating broiled fish [only Lk.]. He reproves their unbelief [longer ending of Mk.]
AT SOME UNSPECIFIED TIME
Later Jesus appears to the eleven with Thomas and proves himself to Thomas who declares him ‘My Lord and my God’ [Jn.]
IN GALILEE
The disciples travelled to Galilee [Matt.]
Jesus appears to them on the mountain but some doubted [Matt.]
Jesus appears to seven disciples fishing by the lake of Tiberias (Lake of Galilee). The miraculous draught of fishes is followed by breakfast prepared by Jesus on the beach [only in Jn]
Jesus forgives and commissions Peter [only in Jn.]
Peter asks about John’s future [only in Jn.]
Jesus appears to more than 500 at once [only in 1Cor.15]
AT SOME UNMENTIONED TIME
Jesus appears to his brother James [only in 1Cor.15]
Jesus appeared to Peter (Cephas) [1Cor.15]. It is uncertain whether this is the same time as the commissioning of Peter in Jn. Luke implies that the first appearance of the risen Jesus was to Peter [Lk.24:34].
Towards the end of his 40 days with them, Jesus commissions the disciples to distribute his message further, [longer ending of Mk. and Lk.].
He tells them to stay in Jerusalem until ‘clothed with power from on high’ [only Lk. and Acts]
He assures them that miracles will accompany their preaching for those who believe [only in longer ending Mk.]
ON THE MOUNT OF ASCENSION
Before the Ascension Jesus gives the Great Commission [Matt. but Matt. does not mention the Ascension]. Lk. and longer ending of Mk. give different words of the commission. It is implied that these commissions are given on the mount shortly before Jesus left them.
The Ascension takes place on a mount presumably in Galilee [Mk. and implied in Matt.]
The Ascension takes place near Bethany close to Jerusalem (thought to be Mount Olivet [Acts1:12]) ‘he withdrew and was carried up into heaven’ [Lk.] This phrase is shorter in some manuscripts which just say “he withdrew from them”]. Acts 1:9 adds “and a cloud took him out of their sight.”
AFTER THE ASCENSION
The disciples worshipped Christ; went to the Temple regularly and praised God [longer ending of Mk and Acts1:14; 2:46]
They went out and proclaimed the Gospel and Christ worked with them confirming their message with signs [longer ending of Mk; Acts2:43]
Peter explained all that had happened to 120 believers [Acts1:15f.]
The decision was made to include Matthias over Joseph/Barsabbas/Justus in the number of the apostles by casting lots [Acts 1:23-26] .
Jesus’ followers waited in Jerusalem with Jesus’ mother, his brothers and other women in prayer.
The filling of the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost [Acts2:1-13]
Peter addressed the gathered crowd, explaining the events that they had witnessed and converted many [Acts 2:14-42].
Some time later Saul of Tarsus, who had been persecuting Christians claims that he met the risen Jesus who commissioned him as an apostle [1Cor.15]. He changed his name to Paul. Although Paul claims to have met the risen Christ it is suggested that he was referring to a vision of the ascended Christ, not an encounter with the physical risen Jesus, unless he rematerialized before him.
There are several difficulties in attempting to harmonise or account for the differences in the Resurrection accounts. Yet I do not believe that there are enough major differences to claim, as some do, that the Resurrection of Jesus is fictional. If the early Church had been trying to promote a fiction, they would surely, at some time, have attempted to harmonise the accounts more closely through editing, rather than leaving such textual disharmony. It is clear from a few parallel texts in the Synoptic Gospels that some borrowed material from others, though scholars still disagree over which narrative sources influenced the others As the Gospels were written some time after the event, it seems very likely that they were compiled by memories and stories that had been handed down through separate Christian communities, so it is almost inevitable that certain names, numbers of witnesses, places, reports of conversations and orders of events might have altered through the retelling. Similarly some of the stories might have been missed out of the sequence or misremembered, despite the greater memory for retelling narratives in their culture than in the present day. That does not necessarily shed doubt on any of the basic statements in the Resurrection story. However to provide an honest argument, it does not prove the authenticity of the events either. Ultimately to accept the premise of Christ’s Resurrection and consequences that derive from it, requires one to take a leap of faith, based on studying the evidence, then using and trusting one’s intellect and intuition.
RESURRECTION APPEARANCES & STATIONS OF THE RESURRECTION
3 THE REST IN THE TOMB
We aren’t told much in scripture about Joseph of Arimathea who offered his tomb for the burial of Jesus’ body, nor do we know for certain the location of Arimathea. Most legends of Joseph appear to have no early source, but may be much later inventions. One legend says that Philip sent Joseph to preach in England around 61C.E., from which developed legendary connections with Glastonbury in Somerset, Marazion in Cornwall and the Holy Grail. Two other legends suggest that he was the uncle of Jesus’ mother Mary and that he was a tin merchant, hence his connection with Cornwall.
Examining the scriptural evidence, presumably he had left his home and settled in Jerusalem, as he had a home and social position there, bought land and had his tomb constructed in a garden outside the city walls. (No alien soil or burials were allowed in the city itself.) He was apparently relatively wealthy member of the Sanhedrin Council and may have been a secret follower of Jesus, like Nicodemus. Luke emphasises Joseph’s good character, claiming that he was looking sincerely for the Kingdom of God, which may be a way of suggesting his allegiance to Jesus as in Matt.27:57 and Jn.19:38. This claim about him may also be intended as a literary link to the beginning of Luke’s Gospel, where Simeon and Anna were introduced as waiting with the same hope [Lk.2:25, 38]. This may part of the pattern of Luke’s text: As a child Jesus was declared to be the one for whom prophecy had been waiting; now in his resurrection that promise is being fulfilled, and at Pentecost the power to continue the bringing of that Kingdom would be unleashed. Luke emphasised that Joseph had not consented to the Sanhedrin’s decision to arrest, try and condemn Jesus. Other Gospels assert that the vote against Jesus was unanimous, thus placing the blame firmly on the religious elite [Lk.20:70; Mk.14:64]. If this is right, it may mean that Joseph was not present at the meeting. But his commitment to truth and to Jesus would probably suggest that he would have wanted to be there to defend Jesus. Perhaps, as some have conjectured, Caiaphas had been selective in the members of the council that he called together in the night, a time when trials were illegal in Jewish law anyway. Of course, Joseph might have been a coward in the situation, as Peter had been under pressure. But he must have come out into the open as a follower of Jesus by offering his newly-cut tomb for the body of the Rabbi whose teaching he supported. Affirming his allegiance in this way would have been a brave decision. To have become a membership of the Sanhedrin he may have been a man with a substantial reputation, more than that of just being a “good man”. His social position may have been a reason why his approach to the Roman authorities to receive Christ’s body was granted by the governor. Supporting Jesus would have been difficult for someone in that position, though we are told that other men and women in strong social positions also supported Jesus. Joseph may have been rather like the scribe who came to Jesus by night earlier in his mission, who Jesus had claimed was “not far from the Kingdom of God.” [Mk.12:28-34].
The removal of Jesus’ body from the cross, to be buried in a tomb was not always the normal Roman custom. There was understandable reluctance to hand over the bodies of traitors, for fear that they might be regarded as martyrs and exacerbate the cause for which they died. In many cultures the Romans often left the executed on their crosses as a warning to other potential criminals, or to throw the bodies on the floor or in a pit for desecration by feral dogs, rats, raptors and the elements. Some might be buried in a public grave, but without the usual burial honours. Tacitus claimed that “people sentenced to death forfeited their property and were forbidden burial” [Annals VI.29]. They were not often allowed to be buried in family tombs.
In Jewish culture an executed body could not be left in the open overnight and had to be removed before sunset [Deut.21:13]. In the Hebrew Scriptures to give someone burial was an act of piety [2Sam.21:12-14]. The body of someone who had been executed could be returned to the family for burial, but this was solely at the beneficence of the magistrate or governor. In practice, if relatives asked for the corpse of a condemned, it was often given over to them The fact that Pilate allowed Jesus’ body to be removed and entombed privately, may have been partly to prevent the bodies causing offence over the Passover festival, and potentially because Pilate recognised that this had been the execution of a very different and, in his opinion, an innocent man. To have left his body on show might have roused his followers or aggravated the authorities, since he was labelled “King of the Jews”. To allow Joseph, a significant loyal citizen, to bury him privately could have been politically astute. Being from Galilee, Mary and most of the disciples would not have had a local place to bury their dead, so it might have seemed logical for a significant local follower of God to offer a suitable burial site.
We cannot be sure of the original location of Jesus’ tomb. It would have been outside the city walls, as no burials were allowed within the City, but rock hewn tombs were fairly common in C1st Jerusalem. It was most probably north or north-west of Jerusalem beyond the Ephraim Gate and the Gennath Gate (the ‘Gate of the Garden’). Only Matthew mentions that this was Joseph of Arimathea’s own personal tomb, thus appearing to fulfil the prophecy in Isa.53:9: “they made his tomb.... with the rich”. The description of the tomb as being rock-hewn in Lk.23:53 may indicate Joseph’s high social standing and wealth in being able to afford such a tomb. It may also intend to suggest the honourable status of the burial given to Jesus.
Tradition claims that the tomb was on the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which is in the area suggested above. The tradition is and ancient one, presumably within the Christian community. Archaeological evidence shows that this site had been a cemetery in the C1st C.E., utilising the rock walls of an abandoned quarry. The evidence for the authenticity if this as Jesus’ burial place cannot now be corroborated since the present Church of the Holy Sepulchre stands on the site of an ancient temple built c135C.E. When Constantine’s workmen excavated the site in 325 C.E. they are said to have found the cave of the tomb [Eusebius’ Life of Constantine III.25-29]. However, in building the original church of the Holy Sepulchre Constantine’s builders cut away much of the rock of the cave-tomb that they had found, and further building work destroyed more of the cave’s original form. Although the evidence for this having been the true site is relatively weak, the evidence for the ‘Garden Tomb’ further north of the Fish Gate is even weaker, though the form of the tomb is probably closer to an idea of what Jesus’ original tomb had been like. The tomb would have consisted of a hollowed-out cave, with a low entry. There would possibly have been a central pit to allow for head-room, with flat ledges or benches around the walls to support the bodies before they were placed in recesses in the wall. In the tombs of the less wealthy, a large boulder was often set in the entrance to prevent ingress, but richer tombs had disc-shaped stones, rather like millstones rolled across the entrance. I have exaggerated the size of this in my painting. Usually it was only about a metre in diameter. But it would still require the strength of several men to shift it, especially as it often rolled into place down a groove with an intentional incline to secure the stone in place.
What would probably have happened when Jesus was taken down from the cross, was that his body was handed over to Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, and was brought to the tomb by them and Jesus’ family and friends. However long the journey, the body would have been moved outside the city walls. I and many painters and sculptors have emotionally empathised with the feeling of Jesus’ family and friends through images of the Deposition, Entombment and particularly Pieta images of Christ’s mother grieving as she embraced the body of her son. Michelangelo’s Pietas, especially the Florentine Pieta, are among my favourite works of art. My own several many attempts at the subject, particularly the central panel of my Gloucester Cathedral Lady Chapel Altarpiece, examine the emotions of Mary accompanied by John or Mary Magdalene. But I had never really considered how Jesus’ body had been prepared for the grave. This subject is significant if we want to imagine what his body was like when resurrected.
Deuteronomic law required that a body of a hanged man should be buried before dark [Deut.21:22-3]. Josephus claims that this was also the case for the crucified [Josephus The Jewish Wars iv:317]. If Jesus was taken down from the cross in the evening before sunset, there would have been little time for the washing of the body, an anointing, embalming or wrapping. Traditional preparation of the body would have taken at least an hour, even if the family and friends had the materials with them near Calvary or the tomb, which would be unlikely. Someone would have needed to return to the city to gather the necessary water, cloths, spices and oils. By this time, I expect that shops or market stalls would have been closing or closed, as this was the eve of a significant public holiday, so the initial materials for the burial would probably have to be gathered from supportive friends. Perhaps Joseph of Arimathea already had burial materials in preparation for his own burial, though he is said to have ‘bought’ the new linen shroud [Mk.14:36]. It would not be surprising if the preparation of the body was not fully completed in the time available and that the women who were close to Jesus were intent on returning on the morning after the Sabbath to worthily inter the body of a man who was so important to them.
3a: JEWISH BURIAL PRACTICES
John’s Gospel claims that Jesus was buried ‘according to the burial custom of the Jews”... “wrapped with spices in the linen cloth” [Jn.19:40]. No mention is made in any of the Gospels of the washing of Jesus’ body, which was an important Jewish practice. But the traditional washing of a body was considered so important in the culture that to was a permitted activity on the Sabbath [M. Shabbath XXIII.5], so it is very likely that the body would have been fully washed before being wrapped in the new linen grave cloths bought by Joseph. But the same Jewish law did forbid burial on the Sabbath [M.Shabbath XXIII.5], so it is probable that the body would have been entombed by about 6.00pm. on the Day of Preparation. We cannot be sure whether Jesus’ body was prepared as fully and honourably as tradition would have wanted and whether those who prepared him would have had the time or materials to anoint his body with the traditional oils and spices.
In Jewish tradition, spices were not used for mummification, but apparently to cover-up the odours of decomposition. Bottles of perfumes and jars of aromatic oils were also left in tombs for this purpose (several have been found in archaeological excavations of tombs). Mary Magdalene and the other women coming to the tomb on the morning after the Sabbath, bringing these materials suggests that they may not have prepared his body sufficiently, though they may simply have been bringing extra spices and perfumed oils as their personal offerings to add extra honour to the burial of their leader and friend. Mk.16:1 states that they came to ‘anoint’ him [‘aleíthōsin’]. In Jewish custom this would have included pouring oils over his head, which would have been both an honouring and blessing of him and an act of piety on their behalf. In the climate of Palestine bodies decomposed quickly, even in the cooler atmosphere of tombs, (as in the story of the raising of Lazarus, where Martha states that after 4 days the body already stunk [Jn.11:39]). So it would have seemed important to spice and perfume Jesus’ corpse as quickly as possible.
The word for spices in most of the Gospels is ‘arōmata’, which could denote any highly perfumed substance, edible spices or perfumed ointment or embalming and anointing oils. Luke includes the term ‘mura’ which implies that this was perfume or ointment. If Jn.19:39 is not an exaggeration, the “mixture of myrrh and aloes” brought by Nicodemus is a huge amount. If it is not a deliberate exaggeration, the many pounds of spice used in Jesus’ burial, especially those brought by Nicodemus. If our understanding of measures is correct “100 litrai” (sometimes translated as ‘pounds’) - approximately 33 kilogrammes - over 5 stone. Alternatively the Roman ‘pound’ was about 317 grams, which would be a more believable amount. Whatever the true amount, the description indicates that Jesus was given the privilege of the burial usually associated with a wealthy and important person. A ‘pound’ of Myrrh, for example, was the price of a Roman soldier’s salary for a month. There would certainly have been no need for the women to have brought extra spices and oils after the Sabbath. If the amount is an exaggeration, John may have been trying to demonstrate that Jesus was given the equivalent of a rich royal burial, as befitted the Son of God, which would correspond to the theological emphasis in much of John’s Gospel. The care and expense taken over Jesus’ body implies that he was being treated with far greater honour and dignity than a simple criminal, and the piety of those who buried him. The fact that Pilate gave the corpse to a significant member of the Sanhedrin continues this sense of honouring of someone who Pilate had regarded as innocent.
We do not know whether grave clothes into which these spices were wound, were a shroud, as in that purportedly at Turin, or broad or thin bandages, as I and artistic tradition most often depict them, because they appear more dynamic in a picture. They could have been a combination of these. There would probably not have been sufficient time to completely wind the body as fully as one would a mummy. I imagine Jesus’ body as having been briefly cleaned-up, covered and lightly wound in the linen interleaved with spices. When, on Easter morning, Peter and John apparently witnessed the empty grave-clothes still wound and folded, they would not therefore have been as tightly wound as a mummy (which is how they are often depicted in Orthodox icons. It might even suggest that some of the cloth had been left folded by the body, ready to be used properly after the Jewish religious holiday.
In the story of the raising of Lazarus, Lazarus is described as coming out with his feet and hands bound in bandages (‘keiriai’) and his head wrapped in a cloth (‘soudarion’). The bandages appear to have been used to keep the arms and legs in position, and the ‘soudarion’ was used to prevent the jaw dropping. There is no mention of the rest of Lazarus’ body actually being bound.
Often the burial practice was to dress the figure in their best clean garments, having washed and anointed the corpse. So the image of the entombed Christ that I and other artists have imagined in the past and represented in the early Stations of the Resurrection as an almost naked figure, wrapped like an Egyptian mummy is probably incorrect. If he was clothed, however, it would need to have been in clean clothes provided by the women, Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus, as Jesus would have been naked on the Cross, and his previous clothes had been divided among the soldiers. The synoptic gospels say that Joseph or Arimathea bought and wrapped Jesus in a clean linen shroud or sheet – a ‘sindon’ in Greek. This term does not just describe a piece of linen, it literally means ‘fine cloth’ but in different contexts it seems to have specifically referred to a large sheet or shroud. John describes it in the plural – the linen cloths (‘othonia’), and a napkin (‘soudarion’) over his head. In Luke those finding the empty tomb found ‘othonia’ lying by themselves [Lk.24:12]. ‘Othonia’ is a diminutive word that could refer to small bandages, or include linen pieces of any size. In the context of John’ Gospel, it may refer to the bandages that helps Jesus’ wrists and ankles together, or the shroud as well.
3b. WHAT MAY HAVE HAPPENED AFTER JESUS BURIAL?
The women and anyone with them would most probably have been forced to leave the tomb before dark, when Joseph, Nicodemus and Joseph’s servants rolled the stone across the opening, before the city gates would have been shut. We cannot be certain when the soldiers were told to set a seal on the tomb to prevent interference and set a guard. Only Mathew’s Gospel refers to this sealing and the guard, so some commentators question its authenticity, suggesting that Matthew may have been including this detail to discredit prevalent claims that the disciples had stolen the body. Matthew’s Gospel implies that the religious leaders only came to Pilate to request this after the Sabbath was over, which could mean that the tomb was left unguarded for over a day – ample time for someone to remove the body, but it might be expected that the soldiers would have checked that the body was there before resealing the tomb. By mention of both the Sadducees and Pharisees coming together to Pilate to request the sealing of the tomb [Matt.27:62] Matthew’s might be deliberately suggesting that these otherwise opposing factions were still united in their opposition to Jesus as they had been in conspiring for his death.
Jesus’ body was hardly three days in the tomb according to popular reckoning. If he was there from dusk on the Friday to dawn on the Sunday the body lay in the dark for just about 36 hours. The mention of ‘three days’, however is significant, not just because Jesus had spoken of rising or reappearing after three days [Matt.26:51; 27:40, 63; Mk.10:34; 14:58; 15:29; Jn.2:19-20]. It was believed in Palestine that after 3 days a body would begin to putrefy. There was a popular superstition that the soul or spirit of the deceased remained around the body for three days then departed to the place of the dead.
What happened in that time in the grave is a question of speculation, debate and different faith traditions, such as the Harrowing of Hell, discussed below. Some sceptics propose the argument that the cool of the tomb and the smell of preparation herbs and spices revived Jesus’ body, which they infer had only swooned. Medically, it is hardly possible that a body that had lost so much blood and undergone horrors of whipping and flaying, then the torment of hanging dehydrated for hours in the sun, struggling to keep himself upright to prevent choking, could revive on its own, even if he hadn’t died. But it is almost certain that Jesus must have died: Roman executioners knew their job and would not have released his body unless they were certain. The spear recorded as being thrust into his side was probably the final test, as they did not feel the need to break his legs to finish off the process of suffocation. The flow of blood and transparent liquid, described as ‘water’ [Jn.19:34] would imply that Jesus’ heart had literally burst on the cross. With a rupture of the heart and the separated constituents of the blood filling the this was what happened, there would have been no possibility whatsoever of later revival.
The mystery of what happened after Jesus’ entombment to continue the developing process of salvation has been speculated upon over time. Only one canonical passage of scripture suggests that Christ was active in some supernatural way. 1Pet.3:19-20 speaks of Jesus “quickened by the Spirit”... “going and proclaiming to the spirits in prison, who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which few, that is eight persons were saved through water”. Around this single difficult passage a whole dogma of ‘The Harrowing of Hell’ has been built. It is only corroborated by a similar verse in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter, where after Christ has been helped form the tomb and is reaching the heavens “they heard a voice out of the heavens crying “Have you preached to them that sleep?” and from the cross there was heard the answer “Yes”. [Gosp. of Pet.10:42]. This passage was probably derived from the idea in 1Pet.3.
It is very possible that the concept of the Jesus going gown to the place of the dead and releasing the souls of the righteous redeemed who had followed God before the advent of Christ’s redeeming action, is intended as a metaphor. Rather than being a physical going down to the place of the dead, it might just suggest that salvation reaches backwards as well as forward in time. Orthodox icons of the ‘Anastasis’ or Resurrection represent it very literally, showing the risen Christ reaching into the cave and lifting Adam and Eve from the grave accompanied by Jewish patriarchs and other significant figures from the Hebrew Scriptures. The pit of the grave or tomb itself often filled with broken locks, open padlocks and keys, representing the freedom of salvation to which Christ has now raised us. It also sometimes contains the skeleton of Adam, who has now been re-clothed for resurrection, or occasionally a demonic figure, depicting Christ’s triumph over the power that once dominated, enslaved and imprisoned the dead. Fra Angelico’s powerful fresco of the Harrowing of Hell in the friar’s cells of San Marco, Florence, shows demons fleeing to hide in the cracks of disintegrating the cavern of Hell, while Jesus has kicked down the formerly securely locked and bolted door, trapping another demon beneath it. Meanwhile, a crowded queue of the redeemed reach out to Christ’s hands, which proclaim release to them.
Of course even if it could be proved as a fact that Jesus was brought back to life, it does not prove that he is God or that the story of salvation, which he revealed in his teaching is true. In the Gospels we read of Lazarus, the daughter of the widow of Nain and the centurion’s servant being raised from death and there is no indication that they were not expected to die again at a later time. Nor are they talked of as divine. So resurrection does not necessarily indicate that the divine plan of Salvation is being achieved or that evidence was being given for the truth of the rest of Jesus’ ministry. But Christian theologians and commentators have inferred this from the preaching and teaching of the apostles onwards. In Studies 34 and 35 I discuss the ideas about salvation that the story of the Resurrection has been interpreted as proclaiming.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
It appears certain that Jesus died on the cross and was not in a swoon when he was entombed. How easy do you find it to believe that Jesus truly came to life again, and what has this implied to you in the past?
4 THE EARTHQUAKE, TEMPLE VEIL & AN ANGEL ROLLING BACK THE STONE [Matt.28.2-4] (STATION 2 in my series of Paintings)
Did Matthew make up the earthquake and the rising of the dead (presumably temporarily) from their graves after Jesus’ death [Matt.27:52]? Matthew implies that there were two separate earthquakes, one at Christ’s death and then later at the time of his resurrection. They give drama to the scenes, but there is no other evidence for the seismic events from other witnesses or in the other gospels. Matthew claims that many people saw the raised bodies of the righteous dead entering Jerusalem [Matt.27:51-53]. This supernatural phenomenon appears to be intended to be interpreted as a foretaste of Christ’s Resurrection and the promise it offered to others. Mark, probably the first Gospel to be written, and a partial source of Matthew, does not mention either event, so Matthew may have been referring to another unknown source.
The tearing of the veil, of the Temple [Matt.27:51] is not mentioned elsewhere, a desecration which one would have been expected to recorded in Jewish Temple annals, and would probably have been included in John’s Gospel, where Jesus’ divinity is most clearly indicated. If the veil of the Temple really tore as Jesus expired, it is understandable that the religious authorities might have been worried about the implications of Jesus’ death and feared some sort of uprising. The Passover festival had so often been the time when messianic pretenders had arisen. There were two curtains to which Matthew could be referring. Most commentators and preachers over the centuries have assumed that this was the curtain which separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of the Sanctuary building, but there was also a curtain between the main Sanctuary building and the Court of the Priests. In either case the interpretation made by generations seems to be intentionally indicated by Matthew, that Christ’s death and Resurrection had broken the barrier of the sacrificial system, which separated human beings from God. With the Sanctuary or Holy of Holies open, the role of the Temple was no longer the same. The mystery of God and the relationship between God and people had become more inclusive than the former system and God was more directly accessible by his people.
The guarding of the tomb may therefore have been a wise precaution as the chief priests and Pharisees’ argued in Matt.27:62-66. Many commentators suggest that Matthew interpolated after the event their statement that Jesus had said “...while he was still alive, “After three days I will rise again”.” [Matt27:63]. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the support for Jesus at this time of Passover was growing, perhaps into hundreds if Peter explained all that had happened in the Resurrection and Ascension to a crowd of about 120 believers [Acts1:15f.]. St. Paul’s claimed that the risen Christ had appeared to 500 followers [1 Cor.15: 6].
The Greek of Pilate’s reply to the priests requesting a guard is ambiguous. It could mean either “Have a guard”, in which case Pilate may have supplied Roman soldiers, or “You have a guard”, stating that the authorities needed to supply guards from their own temple guards. The priests are unlikely to have argued with Pilate, since he was probably already probably frustrated with them over being persuaded against his conscience to execute Jesus. Pilate’s frustration with the religious leaders may have accounted for his refusal to change the statement placed over the cross: “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews” [Matt.27:37]. It is impossible to be sure whether the guardians of the tomb were Roman soldiers. In the Greek Pilate’s word for the guard is “koustōdían” unused elsewhere in the New Testament. It is a direct transliteration of the Latin ‘custodia’ so may well imply that Pilate supplied Roman guards. However the likelihood that they were temple guards is suggested by their reporting the disappearance of Jesus’ body first to the high priests. A different argument could be made for Pilate supplying the guard. He would also have been very wary of insurrection during this sensitive period, so may have supplied soldiers to prevent this. His own soldiers may have been among the cohort under a ‘chiliarch’ at Jesus’ execution. John claims that the contingent involved in Jesus’ arrest in Gethsemane were “a detachment of soldiers together with police from the chief priests and the Pharisees.” [Jn.18:3]. We cannot be sure when the guard at the tomb was posted. It would have been logical to have set a guard from the first moment of Jesus’ entombment but some of the account in Matthew’s Gospel seems to claim that the priests only came to Pilate to ask for the sealing of the tomb on the day after the Sabbath.
The seismic events in Matthew’s narrative certainly make the moment of Resurrection dramatic and memorable, in which case one might have expected them to be included in Mark’s Gospel (probably the earliest and most dramatic record, from which Matthew and Luke are thought to have borrowed), which likes to describe events and miracles as powerful and immediate. Matthew’s words taken literally imply that this event was witnessed by “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” coming early to the tomb at dawn. “an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning and his clothing white as snow.” Is Matthew over-dramaticising for effect, or was this a record of the women’s testimony? Did they perhaps exaggerate their experience? Was it elaborated upon over time, before reaching Matthew’s ears? Or did Matthew include these details for a specific theological or evangelistic purpose? One cannot know for sure. Taking the Gospel narratives as a whole, they do not appear to suggest that the women going to the tomb actually witnessed the event of the Resurrection. Matthew’s statement seems to be anomaly, though we may be misinterpreting him in sensing that he is suggesting that the women were witnesses of the event. Matthew also implies that the guards fled from the event shortly before the women arrived at the tomb. In the pattern of the gospel, some commentators suggest that a parallel may be being drawn between the guards informing the chief priests and Mary Magdalene later informing the disciples. This may be over complicating the text, though the Jewish idea of parallelism is common in poetic literature especially.
Some commentators believe that Matthew’s description of the raising of the dead at Jesus’ death may have been a metaphor to explain that the general resurrection of the dead. Some of Jesus’ teaching had referred to the promise of the dead being raised though his ministry, and by the time of the writing of Matthew’s Gospel, it may have become a key part of Christian doctrinal belief. Matthew may be implying that the seismic events (which are not uncommon along the middle-eastern fault-line) could be signs of the cosmic importance of Jesus’ death and Resurrection and that its spiritual results had already furthered the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven. It seems likely to me that Matthew included the seismic activity to demonstrate the significance of the Resurrection, since it was widely believed at the time that unusual natural phenomena accompanied or were signs to supernatural events: (e.g. the star appearing at Jesus’ nativity, the voice from heaven at Jesus’ baptism, and the darkening sky and earthquake at Jesus’ death).
Only Matthew and the non-canonical Gospel of Peter describe how the stone was rolled away. In Mathew the angel, who the women later encountered in the tomb, descended and rolled away the stone, then sat upon it. In the Gospel of Peter, as two shining men descended from heaven the stone rolled aside of its own accord, which like the walking and talking Cross that accompanied Jesus from the tomb, seems definitely to be ‘an unnecessary miracle too far’. When we compare Matthew’s account with the account in the Gospel of Peter, written over a century after Matthew’s Gospel, it is clear that the prevailing and developing culture encouraged people to elaborate upon stories from the life of Jesus. Matthew was obviously not as dramatic as some of these later Christian texts. Matthew may also have known the tradition repeated later in the Gospel of Peter of miraculous events being witnessed in the morning at the tomb [Gosp. of Pet.]. It is more likely, however, that the Gospel of Peter relied on Matthew’s Resurrection account and 1 Pet.3:19-20.
.
As Matthew’s Gospel is so often concerned with how the life of Jesus fulfilled Hebrew Prophecy, where in the Hebrew scriptures might he have found any mention of earthquakes? Elijah encountered one 1Ki.19:11-12; Amos 1:1; Isaiah 29:6; Ezekiel 38:19; and Zechariah 14:5 mention them, but none seem to suggest that earthquakes might herald the Messiah or an earthquake release from death. It is left to the later Book of Revelation to prophesy earthquakes as elements of Messianic revelation. Quakes are sometimes mentioned in scripture as a sign of God performing mighty acts [Judg.5:4; Ps.114:7-8]. They were particularly mentioned as sign of God’s judgement [Joel 3:16; Nah.1:5-6]. It is improbable that the writer of Matthew had himself witnessed the earthquake in Jerusalem, with first-hand evidence, unless he really was the Levi mentioned among the apostles. But he may have heard the tales and interpreted them in the light of past Hebrew scripture, as part of his belief that the death and Resurrection of Christ were apocalyptic events foretold in Jewish tradition. The rising of the dead from their graves may refer back to Ezek.37:12-13 which promised resurrection from their graves to exiled Israelites, especially as the wording in Matthew is so close to the LXX Greek translation of Ezekiel. Ezekiel’s text was probably creating a metaphor for the return of his people from exile, but it seems to have been interpreted more literally as resurrection from death by later Jews. Matthew’s account may also resemble the rising of the dead from sleep in Isa.26:19 and Dan.12:2.
If Jesus’ Resurrection wass a true physical event, whether there was an earthquake, or just an empty tomb, it is no wonder that the guards ran away. If they had been asleep, it is very possible that they might have made up a story of an earthquake to cover up their neglect or abandonment of their duties [Matt.28:11]. If they had been Roman soldiers, such abandonment of their post would have led to almost certain execution.
We will probably never be sure of the accuracy of the details of such resurrection stories in the Gospels. It seems very probable that they would not have been elaborated and developed through the oral telling, which could account for the discrepancies in the Gospel accounts. Christians throughout time, have tended to elaborate or exaggerate, thinking that it may persuade others. Believers in many religions and other ideologies do the same regularly. But it is not these details that are of primary importance or significance. The possibility that Jesus rose from death is the main focus of each of the Gospel accounts, not the correspondence of events around it.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
Would you disregard belief that there could be basic truth behind the stories of Jesus’ Resurrection, just because certain details do not correspond between the Gospel accounts?
5 (STATION 1 & 3) JESUS IS RAISED FROM THE DEAD [All Gospels]
I believe that there can be no doubt that the historical figure of Jesus truly died. Roman troops knew how to kill and would not have released the body of someone they had executed if it was only in an unconscious swoon. We are told in Mk.15:44 that Pilate was surprised that Jesus had died so quickly, and sent inquirers to make certain that he was dead. It is almost impossible that anyone would have merely swooned after such an horrific and physically damaging torture of hours on a cross, certainly not if his heart had burst, as discussed earlier. And after undergoing such an execution, even if a man had revived by some fluke, surely such a weak and damaged body could not have convinced so many, as Jesus seems to have done, that God had performed a glorious miracle and brought him back to complete life. His body would have been so weak that he would have needed help to move and months of support for healing. Instead the biblical narratives suggest that he was the one to convince strengthen and support others. Surely something more significant must have happened to bring about the vibrant life which made the frightened small Christian community believe in a miracle of resurrection.
Some who believe in Christ’s way, but who find real difficulties in believing in the possibilities of miracles sometimes try to explain Jesus’ Resurrection by claiming that his followers came to the realisation after his death that his teachings and the spirit of all for which he stood was still alive in them. So they developed the stories of the Resurrection as a way of relating and understanding this metaphysical phenomenon. This is somewhat akin to the idea sometimes expressed at funerals that though a deceased may have physically gone, their memory, character and example lives on in those whose lives they touched and influenced. Part of what they were and their influence stays alive in us.
The rational side of me that always wants to comprehend things by the most logical and reasonable explanation would love to believe that this rationalistic, non-miraculous explication could be true of Christ’s Resurrection. But I do not believe that it fits the evidence sufficiently. Would Mary Magdalene and the grieving women suddenly come to such a realisation and halt their grieving? Would despondent disciples who realised that they had lost their rabbi and considered returning to their former professions, like fishing, quickly regain sufficient courage and vigour in their message to put their lives on the line and expend so much energy in continuing Jesus’ ministry? It would be more likely that they invented the story of the Resurrection, yet I cannot believe that they did. No one in their right mind would put so much energy for the rest of their lives into promoting a lie, and even if they had done, an institution or a form of belief rooted in a lie would hardly have lasted, flourished and stood up to challenge for the number of centuries that Christianity has done.
Having said that I believe that something physical rather than just in the minds of the followers happened that led to the belief that Jesus was raised from the grave, we do not have any evidence of the process by which the body of Jesus was supposed to have been reanimated. There is no description of it in any of the Gospels or other literature. The apocryphal Gospel of Peter describes the angels descending from heaven, entering the tomb and supporting Christ’s figure as they exit and lift him to heaven. But even this apocryphal text did not attempt to describe or explain what happened in the tomb itself. Christian doctrine teaches that Jesus of Nazareth was God’s representative to the earth in human form, and combined divinity and humanity within his nature. If the all-powerful nature of God is a true concept, anything would be possible for such a force which created everything from nothing and sustains the cosmos. We should not limit the possibility of resurrection, or any aspect of faith, to just what our human minds can conceive. God is beyond what can be conceived or achieved by even the greatest human minds and physical powers. So, whether we believe or not, we much accept that if the infinite, unlimited God described in scripture is real, Jesus’ resurrection from death is truly possible. Faith in the Resurrection comes down to whether we might be able to believe or trust that this God is behind the enormity of the cosmos of which we experience only a small dimension. If so, can we believe that Jesus, the peripatetic teacher with such a meaningful message, was a figure worth reviving? Such a resurrection might interfere with the natural process of death, but if Jesus was the Christ, the divinely appointed Saviour, the Resurrection becomes a reasonable belief.
My representations of Jesus often appear much stronger and perhaps more handsome than one might expect the real figure of Jesus to have been. That is certainly true of the image in my first Station of the Resurrection of a muscular Christ coming into the light. Isaiah wrote of the Suffering Servant, who later became identified with Jesus, that “he had no form or majesty that we should look on him; nothing in his appearance that we should look at him...” [Isa.53:2]. In my personal imagination Jesus was probably an ordinary looking, not particularly tall man, though lithe and swarthy through training as a carpenter from early years and walking hundreds of miles in his ministry. Perhaps during his ministry he might also not have been particularly clean, through irregular ability to wash on his travels, though he would have been washed in his preparation for burial. The only historic descriptions of Jesus to survive are ones that derive from critics of Christianity who describe him in disparaging terms and were probably written by people who had never seen him. The representations of Jesus in my paintings are only illustrative metaphors for the real man. I paint him stronger and more attractive than I imagine him to have been, because I want to present a figure who one can trust. He is represented as an amalgam of a real man and a super-hero. His physicality is intended as a visual metaphor to show that Christ can be spiritually strong enough to bring about the salvation of the world and carry us spiritually through our own problems. St. Paul only suggests that Jesus’ body was ‘transformed’; he makes no attempt at description of his physical body [1Cor.15:3-5; 44]. 1Jn.3:2 merely says of our own resurrection bodies in comparison with that of Christ: “what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed we will be like him, for we shall see him as he is”.
I have painted the resurrected Christ standing as if bathing triumphant in a shower of God’s light. By his stature have tried to suggest physicality: implying that this is physical resurrection, as the scriptural texts imply, not just an illusion, hallucination or vision. The scripture stories describe the risen Jesus as being able to be touched, embraced, eating, walking, talking and discussing with his followers and performing miracles. However, other qualities like appearing through locked doors imply that this physicality was different from normal. Nevertheless the resurrected Jesus is certainly claimed to have been tangible. N.T. Wright calls this nature, as described in scripture, ‘transphysical’ [Wright 2003 p.654], intending to suggest that his body was a physical, reality, which people recognised, touched and responded to, yet he was able to appear, disappear and reappear as required. Luke 24:37-43 especially emphasised that the disciples were assured that he was no ‘ghost’ or ‘spirit’ (‘pneûma’): “They were startled and terrified, and thought that they were seeing a ghost. He said to them “Why were you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? Look at my hands and my feet: see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have feet and bones as you see I have...” [Lk.24:38-39].
Some believe that Jesus had actually ‘ascended’ or transferred to the spiritual dimension after his death, This suggests and that the body in which he appeared to the disciples, before the event we call “The Ascension” was not just Jesus’ reanimated corpse, but his actual spiritual form, still bearing the scars of his Passion, which could move between dimensions. The Ascension would then be the point at which Jesus spiritual form left the disciples top carry on his mission with the guidance of his spirit. This explanation would seem to fit the evidencing in scripture of a tangible body that could interact with others, yet could appear and disappear at will in different places. It appeals to the rational side of my mind. But the truth is that we cannot know the reality of what form or nature the disciples experienced.
Just as we don’t know how Jesus was resurrected, we have little idea what death is like. We certainly do not know what it was like for Jesus or what he experienced between his crucifixion and Resurrection. Orthodox icons representing Christ’s Resurrection illustrate the legend of the ‘Harrowing of Hell’ - the tradition that between his death and resurrection Christ journeyed to the world of the afterlife and released imprisoned souls who had been waiting through history for redemption. The only biblical justification for this is a sentence which is difficult to interpret in the First Epistle of Peter 3:18-20: “He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is eight persons, were saved through water.” It is not at all clear from this sentence that the ‘Harrowing of Hell’ is what is being talked about, since its context is a defence of baptism as a sign of salvation. (Baptism in this context is a going down into the realm of death (the water) and being brought up into the air of a new life (redemption). The idea that the tradition Harrowing of Hell was conveying is nevertheless meaningful. It asserts that, through his death and resurrection, Christ brought about for humanity both salvation and a release from the threat and imprisonment of death.
What may rising from death have been like for Christ? As with his death, this is way beyond our imagination. People who have been resuscitated sometimes relate experiences of having seen a bright light and a sense of being valued and loved. In this case the Saviour had achieved through his life and activity the will of God in bringing about the salvation of the cosmos. So I imagine that his sense of coming alive to the light and love of his Father God would be overwhelming. Goal scorers rejoice in their triumph and are embraced by their tram-mates; how much more would Jesus triumph and feel himself embraced and loved after achieving salvation! That is part of the feeling that I was trying to convey in this, the first of my small Resurrection Station paintings.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
Although we know so little about Jesus’ resurrected nature, Christian doctrine claims that through his Resurrection, Jesus triumphed over death and has taken away the fear of what might happen after death from us. What sense do you have of what Jesus has triumphed over in relation to you?
6 THE AUTHORITIES CONSPIRE TO COVER-UP THE DISAPPEARANCE OF JESUS’S BODY [Matt:28:12-15].
Matt.27:54 records that the earthquake and subsequent events led the “centurion and those with him” (probably meaning ‘the centurion and some of the soldiers with him’) to exclaim, despite their terror: “Truly this was Gods Son!” Mark just mentions the centurion. Church tradition has named him as ‘Longinus’, though we cannot be sure of the source or origin of this.
From what we are told in the Gospels of the various conspiracies of the Sadducees, Pharisees and Scribes, which led to Jesus’ arrest and death, it is not surprising that they are recorded as conspiring together to conceal reports of Jesus’ Resurrection. As leaders of the religious community they would have protected their position and acted first and foremost as politicians, protecting their institution, reputation or their personal priorities before considering holiness. Sadly similar self-centred attitudes are often the priorities of many leaders of churches and church institutions today. Politicians with religious faith similarly usually care more about their position, and domination of their personal priorities, rather than prioritising truth. For the religious leaders of Jesus’ time it appears that it was their power that mattered far more than any evidence that God might have performed a miracle and revived a man they regarded as a trouble-maker. They could not believe that Jesus could have been the Messiah.
The Priests and Pharisees are described as going to Pilate to request a guard on Jesus’ tomb [Matt.27:62-6]. Matthew claims that they already feared Jesus’ claim that he would rise after 3 days and wanted to prevent his followers from stealing the body, as they called him a ‘that deceiver’ [‘ekeinos ho planos’]. The close collaboration of the religious groups whose theology was so diverse that they often opposed one another would be itself surprising. But Matthew was obviously passing further blame onto the Jewish religious authorities. The claim that the disciples stole Jesus’ body was again attributed by Matthew to conspiracy among the Jewish religious leaders, this time the ‘chief priest, other priests and elders’ [Matt.28:13]. We should not fully blame the religious leaders for this. There had been various fraudulent claims of Messiahship in Jewish history, and the Hebrew Scriptures frequently warned against false prophecy, false religious teaching and false spiritual claims. At the time of Passover the leaders were particularly aware of the dangers of messianic claims. So it is understandable that those who did not believe in Jesus were suspicious. However, balancing this, Jesus himself had himself reiterated the Hebrew warnings against the fraudulent activities of false prophets priests, as Matthew recorded earlier, particularly in Matt.23:13-29.
N.T. Wright claims that it would be surprising if the religious authorities actually knew much personal detail of Jesus’ claims that he would rise again after 3 days. In Mathew’s Gospel Jesus’ words about his return are found mostly in his private discussions with the disciples [Matt.16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Wright 2003 p.639]. However the sign of Jonah rising after 3 days is found in Matt.12:39-41; 16:4, in the context of arguments with the Scribes and Pharisees [Matt.12:38] then with the Pharisees and Sadducees [Matt.16:1]. Shortly before Jesus’ arrest he also made the claims about destroying the temple and raising it again after 3 days, which so incensed the Temple authorities [Matt.26:61].
If the guards of the tomb were temple-guards rather than Roman soldiers, it is not surprising that they would have been tired and fallen asleep. During the Passover festivities they would have been extremely busy, manoeuvring the crowds and on constant watch for trouble. Another piece of evidence that they could have been temple guards not Roman soldiers is their reporting of the empty tomb to the chief-priests not Pilate. If Roman soldiers had admitted the loss of the body to their commander, they could well have been condemned to death on the spot for dereliction of duty. A soldier could be executed for both falling asleep on duty and leaving their post. It would have been convenient for the priests to bribe their own guards to spread a false story of the stealing of the corpse, in order to draw attention away from the possibility that a supernatural event had occurred.
Matthew’s wrote that the authorities conspired with and bribes the guards to claim that the disciples had stolen the body. He seems to have been deliberately trying to counter a contemporary claim Jesus’ body had been stolen. He wrote that this story “has been spread among the Jews to this day [Matt.28:15]. The accusation that Jesus’ body was stolen, probably by the disciples, was common when Justin Martyr was writing c155 C.E. [Disputation with Trypho the Jew: 108]. This claim was contested at an early date by Origen, who was one of the first to argue that men do not suffer persecution and martyrdom, as the disciples and early Church did, for something they know to be a lie [Contra Celsum 2:56]. However, if the accusation was circulating against the disciples, it is not surprising that in the aftermath of the Resurrection they sheltered behind locked doors, and some of them if not all soon moved away from Jerusalem to Galilee. The idea that the disciples stole the body has been promoted by many critics since the Enlightenment. Grave robbing may have been common in several ancient societies, but that was of the grave goods, not the body itself. In Jewish society contact with the dead would have been considered to make the perpetrators unclean. Thomas Woolston suggested as early as 1729 that the disciples had bribed the soldiers and made them drunk so that they could perpetrate the fraud of the Resurrection. Woolston was fined and imprisoned for blasphemy at the time, but the idea has continued.
It is easy to see why the religious authorities could have benefitted from the tale that the disciples had stolen the body to prevent Jesus being lauded as a martyr. But if they had stolen or moved the corpse they would have uncovered it when tales of the Resurrection began to spread. What reasons could the disciples have had for perpetrating such a fraud? It is unlikely that they would have thought through the implications to the full, or faked the wound grave-clothes to appear as though the body had dematerialised through them. It is understandable and just possible that they may have wanted to keep their leader’s body with them, but how might they have planned to transport it in secret to a more personal local resting place? To keep a body unburied for several days in the atmosphere of Israel or on their journey north was not just against religious law, it was unsavoury and dangerous. To deal with a corpse would also have rendered those who touched it ritually unclean for several days. Why would the disciples want to keep the body of one they loved, if he had been given the honour of a salubrious and rich entombment in the capital city of their nation? They might have wanted his remains to be near them in Galilee, but could never have afforded him such an honourable grave. They would not have been able to entomb him privately with such reverence in Galilee if they had stolen the body.
One other suggestion that has been made is that the owner of the land, (if it was not Joseph of Arimathea,) may not have wanted such a notorious body to have been buried on his land, so he or his employees moved the body to another site and kept it hidden. He may not have wanted visitors to the tomb, either scoffers or pilgrims, to invade the privacy of the land. This seems an unlikely explanation as pilgrimages to historic tombs at the time were mostly confined to those of figures like the patriarchs. It was mostly with the advent of Christianity that the practice of pilgrimage expanded greatly.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
Do you consider it likely that Jesus’ body had been stolen from the tomb? If not, what other explanations might there be for the disappearance of the body? It there enough convincing evidence that Jesus came back to life?
7 (STATION 5} THE WOMEN FIND THE TOMB EMPTY [Matt:28:1; Mk.16:1; Lk.24:10; Jn.20.3-8]
The Gospel records differ over when the tomb was first found to be empty, and by whom. It is not precisely clear when Mary Magdalene is being claimed to have come to the tomb. As Jewish days began at dusk, did she first return to the grave in what we call ‘morning’ after the Sabbath or at the beginning of the Jewish day, which was in the evening. Matthew’s phrase in 28:1 is ‘opsè edè sabbátōn tê èpiphoskoúsé eìs mian sabbátōn’, literally translates as ‘late of the Sabbath, at the dawning, on towards the first day of the week”. This could mean either that Mary and the other woman came to the tomb literally at dawn, or that Mary came at the beginning of the Jewish day after the Sabbath, i.e. in the evening. The other gospels say that Mary or the group of women came around sunrise.
In the Hebrew Scriptures, the early morning is often associated with significant actions by God. In Ex.14:24, the People of Israel began to cross the Red Sea and at dawn the pursuing Egyptians were drowned vs.37. In 2Ki.19:35 the extent of the angel of the Lord’s defeat of the Assyrian leader Sennacherib was revealed at dawn. Most appropriate to the Resurrection story is the phrase in Ps.30:5: “Weeping may linger for the night, but Joy comes in the morning.” We cannot be sure whether the Evangelists were intentionally making these theological connections with the morning, though it is probably that the writer of Matthew may have recognised the connection as he so frequently found comparisons and parallels between the Hebrew Scriptures and Jesus’ life and mission.
The introduction of the stories of Mary Magdalene and the women being the first to find the tomb empty may be evidence of its authenticity. If someone from a Jewish culture had been making up the story of the Resurrection, it is highly unlikely that they would have claimed that the first witnesses to the empty tomb and the risen Jesus had been women. Jewish culture did not accept the evidence of female witnesses [M.Rosh-Ha-Shanah 1:8]. Of course this could be a ‘double-bluff’ to make us believe the tale, but I cannot believe that is how the disciples’ or evangelists’ minds worked at the time. I sense that that the part of the story that places women as the first witnesses is probably based in truth. Whether it was Mary alone or Mary together with other women, or whether there were two visits by Mary depends on the reliability of the oral source
Who were all these Marys?
Luke’s Gospel especially mentions a number of women who supported Jesus in his ministry out of their own resources [Lk.8:3]: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and also Lazarus’ sisters Mary and Martha are among those who are named, but Jesus seems to have had a significant number of women among his followers. The first witnesses of Jesus’ tomb being empty are recorded in all cases as being women, though the Gospels differ on the number of people who went early to the tomb and their identity. All mention Mary Magdalene: Mark also mentions Salome and Mary the mother of James the younger/less and Joses (another form of the name of the patriarch ‘Joseph’) [Mk.16:1]. Matthew mentions two women: Mary Magdalene and ‘the other Mary’. This could have been one of the women who he mentions at the crucifixion - ‘Mary the mother of the sons of Zebedee’, or ‘(Mary) the mother of James and Joses. Mk.15:40 identifies the later Mary as the mother of James the Less, as distinct from James the son of Zebedee. James the actual brother of Jesus, who was to become Bishop of Jerusalem, may well not have yet been a disciple, as we are told that several of his family did not yet believe in him []. Luke and John don’t give a number to the women at the tomb. Luke includes Joanna [Lk.24:10] instead of Salome with Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, ‘and the other women’. (Joanna is earlier mentioned as one of the wealthy women who supported Jesus’ ministry in Galilee, whose husband Chuza was ‘steward’ or perhaps financial manager to Herod Antipas [Lk.8:3]. Commentators have suggested that she may have been a source for the material that Luke included, especially the records of events in Herod’s household. John just mentions Mary Magdalene as the first witness [Jn.20:1]. The later apocryphal Gospel of Peter tells of a large crowd from Jerusalem and the surrounding area. None of the Gospels actually mention Jesus’ mother Mary, being among them. Of the named witnesses Salome [Mk.16:1] is mentioned in Mk.15:40 as one of the witnesses at the crucifixion, alongside Mary the Mother of James the younger/less and Joses. John mentions another woman at the crucifixion, Mary ‘the sister of Jesus’ mother’ and the wife of Clopas [Jn.19:25]. Salome may have been the sister of Jesus’ mother, which would have made Salome Jesus’ aunt and James and John first cousins. This would account for her closeness to the group going to complete the rites for Jesus’ body, especially if her sister Mary remained at home distraught.
It is not surprising that there are so many ‘Marys’ in the narrative about Jesus. ‘Miriam’, of which ‘Mary’ is the common translation, was most probably the commonest woman’s name used in Israel at the time. Miriam was the name of Moses’ sister, known particularly for her song of victory [Ex.15:20-21]. As an important figure of rejoicing and a triumphal heroine among Jewish women, Miriam may have been a favourite name because it was considered to be happy and providential for a female child. (There does not seem to have been superstitious about Miriam’s later problems in speaking against Moses and contracting leprosy [Num.12:1-16] or her death before reaching the Promised Land [Num.20:1]. Seven different Marys are mentioned in the New Testament while three of the four women followers of Jesus described as being at his crucifixion were Marys.
In order to explain the number of Marys in scripture and the confusion around them, by the middle ages legends had developed around them. Some were based on relationships suggested in the biblical text, such as Salome and Jesus’ mother being sisters. Others developed upon early, probably false traditions, like that which conflated Mary Magdalene [Lk.8] with Mary of Bethany [Lk.10; Matt.26; Mk.14; Jn.12], the sinner who washed Jesus’ feet in the house of the Pharisee [Lk.7], and sometimes the woman taken in adultery [Jn.8:3-11]. The Golden Legend compiled by Jacobus de Voragine c.1260, claims that Anna, the mother of Jesus’ mother Mary was married three times and from each marriage she had a child who she called ‘Mary’. She first marries Joachim, the father of Jesus’ mother. Then after his death she married Cleopas, brother of Jesus’ father Joseph, by whom she bore another child who she called Mary, who married Alpheus. This Mary had four sons: James the Less, Joseph the Just (also called Barsabbas), Simon and Jude. This explanation seems intended to alleviate the problem that Jesus’ mother might have had other children after Jesus. After Cleopas’ death Anna then is said to have married Salome (a man’s name, not the daughter of Herodias, or the Salome who witnessed the crucifixion and the empty tomb [Mk.15:40; 16:1]), by whom she bore another Mary who married Zebedee and bore James the Great and John the Evangelist [The Golden Legend transl. W. Granger Ryan 1993 vol.2. p.150]. This very neatly identified many of the characters mentioned at the cross and in the Resurrection narratives, as well as identifying the relationship of some of the disciples to Jesus and attempting to resolve uncomfortable issues of Jesus’ kin. The scant source evidence in the Gospels does not justify their close connection through Anna, a figure not mentioned in the Gospels. The only mention of an Anna is the prophetess in the Temple in Lk.2:36, though it is possible that the name in the legends of Mary derives from her. If one was a prosecuting lawyer the mediaeval legends would make the evidence for the Resurrection more suspicious, since they identify most of the witnesses as belonging to the same family.
The Possible Intentions of the Women in Coming to the Tomb
By three in the afternoon when Jesus had died, and permission was obtained from Pilate to remove and bury the body, we are told that it was already evening [Mk.15:42], so the preparation must have been done at speed, before the Sabbath officially started as sunset. Mark and Luke state that the women who came to the tomb intended to complete the anointing of the body (not mentioned in Matthew). I have always imagined (and have painted) the preparation of Jesus’ body as performed by women relatives or his closest friends. The Gospels, however states that the first preparation of the body was done by Nicodemus with Joseph of Arimathea [Jn.19:38-40]. Matt.27:59 and Lk.23:53 claim that Joseph of Arimathea “took the body and wrapped it in a linen cloth”. Mk.15:46 adds that Joseph went to buy the linen cloth to shroud Jesus’ body and wrapped Jesus in it. John claims that Nicodemus brought an enormous weight of spices (“100 Litrai”) which were wrapped into the linen around the body [Jn.19:39-40]. Having laid Jesus’ body in the tomb wrapped in the spices and linen, Joseph had the stone rolled over the entrance. The Gospel texts suggest that the women came in the morning with spices and oils. The spices provided by Nicodemus were more than enough, but maybe there had not been time of properly perform the rites of anointing, and perhaps the women brought the extra spices and oil as personal gifts to their dead friend and leader, and to perform a more personal, less hurried and more full and honouring preparation of the body. Contact with the corpse of course would have left them temporarily unclean. Similarly the earlier preparation would have left Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, with the servants who may have done the work for them, unclean for the Sabbath.
The emphasis on the preparation of Jesus’ corpse in Mark also has parallels in Mark’s account of Mary of Bethany lovingly anointing him earlier: “She has anointed me beforehand for my burial” [Mk14:8]. Perhaps in the confusion as the day of Jesus’ crucifixion closed and the Sabbath rest approached Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus had only had time to cleanse and wrap Jesus’ corpse with a linen shroud and spices. Just because Mark only mentions Nicodemus and Joseph preparing the body does not necessarily indicate that only they were involved in the interment. The women may well have also been involved. The women’s return in the morning possibly implies that they intended to anoint him further with perfumed oils, and a few herbs laid in the linen wrappings. Mark implies that the women had withdrawn over the Sabbath to gather together more of the traditional preparations. Whereas we are told that Joseph of Arimathea bought the linen shroud before shops closed for the Sabbath (i.e. before c.6.00 on the Friday). Mark implies that the women bought spices as soon as the Sabbath was ended, presumably on the Saturday evening after 6.00pm and before 9.00pm. when stalls would have closed. Anointing oils and spices were expensive. A wealthy woman like Joanna or Susanna may already have had rich perfumes and ointments in store at home, as perfumed oils were highly prized by wealthy Jewish women. Lk.8:2 suggests that Mary Magdalene had also been wealthy in earlier times. Perhaps she still was, but her home was presumably around Galilee, so her resources may have been there, or they may have diminished through her support of Jesus’ mission. If the women came to the tomb before daybreak, stalls or shops would not have yet been open for them to buy them in the morning. The timing of their visits differs in the Gospels. Mark’s account of coming to the grave very early, [‘lían prōí’] suggests that they may have come at the earliest time between 3.00am and 6.00am [Mk.16:2], which would have been before sunrise. Some commentators suggest that the phrase in Mark might merely be interpreted to mean ‘as early as they possibly could’. However Mark then says that they came to the tomb ‘as the sun rose’ [‘anateílantos toû helíon’]. Luke says ‘sunrise’ [24:1].
Their journey to the tomb could also possibly have been part of their intention to continue the process of lamentation, though in that case they would not have needed to enter the tomb, so the worry, mentioned only in Mark and the Gospel of Peter, about how they might have the strength to roll away the stone would have been unnecessary [Mk.16:3; Gosp. of Peter 9; 13:53-54]. They apparently would not have known about the official seals set upon the tomb, which only Matthew introduces. John’s Gospel suggests that Mary Magdalene had come primarily to visit the grave, which would be understandable for so close a friend. Although art-historical imagery often represents Jesus’ mother Mary among the women, she is not mentioned as being there ain any of the gospel accounts. It is understandable that she might not have been among the group of women on this morning, as she may have been traumatised by the events of the Crucifixion and staying inside, supported by John. I have deliberately not included her in the early Stations of the Resurrection, to give greater focus on the other women witnesses.
There are several anomalies in the Gospel accounts beside the number of women witnesses. Mark says that they remained silent and told no-one about what they had seen out of fear [Mk.16:8]. This links with several commands to silence which occur in Mark’s Gospel [Mk.9:9]. It seems unlikely that they would have remained silent as this was such a momentous event, which needed to be recounted and spread. The only reasons for not telling might have been a natural reticence which doesn’t seem to have been a characteristic of the women whose spiritual emancipation Jesus encouraged, or the belief that no-one would believe them, as Mark implies. Mark’s Gospel was written to encourage others to pass on the good news of Jesus and his teaching, so the inclusion of silence may be intended to contrast to the enthusiastic and confident witness, which Christ’s Church was now expected to give.
At the time of Jesus, women’s evidence wasn’t admitted or listened to as legal witnesses in Jewish courts Josephus Antiquities 4.219]. It is not certain, whether such evidence was considered unreliable or deemed invalid because Hebrew culture at the time considered women to be inferior to men (a belief that continues in some communities). Even a group of female witness, rather than the witness of an individual would not have been sufficient to provide truthful evidence in that male-dominated society. The inclusion of women as the first and major witnesses, therefore suggests an authenticity in this aspect of the story. If the Resurrection of Christ was invented by his followers, there is little reason why they would have claimed that the main initial witnesses were female. This is attested by Origen’s debate over the ideas of Celsus, which reports early critics like Celsus finding ways to debase and deny the Resurrection story through disregarding the involvement and witness of women. If the early Christians were inventing the idea of resurrection they would surely have invented reliable and recognisable male witnesses.
Several critics of the story have suggested that the women may have gone to the wrong tomb or that Joseph of Arimathea or others had buried the body elsewhere. Others suggest that the women may have misunderstood the young man who they encountered, who had told them that Jesus was not there. Some suggest that by “he is not here” the angel had intended to redirect them to the correct burial place, but his words were interpreted differently and the women passed on their mistake to the disciples. If that had been the case, Joseph would surely soon have cleared up the mistake, and solders would not have been placed to guard an empty tomb. The Synoptic Gospels seem to clarify that there was no such mistake by stating specifically states that “Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where the body was laid” [Mk.15:47]. “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there sitting opposite the tomb” [Matt.27:61]. “The women who had come from Galilee followed and they saw the tomb and how his body was laid” [Lk.23:55].
The Gospel of Peter, claims that a crowd of people including soldiers and elders, as well as the women witnessed the resurrection: “Early in the morning when the Sabbath dawned, there came a crowd from Jerusalem and the country round about to see the sepulchre that had been sealed. Now in the night in which the Lord’s Day dawned, when the soldiers, two by tow, in every watch, were keeping guard there rang out a loud voice from heaven and they saw the heavens opened”... (two bright men then descend from heaven, the stone rolls back on its own, they entered the tomb)... “When the soldiers saw this they awakened the centurion and the elders – for they also were there to assist at the watch.” [Gosp. of Pet. 9:34-10:42]. (These were all suggested to have witnessed the two men supporting and leading the figure from the tomb.) This exaggerated spiritualising of the account is one piece of evidence for the Gospel of Peter being a later work and not a source for or parallel to the canonical Gospels. If there were known to be more witnessed to the Resurrection, particularly male ones and a ‘crown from Jerusalem and the country round’, it is most likely that the other Gospel compilers would have included this as more reliable evidence. (The passage also refers to the Lord’s Day, which only appears elsewhere in scripture in Rev.1:10, and though used by the early Church, seems to indicate that the Gospel of Peter was probably formulated at a late date. This is not necessarily the case, however, since in Matthew’s Gospel Jesus is recorded as speaking about his ‘Church’, which is obviously a later interpolation into the text after the establishment of the church.
The Gospel of Peter also elaborates what Mary Magdalene and those accompanying her witnessed: “they stooped own and saw there a young man sitting in the middle of the sepulchre. Handsome and wearing a brightly shining robe. He said to them: “Why have you come? Who are you looking for? Surely not him who was crucified? He is risen and gone. But if you don’t believe, stoop this way and see the place where he lay, for he is not here. For he is risen and is gone to the place from which he was sent.” Then the women fled in terror.” [Gosp. of Pet. 13:55-14:57]. The repeated statement that “he has gone” seems to imply that Jesus is not just regarded as risen, but that he was regarded as having also already ascended.
The response of the women to meeting the angel is one of ‘worship’ [v.9], a response to events fairly common in Matthew’s Gospel [Matt.2:2, 8, 11; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 20:20; 28:17. The message of the angel is to tell the women to inform the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee, as in Mark’s Gospel [Mk.16:7].
Important as the visit of the women to the empty tomb is, it was not the empty tomb that primarily created belief in Christ’s Resurrection. The appearances of a risen Jesus were much more significant in convincing people about that he was alive.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
Whose evidence about spiritual things has helped you to believe? What was it about the evidence that convinced you that their message was true and authentic? Can you learn anything from this to help the effectiveness of your own witness and ministry?
8 (STATION 4) MARY MAGDALENE FINDS THE EMPTY TOMB [Mk.16:9; Jn. 20.1,2]
We do not know the nature of the loving relationship which Mary Magdalene felt towards Jesus. It has been surmised by many, particularly in popular literature, that she was in love with him. Whatever their relationship it is almost certain that she was the first witness to the empty tomb, but whether she was alone or in company depends on the Gospel account one reads. John’s Gospel claims that she went alone to the tomb early in the morning, while it was still dark [Jn.20:]. In Matthew and Luke she was in the company of other women. Perhaps she made her own way there and the other women came from a different direction.
On the surface Mary’s visit to Jesus’ grave seems to be a different encounter to that in which she and the women met the angelic beings at the tomb, because John says that she “came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed... so she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one who 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”. There is no mention of the angel or of other women, although Mary’s words “we do not know where they have laid him” suggests that she may not have been alone at the tomb. There is no mention that Mary had initially met an angel, or Christ himself, which John’s narrative suggests occurred immediately afterwards. She genuinely seems to have believed at this point that Jesus’ body had been taken. It could be inferred from the text of John that Mary went back to the tomb after Peter and John had run ahead to the tomb, and that there, unlike Peter and John, she saw two angels, before turning and meeting Jesus [Jn.20:11-14]. Even then she did not recognise him at first “supposing him to be the gardener” [v.15].
The Synoptic Gospels claim that Mary Magdalene went with the other women to the tomb, and there met the angelic beings before in Luke’s Gospel meeting Jesus himself. If it is possible to correlate John’s chronology with the others, which I doubt, it could be that:
1/ Mary went first to the tomb, either alone or with other women who are not mentioned in John, then
2/ she went back to Peter and John, and perhaps other disciples and told them that Jesus’ body was missing,
3/ they ran ahead to the tomb, then
4/ following Peter and John, on her second journey back to the empty tomb she may have met the women coming to the tomb
5/ together the women Mary met the angels and received their message, then
6/ when the other women had departed Mary stayed behind in the garden, in grief searching for answers
7/ In the garden she met the risen Christ, at first mistaking him for the gardener, then
5/ she reunited with the other women and together they met Jesus.
6/ As Jesus requested, Mary returned to the disciples and announced the news of Jesus’ Resurrection, beating the other women back to Jerusalem.
Such a correlation is possible, but the ability to correlate the Gospel accounts in dubious. It seems better to take each of these parts of the story as separate events in which to find meaning, without attempting to correlate them. The sources from which John was compiling material were probably very different from those that informed the compilers of the Synoptic Gospels. It would not be unlikely that the original stories had altered in the oral telling over the period between the Resurrection and the compilation of the Gospels. Among the community of Christians that transmitted the story to those who compiled and wrote John’s Gospel, Mary’s importance may have been promoted in the retelling, while the other women’s identities may have declined in importance or been omitted because they were relatively unknown to that particular community. This is of course speculation, but it is still more useful to consider each section of the Resurrection narratives separately.
I discuss Mary’s encounter with Jesus later but John’s mention of her coming alone contains several ideas to ponder. Although Mary is often represented in art carrying a jar of anointing oil, she may not have come to the site of Jesus’ burial with any intention of anointing Jesus’ corpse, or of going into the tomb at all. It is clear from the text that she expected the stone to cover the entrance. It is most likely that in her grief she had slept or rested very little over the Sabbath, since his arrest and death. She may have left where she was staying early, and wandered to the tomb as a place to let out her grief, just as many visit the burial places of those they have loved. Her going so early in the morning (or while it was still night) may be a sign of the extent of her love. She may have wanted to be alone with him, or near him, and pour out her grief in a more intimate way than she had been able to do in company, in the confusion and rush to entomb him before sunset.
Mary may not even have known why she went; she had lost a person to whom she felt both closeness and gratitude for her released life [Lk.8:2]. She had believed in him so much that she had used her financial resources to support his ministry, and was very probably among his regular followers. She certainly had become well known as one of his disciples, since she is mentioned so clearly by name in the Gospels.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
Mary’s commitment to Jesus possibly stemmed from the spiritual freedom that he had brought through healing her. It led her to both support Jesus’ mission financially, and offer continued emotional commitment to him, even at a time of his most severe trials, when even some of his closest disciples deserted him. To me the most important challenge coming from the depth of Mary’s commitment, is whether I too am equally grateful for all that I have been released from by Christ. Do we truly love him and respond to God as sincerely as was Mary’s response to all that he had done for her?
9 (STATION 5) THE ANGEL APPEARS TO THE WOMEN [1xAngel Matt.28.5-8 / 1x Angel Mk.16.3-8 / 2 Men Lk.24.2-9; Acts 1:10 / 2 Angels to Mary Magdalene Jn.20:12-13] He is not here, for he is risen!
The text of Luke and Acts 1:10 claim that the women arrived at the tomb and found it empty before the sudden appearance of the two men or angels in dazzling clothes. In John, when Mary Magdalene entered the tomb she found it empty, but then later met the angels, sitting where the body of Jesus had been. Only in Matthew and John is it specifically indicated that the figure or figures that the women saw in the tomb were ‘angels’ / ‘ ‘angelos’ pl. ‘angélous’. Mark describes the women entering the tomb and finding, sitting on the right side, “a young man [‘neanískon’] clothed in a white robe” [Mk.16:5], Luke describes “two men [ Gk.‘andres’] dressed in shining clothes”. [Lk.24:4]. Matthew describes an “angel of the Lord descending out of heaven... (he) rolled away the stone and sat upon it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow” [Matt.28:2-3] or in a variant reading in other manuscripts he resembled Jesus at the Transfiguration: “white as light” [Matt.17:2]. The appearance ‘like lightning’ reflects Daniel’s vision of the appearances of spiritual beings [Dan 10:6 & 7:9]. In the Gospel of Peter the figures are described as handsome, glowing and larger than life-size [Gosp. of Pet.]. Some commentators believe that Luke considered that the figures were just human beings, but it seems obvious from the context that they were considered to be spiritual or angelic beings. I have discussed the meaning of the term ‘angel’ in my ‘Advent Meditations’. Whatever their identity, the meaning of the term claims that these figures were ‘messengers’ from God. They have the shining qualities of those who have been in the presence of God. This quality was described of Moses returning from Mount Sinai [Ex.34:29]; the Ancient One on the throne of heaven [Dan.7:9] and the Transfiguration [Matt.17:2; Mk.9:3; Lk.9:29]. The white of their clothes is not necessarily a description of their actual garments, but an indication of their glory [as in Mk.9:3; Rev.6:11; 7:9, 13]/
What the angel/messengers told the women also differs between gospels: In Mark and Matthew the message is that the women and Jesus’ male followers will meet him again in Galilee [Mk.16:7; Matt.28:7]. On the Mount of Olives, on the night before he died Jesus had already said to his disciples, that as a result of that night they would fall away and be like scattered sheep, yet: “after I am raised up I will go before you to Galilee.” [Matt.26:30-32; Mk.14:6-28].In Matthew’s Gospel Jesus appears to the women in Jerusalem briefly before telling them to send his brothers to Galilee where he will meet and commission them [Matt.28:8-10, 16]. Matthew does not mention when the disciples left for Galilee, but neither does the his Gospel mention any appearances in Jerusalem. John’s Gospel describes revelations of Jesus in both the vicinity of Jerusalem and Galilee [Jn.20:14, 19, 26; 21:1]. The angels in Luke remind the women that while they were still in Galilee, Jesus had predicted his death and resurrection. But Luke’s Resurrection narrative makes no mention of Galilee appearances after the Resurrection and implies that Jesus only appeared in and near Jerusalem. In Luke Jesus tells the disciples to “stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high” [Lk.24:49].
The reaction of the women to the angel is described as a mixture of fear, amazement and joy. Mark’s Gospel uses a dramatic Greek word to describe the women’s enormous astonishment: ‘ekthambéthésan’ [Mk.16:5]. Only Mark uses this word, which is again found in Mk.9:19, where the astonished crowd run to Jesus between the Transfiguration and the healing of the convulsive boy. In ch.16 Mark then goes on to describe the women’s response as ‘trembling’ / ‘trómos’ and ‘amazed bewilderment’ / ‘ekstasis’. Lk.24:5 describes the women as being ‘terrified’ / ‘emphóbon’ then ‘bowing their faces to the ground’, which in Jewish culture was a sign of respect, perhaps worshipful honouring of the two men as spiritual beings.
Mark describes the women as telling nobody because they were afraid [Mk.16:8]. In Mark’s Gospel, ‘fear’ is the response of many to revelations about Jesus [Mk.4:1; 5:15, 33, 36; 6:50; 9:6, 32]. By contrast Luke and Matthew claim that despite their terror, the women went to tell the news “to the eleven and all the rest” claiming that the message was shared with the other followers of Jesus who were around them. [Matt.28:8; Lk.24:12].
The longer ending of Mark claims that Mary Magdalene told ‘those who had been with him, while they were mourning and weeping. But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it.” [Mk.16:10-11]. This lack of belief on the part of the disciples is also in Luke “these words seemed to them an idle tale and they did not believe them.” [Lk.24:12]. The response of Peter is different in Luke, who runs off to check the evidence [Lk.24:12]. Having found the empty tomb he does not immediately believe but returns home wondering. It is interesting that in Mark’s Gospel the phrase “the disciples and Peter” is used twice [Mk.16:7; 1:36], clearly distinguishing Peter as the leader of the group. But in Mk.16:7 it may also be a deliberate reference to the fact that Peter particularly needed to be reassured and restored to his position with Jesus after his denial, so that he could be confident in his future leadership [Mk.14:66-72].
I do not think that we should too quickly condemn the disbelief or scepticism of Jesus’ other followers to the women’s message, or the fear of the women. Mark and Luke seem to regard the disciples’ scepticism as a failing. In the longer ending of Mark, Jesus “upbraided them for their lack of faith and stubbornness, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen” [Mk.16:14]. But in our post-Enlightenment age scepticism is the natural opinion of many. So it is important to find ways to confirm belief within an age which does not accept faith without clear examination. The doubt with which the Resurrection evidence was received is understandable to thinking people. Too many believers, throughout the history of the Church, have claimed that one should just believe and supress one’s doubts. But that is not the way to become strong in faith. If we work through our questions we will also develop a much more convincing apologetic with which to share our faith in a doubting world.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
If you have had strong spiritual experiences that have confirmed your faith, are you afraid or hesitant about discussing them with others in case they do not believe you, consider you credulous and naïve, or think less of you? How might you make the conveying of your message of faith more convincing?
10 (STATION 7) JESUS MEETS THE WOMEN [Matt.28.9,10]
Many of the women among Jesus’ followers had stayed loyally with him until the end of his life, when all his male friends except John seem to have disappeared after his arrest. The rest of the disciples may have scattered temporarily, perhaps to different places where they variously stayed, though they gathered together at times. By contrast several of the women seem to have remained together and were more proactive than the men.
If we try to unite the Gospel stories chronologically they present difficulties, as we have seen. Luke makes no mention of the women seeing Jesus. If the women as a group were the first to meet Jesus, and Mary Magdalene was among them, where does John’s story that Mary was alone when she met Jesus fit in? It is said that she didn’t immediately recognise him, but if the group of women had met him before, she might surely have done so. If they met him after Mary had spoken with and recognised him, why was she still with them, not running to the disciples with the news? As a result of these questions I have not been certain in which order in the Stations to place the scenes of women meeting Christ. I choose to place the encounter with the group of women first because the encounter with Mary feels more intimate and leads immediately to her informing the disciples of what she had seen. Of course the two incidents may have been the same encounter, and John’s Gospel just failed to mention the other women. But if they were not the same, Mary might have met Jesus again after the first encounter, while walking about the garden confused by, and considering, all that had happened.
As described earlier, We cannot be sure of the identity of these women. Mary Magdalene is unanimously mentioned in the encounter. Mark mentions her companions as Mary the mother of James and Salome. Matthew mentions Magdalene “and the other Mary” [Matt.28:1]. Luke initially just mentions them as “the women who had come with him from Galilee” [Lk.23:55]. He then names those who went to tell the apostles as “Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and the other women” [Lk.24:10]. John only mentions “Mary Magdalene” [Jn.20:1]. Works of art usually represent Jesus’ mother Mary among the group as she is so significant a figure in religious devotion. But there is nothing in the Gospel accounts that specifically mention her as a witnesses to the Resurrection. The only possible references to her could be the mention of ‘the other Mary’ [Matt.28:1] or ‘Mary the mother of James’ [Mk.16:1]. Jesus had a brother James, but this is more likely another James, (perhaps the other disciple ‘James the younger/less’ whose mother was a witness of the Crucifixion [Mk.15:40] (also mentioned as the “mother of Joses or Joseph” [Mk.15:40, 47; Matt.27:56]). Surely the important mother of Jesus would not be described in such peripheral terms. For the reason of possible accuracy to the Gospel accounts I have not painted Jesus’ mother in these particular scenes. Rather I imagine the other companion of Mary Magdalene as a figure like perhaps Mary the mother of James and Joses, or other witnesses of the Crucifixion: “Mary wife of Clopas” or “the sister of Jesus’ mother”, both mentioned in Jn.19:25, or “the mother of the sons of Zebedee” [Matt.27:56]. The temporary disappearance of Jesus’ mother at this point could well be accounted for by her need to recover from the trauma of her son’s execution, and the disciples’ protection of her. In my Stations I include her again as the positive news of Jesus’ Resurrection begins to spread.
Jesus told the women to go and tell his disciples that they were to travel to Galilee where they would see him. This seems to be a message to more than the eleven. By this time Jesus had many followers, including those in Jerusalem who had not deserted him at his arrest. Some may even have been mingling among the crowd that called for his death. Earlier Jesus had sent out ‘seventy’ in mission to spread his message [Lk.10:1-20], so by this time the group who spread his message may well have been far more. We are told in Acts1:15f. that Peter explained all that had happened in the Resurrection and Ascension to a crowd of about 120 believers. This is one reason why some commentators believe that the crowd of five hundred, to which Paul says Jesus revealed himself “at one time” [1Cor.15:6] might not have been the exaggeration that others critics imagine it to have been.
It may have been awkward for the early Church that the first witnesses to the Resurrection and the first to actually meet the risen Christ were women since their testimony would not have been considered valid in the Jewish culture. Famously one ancient critic of the Resurrection, Celsus, used this evidence by women to completely discredit the idea that the Resurrection could be true. [Origen Contra Celsum]. Despite the continuation of bias against women in some contemporary culture, we live in an age which largely regards women as far more equal to men than at any previous time in human history. In this cultural situation Jesus’ appearance to women has developed a slightly different interpretation. Jesus’ later appearance to his male disciples is often regarded as giving them proof of his resurrection and strengthening them for mission. By contrast these revelations of himself to women are often interpreted as more emotional and intimate, as though he is offering his care and support for them. But is this too sentimental a reading of the appearances to Mary Magdalene and the women? The women were to be his evangelists too. In fact Thomas Aquinas hailed Mary Magdalene as ‘the Apostle to the Apostles’, since she was to first to spread the message of Christ’s Resurrection.
Women had been among the major financial backers behind the mission of Jesus and his disciples. Although they were considered less significant in Jewish and Roman society at the time, women appear to have held important positions within the early Church. Christian communities met in their homes; they helped the Church in the role of deacons, making sure that the communities were equipped, financed and spiritually supported. Luke’s Gospel particularly referenced Jesus’ mission among women or the role of women in Jesus’ story and mission. Acts does not mention many women, although figures like Lydia are shown to have fulfilled important roles. But in the growth of the Church we might imagine that women had significant witness, especially in their evangelism among other women, in the growth of faith in their households and among their children and wider families. Paul may not have allowed women to preach in church, but the very fact that he seems to have been frustrated with the ministry of women shows that they were taking strong roles in the early Church. The long-needed creep towards equality in the ecclesiastical hierarchy and ministry has begun to expand, even though it is still too weak in some areas. But Christ’s encounter with the women shows that he trusted them to effectively engage in his mission. They may have been limited at the time by the constraints of society, but despite their relative silence in the Book of Acts, women’s contribution to the growth and stability of the early Christian community must have been enormous, as it was in the support and growth of Christ’s ministry.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
Are there any constraints upon your ability to carry on the mission of Christ, or are there impediments to the credibility of your message? Could greater confidence in your relationship with Christ overcome these?
11 (STATION 6) MARY MAGDALENE MEETS THE RISEN JESUS [Jn.20:14-17; Mk.16:9-11]
On surface reading, the story of Mary Magdalene meeting Jesus on her own seems to be confined to John’s Gospel, but in the longer ending of Mark the claim is also made. If, as most believe, the ending of Mark was a later addition, these verses could be based upon knowledge of John’s Gospel by the time the addition to Mark was written.
The extent of Mary’s grief is emphasised by the verb which John used in Jn.2-:11 to describe her ‘weeping’ / ‘plaíō’, which implies loud wailing, rather like the expression of grief seen in middle Eastern cultures today. The same term was used of the lament over Lazarus [Jn.11:31].
I don’t know whether it is because I imagine things visually, but I am fascinated by why Jesus was not recognised immediately by several who saw him [Matt.28:17; Jn.20:14; 21:4]. Mary Magdalene especially is recorded as being particularly close to him. Was she so distraught, and blinded by profuse tears that she did not recognise Jesus through blurry eyes? Alternatively, had his appearance altered so much through the torturous crucifixion or his experience in the tomb, or was his risen image very different after the process of resurrection? The story of Thomas implies that Christ’s body still bore the scars of Crucifixion. That is why I indicate them fairly prominently in my paintings of the Resurrection Stations, though not as horrendously as they would probably have appeared as a result of such ferocious whipping, then Jesus’ struggling on the cross for three hours, attempting raise his body enough to be able to breathe. The difficulty in recognising Jesus appears to me to be another detail of the story that may contribute to the suggestion of its authenticity. If one were inventing the Resurrection as a story, one might have shown as proof that Jesus’ friends recognised him immediately.
Various ideas have been proposed for why several followers did not immediately recognise the risen Jesus. The most convincing is that his presence was not obvious to them because they simply were not expecting to see him again. In Mary Magdalene’s case her tears may have clouded her vision. In the confused and grieving states of mind of most of his followers, they might very possibly not have recognised his identity at first because they knew him to be dead. Some commentators claim that it may have been God’s or Jesus’ intention that he was not at first recognised, so his identity remained spiritually obscured from others for a time, in order for him to give them sufficient time to acclimatise to the idea or receive significant teaching to benefit from the experience. But this explanation seems a little contrived, putting Jesus’ Resurrection in a similar genre to some of his parables, where he claimed “If they have eyes to see, let them see” [Matt.13:15-16;Mk.8:18; Lk.10:10:23]. The less-reliable longer ending of Mark claims that Jesus was “in another form” [Mk.16:12]. This particular passage is closer to the idea in Greek myths that the gods assumed different forms through which they interacted with people before eventually revealing themselves. But that idea is actually very different from the idea of Christ’s appearance in the gospels. Apart from the three heavenly visitors to Abraham and Sarah at Abraham near the Oaks at Mamre there is little evidence of a similar attitude to vision in the Hebrew Scriptures. Those interpreters who believe that the Resurrection was just in the minds of the disciples, rather than physical sometimes suggest that the lack of recognition is a metaphor for the time it took the disciples to realise that Jesus was still with them metaphysically in their hearts and minds.
People laughed at me about 20 years ago, when I first suggested that Mary may have mistaken Jesus for a gardener because, if Jesus had been resurrected naked, he might have borrowed the gardener’s clothes from a shed in the garden. So I was excited in reading about the Resurrection appearances in 2020 to find that the proposition had been made years before by the eminent theologian H.E.G. Paulus, who promoted the idea that the risen Jesus had stripped off his shroud and put on the gardener’s clothes. Though nothing is impossible for an omnipotent God, I cannot imagine Jesus having been resurrected in a newly-created white nightie as represented in some art. Why then have I painted Jesus in white, since surely no self-respecting gardener, or anyone of poverty walking around Palestine would wear white! I must stress that these paintings are only intended as metaphors for whatever might have really happened in history. The white robes are used to deliberately distinguish the resurrected Jesus within the scenes. Disciples are often also painted in white or light colours, but I don’t see this as a particularly saintly colour, unlike the figures in dazzling white who were reported to have been at the tomb. My use of white is meant as an indication that we are dealing with a happy theme suggesting promise and light. I originally considered painting the whole series of images in varied hues and tones of white, but this made the scenes seem too ghostly, implying that the Resurrection was a vision not physical. Purely white images would also be hard to distinguish from a distance.
Though the angelic beings, who are recorded as being at the tomb when the women arrived, are described as dressed in white or ‘glowing and radiant’ in the Gospel of Peter, the risen Jesus is not described as radiating light, unlike the description of his appearance at the Transfiguration. He seems relatively ordinary and physical. I have used light in my Stations as a metaphor for the miraculous appearance of the risen man, and to distinguish him among groups of figures. But in the canonical Gospels he seems to have had an ordinary physical appearance, indistinguishable from others, except in his ability to perform miracles and materialise or dematerialise at will.. I have tried to paint Jesus as a physical being, casting shadows and with shadows cast upon him, not as a vision. The only exception in scripture to this is St. Paul’s assertion that he met Christ in a blaze of light. As this apostolic encounter was after Jesus’ Ascension he would most probably have been a vision or, less likely, a re-materialisation.
Jesus’ first words to Mary “Woman, why do you weep, who are you seeking?” echo the words recently spoken to her by one of the angels. It may perhaps have been in the way that he spoke her name that Mary recognised him. Earlier in the Gospel Jesus had said that the sheep know the voice of the Good shepherd [Jn.10:3]. This recognition seems similar. Mary’s response “Rabboni” or “Rabbouni” is an ancient Aramaic term used in early Jewish literature and the Palestinian Pentateuch Targum. It was apparently not often the word used of a human Rabbi, but was a way of addressing God as one’s teacher and leader [L.Morris 1981 p839]. John may be making a parallel with Thomas’ declaration “My Lord and my God,” when he met the risen Christ [Jn.20:28]. The implication may be that when certain people recognised the risen Christ they recognised a new aspect of divinity in him. However, the same term is used by blind Bartimaeus in Mk.10:51, when he asked to receive his sight. (In many translations this verse “Rabbouni” is rendered as ‘Lord’ or ‘my teacher’, though neither translation carry the double meaning in the term of ‘divine leader and teacher’ Though there is little suggestion there that Bartimaeus believed Christ to be divine, he certainly recognised God’s involvement in his healing and we are told that he “followed him (Jesus) in the way” [Mk.10:52]. In that case the very next scene in Mark is the Triumphal entry into Jerusalem, where people call out: “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!” [Mk.11:9]. Like Bartimaeus, this again points to Jesus’ divine purpose.
Jesus response to Mary is commonly translated: ‘Do not touch me”, which was a direct translation of the Latin Vulgate ‘noli me tangere’. But this translation has sometimes been interpreted confusingly: As a child hearing the story I believed that the resurrected Jesus could not be touched, because when had regained a certain divinity, he must have become the heavenly equivalent of ‘radioactive’. (This misconception resembled the story of the danger of touching the Ark of the Covenant, which killed Ussah, son of Abinadab [2Sam.6:6-7]. It also seemed to imply that in some way that there was a magical aspect about the risen Christ that gave a false sense of distance between him and us. Yet this must be a false idea. Other Resurrection appearances imply that Jesus’ Resurrection was physical. The women clung onto his ankles [Matt.28:9]; he told Thomas to touch his wounds; he could physically eat (broiled fish in his first appearance to the disciples, a meal at Emmaus and breakfast on the beach in Galilee, where he could also light a fire). The Greek verb for ‘touch’ [‘apton’], used for Jesus’ words to Mary in Jn.20:17, is in the present imperative tense, which implies that Mary was already grasping onto him and Jesus was telling her “stop clinging to me.” The realisation that a better translation of Jesus’ words is “Do not hold onto me”, or “Do not cling onto me” opens up our understanding to recognise that Jesus’ reaction to Mary was not from any lack of care or superstition that his risen body was untouchable. The instruction not to cling onto him might be interpreted (as Wenham suggests p.95) as a reassurance that she need not worry about leaving him to give the news to the disciples, for he would not be leaving or ascending immediately. But it seems to me to be far more personal than that. There was a close relationship between them. He appears to have been emphasising that she should not hold onto the form of relationship that they had formerly enjoyed. He was leaving and she needed to realise this and release former ideas that she had of him. He would be leaving so that she could be fulfilled spiritually in a different way. The relationship she had with Jesus in his life could only have been temporary. After he had left her physically, his power and the continuing of his relationship could be within her life and the lives of all his followers through his Spirit.
Jesus mentioned that he had not yet ascended to his Father, but Mary would not probably have understood what he meant by that until after the Ascension 40 days later. She could possibly have interpreted it as meaning that Jesus had not risen from death just to return to his old way of life. He had a new mission to undertake, so she must not think that things could return to the sort of relationship that they had enjoyed before. She had to learn to relate to him in a different way. As he immediately sent her to his disciples to give them the message of his Resurrection, he could have been telling her to give the same message to them: that things were not to be as they had been before. In his conversation with Mary, Jesus called the disciples his ‘brothers’ [as in 2:12; 7:3, 5, 10] thus emphasising that though the future relationship will be different, it will also be intimate. He spoke of “my Father and your Father; My God and your God”, perhaps indicating that she and the disciples would share the close relationship that he had prayed for his followers to share with him in his ‘High-Priestly Prayer’ of Jn.17:7-24.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
How do you imagine that Mary felt when she realised that Jesus was with her? Try to imagine yourself into her character. Does this feeling of Mary relate to anything in your own life and spiritual relationship with God?
12 (STATION 8) MARY MAGDALENE PROCLAIMS THE RESURRECTION TO THE DISCIPLES [Mk.16.10-11; Jn.20:18]
The appearance of Christ to Mary is given real importance in John’s Gospel. But her report back to the disciples is confined to a single verse, probably because John was about to describe Jesus’ appearance to more of his followers. Mary was later adopted as a patron saint of the Dominican friars since Thomas Aquinas proclaimed her, (as already mentioned,) to be the first ‘Apostle to the Apostles’. She had the privilege of first being given physical proof that Jesus had returned to life. In Luke’s Gospel the two men in shining robes told the women to tell the disciples the news of Jesus’ Resurrection, but to the disciples “their words seemed as an idle tale and they did not believe them” [Lk.24:11]. This could be why Luke laid emphasis on the later experience of at least one male follower on the road to Emmaus. We aren’t told the disciples’ response to Mary’s reported meeting with Christ, but that may be because Jesus was to be described as revealing himself to them in the next verse. As in Luke, authenticity of the women’s witness was perhaps being reinforced by men discovering the same truth.
Mary’s response to meeting with Jesus was very different from the description of her first her first reaction to the empty tomb in Jn.20:2. There she was confused and told Peter and John: “they have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre and we do not know where they have laid him”. Now, rather than being mystified and confused, she had met Jesus and was certain that the angels’ message to her was true. John does not recount Mary’s words to the disciples after meeting Jesus. Rather we are told: “she told he disciples that she had seen the Lord and that he had spoken these things to her.” [Jn.20:18]. This is rather a matter-of-fact description, rather than expressing the excitement that must have been in her words. The scene in John then shifts immediately in the next verse with Jesus appearance to the disciples who were sheltering together behind locked doors.
If you were one of those disciples who had hidden away out of fear since Jesus’ crucifixion, what might your reaction have been to this woman rushing in with a story that she had met your dead leader? You would have known her for some time, and would probably have trusted her not to lie. Knowing her close relationship with Jesus, you would not have expected her to mistake is identity. However you would also probably have known that in her past she had suffered mental or spiritual troubles [Lk.8:2; Mk.10:9], so the disciples may have questioned whether she was being hysterical or deluded by wishful thinking. Logically, you would have had justified reasons for doubt, like that expressed later by Thomas. After Mary’s first report of finding the empty tomb, Peter and John had rushed off to verify the facts and discovered that the tomb was deserted as Mary had said. Peter and John are not described as having met the angel messengers at that point, nor later. The vision of angelic figures seems to have been confined to the women. It is possible that after this second message of Mary recalling that she had met and spoken with the risen Christ, they again may have rushed back to the garden, hoping that they too might have met their risen master, if the story was true. However, we are not told about this.
Mary Magdalene has often been misinterpreted in the literature of the Church over the centuries. She was wrongly equated with the woman taken in adultery [Jn.8:3], the woman who had been a sinner who washed Jesus’ feet at the house of the Pharisee [Lk.7:37], and Mary of Bethany [Jn.11:1], among others. She was probably mistakenly associated with the penitent recluse Mary of Egypt. Thomas Aquinas also probably exaggerated her role in calling her the ‘Apostle to the Apostles’, and legends like her later mission activity in France seems to have been based on dubious evidence. We do not know much for certain about her relationship with Christ, which has probably been romanticised over time. More recently the discovery of the apocryphal ‘Gospel of Mary Magdalene’ has led some to proclaim that she had a far more prominent role among the disciples than was previously ascribed to her. This seems highly unlikely to other commentators.
Despite this she is an important example as a disciple. She valued him because he had been involved in releasing her from her mental oppression [Lk.8:2; Mk.10:9]. Her financial support of Jesus’ mission is attested in scripture as is her standing by Jesus in his time of suffering [Matt.27:55]. The significance of Mary being the one to pass on the news of Jesus’ Resurrection may also be a slight exaggeration. It could possibly have been any of Jesus’ followers who had gone to the tomb first, found it empty, met the risen Christ and in their excitement rushed to tell others. Yet to have gone so early to the tomb seems to be a sign of Mary’s deep commitment to Jesus and her wish to be near him, even when he was dead.
The excitement of Mary at meeting the risen Christ and the suspicion with which her message was received, even by those who knew her, could influence our own attitude to our witness to faith. Enthusiasm definitely draws people’s attention to one’s message and suggests that there is something real and authentic in our experience. Yet we need to realise that all people have different characters, and therefore many respond differently to ideas of faith and varieties in the ways that people witness. The enthusiastic witness of new converts to faith can be infectious; they are often much more excited and energetic about sharing their newly-found relationship with God than long-established believers. This should partly shame those of us who have been Christians for many years into being more open in our witness. However it is also important to recognise that some might consider us fanatical or brain-washed in our faith, so we need to present a reasoned witness, not just bubble over ecstatically with our enthusiasm. Witness that is realistically explained yet retains the enthusiasm of sustained love is often the most effective way of persuading people that our relationship with God is real and could make a positive influence on the lives of others.
Witnessing from our personal experience and by the authenticity of our Christian lives are as important as reasoned explanations (perhaps more important). Scripture may have attributed Mary’s former instability to spiritual possession [Lk.8:2], but she is far more likely to have been suffering from a mental problem. If the story of Mary finding mental stability through her relationship with Jesus is true, he had led her to experience a significant change in her life. Many of us may not have had such dramatic spiritual experiences as hers, though many others of us have certainly had significant things that have happened in our lives, which we believe relate to and are attributed at least partially to our relationship with God.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
What experiences in your life do you attribute to your relationship with God?
How enthusiastic are you over the idea that Christ is alive, available for you and acting for you? Do you convey your spiritual response to God sufficiently in your everyday witness?
13 (STATION 9) THE DISCIPLES RUN TO THE EMPTY TOMB
Luke’s Gospel speaks only of Peter running to the tomb to check Mary’s story and seeing the grave-clothes. [Lk.24:12], though later Cleopas (the Aramaic name for Peter) states that “some of those with us” had gone to the tomb [Lk.24:12]. Peter in Lk.24:24 also seems to refer to more than one person going to the tomb with him. John’s Gospel mentions that both Peter and John ran there in response to Mary’s report [Jn.20.3-8]. It would have been logical for two or more disciples would have been sent off to check the story. Several may have impetuously felt that they wanted to go, though some may have been afraid of leaving their place of safety so soon after the persecution of Jesus. Both Peter and John were both trusted leading members of the group and, as the closest friends of Jesus, would have certainly been expected to go. If the disciples were still afraid of possible reprisals to their group after the punishment of Jesus, it might have been considered safest to venture out with a trusted friend, to look out for and potentially protect one another.
Having been gives some insight by scripture into the character of Peter and the ambition of John, it is not surprising that there may have been a little competition between them to be the first to get to the tomb. We are told that John, who won the race was hesitant about entering and waited outside. Impetuous Peter would, I’m sure, have wanted to win the race, yet he may have been older, more solid or slower, or perhaps he too ran in hesitation, remembering that outside the court-room where Jesus was on trial, he had failed Jesus under questioning. Peter’s reaction when Jesus later tested his loyalty would seem to suggest this. In my paintings I have represented Peter as strongly built, but a little overweight, perhaps puffed through his exertion in the race to the tomb. We are told that he entered the first, perhaps again out of impetuosity and found it empty, then John entered, saw the evidence “and believed”. I have chosen to represent Peter outside the tomb, perhaps considering what he had already seen, thinking through its implications, wondering if the body had been stolen. John is in the tomb in a more devotional posture. We are told that they found the tomb empty, suggesting that there was no sign of the heavenly figures who the women met there.
In my picture the entrance of the tomb is far higher than it would have probably been in reality, to give greater drama and to allow us to see more clearly into the tomb. The actual entrances of such tombs were sometimes little more than a metre in diameter. For a similar reason, I have brought the niche in which the body would have been laid closer to the entrance, rather than deeper in the cavern.
John, appears to have been a very different character from Peter; he was very close to Christ in a different way. Probably not as impetuous as Peter, what we know of him suggests that he was contemplative, more theologically trained and spiritually intuitive. He is described as going into the tomb, considering what he found but we cannot be sure what is meant by the term “he saw and believed” [Jn.20:8]. The next verse claims “for as yet they did not understand the scripture that he must rise from the dead”. It has certainly been assumed by commentators that “he saw and believed” implies that John immediately believed that Jesus had somehow been revived or risen? As the gospel account was compiled and written ‘after the event’, it could be that the tradition of John’s early belief in the Resurrection had been handed down in the Johannine community. The compiler/s might therefore have added the idea that John believed that the Resurrection that Jesus had predicted had occurred, though for John it might probably have been a later realisation.
John is described in the gospels as the companion who was emotionally closest to Jesus, (“The disciple who Jesus loved” [Jn.21:20], though he was not the dynamic leader of the group in the way that Peter was. He may have been the more spiritually mature among the group. Some assume from the theology of John’s Gospel that John may have had training in theology, perhaps with links to the Temple, but this appears to contrast with the description of him as a fisherman in Matt.4:20. It may be that the theological content was expanded by the compiler/s, developing upon the teaching of John after the Ascension. The emphasis on John’s early belief in the Resurrection, contained in Jn.20:8 contrasts to the suggestion in Mark and Luke that the others disbelieved the women’s story.
Luke 24:12 describes Peter as running to the tomb, stooping to look in, witnessing the empty grave clothes and going away. Later, on the road to Emmaus Jesus’ companions told him that “some of our number” had gone to the tomb, implying that perhaps more followers than Peter and John had gone to witness the empty grave [Lk.24:24]. It would be a logical reaction for close friends to want to review the place and the evidence themselves. It might have also been a logical reaction for the authorities to have sent investigators and sealed the tomb a second time to discourage stories.
What did Peter, John and others find in the empty tomb in terms of the empty grave-clothes [Jn.20:8]? We cannot be sure what John saw that convinced him that something had happened beyond the stealing of a body. The phrasing of Jn.20:6-7 implies that the bandages, grave-clothes or shroud and napkin for his head (‘othonia’ and ‘sindon’) were arrange in such a way as to suggest that the figure had not simply removed them or been unwound by others. The complex wording seems to suggest that the figure had in some way dematerialised or disappeared through the cloths, leaving them collapsed upon themselves like an empty cocoon. We cannot be sure of this description, but if it is true (unless they had been carefully faked, which the disciples would not have had time or probably the inclination or skill to do), a supernatural form of resurrection is more likely than Jesus merely reviving and removing the restrictions from his body. If the corpse had merely been stolen or removed it is most likely that it would have been carried away still wrapped in the grave cloths. It would hardly have been possible to carry a naked body far, and why leave the shroud and spices, which would have been more valuable than the body itself?
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
How keen are you to look for evidence for your faith and how energetically do you pursue understanding?
14 (STATION 10) JESUS APPEARS AND TALKS WITH HIS FOLLOWERS ON THE ROAD TO EMMAUS [Lk.24.18-35; Mk.16:12-13
In the longer ending of Mark, which may well have been partly based on the Gospel of Luke as well as John’s Gospe, Jesus is described as having appeared “in another form to two (of Jesus’ followers) as they were walking into the country” [Mk.16:12]. Mark does not name the followers, but this was probably a reference to the same event as the journey to Emmaus in Luke 24. Mark’s one-verse account is regarded as a late addition to the Gospel, and it does not add any enlightening detail to the narrative in Luke. Luke’s Gospel, as I have already discussed, does not specifically mention any of the appearances of Jesus to women. Though Luke talks more than any other gospel of the involvement of women in Jesus’ life and ministry, the only reference to them here in the Resurrection appearance is that “some women from among us astonished us: going early to the tomb and not finding the body, they came saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who say that he is alive. And some of those with us went off to the tomb and found (things) just as the women had said; him they did not see.” [Lk.24:22-24]. The first appearance of Jesus to anyone in Luke’s Gospel is this encounter with a man named as Cleopas and his companion on the road to Emmaus. Luke may have been claiming that men were the first to meet the risen Jesus in order to give credence to the Resurrection among those who would not accept the witness of women. Perhaps the emphasis that the women did not see him implies that the women’s encounters and their message of this to the disciples came after their initial visit to the tomb. Alternatively, Luke may just not have had access to the source of information about the meetings with women mentioned in the other gospels.
The incident resembles several aspects of other appearances of the risen Christ in the gospels: These include: delayed recognition [Jn.20:14-16; 21:7-12]; the sharing of food or a meal as proof that this was physical and not a ghost [Jn.21:12-13; Lk.24:41-43; Acts 10:41]; the temporary nature of Jesus’ appearances [Jn.20:9]. It is obvious from the discussion among these two disciples that Jesus’ followers were left puzzled rather than immediately believing that a physical return had actually taken place. The Emmaus story is therefore very relevant to contemporary Christians as we try to witness to the reality of our spiritual experiences in a sceptical world. Even though others may not be convinced by the biblical story itself, our own experiences in our relationship with God may help to convince others.
Of the two followers who Jesus joined on the journey, we are told the name of ‘Cleopas’ but not the name of his companion. Several modern commentators suggest that the most logical identity of his companion would have been his wife. In traditional works of art the companions are both men. ‘Clopas’ wife is mentioned as one of the Marys who stood near Jesus at the Cross [Jn.19:25], and it is very probable that ‘Clopas’ and ‘Cleopas’ are the same person. I have represented his wife in my paintings of these Resurrection scenes in places where Jesus’ mother is often represented, since the Gospels do not mention Mary as being at the tomb. But the companion’s identity is far from certain. One problem with the idea that the companion might have been female is Luke’s failure to talk of women as witnesses who had met the resurrected Christ. If Luke was deliberately omitting women witnesses because he was writing to those who might not have recognised the validity of women’s evidence, it is possible that he did not name the other companion for this reason.
The popular mediaeval book ‘The Golden Legend’ identified Cleopas as the brother of Jesus’ father Joseph, but this seems based on tradition rather than early evidence. Eusebius of Caesarea, writing in the C4th C.E. [Ecclesiastical History III:11; IV:22] mentions the C2nd Palestinian historian Hegesippus as the source for ‘Clopas’ being Joseph’s brother. It seems likely that Cleopas and Clopas were the same figure. If he was the ‘Clopas’, husband of Mary, sister of Jesus’ mother Mary mentioned in Jn.19:25, he could therefore have been and uncle to Jesus and the father of James the Younger/ James theLess. However, in the lists of disciples this James is described as the “son of Alphaeus”. Both names could be versions of the same Aramaic name ‘Chaliphae’ (Alphaeus the Latinised name, Cleopas the Greek name).
If Cleopas was closely related to Jesus, he and his wife would have known Jesus well. So as they did not recognise him on the journey, there was most probably something different about the appearance of the resurrected Jesus’ which meant that they did not recognise him. One problem with the idea that Cleopas’ companion on the road being Clopas’ wife is that according to John’s Resurrection narrative, she had already met the risen Jesus, so would not be as surprised by the news that they were discussing [Jn.19:25]. (It has been suggested that Mary, the wife of Clopas may have been a source for some material in Matthew’s Gospel, which could account for Matthew’s mention of her at the Cross, as well as the family information in the Nativity narrative. However most mention of her is in John’s Gospel, though little more is said of her.
These two followers were obviously deeply moved, saddened and mystified by all the events that had taken place since Jesus’ arrest, and the recent accounts of appearances. They described Jesus as ‘a prophet, mighty in deed and God’ [Lk.24:18]. Their mention that their companion on the road “must be the only stranger/visitor in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have taken place there in these days” suggests that the disappearance of the body was by this time well-known in the city, rather than just among the disciples. The mention of Jesus as a ‘prophet’ might be a reference to the common contemporary cultural belief that a sign of the coming of God’s Kingdom would be the return to a prophet – particularly Elijah or Moses. In other passages in Luke the prophetic nature of Jesus was also stressed: [Lk.4:24; 7:16; 9:19]. Yet the travellers also suggest that they believed that Jesus was even more significant than an ordinary prophet: “It was our hope that it is he who was to redeem Israel” [Lk.24:21]. God was seen as the redeemer [Isa.41:14; 43:1-14; 44:22-24; Pss. Sol.9:1; 1Macc.4:1]. This mention of Jesus as a redeemer [also found in Lk.1:68 and 2:38] links him to God in a way that probably suggests that he was not just passing on a message from God but directly and actively doing God’s work. Cleopas statement that “we had hoped that he was the one who would redeem Israel.” [Lk.24:21] may be Luke deliberately recalling the prophecy of Simeon earlier in Lk.2:34: “This child is set for the fall and resurrection of many in Israel.”
As with the way that Jesus is described as opening the scriptures to the disciples in Lk.24:44-47, it would be really useful to know to which scripture texts Jesus referred in his conversation on the road to Emmaus. Jesus apparently talked not just about the suffering of the Son of Man, but also his glorification. He is said to have interpreted “Moses and all the prophets” [Lk.24:27]. But this reference was probably meant to be interpreted by Luke’s readers to also include the ‘Writings’, and the ‘Psalms’, thus implying that all the Hebrew Scriptures pointed to Christ [as in Lk.24:44-47]. It was a conviction of the early and also the mediaeval Church that all parts of scripture pointed to the Messiah, just as everything in creation contained aspects of its maker. Their exegesis often used obscure references as proofs of this, drawing parallels between ‘Old Testament’ figures and scenes and ‘New Testament’ examples which fulfilled them. A key part of the conversation on the way to Emmaus seems to have been Jesus’ explanation of the scriptures’ prophetic emphasis that “The Son of Man must suffer and be raised” [Lk.24:7]. The angel had said the same just a few verses earlier, reminding the women at the empty tomb that Jesus had taught this when he was in Galilee. [Lk.24:6-8]. The emphasis on the ‘necessity’ (‘dei’) of what ‘must’ happen, is a term that is repeated throughout Luke [Lk.2:49; 9:22; 13:33; 15:32; 17:25; 22:37; 24:26].
The figure who is said to have appeared, walked and talked with the disciples on the road to Emmaus could certainly not have been a body that had only recently recovered from having swooned on the cross and been entombed alive. This ‘swoon theory’ had been particularly promoted by the German theologian H.E.G. Paulus, suggesting that the cool atmosphere of the tomb and the aromatic spices combined to revive him. But if the Road to Emmaus story is true, no recently revived, damaged body could have made such a journey, discussed faith so animatedly and convinced those who he accompanied that he was vitally active.
Luke’s Gospel includes several journeys, and journeys continued regularly in the Book of Acts. Some commentators suggest that this journey from Jerusalem to Emmaus following Passover may be deliberately paralleling the Journey to Jerusalem at a former Passover festival, when Jesus accompanied his parents, and was later discovered debating with the elders in the Temple,. Mary and Joseph had hurried back to the city of Jerusalem to find their son and searched for three days [Lk.2:46]. On the third day after the crucifixion and entombment Cleopas and his companion hurried back to tell the disciples the news of the risen Jesus’ appearance to them. The parallel of the tree days with Jesus’ three days in the tomb might be either coincidental or deliberate. Just as Jesus had reprimanded his parents for looking for him, when they should have known it was necessary that he would be involved in his Father’s business [Lk.2:49], so Luke has Jesus telling his companions: “Foolish ones, slow of heart to believe all that the prophets had spoken! Was it not necessary for the Messiah to suffer these things?” [Lk.24:25-26]. Like Mary and Joseph’s response to the child Jesus in the Temple, Cleopas and his companion are left in awe. Near the end of the journey Jesus was about to move on but was asked to stay, rest and dine with them, no doubt not just out of hospitality, but because he had awakened spiritual hope in them and they probably wanted to hear more wisdom from him [Lk.24:28-29].
We are not told whether Emmaus was Cleopas’ home, in which case, he might have journeyed to Jerusalem for the Passover and was travelling back to spend the week-long Feast of the Unlevened Bread in his own house. We have no certainty about the geographical position of Emmaus. The name means ‘place of warm springs’, which may identify it as a place connected with healings. Luke tells us that it was “a village 60 stadia from Jerusalem” [Lk.24:13], which would make it within a radius of about seven miles from the city. [A ‘stadion’ was 607 feet]. There were a number of places called Emmaus in Palestine, though some of these have disappeared which is probably the case with the village in Cleopas’ story. One Emmaus was west-north-west of Jerusalem [1Macc.3:40, 57; 4.3; Josephus Jewish Wars 2.63; Ant.17.282 and Eusebius]. This was later called Nicopolis, and is now named Amwas (the Arabic translation of the Greek name Emmaus). Amwas is about 14½ miles from Jerusalem, so some have reinterpreted Luke’s text from 60 to 160 stadia. Josephus names another Emmaus about 3½ miles north-west of Jerusalem on the site of ancient Mozah [Josh.18:26]. Those who propose this site as the Emmaus of Luke’s narrative sometimes suggest that the 7 miles mentioned in the gospel was the round trip from Jerusalem to Emmaus and back. During the time of the Crusades, Emmaus was identified as Qubeibeh, just over 7 miles from Jerusalem on the road to Lydda. It is today also called Amwas, though there seems to be little ancient reference to this Arabic name for the village.
One key message of the story of the journey seems to be intended to be that the risen Jesus was involved with his followers, came alongside them and helped them to understand that there was scriptural evidence for what had happened. It would be wonderful to know what he pointed his listeners towards. It could have been the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, Psalm. In Lk.18:31-32 the evangelist had already mentioned that Jesus, suffering had been foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures. Here he also added that Christ’s entry into glory is also to be found there, which may also refer back to Luke’s mention of glory in Lk.9:26, 31-32; 21:27; Acts 22:11. It is likely that by clarification Luke was referring not just to the Resurrection or Ascension, but the belief that Jesus would return to the throne of heaven. In Lk.9:26 Jesus refers to the Son of Man coming again in his glory, and in 19:12 he is referred to as going away to receive his recognition and power as king, before he returns.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
In what ways has God in Christ come alongside you on your own life-journey? What are some of the things that you feel God has taught you on your journey?
15 (STATION 11) JESUS IS RECOGNISED IN THE BREAKING OF BREAD. [Lk.24:30-31]
It is uncertain whether Emmaus was Cleopas’ home or if they stopped at a hostelry or guest house there, with the intention of travelling further. Luke’s text implies that Emmaus was the intended end of their journey for that day at least. Evening was drawing on as they approached the village: Luke’s phrasing is literally “already the day has declined”. When Jesus “made as if to go on further” the two companions “pressed him to remain with them” [Lk.24:28]. Presumably they were extending the common courtesy of hospitality, which was considered a virtue in many ancient cultures. Hospitality was considered to be a religious or pious responsibility in Hebrew culture, as with the hospitality of Abraham [Gen 18; Heb.13:2]. The two travellers were also probably particularly keen to hear more of their companion’s wisdom and teaching, since they later said that their hearts were burning within them as he opened the scriptures to them [Lk.24:32]. Their offer of hospitality is expressed in very similar language to Judg.19:9 and Gen.19:103 but in both those stories the hospitality of individuals is ruined by the wicked action of others. Heb.13:2 talks of ‘entertaining angels unawares’, but here it is the Messiah to whom they have offered a meal and a bed without knowing it.
In Jewish households of the time, the main meal of the day seems to have been served in the late afternoon. It was a common feature of Jewish meals for the host to break bread with a prayer at the opening of a meal. This would have been a prayer of thanksgiving for the provision of the meal, rather than a spiritual blessing of the food. According to Jewish tradition it would probably have begun: “Blessed are you, O Lord...”. The thanksgiving for and breaking of the bread is similar to Jesus’ actions and words in Lk.9:16 and 22:19. In those passages Jesus was undeniably the host. It went against Hebrew tradition for the guest to bless and break the bread, rather than the host. We are not told whether Jesus automatically took the bread or, perhaps more likely, whether his two companions recognised the importance and spirituality of their visitor and offered him the privilege of breaking the bread and giving the thanksgiving. The two may not have been present at the Last Supper but they may have witnessed other meals which Jesus shared with his followers, so recognised his actions, words or manner.
By the time of the writing of Luke’s Gospel, the sharing of the Lord’s Supper or breaking of bread must have been a regular activity among Christians. From St. Paul’s comments about this meal, it seems that a liturgy or at least certain memorable phrases must have already developed to make the meal a formal memorial of Jesus’ last Passover with his followers before his death. As the stories of Jesus circulated in oral form before the writing of the Gospels, it may well be that the ‘Supper at Emmaus’ was also remembered at the memorial meal, as part of Christ’s revelation of himself. Luke was not necessarily claiming that the risen Jesus was inaugurating the Eucharist in taking and breaking the bread in either the Last Supper or the supper at Emmaus. He was probably creating an analogy with the early Church Eucharistic practice of his time. All Jesus’ meals with his followers, including the feeding of the four thousand and five thousand, gave a precedent by which his followers might recognise his presence with them.
For Cleopas and his companion “their eyes were opened and they recognise him.” [Lk.24:47]. Epiphanies at meals are frequently found in scripture: Adam and Eve’s “eyes were opened and they know that they were naked” [Gen.3:7]. Abraham and Sarah had a revelation of God in a meal at the Oaks of Mamre [Gen.18:2]. Belshazzar recognised the message of God at a feast [Dan.5:1-9]; Jesus revealed himself at the Wedding Feast at Cana [Jn.2:1-11]; he taught decisively at a meal in the house of the Pharisee [Lk.14:1] and revealed his and his followers’ future at the Last Supper [Matt.26:20-29; Mk.14:17-25; Lk.22:14-38]. The statement that “their eyes were opened”, may be meant to imply that God chose that moment to clarify to them that this was God’s Son, or this may just have been intended as a normal mental recognition. It also made them remember the way that their conversation on the road had made his revelations burn within them.
Luke’s Gospel does not include Jesus’ frequent association with bread as an extended metaphor, which is so strong in John’s Gospel: [Jn.6:31-59; 13:18; 21:9, 13], particularly Jesus claiming to be ‘The Bread of Life’ [Jn.6:35, 48] and the ‘Bread that came down from heaven” [6:41]. Yet there are passages earlier in Luke, which could possibly be related to the later Emmaus meal:
Luke lays more emphasis than the other Gospels on Jesus eating meals with others: The Last Supper is the supreme example [Lk.17:8; 21:20; 22:8, 13] and also the feeding of the crowd in Lk.9:25-26. There is a long discourse on food, hospitality, places of honour and the honouring and provision for those in need, in the house of the leader of the Pharisees [Lk.14:1-24]. Jesus’ Parable of the Dinner Guests and the Banquet is a response to a fellow guest’s remark that “Blessed is anyone who will eat bread in the Kingdom of God” [Lk.14:15-24].
The Resurrection appearance at Emmaus story fascinates me. There’s so much that we don’t know about it – unanswerable questions: Several sites claim to be Emmaus, but no-one is sure; it is possibly one of many small villages that have disappeared or been renamed over time. Then who were these disciples travelling on the road? Several theologians speculate whether one companion was a woman, which may be why she was unnamed, perhaps Cleopas’s wife. And how could they have walked so long with Jesus and not recognised him? Were they disciples who had only followed or seen him at a distance in the crowds, so didn’t know his face too well, or were they relatives? Was the Risen Christ’s appearance markedly different from his former body? What did Jesus do in breaking the bread that made them finally recognise him? Did he then dematerialise in disappearing from them? These are all ‘unknowns’, yet the Emmaus narrative remains one of the most intriguing and exciting of the appearances.
It is a scene that has challenged artists like theologians for centuries – from early church murals to Caravaggio, Rembrandt, Jan Steen and modern artists like Ceri Richards and Stanley Spencer. Though I once led a whole day of meditations on the Emmaus story for the Friends of the Community of the Resurrection at Mirfield, I have only tried to paint it myself three times. The most successful only showed Christ’s hands breaking bread and offering it to their hands. The whole idea of painting the Resurrection scenes is a challenge. How can you possibly represent a mystery sufficiently in a physical image? Rembrandt did it with light; Jan Steen suggested it with symbols, including broken and empty egg-shells.
The story is also challenging faith-wise. I wonder how often the risen and ascended Christ walks beside me and along-side each of us to teach and encourage us by his spirit, while we fail to fully recognise his presence or what he is trying to teach us. It is fascinating to imagine what proofs from scripture Jesus gave to these two fellow travellers. Several commentators on this passage say: ‘wouldn’t it be useful if those two disciples had recorded Jesus’ teaching, so we might know how Jesus imagined history and scripture pointing to him, and revealed the meaning of his death and resurrection’. But perhaps we do have evidence for this: The teaching probably fed into the teaching of the early Church. Matthew’s Gospel, the Epistle to the Hebrews and St Paul especially were keen to explain how Jesus’ life, ministry and death were rooted in the prophets and Hebrew tradition. Jesus’ opening of scripture to the disciples may be the remembered source of some of these arguments, handed down over time within the Church. His breaking bread with them is not just the way that they become aware of his reality and their risen Lord. It has become a key aspect of our Eucharistic liturgy since early Christian times to combine the sharing of bread and wine with the exposition of scripture. The combination was the way that the early Church and the modern Church recognised and shared truths about God. The Spirit can open the meaning and implications of our scriptures to us. We also discover spiritual truth and recognise the presence of God with us through our relationships with one another as we share together.
Jesus’ proofs, nice as it would be to know them, would probably not convince people today any more than evidence that we work out ourselves, because not all believe the Bible. Each generation needs to build upon what has gone before. Each Christian needs to find for themselves the reasons for faith that convince them. Some Christians long to go back to emulating the simple faith and practice of the Early Church. But you can’t do that, since culture and human reasoning have moved on. If we stood outside a shopping precinct and preached about Jesus’ Resurrection, as Peter or Paul might have done, hundreds would probably not be suddenly convinced and join the Church. We live in a different world where people have different intellectual requirements, questions and experiences. What we need to do is find the faith and truths that give us confidence now to face 21st Century challenges - ways of being Christians and a Church that work in our society. We need to be even more true to the Spirit and teaching of Christ than the Church attains at the moment. It is important to work hard to find contemporary ways to convince others today that faith is true.
Most people today would not be convinced if you gave them proofs from scripture. Why should they? For many the Bible is a collection of ancient writings that seem irrelevant to them, historically dubious, or have an outmoded view of the world. Many think that the Resurrected Jesus is just a superstition, distancing the Church from the needs and thoughts of the everyday world. As Christians we know that such scepticism isn’t true and have a high regard for scripture which we recognise still speaks to us today. But people who have not yet discovered the truths that Christianity has to offer are more likely to be convinced of faith if they see faith really working in our lives. Jesus at Emmaus convinced these two disciples by his presence and what he left in their minds and emotions, even more than by his explanation of scripture. It was the company of a miraculously godly man whose encouraging words of truth burned within them, which helped them recognise that he himself was the truth when he broke bread with them at their destination. We ourselves need to be authentic in emulating Jesus in our communities, so that people become convinced that faith is real and true and are attracted to want to share what we have found.
We in our small ways as individuals and as churches in our community are the people who walk beside our neighbours, friends, work-colleagues, people we shop and live beside, people we meet walking the dog or on our way to church. We are the people who walk beside other real people and can have those effective conversations or live faith-filled lives, which, like Jesus on the road to Emmaus, convince others that faith is true. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if one of your neighbours said of you: “weren’t our hearts burning within us as we talked over the garden fence or over coffee or walked together”. Or they said of you… “I can see that you know God by the truth in your life... help me to follow and walk with your Jesus!”
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
Contemplate the relevance to you of the verse: “weren’t our hearts burning within us as we talked!”...Could people say the same of their contact with you and what they encounter in faith? What aspects of our faith ‘burn within you”?
16 JESUS DISAPPEARS AT EMMAUS [Lk.28:31] & THE TWO TRAVELLERS RETURN TO INFORM THE DISCIPLES [Lk.24:33-35].
In their invitation for Jesus to stay with them and share a meal with them, Jesus two companions on the road to Emmaus put into practice the Jewish tradition and virtue of hospitality. They were also acting upon Christ’s teachings about the humility with which one should show hospitality in Lk.14:7-25 and respond to need in Lk.11:5-13. Their response to the revelation of his identity similarly followed his encouragement to the disciples to spread the good news. Unlike his message through the women who met him, Jesus had not told Cleopas to return and tell his friends that he was alive. But the automatic response was also to rush back to Jesus’ followers as immediately as practicable, in order to pass on the truths that Jesus had shared with them.
The disappearance of Jesus after the breaking of the bread at Emmaus is as much of a mystery and Jesus appearing to the disciples despite them hiding behind locked doors [Jn.20:19]. This incident is the first indication in the Gospels that the nature of the risen Jesus was anything other than a normal physical human figure who had returned from death. Mary Magdalene may have not recognised him at first, but for him to disappear after revealing his identity through his actions at the meal table, is the first supernatural, unusual miraculous action. As with the folded linen grave-cloths, these events suggest that though Christ’s risen body had a physicality, he was able to dematerialise and rematerialize in different places. (We are not told of him travelling between one place of self-revelation to another. This is taken by some to consider that he had already returned to the spiritual dimension at the Resurrection rather than waiting until the Ascension, and could pass from one dimension to another in some form that appeared physical. There are similar mysterious disappearances or departures in Lk.1:11, 38; 2:9, 15; 4:13; 9:30, 33; Acts 8:39; 10:3, 7; 12:7, 10.
Once again, such events pose understandable difficulties for those rational Christians who find it difficult to believe in such miracles. Some suggest that these incidents describe different points and places where believers came to realisations that Christ’s presence was still with them in their mental and spiritual understanding. They find it hard to conceive that these were literal materialisations and dematerialisations of his body. I understand the argument, but consider that there must have been something more concrete in the events to convince Jesus followers that the tragedy of his death had led to the triumph of his spirit living among them.
It is probable that the two companions intended to remain for longer at Emmaus, especially if Emmaus was their home village. However the situation had changed: the news that they felt compelled to share of their meeting with Jesus was too important and exciting. The two followers rushed back from Emmaus to the apostles and those who were with them in Jerusalem and told what they had experienced. Their words added to the evidences that were building up to convince the rest of Jesus’ followers about his Resurrection. On their return, however, they received the news that more revelations had occurred and that the risen Jesus had already appeared to Peter [Lk.24:34]. The importance of Peter among the disciples is emphasised in several passages in Luke [Lk.5:1-11; 22:31-34]. However, nowhere in any of the gospels is this early encounter with Peter described, other than the report in Lk.24:34 that “he has appeared to Simon”. St. Paul’s mention of a meeting between Jesus and Peter (Cephas) in 1Cor.15:5 could be referring to this encounter, or to Jesus’ commissioning of Peter on the beach in Galilee in Jn.21:15-19.
Our own personal witness to our relationship with God through Christ, or the evidences of faith that we attempt to give to people may be the words or catalysts that convince someone of faith. But more often our personal witness is only part of the activity of God’s Spirit working to convince the world of truth. Our words may just add to many other influences that contribute to the development of understanding in others. Yet we are responsible for making our personal witness authentic and convincing. We are part of a world-wide body that is meant to convince the world that Jesus is true and that following his way is the best, truest way to live. Our contribution is vital; we are at the coal-face of the sharing of the Gospel. No individual, worldwide Church, institution or diocese will ever convince everyone that faith is true. In fact, the Church in the media spotlight too often shoots itself in the foot and desecrates its witness. It is full of internal squabbles, rivalries for power, doctrinal clashes, internal conflicts and controversies. Its rulings show many of its leaders to be out of touch with how the world feels about ethical issues, gender roles, sexuality, money, power. Too often our diocesan, national and international synods and are way behind the community and society in their understanding. Despite saying all the right words politically-correct words, some receive the impression that the Church is not actually not interested in real people’s struggles.. Jesus on the road to Emmaus met the emotional needs and intellectual questions of two people who were struggling to know what to believe. By convincing them through his teaching and actions he reassured their faith and helped to form them into enthusiastic, authentic witnesses who passed on his message effectively and reliably. Part of our commission is to be equally authentic and enthusiastic.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
If you were walking alongside two friends how would you explain your reasons for faith? What evidence would you give to convince others of the truths behind Jesus Resurrection?
17 (STATION 12) JESUS APPEARS TO THE DISCIPLES IN A LOCKED ROOM IN JERUSALEM, [Mk.16:14-15; Lk.24:36-43; Jn.20:19-23]
We cannot be sure whether this appearance is supposed to have happened in the same upper room where Jesus had shared the Last Supper with his disciples or whether for safety and security they were staying in the homes of various friends in the city. We do not know for sure which disciples Jesus revealed himself to. Was it just the ten remaining apostles, without Thomas, who was not there at the time? It would seem logical that Mary and Jesus’ other women friends could have been with them, as well as other male followers who had been committed to Jesus and his mission. Most must have been confused by the various accounts that they were receiving of the empty tomb and people claiming to have met the risen Jesus. It would be understandable, therefore if extra followers of Jesus had joined the group to confirm the rumours that were circulating.
They may well have been a large group, so it is very probable that they were staying in various homes, but gathered together to regroup discuss their future possibilities and plans.
Luke, unlike John, does not mention that the room where they met was locked. Perhaps John was deliberately emphasising the divine miracle behind his appearance by suggesting that he walked through a barred door. If he just walked into the room normally it is still miraculous, but not quite as mysterious as a materialisation.
We are told that most of the disciples fled in fear at Jesus’ arrest [Matt.26:56; Mk.14:52] and most are not mentioned as being present at Golgotha, or at least not standing near him, unlike the women followers who appear to have been less afraid to be there. Luke’s phrase for Jesus’ followers near the Cross, translated in NRSV as ‘acquaintances’ is ‘pántes oí gnostoì aùtō’ / ‘all those known to him’, which does imply that the group included men, though the text also mentions that they were standing ‘at a distance’ [Lk.23:49]. They were a terrified group who had lost their leader and their purpose. After the tragedy of his death they probably felt the need to regroup for security, and wondered together what they should do next. It seems reasonable to suggest that after Jesus’ arrest and execution, the disciples would have returned to places of known security, where their host or hosts might have been friendly, understanding and supportive of their cause. They would certainly not have continued to camp in the open in Gethsemane after Jesus’ arrest, if that had been where they were staying previously. In the courtyard outside Jesus’ trial it is suggested that Peter was probably been recognised as being a follower of Jesus by his northern accent as much as his appearance. Several of his fellow disciples would have felt similarly vulnerable to recognition.
Matt.28:17, perhaps set in Galilee, not Jerusalem, claims that as the disciples met Christ for the first time “some disbelieved / doubted”. Mk.16:13 [the longer ending of Mark] also claims that they did not believe the two disciples who claimed to have met him on the road and follows this by stating that when Jesus met them “he upbraided them because they did not believe those who saw him after they had risen” [Mk.16:14]. The verb for disbelieve or doubt in Matthew is ‘disdazō’, which indicates hesitation and uncertainty not entirely confirmed in their unbelief.
When they met him later, the disciples’ immediate response is described by Luke as being ‘terrified’ / ‘ptoéthentes’ and ‘full of fear’ / ‘emphoboi’. To reassure them Luke and John state that Jesus attempted to pacify their fears in the statement: ‘Peace be with you’. He assured them that he was physical flesh, not a ghost as they initially supposed [Lk.24:37]. As evidence that he was real he showed them his wounds [Lk.38-40], and told them to touch him, as the women had done [Lk.24:39]. Jesus emphasised this physicality by eating some broiled fish. (One early but unreliable manuscript adds that he also ate ‘honeycomb’, which is included in the A.V. translation.) In Luke we are told that the followers’ response turned from doubt and puzzlement, terror and fear, to ‘joy’ [Lk.24:41]. This joy, we are told, continued after Jesus his Ascension, expanding into their joyful worship, thanksgiving and blessings of God in the Temple [Lk.24:52-53].
On the issue of showing his wounds, I have a confession about my representation of the risen Christ. It is probable that if Jesus was in traditional Palestinian dress of the time, he would have had long sleeves and loose robes, and in showing his wounds he may have just rolled up his sleeves. In my paintings I show him in more flowing classical robes, which reveal the body more fully than any possible clothing that he might have actually worn. I have deliberately used a different form of clothing in order to focus on the Classical setting, but also to be able to place more emphasis on the scars of Christ’s wounds. I have also probably over-emphasised Jesus’ muscularity. Although he would have gained strength in his training as a carpenter, his ascetic, peripatetic lifestyle would probably have made him more wiry. I have tried to represent Christ as a powerful character, strong enough to carry us spiritually rather than seeming like a wimp in a nightie.
It was traditional for devout pilgrims to Jerusalem for the Passover festival to remain in the city for at least the six days of the Feast of Unleavened bread that followed the Passover. So Jesus’ followers may have been intending to stay rather than returning to Galilee immediately. Though Jesus had sent the message in other Gospels [Matt.26:32; 28:7, 10; Mk.14:28; ] that he would go before them and meet them in Galilee, this appearance in Luke does not necessarily contradict the idea of Jesus’ early self-revelations in Galilee in Matthew and Mark and John. It might merely suggest that he appeared to them in Jerusalem before they left.
You can imagine the added fear in the disciples when Jesus suddenly appeared in their midst, especially if it was behind locked doors as John describes. No wonder he needed to reiterate to them twice “Peace be with you” [Jn.20:19, 21]! They may have worried that their temporary locked fortress was not as impregnable and hidden as they had thought. This could be used as a metaphor for the times when we try to put up our barriers to God. Several saints are described as initially resisting God’s way, as did Francis Thompson in his poem “The Hound off Heaven” or George Herbert’s resistance to forgiveness in “Love bade me welcome but my heart held back.” The passage suggests that God’s power can break though the barriers that any of us might make, though our personal will and integrity is never usurped.
The appearance of Jesus despite the locked doors does imply that there was something beyond what we normally call ‘physical’ about his resurrected body, as far as the Gospel-writers described it. He could appear and disappear at will, as he had done after the revelation at Emmaus. He could walk, talk eat and in the case of the miraculous draught of fishes, could still perform miracles. He appears to have also been able to travel from one place to another in another dimension, as he revealed himself in Jerusalem, on the road to Emmaus and in Galilee. He showed them that he still had the wounds of his passion, so this was not a ‘new body’. The buried body had reappeared but in a new form that was not always immediately recognised. (Neither Cleopas nor Mary Magdalene initially recognised him). In some miraculous way, in his Resurrection Jesus’ body had transformed or transmuted, and showed different qualities. Some have theorised that he had already ascended or moved into the spiritual dimension, and that his reappearances were manifestations in which his body could pass from one dimension to another, enabling him to communicate directly with his followers. There seems to be some reason in this supposition, though a literal reading of Jn.10:17 might question this.
Jesus gave some proofs of the physical reality of this different sort of body in which he was revealed: He reassured them that he was not a ghost by showing them his wounds then asking to eating with them, [Lk.24.36-43] as he did in the breakfast with them on the beach [Jn.21:12]. Whether it is significant that they gave him ‘broiled fish’ to eat in the upper room, we cannot be sure. Some commentators connect it symbolically with the bread and fish of the feeding of the five thousand [Lk.9:13, 16]. But Luke’s emphasis is definitely placed on “he took it ate it in their presence” [Lk.12:43]. The writers of the Gospels were obviously certain that there was a physical reality in Jesus’ Resurrection. Luke and John’s mention of the risen Jesus eating are given as evidence of this, as was the walk to Emmaus in Luke. However, scripture also speaks of angels eating and drinking [Gen.18:; 19:3; Tobit 12:9]. Matthew’s mention of the women clinging onto Jesus’ feet [Matt.28:9] even perhaps John’s mention of Jesus ‘breathing’ his Spirit onto them also give the idea that this was a physical not a mental manifestation.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
Do you have any experiences that have convinced you of the reality of Christ and of God’s presence in your life? Our religious experiences may be regarded by many as subjective; most are not actually provable, but they often help to assure us that our faith is based on truth.
18 (STATION 13) JESUS OPENS SCRIPTURE TO THE DISCIPLES [Lk.24:44-47]
Like the conversation on the road to Emmaus, it would be wonderful to know what scriptures and traditions Jesus used to confirm issues about himself which so convinced the disciples of the truth of their faith in him. This was his final teaching before his Ascension, and contains an emphasis on the disciples’ mission and witness, which is not mentioned as being part of the Emmaus discussion [Lk.24:47-49]. As well as convicting the disciples, the teaching must also have strengthened their witness and their apologetic. Although we do not know the particular details of scriptures to which Jesus pointed, it is likely that some of his argument has filtered into the teaching of the New Testament, where Jesus is regarded as fulfilling predictions in scripture. Matthew so often points to Christ’s life and actions being fulfilments of passages in the Hebrew Scriptures. To a lesser extent these fulfilments are also represented in the other gospels, though not to the extent of Matthew. The fulfilment of scripture is also a feature of many New Testament epistles, especially in the writings of Paul and the Letter to the Hebrews. So we are probably not totally unaware of what Jesus was teaching his followers after his Resurrection. Numerous books have been written on the subject of ‘Jesus in the Old Testament’, ‘Christ in Isaiah’ etc. Some of these attempts to explore how much of Jesus’ life and mission was predicted in prophesy, ave no-doubt contorted scripture in seeking to wring out every minute detail and parallel. We see this particularly in the exaggerated parallels between the testaments emphasised in mediaeval teaching.
Jesus specifically referred to the teaching that he gave while he was still with them [Lk.24:44]. By mentioning that there was evidence of him in “the law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” Jesus was probably implying that there was no part of scripture which did not bear witness to the coming Messiah. According to Luke he then went on to clarify the scriptures’ references to the Messiah’s suffering, death and resurrection [as in Lk.24:25-27] and the spreading of his message through the earth. The disciples to whom he was talking were those who would fulfil these prophecies by their mission, once the Spirit had empowered them.
It is possible to make the error of mediaeval thinkers who believed that every passage in the ‘Old Testament’ had its parallel in the New Testament’ and become over-obsessed with seeking out and contriving those parallels. Like those who are obsessed with finding esoteric numerology and other metaphysical symbolism in scripture, this is not using scripture as intended. The spirit in which the scriptures were meant to be read is to find their relevance to our lives and enhance our understanding and worship of God, not to intellectualise. Neither the Hebrew Scriptures nor the New Testament are intended as esoteric metaphysical texts, with the possible exception of some apocalyptic symbolism. ebres Sciptures H It is probably wise not to speculate on the possible details of what specific scriptures Jesus opened up to his followers. Far more useful is to recognise that Jesus claimed that he was fulfilling the spirit of the past scriptures. We should read both the New Testament and the Hebrew Scriptures in the light of Jesus’ revelation about God, about himself and how we should follow and live by his way.
We have far better access to scripture today than at any time in history. In rural Palestine during the first century there would have been scrolls of scriptures in the local synagogues, but rarely in private hands. Only in cities might there have been more copies of the scriptures, but we cannot be sure that people had access to the complete scrolls of scripture. Some may have had the Pentateuch or Psalms. But the whole canon of the Hebrew Scriptures may not have been fully compiled, and certainly was not available to all, even to all religious teachers. Rabbis would have taught orally and most people knew their scriptures primarily through memory and repetition. Local students of the rabbis were taught to memorise important scripture passages. Not everybody would have been able to memorise exactly, even though, in an age of oral teaching, Jesus’ contemporaries were evidently more adept at memorisation than most modern Christians. Most would not have known or been able to recall in detail more than a few verses that later Christians applied to Jesus Christ. Paul, as a Pharisee, and other religious leaders who we are told were converted to Christ’s way, would have probably known their scriptures far more than most. It is likely that the scriptures that the early Christians used to apply to Jesus were from memorable sections of the Hebrew Scriptures. Some of these might have included the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, verses from well-known Psalms and significant imagery in the Pentateuch and Prophets. We do known from Matthew’s use of scripture that he applied specific verses, sometimes apparently obscure ones. It may be that, as the early Jewish Christians attended their local synagogues, they were particularly attuned to listen for parallels with Jesus and to note them as the scriptures were read. That would not require as detailed or holistic understanding of the scriptures as commentators have access to today.
A key aspect of Luke’s account is that Jesus is said to claim that the spread of the gospel and the message of repentance, forgiveness of sins, and presumably the offer of salvation “to all nations” was foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures. This must surely be interpreted as referring to Gentiles, not just dispersed Jews. It contrasts greatly with the exclusivity of many of Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries, who emphasised the distinctiveness of the relationship of their people with their God. We do not know, once again, to which scriptures Jesus referred, but right from the first covenant with Abraham, God’s message was that through the Jewish people, others in the world would be blessed: “I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make our name great, so that you will be a blessing... and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” [Gen.12:2-3]... “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You shall be the ancestor of a multitude of nations” [Gen.17:4]. By the C1st C.E. and beyond, this inclusiveness of the mission of the Jews to the peoples around them had lessened and sadly continues today, particularly in the inequity of the treatment of Palestinians. Far too much emphasis is being placed by some on the central section of the first covenant promise “those who bless you I will bless and the one who curses you I will curse” [Gen.12:3a]. Jesus’ ministry among Samaritans, Greeks and others began a significant refocussing towards the intended mission that all people can equally enjoy the blessings of God and find salvation through the covenant promises, which Christ renewed, expanded, and sent his disciples to spread further.
One of the main aspects of the preaching of the gospel in Luke 24:45-48 is that the disciples are ‘witnesses’ of what Jesus had done among them, his death and resurrection. They were also to be his witnesses by going out to preach repentance and forgiveness. The apostles had a key role as witnesses, and as leaders of the other witness, which is one reason why Matthias was elected to join them after Judas Iscariot’s death. He is described as a follower who had been with them “as one of the men who had accompanied (them) during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among (them)” from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry to the Ascension. [Acts1:21]. Presumably Matthias had also been one of the “seventy” sent out by Jesus to spread his message [Lk.10:1-20].
As believers we now have inherited that commission. Our knowledge of scripture should inform and strengthen the way that we spread Christ’s message. But most important for our witness is the authenticity of our relationship with God, which gives us the experiences form which we draw, to try to convince others of the truth within our belief.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
What scriptures speak most clearly to you of the nature of God in ways that enhance your relationship with God and your worship?
What scriptures most convince you of the truth of Christ and the truth behind his Resurrection?
What scriptures would you point others to, in order to most clearly explain the nature of God and the value of belief and discipleship?
19 (STATION 14 & 15) JESUS PROMISES THE SPIRIT [Lk.24.44-49] & JESUS BREATHES THE SPIRIT ON THE DISCIPLES [Jn.20.22,23]
Though not as literal and specific as Matthew in stating how Jesus fulfilled Hebrew Scripture, John’s Gospel is replete with allusions and metaphors that point to Jesus being the fulfilment of Jewish hope and biblical associations. None of the Resurrection narratives in the Gospels over-emphasise these prophetic foretellings, though Luke tells us that Jesus opened to the disciples the scriptures that pointed to his death, resurrection and the continuation of his mission. The gospels give the events and evidences for the Resurrection in a much more straightforward way, as though emphasising that they contain real, unembroidered truth, not events that had been invented to appear to fulfil scripture,
However the description of Jesus ‘breathing’ the Spirit onto the disciples would seem to be an exception to this. It is the same word [‘emphysaō’] as is used of God’s Spirit breathing life into humanity in the process of Creation [Gen.2:7]. In many scriptural passages the Spirit is breathed into people to give life, renewal or spiritual understanding: Job.12:10; 27:3; 32:8;33:4; Ps.33:6; 104:30; Isa.42:5; 57:16; 59:19; Jer.38:16; Lam.4:20; Ezek.37:5-10, 14; Wis.15:11]. Here in Jn.20 it recalls the statements about the Word at the beginning of the Gospel: “In him was life, and that life was the light for all.” [Jn1:4].
In breathing the Spirit on the disciples, Jesus was giving them the power that would equip them for following his commission to them to carry on his work. As he promised in Jn.14:18, he was not leaving them orphaned, but giving them an even more intimate power than he had been able to give them by living alongside and teaching them. His Spirit would be in them, guiding, strengthening, bringing remembrance of his teaching, empowering them and taking them forward, as he had promised in Jn.14 and 16. The breathing of the Spirit upon Jesus’ followers may have similarities with the way spiritual power was transferred to Elisha from Elijah [2Ki.2:9-10]. There too it was accompanied by the disciple, Elisha witnessing the disappearance of his master into heaven.
We cannot be sure how this breathing of the Spirit might link with the story of the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, recounted by Luke in the opening of Acts. John links this with the first appearance of Jesus to the disciples behind locked doors. After assuring them of his identity by showing them his wounds, he commissions them and breathes the Spirit on them. “Jesus said to them again “Peace be with you. As the Father sent me so I send you.” And when he had said this he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit (‘pneûma hagion’). If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” [Jn.20:.21-23]. In Luke’s account of what seems the same encounter, the only reference to a spirit is Jesus reassurance twice that he was physical, not a spirit or ghost (‘pneûma’) [Lk.24:36-43]. Although the word ‘pneûma’ is used in both Gospel passages, it appears that the Evangelists were suggesting different interpretations of Jesus’ words about the Spirit. It has been speculated that in John’s account Jesus was breathing the potential of the Holy Spirit’s influence into their lives in a sort of anointing, in preparation for Pentecost. But that is not what the text of John actually says. Jesus seems to be breathing his Spirit into the disciples as God’s Spirit was breathed into the prophets for their ministries, only perhaps in a more permanent way. To suggest, as some commentators do that this breathing of the Spirit upon the disciples was only a preliminary foretaste of what was to come at Pentecost, does not seem to be what Jesus was saying. He definitely seems to be breathing his own Spirit and his own divinely-entrusted power into them. The words ‘breath” and “spirit” as well as “wind” are almost interchangeable in translating the scripture words in Hebrew and in Greek [‘rû(a)ḥ’ and ‘pneûma’]. The verb ‘breathed’ ‘enephúsésen’ suggests that he did not so much breathe ‘upon’ them but ‘into’ them.
We are told later that Thomas was not with them at the time of this first encounter in John, so his empowerment for mission might have come later. Alternatively, as God’s Spirit is not confined by boundaries of time or place, there is no reason why Thomas might not have received the Spirit’s blessing and infilling at a distance, wherever he was, temporarily away from the rest of the group.
In John’s Gospel after Jesus breathed his Spirit on the disciples, he told them “as the Father sent me, I am sending you” [Jn.20:21]. This is similar to his message to Mary Magdalene a few verses earlier: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, my God and your God” [Jn.20:17] and his prayer in Jn.17 that his followers may be one in him as He is one with the Father, as well as knowing unity with the Father [Jn.17:20-24]. The Spirit has an essential role in the uniting and sending of those who would take on Christ’s mission. Over forty times in John’s Gospel Jesus is referred to or refers to himself as being ‘sent by the Father’. Now he is preparing them to take his mission further by sending them. He had already sent out the twelve [Lk.9:1-6] and the seventy to spread his message and to work in his power [Lk.10:1-20]. Now they would need another spiritual power like his own behind their mission.
Jesus had already spoken about sending the Spirit [Jn.14:16-29; 15:26-27; 16:7-14.]. The words of ‘sending’ in Jn.20:21 are different: The Father’s sending of Jesus is ‘apostellō’; Jesus’ sending of the disciples uses the word ‘pémpō’, but it may be that John is not meaning any particular distinction, since elsewhere the words are used interchangeably. In the case of Jesus being sent, he regularly emphasised that he was completely dependent on the Father for his mission and knowledge. Similarly the apostles would be completely dependent for their ministry. on the Spirit for the power, wisdom and memory of Christ’s teaching. [Jn.16:13].
It is not particularly important whether Jesus breathing the Spirit on the disciple in Jn. is only a preliminary action or whether it was John’s way of describing the Pentecostal experience. What matters far more is the teaching that Christ transferred his Spirit to his followers, so that they could continue his mission with his power and guidance within them.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
With the Spirit breathed into your life what do you feel commissioned to do in your present life?
20 (STATION 15) JESUS GIVES THE DISCIPLES HIS PEACE AND POWER TO FORGIVE SINS. [Jn.20:23]
Jesus’ initial statement on meeting the disciples: “Peace be with you”, could be interpreted as simply a greeting like: “Hi!”. But in this context it seems to carry a far more intense meaning. If they were terrified at his appearance among them, they certainly would have needed to have their fears pacified. We do not know how Jesus might have intended these words, but after his death the disciples were in a state of fear, confusion, disillusionment and more mixed emotions. They would need his peace to be able to continue his ministry. The words “Peace be with you” therefore read like a healing message.
The giving of his Spirit seems to have involved Jesus a passing on part of his God-given authority to them: “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” [Jn.20:23]. This aspect of Christ’s teaching to the disciples has been taken by many churches for centuries to claim that Jesus passed on the ability to forgive sins on behalf of God to those of his followers who were his chosen priesthood. It would be wrong to believe that Jesus’ gift of the authority to forgive was only intended for the apostles. The context certainly implies that Jesus was passing on the responsibility to forgive sins to any who have his Spirit breathed into them.
Churches offer and proclaim the message of God’s forgiveness in Jesus’ name. It is not the prerogative of the minister to judge whether he, she, or the congregation themselves will forgive. Forgiveness of sins is the action of God, not of human beings, which was why the opponents of Jesus condemned him for claiming to forgive [Matt.9:5]. Nor do I think that it is just the act of an ordained minister to offer forgiveness. Some dogmas suggest that the gift of absolution was handed down through the apostles to leaders of the Church after them. But this does not account for the fact that when Jesus breathed into his disciples, there were almost inevitably others of his followers among them, into whom the same Spirit was inbreathed. I feel certain that as the community of believers are ‘a kingdom of priests to our God’ [Rev.5:10], any Christian has some authority, perhaps even the responsibility, to forgive on behalf of God when true repentance is made.
At man times in the history of churches, the commission to offer God’s forgiveness had been misused by religious institutions to condemn those with whom they disagree over doctrine or behaviour. Church-men and church-women have abused their authority and anathematised people with whom they did not agree, or placed them under strict measures, withdrawing communion or fellowship from them, openly condemning them to purgatorial isolation or eternal damnation. Some have resorted to torture or murder under the pretence of ‘saving sinners’ souls’. Most of this is very far from Jesus’ teaching on forgiveness, healing and restoration. St. Paul and the Letters of Revelation called the church to deal with those in the Christian community who failed to repent and change, but there is far more in the New Testament about forgiveness than about the disciplining of those who fail.
Of Jn.20:23 Leon Morris says: “I do not think that this verse teaches that any individual Christian minister has the God-given authority to say to a sinner ‘I refuse to forgive your sins. They are retained.’ But unless this can be said, the words about forgiveness cannot be said. The one goes with the other.” [Morris 1981:849]. He adds that as both the verbs ‘are forgiven’ and ‘are retained’ are in the perfect tense: “If the Church is really acting under the leadership of the Spirit it will be found that her pronouncements on this matter do but reveal what has been already determined in heaven.” [ibid]. Morris also believed that: “Jesus is not speaking of individuals but of classes. He is saying that the Spirit-filled church has the authority to declare which are sins that are forgiven and which are the sins that are retained. This accords with Rabbinical teaching which spoke of certain sins as ‘bound’ and others ‘retained’” [p.849-850]. This puts the onus on the Christian to make sure that they are following God’s Spirit and not pronouncing from their own personal or institutional bias.
Many abuses of authority in churches over the years, have involved authoritarianism and false assumptions of the level of their authority. Admittedly in teaching discipline in the Church, St. Paul and the ‘Letters to the Churches’ in the Book of Revelation [chs.2-3] encouraged the expulsion of those who would corrupt the true meaning of the gospel. But Jesus’ emphasis throughout his ministry was on forgiveness, restoration and love. He rarely condemned anyone except religious hypocrites and the evil spirits which he is said to have cast out. His ‘woes to the Pharisees’ [Matt.23:13-29] and condemnation of those who corrupt innocent minds and lives [Matt.18:6; Lk.17:2] contrast strongly with his command to Peter to forgive as many as “seventy seven times” [Matt.18:21-2], a phrase, which meant in practice ‘an infinite number of times.’ The implication of Jesus’ teaching as a whole is therefore that the authority he was passing to his followers was to forgive and release others as they too had been released. This is also the emphasis in the Lord’s Prayer: ‘forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us”.
Those churches and church leaders who take it upon themselves to believe that they have the ‘authority’ to condemn and retain the sins of others should take a very hard look at their own lives and behaviour before assuming or exercising such authority. To use Jesus’ own metaphor: If any place burdens or stumbling blocks on those who should be loved and forgiven “it is better that a millstone be hung around their necks and that they be drowned in the depth of the sea!” [Matt.18:6; Lk.17:2]. Jesus was perhaps likening those who cause such stumbling-blocks to the fate of the demons who were thought to have gone into the Gadarene swine [Matt.8:28-13]. As not even the most religious and experienced Christian has the wisdom of Christ or God’s knowledge and insight into the minds, needs and backgrounds of all, it is best to always err on the side of forgiveness, However I know from bitter experience how hard it can be to forgive those who have deliberately and seriously damaged you, or who cover-up, or refuse to acknowledge that they have sinned.
While we are called to try to forgive as or Father has forgiven us, churches do have a responsibility to protect their communities against corruption. Abuse and safeguarding laws mean that we need to be careful about those to whom we give roles of responsibility and who we allow access to the vulnerable. Spirit-informed wisdom is necessary in the administration, teaching and activities of the Church. There has been far too much authoritarianism, false teaching and failure to deal properly with abuses in the history of the Church, and it has been shown to still continue today.
Leaders and other Christians can be hypocritical in what they are willing to forgive and what they allow themselves to perpetrate. Sadly we all have prejudices and double standards. Most of us find that we are more willing to accept that God forgives us our own sins, however bad, than we are to forgive sins that we recognise in others. Jesus did talk of ‘the unforgiveable sin against the Holy Spirit’ [Matt.12:31-32] and the sin that leads to death [1Jn.5:16]. As it is very unclear what was meant by this unforgiveable sin, it is best to just resist all possibilities of sin and also to believe that all our sins are able to be forgiven. In John’s Gospel it is implied that the sin that most needs forgiveness is the rejection of Jesus [Jn.9:41; 15:22-24; 16:6]. But then, many who have at one time rejected Christ’s way, have changed direction. St. Paul is a significant example.
I had a young friend who for some time was terrified that he had committed the unforgivable sin and was therefore incapable of being forgiven and redeemed by Christ. The blame for this conviction was easily traced to the aggressively condemnatory and in many ways badly-taught preaching of his particular church, which pointed out sin everywhere and claimed that certain members possessed ‘spirits’ of ‘doubt’, ‘unbelief’, disobedience’ etc. (They even condemned ‘spirits of sexual temptation’ which was dangerous teaching to give to the number of impressionable adolescents who they attracted, and would have been tormented enough by developing sexual awareness within themselves). The very fact that this youth was so convicted of sinfulness in himself made it obvious to me that God’s Spirit was at work and moving in his life. I was not ordained as a priest at the time, but I spent many conversations trying to show him that Christ loved him, God forgave him and he had never done anything that was beyond divine forgiveness. But the idea that he had received through his church that he was not good enough for God to ever accept him was damaging him psychologically. In his case his anger against the false pressure put upon him by an over-authoritarian, badly taught and over-controlling church-eldership who over-emphasised sinfulness led him to reject of all forms of Christianity as he matured.
Many have similar confusions about whether God can love us or forgive us our past. Christians should never claim authority over others or give anyone the impression that they are beyond the love, forgiveness and redemption of Christ. The God to whom Jesus introduced us, like the father of the Prodigal Son in the parable, is a caring power who is constantly on the look-out for our return, personally cares about us, knows the full truth about us, is infinitely ready to forgive and ready, longing and able to embrace us in love and restore us. It is important that Christians reflect that character of God, showing people the way of forgiveness and love by our example. Where people find it hard to forgive themselves, it is important that we guide them towards recognising God’s love by showing 0our love and God’s love towards them.
What Jesus might have meant by ‘retaining the sins’ of some is very difficult to interpret. Some critics believe that this part of Jesus’ teaching was interpolated by later writers in order to strengthen the authority of church leaders. The Greek words for ‘forgive’ and ‘retain’ are not common in John’s text, in fact the word ‘Kratéte’ for ‘retain’ is used nowhere else in this context. ‘Aphiémi’ is the common term used many times throughout the Synoptic Gospels for ‘forgive’. Surprisingly, since forgiveness is so much a part of Jesus’ teaching, the term ‘forgive’ is only used in John’s Gospel here in 20:23. It literally means ‘to let go’, or ‘to pardon’. for ‘to release’, ‘to leave in peace’, ‘to remit’, ‘to exempt. ‘Kratéte’, translated here as ‘retain’, comes from the verb ‘kratéō’ and is the opposite of ‘aphiémi’. The word is used in different ways in the New Testament normally means ‘to be strong’, ‘to seize’(5 times), ‘to conquer’ or ‘to arrest’ (13 times), ‘to hold’ (5 times), ‘to take’ (5 times), ‘to hold fast’ or ‘keep’ (twice),), ‘to hold onto (possessions)’ (twice) or ‘to take hold of’ (twice), ‘to cling’ (once), ‘to achieve’ (once). In this context the word appears to men ‘to hold something onto or against someone’ - in other words ‘to keep them under the obligation that originally held them’. It may be that the New Testament Church used both these words in some liturgical way, or with some specific religious connection. The very fact that the word here has so many alternative potential meanings suggests that we should not attempt to be too specific about what Jesus might have meant. It certainly does not mean that the Church has the right to ‘anathematise’ at will, as was sometimes the case in the Mediaeval and Counter-Reformation Church.
Brown [1970: 1042] claims that the early Church interpreted this forgiveness or refusal to forgive as the ability to decide whether proselytes would be accepted for baptism or refused. It could possibly have developed from the disciples believing that they had been given the authority to accept certain people as part of their religious community and to exclude others. This was a practice in the Qumran community and some synagogues and rabbinical communities.
Holding the sins of others onto them does not necessarily mean that their sins are not forgivable or forgiven by God. Only God knows the true workings of people’s minds and hearts. What we retain or hold against people because we recognise that they are not to be trusted, does not ensure that they are divinely unforgivable or destined for damnation. That was a false threat held over people by some church practices es in the past and continues to be assumed by some today.
One aspect of the forgiveness of sins that has not often been considered is Jesus’ association of forgiveness with healing. It is possible that Jesus might have been referring to his passing to the disciples the ability to offer people relief from the sense of guilt and to be involves in the process of healing. He most often used the phrase ‘your sins are forgiven’ in situations in which he was using his authority to heal. It is wrong and dangerous with today’s enlightened understanding to connect illness and disability with someone’s sins. We have moved well away from that superstition, but it was a belief of many of the disciples’ ancient contemporaries. (However, sadly, some ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘literalist’ believers still attribute illness to sinfulness, which can add to the mental and spiritual suffering of those who are ill or disabled. We have no evidence for such assumptions; in fact Jesus’ teaching about God would seem to deliberately contradict this [Jn.9:3].)
It is important to remember that the commission to forgive or the ability to retain sins is not the personal authority of the individual. Jesus breathed his Spirit onto those who were gathered in the upper room. Although the Apostles were there (perhaps not Thomas at that time), it is almost inevitable that there were others of Jesus’ followers among them – perhaps the Marys who had been at the tomb, Cleopas and his companion, Joanna, Susanna and others. The breathing of the Spirit, the commission, the sending and the gift of forgiveness were for the community that would become his Church. It seems erroneous to believe, as some do today, that the gift of forgiveness or the retention of sins (whatever the latter means) are confined to being used by those who are ‘ordained’ by a Church or those given the ministry of healing. That makes the gift seem too exclusive and is open to being abused, as has been the case in the past. The gift of forgiveness is surely for every Christian to exercise. When we find the ability to forgive we are following the example of Christ. When we hold someone’s sins against them we are often showing our own weakness in our inability to overcome our personal grievance or bias.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
How easy do you find it to forgive? Think of specific situations or people where you find it hard to forgive and lift them to God in prayer.
21 (STATION 16) JESUS REVEALS HIMSELF TO THOMAS AND STRENGTHENS HIS FAITH [Jn.20.24-29]
This scene is not recorded in any other Gospels than John. In Mark and Matthew Jesus’ first appearances to the men happened in Galilee, and in Luke the appearances occur around Jerusalem. John’s Gospel account implies that the disciples remained in Jerusalem for a few days before returning to Galilee. Perhaps they remained for the eight days after the Crucifixion, which would not be uncommon, since many pilgrims stayed for the six days of unleavened bread after the Passover feast. (Eight days was an inclusive way of describing a week as the Jewish first day of the week began at dusk.) We are not told why Thomas was not with the group when Jesus first appeared to them, but in one of the following days he was among them when Christ reappeared.
The main significance of John’s inclusion of this scene would seem to be more than that it is providing another physical proof of Christ’s Resurrection. John had already given several evidences of Jesus miraculous nature and the power of the Resurrection. Thomas’ statement in response to meeting Jesus: “My Lord and my God.”[Jn.20:28], reinforces John’s emphasis on Jesus’ divinity, which began in the first chapter of the Gospel. Here a disciple, who may until this time have regarded Jesus just as a great teacher and leader, takes the revelation of Jesus’ identity even further by faith and proclaims him as ‘God’ as well as ‘Lord’. Even more emphatic as a message of the Gospel to the reader seems to be the statement made by Jesus in response to Thomas’ declaration: “Blessed are those who have not seen yet have believed” [Jn.20:29]. In the pattern of John’s Gospel, Thomas’ conclusion “My Lord and my God” brought the compiler’s argument full circle. The Gospel started with statements that Jesus was “the Word” and “the Word was God” (discussed in the introduction to my Lent Meditations). On meeting the Risen Christ, Thomas’s affirmation of his belief asserts that the evidence built up in the Gospel is convincing. John has shown seven miraculous signs of Jesus’ power and seven significant statements of who Jesus is: “the Bread of Life”[Jn.6:26-41]; “Light to the World” [Jn.8:12], “the Way the Truth and the Life” [Jn14:6], “the Resurrection and the Life” [Jn.11:25] etc. and in chapters following each statement the Evangelist has given examples and evidence in Jesus words and actions of the truth behind these statements. Thomas’ conclusion that Jesus was divine affirms the conclusion which John aimed his readers to also draw.
We are not told in what tone Jesus asked Thomas to touch him and find the evidence that he was truly alive. There is no indication that he was reprimanding him for his disbelief, unlike Jesus rebuke of his followers in Mk.16:14. He might have been being ironic, or even slightly sarcastic, as a few commentators suggest, since Thomas had claimed earlier: “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe.” [Jn.20:25]. John shows Jesus’ words to almost exactly reflect this: “Peace be with you...Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.” [Jn.20:26-27]
One difficulty with Thomas declaration of faith after meeting the risen Jesus comes when one asks whether meeting a man who has risen from the dead actually proves that he is God. Jesus raised Lazarus [Jn.11and12], the son of the widow of Nain [Lk.7:11-17] and Jairus’ daughter [Matt.5; Lk.8], but thes people raised from death were not considered divine and would eventually die again. John’s Gospel was at pains to point to the divinity of Jesus Christ, which is no doubt why Thomas is recorded as saying “My Lord and my God.”[Jn.20:28]. (Some scholars actually believe that the Gospel of John originally ended at this revelation, though there is little firm evidence for this and it seems to modern a conception of an ending.) There is no doubt that many early theologians and eventually the Church councils came to accept the evidence of the Resurrection as evidence of Jesus’ divine nature. But our belief in the nature of Christ needs to be based on more than his Resurrection. Enoch and Elijah [Gen.5:24; 2Ki.2:11] are said to have had miraculous endings to their life on earth (as did Moses according to some apocryphal Jewish legends [cf. N.T.Wright p.95 footnote 53]. But that too did not make them divine.
To debase St Thomas by the title “Doubting Thomas” doesn’t suit him at all, or the purpose of his place in the argument of John’s Gospel. If any of the traditions about him beyond the New Testament are true, Thomas spread Christ’s message geographically further than any other disciples. Christian churches in India claim to have been founded by him, and he is thought to have preached in Parthia. It would be much more correct to call him “Thinking Thomas”: he could have been made patron saint of rational Christians. His questioning had been logical: Could Jesus have really returned to life after that horrific torturous death that so many had witnessed? The answer was obviously “No!” But then Thomas had met him and was convinced that the miracle of Resurrection had happened. John didn’t really need to add Jesus’ words: “Blessed are those who believe yet have not seen” [Jn.20:29]; we are meant to be convinced by Thomas’ evidence. Yet Jesus’ words underline the evidence of John’s whole Gospel, which was intended to help all those readers believe, who did not have the benefit of the disciples’ experiences. If the words of v.29 were spoken in the tone of gentle rebuke for Thomas’ lack of immediate belief of the witnesses to his Resurrection they can only have been slight. Thomas is a model for any thinking Christian, asking the questions that need to be answered sufficiently in our minds if we are to have a valuable apologetic in a sceptical age.
Although Jesus is reported as saying ‘Blessed are those who believe yet have not seen”, he did not claim that they are ‘more blessed’ than Thomas or any of us who feel that we need to have some physical assurance of the truth of faith before we take the leap into belief. Some commentators believe that this statement is an addition by the Evangelist or later editors, to emphasise the need for trusting faith in those followers of Christ who did not have the benefit of first-hand knowledge. Some religious cults encourage unquestioning credulity and obedience, but the Christian Church needs to recognise the various psychological needs of different God-created minds. For our witness as Christians to be convincing to others, our faith needs to be seen as open to reasoning and reasonable. Sceptics, agnostics and atheists have often criticised churches for trying to brain-wash people into beliefs for which there is no evidence. While that may be true of the behaviour of some evangelism and some authoritarian dogmatic church teaching, it is far from the case in most sensible churches today. The church rightly has sometimes had a bad press for being out of touch with society’s understanding. We don’t want to be considered “credulous” or “naïve” in any way; it is right to question faith. It would be utterly stupid to give your life to a cause you can’t believe in or justify rationally. But decades of experience as a Christian convince me that my beliefs are founded on truth. I believe that critics are wrong in claiming that there is insufficient evidence for Christian belief. I believe that my faith is based on reasoning; but of course none of us can prove that Christ and the Resurrection are true.
Another passage in James 1:6 encourages: “Let us believe and not doubt”. This has often been used by across the spectrum of churches at times from Evangelicals and Charismatics to Catholics to imply that it is almost sinful to doubt faith. But that that takes James’ words out of context. The writer is saying there that once you are sure of your faith do not hesitate, backslide, or pull back from following it to the full. We need to build on secure not wobbly foundations. And that is what Thomas was able to do. His questions were answered: he was encouraged to touch and prove the risen Christ. (Whether he actually did or was convinced by what he saw we are not told.) He became assured by the encounter that the Resurrection was real and he was transformed into a confident Christian by having proofs that sufficiently convinced him. His response suggests that he was so sure that Jesus had come back from death that he was the first disciple to take the great step from Peter’s “You are the Son of God, the Messiah” to calling Jesus Christ “My Lord and My God” [Jn.20:28]. This statement would be unthinkable for a Jew to affirm unless they were absolutely convinced.
If we have questions about faith we should not hesitate to ask them and diligently seek answers. Christianity would be unreliable if it is not true. If faith is true, it should be able to stand up to the most rigorous questioning. Jesus claimed: “Seek and you shall find, knock and the door will be opened for you” [Lk.11:10; Matt.7:8]. That is not to say that the questions will be easily answered. There are still a myriad of mysteries to which my conclusions are only tentative. But seeking answers to our deepest questions can help strengthen our faith enough so that we have the confidence to share our belief in Christ with others, as Thomas apparently did according to tradition.
This incident with Thomas refusing to believe unless he touched Jesus and knew he was alive is one of those passages from scripture that helps to convince me that faith is based in truth. When sceptics or those who oppose faith have their minds and lives turned around by recognising Christ’s truth they tend to become among the strongest spreaders of faith: St Paul as Saul was certain that Christianity was blasphemous. St Augustine wanted a sensual life, not to be challenged by Christ. Dietrich Bonhoeffer would not be convinced by simplistic Christian answers to the problems of the world. C.S. Lewis was sure that Christianity was based on believers’ self-deception. Yet we know that through their sincere search for answers about faith they became some of the greatest apologists for the Christian faith. This strength came particularly because they challenged Christian teaching to discover what was true, and they thoroughly worked through their questions.
We don’t have the first hand evidence that proved to Thomas that Christ returned to life after 3 days in the grave. The Resurrection was a divine miracle that convinced many sceptics, not just Thomas, that Christ’s was from God and that his teaching was true and to be followed. In order to grow strong and effective, the Church today needs similar confidence to those early disciples that, however we make sense of it, Christ’s Resurrection life is real. Our world is full of many sceptics, many dubious religious teachings and fanatics, many people with real problems. People need a true, positive faith to build their lives upon and find healing and abundance. The Resurrection assures us, as it did Thomas, that Christ offers truth: He came into the world to heal it with God’s love and assure us that we can build better, truer lives through him. So if you haven’t worked out what you believe about the Resurrection, challenge yourself to consider what helps you believe in ways that strengthen your faith, and consider what Christ’s renewal of life offers you and our world.
Thomas conclusion that Jesus was “My Lord and my God” implies that through our understanding of Jesus there is a renewed closeness between believers and God, which was a rare quality in faith before Jesus’ teaching. In legend Adam and Eve walked and talked with God before the Fall [Gen.3:8], Abraham was described as God’s friend [2Chron.20:7] and made a covenant relationship with God [Gen.17:1f], Moses spoke with God as a friend [Ex.33:11]. Enoch and Elijah were considered so close to God that they had been transported to heaven rather than dying [Gen.5:24; 2Ki.2:11-12. Psalmists sometimes wrote of an intimacy with God; God’s glory was revealed to Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel [Isa.6; Ezek.1; Dan.7]. But the intimacy of the relationship of friendship was opened up by Christ in ways that would have been previously considered unimaginable. God is still God – not a truth to be considered lightly or taken for granted. If Jesus is “Lord and God”, as Thomas is said to have concluded, his teaching and way are to be considered and followed as seriously as following the ways taught by our Source of Life.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
Consider the evidence that you have for who Jesus was. How convincing is the evidence that he is “Lord and God”?
Do you follow Christ’s ways as seriously as you should, if he is God’s direct representative teaching and guiding you?
22 (STATION 17) JESUS APPEARS BY THE SEA OF TIBERIAS AND EATS BREAKFAST WITH HIS ELEVEN DISCIPLES [Jn.21:1-14]
All the previous appearances seem to have occurred in or around Jerusalem. But the shining figures at Jesus’ tomb had informed the women that the disciples would meet the risen Jesus in Galilee [Matt.28:7]. If the disciples left Jerusalem after about eight days, they may have been in Galilee by the middle of the second week after Jesus’ Resurrection. The sea of Tiberias and the sea of Galilee are synonymous. The term Galilee represents the general area; Tiberias was the main town almost half way up the west edge of the Lake. It is possible that the Resurrection incident of the miraculous draught of fishes is being indicated as occurring in an area somewhere in the vicinity of that town. However in the Gospels, Tiberias is only mentioned by John [Jn.6:1, 23; 21:1] so it may just be a name applied to the whole vicinity by that evangelist. John does also mention Galilee as an area seventeen times, as many as the other evangelists. Jn.6:1 indicates that the sea was called both ‘Galilee’ and ‘Tiberias’.
John tells is that there were seven who decided to go fishing, following Peter’s suggestion. They are specifically named as:
"Simon Peter
THomas
Nathaniel of Cana in Galilee
The sons of Zebedee (James and John)
and two other disciples.”
We do not know why the disciples decided to go fishing. Preachers have regularly surmised that the only thing they could think of returning to after losing Jesus was to return to their former profession, but there is no indication of this in scripture. It may be that they were still confused by recent event and were returning temporarily to something that had formerly been a normal part of their lives. Their mission had been financed by those who supported Christ; perhaps they had lost that financial security. They would have needed to find some way of supporting themselves, if only temporarily, as their savings might well have been depleted after living for several days in Jerusalem. Even if their accommodation had been provided by supporters, it would have been an expensive city to stay in, especially during a time of festival, when traders raided their prices.
Galilee was somewhere where the disciples would have been known, and their relationship with Jesus was known. This would have been both an advantage and disadvantage, but it would probably not have felt so dangerous for them as being in or near the city where their leader had been persecuted and died. They probably had family and friends around the lake and in the vicinity, who might have helped to support them. But there may also have been others who had been hostile to Jesus and could have ridiculed their failure.
The breakfast that Christ shared with them is yet another meal at which his nature is said to have been revealed. In the first miracle in John, his special character was shown in the changing of water into wine at Cana; in the feeding of the 4,000 and 5,000 his miraculous powers had been revealed to more; the various meals at the house of the Pharisee, the home of Mary and Martha, the Last Supper and the Supper at Emmaus all helped to confirm his character, his powers, or his wisdom and message. On the shore of Galilee, Jesus ate with them, as he had eaten broiled fish with them behind locked doors in Jerusalem, giving evidence that his risen nature was physical and still active in the world, not a ghost or apparition.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
What do you do when you feel frustrated or unsure of your direction? How easy has it been to trust God in times of trouble? Can you think of times when you have been supported in your times of difficulty?
23 (STATION 17) THE MIRACULOUS DRAUGHT OF FISHES [Jn.21:4-8]
I must admit to a personal discomfort with this scene. Having kept fish as pets for several decades and studied them at close quarters I recognise them as sentient and sensitive creatures. They have individual personalities, develop relationships with one another, protect each other in situations where they feel fear or panic, support one another when ill or vulnerable, feel pain, mourn when a companion dies, become bored when on their own. Their memory is definitely longer than the popular belief of 3 seconds. So you can imagine that the story of the miracle of the miraculous catch of an enormous number of fish causes me some emotional discomfort for the fish, which would have panicked in the situation. I am not a fan of the fishing industry, as unless killed immediately, I can imagine the panic of the fish in nets when crammed together in a trawl, their inability to find enough air to breathe. Live fish hauled out of water into buckets, baskets or onto a slab die of a prolonged form of asphyxiation not too far different from the choking and that Christ would have experienced in his struggle on the Cross. I felt uncomfortable even painting the laden net being hauled in by the disciples, even though it is such a significant and memorable part of the Resurrection narrative.
Why might Jesus have allowed this natural massacre, if the narrative is based on truth? It could, after all, as some commentators suggest, have been created as a story to emphasise the abundance of the fruits of the mission in which the disciples were called to engage. He had said to Peter and the disciples earlier that their mission would be to fish for people [Matt.4:19; Mk.1:17; Lk.5:10]. If I were Jesus, I might have given them the ‘green’ option and said: “OK, now I’ve made my point, let all the fish go free and come and have breakfast of some warm bread I have baked over the fire!” But I admit that it is probably far more likely that they would have speared a number of fish and cooked them. Why then so many fish? It certainly emphasises that this was a miracle, not an everyday occurrence. They were experienced fishermen; though they had been away from their occupation for up to three years, they knew the lake, and probably knew where the shoals used to congregate. If they borrowed the boat or if it was owned by a member of their families, they may have asked some confirmatory local knowledge from other fishermen they knew, who had been fishing more recently. However, they had fished all night and caught nothing, which is not necessarily an indictment of their fishing ability. The inclusion of the story in the Gospel seems definitely intended to imply that God was in charge of nature, and they were no longer meant to return to their previous roles. It also seeks to remind the reader (like the stilling of the storm early in his ministry [Matt.8:23; Mk.4:37; Lk.8:22] that Christ was lord of nature, so at his command nature might hide from being caught or be attracted towards the nets.
The inclusion of the miracle would seem to be linked to Lk.5:1-11, where earlier in the preparation of the disciples Jesus had shown them his power over nature. Jesus’ miracle of the loaves and fishes also seems to indicate the expansiveness and inclusiveness of Christ’s mission. Just as with the scene of Jesus’ appearance to Thomas, a major emphasis within the story is not the miracle itself, but the disciples’ response. Thomas had eventually exclaimed: “My Lord and my God” [Jn.20:28]. On recognising him on the shore Peter had exclaimed “It is the Lord” [Jn.21:7], the disciples, in joining him, “did not dare to ask him “Who are you?” because they knew it was the Lord” [Jn.21:12]. John seems to be showing that this is part of the growing recognition of the immensity of who Jesus actually was, which his Gospel had been emphasising from the proclamations about ‘the Word’ in the first chapter.
Just as we should not criticise Thomas for his doubts, before he had witnessed the risen Christ, we should not blame these disciples for deciding to return, either temporarily or permanently to their former occupation. How were they to support themselves, without an important leader who attracted donations? What could they do without him? They did not yet understand the full promise within his former teaching that he would send them his Spirit to guide and empower them. They needed to support themselves. They would also have been despondent and confused. Would you not consider regaining security by returning to the only other profession which you knew - your former trade? It might even be possible that Christ’s gift of this huge catch of fish was to be sold by them to help finance of the group during their initial weeks without him. If the daytime fishing had also been poor recently for others on the lake, this haul would probably have been welcomed by villagers or townspeople and attracted a good price.
But all that speculation, of course, is not the central message of the story or the main reason which the Evangelist or compilers chose to include it Like the stilling of the storm earlier in his ministry [Matt.8:23; Mk.4:37; Lk.8:22], this is a sign that Christ is in control. He can control nature, and will be in control of their future mission. The story implies that though we might choose, like the wealthy man [Mk.10:22] to go a different way from that which God intends for us, we will be more effective, more satisfied and more fruitful if we follow our intended direction.
This poses a different conundrum: Is God actually SO in charge that our lives, careers and fruitfulness is controlled by him? I do not believe that God controls our lives in that way. It is superstition to believe as the Hebrew Scriptures are sometimes interpreted as suggesting, that all our lives are planned, mapped out and controlled by God. That would deflate our quality of freedom as human beings and creatures which choose in love to follow God’s guidance. We are not puppets with God pulling our strings and directing us. We have free will and act autonomously. (Presumably the rest of creation has similar autonomy, so the fish may not have been drawn into the net by Christ’s influence either).
There is perhaps another significant reason why the miraculous draught of fishes may have been included by John as an important message for the early church. He was writing for a church which was struggling to witness. No matter how enthusiastic the Evangelist was over Jesus’ divine identity and the miraculous evidence which pointed to it, the church, struggling to evangelise and facing persecution and exclusion in some societies may well have felt to many early Christians like the disciples struggling to fish all night, yet having little or no success. After the miracle of an amazing draught of fish in Lk.5:4-9, Jesus had told his followers that they would be ‘fishers of men’... “From now you will be catching people” or more literally “from no you will be taking people alive” [Lk.5:10]. This second interpretation of the Greek words gives emphasis to the aim for our mission to provide Christ’s Message in ways that will bring people to abundance of life. We aren’t here to persuade or less honestly to con people into a boring form of life and belief. We are intended to bring people to a life-style, belief and relationship with the spiritual world that will enliven, enhance and advance their lives.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
How fruitful do you consider your mission as a Christian to have been?
How do you think that you might more fruitfully follow Christ’s way?
24 (STATION 18) JESUS CONFRONTS PETER, FORGIVES HIM COMMISSIONS HIM TO FEED HIS SHEEP & FORETELLS HIS MARTYRDOM [Jn.21.15-19]
Jesus’ confrontation of Peter is to me one of the most emotionally painful and touching scenes in any of the Gospels, other than the narrative of Christ’s Passion. The reaction of Peter to Christ is a relationship with which I so often identify personally, being very aware of my regular failure to live up to the faith and loyalty to God to which I should aspire as a Christian, and especially as a minister.
In a painting of this scene that I created over two decades ago, which is still one of my favourite and most poignant works, I represent the pain that Peter’s inability to forgive himself is causing to Christ as well as himself. In that image Jesus embraces Peter from behind his hunched shoulders. I imagined the disciple as too ashamed and feeling unable to turn and accept his Lord’s forgiveness and embrace of friendship. Peter is tense, while Jesus strains to reassure him. As a result the wounds in Jesus’ back are reopening and bleeding, as he feels the pain of his beloved friend. The sky beyond reflects the pain in its stormy confusion. Yet there are two small details in the picture, which people often miss when viewing it, and which relieve the sense of anguish: Peter’s hands. One finger of his right hand is in the process of lifting to touch Jesus’ embrace. Peter seems to be considering turning his head towards Jesus and his clenched left hand is just beginning to unclench as he feels the power of love reaching out to him. Have you ever felt that combined sense of shame, yet being forgiven and loved? It is a regular feature of my own relationship with God through Christ.
In my more recent, and rather less moving representation of the scene in my ‘Stations of the Resurrection’, Jesus is himself bending low to attempt to embrace the figure of Peter who is curled up, almost assuming foetal position in his shame. But again Christ’s touch is gentle and Peter’s hands, clutching his head in emotional pain, are just beginning to uncurl and accept that his Lord and friend loves him.
The scene of reconciliation focuses on Peter’s rehabilitation so that he could regain his position as leader and encourager of the apostles. It must also have strengthened him for his mission, so that he could regain and deserve the image of a ‘rock’, the name which Jesus had given him. Previously when Jesus called Peter, he had said that he would be a ‘fisher of men’, now Jesus commissions him to ‘feed my sheep”. For Peter, this may have had an extra significance than just being told to take up a pastoral duty. He must have heard Jesus talk of himself as the “good shepherd” [Jn.10:2-17], and would have known well Jesus’ frequent us of sheep and shepherds as metaphors for leading the people. Jesus took over that metaphor from the Hebrew Scriptures, where God was called ‘Shepherd’ [Gen.48:185; 49:24; Ps.23:1; 80:1; ] and religious and political leaders were often spoken of a ‘shepherds of God’s people’ [2Sam.5:2; 7:7; 1Chron.11:2; 17:6; Ezek.34:5f; Zech.10:2-3; 11:3-17; 13:7]. Jesus had quoted Zechariah’s condemnation of false shepherds, and had spoken of false leaders as “hireling shepherds” who at the first sign of danger run off and desert the flock [Jn.10:12]. The disciples had done this when Jesus was arrested. Only Peter and John apparently had the courage to follow Jesus to his place of trial, gaining entry because John was known to someone there. But under the pressure of questioning, even Peter had three-times denied any knowledge of Jesus. Through his desertion, he might have regarded himself as no better than those who had fled from Gethsemane at Jesus’ arrest.
We certainly gain the impression from Peter’s response to Jesus’ questioning three-times whether Peter truly loved him, that Peter was ashamed of his earlier denial. Yet Jesus does not seem to have been questioning Peter in as accusatory way as Peter was probably accusing himself. Jesus may just have been using this form of questioning to point out that this previously bombastic disciple had weaknesses. From now on Peter was not to be a hired hand who deserted his sheep. Jesus was passing on to Peter, as the leader of the other disciples, his own role as ‘good shepherd’ who would protect and nurture the sheep and lambs. It is a very moving idea that a man who had wept as the cock crowed, considering himself to have failed, should be entrusted with leadership and such important pastoral responsibility.
The message of Jesus to Peter might be summarised in the following verse, which accompanied my earliest painting of this encounter:
“I questioned love, not as a test but to confirm
Rise, feel your Lord’s embrace my powerful friend.
You are forgiven. I knew your fear and vulnerability.
You thought yourself a rock, now sense your breaking point.
For that will make you strong enough to serve for me and to care.
In knowing truth you can bless others with forgiving love.
Never will I deny a one who clings in trust.
I questioned you, now go, bless others with my love.”
Perhaps it was the sense of reliance on Jesus forgiveness and recognition of his human weakness which turned Peter from being a rather over-confident, blustering disciple, who made so many mistakes, to a courageous pillar of the early Church. In my experience those believers who are arrogant, self-assured, or believe that they are always in the right often make the least humane and understanding leaders. I have seen this in many situations. Humility and recognition of our own faults can lead us to be more sympathetic and outreaching in our relationships with others.
While I have mentioned that 1am uncomfortable with the metaphor which the Authorised Version puts into Christ’s mouth in commissioning his disciples to become ‘fishers of men’, the metaphor which Jesus used after forgiving Peter is much more comfortable but challenging: “feed my sheep” [Jn.21:15-17]. Our role as witnesses to Christ and as sharers of his gospel should not entail ‘catching’ people in any way; our role is to teach and nourish people on the path to belief then to build them up to strong faith through continued nourishment. We are to persuade through the truth, not to trick or entrap. It is therefore wrong to use any fictional explanation, lies or exaggerations in representing Christ or the gospel. We should be demonstrating the truth of Christ’s message as authentically as we can. That does, of course, include using metaphors to explain faith and talking of beliefs that we do not fully understand, as we cannot be certain of many aspects of the gospel message. Any explanation we give for faith or commentary on scripture certainly has a fictive aspect because we are conveying biblical teaching that conveys mysteries and ideas that may be beyond our personal experience. Paintings or creative writing about the biblical story is even more distant from whatever reality is behind the words of scripture. But our own calling to ‘feed God’s sheep’ and ‘not leave them as sheep without a shepherd’ presents us with a challenge to lead people in as authentic ways as we can.
Peter is the popular patron saint of many churches, not just those that are close to fishing areas. If you ask most Christians who their favourite disciple is it is likely to be Peter or John, the disciple to whom Jesus seems to have been emotionally closest. Of all the disciples Peter is the one we know most about, possibly because he travelled on mission with John Mark, and so many stories about him may have been passed on through Mark’s followers into Mark’s Gospel. We couldn’t know so many of his mistakes unless Peter himself had confessed them to the early Christians. We know as much about Peter’s failings as his successes, which is both poignant and meaningful, making him seem as human as ourselves. This makes him a useful example to follow.
In his early life as a disciple Peter often spoke or acted before he thought: wanting to walk on the water like Jesus or coming out with the naive response: ‘Let’s build three tents for Jesus, Moses and Elijah’ after the glorious vision of the Transfiguration [Matt.17:4; Mk.9:4]. Drawing his sword on soldiers to protect Jesus at his arrest, could have got the whole community of disciples killed. That could easily have put an end to Jesus’ intention for his followers to continue his mission of teaching, training in discipleship and spreading peace, love, forgiveness and healing.
Peter was brave before Jesus’ arrest, and later in mission and leadership of the disciples but he showed understandably human cowardice in denying Jesus after his arrest. In the Gospels or the Acts of the Apostles he does not come over as arrogant but as confident. Scripture suggests that he probably became aware of his tendency to rashness and clumsiness. The modesty in the epistles attributed to Peter suggests that he had learned from his mistakes. We cannot be sure that Peter was the author of these epistles, in fact it is probable that he was not. But it has been suggested that this tradition of his later modesty was handed down through the Church, which is why the epistles were ascribed or attributed to him. Perhaps it was the memory of that failure, which only he could have confessed to the early Church, that helped to transform Peter and sent him out much braver in his future mission. He stood up and confronted persecutors and witnessed for Jesus despite regular threats to his life, which led to his eventual imprisonment and martyrdom. Are we that brave? Peter was far braver than most Christians, but he was just like you and I in so many other respects, including weaknesses and failings.
That’s why Peter can be such an example to each of us. His life demonstrates that real people like us can commend faith to others and act effectively as Christians in the world. Despite all our weaknesses, all the regular ways we fail and churches make mistakes; despite many of us being old or not as strong as Peter; his enthusiasm encourages us to share with our neighbours the truth of God, to tell of our experiences and beliefs, to encourage others to faith. A danger of over praising the saints is that we tend to see them as super-heroes with spiritual powers and characters unattainable by us. Yet Peter encourages us to recognise that saints were often just like us, and we are able to attain spirituality like theirs, by discipline, reliance on God and closeness to God. We ALL have weaknesses and never reach our intentions and aspirations: Yet Christianity is a realistic, practical faith. It encourages us towards self-advancement by reliance on God’s Spirit and by following the example of Christ. Jesus said “be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” [Matt.5:48] because he wanted us to grow spiritually and not be weakened by sin. But God recognises that we, like Peter, are human, weak and fail in our aspirations. The saints are our family in heaven; they’re our brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles and god-parents - examples of lives transformed for us to follow.
Peter’s example should inspire and encourage us to be courageous, faithful followers of God, as we faithfully present Christ’s message to others. Christ is our friend as Peter and Jesus were friends. Let’s aim to be as close and faithful friends as Peter was before his denial, and as he became after this scene of his forgiveness? Remember Jesus said: “You are my friends if you do what I command you” [Jn.15:14]. Do you follow and live by Jesus’ teachings as Peter tried to do? Peter was forgiven by Jesus over and over again. He allowed himself to be restored and made useful. It appears that Peter didn’t wallow in self-pity for long after Jesus reprimanded him, and especially after his traumatic denial and Jesus’ Crucifixion. His mistakes seem to have encouraged him to greater bravery and stronger intent to faithfully continue Jesus’ work. Eventually he died for his faith. Are you and I that brave?
Peter suffered hardships and imprisonment but he wouldn’t desert what he knew to be truth. He’s lived close to Jesus, he had seen miracles, witnessed Jesus’ Transfiguration, Resurrection and Ascension. He knew that the message Jesus brought was true and he wanted to free people as Jesus had freed and transformed him. Are you as convinced and alive in your faith as Peter became? Is your relationship with God, through Christ, life-giving, true and freeing? We need to work on this relationship with God and develop confidence in what we believe. Peter was SO convinced of the importance of what Jesus brought that he travelled thousands of miles to spread Christ’s message and build the church: As you consider your own and your churches’ future, how far are you ready and willing to move outside your comfort-zone, to tell others about what you have found in your relationship with God and draw others into God’s friendship?
When we make mistakes, like Peter, we need to pick ourselves up, admit our failings, not be dismayed by our past, become confident in God’s love, be strengthened by accepting our weaknesses and see our vulnerability as valuable. Like Peter’s humility, in our witness as Christians we should never be arrogant or patronising because we recognise that we are as sinful and weak as anyone else. Each time we fail we can receive God’s forgiveness, ask his Spirit to re-strengthen us, return to following the example of Christ and the saints and step out like Peter to live fulfilled lives and share Christ’s life and truth with our world. All of us: men, women, young people, elderly or youthful can learn from Peter. We can go out with our authentic experiences and represent Christ faithfully, growing in faith and teaching faith to others.
Though Peter denied Jesus under pressure, he was also spiritually astute: he was the first to openly recognise Jesus as Messiah, the Son of the living God. Jesus called him a “rock on which he would build his church” [Matt.16:18]. Building his church upon Peter, Jesus recognised that it is not always the strong, confident or arrogantly bold who give the best witness. We can become a dynamic witness to all around and build the Kingdom of God through being reliant on God’s Spirit, not on ourselves. Peter and his fellow disciples were fragile and few in number yet after Pentecost they changed the world.
Many excuse themselves as aging, lacking understanding of faith or without energy, but Peter is a beautiful character because he was weak too and as human as us. One of the most useful things that happened to Peter was his recognition of his weakness and failings about which we know as much as Peter’s successes. Judas betrayed Christ and it destroyed him. Peter betrayed Christ and it taught him a lesson, empowering him with a conscience not to repeat his mistakes, but to stand up for all Christ taught, as he did before the Sanhedrin when they forbade him from preaching, or when he was imprisoned and opposed in his ministry. He focused his energy into being a faithful follower, from Christ’s Resurrection onward even under the pressure of much suffering.
Peter was brave before Jesus’ arrest, and later in mission and leadership of the disciples. He showed understandably human cowardice in denying Jesus after his arrest yet later he stood up and confronted persecutors and witnessed for Jesus despite regular threats to his life. Tradition suggests that Peter may have lived and led the Church for about 35 years after Jesus died, but many of his companions who built the Church lived only a few years before being martyred, some only weeks. Think of the sadness of the vicar of Bagdad, who baptised 15 adult Christians during an Easter service and within a fortnight they had all been murdered. Faithful witness has its effect, even where we’re weak or suffer.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
What has Christ forgiven in you, which might strengthen you for pastorally supporting others?
If you were told, as Peter was, that his ministry would lead to persecution and probable death, would you still be strong enough, and confident enough in the truth of your faith, to accept Christ’s commission?
25 (STATION 19) PETER ASKS JESUS ABOUT JOHN’S FUTURE [Jn.21:20-23].
After the reinstatement of Peter his question about the future of John seems a very strange addition. It seems to many commentators to be more of an interpolation, to clarify the position and future of John within the church. If, as was commonly thought formerly, John himself had written the Gospel named after him, it could be interpreted as the modesty of the Evangelist pointing out that his longevity was not miraculous, but had been implied, though not specifically confirmed by Christ. It seems more probable that the Gospel was compiled from the memories, teachings and traditions of the group of Christians who had been followers, disciples and pupils and hearers of John. Their inclusion of the question about his future, similarly seems intended to point to the apostle’s modesty about his place among the disciples and not to boast about his longevity. In the time of the early Church, and among some Christians today, longevity is sometimes regarded as the blessing for a good and saintly life. Like the prosperity Gospel this is a fallacy: many good, innocent and saintly people die tragically young.
It seems strange that Peter would ask such a question about John’s future? Peter himself would understandably be concerned by Jesus’ prophecy of his own martyrdom, just two verses before [Jn.21:18-19]. It would seem uncomfortable if he would then turn to John and ask Jesus whether John too would meet a violent end. But perhaps, as Jesus had spoken several times about his followers facing suffering as he had done, the thought might have been on both of their minds, and Peter could have been voicing it.
They were both leaders among the disciples, but there does not appear to have been rivalry between these two disciples. If they had competed Jesus would have surely reprimanded them as he did earlier to John and James, the sons of Zebedee and their mother [Mat.20:21-23; Mk.10:37]. Jesus was very critical of disputes about greatness and importance among disciples [Mk.9:34; Lk.9:46 Lk.22:24-27]. So Peter’s question about John is a slightly incongruous passage in the Resurrection story. Peter and John were certainly among those closest to Jesus. But by the time of the writing of the Gospels, John would have learned the lesson of his family’s previous misguided ambitions for him and his brother. Were these verses perhaps inserted as a lesson that John had emphasised to his followers in order to counter any superstitions and legends that were growing up about the disciple’s longevity. According to tradition, John appears to have survived to an older age than many of the other apostles. The compilers of John’s Gospel appear to have been aware of rumours that Jesus had claimed that John would not die and would remain alive to witness his Lord’s return. The Evangelist might have been at pains to contradict this. Those who compiled his Gospel may have wanted to reinforce his humility and counter the superstitions.
Rivalry between many Christians and groups is sadly, too often rife in the Christian Church. Some regard themselves as better than others and expect greater recognition and veneration. Different churches and denominations consider their ways of belief, practices of worship, prayer or praise more authentic than others. I have met several would-be leaders who show little humility about themselves, and are ambitious for position, power, particular gifts or recognition of themselves by others. All aspects of rivalry or jealousy are wrong in the Christian church community. They undermine Christ’s teaching about egalitarianism in the way that God loves and treats us. Rivalry can also distract from our main mission, which should be to advance God’s purposes and to spiritual develop others not ourselves. It is no surprise that we are told in scripture to “in humility consider others better than yourself” [Phil.2:3]. The following verses remind us to take the humility of Christ as our example.
Jesus’ response to Peter’s question is particularly apt in all situations of rivalry. In effect he was saying “If God chooses to bless someone in any way, which may be different to the way that he blesses you, what is that to you?” God deals with and relates to all of us differently, though with equal love and care. Our diversity should enable us to witness more effectively to all the diverse characters in the world. Similarly the differences in the ways that our lives progress, should show the world that God does not treat ‘special’ Christians differently to any others. After the death from cancer of the significant Christian teacher David Watson, many asked: “Why didn’t God protect such a faithful and active Christian who could have had such a fruitful future ministry?” They early Church could similarly have said: “Why didn’t God protect Peter, Paul and the other martyrs of the Church?” But the life of faith is not so simplistic. We glorify and work for God by living the lives that we have in the best and most fruitful ways possible.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
Do you feel rivalry with any other Christians, and how could you work to appreciate them more and release yourself and them form any sense of jealousy or rivalry.
Are your ambitions for yourself pure?
Do you have any false conceptions \bout yourself or about others that you should work to dispel in order to have a truer relationship with them.
Do others have misconceptions about you? You may not need to dispel them, but it may be important to live a life of truer Christian example before them.
26 (STATION 20) JESUS APPEARS TO OVER FIVE HUNDRED AT ONE TIME [1Cor.15.3-6]
Of all the post-resurrection appearances in scripture, to take this event literally seems the most unlikely. It is more likely that this phrase represents Jesus revealing himself to many people, whether in gathered groups or over the period before the Ascension. It is mentioned in St. Paul’s letters rather than in the Gospels, and it probably the first surviving account of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances. Paul was writing well before the Gospels were compiled, though like them, he must have been drawing from material which was circulating orally or perhaps in note form. 1Corintians was probably written from Ephesus c54C.E. Paul’s mention of Christ’s encounter with a large group of Christians comes within a list of those who had witnessed and could attest to Jesus’ death and resurrection. We cannot know what specific evidence St. Paul had for his assertions about the resurrection although he claims to have met several of the surviving apostles. Due to his travels among members of the early Church, Paul would probably have had access to some of the oral accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry on which the Gospel writers based their narratives. Potential written accounts of Jesus teachings and selected memories of his life might have existed but have not survived, other than within the New Testament and non-canonical early Christian writings like the Gospels of Thomas and Peter. But none of the Gospel writers mention an appearance of the risen Christ to such a large group of people at once, as Paul mentions. If such strong evidence had been available it is likely that at least one evangelist would have included it. That is not necessarily the case, however, as one would have expected more than one of the gospels to have included such a powerful miracle as the raising of Lazarus [Jn.11]. In that instance it was possibly not included in earlier gospels, to protect Lazarus and his family, members of which may have still been alive, though Lazarus himself may have died by the time John’s Gospel was compiled. In the case of the huge crowd that Paul mentions they and their evidence are anonymous, but Paul implies that some of them would have been known among the congregations of early churches.
In talking of Jesus’ Resurrection appearances, Paul does not mention the empty tomb, which has been suggested by some commentators to imply that he was talking about spiritual not physical encounters. However this distinction is not specifically considered in scripture. Paul lists in 1Cor.15:5-8 the appearances of the risen Jesus in what he may have considered to be chronological order:
To Cephas – (the Aramaic name for ‘Peter’). This incident seems to be separate from Jesus’ appearance to the disciples as a group in Jerusalem and Jesus’ forgiveness and commissioning of Peter after the miraculous draught of fishes in Galilee. It does not appear to be mentioned in the Gospels, unless it relates to Peter’s discover of the empty tomb.
To the Twelve (at that time only eleven unless Paul was including another who was with them, as close followers like Matthias, Mary and Mary Magdalene and others of Jesus’ family might have been. It is noticeable that Paul does not mention any appearances of the risen Jesus to women. This is less likely to have been from the misogyny which is sometimes ascribed to Paul, as because Paul may not have heard those stories, or because the witness of females might have been accepted.)
To 500 at one time “most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.” Here Paul mentions ‘brothers’ /’adelphoȋs’ rather than ‘brothers and sisters’ as translated in the N.R.S.V. though this could have been used inclusively for male and female witnesses. If such a group of followers existed, it would certainly have included many women.
Then James – presumably James the Great - an encounter again not mentioned elsewhere, though Jesus could have been strengthening James for his role as the first Bishop of Jerusalem. Sadly James has largely been written our of much common teaching on the New Testament Church, partly since the Book of Acts concentrates on Peter and Paul, though the research of Robert Eisenman sought to reinforce his importance [‘James the Brother of Jesus’: Recovering the True History of Early Christianity. Faber and Faber 1997]
Then the apostles – Paul had met with Peter (Cephas), James [Gal.1:18-19] and later corresponded about his mission to the Gentiles with them and John [Gal.2:9, 12]. He does not claim to have met the other Apostles [Gal.1:19], so it is possible that Peter, James and John told him of some further appearances to them not mentioned in the Gospels, or this may relate to the appearances in Jerusalem and Galilee mentioned in the Gospel texts. Paul seems to imply that these encounters were specifically directed towards commissioning them and strengthening them for mission.
Then to Paul himself – This appearance changed his direction to following Christ rather than persecuting Christians, and commissioned him for his mission.
I do not think that we need to interpret the ‘500’ too literally. Like several numbers in the Gospels they are probably meant as approximations. Despite the interest that some take in possible numerology in scripture, this also does not appear to have a symbolic or significant meaning. Like the ‘120 fish’ in the miraculous catch the ‘about 120’ believers who Peter taught in Acts 1:15 and the number of ‘about 3,000’ converted at Pentecost [Acts 2:41], the ‘500’ probably just indicate ‘a large number’. It would seem highly unlikely that five hundred of Jesus’ followers would meet together at once, so soon after his crucifixion. At the time of threat sensed by Jesus’ followers, there would have been very few places where a very large group could have met together without raising suspicions from the political or religious authorities, who were afraid of any sort of insurrection. They could have been together in the Temple for worship, but surely if that had been the place of encounter it would have been mentioned, as it was so significant. Or they might have gathered on one of the mounts or plains where Jesus had previously addressed crowds. But the charisma of Jesus himself was not there to attract them to come together, though a group might have joined to hear the apostles. Many of Jesus’ followers had been afraid of persecution since his arrest. Surely they would not gather in great numbers, even if there was more confidence after people felt that the risen Christ had returned and given “many convincing proofs” of his new life [Acts1:3]. We are told at Pentecost that the disciples had returned to the upper room as they came together after visiting Mount Olivet, a Sabbath day’s journey away from Jerusalem [Acts 1:12]. But no building available to them could have held so many. If so large a group did actually meet, it is more likely to have happened by pre-arrangement in the area of Galilee, to where, according to Matthew and Mark, Jesus had indicated that his disciples should follow him.
Some commentators suggest that this appearance to a mass of people is the same event as the commissioning of Jesus’ followers on the mountain, but there is no evidence of this. According to the biblical text the disciples who were commissioned on the mountain only include the eleven disciples [Matt.28:16]. Another possibility is that this is included in the events of Pentecost, but again there is no evidence. The more likely possibility is that what Paul described was not an appearance to a group ‘en masse’ but a bringing together of reports of several different appearances, as in Luke’s statement that Jesus convinced a large number of believers by “presenting himself alive to them by many convincing proofs’[Acts1:3] . The emphasis that Paul and Acts 1:3 were making were that Jesus appeared to many, and taught about the kingdom of God during the forty days after his Resurrection.
The major emphasis of all these Resurrection passages seems intended to reinforce the belief that Jesus’ Resurrection was real, not a vision nor an immaterial spirit. Modern psychological interpretation sometimes suggest that the Resurrection stories rose through the disciples reinterpreting and recollecting what Jesus had said and done in his ministry before his death. However the Evangelists and Paul regarded Jesus’ appearances as physical and material. They were convinced that enough evidence was available to reinforce this truth. Paul pointed to the fact that many of those who had met the risen Christ were still alive and available to able to corroborate the belief [1Cor.15:6] as well as James, other surviving apostles and himself [1Cor.15:7-8]. Presumably Paul had himself met several who claimed to have met the risen Christ themselves.
While I find it hard to conceive that in those early days after Jesus’ death and before the Ascension huge crowds of Jesus’ followers would have met together, it is conceivable that the numbers of people who believed that they had witnessed the risen Jesus could well have been in the hundreds. The Gospels only introduce us to a handful of significant episodes, and the end of John’s Gospel is emphatic that not all events have been recorded [Jn.21:25]. At the beginning of Acts Luke asserts: “After his suffering he presented himself alive to them with many convincing proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the Kingdom of God.” [Acts1:3]. Although Luke only indicates that these appearances were to “the apostles whom he had chosen” [Acts1:2], it is clear that more than just the eleven were witnesses.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
This evidence encourages us to turn to ourselves and ask us to consider what it is that convinces us of the truth of Christ - not just in terms of his Resurrection, but so many other aspects of belief:
27 (STATION 21) JESUS COMMISSIONS THE DISCIPLES UPON THE MOUNTAIN [Mk.16:1-8, 15-18 (in Upper Room); Matt:28:16-20; Lk.24:1-12Jn.20.21-23]
In each of the Gospel accounts Jesus is described as commissioning his disciples to continue his mission, but in each, the words are recorded differently, so it seems unlikely that any of the Gospels exactly record Jesus’ words, unless each of the commissions was given at a variety of times.
The most famous of these commissions, in Matt.28:18, claims that Jesus began “All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me...” Matthew’s interest in paralleling Jesus’ words with the Hebrew Scriptures may be in use here, for the words of Jesus are those of Dan.7:14: “to him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away...”. Jesus had already quoted the same Daniel passage in 26:64. Through Matthew he emphasises the authority of Jesus, which gives him the divine authority to send his apostles [7:29; 9:6, 8; 11:27; 21:23-27]. Matthew’s account has been meaningfully called “The Great Commission” due to its worldwide and eternal embrace. “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. I and remember I am with you always to the end of the age”. This ending of Matthew’s Gospel; is so positive and simple in its definition of what we should be doing as Christ’s followers, but challenging to fulfil. Matthew implies that the instruction was at first given to the eleven apostles [Matt.28:16], but we have come to realise that this worldwide mission is Christ’s instruction to all Christians.
In mentioning ‘all nations’ / ‘panta ta ethnē’, Matthew was specifically referring to Gentiles as well as the mission to his fellow Jews. This term, also used in Matt.24:9, 14; 25:32, is a deliberate extension of both Jesus’ mission and that of the disciples. In the light of this it is surprising that in the Book of Acts there was so much discussion and disagreement over whether Gentiles should be admitted to the Christian community, particularly whether they should be expected to accept circumcision as well as baptism. It must have felt an impossible challenge to eleven rural Galileans to be given the commission to spread Christ’s gospel to the ends of the earth.
The Great Commission is not just to teach and preach, but to ‘make disciples’ and teach them ‘to obey everything that he commanded’ - to work to create true, believing active and obedient followers. The call to baptise them “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” includes the presence of the Father and Spirit who were mentioned as involved in Jesus’ baptism. However, as the Trinitarian formula was not yet in use until after Jesus’ time, it may be that the phrase was inserted from the liturgy of the early church, rather than Jesus’ direct words. (The same seems to be the case when Matthew states that Jesus taught about his ‘Church’, another word which may have been inserted from later use [Matt.16:18; 18:17]. The commission in Mark, Luke and John does not include Matthew’s command to baptise, though baptism at the time was seen to include the washing away of sins, so there is a possible connection. In the Book of Acts new believers are often said to have been baptised in the name of Jesus or the Messiah [Acts.2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:3-5; Rom.6:3; Gal.3:27]. The inclusion of the Spirit in Matthew’s formula harks back to John the Baptist’s promise that the one coming after him would baptise with the Spirit. Matthew’s Gospel does not mention the Ascension specifically. But the final assertion “I am with you always, until the end of time” [Mat.28:30], seems to be suggesting that after Jesus has left them physically, his presence would remain with them.
The commission in Mark’s Gospel is: “afterwards Jesus himself sent out through them, from east and west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.” [Short ending 16:8] or “Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. The one who believes and is baptised will be saved; bit the one who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe...” [Longer ending 16:15-17] ...followed by a list of miraculous signs, which seem to be later interpolations. Apart from the mention of salvation and condemnation and the miraculous signs, the commission in Mark contains similar ideas to that mentioned more fully by Matthew. The commission however expands the mission further than the ‘all nations’ in Matthew. They are told to go into all the world /‘kósmon ápanta’, and proclaim the ‘good news’ / ‘eùangéllion’ and ‘eternal salvation’ ‘ to the ‘whole creation’/ ‘páste tê ktísei’. In practice this is a similar proclamation, but it appears to have more cosmic implications than just proclaiming Jesus’ teaching to the nations. It could be interpreted as referring to a belief that Jesus’ salvation in some ways outreaches to the whole of Creation [Rom.8:19-23].
In Luke’s Gospel Jesus’ commissioning in 24:45-49 includes teaching: “he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and he said to them: “Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and rise on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his (the Messiah’s) name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And see I am sending upon you what my Father promised; so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” It again refers to proclamation to all nations. Those who have been with him are to be ‘witnesses’/ ‘mártures’ to his life and teachings, to encourage repentance and proclaim forgiveness. They are to witnesses to the truth of Christ’s saving death and resurrection.
The commission in John is less obvious. It includes a few separate verses. To Thomas: “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.” [Jn.21:29], the commission to Peter: “ Do you love me?... feed my lambs/sheep”... [Jn.21:15-17] “Follow me.” [Jn.21:19, 22]. John implies that all who read the Gospel are included in the mission field to which he is testifying truthfully [Jn.21:24]: “these are written that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God and that through believing you may have life in his name.” [Jn.20:31]. The main point at which the commission was given appears to be when Jesus breathed his Spirit on them and said “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any they are retained” [Jn.20:22]. The believer’s commission is therefore: ‘to believe’, ‘to love’, ‘to follow Christ’, ‘to testify’, ‘to receive the Holy Spirit’, and to follow Christ’s example in ‘forgiving’.
Our main aim as a Church and as individuals in the world is to live, act and speak in such ways that we convince and lead others to the truth of a relationship with God. “Go and make disciples!”… Unfortunately, scripture doesn’t give us many specifics about how to do this, but this open-endedness is surely because the expectation is different for every individual concerned and every situation in which we are to be witnesses. As witnesses to faith we need to find the ways of evangelism that are most appropriate to us and to the individuals to whom we hope to open up a relationship with God. But ‘life-style evangelism’ is not an opt-out clause; we are still all mean to be witnesses. When did you last manage to help form someone into a fellow disciple? This is where the passage becomes uncomfortable. It is very evident, from the state of the world and from general scepticism about the Christian faith that Christians aren’t sharing their faith sufficiently and are not explaining and living out their faith effectively. We don’t generally get up each morning and go out of our homes thinking: “I should be making disciples of those around me.” The guiltier we feel about our failure, or the more inept or unconfident we feel to talk about our faith, the less we are likely to do it, and the less effective we will be.
I find it hard to understand why the contemporary church has moved so far from acting as a primary witness in the modern world. Is it just that we are lazy and prefer keeping faith among ourselves within the comfort of services? Or have we not trained our congregations in the faith enough to be able to witness confidently. Ministers often preach comforting and perhaps simplistic homilies rather than challenging their congregations over their belief and teaching substantially. Many Church-going believers may understandably not feel that they have the courage, skill or knowledge to stand up for the Christian faith in the face of contemporary scepticism. Perhaps some are ashamed of seeming too exclusive, in a world which offers so many variations of life-styles and beliefs. World mission has uncomfortable ‘imperialist’ associations for many Christians today, and rightly so, since contemporary mission needs to be very different from the time of Victorian mission and evangelism.. But I also wonder whether the Christianity that many church-goers practise has become so watered-down, even occasionally insipid, that it does not bring us the spiritual experiences and challenges that strengthened so many early Christians. If you ask congregational members during coffee after church, what they have learned from or about God in the past week, you rarely find that they have had encounters, spiritual experiences or study-times that fulfil their faith. I am not talking here about every church-goer becoming an evangelist in the style of St. Peter or Billy Graham. We are all different. If we were homogenous we would only reach a very small percentage of the population. The variety and diversity of believers should enable us to witness appropriately and effectively to all the different types of people in the world. We are to witness with the gifts that have been given to us, not attempt to be people other than we are, though it is important to build up or gifts, or, as St. Paul told Timothy to “fan into flame the gifts of God that are within us.” [2Tim.1:6]. We cannot do this on our own. As Jesus emphasised towards the end of Luke’s Gospel, to be effective we need the Spirit’s power within us. [Lk.24:49], and as the end of Matthew emphasises, we need feel confident that Christ is with us “until the end of the age.” [Matt.28:20].
30 years ago I had an Evangelical friend who would talk about Jesus to anyone. If he was on the bus, train or just walking along the High Street he’d lean over to complete strangers and ask them if they knew that God loves them and do they have any needs they’d like him to pray for on their behalf. Watching this would make me cringe if I was with him. I couldn’t understand how he had the courage; in fact at times I thought he was a ‘nutter’ and ‘going about it the wrong way’, but he was utterly sincere. He was convinced that God loved people and looked out for opportunities to speak sincerely to others. But very few of us could do that, or would want to: I certainly couldn’t, and it wouldn’t come across naturally or sincerely, as it did with him. It may have had some effect in the surroundings in which he lived, but imagine stopping someone outside your local shopping centre, a commuter at the station or a mum, dad or grandparent dropping off or collecting a child on the school-run. I’m not sure that roadside preachers ever really worked effectively since the time of the Wesleys. It certainly is not the socially acceptable thing to do in our insular, individualistic communities, and is very likely to antagonise people rather than attract them. Yet we MUST find opportunities to share Christ’s Gospel effectively if the Church is to grow to influence the building of the Kingdom of God by obeying Christ’s command and bringing Christ’s hope to the needy world all around us. This passage in Matthew isn’t an optional extra; it’s a necessity.
Christ states in his commission in Matthew: “all authority in heaven and earth is given to me.” His statement on ‘authority’ is not about dominantly commanding us. It is similar to the invocation in the Lord’s Prayer [Matt.6:10] and repeated in the Didache 8:2: “your kingdom come, God’s will is done on earth as it is in heaven”. God has ultimate authority, which Jesus claimed several time had been conferred upon him. Christians accept the responsibility which Christ passed on to us to spread his truth and help God’s will to be recognised and exercised on earth as in heaven. In this respect ‘authority’ for the Christian, is more about taking our responsibilities seriously, rather than having power and authority ourselves. I firmly believe that too many Christian leaders in the past have wrongly assumed ‘authority’ to be a dominating power that they assume for themselves, or which has been conferred on them by ordination. Nor should we take the ‘authority’ of God to be ‘domination’ over all the others powers of the world, as some of the aggressive language used by the Church in the past implied. Luke and John’s record of this commission includes different and more gentle details like ‘forgiveness’, ‘love, ‘feeding’, ‘following’ which encourage us to be equally gentle in our expression of Christ’s gospel..
Jesus’ promise in Matthew that he would remain with his people “until the end of the age” gives an apocalyptic element to the commission, but also emphasises that the commission was not just for the eleven remaining disciples, but also the whole Christian church that would follow them and inherit their evangelistic responsibilities. Jesus had inaugurated the ‘age to come’ and he was commissioning his followers to continue his work towards the establishment of the Kingdom of God. Throughout Matthew’s Gospel the writer emphasised by the use of references to the Hebrew Scriptures, how Jesus was fulfilling Jewish history and the responsibility laid on Israel through the covenants and Torah to share God’s blessing with the rest of the world. Israel had largely remained insular, self-maintaining, and keeping the special relationship with God for themselves. The Great Commission reiterated that the relationship with God, which Christ made possible, needs to be inclusive of all in the world, not kept exclusively to any group. Jewish or Christian communities are meant to be extending God’s love, truth and covenant relationship beyond their borders to all our neighbours.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
How effectively to you respond to Jesus ‘Great Commission’ to go and make disciples?
To whom could you more effectively witness and how?
28 JESUS TEACHES THE DISCIPLES ABOUT THE SPIRIT [Acts1:4-8]
This incident seems to be a different from Jesus breathing his Spirit onto his disciples [Jn.20:22] and his teaching the disciples about sending the Holy Spirit to them in Jn. 14:15-31 and 16:4-15, although this may be Luke’s take on the same teaching. His emphasis at the end of Luke’s Gospel and in the opening of Acts is on waiting for the power of the Holy Spirit to guide and empower the disciples. It is a common failing within the Christian church that decisions, missions, actions, doctrines, ecclesiastical laws and rulings have often been made on worldly criteria, rather than following the Spirit’s guidance. I’m sure that in the history of the Church many would not have been so damaged by other Christians if church institutions sought the direction that God’s Spirit intends them to move with more open minds. Synods, committees, individual church leaders have often made decisions based on their own bias or over-narrow reading of scripture rather than waiting and listening to God’s Spirit in the way that Jesus himself had done in his time on earth. As Jesus’ teaching and actions showed, the Spirit of God is often more flexible, loving, inclusive and ‘humane’ (if that word can be used of God’s Spirit) than human responses often are. We see this in practice in Jesus’ dealings with the woman taken in adultery, touching and healing lepers or the woman with the haemorrhage, healing and eating on the Sabbath and spiritually reinterpreting many other Jewish legalistic restrictive practices.
Jesus links the giving of the Spirit with the worldwide mission of the Church [Acts 1:6-8]. It is sad that too often today in both advocates of contemplative spirituality and charismatic circles, the gift of the Spirit is often regarded as being for the up-building of individuals’ personal spirituality rather than the corporate up-building of all. People sometimes seek mystical or spiritual experiences or the more ambitious spiritual gifts for their own satisfaction, rather than regarding them as being given for spreading the Kingdom of God among others. There is too much self-centredness rather than servant-like spiritual humility in many Christian circles. This is totally against all that Jesus taught about the gifts and fruit of God’s Spirit. It should be the ambition of any and all Christians, particularly the ambition of all Christian leaders to build up other Christians to be better and more gifted than themselves, rather than to seek one-upmanship. Wanting spiritual gifts for one’s own pride, or for recognition of oneself by others, is a worldly, not a truly Christian spiritual ambition. The ambition should be to use the gifts and fruit developed in us by God’s Spirit to help in the development of God’s Kingdom.
When the disciples had asked Jesus, prior to his Ascension: “Lord, is it at this time that you will restore the kingdom to Israel?” he had not answered directly. He claimed that the time was for the Father to set. But he continued: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth” [Acts 1:6-8]. This commission for the mission of the church to be worldwide is shown to begin to be fulfilled in the Book of Acts. Even the previously despised Samaria is described as a place of mission in Acts 8. Oly HoluHH God’s Spirit, independently, and especially through encouraging, inspiring and empowering us, reaches out to bring to the cosmos the redemption that Christ achieved.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
How often have you tried to achieve spiritual things through your own power? What would encourage you and your church to rely more on waiting for and relying upon the Spirit’s guidance?
29 (STATION 22) THE ASCENSION OF JESUS [Mk.16:19; Lk.24:51; Acts 1.3-12]
Although Ascension Day is celebrated in many churches 40 days after the Resurrection, but we cannot be certain from scripture of the place, day or even how Jesus is said to have returned physically to God’s Kingdom. The longer ending of Mark (though it is debatable whether it is an authentic account the end of Jesus’ life on earth), implies that it happened in the region of Galilee. Galilee is not specifically mentioned in the text, though their presence in Galilee was initially mentioned in the shorter ending [Mk.16:7]. Matthew makes no mention of the Ascension, but his description of Jesus’ final commission to the disciples is based on a mountain in Galilee [Matt.28:16]. The Great Commission in Matthew ends with the phrase: “I am with you until the end of the age” [Matt.28:19], which gives the impression that this was the end of his time on earth.
Luke claims is that it occurred close to Bethany, which is on the south-eastern slopes of the Mount of Olives near Jerusalem. Luke account has persisted in the majority of traditions, interpreted as happening on the area on Mount Olivet, where the Church of the Ascension has been built. Some commentators believe that setting the Ascension on the Mount of Olives is symbolic as there are several mentions of the place in scriptural tradition and Jewish history [1Sam.15:30, 32; Ezek.11:23; Zech.14:4; Matt.26:30-32 28:16; Mk.3:3; 14:6-28]. Although some commentators consider the Ascension to be a symbolic event, Luke’s description in Acts rly seems to be intentionally describing it as a physical phenomenon.
Luke’s Gospel could also be read as implying that the Ascension happened very soon after Jesus’ Resurrection. By contrast in Acts1:9-12 Luke specifically states that Christ appeared to various people over a period of 40 days after the Resurrection. While it is almost impossible to believe that all the post-resurrection appearances could have happened in one day, it is also possible that Luke could have been using the number 40 as a symbolic rather than a precise timing. Churches have traditionally celebrated Ascension Day exactly 40 days after Easter, making it always happen on a Thursday. This sadly means that it is often a weakly attended celebration, considering that doctrinally it is as significant as Good Friday, Easter and Pentecost. There is therefore to be no real reason why is could not just as accurately be celebrated on a Sunday 35 or 42 days after Easter. In scripture 40 days is symbolic of a time of fulfilment: the Flood lasted 40 days [Gen,7:17]; Moses spent 40 days of Mt. Sinai [Ex.24:18; 34:28]; Israel wandered in the Wilderness for 40 years [Ex.16:35]; Elijah spent 40 days in hiding [1Ki.19:8]; Ezra read aloud the scriptures for 40 days in bringing renewal [4Ezra.14:23, 36, 42-45]; Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness [Lk.4:2]. Luke could also have been making an intentional comparison with the figure of Baruch in the inter-testamental Apocrypha, who instructed the people for 40 days before being translated to heaven [Apoc.Bar.76:1-5].
Like the point of Jesus’ Resurrection or the Transfiguration, scripture doesn’t give us full enough information about Christ’s Ascension to be sure what the disciples are supposed to have witnessed. It would be dangerous to over-speculate or be over-simplistic. As with so many mysteries in the Gospels, what actually happened at Jesus’ ‘Ascension’ will probably never been known. The description is fairly literal: Luke’s Gospel mentions that Jesus “withdrew” from the disciples as he lifted his hands and blessed them “and was carried up into heaven” [Lk.24:50-51. He described the event more fully in Acts than in his Gospel. After confirming that the Father would bring the Kingdom at a time know only to God, and that the Holy Spirit would bring them power to be his witnesses “in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth”, Luke describes: “When he had said this,, as they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. While he was going and they were gazing up towards heaven, suddenly two men in white robes stood by them. They said: “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up towards heaven? This Jesus who has been taken up to heaven will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.” [Acts 1:9-11].
One problem with the Gospel accounts of the physicality of the Resurrection, is that it implies a bodily ascension. It seems unlikely that Jesus actually rose up into the air, as is most often shown in images of the Ascension. This is the impression given by a literal reading of the words of Luke and Mark. They date from a time when people believed that heaven was up above the clouds, rather than a different dimension. But ‘ascension’ does not necessarily mean that Jesus physically went up into the sky. To ancient Hebrew thinking God was not thought to literally live in a region above the sky. It was a different dimension to that in which humans dwelt. ‘Going up to heaven’ did not necessarily mean rising upwards. It could mean rising, but it could also denote being exalted, which is an easier concept for modern minds to accept. Using human reason and modern understanding, it is more likely that if Jesus did physically disappear, he dematerialised. (‘Clouds taking him from their sight’ could be their only way of explaining or describing such a disappearance. Some believe that Jesus had similarly dematerialised from within the grave-clothes at the Resurrection and that the Resurrection appearances were physical re-materialising. But of course we are talking spiritual mysteries, not necessarily anything that our rational minds can comprehend. One idea of the Ascension is that Jesus’ human nature was taken into heaven, while his divine nature remained with us in the Holy Spirit. Other commentators try to reduce the sense of physical mystery and regard the Ascension as a metaphor for the recognition that Jesus’ presence was with us in a more metaphysical way.
The Gospel description of Jesus being raised up in the midst of the disciples and clouds veiling him from their sight is mysterious and awe-inspiring. Renaissance artists and Rembrandt showed the Ascension as if a cloud-elevator lifted Jesus into the air. In other paintings, Jesus’ two feet are sometimes rather naively painted as disappearing into clouds at the top of the picture. But scientific knowledge recognises that if heaven exists, it isn’t in the space above our atmosphere. Uri Gagarin cynically claimed on the first manned space flight: ‘God is not up here!’ The Gospel writers and the sources from which they drew, probably recorded the phenomenon in the only way that the disciples could describe what they had experienced of Jesus’ disappearing or dematerialising. They had witnessed the risen Jesus being alive, so some explanation needed to be given for how he was no longer with them. If the risen Jesus was like a physical, resuscitated body, an ‘ascension’ would probably need to be bodily. If the risen Christ was ‘transphysical’ to use N.T. Wright’s terminology [Wright 2003 p.654], he would have been able to appear, disappear and reappear as required. In that case there would be no need for the Ascension to have been physical.
Though only Luke describes any details of the Ascension, there are other mentions of Jesus ascending, in Jn.20:17 and a number of Epistles [Eph.4:10; 1Tim.3:16; 1Pet.3:22; Heb.4:14; 6:19; 9:24]. The New Testament often associates Jesus’ Ascension with more than just his being raised to heaven, like the descriptions of the translations of Enoch and Elijah [Gen.5:24; 2Ki.2:11]. The Ascension is also regarded as Christ’s ‘glorification’ or ‘exaltation’ by being raised to a position of authority on the throne of heaven [Phil.2:9-10; 1Thess.1:10; Rom.1:4; Eph.1:20; Acts2:32-33; 5:30-32; 13:30-37]. This led to the Church’s worship of Christ as ‘Lord’ and the development of Trinitarian thinking.
For both Luke in Acts and Paul in his teaching and epistles, the Ascension seems to be regarded as a vindication of Jesus’ life, actions, teachings and self-sacrifice. He was being shown to not just triumph over life and death; he was a representative of God’s people, offering the hope for their own vindication by God. Luke may have intended it to deliberately echo Dan.7:9-27, where ‘one like a son of man’ was envisioned as ‘coming with the clouds of heaven, being presented before the enthroned Ancient One (YHWH) on the throne of heaven, and given eternal dominion, glory and kingship over Creation’ [Dan.7:13-14]. There were parallels here with the contemporary idea in the Roman Empire that some emperors were exalted to become divine, though in Christ’s case it was considered that Jesus’ origins were divine. In Dan.7:27 this dominion was seen as being that of God’s people, so in some ways the ‘one like a son of man’ was being identified with the promises to Israel. To several New Testament writers however, the Resurrection and Ascension were seen as vindicating and declaring the person and nature of Christ and declaring the future hope of Christ’s followers.
Jesus’ last action before withdrawing and being carried up into heaven, is described by Luke as “lifting up his hands and blessing them”. Commentators have drawn parallels to this with the ending of the Wisdom of Ben Sirach 50:20-22 as well as the final actions of blessing by Abraham [Gen.49 esp. vs.25-26] and Moses [Deut.33]. Luke may also be intentionally rounding off his gospel by making comparisons and parallels with the angel of the annunciation blessing Mary [Lk.1:26-33], Zechariah’s prophecy over John the Baptist [Lk.1:67-79] and Simeon blessing of Mary and Joseph [Lk.2:34]. The earthly life of Christ may be being described as opening and closing with blessings.
The Ascension leaves us with a question of faith of where we imagine Jesus to be now after his Ascension, and in what nature or ways we imagine Christ to rule the cosmos as the New Testament suggests? In liturgical services Christians often repeat in the Creeds by rote, with a fairly literal image of the Resurrection and Ascension scenes. Many trust that there is truth in the doctrines that “he rose from the dead” and “he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father”. However many may not necessarily believe that the literal image, as represented in so many old paintings is how it happened. A literal rule from a throne in heaven is reinforced by John’s vision on Patmos of clouds parting and Christ standing among lampstands, sending inspiration for the persecuted Church in a difficult world, then as the metaphor of the Lamb seated on the throne, bearing the marks of sacrifice, ruling earth and heaven, stronger than all corrupt rulers and powers of his age. Other believers have less literal and more liberal interpretations of the Resurrection, Ascension and rule. Is it possible for a rational-thinking modern mind to imagine Jesus on a physical throne somewhere out there? Or is the Bible’s picture of a heavenly throne-room a metaphor for God’s continuing care for and ordering of the cosmos in a way that is greater than we can comprehend?
In our age, if we try to imagine a heaven from where Christ is ruling as God’s representative, in other ways than as ‘beyond the clouds’. It could be a parallel dimension to ours, not subject to the same time, space or restrictions as ours. Or it could all be a metaphor for an eternal truth, which sets up a mirror to our world and challenges us to live holily, authentically and responsibly.
In what way of form might Christ rule? Jesus’ form after his Resurrection seems to have been different from his physical body before death: He disappeared and appeared in different places, seemed to walk through a locked door, was not always recognised as his former self. Yet just as Jesus could physically be touched by Thomas and he could eat with the disciple, presumably Christ’s form and powers are even more different in the dimension we call heaven. It is doctrinally sound to try not to conceive of God in any way or form at all, except to trust that God is true: God IS the truth about whatever God IS. That is the sense of that Hebrew term ‘YHWH’: ‘I am what I am’ or ‘I will be what I will be’. Did Jesus then, on his return to heaven reabsorb into that one power we call God? (Christians who believed that were once denounced as heretics, but in the face of the mystery of God it is an understandable question.) Or did Jesus somehow retain an individual identity, as the concept of ‘the persons of the Trinity’ and the New Testament indications of Christ’s rule suggest? Scripture and traditional Christian doctrine imply that Jesus retains his unique nature in heaven. Yet at the same time we should also regard the persons of the Trinity as one unity. Rather than struggling to keep reasoning through such a mystery, as I and many have tried to do for so long, I find it easier to believe that God is whatever is the ‘truth’ behind so much that we do not understand.
Christ’s ‘rule’ is a similar mystery, yet if he taught the true ways to live, we follow that rule by adhering to such truths. In celebrating Ascension Day, Christians have come to proclaim that Christ now rules from on high. But we live in a world where people’s aspirations don’t always want what Christ brought or want such a rule of truth rule. We see clearly what lack of adherence to such truth creates in our world: the horrors of human inhumanity to others, the despoiling of the world of which we are meant to be careful stewards, the lack of equality caused by the materialism in society, the lies and corruption of so many human rulers, the disasters that human self-centredness, or false ideas of God corrupting religion. We don’t yet ‘see’ Christ, and certainly don’t witness his ‘Kingdom’ yet being particularly evident in society, or even, unfortunately, in many churches. Yet our hope and belief is that God, through Christ and the Spirit, somehow exerts power over our world and every dimension of the cosmos. Our imagination of the ascended Christ needs to expand to inspire awe and holiness in response, just as Jesus, in his time on earth, unveiled the invisible truth of God more fully than ever before.
Scripture [especially Heb.4&8 and Jn.2:1-6], suggests that in heaven Christ represents us gloriously, personally and caringly because he understands us thoroughly, having lived like us. This implies that the ascended Jesus retains in the dimension beyond ours something of our humanity and memories of his experience on earth. He was so unique that it’s hard to imagine that he lost his identity on returning to heaven. We can’t imagine our own existence beyond death: The writer of 1Jn.3:2 admits that we have little idea what our form or existence will be like. Yet as Jesus described heavenly life, we can imagine ourselves retaining something of our own personal identities when we discover whatever is the life in eternity which Jesus promised. Presumably we will have some of the individual character we have now. I guess that situation is similar with Christ now, only in a much more exalted way. New Testament epistles and the Book of Revelation describe Christ raised higher than any other power in heaven or earth, given authority over us and over the cosmos: It is a glory beyond our comprehension, but not beyond our imagining. Imagination is one of our greatest human powers. So from our painful world it is useful and encouraging to lift our thoughts by imagining Christ in glory!
A key to faith is to trust in Christ’s reign without fully knowing how Jesus rules, where exactly he rules from and how his rule and the Father’s rule are shared. We’ve no idea what it feels like to be Christ, but I imagine one of Jesus’ great feelings after his Ascension was that he was free from the constraints of human life. If he is God, as orthodox doctrine claims, he would again have been free to exercise his divine nature and work universally in the world through his Spirit. Yet he kept caring because he knows, loves, understands us and gave his life for us.
We can experience Christ’s rule when we follow what he taught as a framework to transform our lives. Christ showed God as a loving ruler. The divine aims that we attribute to God are for us to live in love, peace, unity, trust, righteousness, justice and equity, with confidence that faith and the revealed ways of life are true. Unlike those who oppress our world, Jesus’ true rule would make us and all free: free to become the individuals and the communities that we are created us to be. Christ doesn’t rule by terror, oppression, fear violence, or self-centredness. He wants us to freely transform the world through living by God’s love and valuing all. In many ways it appears that Christ exercises his rule on earth now in many ways through us. The words of Teresa of Avila are appropriate: “Christ has no hands and feet now on earth but ours, no eyes or tongue but ours”. I am not sure that the term ‘no’ in the quotation is doctrinally true. Christians believe that God has ways in which to influence creation, otherwise what is the value of prayer? Yet we can bring God’s loving presence, God’s healing and God’s freedom to the lives of others if we are faithful examples of Christ and work for God in our world.
Only God’s power can bring in the Kingdom and disable the powers that so damage our world. But while we pray daily for God to transform the world by his power, we can allow Christ’s Spirit to transform us and use our ministries and our church as part of bringing in divine rule. This is a responsibility and a privilege! We are intended to be examples of God’s kingly rule in our dimension – ambassadors of what heaven is like. We’re Christ’s image in our world and Christ’s workers to build the Kingdom for which he worked and taught. The Church needs to be really careful in how we represent Christ’s rule. Religious terrorists in some cultures think they serve a frightening God by dominating, threatening and even murdering. The mediaeval Church, the Crusades, Reformation, Counter-Reformation and Inquisition promulgated this idea that God was to be thoroughly feared. They tortured and murdered with the false belief that they were working for truth. Yet Jesus showed clearly that God is not a despot of whose power and one should be terrified. God rules by loving, caring, forgiving, healing making us free, bringing us peace. Our example as Christians should reflect that in all righteous ways.
As described in scripture Jesus’ rule appears to be more intimate than distant. He is described as not just ordering Creation or commanding us to follow his ways from the outside. Through his Spirit Jesus’ rule can be in our hearts, minds and spirits. “We live in him and he in us” as this Eucharist reminds us; he is present with us and inspires and rules us internally by his Spirit. We believe that Christ is now both in another, eternal dimension and also here among all of us. He is here when we let him rule inside our hearts and minds. Amid the pain and dishonesty of our world, it is important for Christians to be inspired by Christ’s glory and glorify him by how we live in his world.
SUGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
In what ways do you live according to Christ’s rule and where do you fail at present?
30 THE DISCIPLES WORSHIP GOD IN THE TEMPLE [Lk.24:53]
Luke completes his gospel account with a description “And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and they were continually in the Temple blessing God.” [Lk.24:52-53]. Luke’s Gospel had not previously used the term ‘worship’ / ‘proskuneîn’ to describe people’s response to Jesus, whereas Matthew and John had done so [Matt.14:33; 28:9, 17; Jn.9:38]. In Luke’s account of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness Jesus response to the temptation was: “worship the Lord your God and serve only him.” [Lk.4:8]. So in using the word here, the writer may be implying that the followers’ response to Jesus’ Ascension brought them to a sense that there was an aspect of the divine in Jesus. Alternatively the verse may refer to the disciples worshipping God in thanks for sending them Jesus.
It may be intentional that Luke ends his Gospel in the Temple. The Gospel began with the story of Jesus with Zechariah in the Temple [Lk.1:5-24]. Throughout Luke’s Gospel Jesus’ involvement with the Temple is mentioned more than most of the other gospels:
Luke appears to be giving the impression that the presence of the disciples regular Temple worship is partly due to their thanksgiving to God for the blessings that they had received in Jesus, but also part of their waiting for the power, which Jesus had promised would come upon them. It seems clear that Jesus’ followers did not initially intend to form a new community of believers and new churches. It may have been their aim to continue with their Jewish religious faith and practice, only with the renewed and reformed understanding that they had learned from Jesus. Unfortunately this did not prove possible since the Christians were persecuted by the religious authorities. Jesus himself had criticised the Sadducees, the Temple authorities, the Pharisees and Scribes and over-literal, inflexible strict adherence to regulations. He had himself been criticised in the synagogues. But he and his initial followers continued the religious practices which were part of their Jewish tradition. This inevitably changed as the authorities and social communities increasingly persecuted the members of the early Church. The practice of meeting together on the first day of the week to commemorate Jesus developed more formally. Separate community worship seems to have become the practice by the time of Paul’s Epistles. The book of Acts suggests that Peter, Paul and others continued to go to the Temple or to the synagogue to worship as well as to evangelise in the Temple courts, though they also took part in the meetings where communities of Christians received teaching, shared the Eucharist and initiated others into the Christian faith, following the Great Commission.
The Christian Church today is far from the perfect faithful community that Jesus aimed to found. In some ways it has expanded beyond the intentions of its source, as the Sadducees, Scribes and Pharisees had done. Yet it seems important for us to try to work within the institution to return believers’ minds to the original aims of Christ and reflect God’s Kingdom righteously and practically. Sadly over the centuries divisions over doctrine and practice have brought schisms, with some groups attempting to more closely reflect Jesus’ teaching, while others fought to maintain power, authority or a status quo. It is important to try to maintain and reassert unity among Christians, so it is useful to attempt to bring reform through remaining united. Yet it is also true that the best developments within the history of the Christian Church have nearly always happened through revolutionary reform, when believers have sought to more clearly focus on Christ’s teaching and principles.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER
How closely do you and your Church adhere to the priorities of Christ in your actions and worship?
Where might you need to reform to be closer to Christ’s ideal?
How important is worship of God within your life of faith?
What do you worship God for, and in what ways is your worship ‘in Spirit and in truth’, as Jesus encouraged? [Jn.4:24].
31 (STATION 23) MARY &THE OTHER WOMEN WAIT WITH THE DISCIPLES IN PRAYER [Acts1:12-14]
We are not told the number who met together after the Ascension. Often artists and some traditional commentators assumed that it was just the 11 Apostles, but there is no indication of this in scripture. As Peter apparently addressed 120 followers of Jesus after the Ascension, we may assume that although the Apostles remained distinguishable among Jesus’ many disciples, a large groups of male and female followers continued to be loyal to the cause and gathered around the eleven. So probably several more of Christ’s followers remained in Jerusalem, following Jesus’ call at the end of Luke: “I am sending you what the Father promised: so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” [Lk.24:49].
Acts 1 explains more fully what they might have been waiting for: “After his suffering he presented himself alive to them with many convincing proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the Kingdom of God. While staying with them he ordered them not to leave Jerusalem but to wait there for the promise of the Father. “This” he said, is what you have heard from me: for John baptised with water, but you will be baptised with the Holy Spirit not many days from now. So when they had come together they asked him “Lord, is this the time when you will restore the Kingdom of Israel?” He replied: “It is not for you to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth.” [Acts1:3-8].
What they understood by this coming ‘power from on high’, ‘the promise of the Father’ or ‘baptised with the Holy Spirit’ we cannot be certain. Their comment about “will you restore at this time the Kingdom of Israel’ certainly suggests that they were still thinking of Jesus’ mission as Messiah in terms of the mission to the Jews. Jesus’ response seems to be reiterating his earlier teaching during his career, that his message was for all, not just those included in the covenant with the Jews. They were to witness “in all Judea, Samaria and to the ends of the earth”, so Christ’s message was intended to be universal.
In John particularly we are told that prior to his execution Jesus had been teaching about the Holy Spirit [Jn.14-16]. We are also told in Jn.20:22 that he had breathed the Holy Spirit upon them before his Ascension. But it is not clear what further power they were expecting: probably not the infilling with dynamic power that Luke describes in Acts 2. In some ways this scene has similarities with opening scenes in Luke’s Gospel: Mary opened herself to whatever God had in store for her; Simeon was waiting for the consolation of Israel. But neither of them knew what their openness to God’s activity would entail or bring about. Zechariah and Elizabeth questioned the possibilities of the promises made to them, but they were open to following God’s way, accepting what God’s Spirit brought, and they trained John in preparation for whatever his prophetic mission might become. In the days between the Ascension and Pentecost we can imagine that in the minds of his followers there were many questions, challenging thoughts and confusion over the mystery and intention behind Jesus’ promises. Debate would have been natural. Nevertheless it appears that they were open to receive whatever would be brought about by time and God’s actions.
The important lesson within this part of the Resurrection story would seem to be that Jesus’ followers obeyed his command and ‘waited’. This is an important lesson for those Christians who might have a tendency to go into situations with their spiritual guns blazing. If God’s Spirit is not behind and within our initiatives, they are unlikely to be particularly productive, as has again been the experi8ence of the Christian Church over centuries. In the contemporary Church, many plans and appointments in churches are made on secular business models, often without the depth of reliance on the Spirit’s guidance that is involved in ‘waiting’ and ‘being open’.
However in the final verses of Luke and Acts 1 it appears that Jesus’ followers were not entirely inactive while they were waiting. We are told that they went ‘continually’ to the Temple giving thanks to God [Lk.24:53]. I doubt if ‘continually’ means continual daily presence in the Temple. They would surely have continued to feel afraid of recognition as being those who had been associated with Jesus. Even though the Resurrection had given them new confidence, they would have still felt vulnerable. The idea of their continual worship could suggest that their worship and sacrifice continued regularly. Perhaps they were going to the Temple to offer thanksgiving sacrifices for all that God had brought to them through Jesus. Luke implies that there was spiritual rigour in their openness to receiving what God would bring. So as well as praying in the Temple and waiting for God’s power to come upon them as Jesus taught, they may have been meeting together, reminding each other of Jesus’ life and teachings, and worshipping God privately together in the manner of the synagogue, as Jesus their rabbinical teacher had shown them.
The positive events around Jesus’ Resurrection and whatever happened at the Ascension, appears to have given them courage to go forward in their spiritual lives, rather than remain shielding behind locked doors. Luke’s emphasis on their worship suggests that the events of the Resurrection and Ascension had encouraged them to continue to trust of God and await whatever Jesus’ words of commission would lead them into.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER
How patient are you and your church or Christian organisation in your waiting to know what you should be following spiritually?
How do you know that your guidance comes from God’s Spirit rather than primarily from intuition or earthly orientated plans?
How courageous are you in acting upon what is revealed to you?
32 PETER REMINDS THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS’ TEACHING & THE APPOINTMENT OF MATTHIAS [Acts1:15-26]
Acts 1 gives the impression that Jesus’ followers recognised that after Jesus had left them there was further work for them to do as a group. So we are told that before Pentecost Peter addressed a group of about 120 followers, presumably to encourage and keep them motivated. Just as we are not told the biblical references to which Jesus’ pointed in his explanations to his companions on the road to Emmaus, we do not know the full content of Peter’s explanation of Jesus’ teaching to the followers waiting for whatever ‘power from on high’ was to come upon them.
Part of his explanation evidently included the claim that Judas Iscariot’s betrayal of Jesus had been foretold in scripture. This may have been intended to help them realise that Jesus’ death had not been the tragedy that all had thought, but an element of God’s plan. We are told in Acts 1:16 that Peter pointed to the Holy Spirit prophesying through David as one source. Presumably he primarily had Ps.41:9-10 in mind: “Even my closest friend in whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, has lifted his heel against me. But you, O Lord, be gracious to me, and raise me up...”. Peter might also have pointed to Ps.55:12-15 as a foretelling of Judas’ death: “It is not enemies who taunt me – I could bear that; it is not adversaries who deal insolently with me – I could hide from them. But it is you, my equal, my companion, my familiar friend, with whom I kept pleasant company; we walked in the house of God with the throng., Let death come upon them; let them go down alive to Sheol; for evil is in their homes, their hearts.” Ps.88:13-18 could also be a source for Peter’s explanation: after describing the terror and pain of the one who is suffering it concludes that some friends do not stand by the sufferer, while other friends feel the darkness of confusion, as Jesus’ disciples were feeling at the time: “They surround me like a flood all day long; from all sides they close in on me. You have caused friend and neighbour to shun me; my companions are in darkness.” [vs.17-18]. Some commentators understandably claim that Peter may not have had a strong biblical knowledge from which to draw, so they suggest that these explanations may have been added by the writer of Acts. But Peter had been receiving religious teaching from Jesus for about 3 years. The learning of the Psalms was also a significant part of the rabbinical teaching of children in the synagogue. So Peter may have recognised connections between the Psalms he knew and aspects of his master’s life..
Peter’s speech continues with the proposal that a trustworthy follower who had been with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry should be elected to replace Judas among the apostles, to help in their continuation of Jesus’ mission. Matthias was chosen by lot. [Acts1:26]. It would have been more logical for the election of Matthias to have been made after Pentecost, when one might have expected that the power of the Holy Spirit would have guided their discernment. This is not what the Book of Acts implies, though it is possible that Luke’s sources mixed the chronology. Equally, Jesus had given the disciples elements of his strength and wisdom, so it is possible that the election of Matthias by lot was guided by their master. As they were planning to carry Jesus’ teaching and mission forwards by their own ministry, it is also possible that their election of Matthias was made in preparation for their continued mission. The mention of drawing lots does give the impression that they were calling on God to guide and direct their choice, since in many ancient cultures it was believed that the result of casting lots was directed by the gods. Although contemporary Christians rarely encourage gambling or this sort of decision-making, the casting of lots seems to have been a fairly common way of making choices in Jewish culture. It is mentioned many times in the Hebrew Scriptures: [Lev.16:8; Josh.18:6-8; 18:10; 1Chron.24:5. 31; 25:8; 26:13-16; Neh.10:34; 11:1; Job.6:27; Ezek.21:21; 24:6; Joel3:3; Ob.vs.11: Jonah1:7; Nah.3:10]. Ps.22:18 was seen as prophetic of the casting of lots for Christ’s clothing at his crucifixion [Matt.27:35; Mk.15:24; Lk.23:34; Jn.19:24].
The stipulation for the choice of this extra apostle was “one of the men who had accompanied (them) during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among (them), beginning from the Baptism of John until the day that he was taken from (them). Thus the choice must have been one who had witnessed almost the entire scope of Jesus’ ministry up to the Ascension. [Acts1:21]. It is most probable that Matthias had also been one of the “seventy” entrusted with being sent out by Jesus to spread his message following his sending out of the twelve [Lk.10:1-20]. If Luke was genuinely recording Peter’s message, rather than just indicating ‘the beginning of Jeus’ ministry, very few of the group must have witnessed Jesus’ baptism by John. These were probably those who left the circle of disciples around John the Baptist in order to follow Jesus. So it is possible that Matthias had been one of this group, described in Jn.1:35-40 [also 3:22-36; Matt.9:14; Lk.7:18-23]. In Jn.1:40 we are told the name of one of these disciples - Andrew, brother of Peter - but not the name of the other. If this was Matthias, as a former companion of Andrew, he might have known Peter well and been an obvious figure tor Peter to submit to the list of potential choices.
This is not the place to discuss the legends of Matthias in detail, as we are focusing on Jesus’ Resurrection, but there are two strands of legends related to him. The most common is that he came from an important family from Bethlehem and was well educated in scripture before joining the apostles. After being chosen as one of the twelve, tradition claims that he went on to preach throughout Judea, and was involved in the conversion of many through his persuasive erudition and through healing and other miraculous signs. He was confronted by the religious authorities who attempted to force him to recant his beliefs. Eventually they had him stoned and his body beheaded. His body was said to have been transferred to Sta. Maria Maggiore in Rome, then to Trier in Germany, where it remains today in the crypt of St. Matthias’ monastery church. Another version claims that his ministry was in Macedonia, where he was protected by God from poisoning and healed many converts who had been similarly poisoned and blinded. Of course there may be no truth in these traditions, though, having visited chapel beside his supposed sarcophagus, in the simple crypt of sensitively reordered Sanct. Matthiaskirche in Trier, I must admit that I and my companion found it to be one of the most spiritually inspiring places we had ever visited. We felt an inner conviction to sit in silence in the chapel and turn to prayer.
What most matters about the story of the choice of Matthias would seem to be the recognition that, although the twelve original apostles had special access to Jesus during his ministry, there were many others who were as close, or almost as close to Jesus, including several women. These followers, many of whom are anonymous, seem to have been almost equally important to the spread of Christ’s message as the original apostles themselves. Although the ‘apostles’ were regarded as a special band, who had particular significance because they had been particullary chosen by Jesus, there was room for others to be drafted into that group for special recognition. We do not know why Peter thought that keeping the number of the apostles to twelve was so significant. Twelve is a symbolic number in Hebrew tradition (12 commandments, 12 tribes of Israel etc.) Perhaps Peter retained certain superstitions and was under the impression that twelve was a particularly efficacious. Alternatively he may have recognised that because Jesus had chosen twelve companions, twelve would be the number to lead the growth of the Church.
The word ‘apostle’ / ‘àpóstolos’ was used in the ancient Greek-speaking world to mean not just ‘someone who is sent’, (the literal meaning of the word,) but was also used as an official name for an ‘envoy’ or ‘ambassador’. It was also used of a prophetic figure who was a mouthpiece of the gods. Though the commission to take Christ’s message to the world applies to all Christians, the ‘apostle’ was a specially commissioned envoy called by Christ to represent Christ.
St. Paul (originally called ‘Saul’ before his encounter with Christ,) claimed himself to be an apostle, on the grounds that he had met and been sent by the glorified Christ: sent to speak for God on God’s authority as a bearer of God’s message. Paul was adamant that he met the risen Jesus Christ and was therefore directly commissioned by him and authorised as an ‘apostle’. [Acts 9.1-19 ; 1Cor.15.8-9]. Although some series of Stations of the Resurrection include the appearance of Christ at the conversion of Paul, I have not chosen to represent this among my Stations. Since Saul was persecuting the early Church communities, it would seem to be more logical, as this event presumably happened sometime after Jesus’ ‘Ascension’, to presume that Paul had a vision or an encounter with the ‘ascended’ Christ rather than meeting the ‘risen Christ’. But this is not how Acts and Paul chose to describe his experience. If Christ could materialise and dematerialise at will in revealing himself to the witnesses of his Resurrection, there would seem to be no reason why he might not have rematerialized during the conversion of Paul.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
How do you personally feel that you have been called by Christ, and what have you been called to do in following him and witnessing for him? You may not be an apostle but how do you feel about being a messenger for God? And how do you convey that message?
33 (STATION 24) THE HOLY SPIRIT DESCENDS AT PENTECOST [John 20:19-23; Acts 2.1-11].
Pentecost is not named, as some Christians seem to think, after the moving of the Holy Spirit among Jesus’ disciples on that day. It was a well-established Jewish harvest festival, celebrating the first-fruits of the harvest, fifty days after Passover. One of the reasons why the disciples could have met so many people of various nationalities in Jerusalem on the day would have been that many pilgrims who had made long journeys from different countries to the Holy City to commemorate Passover, often apparently stayed on for another month and a half to also celebrate Pentecost in the city.
Jesus’ physical life with his disciples had ended at the Ascension. The coming of the Spirit at Pentecost marks the point of Christ’s ministry towards them changing. From now on he would be alongside them in the dimension of heaven, and living and influencing them by his Spirit living within them.
Imagine that you are one of those early disciples, man or woman, gathered in that upper room and scared. Less than two months ago you saw Jesus, your life-giving leader horrifically executed; the hope you had in him died. Then a few days later rumours grew that he had returned from death; more and more friends you trust claim to have met him, in small and large groups. Then you met him yourself, spoke with him, touched him, ate with him: You know for sure that a significant perhaps miraculous event has happened: God seems to have brought Jesus back to life. Before he left, Jesus had commissioned you: You now are among those who must continue his challenging mission. Jesus returned to heaven but told you to wait and pray. You are not to try anything in your own strength, but wait until the Spirit that he promised from God, inspires and empowers you.
Imagine now that you, me, and our Christian friends are among that group of Jesus’ followers, praying for guidance to know what they should do: to find how to effectively reach our community with Christ’s message of love and salvation. We want to know how to persuade people to believe in Jesus’ message, change their lives and open themselves to God’s influence. Suddenly that inspiration and power comes: The air stirs; a strong, swirling wind moves among us. We warm to a glow inside, as though we’re filling up with meaning and understanding. We feel on fire; our faith in God is being revitalised: We can’t keep it to ourselves: if we don’t let it break out we’ll explode. Our love of God and recognition that he is present here, filling us, is SO intense we spontaneously erupt in worship… We feel and intense love for those around us too, and long for them to share our experience. So full are we with emotions, joy, loving and feeling loved, and enjoying the meaningful experience of what we’ve found, that we can’t even think or speak straight. Some of our praise erupts in sounds, phrases and languages we don’t understand. We intuitively and spontaneously come alive spiritually and physically: We can’t stay in the house where we have sheltered any longer: we burst outside, dispersing into the streets, telling and showing everyone we meet just how great this power of God is.
That’s the imagery of Pentecost! It sounds exhausting, enervating and exciting but it may also feel frightening or at least worrying, because it is so different from most of our experiences of faith. Most of us don’t praise or witness with anything like that positive conviction and joy. Most Christians, me included, wouldn’t feel capable of such confident, spontaneous declaration and sharing of our faith. But more particularly are we sure that is the sort of faith we want, or want to see in our churches? It would be demanding! But maybe it doesn’t feel as though it fits our personalities either. Pentecost is an exciting scene and an exciting festival to celebrate in the Church. Despite that excitement, while some of us would like something like that to happen to us, probably a lot of us are relatively content with the far tamer faith we have. We know that we would fail if we tried to do exciting things in our own power. Any mission is scary, whether we rely on God’s power or on our own skills and personalities. Pentecost should challenge us to be open to allow God’s Spirit to move us in any way that God chooses. Yet God does not expect us to be anything that we are not able to be naturally.
The good, comforting news is that God’s Spirit respects and works with our particular personalities and character. God formed us with our varieties of personality and individuality: no one is intended to try to be something we are not. It seems intentional that God’s Spirit works in us as we are, and develops faith in us in the ways than most suit our personalities and natures. But that must not be allowed to be a let-out clause: Each of us is gifted by God in some ways; we are unique and each of us is expected to use all that we are, our gifts and what we have, to be examples of Christ to the world around us, guided and strengthened by God’s Spirit.
In talking about God’s Spirit we are in the presence of another mystery which is almost impossible to describe, but in some way is God’s power exercised within creation and living within God’s people. Scholars often point to the symbols of the Spirit in scripture: a dove, flames, wind, breath, a seal of God’s ownership, oil that anoints us, something to clothe ourselves in, a pledge, life-giving water, wine to cheer and spiritually inebriate us, advocate, helper, comforter, (which in this context means ‘giver of strength’). These are important metaphors for aspects of the nature, character or activity of God’s pervasive Spirit. But they can sometimes make God’s Spirit seem abstract, a slightly distant symbol. What matters more is that there should be life in our relationship: God’s Spirit lives inside us! Our union with the Holy Spirit is a bit like marriage or for those of us who aren’t married, a deep, united, supportive, close relationship. People can feel so close that they feel themselves to be one with each other. Or one can be linked to someone yet live almost separate lives that don’t enliven either partner. It can be the same in our relationship with God. One can feel united to God through the thrill of knowing that he is with you and alive within you. But that is rarely something that the believer feels continually. There may have been past excitement and closeness in your relationship with God, which enlivens your faith but it is not uncommon for people to lose their former passion, especially if they do not work at keeping their relationship alive and vibrant.
It is as challenge to build upon what grew from Pentecost: Like a good marriage our relationship with God’s Spirit, and acting in the strength of that relationship can daily fan into flame our love. Keeping spiritually alive can encourage confidence, our joy and love of others as well as our love of God for all that has been given us and done for us. It can awaken our personality to become more fully, more authentically, and more abundantly the person we are able to be. Whatever our age or condition we have the potential to grow to live meaningfully and fruitfully through God’s Spirit in ways that enliven us, bring variety to our lives, challenge us and keep setting us and our faith on fire.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
God’s Spirit brought a rich variety of experiences to those early Christians, Pray for yourself and your Christian community to be, that God’s Spirit will bring variety, vibrancy, meaningful life, intensity of faith and experiences, courage, inner joy and inner peace, whatever your age, your health and abilities, or your physical circumstances.
Consider the times that you have felt closest to God and most guided. Not every Christian feels that they have had an experience of the Holy Spirit, but this is probably a misapprehension. God has promised through Jesus that he is with us and in us throughout our lives. It is not for every believer to share the same experiences, gifts, ways of coming to believe, or ways of believing.
Pray that God’s Spirit will open up to you the right ways and the right experiences for you to follow God’s truth and live a godly life.
34 (STATION 24) THE DISCIPLES WITNESS IN THE STREETS [Mk.16:20; Acts 2:4-13]
In this aspect of Pentecost, there may be a clue to our potential for mission. People from all tribes and nations are said to have heard and received the disciples’ message. The gospel was communicated to them in various ways that helped them respond, this may possibly have not just been the same message their diverse languages. We receive the truth from God in the ways that are most appropriate and useful to us. You only have to remember the variety of responses of members of congregations to effective sermons. Some hear the intended message of the preacher; some are touched by something that they thought the preacher said, but wasn’t said at all; others may have gone off on a tangent in their thoughts mid-sermon and been spoken to about a completely different issue. That seems to be a way that the Holy Spirit works. It can be a bit disconcerting for a preacher if they have spent hours considering the subject, praying over the Bible passages and finding what feel to be the most meaningful ways of communicating. But it is a relief to know that the responsibility is not totally on the preacher or teacher to speak for God, since the best ministers usually know their limitations.
If Christ’s message is “the Way. The Truth and the Light”, is relevant to all, though often in different ways: Intellectuals and those with learning difficulties, the shy or the extrovert, the old and the young, the poor and the wealthy, the employed and those who cannot find work to support them, those of various cultures despite any cultural differences. At Pentecost it appears that those of different cultures or social classes heard the gospel in the particular ways that helped them respond. Christian truth is not just for the Western world, the middle class, working class, upper-class, the employed who can afford things, the unemployed, the artist or the scientist, the naïve or the thinker. God’s truth is for ALL. Fulfilled Christian life is offered equally to the infant and the mature, the fit and disabled, the already good, those who realise they’re really sinful and those who fail to accept that they may be in the wrong. However you describe yourself, whatever your culture, Pentecost shows that Christ’s message is relevant to you and everyone around you, among whom you live and work.
In fact our diversity should help us spread Christ’s message as widely as possible. If we were all ecstatic Charismatics, as in the popular image of what happened at Pentecost, we might put off the shy introvert. If we were all dynamic extroverts we might not be able to communicate faith with some who are quiet, humble and thoughtful. Those who have experienced grief may be sensitive to help the grieving and suffering to understand God. The musician or poet might be able to help those of similar temperament. Philosophical or scientific minds might help those who think similarly to reason through faith. Close friendships and relationships, however are often between people who are very different. So someone of one way of thinking and understanding may convince those of completely opposite character by something they do or say, or by the way they live. I was convinced of faith by a friend at university who was almost my opposite – a confidently logical, reasoning mathematician, while I was then a more intuitive, emotion-driven, introverted, depressive romantic. (I hasten to add that I have changed in many ways during the almost 50-years since!) The Holy Spirit can work with us, or often despite us.
Pentecost warns us clearly not to try to witness or even be a Christian, by reliance our own strength or skills. We should lean far more than we do already on God’s power moving within us, inspiring and guiding our thoughts. That command of Christ “Wait in Jerusalem until you receive power from on high” [Lk.24:49] is NOT an excuse to fail to witness or live openly for Christ. It’s a call to make ourselves open and prepared for God’s Spirit to use us by praying for greater courage and inspiration from God, and by being willing to follow the openings that are created for us. John Wesley’s Covenant Prayer, printed at the end of this meditation, is an important one for any Christian to consider, though very challenging to pray with sincerity.
We have God’s Spirit already. Jesus promised that his Spirit would be with us and in us. That does not mean that there is nothing that we can do to strengthen ourselves spiritually. Paul told Timothy to “fan into flame the gift of God’s Spirit within you” [2Tim.1:6]. Fanning our flame could involve us practising the gifts we have, seeking and working for greater faith and spiritual strength, studying scripture more regularly and contemplating and thinking through its meaning until we are clearer about what and why we believe and what we should be doing with our lives. Few of us can expect to witness as fluently and spontaneously as the disciples at Pentecost. Perhaps we need to practise sharing our faith by talking through what we believe more with each other and others outside. The disciples were probably far less intellectually and socially capable than most of us; they certainly did not have our breadth of education or the breadth of experience that is available in contemporary churches. But their proximity to Jesus for three years must have given them confidence that faith was authentic since they had seen several miracles that confirmed the truth that God was with him. No doubt Jesus as a good rabbi encouraged the disciples to discuss their faith with each other as part of their training. That is something that we don’t do enough. If we haven’t the courage or words to talk with each other, in the comfort of a Christian community, about our spiritual experiences and what helps us believe, how will we have a message and courage to share with strangers or neighbours? While we rely on God’s Spirit to empower our worship and build our personal faith, the Spirit often challenges us to step out in that faith and do things of which we fell less capable. As a community, church-members should be ready to encourage teach and challenge one another about issues of faith. We should above all be examples of true faith to one another, as Christ set an example to those who were with him.
Any who really know me know I’m not strong, physically or emotionally and quite an introvert. But God’s Spirit uses our personalities and even our weaknesses to show the world that Christ’s power is realistic, relevant and appropriate for all. None of us should claim that we can’t witness for God or are not ready yet to do so, using the excuse that our faith isn’t strong enough. God’s Spirit lives in all who believe; we often need to step out of our comfort-zones, as the disciples did and in the Spirit’s strength explode sensitively for God into the life of the community around us. With all our different personalities, experiences and gifts, the broad variety God’s people, led by God’s Spirit and Christ’s example, have the possibility of communicating God’s truth to the huge variety of people and personalities in our world. The theologian Helen Oppenheim wrote that we (the Church) “can be the presence, the ‘findability’ of God upon earth… Our diversity should enable God to be found by people in all areas of life in our world…The word multi-faceted comes to mind. The Church may be a prism breaking up the white-light of God’s dazzling majesty.” [Helen Oppenheim. Theology 93. 1990 p.133-141]
As is promised in the baptism service we are commissioned to shine Christ’s light and God’s truth out into all the world. God’s Spirit cares about believers but equally cares also for the good of the whole cosmos. All of us are commissioned to be God’s witnesses in different ways that are appropriate to us in as broad a way as we can.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
How sincerely could you commit yourself to John Wesley’s Covenant Prayer:
“I am no longer my own but yours.
Put me to what you will,
rank me with whom you will;
put me to doing,
put me to suffering;
let me be employed for you
or laid aside for you,
exalted for you
or brought low for you;
let me be full,
let me be empty,
let me have all things,
let me have nothing;
I freely and wholeheartedly yield all things
to your pleasure and disposal.
And now, glorious and blessed God,
Father, Son and Holy Spirit, you are mine and I am yours.
So be it,
and the covenant now made on earth,
let it be ratified in heaven. Amen.”
35 (STAION 26) DRAWING CONCLUSIONS ABOUT JESUS’ RESURRECTION
There is so much evidence in the Gospels, early chapters of Acts and 1Cor.15 that Jesus’ Resurrection was a physical event that it would be wrong to discount it just because certain critics maintain that anything miraculous in scripture must necessarily be untrue. There are certainly several discrepancies in the accounts, but many of these might be attributable to variations in the memories of several sources and the way the stories were handed down orally. Certain narratives include similar events, though may differ over the identification of certain characters, order or place. One major discrepancy is over whether Jesus’ followers travelled to Galilee as Matthew and John claim, and is implied Mark, or stayed in Jerusalem as Luke claims. We can never reach a sufficient conclusion over this, but the real question should be whether these discrepancies are of significant importance, compared to the overall meaning behind the narrative of Christ’s resurrection.
All sources claim that the body of the historical Jesus’ disappeared from the grave. If so, the obvious question is who might have had reason for stealing it?
None of these attempted explanations make sense. If any of them had been the case, it is almost certain that the truth of what happened to the body would have been brought into the open at some time. If Jesus dis actually rise from the dead there remains a mystery of what Jesus resurrected body was like and what happened to him between appearances. Some believe that he dematerialised and moved to the dimension of heaven soon after his death and that his appearances were crossing from the heavenly to the earthy dimensions. That is only conjecture; no one knows. But the spiritual lives of so many believers in relationship with God, is evidence that there is truth somewhere within all the mysteries.
Is the evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection convincing?
Most would accept that the Resurrection of Jesus is either true, a mistaken belief which has stood the test of history and challenge, or an invention. There is more reported evidence for Christ’s Resurrection than for most ancient historical events that are accepted as factual. However the majority of this comes from sources that could understandably be called biased, because they were written within Christian communities. No evidence has yet been discovered in archaeology / literature / epigraphy to disprove Christ’s Resurrection. But of course, one cannot prove something to be true from silence or lack of evidence. To me, variations in Gospel accounts suggest authenticity. Memories must have circulated verbally among different Christian groups and were evidently interpreted in various ways before being compiled by the Gospel writers in different church circumstances. If the accounts were identical it would be more suspicious, suggesting that material had either been invented or edited to corroborate claims.
New Testament Evidence
The New Testament provides the primary historic source for information on the Resurrection. If these collected writings recorded secular events their authenticity would generally be regarded as valid though obviously biased by those who wrote them, as are many ancient writings. Records of historical events and the lives of significant figures are often slanted or amended according to the bias of the writer or the culture to which they are communicating. Yet it seems evident that something significant happened that convinced and changed the direction of Jesus’ followers from despair and disillusionment after his death. Early Christians, some of whom would have known people who claimed to be witnesses to Christ’s Resurrection were convinced of the truth of the narrative and lived out a faith in which they felt that they had true experiences of a relationship with the risen and ascended Christ.
Archaeological discoveries may increasingly confirm accuracy in New Testament details but of course, like arguments from silence, they will never be able to prove the event of the Resurrection, since it is inevitable that no physical proof is left. We just have the written sources. A few sceptical archaeologists and historians have tried to claim to find ossuaries labelled as containing Jesus’ bones, etc., but they have always been proved fallacious. Sceptical scholars frequently question the miraculous events and ascribe the appearances to the imagination of the disciples. But it is hard to conceive that illusions would be experienced by so many apparent witnesses. Although the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection appearance include different events and varied characters, the basic biblical texts does not vary on the main detail that Jesus was described as being alive and physical, and could interact with people.
Contemporary Witnesses
Three days after his death and burial, women who knew Jesus’ tomb claimed to have found that the body had gone from the tomb. If the story was invented, it is almost certain that Jewish Christians would have invented male witnesses, as women’s witness was legally unacceptable.
Jesus is claimed to have appeared to his followers over a period of 40 days, (a substantial time) in several unconnected incidents. They became convinced he had risen from death by what Paul called "infallible proofs" [1Cor.15:3-8]. If the number of eyewitnesses was as large as described in scripture (over 500) this helps to establish the Resurrection as probable, for such a large number could not have been fooled by an invented story or subscribed to hoax. Over several weeks more disciples claimed that God had raised Jesus from the dead and that he had appeared to them various times before being described as ascending into heaven. As many appearances were to multiple witnesses, it is hard to attribute this to mass-hallucination, wishful thinking or mass-self-convincing.
The written evidence claims that the risen figure was not a ghost or figment of their imagination, he could be touched, ate food, had a physical body.
After Jesus’ Ascension and Pentecost the disciples returned to the city of Jerusalem, among other places, to teach about the Resurrection, where, if their teaching about the empty tomb had been false, they would have been exposed by those who knew the truth. If they had altered the facts, witnesses hostile to the faith could have corrected them or even produced the body.
Some New Testament accounts of the Resurrection were circulated in the lifetimes of those who had witnessed the events [1Cor:15:6]. These could have confirmed or denied the accuracy of the accounts.
Saul of Tarsus was at first vehemently hostile to Christ’s followers. He would have been sceptical of any stories of Jesus’ Resurrection. As a well-trained Pharisee with a commission to persecute Christians, he would have had access to Jewish leaders’ evidence against the sect. Yet he claimed that he had encountered the risen Christ and became so convinced by the meeting that he transformed into the apostle Paul, became a convincing witness to the Resurrection’s truth, writing about its application to the believer.
Paul’s are among the earliest records of Christ's Resurrection appearances. He appealed to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Jesus had been seen by more than 500 people and reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned to confirm his message.
As well as his own encounter with Jesus, Paul had talked to some who witnessed Christ appearing. He had met some disciples and compared evidence. And his claim that many of the 500 witnesses mentioned above were still alive and could corroborate the Resurrection, implies that he had met and questoioned some of those witnesses..
Some Christians believe that the Gospel writers themselves had been witnesses of the risen Christ. This is doubted by many scholars today, but they almost certainly, had contact with circles which included witnesses, or drew together related accounts of eyewitnesses. Luke particularly states [Lk.1:1-3] that he sought reliable witnesses and authentic evidence. The Gospel writers appealed to common knowledge of the facts of the Resurrection.
Empty Tomb
Jesus’ body, in accordance with Jewish burial custom, was securely wrapped in a linen cloth. About 10 pounds of spices, which would traditionally have been mixed to a gum were applied to the wrappings about the body. An extremely heavy stone (probably about 2 tons) was rolled against the entrance of the solid rock tomb by means of levers. It is almost certain that no one or no group could have moved the stone or stolen Jesus' body without the guards' awareness. It is also unlikely that he could have unravelled himself, and certainly a previously crucified man, had he survived, would not have had the strength to have moved the stone himself.
Disciplined Roman soldiers guarded the tomb and sealed it. Roman seals were to prevent access. Anyone moving the stone would break the seal, incurring the penalty of Roman law - automatic execution, reportedly by crucifixion upside down. Jesus' disciples displayed signs of cowardice, hiding after Jesus’ arrest. Peter denied Christ under pressure. They surely wouldn’t have had the courage to steal or take his body from a guarded tomb.
So many security precautions were taken with the trial, crucifixion, burial, entombment, sealing and guard at Jesus’ tomb that it is difficult to find a solution to his disappearance other than the miraculous.
The Position Of The Grave Clothes
Peter and John are described as seeing the grave clothes undisturbed in form and position, where Jesus body had been, empty like an empty chrysalis. Something mysterious appears to have occurred to release the body without unwrapping it, which helped to secure their belief that the body had been raised, not just taken.
If the body had been stolen, for speed it is most likely that is would have been removed while still wrapped.
The Roman Guard Left The Empty Tomb
According to Matthew’s Gospel, the Roman guards fled, leaving their place of responsibility. Roman military discipline was exceptional; desertion incurred the death penalty [Justin: Digest 49]. With such a threat over their heads it is unlikely that an entire professional unit would have slept or afterwards left to report the loss unless the tomb was empty.
Hostile Witnesses
Though hostile authorities tried hard to invent stories of a stolen body etc., none fully convinced. The hostility of the authorities to Jesus’ followers in the decades after his life would surely have meant that they interrogated Christians to plumb the evidence and force someone to admit to a forgery. One of the most hostile opponents, the intelligent Pharisee and active persecutor Saul of Tarsus, claimed to have met the risen Christ, become convinced of the truth about him, and was transformed into a believer. He was so convinced that he followed the Christian way despite regular persecution, and justified the new dimension of faith that he had found in his teaching.
Both Jewish and Roman hostile sources and traditions admit an empty tomb (Josephus, Toledoth Jeshu). Gamaliel, a Sanhedrin court scholar, suggested that God might have been behind the Christian movement. He would have been contradicted if the tomb was still occupied or if Jewish leaders knew where Jesus’ body was.
Difficulties
The orthodox belief of Christianity is that Jesus was bodily resurrected in time and space by God’s supernatural power. Such a miracle of resurrection is difficult to believe, but the problems in unbelief present even greater difficulties. It is almost impossible to explain the Resurrection away by natural causes, the idea that Jesus may not have fully died, hallucinations among his followers, Mary or others going to the wrong tomb etc. If Jesus did not rise, where was the body, and why wasn't it produced when the story of Resurrection arose? If he was raised, faith in him and the God who raised him is probably true!
Was Jesus Death Mistaken For A Swoon?
Jesus must have been really dead, not in a swoon; Romans knew how to execute a test that a victim was dead. It is not possible that, if Jesus had managed to scramble half-dead from the tomb, crept about weak, flayed, ill, in need of medical treatment, he could have convinced the disciples that he had conquered death and was Prince of Life. Belief in the Resurrection drove their future ministry. A weak resuscitation would have weakened their belief in Jesus’ life and message, not transformed their sorrow to enthusiasm and worship.
Was The Body Stolen?
It is unlikely that the disciples would have attempted to steal the body; they were afraid and had turned cowardly on his arrest.
If Jewish or Roman authorities had moved the body or knew where it was, when the disciples preached the Resurrection in Jerusalem they would have denied it and produced evidence to destroy Christianity.
What would have been the purpose of stealing Jesus’ body? The authorities or owners of the land might have moved it to prevent the tomb becoming a place of pilgrimage. Jesus’ followers only reason for moving to corpse might have been to keep his body to themselves. But this is unlikely, as their culture had a very different attitude to a dead body than has developed in Christian times.
The Change In The Disciples' Lives
Convincing testimony is seen in lives, joy and courage of early Christians spreading the news of the risen Christ against increasing opposition. If they had stolen the body or made up stories of Resurrection, the disciples wouldn’t have died for a lie. It brought them few benefits (not prestige, wealth, increased social status etc.). Instead their full allegiance to the message of the ‘risen Christ’ brought suffering, persecution and martyrdom. The fact that so many laid down their lives for the teaching is evidence of their complete confidence in the truth of their message.
Jesus taught only a little about his return from death. It appears that his disciples didn’t understand this teaching, so were not expecting or looking for his reappearance and did not believe the news of Resurrection when it was first reported. So it is very unlikely that their understanding would have completely changed just by realising that the spirit of Jesus’ teachings was still in their minds. It is claimed that their own meetings with the risen Christ were what convinced and encouraged them to share the news with others.
The international growth of the Church appears to be evidence. Beliefs based on a lie would surely not have developed so fruitfully, to survive through multiple generations. Many Christians through the centuries feel they have met and related to the risen and ascended Christ through the activity of God’s Spirit in their lives. My own relationship with God convinces me, alongside this evidence, that Christ is true, alive and active through his Spirit in the world and in Christian lives today. I may not be able to prove the resurrection and the faith that develops from it, but my reaction to the evidence and my own spiritual experience I feel it is true.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER
How do you evaluate this historical evidence about Christ's empty tomb? What is your conclusion?
What difference does this make to you personally? Does it make a difference whether or not you believe fully that Christ rose again and died on the Cross?
If the evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection is convincing, does it help you recognise that Jesus offers full forgiveness of sin and an eternal relationship with God?
Does anything in your life and experience convince you that you have met or know the risen and ascended Christ yourself?
The main question seems to be: whether the reader can believe,. on so much varied evidence, that Jesus actually rose from death, and if so, what that might mean for us in its broadest sense?
36 WHAT IS SALVATION & HOW MIGHT CHRIST’S RESURRECTION BE INVOLVED?
The term ‘Salvation’ is often used for the main gift that Christ has achieved for us. Yet few churchgoers may be able to define this word that is so often used in services, beyond the offer of ‘life after death’. Theologians and preachers for centuries have attempted to explain what the Bible means by ‘salvation’. Yet in many ways, like ‘resurrection’, much about the idea remains a ‘mystery’ – something that Christians believe is spiritually true yet is difficult to explain or understand. The term ‘salvation’ as used in scripture has various interpretations and changed in meaning as the culture of Israel & the Church developed. Initially it was used of rescue from enemies, then protection by God. Over centuries it became associates with existence beyond death and rewards after life. Different Christian groups define it differently according to particular doctrinal beliefs. In various periods different aspects of salvation have been emphasised. One problem in defining ‘salvation’ is that the Bible often describes it in metaphors:
Justification - being seen as, and being openly declared to be righteous.
Peace - finding ‘shalom’/’wholeness’, with no aspect of us being unwhole.
Reconciliation - brought back into relationship.
Restoration - brought back to perfection.
Redemption - bought back by a price, all debts having been paid.
Release - from slavery and bondage to sin and death.
Rescue - deliverance from peril/threat/eternal punishment.
Revelation - seeing spiritual truth face to face [1Cor.13:12] [Jn.3:7]
Rebirth - brought about by God’s Spirit ’from above’/ ‘anōthen’; finding the best form of true, abundant life and living by spiritual truth.
Resurrection - brought back to life.
Rewards - after death.
Reunion - with those who have gone before in Christ.
Sanctification – being made holy, consecrated, made special for God.
Victory - achieved for us by Christ over evil [Col.2:15; Heb.2:14; Rev.12:11]
Assurance - of being protected and declared righteous in any future judgement.
Many today feel the idea of ‘substitutionary atonement’ and God’s ‘retribution’ on sin by offering Jesus as a sacrifice contradicts Jesus’ emphasis on God’s love and forgiveness. Beliefs in ‘damnation’ and fear of eternal punishment have declined in popular thinking since the Enlightenment, though many may have a suspicious fear of punishment for sin that recurs at times. The Bible’s teaching on salvation is far more positive than just protection from judgement. If Christians are offering salvation to prospective believers we should not just preach far of damnation as the Church did for centuries. We should help people recognise the positive and practical elements of what salvation might consist, even if various Christians differ in understanding and experience. Strong in a church’s teaching should be how to find salvation - an essential part of Jesus’ message.
I have already mentioned in Study 27 on the Ascension that Jesus’ Resurrection became regarded as a justification and vindication of his life, teaching and death. He was spoken of as being ‘glorified’ through his Resurrection and in his Ascension. Part of the apostolic teaching was that people could turn to the risen and ascended Christ and be saved. Believers in salvation trust in the promise that in some way, God’s action, working through the death and resurrection of Christ, generated a spiritually life-giving spark in human beings. In the next study I give a brief summary in list form of the huge and broad ideas that are associated with the Church’s teaching on Salvation.
There are two words for ‘saving’ in the New Testament. One [‘rhýomai’] is mostly used to translate the Hebrew term nṣl, meaning ‘to protect’, ‘to guard’, ‘to deliver’, ‘to ward off’, to preserve’. It is less commonly used in the New Testament than ‘sṓzó’, which more often translates the Hebrew words: yš‘ meaning ‘to save’, to ‘help’, to ‘free’ It also used to translate g’l meaning ‘to release’, ‘to buy’ back, to free, to redeem, to keep. Another Hebrew word mlt - ‘to save’, ‘to escape’, ‘to achieve safety’ – is also translated by the Greek word ‘sṓzó’. Classically ‘rhýomai’ was used of protection by the gods, leaders, guards, priests. ‘Sṓzó’ was used of rescue or preservation from death, destruction, from battle, the perils of life or evil, keeping alive, being pardoned, protected, kept from want, and safe return, keeping a flame alive, preserving a memory or something that is treasured. It was also used of ‘wellbeing’, ‘benefitting’, ‘keeping good health’, ‘preserving ones inner being or nature’, ‘the preservation of the inner health of humanity’.
Both Greek words are used with similar broad intentions throughout scripture. The blessing of ‘salvation’, as described in the Bible, is a hugely expansive gift. The root of the word ‘Sṓzó’ emphasises the breadth of meaning, since it a connotation of ‘to be roomy’. It implies the spaciousness of God’s care, deliverance and mercy towards us. It is not just about the salvation of individuals, but this ‘roomyness’ suggests God’s care for the cosmos and the spaciousness of what God is leading us towards. In the Hebrew Scriptures God promised to lead his people into a ‘spacious place’ [Ex.3:8; Judg.18:10; 2 Sam.22:20; I Chron.4:40; Ps.18:19; 31:8].
In the Hebrew Scriptures salvation is a result of God’s mercy [Neh.9:8]; it is part of God’s nature, not just a magical gift. ‘Deliverer’ [Isa.63:16] is a name of God, as ‘Saviour’ was used of Jesus [Jn.4:42]. He is described as the one who brought the fruit of God’s mercy, and brought the salvation of God to human beings. So ‘salvation’, as scripture describes it, means far more than protection by God in this life and existence beyond death. In the New Testament the word ‘salvation’ is used to include rescue from extreme danger [Matt.8:25; Mk.15:30; Jn.12:27], but also to describe the expansiveness of God’s actions, attitude and blessings towards us. Faith is described as saving people in terms of saving the whole person, not just healing physical symptoms [Lk.7:50]. John the Baptist proclaimed the remission of sins as part of ‘the knowledge of salvation’ [Lk.1:77], pointing forward to the coming of a Saviour who would redeem in a more eternal and expansive way [Matt.1:21]. Lk.13:23 links salvation with entering God’s Kingdom. Lk.19:10 makes it clear that salvation is not just looking forward to a future beyond death but finding salvation and being part of the Kingdom in our present lives right now.
St. Paul takes this further. With his pharisaic training and knowledge of Jewish scripture and tradition, he expanded the understanding of salvation to include justification and reconciliation with God [1Cor.2:15; 5:5; Rom.13:11], rescue from judgement [Rom.5:9; 1Cor.3:15], the gift of eternal life, redemption and the eventual glorification of our bodies [Rom.8:24; Phil.3:20-21]. Exercising and being built up by spiritual gifts in our present life, was also part of salvation, making us effective parts of Christ’s body, and enabling our gradual transformation in righteousness into images or true representatives of God’s Son [Rom.8:20; Gal.5:5]. In Rom.8:24 Paul assured his readers that when believers received and accepted Christ’s gospel as applying to them they already received salvation. This is echoed by the writer of Ephesians who speaks of us being saved by the message of salvation [Eph.1:13]. But though we have been saved and are being saved, the consummation of salvation, like that of God’s Kingdom, is still to come in the future [Eph.2:5-7]. Salvation may not just relate to human beings; some scriptures imply that the created ‘cosmos’ or ‘world’ will be transformed as part of Christ’s saving act [Rom. 8:21; Jn.3:17; 12:47; Rev.21:1].
As the one who brings this about at his Father’s bidding, Christ is called ‘Saviour’ / ‘sótḗr’ [Lk.1:69; 2:11; Jn.4:42; Acts 5:31; 13:23; Phil.3:2 ]. In the ancient world this term had the connotation of a ‘rescuer’, ‘deliverer from perils’, ‘protector’, ‘preserver of life’, ‘physician’ and ‘helper’. In the Hellenistic world and among Egyptian and Seleucid rulers (who ruled Palestine prior to the Romans) and later Roman Emperors, ‘sótḗr’ was also used as a royal title, and implied that the ruler was the son of the deity. We have no proof that this divine aspect was understood or implied when the term was first used of Jesus by the early Church, but it is interesting in relation to later development of understanding of his divine nature. ‘Sótḗr’ was used in the Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures to describe God as Israel’s Saviour and ‘helper’. It was also used of God’s human helpers, heroes, occasionally of judges, kings, and in Isa.49:6 and Zech.9:9 of the Messiah. God is called Saviour in Lk.1:47, and his coming son the Messiah is given the title Saviour in Lk.2:11, a position Jesus acknowledged in Jn.4:24. In taking his gospel to the Samaritans and beyond, he was also demonstrating that he was Saviour for the Gentiles as well as the Jews: In meeting him the fellow villagers of the Samaritan woman at the well are described as claiming: “...we have heard for ourselves and we know that this is truly the Saviour of the world.” [Jn.4:42].
There is no definition in Scripture of exactly how God brought about the gift of salvation through Jesus: that is another spiritual mystery. I have already mentioned that the ‘substitutional atonement’ explanation so often given in churches appears far too simplistic. The achievement of salvation would seem to be much more complex than just Jesus sacrificing his life to cleanse us and rising to show that eternal life exists for us beyond death. Yet the New Testament teaching assures us that by Christ’s self-offering, salvation is guaranteed. Though we may not have been saved simplistically by sacrifice; we are saved from the need to any longer to take the life of any other creature as a sacrifice. Salvation brings forgiveness, freedom and love to human life.
We are perhaps not meant to understand God’s process of salvation. Yet we are promised that within Jesus’ death and Resurrection somehow his saving action has achieved the expansive gift of ‘salvation’ and that God offers it to us out of caring love to fulfil our needs. Jesus was not just offering forgiveness of sins and eternal life in whatever heaven turns out to be: He promised that he would bring those who he had redeemed and salved into ‘a spacious place’ – the Kingdom of God both in the present and future. Cynics sometimes accuse Christians of narrowness, or simply believing in ‘pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die’. But with Christ’s ‘salvation’ he offering to the world a huge gift from God to expand and consummate life now and in the future. How his death and resurrection actually achieved this remains ‘mystery’ within the process of God’s activity. But the inner spiritual life of the believer is lit by a spark that recognises that there is truth within the promises.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
Do you feel confident that Christ’s gift of Salvation has been given to you?
What is the breadth of what God’s salvation offers to your life?
37 WHAT IS THE SALVATION THAT CHRISTIANITY OFFERS?
Different faiths have varied understandings of the term ‘salvation’. To over-simplify: Mystery religions often refer to a divine saviour overcoming or helping initiates to overcome cosmic adversaries. Hindus obtain ‘moksha’ / ‘mukti’/ ‘liberation’ by being absorbed into total communion with god from a cycle of birth & rebirth (samsara). Moksha is believed to achieve karma and free one from punishment and responsibility for one’s previous actions (karma). Buddhism looks to ‘nirvana’ as a liberation from selfish attachments: mastery over self rather than annihilation. For Sikhs salvation is union with God found now & in future through service to others. In Islam salvation is totally dependent on Allah’s will: he responds to our deeds. Judaism sees ‘redemption’ as God intervening on our behalf spiritually and physically for individuals, God’s people and the whole earth.
Christian salvation is not just future promise; we begin to live it now, which is the best gift we have to share. What salvation means may vary according to circumstances & how God interacts in our life. Following the summary given in the last study, here is a list of some of the perspectives on the term, and its breadth as used in Hebrew and Christian scriptures. Salvation probably includes elements of all of these. What ‘salvation’ proves to be it is likely to be far greater than we think:
OLD TESTAMENT UNDERSTANDING OF SALVATION:
Early Hebrew texts suggest that they believed death & the grave is our end [Ps.104:29]. Salvation was God’s protection of his people & gift of ‘shalom’/’wholeness’ in this life. Then belief developed in Sheol, a place of the dead [Ps.18:5]. After heroic deaths in the Maccabean Revolt, belief strengthened that for the righteous life continues after death and salvation is to receive heavenly reward for faithfulness.
CHRIST REFOCUSED SALVATION’S EMPHASIS:
TRANSFORMING US FOR A SECURE FUTURE
SALVATION BEGINS AND CAN BE ENJOYED NOW
COPRPORATE SALVATION
FUTURE SALVATION
A COSMIC* VIEW OF SALVATION
*NB. By ‘Cosmic’ I mean how God’s Salvation relates to ‘the whole of creation’ holistically. The Greek term ‘Kosmos’ means the entire world & all that God created, including the ‘Universe’. Salvation is described in scripture as not just applying to humanity:
These lists show the expansive nature that the Bible gives to the idea of salvation. Salvation is offered to all and applicable to people of any ability, age or culture.
SUGGESTION FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
Can you believe in the breadth of the abundance of blessings in the huge list above? If so, bathe in the expansiveness of what God’s salvation is offering you.
If you find that you cannot believe it to be true, (understandably, because it seems to good and idealistic to be real), consider why you personally find it hard to believe in or aspire to it.
Perhaps take one of the promises in the above list and consider how it applies to your life.
One question that has challenged thinking Christians for centuries is whether Christ’s salvation is for believers only. Does it in some ways universally apply to all? Surely a loving God would not create millions of people destined for destruction. Yet at the same time, the idea of the freedom that God offers through love and justice wouldn’t force any people to accept salvation against their wish or deny them freedom to reject faith and a future salvation. How does this affect your attitude to your mission of spreading the knowledge of God in the world?
38 CHRISTIAN ABUNDANT LIFE
Christ’s Resurrection, Ascension. rule after Pentecost and the gift of God’s Spirit to our lives are all associated with the offer of abundant life to followers of the way that Jesus opened for us. Jesus claimed: “I have come that they may have life in its fullest abundance” [Jn.10:10]. Christ’s teaching and New Testament theology do not define ‘abundant life’ but presumably he meant many of the blessings promised in the list given in the last study. Whatever he meant, he certainly was not talking materially or in terms to which much of today’s world might aspire: abundance of possessions, wealth, social or economic position, fame, status, family, security, job, salary, self-realisation, self-assertion, self- fulfilment. The Sermon on the Mount [Matt.5-7] (particularly the Beatitudes [5:3-11]) emphasises that spiritual abundance and fulfilment can be found even by the poor, downtrodden & suffering. Abundant life is a divine gift independent of our situation, often developing despite, in response to, or in recompense for difficulties. True ‘Life’ is to be found through Christ [Jn.5:21, 26;14:16]. When William Blake called Jesus ‘the Imagination’ he implied not just that in creating the cosmos he revealed God’s supreme imaginative creativity. He meant that Jesus demonstrated the full possibilities of what human beings could be and could achieve led by God’s Spirit. In redeeming us, Jesus:
In offering Christ’s ‘abundant life’ to others Christians seek to attune people to their inner or dormant spiritual longings. We should not try to attract others to faith by worldly aspirations or methods that may lead to materialistic desires rather than true, selfless Christianity.
There are probably hundreds of aspects of abundance that could be added to this list; these are just a taster of what truly following God into the expansive relationship that we could be experiencing. Though the list probably feels idealistic and unattainable in this life, if God is true, the spiritual life is practical and attainable, not an unattainable goal.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
Is your life fulfilling the offer of ‘abundant life’ described above? In what ways might you expand your fulfilment of life?
Perhaps choose one of the ideas in the list above and contemplate its relevance to you.
39 THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT IN THE CHARACTER OF CHRISTIANS
INTRODUCTION
In preparation for the celebration of Pente4cost I thought that it might be useful to consider our how working on the development of our Christian character might help both ourselves over this issue and support those around us. As we look towards celebrating Pentecost, I want to meditate through a series of brief studies on the ‘fruit of the Spirit’, as described in Galatians 5:22-3: “Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, Self-Control”. I’m sure that these are not all the fruit that God’s Sprit aims to develop in the lives of faithful followers of Christ’s way. Spiritual Intuition and Understanding, Self-Knowledge, Wisdom, Creativity, Appreciation of Value, Obedient Response to God’s Ways, Integrity, Honesty, Truthfulness, Trust, Trustworthiness and Security in Depth of Faith come to mind and I will mention a few others in my conclusion. Ephesians 5:22 talks of ‘living by light” and enlightenment’ as spiritual fruit: ‘the fruit of light is found in all that is good, right and true’. Hebrews calls ‘righteousness, peacefulness and true, effective witnessing’ important aspects of our fruit [Heb.12:11; 13:15]. But the nine qualities of spiritual fruit in Galatians 5 are useful places to start as we try to follow the Creator’s intention for human beings, emulate Christ and let God’s Spirit work in us to form us into the fulfilled people we were created to be. At this time of lock-down, when we are perhaps turned in on ourselves more than at some other times it is useful to expand our vision of what we are and should be as faithful Christians. This may help us personally, but also help our ministry to others to be more effective and certainly could make church communities even more attractive and outgoing for the future.
‘Fruit of the Spirit’ describes the nature of the character and life that God intends to build in those who follow Christ and the way humans are intended to be. It has often been pointed out that while spiritual gifts listed in scripture are varied and given in different ways to us according to need, the complete ‘fruit’ of the Spirit is intended to be displayed by all Christians. ‘Fruit’ is a singular word in the passage: Unlike spiritual ‘gifts’ we are not intended to display just one or two fruit; all the fruit are meant to be visible in our lives holistically. St. Paul emphasises that not all believers teach, prophesy, heal, speak in spiritual tongues etc. [1Cor.12:4-11], yet all are meant to display the wholeness of the fruit of the Spirit [Gal.5:24]. This fruit is largely how the integrity and authenticity of our faith and lives is assessed by God and others: “By their fruit you shall know them”, said Jesus [Matt.7:16]. Frequently we assess people by the sort of person they are rather that what they do. Certainly we have learned that what people say and claim does not always prove true. No Christians should compete with one another to express more fruit than others or be conceited if we bear fruit. Nor should we envy those who are fruitful Christians, just learn from their example. We should expect such fruit to be developing in all, and encourage it in each other [Gal.5:25-6].
Fruit is a term that occurs fairly regularly in Jesus’ teaching: “Bear fruit worthy of repentance” [Matt.3:8; 12:33]. Like a tree, we must “bear good fruit not bad” [Matt.3:10; 7:17-20; 12:33]; our lives must never be allowed to become fruitless [Matt.21:19]. In Luke Jesus is blessed as the ‘fruit’ of Mary’s womb [Lk.1:42]. Through him we are ‘gathering the fruit of eternal life’ [Jn.4:36]. “A seed that falls to the ground”... as in the benefits which grew through Jesus’ death, “dies and bears much fruit” [Jn.12:24]. God prunes us, sometimes drastically, so that we are able “to bear more fruit” [Jn.15:22]; he appointed his disciples to “go and bear fruit that will last eternally” [Jn.15:16]. In the Book of Revelation the Tree of Life bears twelve types of fruit, one for every month, suggesting symbolically that what God gives us nourishes and is sufficient for all seasons and situations [Rev.22:2]. The fruit of the Spirit should therefore be helpful to us at this difficult time.
In times of self-reflection it is useful to contemplate how fruitful our lives and our faith have been so far, and to make determined decisions to continue to be fruitful as God’s disciples. We should not over-blame ourselves for any failings so far but recognise these and act to remedy those failings in order to ‘prune us’ to be more effective and more fruitful followers of God’s ways in the future. In this Spring season I’m watching the fruit trees and rose-bushes in my garden full of buds. I know that those that were pruned and nourished well will be really fruitful and strong later in the year. It is sobering to realise that those which I neglected or ignored will be more straggly and far less fruitful. It’s the same with our own personal spirituality, areas of church-growth, and our witness. The fruit of the Spirit does not develop purely by the Spirit’s work; it relies a lot on our own response and effort. ‘Love’, ‘patience’, ‘kindness’, ‘goodness’, ‘faithfulness’, ‘gentleness’ and ‘self-control’ especially require disciplined action by us. Even ‘joy’ and ‘peace’, though more internal, develop through feeling that we may have been obedient, and allowing God to influence and warm us. The development of the Spirit’s fruit is a joint work between God and ourselves, part of our covenant relationship.
The more we develop the fruit of God’s Spirit in our lives the more we will reflect the character of Christ. If you look through the life of Jesus, his love, joy, peace, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control were not expressed effetely, naïvely or simplistically. He was strong, practical, active and effective in working to heal, restore and develop the world. We live in a society that often encourages more dominating characteristics like self-promotion and advance, self-sufficiency, insistence on personal rights, belligerent determination and self-protection, sometimes at the expense of others. While mistrusting aggressive and despotic leadership we also admire more humble service, like that of many medical staff and social or charity and industrial workers at present, who are being applauded as heroes for keeping society going at their own expense. But the humble are not rewarded as generously as those who work in corporate finance or even politics. That will have to wait for the Kingdom of God to be more effectively established: “blessed are the meek...” etc. [Matt.5:3ff]. The fruit of the Spirit has a more just perspective, showing that our character and self-giving nature is more important than our social or financial position.
At this vulnerable time for our world and the community around us, we can have a potentially fruitful effect on the people and society in which we live. We have the ability to spread love, peace, kindness and even a sense of inner joy, where the news is so depressing and many are feeling isolated. We can help people learn patience, gentleness, goodness faithfulness and self-control, where so much around us is frustrated, challenged and suffering. The fruit of the Spirit is important in our own lives, to help us withstand the deprivations, problems and issues within a world that is socially distancing. But it can also bring fruit into the lives of others to nourish, sustain and help them grow themselves.
It is a useful exercise to consider the character of Christians who you admire, and to try to add to the list of fruit which God’s Spirit develops in the lives and character of Christians. Remember that the fruit are characteristics which we would expect to find in all followers of Christ, unlike individual gifts. Exploring the value and character of faithful believers can help to challenge and expand our own discipleship.
N.B. I have deliberately not written suggestions for contemplation and prayer to accompany these last meditations on the Fruit of the Spirit in us, since, for each of them, I expect that readers may simply want to reflect on whether this particular fruit is sufficiently displayed in their Christian lives and consider how they might reflect these aspects of God’s nature more deeply.
40 LOVE - Fruit of the Spirit 1
In the early days of the Covid 19 crisis I spent a lot of time considering and writing about the foundations of my ‘faith and hope’ and how trust in Christ can help us in our vulnerable situation. Meditating on those two words led me to recognise a relevant aspect of St. Paul’s writings that I had not previously considered. In 1 Corinthians 13 he wrote that three things survive eternally: “Faith, Hope and Love... and the greatest of these is Love”. It’s such a beautiful, well known, poetic passage, but the primacy of love over faith and hope is perhaps not just in the beauty with which it cements our relationship to others and to God. Perhaps the spirit of love in us awakens us to be able to appreciate better all about life and God. Love may encourage faith and hope. I used to find it hard to believe that God could care for me as much as for others, because I was so aware of my personal failings and weaknesses. It was only when I found myself loved by a person who actually valued me despite, or in some cases because of my weaknesses and failings that I began to recognise that God could love me even better. My faith and life grew stronger as a result. If we have love inside us it can awaken us to values in ourselves and others that we previously devalued or took for granted.
There are of course many different kinds of love: I love close friends slightly differently from family; animals and pets differently from humans, my congregation differently from my wider community, chocolate differently from a succulent meal. The Bible, we know, uses various words to distinguish some of these different forms of love: philadelphia -‘brotherly or sisterly love and friendship’, stergo - affection as between parents and children’, agape - ‘self-giving even sacrificial love’, eros -‘passionate, sensual love’. There were also individual terms for ‘love of nation’, ‘generosity of giving’. Yet despite this variety, there is a basic warm feeling of wellbeing towards all that we love in any way: all the terms for love involve care and self-giving for another. The sense of loving or having loved expands our spirits. Love enlarges our ability to feel; it can energise us and warm us with good, even if we are temporarily separated or even bereaved and remembering those we have loved.
The word used in the Galatians 5 passage is ‘agape’, the self-giving love that Jesus demonstrated, and encouraged in his followers. True love is not self-centred or out to primarily satisfy itself; it concentrates on others and longs for their good. That is why 1Cor.13 is so often read at weddings, to remind us all of the outreaching rather than inward-looking, self-satisfying qualities of love: “Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, hopes all things, loves all things. Love never ends...” [1Cor.13:4-7]. (It is noticeable that most of the qualities expressed here resemble the ‘fruit of the Spirit’.) Of course, in expressing and receiving love we partly satisfy ourselves, but that is not the main objective of true love, which seeks and does the best for the other. “Greater love has no-one that this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” [Jn.15:13]. The nature of God’s love for us among all his creation was a major theme of Jesus’ teaching. Jesus exemplified God’s perfect love, in giving himself. That sort of love expects nothing that can balance it in return or repayment. God may desire our love and our obedience but the love poured out on the Cross did not demand our response, though God must surely long for it. God’s love perhaps resembles that of a lover longing for the object of their love to recognise and respond with love in return. This is beautifully expressed by the metaphor of God as a lover in Hosea longing for the faithful return of his love, or in Isaiah 54:5-8 promising fruitful abundance to his wife.
We are in a society where many see their right as being to ‘take’ without feeling a commensurate responsibility to ‘give’. The saddest forms of love are those which just want self-satisfaction or those which continue frustratingly to long for the impossible. This is lust or longing, not true love. Too frequently sexual love, love of money, power or position aim to get what one can without giving sufficiently in return. That is also true of some people’s feelings about the society in which they live: getting without giving. Sometimes that is reflected in spiritual relationships with God too: Many want the emotional satisfaction which comes through spirituality or which is received in a worship service, without feeling reciprocal responsibility to give to God or to others. Far too many books on esoteric spirituality just focus on satisfying oneself. Yet true spirituality, like true love is about both giving and receiving, where “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” [Acts 20:35].
Jesus’s challenge to love goes beyond ‘easy love’: He expects us to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” [Matt.5:54]; to “lay down one’s life for one’s friends” [Jn.15:13], to “give one’s life for the unrighteous” [Rom.5:8ff], to work hard at our relationship with God and others. Only that way will we ever fully understand the extent of God’s own energetic, self-giving love for all that has been made, including sinners and failures. Many in society love and indulge themselves excessively, but many others indulge themselves through lack of self-love. Commercialism has encouraged us to compare ourselves with others even more than in the past when the commandment recognised that we should ‘not covet what our neighbour has’, and ‘should love our neighbour as ourselves’. The Hebrew concept of neighbour mostly implied responsibility towards those who were of the same nation, even though God’s laws told them to support the stranger. The Parable in the Good Samaritan [Lk.10:25-37] shows that Christ expanded the concept of love to embrace all. At this time when many in society are experiencing trials and many are lonely, it is increasingly important that we recognise that ALL our neighbours are to be loved and supported.
41 JOY - Fruit of the Spirit 2
Jesus prayed for his followers in Gethsemane, “...that my joy may be in them.” How strange that, in the depths of his Passion, joy should be on his mind! Similarly it is difficult to consider joy in the midst of the present health crisis. Joy certainly seems to have been in the hearts of Jesus’ followers as they paraded him through the streets as he entered Jerusalem at the beginning of that last week. Jesus’ own emotions on the day we commemorate as ‘Palm Sunday’ must have been extremely mixed as he approached the climax of his mission. ‘Joyful’ in its modern usage is not an emotion one might consider as the main emotion in Jesus. I can imagine him enjoying the Cana wedding [Jn.2:1-11], celebrating religious festivals (despite recognising some hypocrisy there), laughing in the company of close friends and disciples, celebrating after a miracle of healing, joy in personal times of worship, delighting in the natural or rural world he described in his parables. But he was also ‘a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief’[Isa.53:3]. He was not morose yet serious, determined, frustrated in mission, content in his relationship with his Father God, so the ‘joy’ he mentions must have been deeper than a bubbly surface emotion. His love for people and his relationship with his Father seem to have given him special delight. The Psalms sing of ‘delighting to do God’s will’ [1:2; 16:3; 112:1; 119:16ff. ].
The main word for ‘Joy’, found in Galatians 5 and repeatedly in Matthew, Luke and especially John’s Gospel is ‘chará’, which denotes ‘delighting’, ‘rejoicing’. It is linked to the word ‘cháris’, which implied ‘practical, outreaching love and grace’. The ‘joy’ which Jesus knew and which the writer of Galatians is encouraging us to develop is therefore part of God’s divine, outgoing loving nature towards all things as shown in Jesus. In difficult circumstances this can speak to us: we may not be in an obviously happy state yet we can still feel and experience deep inner joy through our spiritual security in accepting God’s love and care for us and through loving what is around us.
Happiness partly depends on our personal character, background and circumstances. Some people are naturally melancholic, or have physical, medical or emotional reasons for a tendency towards depression. Others are more naturally bouncy and seem to express joy or live in a more carefree way. We cannot always help our melancholia, though indulging it can be draining. Yet people who are over-effusively joyful can also be exhausting to be with. Whatever our personality or circumstances the spiritual fruit of joy can reach in to even difficult circumstances, refresh and help to transform us. Spiritual joy can help us be more stable in our personalities, and also help us be easier to live with. Spiritual joy does not depend so much on our personal situation, but recognises that we can be secure in God’s love and care, in whatever position we find ourselves. St. Paul talks about this in 2 Cor.12:9-10 where he speaks of being content with his weaknesses, hardships and persecutions, as they made him rely more on Christ. Philippians 4:11says “I have learned to be content with whatever I have. I know what it is to have little and I know what it is to have plenty... I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” Hebrews 13:5-6 continues this idea: “be content with what you have, for God has said “I will never leave you or forsake you.” So we can say with confidence “The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can anyone do to me?”
Many people are very active in our over-busy world, yet feel no joy in their work, their relationships, possessions or the rat-race of life. You may gain everything you ever thought you wanted but not have deep inner satisfaction. Inner joy can only be ‘whole’ when our lives are whole and balanced, physically. spiritually and socially. The tragic film character Citizen Cane built around him everything that money could buy, but achieved no joy. We see recognise in several historical characters and some sad contemporary lives.
When we hold up to God in thought and prayer the people, events and thoughts about which we most care, we can experience joy, even when praying for difficulties they may be experiencing or feeling distance and separation from them. Joy, like love, isn’t focused on ‘us’ or on what selfishly makes us happy or satisfies the self; it comes most in reaching out. Jesus’ joy, which he prayed might be in his disciples, was the joy of being secure in his loving relationship with God, caring for and loving his companions, and knowing he was doing the right things in life. Jesus also talks about us being able to bring joy to the spiritual world: “there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents” [Lk.15:7]. The joy of creation, sung about in many Psalms, and the joy of heavenly powers, is perhaps related to us fulfilling our role in the harmony of the cosmos.
Spiritual joy, therefore, need not be as dependent on circumstances or personality as is general happiness. If we are able to help ourselves, and the people to whom we minister, to recognise that we have security in God’s presence with us, we can know an inner warmth, even in vulnerable times, which can help to sustain us. We should not over-push our personal joy onto people who are undergoing difficulties, for we might seem uncaring, naïve or not empathetic to their situation. Life is truly hard for many, yet in faith and in closeness to God we can discover a contentment that can form an inner joy. This might not be bubbling in rejoicing, (nor should it be in tragic circumstances like those of today,) but it can strengthen us. As Psalm 23 reminds us: “Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death (or the darkest valley) I fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff they comfort me.” The joy that God’s Spirit can build in us is not necessarily surface happiness, but can bring an inner sense of warmth and peace that sustains and strengthens.
42 PEACE - Fruit of the Spirit 3
The present health crisis has encouraged many in British society to support one another wonderfully. It is heartening to hear of so many acts of benevolence, companionship and self-sacrificial help of others, even of strangers. Sadly we also hear of increased abuse of the vulnerable, thieves exploiting the situation, some spreading and responding violently to false rumours and civil disruption in America. But in general, and certainly in the community around me here, I’ve seen so much friendship and peace displayed between many who previously might have been more private. Strangers acknowledge one another from a distance in the street and wish each other well. Ephesians 2:13-19 reminds us that the Church is comprised of many who would normally be divided, yet are now united and brought peace in Christ’s body.
When Jesus talks about ‘peace’ he was meaning far more than lack of discord or warfare. (Sadly too often discord still persists in many church bodies or between individual Christians!) Spiritual ‘peace’ includes unity, valuing one another, acceptance of difference, mutual support and working together, a sense of inner contentment and contentment with others. It involves learning to be satisfied with ourselves, our circumstances, our companions, our ministry and our environment. Spiritual peace needs to be a truthful awareness of being at peace, rather than being blinkered to problems or deliberately avoiding or ignoring disquieting issues.
The opening and sometimes the ending of most New Testament Epistles nearly always includes the joint blessing of ‘grace and peace be with you” [Rom1:7; 1Cor.1:3 etc.]. Sometimes the term ‘mercy’ is added [1&2Tim.; 2Jn.; Jude]. Ancient Roman greetings and prayers of blessing offered people “Peace” / ‘Pax’ or to be embraced by the security of the ‘Pax Romana’. Rabbis more often prayed the blessing of ‘Grace from God’, though ‘Peace’/’shalom’ is an important Jewish concept, translated into the Greek Bible as ‘eirene’. Peace originated with the idea of a treaty, the absence of hostile feelings between people, tribes, nations or the covenant agreement between God and people. It brought security, even redemption, all of which relate to God’s promises to his people. The coming Messiah would be the ‘Prince/King of Peace’ [Isa.9:5; Zech.9:9-10] establishing an eternal, paradisal ‘shalom’. As the means by which God establishes peace: “He is our peace” [Mic.5:5].
The Hebrew concept of ‘shalom’ is expansive; it meant overall ‘wellbeing’: health, good fortune, stability, national and personal prosperity, peace within the community. It especially meant being in stable relationship with God, who would provide these holistic blessings. Unlike many of their Jewish contemporaries, Jesus and St. Paul did not regard material prosperity as important as a sign of blessing. They recognised the difficulties and inequality of human life. Yet God would bring peace, truth and equity with the coming of the Kingdom for which Christ was working: The ‘poor’ and ‘persecuted’ would inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, the ‘meek’ would inherit the earth, those ‘hungry for righteousness’ would be filled, the ‘peacemakers’ would be called Children of God [Matt.5:3-11]. So people would find God’s blessing of peace in response to their needs Paul could write that in the midst of hardship, poverty, or with his ‘thorn in the flesh’ he had learned to be content and at peace [Phil.4:11-12; 2Cor.12:10]. The Epistle to the Hebrews encourages us to ‘Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have’ [Heb.13:5].
For Jesus and for Paul, ‘peace’ was a universal wish for God’s people. Jesus encouraged his disciples to give a blessing of peace to the homes of all who welcomed them hospitably in their mission [Matt.10:12-14]. But he also recognised that his teaching would separate some and cause hostility and division rather than unity and universal peace. “I have come not to bring peace but a sword” is a difficult passage [Matt.10:24]. Jesus’ mission intended peace not division, but he recognised that others, both individuals and powers, had different priorities. The present divisions in churches have various causes: obstinacy over variant interpretations of doctrine or scripture, preferential practices, self-centredness, power-struggles, dysfunctional or clashing personalities etc. Jesus reminded us that a city or nation divided cannot be at peace [Matt.12:25; Mk.3:24-5], and the body of Christ cannot work effectively as it should if its members are not working fully in peace, harmony and support of one another [1Cor.1:13; 12:12-27]. Perhaps this time of enforced contemplation and isolation might be a perfect period for reflecting on the things in ourselves and in relationship with others that disturb or destroy our peace and work to resolve them.
Jesus wanted to bring peace with God and peace between people: ‘Be at peace among one another” [Mk.9:50]. He achieved spiritual peace for the world through the offering of his life, particularly through the Cross [Rom.5:11; Eph.2:14]. Jesus encouraged his followers to be ‘one’ with each other as he and his Father were one [Jn.17:] ‘Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you’ [Jn.14:27]. Expressing and sharing that peace and unity should act as a witness to the world. His prayer included: “As you Father are in me and I in you, may they also be in us so that the world may see that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one as we are one.” [Jn.17:21-22]. The present witness of all churches and Christians falls far short of this glory, even when religious communities are at peace with one another. What might we do to witness more authentically and have greater personal peace and spiritual peace between each other and within all churches?
The spiritual fruit of peace in us should help us feel inner harmony as well as enable us to live and work at harmony with others. Finding spiritual peace within ourselves, within the community of Christians and feeling at peace with God is a fruit that would be so useful to share with the world at this time when many feel socially discontent, afraid, vulnerable and sometimes angry. Jesus recognised that being ‘peacemakers’ is a ‘blessed’ activity [Matt.5:9]. Christians should have more reason than many to discover this peace within ourselves, in our relationship with a God of Peace and a Saviour who has brought the possibility of peace. We have this peace to share. “Peace be with you” is an essential part of Jesus’ message.
43 PATIENCE - Fruit of the Spirit 4
The form of patience included in the list of fruit in Galatians 5 has a slightly different focus from the patience of character which we usually consider. The word for patience used here [makrothymía] is also translatable as ‘longsuffering’, ‘endurance’, ‘resignation’, ‘enforced or desperate acceptance’, ‘forbearance’. So it refers particularly to the way that we face difficulties, problems, suffering, or difficult people. This was important for surviving situations of persecution or rejection of Christians in the early church. It can also relate to our attitude to ourselves: how patient are we with our problems, bodies, minds, personal issues or lack of spiritual progress. Patient forbearance can help us stay strong amid the frustrations of the present lock-down and health and national issues.
In the Hebrew Scriptures ‘patience’ was often used of God’s gracious restraint in judgement on sin or those who opposed his way. God’s patience with humanity showed God’s faithfulness to covenant promises. The purpose of divine patience with people was to encourage them to recognise their failings and turn to righteous ways. The writings of several Rabbis contrast the ‘forbearance’ of parents towards wayward children to encourage them to develop their better character, with ‘indulgence’, which can damage their character. God’s grace and mercy does not indulge us, so we should not indulge ourselves. Jesus spoke of the patience and endurance of God in some of his parables. The father of the Prodigal Son was patient but suffering while his son was away, whereas the brother showed no forbearance when the prodigal returned in repentance [Lk.15:11-32.]. A king shows forbearance towards the debt of his servant, but the servant shows less forbearance towards his fellows [Matt.18:23-35]. In Col.1:11 and 2Tim.3:10 patient endurance and long suffering are regarded as strengthening us personally for the challenges of life and faith; Eph.4:2 shows that they strengthen the Church community.
Longsuffering patience in the Bible does not imply that the one who demonstrates it is complacent, irresolute or simply swayed by emotion or empathy. It aims for the improvement or development of the people or situation towards which patience is shown. It gives time for people to recognise their failings, learn, repent and bring change. Thus it shows practical love towards them and allows the one who is patient to also develop and change - something at which the brother of the Prodigal Son failed. Recognising God’s patience and forbearance towards us in the character of Christ should help us develop similar patience towards others. Such patience should be holy and humble, not self-righteous, developing steadfastness of faith in us. Patience aims to bring about justice and truth without seeking vengeance or using anger incorrectly.
Patience is perhaps the fruit which we learn most through having to endure it. I’ve found myself feeling impatient with people who do not learn from their mistakes, who regularly return to the same failings or sins, despite knowing that they have made them miserable in the past or do not grow in faith as they should after years of church attendance and declarations of faith. Then I look at myself and realise that I fail in exactly the same ways. I realise how far I am from the Christian who I should be, and that I am more culpable than others, since as a minster I am supposed to know more about my faith than some and have made professions and vows to be holy. I recognise how patient God is with me, so why am I often impatient with others!? I identify so often with St. Paul’s impatience with himself, though Paul was of course a FAR better Christian than me!: “I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the things I hate... For I delight in the law of God in my inner self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin... wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?” Thankfully his next sentence is “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!...” [Rom.7:21-25], in which he recognises that Jesus has the power to be our rescuer and forgiver!
There are some Christians to whom I could never confess because their response to sin or emotional or spiritual struggles seems inhuman or cold. Some can’t seem to accept the failings of others. Think of those who denounce sin coldly from the pulpit, in street-preaching or on the media. Intolerance is the opposite of patience, and is often hypocritical, not recognising or acknowledging the log in our own eye! [Matt.7:3-5]. A value in knowing that Christ is the one who intercedes for us is found in trusting that he understands what we are going through and empathises with us. Hebrews affirms that we have in the heavens a “great High Priest” who is able to “sympathise with our weaknesses”... “one who in every way has been tested as we are yet without sin...” A true priest “is able to deal gently with the ignorant and wayward because he himself is subject to weakness.” [Heb.4:14- 5:2]. As we come to understand ourselves we should emulate Christ by our patience with others, since we recognise the limitations of our own nature and actions and empathise with theirs.
There is a great difference between being patient and being ‘laisser-faire’, nonchalant or indifferent to things that are wrong. Recently churches have been criticised for their failure to deal sufficiently with internal failings, abuses or for not speaking out prophetically against failings in the nation or international, environmental or financial issues and problems. As so many of the Hebrew prophets and Christ himself remind us, we have a responsibility to speak truth to power and act for the good of God’s world. In the present crisis the national church has been offering help and keeping spiritual services alive, though at a distance, yet has been noticeably quiet in calling the government to account for weaknesses in planning and provision. Should we have been a more ‘prophetic voice’ or has it been right to be patient in order to keep people calm at a time of vulnerability? Would it be right to then challenge and consider blame at a later time? The wisdom of spiritual patience in any situation finds the right time to act, intervene, speak out or remain silent. All of these are possible ways to be true to Christ in various issues in life.
44 KINDNESS - Fruit of the Spirit 5
We often use the word ‘kind’ to just mean mildly benevolent. But the word ‘kindness’ [‘crēstótēs’ in Greek], as used in the context of Galatians 5, has a much more powerful intention. It meant ‘excellent’, ‘true’, ‘a good example of its kind’, ‘genuine’, ‘useful’, ‘honest’, ‘morally upright’, ‘worthy’, ‘respectable’, ‘good-hearted’, ‘following the righteousness and goodness of activity of God’. The Greek word is used to translate several Hebrew terms that described the way God demonstrates his majesty and care towards human beings. God was described as ‘kind’ many times in the Hebrew Scriptures: [e.g. Ps.18:50; Isa.54:8; Jer.9:24]. He directed the growth of his people and “led them with the cords of human kindness” [Hos.11:4]. He shows kindness and grace even towards those who are ungrateful [Lk.6:35; Rom.11:22]. His divine kindness allows space for repentance and change [Rom.2:4]. 1Pet.2:3 quotes Psalm 34:8, relating God’s kindness to that of Christ in his saving of humankind: “You have tasted the kindness of the Lord.”
Christians in exhibiting this form of kindness as part of their character are examples of Christ-likeness, reflecting the character of God in the ways that are most appropriate to the lives and situations in which we live. Romans 3:12 quotes Psalm 14:1 to show that kindness as a human attribute should reflect God’s kindness. Kindness, like love, reflects the true nature, character and message of God to others. Our kindness is therefore a sign of the genuineness, authenticity and sincerity of our faith and discipleship; it is an essential part of our witness. Ephesians 4:32 reminds us that Christ’s kindness should be reflected in the relationships of all Christians to each other: “Be kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake has forgiven you.” This means far more than just having a kindly disposition towards our neighbour. It works positively for the benefit of others.
Such true kindness is quite a contrast to hard-hearted expressions of faith, which too quickly condemn people with whom they disagree, criticise those who they regard as sinners, or hell-fire-and-damnation preaching that does not express humanity or divine understanding towards others. Christians should always be morally upright, set righteous examples and have a responsibility to be a prophetic voice, challenging what is wrong in society and individual lives. But we should do it with a kindness and winsomeness that resemble the qualities, mercy and grace of God. Those who condemn unkindly reflect a wrathful power that is very different from the caring, loving God and understanding Father that Jesus taught and exemplified. Romans 2:4 stresses that God’s kindness towards us is intended to lead us to repentance. Condemning people outright, trying to frighten them into the Kingdom of Heaven and not valuing them as God does, are not the best ways of encouraging people to see light, recognise the attractiveness of a relationship with God, or change their ways. It is far better to treat all with respect and care, pointing attractively to the fulfilling and abundant ways of righteous and spiritual life offered by true Christianity. Christ did give warnings, and expressed anger, at religious hypocrisy especially, but his character, words and activities attracted many. Kindness, like the love it reflects, is an attractive quality.
When Jesus said that his ‘yoke is easy and his burden is light’ [Matt.11:30], the word translated as ‘easy’ is again ‘crēstós’. The phrase in this context means: “my yoke is kind” in the way described above. In the responsibilities and mission with which God entrusts us, we are intended to reflect and exemplify the divine character authentically in our lives and ministry. That is often demanding and challenging work but not intended to be oppressive or burdensome. We are not meant to be mild, mediocre, simpering or pliable in the nondescript way that ‘kind’ and ‘nice’ are often used today. But neither are we to act in the oppressive, dominant way that some Christian institutions and leaders may have done in the past. God-like kindness is, as Ted Hughes wrote of the Cross “the power of power unexercised.” The word ‘kind’ is used in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers to describe the saving work of Christ and God’s activity in creating, sustaining and redeeming the cosmos, bringing it to consummation in the Kingdom. In taking up the Christian ‘yoke’ in our baptismal vows, we make a covenant promise to be physically and energetically involved in this mission. By showing God’s kindness we are part of the healing restoring, sustaining and redeeming of the world that Jesus gave his life to save and which God is transforming into his Kingdom.
This is relevant in many ways to the present crisis in the heath of people and the ecological crisis in the world. When Teresa of Avila said “God had no hands or feet but yours, no ears and eyes but yours; yours are the hands that offer his love... etc.” she was not implying in any way that God may be impotent to act in the world. She was asking us to recognise the loving responsibility with which God entrusts us to serve the world and give Christ’s message and kindness to the world in God’s name, reflecting God’s truth and character. In being ‘kind’ we are bringing God’s Spirit and presence to others. This is a complex and responsible task but it shows the trust and abilities with which God has gifted us as his people and his Church. As the ‘body of Christ’ we are spiritually and physically meant to be an active part of God’s own active kindness towards the world, There is no better time to show this than when people are experiencing crises. We can express God’s kindness, truthfulness, genuineness, usefulness, honesty and practical loving care in so many ways. God’s kindness, like his love does not expect anything in return. Yet through reflecting his love we may contribute to a change in the ways that people regard God, Christ, the Church and the Christian way of life.
45 GOODNESS - Fruit of the Spirit 6
In our normal English usage, ‘goodness’, like ‘kindness and ‘gentleness; are rather non-descript, general words but the intentional meaning of each word in scripture is far stronger. Goodness here: ‘agathōsynē’ means the highest form of good, something that is not just serviceable, but of real practical and effective use, of great value to God and to all. It does not carry as much of a moral meaning as the term used for ‘kindness’, but has the connotation that we are intended to be noble, healthy, strong, beautiful and valuable in every way. Plato believed that such goodness should be the goal of all action and behaviour. Goodness was believed to evoke a state of moral, intellectual and religious wellbeing in others.
Goodness in the Hebrew Scriptures is a characteristic of God, and in people it was regarded as a gift of God that reflected the nature of the God who formed it in us or through us [Gen.3:5]. In the New Testament goodness flows from God to the believer through Christ, whose nature is good. In Romans Paul emphasised that “In everything God works for good for those who love him, who are called according to his purpose” [Rom.8:28]. This may not always be apparent, as in present-day crises, but our own goodness and good actions should be reflecting the nature of God’s outgiving goodness towards others. Christ “created us for good works” [Eph.2:10] and we are exhorted to “bear fruit in good works” [Col.1:10]. This includes “good and fitting behaviour” [Rom.15:14; 2Thess.1:11]. The goodness in our behaviour is regarded as a sign that we belong to Christ and acts as a witness to others [1Pet.3:16, 21], a sign that Christ’s Spirit is developing fruit within us. We are promised that “He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Christ [Phil.1:6]. So though we may be very aware of our sins and failings in the present, we are assured that God will not let go until he has formed us more completely into Christ’s likeness [Rom.8:29; Phil.3:21].
Most people, if you ask them to define what God should be like would probably include ‘goodness’ as a major characteristic. But we live in a world that is regularly disillusioned. People have learned by experience or repute to distrust politicians, bankers, commerce, the media, religions, and even, sadly, church leaders. We therefore have a harder mission to convince the world of the truth and value of Christ’s gospel than at any time since the persecutions encountered by early churches. It is partly the worldwide Church’s fault, since we are often far from reflecting the nature of God. We do not sufficiently resemble what Christ revealed and taught. Could you truly say of yourself or any Christian you know that they are “perfect as their heavenly Father is perfect?” [Matt.5:48]. Or do most Christian organisations or groups honestly appear to strive towards that as their goal?
The principles of ‘goodness’: striving achieve the highest form of good, and being of real use and value to God and to all, should lead the church to seem ‘noble’, ‘healthy’, ‘strong’, ‘beautiful’ and ‘valuable’ in every way. Churches may strive for high a degree of excellence in their music, liturgy and preaching as their human abilities and resources will allow. We may look after our buildings and finances. But each individual Christian’s personal discipleship and knowledge of faith is rarely so determinedly striving towards the highest form of good. We often allow ourselves to get away with a mediocrity of faith and discipleship, which we would not accept in other areas of our lives or work. Paul talks of “striving” in his mission; in his letters the prayers for those to whom he ministers impress one by his sense of commitment and care for them. He talks of training himself in holiness and mission like an athlete subjecting his body to intense training to win the prize of salvation for himself as well as others [1Cor.9:24-27]. Similarly he spoke of making our bodies and our lifestyles, like our worship, as a “sacrifice worthy and acceptable to God.” [Rom.12:1; Phil.4:18]. This is taken up in Eph.5:2 and 1Pet.2:5. The highest form of love and care given by God deserves and should receive the highest form of discipleship and worship in response.
We may have God’s Spirit alive inside us as believers, but we are often leaking vessels and need constant refreshment and refilling. Ps.34:8 calls us to ‘Taste and see that the Lord is good”; Heb.6:4-5and 1Pet.2:3 talk of us having “tasted the goodness of the Lord.” The more we remind ourselves of what has been achieved for us, the more likely we are to respond to the goodness of that taste, like savouring and appreciating a fine wine. Jesus criticised the religion of his day as having lost its useful qualities “like salt that had lost its taste” [Matt.5:13; Mk.9:50; Lk.14:34]. “How”, he asks, “can it be made good again?” That was the purpose of his ministry, which we now are meant to continue. We are to be “salt to the earth” and bring restoration towards the highest form of good.
46 FAILTHFULNESS - Fruit of the Spirit 7
Faithfulness [pistis] does not just refer to the extent of our faith and beliefs, or our faithfulness to God or other people. It is a wider term, implying that all these qualities grow from the authenticity of our relationship and commitment to God and others. The God to whom Jesus witnessed and exemplified was a force who could be trusted because God was powerful enough for anything, personally cared about Creation, especially human beings and especially those with whom covenant promises had been made. Jesus emphasised that although God had contracted covenant promises with the Jewish people, a close relationship with God was not exclusive to the Jews and he commended the faith of several gentiles like the Roman centurion [Matt.8:10; Lk.7:9; Jn.12:20;]. Most of the worldwide Church now consists of gentile Christians who have been brought into God’s covenant relationship [Heb. 8&9; Eph.2:12 and Gal.3:17]. The trust relationship with God that Christ introduced is available for all. His ‘Great Commission’ to his followers before leaving earth was for us to teach that faith to all nations and baptise believers into it [Matt.28:19]. Faithfulness includes being faithful to that call. Christ commends ‘trustworthiness’ in God’s servants: [Matt.25:21-23; Lk.19:17].
We live in a fairly untrusting world, amid many untrustworthy situations and untrustworthy institutions. It was probably worse for the ordinary people to whom Jesus ministered. In the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly in Psalms, people’s faith convinced them that they could put their trust in God. In the Gospels Jesus often encouraged people to have ‘faith’ in God and in him: “have faith and do not doubt… Ask in prayer with faith” [Matt.21:21-22]; : “According to your faith let it be done to you” [Matt.9:29]; “if you had faith the size of a grain of mustard seed...” [Lk.17:6]; “Your faith has saved you” [Lk.7:50; 18:42]. This word ‘pistis’ was not confined to religious beliefs; it primarily meant ‘firmly persuaded’, ‘assured’, ‘convinced that something or someone is trustworthy’. Surprisingly neither words for ‘trust’ nor ‘faith’ are used in John’s Gospel, where the divinity of Christ is most strongly represented. Instead the writer emphasises 47 times that his testimony is ‘true’ [Jn.19:35; 21:24], giving proofs of Christ’s miraculous nature to encourage faith in one who taught and exemplified truth and perfectly reflected a trustworthy God.
In the Synoptic Gospels ‘faith’ and ‘trust’ are almost synonymous and often translate the same word. ‘Faith’ there has little to do with the abstract set of convictions, beliefs or doctrines that churches now define as ‘the faith of the Church’. Scriptural faith is the trust than relates us to God. When Thomas recognised the risen Christ, his trust in the experience expanded his faith to believe not just that Jesus was alive, but he took the further leap of faith to proclaim Jesus as “my Lord and my God!” [Jn.20:28]. We should be wary of requiring experiences before we believe. Since the Enlightenment, that has been a major stumbling-block to belief. Jesus told Thomas “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe” [Jn.20:29]. Yet it is encouraging when we do recognise evidences and answers to prayer that encourage and strengthen our faith. At the heart of Christianity is belief in a spiritual truth and security which we cannot prove, yet strongly sense that we can trust: ‘Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the knowledge of things unseen’ [Heb.11:1].
If we create a living, active, trusting, spiritually truthful church we can exemplify faith to outsiders more than a body which keeps its faith to itself. In a sceptical world it is challenging to make our lives, community, liturgy and witness truly reflect the true God. We have to overcome years of unfortunate experiences by our truthful witness, but thankfully God is far more effective in convicting, trustworthy and powerful than human failure. Tales of saints include some who ‘trusted God to provide everything they needed.’ Jesus encouraged his followers (first the twelve disciples [Matt.10:5-14, then seventy [Lk.10:1-20], then us [Matt.28:18-20] to trust God for their support and effectiveness when he sent them out on mission. In a modern economic world this may not be practical. St. Paul trusted God and believers to help support of his mission but he also worked at a profession in order not to be a burden to any [Acts 18:3; 2Cor.12:14; 1Thess.2:9; 2Thes.3:8]. He urged other Christians to act in the same way, so that church might support those with true needs [1Tim.5:16]. We should never believe that just because we have faith God will look after us and answer all our prayers and needs, despite Jesus’ teaching about ‘faith as small as a grain of mustard seed’ [Matt.17:20]. God’s wisdom always answers prayer in the ways that are ultimately right and best for all. Our own work is usually art of the answer to our prayers.
The disciples trusted God to help people listen and respond to their message, to convert and work miracles through them. But they did not always find it easy. In one struggle with the cure of a child Jesus showed them that they did not have the spiritual power in themselves and were always dependant on God’s will. The child’s father, when asked whether he believed a cure possible, gave one of the most poignant, meaningful responses about trusting God in all scripture: “I believe, help my unbelief!” [Mk.9:24]. Perhaps that should be our prayer far more often, where we, as modern, thinking believers feel tempted not to pray for situations which we believe are beyond even God’s intervention, rather like present crises. Jesus talked about ‘the prayer of faith’ to which he assured people God would respond [Matt.21:22]. However we know from experience that not all prayers, especially those for healing, are always answered in the ways that we would most like. Family and friends die; the disabled remain so; believers are not always protected from mishap or disease. Yet the covenant relationship which we have with God encourages us to still pray and trust.
‘Faith’, claims St. Paul, is both a fruit and a gift of God’s Spirit. When the disciples asked Jesus: “increase our faith” [Lk.17:5], they were perhaps expecting him to perfume a miracle within their minds. Instead, Jesus seems to tell them to ‘reach for the impossible’; ‘exert the type of faith that can move trees or mountains’ [Lk.7:5; Matt.17:20; 21:21; Mk.11:23]. I don’t think that Jesus was here telling us to go out and perform impossible miracles. Rather, I believe his words encourage us to practically ‘get on with the life of faith’, trusting God and involving him in all our needs. Jesus’ response to the disciples’ request for him to teach them to pray was the Lord’s Prayer [Lk.11:1-4; Matt.6:7-13]. This sort of faith recognises the priority and holiness of God (”hallowed be your name”). It asks for God to bring about his rule of righteousness, not just in believers’ lives but “on earth as in heaven”. It asks no more than what we need for today “our daily bread”. Faith recognises our sin and debt to God and others; it forgives others as we have been forgiven by God and wish others to forgive us. Trusting faith asks to be protected from anything we cannot bear “deliver us from the time of trial, temptation and from evil.”
Jesus emphasised that when he had left his followers, the Holy Spirit would be their ever-present trustworthy guide into all truth and in their mission, convicting others of God’s truth [Jn.14:16-19; 16:7-15]. “When the Spirit of truth comes he will guide you into all the truth...” [Jn.16:12]. The Holy Spirit would teach his followers what to say when they were called upon to witness. [Lk.12:12] and help them remember what Christ had taught them [Jn,14:25]. They could trust God’s Spirit, as they had learned faith from Jesus, and could trust him to bring them to life: “Because I live in you, you will live.” [Jn.14:19]. That is the sort of trusting faith that we need to develop for effective Christian living. Our own faithfulness to God and to others is our covenant response.
47 GENTLENESS - Fruit of the Spirit 8
The word ‘gentleness’ in the New Testament [praǘtēs], is also translated ‘meekness’ in several other biblical passages. When Jesus said ‘blessed are the meek” [Matt.5:5] he was not declaring that we should be mouse-like and subserviently submissive; he wanted people to be strong in faith and active but not arrogant towards God or towards any others. Meekness acknowledges the greatness and the gracious will of God yet reflects God’s mercy and gentleness in our use of power. Jesus’ humility and lowliness were a result of having his heart fixed on following his Father’s will, not on pleasing or advancing himself. His entry into Jerusalem on the colt [Matt.21:5] was a peaceful sign of his gentleness as a leader, reflecting the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9: “Lo your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and rising on the foal of a donkey.” His victory and triumph were brought about by gentleness. Jesus said of himself “I am gentle and humble of heart.” [Matt.11:29]. St. Paul (not someone one would call self-depreciating or weak) said of his own mission “we were gentle among you” [1Thess.2:7]. Jesus, Paul and so many of the disciples were strong, effective and active in their ‘gentleness’. The writer of Ephesians 4:2 recommends “humility, gentleness, patience, forbearing love and unity” as part of “living a life worthy of the calling to which we have been called.” None of these are signs of weakness. The Greek term ‘praǘtēs’ was used of even strong animals that are tame or of mild character. It was also used of pleasant people like good judges and leaders who may be in powerful positions yet are kindly, friendly and lenient towards others.
In the Hebrew Scriptures gentleness was praised as a quality ‘pleasing to God’ [Sirach 1:27] and an antidote to arrogance [10:28]. The lowly keep God’s commandments [Zeph.2:3] and show piety and expectancy, receiving humbly from God [Isa.26:6; Ps.76:9f; 37:9f]. James1:21 contrasts gentleness with anger, and calls us to “welcome with meekness the implanted word, which has the power to save our souls”. This encourages us to listen to God’s Spirit speaking not just through scripture but through others and through the intuition, conscience and wisdom which the indwelling Spirit lights within us. James 3:13 says that the gentleness of our works is “born of wisdom” and a spiritually inspired gift, as the ‘fruit of the Spirit’ implies.
Gentleness is not self-regarding or self-promoting. It recognises the value of others, shows concern for them and raises their value in comparison to us. “Esteem others as better than yourself” said [Phil.2:3]. This does not mean debasing ourselves in any way, but ‘loving others as ourselves’, valuing them as we value ourselves. Paul claims that meekness has its basis in love and is in no way weak [2Cor.10:1; 1Cor.4:21]. 2Cor.10:1 calls on people to imitate the meekness and gentleness of Christ. Col.3:12 combines it with ‘compassion, kindness, humility meekness’ and 1Cor.4:21 encourages people to ‘love in a spirit of gentleness’.
Later in Galatians the writer encourages the church to restore people to fellowship “in a spirit of gentleness” [Gal.6:1] because we recognise our own weaknesses with humility and should not be arrogant towards any. 1 Pet.3:4 admires the beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit and the writer encourages us to “defend the faith with gentleness” and correct those who disagree with us “with gentleness and reverence” [1 Pet.3:16]. How different from the antagonistic or sarcastic arguments and retorts so prevalent today, which can cause social unrest and distrust! 2 Tim.2:25 suggests that as a result, the gentle are more likely to convince or convert others to the Christian way.
This call for gentle meekness and considerate humanity is an important balance in a world that often promotes aggressive, dominant leadership that is negatively critical of opposition. Gentle leadership can still be decisive, yet be far more considerate towards the variety of people and opinions in society. The Church has sometimes been criticised for the exclusivity of its claims and its inhumane treatment of those with whom it disagrees, or those it regards as sinners. This was certainly true in past history. If we learn from the mistakes of past Christians and exhibit the gentleness of Christ, we are more likely to create a believing community with a truer faith and worship, acting in ways that are closer to God’s intention. Christ-like gentleness provides a far more persuasive witness than intimidation.
The gentleness of Christ is our model, not an interpretation of gentleness or any of the fruit of the Spirit that is weak or an easy push-over. If we believe that our faith is true and that the ways taught by God can build the most fulfilling life, we should be offering a persuasive witness. Jesus didn’t hold back; he spoke out against wrong and taught what is right but rather than being negative or oppressive, he demonstrated a far more attractive belief and lifestyle. This was a positive contrast to the legalistic Pharisees and Sadducees. Christianity is not a weak faith; it provides a way of life that is active, positive and fulfilling. It shows us when we act in mistaken ways, but provides more life-enhancing alternatives. It is rightly judgemental of evil and wrongdoing, as Christ is, but true Christianity is gentle and lenient, while being just in the ways it responds to those who do wrong. Gentleness recognises that all are in the same boat as us, and treats others as we would want to be treated ourselves. It ‘forgives others as we have been forgiven’, without condoning wrong. Gentleness is humane because it recognises the condition of humanity, just like Christ, who as High Priest deals gently with us. The Church believes in ‘the priesthood of all believers.’ A true priesthood, modelled on Christ, “is able to deal gently with the ignorant and wayward because he himself is subject to weakness.” [Heb.4:14- 5:2].
It is a useful spiritual exercise to imagine what the world, the Church and our individual lives and relationships would be like if we all treated one another as God treats us and as Jesus treated those he met. This would greatly change relationships and attitudes. It would unite people, make all strong, not undermine any, encourage truth and honesty, and discourage self-centred personal, national or corporate advance. It would probably advance all by bringing greater cooperation, equity, justice, peace and so many more social advances, through the love and care of all. The quality of gentleness reflects this care for all: It is not a submissive, self-deprecating or obsequious lowliness that encourages some to raise themselves over others. Instead gentleness recognises that we are all responsible for supporting each other under the authority of God.
48 SELF-CONTROL - Fruit of the Spirit 9
What I wrote about myself over ‘Patience’ is also true of the spiritual struggle for ‘Self-Control’. We all probably know the war within us between the will of what Paul calls the ‘Flesh’ and ‘the Spirit’ [Rom.7:14-25]. The Christians who I know who appear most holy are often those who often appear most self-controlled. Those who appear most self-indulgent are often those who I find most difficult to recognise as closely following Christ’s ways. I recognise many areas of lack of self-control in my own life, even though I may have the outward appearance of being mild. Many of us will recognise areas of our lives where we lack self-discipline. But it is also easy to be unaware, or to justify ourselves and our failings.
There is a difference between being ‘self-controlled’ and being emotionally ‘cold’. I’ve come across several Christian leaders whose ministry I find hard to warm to because they seem inhumanly controlled and organised. I know others who appear self-indulgent and don’t allow themselves to be spiritually disciplined. It is far too easy to justify self-indulgence or sin by claiming that “I am only human,” or that “I am what I am”... “what you see is what you get”. But greater self-control would build more a more fruitful and Christ-like example and leadership in all of us.
The word for ‘self-control’ in New Testament Greek is usually ‘enkráteia’, the opposite of ‘akrasía’ [self-indulgence]. Both words share the stem ‘krat’ which means ‘power or lordship’. So self-indulgence ‘allows the self to be lord’, self-control is ‘dominant over the self’. Self-control can bring about steadfastness and self-composure; self-indulgence may seem steadfast at times, but may show its true self-centred nature in situations of pressure. Socrates and Aristotle regarded self-control as one of the cardinal virtues which allowed people to be ultimately free through exercising self-restraint. It was highly valued in the ethical and religious teaching of the Essenes, a prominent, pious Jewish religious party in Jesus’ day, who criticised the Sadducees for self-indulgence. It is commended in several apocryphal writings [Sir.18:30; Wis.8:21; 4Macc.5:34]. Jesus does not mention it specifically in his teaching, but his life demonstrated considerable self-control, and he encouraged discipline in other ways.
Paul compared his spiritual disciplining of himself to that of an athlete training to win the prize of salvation, primarily for those to whom his mission was directed but also to ensure that he did not stray from the path himself [1Cor.9:25]. He earlier wrote of the need for sexual self-control [1Cor.7:9]. This disciplining of body and mind is not like that of a modern body-builder trying to impress others or themselves by their physique. It is orientated towards being fit for purpose, useful and strong enough in faith, mind and spirit to be effective in mission and in life.
Self-control is an underlying theme but not a major aspect of New Testament teaching, probably because the emphasis of biblical Christian teaching was on allowing God to be in decisive control. There is no room for autonomy of human power in scripture. This is an important consideration in the contemporary Church, which is often dominated by church politics, the economics of church-finances and survival, various mission and giving strategies, and refers frequently to secular business and leadership styles. Leaders in training are often encouraged to find the style that best suits their personality and preferred ways of working, rather than encouraging all to primarily follow the leadership model and character of Christ. While we may learn partially from many of these business principles the Christian Church should not be regarded as a secular business; God has entrusted us with different, more universal priorities and responsibilities. We need to remember that while our plans are part of our exercise of responsibility, human control and strategies do not build the Church or God’s Kingdom. That is the work of God’s Spirit! Secular priorities are often not those of God. A church built on secular foundations may seem strong in human terms, but is not primarily spiritually founded, just as someone converted to Christian belief just by human argument is not entirely spiritually converted. A self-disciplined Christian life-style is valuable in giving us time for prayer, study of our faith, worship, fellowship, witnessing, work and rest. But it essentially needs true, quality time for being with God; we must remain open, listening for God’s Spirit to move and communicate. If we are over-organised we may be insensitive and miss the needs of God or others. We may even appear cold and unspiritual to those outside to whom we want to witness.
True self-control in our spiritual and physical lives is a fruit of God’s Spirit, where it allows God to be in control and to guide us. It is linked in the New Testament to another Greek word ‘sōphronismós’, which is used for ‘self-discipline’, ‘discretion’, and ‘moderation’ but literally means “making understanding or wise”. When Jesus healed a demoniac, the man was left ‘in his right mind’ [‘sōphronoǘnta’ Mk.5:15], meaning that he was no longer in the control of others, but controlled by his own senses. Paul defended himself, when accused of maniacal preaching, by claiming that he was preaching what was true, “rational” and “disciplined” [‘sōphrosýnēs’ Acts 26:25]. He encouraged the Roman believers to think of themselves with “sober judgement” [‘sōphroneín’ Rom.12:3]. 2Tim.1:7 speaks of God giving us a spirit of power, love and ‘sōphronismós’ or ability to regulate and discipline our lives holily. 1Tim.4:3ff encourages “moderation” as our response to the ambitions of the world and our desire for possessions. Titus 2:2 includes self-discipline and self-control among a long list of virtues, which might also be regarded as fruits of the Spirit: “being temperate, serious, prudent, sound in faith, love and endurance... encouraging each other to self-disciplined, sound, worthy and holy conduct; reverent in behaviour, discouraging slander, not enslaved to drink or other appetites, teaching what is good; chastity, good management of the household, kindness, submissive, modelling good works and good sound teaching, integrity, gravity, sound speech that cannot be censured, giving satisfaction to those for whom we work, respectful, honest, demonstrating fidelity and being true ornaments who show God in a good and truthful light.” So self-control and self-discipline in scripture are not really about being in charge of ourselves, but controlling our wills, lives and actions to allow God’s ways to flourish and God’s Spirit to guide us.
Like so many others in the list of fruit of the Spirit, ‘self-control’ puts others, especially God and what is good before oneself and one’s personal wishes or personal ambition. Human beings are designed to flourish on earth but we do so by being wise stewards of God’s world and God’s people, not by domination and destruction. St. Paul reminds us, “We are not our own... therefore we should glorify God with our bodies” [1Cor.6:19-20].
49 FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT - CONCLUSION
I began these studies recognising that the nine fruit of the Spirit mentioned in Galatians are not exclusive. Several other qualities of spiritual fruit have been mentioned as we’ve explored the nine. If you consider the character of Christ you’ll find many other characteristics which we pray that God’s Spirit will develop in us as we allow ourselves to be transformed into Christ-likeness. Other passages of the New Testament are useful to suggest further aspects of the Christian character. I would recommend exploring the characteristics of Christ’s followers mentioned in the following chapters: Rom.8; 12 to 15:6; 1Cor.10; 12; 13; Eph. 4-6; Col.2-3; 1Thess.4:1-12; Titus 3; Heb.12-13; 1Pet.1:13-23; 2:11f.; 4; 1Jn.3-4. All of these passages expand our concept of what God’s Spirit aims to develop within us. They include ‘Unity’ [Eph.4:1], ‘Confidence’ [2Cor.5:6f], ‘Generosity’ [2Cor.8:8], ‘Freedom’ [Col.2:6-19], ‘Speaking Truth’ [Eph.4:25], ‘Honest Hard Work’ [Eph.4:28], ‘Being Encouragers of One Another’ especially in our language and example [Eph.4:29], ‘Humility’ [Phil.2:1f.], ‘Shining as Lights in the World’ [Phil.2:12-18].
I guess that, like me, many or probably all of us, often allow our own personalities and desires to overpower the work that God’s Spirit wants to develop in us. St. Paul said that “if anyone is in Christ they are a new creation; the old has passed, the new has come” [2Cor.5:17]. But unfortunately we all tend to hold onto several of the bad habits of our former selves, or the strength of our character, like St Paul’s, wrestles with the desires of the Flesh, often outweighing the gentle influence of Christ’s Spirit [Rom.7:14-25].
We are all different, of course, with variations of character and abilities. Some are more extrovert, or introvert, activist or passive, impulsive or meditative, sensitive or unaware, interested in particulars or consider generally etc. All our different types are needed for an effective working Christian community that has the ability to communicate with the whole world. But for the body of a church to work together authentically as God intends, we also all need to follow the way of Christ with integrity and grow in ways by which we display the fruit of his Spirit. This includes allowing his Spirit to continually refresh us. It is easy to become stagnant in faith. Regular church attendance, keeping to a spiritual discipline like daily reading scripture, studying our faith and being uplifted by devotional literature, alongside our daily times for prayer, are all useful in our spiritual development. But we can also challenge ourselves by occasionally changing our habits: reading works that offer different perspectives on faith, not just our favourite authors or themes; exploring the Hebrew Scriptures as well as the New Testament; trying new experiences that might uplift us spiritually and expand our faith; studying new aspects of our faith. Just as we grow healthy by having a varied diet, we grow spiritually by varying our spiritual nourishment. However, it is also possible to go too far the other way and change our spiritual nourishment as often as some change clothes according to fashion. Heb.13:9 and Eph.4:14 warn against constantly seeking new, spiritual experiences like running after butterflies; this can make us unstable or diffuse our energies too much. There is a constancy and stability about spiritually secure Christians which makes them personally strong to withstand the difficulties of life, and enable them to be strong foundations or buttresses for a church community.
Christ is the foundation on whom the whole Church is built, and Christ’s character and activity is the model on which all our individual and corporate lives should be built. Jesus called us to “be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect” [Matt.5:48]. Achieving that seems impossible, but imitating Christ is possible. How we live out the serious responsibilities with which God entrusts us will differ for every one of us. But to succeed, Christ calls his followers to allow ourselves to be transformed by his Spirit and to challenge others, bringing the best out of all. To be true to God’s call, none should be weak in discipleship or weak in our understanding, teaching and learning; no church or individual Christian should be un-Christ-like. The Bible suggests that God made human beings to be the pinnacle of Creation. Christ died to make transformation and restoration by his Spirit possible. God’s Spirit indwells us to give us the power for transformation. With God’s perfection to guide us, as exemplified in Jesus and guided by his teachings how can any Christian be content with a mediocre response to God’s grace and love?
None of us will ever achieve perfection or Christ-likeness in this life; we will never see the fully- realised Kingdom of God in our present world. But we can build our faith wisely to work at improvement; to fulfil our potential, allowing God to increase our spiritual enthusiasm and effectiveness. We can help God’s Spirit’s work by extra focus on prayer, exploring our Bibles and challenging Christian books to deepen our understanding and faith, worshipping with increased integrity and fervour, living out our faith, encouraging other Christians and being encouraged by them. All these are incentives to more faithful Christian living but there is no substitute for spending substantial and quality time in the presence of God asking God to reveal truth and being open to receive, learn and be guided. We have time during this period of social distancing to focus on quality time with God. Imitating Jesus in character, action and in prayer could transform us, the Church and our world!
The fruit of the Spirit and the qualities called the ‘armour of God’ in Ephesians 6:10-18 give us principles to work towards. All mature Christians should aim to, as that ‘armour’ described in Ephesians reminds us: ‘stand firm in our faith, secure that we have the truth, living righteously, prepared in any situation to share our faith, bringing the peace of Christ to others, feeling secure in Christ’s gift of salvation, thoroughly knowing the Word of God which his Spirit has given to empower and teach us.’ If we work at all these with God’s Spirit’s help, as with the fruit of the Spirit, there will be nothing mediocre about our faith or the way we live it out.
As the body of Christ we can encourage one another to be Christ-like and fulfil the work Christ calls us to do. That is the purpose of being one body. I’ve heard the activity of many churches compared to a football match - ‘thousands of people who desperately need to exercise, watching 22 people running their socks off who desperately need a rest!’ When we all aim to grow in faith we work together better as a Church, spiritually enthused by each other, recognising Christ’s transformation in each other. No Christian or church must remain static. Imitating and following Jesus and letting his Spirit grow the fruit of his character in us leads to spiritual growth and effective mission. We’ll never convince the world of Christ’s transforming truth if transformation isn’t seen in us. May God guide us all towards meaningful, prayerful, loving and transformational fruitfulness!
50 APPENDIX I: UNDERSTANDING AND DEALING WITH ARGUMENTS MADE AGAINST THECONCEPT OF CHRIST’S RESURRECION
We should not promote the idea that Jesus was raised from the dead without taking seriously the arguments that have been made against it over time, particularly since the Enlightenment. We live in a sceptical world, so should be aware of the difficulties that many have with the Christian faith. Orthodox doctrines like the Resurrection, which seem convincing to many Christians, or which we take for granted, are often not so clear or believable by thinking people who try to delve into mysteries that will never be fully understood. Many people today have not been brought up to believe. Some consider that the Christian faith is based on fairy-tales, naïvety or wishful-thinking. Considering the arguments against belief in Christ’s Resurrection should help to strengthen one’s faith. If we question the basic doctrines in order to understand what may be true within them, we do not just develop a more reasoned apologetic, but underpin the foundations of our beliefs in ways that may support us when problems, trials or emotional upheavals might otherwise undermine them. The Resurrection, like so much in the Christian faith is a mystery, but even though we may not ever be able to fully explain it, exploring it, as I have tied to do in the studies of the Resurrection appearances can help to clarify our thoughts and our certainty. “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the assurance of things unseen.” [Heb.11:1].
The main argument against the Resurrection has always been that ‘miracles do not happen.’ People do not rise from the dead. So, if Jesus had truly died, as seems almost certain, since Roman executioners know their business, he cannot have come to life again. Of course, if there is an omnipotent God, that factor completely changes the argument, since by definition, anything is possible for such a force. But for those who consider God an improbability, or unlikely there must be some other explanation for the rise of the belief that Jesus returned from death.
The most likely explanations have been considered in the above study:
I consider that I have discounted most of these arguments in the former studies, but to summarise:
If the disciples had invented the whole story of the Resurrection of Jesus, it is unlikely that they would have endured as much suffering as they were willing to undergo in the mission to pass on Jesus’ teaching. If the really did consider by the time of Jesus’ death that he really was the Messiah, the one sent by God to change the world, it is just about possible that they could have invented Resurrection stories to give credence to their mission to further his message. But what would be the point if the Messiah was not considered by the culture to be one who would die? Would you continue with such a mission under extreme hardships, persecution and martyrdom if you knew that you were promulgating falsehoods?
None of these explanations actually prove or disprove the reality of Jesus’ Resurrection, but on balance I believe that the evidence for the Resurrection answers more questions than the arguments against it.
DAILY MEDITATIONS FROM EASTER TO PENTECOST - Iain McKillop
1 INTRODUCTION
These studies began through exploring and attempting to clarify in my own mind what I was what 1 trying to say in my new series of painted ‘Stations of the Resurrection’. I had designed the paintings and begun to paint them all, but my thoughts always develop and deepen as I work through paintings over many months and explore their potential meanings. I came to realise that my representations were proving inadequate. As usual, when I work on pieces on religious themes, I furthered my reading of the biblical accounts, commentaries and books exploring different scholars’ theories about the Easter story, I recognised that the images were at first representing the scenes over-literally, rather like 19th Century biblical paintings. They began by emphasising the evidence for the physical nature of Jesus’ Resurrection, but were failing to convey sufficiently the spiritual meaning that is to be found through faith in Christ’s risen nature and his achievement of salvation. I was really struggling with the images, finding them the hardest works I had ever attempted, particularly in making them convey what I personally felt about the scenes and the potential meanings within the Resurrection. I halted the painting process temporarily, partly to rethink the images, partly due to an operation and quite a serious post-operative period of illness. During the hiatus I turned to writing these studies as a way of reconsidering my beliefs about the narrative that I was representing and to refocus on what I might want to convey through them. Returning to painting after much study, I found that my mind was far more ready to deal with the subjects. However, these writings and the images remain tentative, as the subjects are understandably mysterious and firm knowledge about the Resurrection is illusive. As is so often said about faith: ‘the more you think you know, the more you realise that you do not know.’ But I hope that the thoughts explored in these studies might help readers deepen their appreciation and thoughts about the Resurrection stories in the Bible.
What happened on that first Easter morning? To be as truthful as Christians should always be, no-one can be sure. Something happened soon after the death of Jesus of Nazareth that ignited the Christian faith. If Jesus had just been executed or if he had just been one of the many ‘would-be Messiahs’, healers or rabbis who arose in the centuries around his life and death, he might have earned a single mention in some Jewish or Roman annals, but little more. However, something significant must have occurred to bring about the rise of people’s faith in and through him. The development of the early Church cannot surely be accounted for by Jesus just being appreciated as a wise and charismatic teacher.
Those Christians who find it hard to believe in the possibility of miracles tend to consider that the disciples somehow came to believe that their friend and teacher was still with them in spirit through their memories of him, and convinced themselves of the Resurrection appearances. Some sceptics believe that the Resurrection stories were invented to retain the commitment of those who had followed Jesus during his life. Other believers assume that the whole biblical narrative happened literally and physically in the ways related in the Gospels. Literalists and fundamentalists are nevertheless forced to recognise that there are discrepancies between the Gospels in the accounts that they give. Having studied the Resurrection for years I have come to a conclusion that there may be some aspects of truth within each of these conclusions. But I cannot believe that the entire story could have been imagined and promoted by Jesus’ disciples. Nevertheless, it is hard to balance the differences between the narratives in the different Gospels without thinking that the stories contain elements that were elaborated in the transmission from oral to written form over the years between Jesus’ death and the Evangelists compiling the canonical Gospels. It has been recognised for years of anthropological study that those cultures which rely on transmitting history, stories and traditions orally are more accurate in passing on to other information and detail than many modern cultures. Nevertheless, mistakes in transmission can still occur over time, where names, numbers and the order of events can change. This could account for the discrepancies of the Gospel accounts, but that doesn’t mean that the basic facts are inaccurate. It just implies that the accounts passed down within various early Christian communities and groups from which the Gospel-writers drew, may have differed.
Some sermons on the Resurrection tend to give the impression that because, as orthodox doctrine claims. Jesus was divine, it was inevitable that he could not remain dead. I mentioned in the Lent Meditations that I believe that the achievement of ‘salvation’ was far more complex than the common explanations of ‘substitutional atonement’. Similarly, I sense that the Resurrection is a far more complicated issue than Jesus bouncing back to life after three days because God cannot die. I do not pretend to have any idea of what such a complicated issue might involve, but from our knowledge of life, we should not assume that simplistic answers could be correct.
I believe that the Gospels were written with the sincere belief that their contents really did happen as the narrators wrote. Too much integrity was expected in the leadership of the early Church to accept invented fiction. There may well have still been some alive who were, or more likely had known, first-hand witnesses of some of the recorded events of Jesus’ ministry, who would correct mistakes, and I believe that the Gospel writers were honest. The longer ending of Mark’s Gospel [16:9-20} does seem a possible exception: it seems to be an addition to the text, and has caused some problems in Church history, when believers have tried to apply the miraculous promises to their own churches. This has led to some sect-like beliefs that the truly spiritual person will be able to perform miraculous and sometimes dangerous acts as the words imply (lifting deadly snakes, casting out demons, drinking poison, feeling over-sure that one can heal the sick [16:18]) . The spirit of self-confident and self-centred desire to have miraculous gifts at your fingertips is very far from the spirit of Christ’s teaching in the rest of Mark and in all the other canonical Gospels.
Although Jesus talked about his Resurrection several times in the Gospels [Mk. 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:28} it is clear that the Disciples and his other followers were not expecting it. N.T. Wright discusses in depth the expectations of afterlife in Jewish traditions. It seems certain that no-one was expecting Jesus to physically return as a living tangible body.
Whatever is the truth behind the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, the issue is probably the most important aspect of the entire Christian faith. So it is important to try to get our heads round its meaning and issues. Since the first Easter billions of words will have been spoken, preached and written about it. Yet so much about the resurrection remains a ‘mystery’. If orthodox belief about the Resurrection is true, it is probably also the most important event in world history. Arguably if Jesus was the Christ, God’s self-revelation to humanity through a human being, his Resurrection shares importance with his incarnation, crucifixion, achievement of salvation, Ascension and the more permanent sending of his Spirit at Pentecost. Even a reader who does not believe, or who finds such belief difficult, would surely admit that belief in the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth has been of significant importance in the history of the world. Many cultures from the early Church, Byzantium, Orthodoxy in the West, East and Coptic societies, the Holy Roman Empire, Mediaeval, Renaissance, 18th, 19th and 20th Century revivals to Christian cultures throughout the world have been affected by the application of the Resurrection to their own understandings of present and future life.
I believe Jesus’ Resurrection to be a significant and important event, but we cannot be sure in what ways the records of it are ‘true’. No one can claim to truly know the details of what happened after Jesus’ death and how the event known as ‘the Resurrection’ came about. There is no mention in any of the Gospels of what actually happened to his body at the point of resurrection. We can be sure, I believe, as historical fact that an historical character, Jesus of Nazareth, died on the cross and we know that from three days later reports circulated that he was seen to be alive again by various of his followers. Something significant happened, and it may be that reasoned scrutiny of what the Gospels say about the events are the closest that one might be able to get to understanding what convinced the early Church of Jesus’ new life beyond his crucifixion and entombment.
If one explores the stories in scripture and issues that relate to them I believe that the basic evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection is convincing, though it may have been elaborated in the telling. I list some of the reasons for my personal conviction in my appendices and discuss them in this series of meditations. However, it is not an easy subject to reason through for any thinking person, whether a theologian, historian, philosopher, Christian with even the strongest belief and more forensic minds than my own propensity to question. There is also valuable reasoning in arguments like those of Borg and Crossan, that the importance of the Resurrection is not necessarily in it being physical, but the meaning behind it. Many believe that the most logical approach to the Resurrection is to imagine it as a realisation that developed in the mind of Jesus’ followers that he was still with them after his death. Borg and Crossan call the Resurrection stories ‘parables’, which to me misinterprets the genre of literature of the Gospels, especially their concluding chapters. Parables are fictional tales designed to convey spiritual truths and meanings. I consider that the Gospels were being written with the belief that they were ‘history’. The ancient writing of history did not seek to be as empirical as some modern history attempts to be. It might exaggerate the power of character, numbers of the dead in battles, or the power and significance of events, in order to maintain the bias of the writer or get his point across, But it was largely writing about events that were firmly believed to have happened. It is not metaphorical or fictional. I believe that the Evangelists and St. Paul were finding words to describe what they truly believed had happened. They may be exaggerations or misinterpretations of certain events, but they believed that they were conveying truths. Our role is to find the meaning for today of those beliefs.
What matters most in our relationship with God through Christ is to remember and act upon the presence of the Spirit in our lives. But St. Paul’s assertion also seems true that if Christ was not actually raised from death the hopes of salvation and our actions in response are futile [1Cor.15:12-19].
The Resurrection narratives in the Gospels are very varied. They sometimes do not all appear to tell the same story. Few include the same narratives. Luke includes sightings of Jesus as if they are occurring on a single day, though in Acts 1:3 he suggests that they were spread out over 40 days. Many include very different sightings of the risen Jesus to different people, sometimes around the same time – for example was Mary Magdalene alone in the first meeting with Jesus [Jn.20:14] or was she with a group of other women when Jesus first appeared [Matt.28:9] . It is also hard to order the meetings with the disciples, when for Luke their all the encounters are in Jerusalem or on the road to Emmaus, while in other gospel accounts he first appears in Galilee. It is not possible, therefore, to create a unified chronological narrative by attempting a comparison and compilation of the Gospels. It seems evident that the writers were not primarily writing through copying material from each other, and were reliant on a variety of different source material. In only a few instances are sightings of the risen Christ similar in a few Gospels and even there, details sometimes vary significantly. Rather than suggesting that such material is invented, I believe that the variation may imply the authenticity of some of the events included. Too much agreement over details might suggest that the writers were attempting to corroborate the story by editorial harmonisation with the writings of the other Evangelists. The variety within the stories can be interpreted to imply that the records, memories and impressions of different witnesses had been handed down in various oral reports.
Due to the variations within the Resurrection narratives, I have come to the conclusion that it is best to explore each story separately within the broad compass of the whole. To attempt to harmonise them, as Stations of the Cross do, into one chronological narrative encounters too many problems. In order to create a certain progress through the whole group of Resurrection appearances, I have formed the scenes into a general order. But they cannot be made to follow each other as precisely as a continuity editor might wish. This is why I sense that it is more important to ask of each separate incident “Why did the Evangelist include it and what did he intend us to glean from the inclusion of each scene?”
If we think about the reason for writing the ‘Resurrection narratives’ in the canonical Gospels, they seem to be telling the stories of sightings of Jesus to give evidence that Jesus was truly raised from death. The Gospel narratives themselves do not seem to be trying to persuade readers that Jesus is offering life beyond death to us. Jn.20:31 would seem to be the exception, “These are written so that you may come to believe that \Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.” However even here the allusion is not specifically to Christ’s Resurrection. Other resurrection passages do not mention the Christians’ hope for the future, which seems strange if they were intended as evangelistic literature. (Matt.27:52-53 records people rising from their tombs at Jesus’ death and Resurrection but this supernatural phenomenon does not necessarily imply that others believers will rise.)
The earliest extant Christian literature in St. Paul’s letters, does allude to the Christian hope of salvation and our belief that Christ’s followers have been given the promise of human life through Jesus’ Resurrection [1Cor.15; 2Cor.4-5; Rom.8:9-11; 1Thes.4:14]. Most Christian sermons, liturgies, hymns and other forms of literature or art about the Resurrection rarely omit reference to the promises for believers that stem from Jesus’ resurrected life. The Resurrection is often used as a vehicle for promoting faith and trust for believers’ own future security and exultation. Some commentators suggest that this content may be lacking in the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection because, at this stage in the first two centuries of Christian thought, belief in the link between Christ’s Resurrection and the future life of believers was unsure. But Paul’s letters cited above seem to contradict this.
If Jesus’ Resurrection is basically true, it is an event that we should be able to defend, not be afraid to examine the details forensically. I would encourage all thinking Christians to question what and why they believe in order to strengthen their faith. At times in the history of churches, seekers and believers have been encouraged to merely accept the miraculous teachings of Christianity as fact. Some say that true Christians should “believe and not doubt”. James 1:6 appears to say exactly that. Rom.14:26; Lk.24:38; Matt.28:17; Jn.20:27 would seem to back up the idea that faith needs to overcome doubt. In order to work practically, we often have to take ‘leaps of faith’ in many aspects of life, faith and understanding, even in science, and relationships. But we have been given human minds which encourage us to question and challenge. This is part of a natural process by which we and societies develop. We grow and expand our knowledge through challenging our beliefs. If we didn’t question or doubt accepted understandings, we would never have advanced human society, scientific knowledge, technology, the arts and humanities, our use of our environment, or belief and spirituality.
Doubt and questioning are natural functions of all human minds. A strong Christian like St. Paul must have doubted and questioned. His writings regularly discuss his wrestling with beliefs and practices and his preaching and apologetic must have been stronger as a result. Simplicity and child-like belief are commended as Christian virtues and praised by Jesus as encouraging trust [Matt.18:3-4], but deliberate ignorance or naïve credulity are not to be encouraged. Too many invented false beliefs and superstitions have developed within churches and sects in the past, feeding on the ignorance and credulity of members. This has worked to the detriment of the Church and partially caused the present decline in belief and trust in Christianity in a world that offers so many other alternative beliefs and lifestyles. As several mystics since Socrates have reiterated “an unexamined life is not worth living”. Similarly a naïve faith that does not expand or educate itself does not worthily represent a faith that is open to reason, as Christianity should be. Moreover, an unexamined faith rarely satisfies the believer, nor does it give a sufficient witness in the contemporary rational world.
That is one reason why I undertook these reflections on Jesus’ Resurrection. Many more analytical examinations of the evidences have been published, from Morrison’s ‘Who Moved the Stone’ to N.T. Wright’s mammoth theological study. So I have not attempted to emulate or condense these arguments, though my thinking has benefitted from a plethora of writers on the subject, from varied perspectives. I have rather tried to imagine myself into the scenes and reflect upon meaningful details and significant feelings that support and encourage my faith.
My Stations of the Resurrection and written meditations were created during the Covid 19 pandemic, as a way of contemplating positive and hopeful themes through such a vulnerable time for so many. I wanted to examine the evidence and relevance of the Resurrection narratives through the imagination as well as revisit and reinvestigate the recorded details of the stories. Our imaginations can sometimes distort or distract from truth by following paths of fantasy and ideas unintended by the biblical writers. Unintentionally and intentionally some Christians have invented false ideas and doctrines for centuries, by flights of the imagination. However, applying the imagination can also help one to focus on details, examine, meditate upon and clarify the personal relevance of issues. (Contemplative prayer, Lectio Divina and St. Ignatius of Loyola’s Spiritual exercises all demonstrate this.) We can often think through our imagination and through our vision, as well as by analysing facts. So I hope that my imaginative inventions may help others to think through the meaning and significance of Jesus’ Resurrection for themselves.
Of course the paintings and poems are only imagined images of the scenes recorded in the Gospels. We do not know what the scenes or characters really looked like, but accurate topography or portraiture is not important. A picture is only a metaphor for the subject that it represents. The responses that really matter are how we interpret the scene, what we receive from it, how it affects, confirms or challenges our beliefs and how we apply its content to our understanding, practices and faith. Those considerations are true of the whole topic of resurrection, as well as the rest of scripture. It is of course important to work out whether we believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Saviour, that his Resurrection is true and whether we can believe and trust that he offers us the promise of life beyond death.
The Resurrection stories expand their meaning and relevance when we consider details within them. It is useful to meditate on what the various characters involved experienced and thought, and their emotional responses. The post-resurrection sightings of Jesus helped to convince the disciples and early members of Church that he really was the Christ, anointed by God to bring salvation. After years of consideration the Church councils eventually came to the conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth was not just a teacher or prophet sent by God, but God’s self-revelation in human form. For a community consisting of many monotheistic believers, this was an enormous step, both an enormous leap of the theological imagination and a huge challenge. Many of the Jewish faith would have formerly considered such belief anathema or blasphemy, and some were martyred by their contemporaries as a consequence.
Today such beliefs are still persecuted in some cultures. But they are more often considered as naïve or over-credulous in cultures dominated by the idea that if something seems scientifically impossible or is not provable by empirical evidence, it cannot be true. This assumption is false: I cannot prove many things, yet still understand them to be true: We cannot prove that our partners love us, the origins of the cosmos, life, gravity or the wind. We do not know what is beyond infinity, and cannot even prove conclusively that homeopathic remedies and alternative forms of healing work. All we have are evidences. Jesus’ Resurrection similarly depends on evidences, even though some of the evidence that convinced believers in the past may not always be considered reliable today. The biblical narratives provide the majority of the written evidence to consider. Though the reliability and bias of ancient documents may understandably be questioned, it is undeniable that something significant happened to give confidence to the early church. Some dismiss as subjective, personal, or esoteric the experiences of Christians over centuries who consider that they have true, interactive relationships with a risen and ascended Christ. However many who have spiritual experiences and feel a relationship with God through Jesus, are in no doubt about the veracity of Christ being alive and real, communicating with them, though in a different dimension . Even those with faith who regularly question or have areas of doubt over various doctrines, can often point to evidences within their life-experiences that God and their spiritual relationship are real.
When I say that I believe in the resurrection of Jesus and that Jesus was the Christ, I do not want to imply that I no longer question or doubt. Even St. Paul recognised that we should be pitied if we are giving over much of our lives and energies, and resting our hopes on something that might eventually prove to be incorrect [1Cor.15:19]. From this it may be inferred that he too was sometimes forced to question whether his faith was all real, even though he claimed to have had a physical experience of the risen Christ [1Cor.15:8]. Even in the midst of problems and questions he was able to return to a basic belief that affirmed the Resurrection: “But in fact, Jesus has been raised form the dead, the first-fruits of those who have died.” [1Cor.15:20].
A key issue for the believer is not just ‘Do I believe that Jesus rose from death?’ but further: ‘Do I believe that Jesus’ Resurrection, offers me the promise of a life beyond death with him?’ We have no idea what that form of existence might be like. Christians have made assumptions and guesses, even doctrinal statements throughout time. Jesus gave hints about such a life: ‘you will be with me where I am’, ‘many dwelling-places’, ‘a place of light’, ‘eternal life’, ‘no more corruption’. The scriptural imagery of life beyond death may only be metaphors assuring us that our future beyond death is safe with him. 1Jn.3:2 acknowledges that “what we will be has not yet been revealed”, yet the epistle continues: “when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is.” The writer obviously felt assured that whatever spiritual or physical form life beyond death took, we would share our experience and something of our nature with the risen and ascended Jesus. This was not just written out of wishful thinking but at the opening of the letter he claimed first hand evidence that originated with Christ: “We declare to you... what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands.” [1Jn.1:1].
The Bible claims that the Resurrection of Jesus has wonderful implications for the future of Christians. The renewed life of Christ brought the promise of a similar renewal of life beyond all that we experience in our physical earthly existence. Exploring the relevance of the Gospel narratives of Jesus’ Resurrection therefore may offer us insights into what Christians trust in for their own future. The stories certainly convey what the Gospel compilers believed and wanted to convey as a message to their readers.
2 DEALING WITH APPARENT DISCREPANCIES IN THE GOSPEL ACCOUNTS
Even the most literalist or fundamentalist interpreters of scripture need to admit that the various Gospel accounts of Christ’s Resurrection contain discrepancies, even in places seem to include contradictions. When short sections of the post-resurrection appearances are read in Church or in daily meditations it is hard to recognise the differences since, to many, the stories are so well known. But when you read the full chapters in the Resurrection accounts simultaneously you realise how different they are. Some commentators, like John Wenham [Easter Enigma 1984; 1992] have sought to show that these are not necessarily contradictions, and that it is possible to read the texts in such a way that they complement the information in each other. But to do so you have to overlook or contrive some of the claims or details in the texts.
For many years commentators have shown that it is wrong to try to harmonise the Gospels. They were each written for different congregations, for varied reasons, by compilers who may well have had different intentions in their writing. They also used different sources. It has been long debated how much Mark, Matthew and Luke might have been dependent on another’s text or shared some particular as-yet unfound sources. But it is clear that each also used material that was not available to the others, or not used by them in their accounts and arguments to tell Jesus’ story and to convince their readers of faith. It therefore seems equally futile to attempt to harmonise their accounts of the Resurrection. Most of the Evangelists mention very different stories as evidence of Jesus’ Resurrection, though there are some parallels. Luke’s Gospel particularly includes different incidents, characters and places. Some claim the initial unbelief of the disciples, others claim that they saw and believed. Luke mentions no appearances in Galilee and sets all Jesus’ appearances in the vicinity of Jerusalem. So it would be wrong to try to falsify the differences by trying to force them into unnatural harmonisation.
It might be possible, as Wenham shows, to find some parallels in several of the scenes. However these are some of the apparent discrepancies:
- The earthquake at Jesus’ death and resurrection [only in Matt.]
- The placing of a guard and the sealing of the tomb [only in Matt.]
- The guards fleeing and being bribed by the religious authorities to claim that the disciples had stolen Jesus’ body [only in Matt.]
- Mary Magdalene visiting the tomb on her own [only in Jn.]
- The number of women who visited Jesus’ tomb: 3 in Mark, Two in Matthew, at least 5 in Luke, John mentions Mary, but suggests by her statement “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb and we do not know where they have laid him”, that she was with others.
- The expression of the time at which the woman visited the tomb is different in each gospel - while it was still dark [Jn.], ‘very early in the morning. [Lk.] ‘when the sun had risen’ [Mk.].
- The angels or men at the tomb - one man [Mk.], two men [Lk. and Acts 1L10]; one angel [Matt., two angels [Jn.].
- The place where the angel was - inside the tomb [Lk. and Jn.]; initially sitting on the stone [Matt.].
- The message of the angel(s) to the women – ‘he is risen’, ‘come and see’, ‘tell the disciples, he is going ahead to Galilee, you will see him there’ [Mk. and Matt.]; ‘he told you in Galilee that he would rise on the third day’ [Lk.]; “Why are you weeping?” [Jn.]
- How the women responded – ‘They were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground ... They told the eleven and all the rest’ [Lk.]... ‘They fled from the tomb in terror and said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.’ [Mk.]... ‘They left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to tell the disciples’ [Lk.] ... ‘Mary Magdalene rushed to tell the disciples’ [Jn.]
- Christ’s first appearance – to two women who clutched his feet [Matt]; to one woman Mary, who was told not to cling onto him [Jn.].
- The response of Jesus’ followers to the news of his resurrection - disbelief [Longer ending of Mk.], belief [Jn.], doubt [Lk.], Peter or Peter and John rushing to check [Lk. and Jn.]
- Lk.24:34 appears to suggest that Jesus’ first appearance was to Peter. St. Paul’s list of appearances in 1Cor 15 only lists appearances to men, including one to Peter (under his Aramaic name Cephas). Perhaps both accounts were influenced by the lack of validity of women’s evidence in courts, though Luke’s Gospel often emphasises the importance of women in Jesus’ ministry.
- Where Jesus first met the eleven disciples - in Jerusalem behind locked doors [Lk.]; in Galilee where Jesus commissioned them to follow him [Matt. and Mk.] Jn. specifically mentions appearances in Galilee after Jesus’ appearances in Jerusalem.
- The place of the ‘Ascension’ – a mount somewhere near Galilee [Matt.], presumably in Galilee [the long ending of Mk.] or near Bethany, perhaps Mount Olivet, near Jerusalem - no mention of an ascension in Jn.
- The time of the giving of the Holy Spirit – breathed on the disciples by the risen Jesus in the Upper Room [Jn.]; at Pentecost [Luke in Acts].
- An additional problem is the probability that the variations of longer endings of Mark’s Gospel are unreliable later additions, so the verses from 16:9-20 should not be taken as trustworthy. Commentators give different potential reasons for Mark’s lack of detail or narratives connected to Jesus’ Resurrection: Some believe that the pages of the original ending of the Gospel were lost or that Mark may have died before completing the text. Others sense that Mark intentionally ended his text at verse 8, though the phrase with which the last passage ends is a strange one with which to complete a text.
While there are so many differences in the texts of the gospel narratives, most of these variations are relatively insignificant. The only really important differences are whether the appearances were just around Jerusalem [Lk.] or included the appearances in Galilee, and the place of the Ascension [a mount in Galilee or Olivet near Bethany.
The variations in the Resurrection narratives and the appearances of the risen Christ in the different Gospels are apparent in the following attempt to place them in chronological order. It will be seen from this how difficult it would be to harmonise them or be certain of their order. The order suggested below is only approximate and contains several passages that seem to run parallel or to contradict others. The discrepancies are the major reason why I deliberately suggest that each of the events, like the Stations should be considered separately, without attempting to relate them too precisely to the sequence of events in other gospels. The varied memories of the different witnesses which contributed to the Evangelists’ compilation of their narrative may well account for the discrepancies. Discrepancies do not mean that the basic story is incorrect; rather that the witnesses and sources may have had different perspectives and heard different permutations of the tale.
IN JERUSALEM:
FIRST DAY
Around dawn Mary Magdalene and the other Mary visit the tomb and may have witnessed an earthquake,
The angel of the Lord descends and rolls back the stone and sits on it [only in Matt.]
The guard at the tomb are struck down in fear, then flee [only in Matt]
Mary Magdalene visits the tomb and finds it empty [only in Jn.]
Mary Magdalene runs to tell Peter and John and others with them [Jn. and Lk.] (In Mk. the women keep silent about what they have witnessed, fearing that they will not be believed.)
Peter and John visit the tomb, see the grave-clothes but no angels and John believes [Jn.] Only Peter runs to the tomb [Lk.]
Mary Magdalene revisits the tomb and meets 2 angels [only in Jn]
The other women with Mary Magdalene visit the tomb [Matt. Mk. and Lk.]
The women meet an angel [Matt.], a man [Mk.], 2 angels [Lk.]
Although the angel tells the women to inform the disciples and to say that he will meet them in Galilee [Matt. and Mk.] “they fled from the tomb.. and said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid” [only in Mk.]... They briefly told Peter and his companions [short ending of Mk.]
The women meet Jesus and he tells them to inform his brothers that he will meet them in Galilee [only in Matt.] They went and reported the sighting and gave the message.
Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene [Jn. and longer ending of Mk.] who at first thinks him the gardener then recognises him [only in Jn.]
Mary runs to tell the other disciples [Jn. and longer ending of Mk.]
Meanwhile the guards run to the chief priests and elders, inform them of the loss, and are bribed to say that the disciples have stolen the body [only in Matt.]
Later in the afternoon, not long before evening, Jesus walks with Cleopas and his companion on the road to Emmaus then reveals himself at an Emmaus meal [Lk.]. Jesus appears to two disciples “as they were walking into the country” [longer ending Mk.]
In the evening Jesus appears behind locked doors to 10 disciples who are without Thomas [only in Jn].
SECOND DAY
Cleopas and companion return in the morning to inform the disciples [only Lk.] (in the longer ending of Mk. they return the day before and the disciple do not believe them).
While they are discussing Cleopas’ news Jesus first appears to the disciples. He proves his reality by showing his wounds and eating broiled fish [only Lk.]. He reproves their unbelief [longer ending of Mk.]
AT SOME UNSPECIFIED TIME
Later Jesus appears to the eleven with Thomas and proves himself to Thomas who declares him ‘My Lord and my God’ [Jn.]
IN GALILEE
The disciples travelled to Galilee [Matt.]
Jesus appears to them on the mountain but some doubted [Matt.]
Jesus appears to seven disciples fishing by the lake of Tiberias (Lake of Galilee). The miraculous draught of fishes is followed by breakfast prepared by Jesus on the beach [only in Jn]
Jesus forgives and commissions Peter [only in Jn.]
Peter asks about John’s future [only in Jn.]
Jesus appears to more than 500 at once [only in 1Cor.15]
AT SOME UNMENTIONED TIME
Jesus appears to his brother James [only in 1Cor.15]
Jesus appeared to Peter (Cephas) [1Cor.15]. It is uncertain whether this is the same time as the commissioning of Peter in Jn. Luke implies that the first appearance of the risen Jesus was to Peter [Lk.24:34].
Towards the end of his 40 days with them, Jesus commissions the disciples to distribute his message further, [longer ending of Mk. and Lk.].
He tells them to stay in Jerusalem until ‘clothed with power from on high’ [only Lk. and Acts]
He assures them that miracles will accompany their preaching for those who believe [only in longer ending Mk.]
ON THE MOUNT OF ASCENSION
Before the Ascension Jesus gives the Great Commission [Matt. but Matt. does not mention the Ascension]. Lk. and longer ending of Mk. give different words of the commission. It is implied that these commissions are given on the mount shortly before Jesus left them.
The Ascension takes place on a mount presumably in Galilee [Mk. and implied in Matt.]
The Ascension takes place near Bethany close to Jerusalem (thought to be Mount Olivet [Acts1:12]) ‘he withdrew and was carried up into heaven’ [Lk.] This phrase is shorter in some manuscripts which just say “he withdrew from them”]. Acts 1:9 adds “and a cloud took him out of their sight.”
AFTER THE ASCENSION
The disciples worshipped Christ; went to the Temple regularly and praised God [longer ending of Mk and Acts1:14; 2:46]
They went out and proclaimed the Gospel and Christ worked with them confirming their message with signs [longer ending of Mk; Acts2:43]
Peter explained all that had happened to 120 believers [Acts1:15f.]
The decision was made to include Matthias over Joseph/Barsabbas/Justus in the number of the apostles by casting lots [Acts 1:23-26] .
Jesus’ followers waited in Jerusalem with Jesus’ mother, his brothers and other women in prayer.
The filling of the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost [Acts2:1-13]
Peter addressed the gathered crowd, explaining the events that they had witnessed and converted many [Acts 2:14-42].
Some time later Saul of Tarsus, who had been persecuting Christians claims that he met the risen Jesus who commissioned him as an apostle [1Cor.15]. He changed his name to Paul. Although Paul claims to have met the risen Christ it is suggested that he was referring to a vision of the ascended Christ, not an encounter with the physical risen Jesus, unless he rematerialized before him.
There are several difficulties in attempting to harmonise or account for the differences in the Resurrection accounts. Yet I do not believe that there are enough major differences to claim, as some do, that the Resurrection of Jesus is fictional. If the early Church had been trying to promote a fiction, they would surely, at some time, have attempted to harmonise the accounts more closely through editing, rather than leaving such textual disharmony. It is clear from a few parallel texts in the Synoptic Gospels that some borrowed material from others, though scholars still disagree over which narrative sources influenced the others As the Gospels were written some time after the event, it seems very likely that they were compiled by memories and stories that had been handed down through separate Christian communities, so it is almost inevitable that certain names, numbers of witnesses, places, reports of conversations and orders of events might have altered through the retelling. Similarly some of the stories might have been missed out of the sequence or misremembered, despite the greater memory for retelling narratives in their culture than in the present day. That does not necessarily shed doubt on any of the basic statements in the Resurrection story. However to provide an honest argument, it does not prove the authenticity of the events either. Ultimately to accept the premise of Christ’s Resurrection and consequences that derive from it, requires one to take a leap of faith, based on studying the evidence, then using and trusting one’s intellect and intuition.
RESURRECTION APPEARANCES & STATIONS OF THE RESURRECTION
3 THE REST IN THE TOMB
We aren’t told much in scripture about Joseph of Arimathea who offered his tomb for the burial of Jesus’ body, nor do we know for certain the location of Arimathea. Most legends of Joseph appear to have no early source, but may be much later inventions. One legend says that Philip sent Joseph to preach in England around 61C.E., from which developed legendary connections with Glastonbury in Somerset, Marazion in Cornwall and the Holy Grail. Two other legends suggest that he was the uncle of Jesus’ mother Mary and that he was a tin merchant, hence his connection with Cornwall.
Examining the scriptural evidence, presumably he had left his home and settled in Jerusalem, as he had a home and social position there, bought land and had his tomb constructed in a garden outside the city walls. (No alien soil or burials were allowed in the city itself.) He was apparently relatively wealthy member of the Sanhedrin Council and may have been a secret follower of Jesus, like Nicodemus. Luke emphasises Joseph’s good character, claiming that he was looking sincerely for the Kingdom of God, which may be a way of suggesting his allegiance to Jesus as in Matt.27:57 and Jn.19:38. This claim about him may also be intended as a literary link to the beginning of Luke’s Gospel, where Simeon and Anna were introduced as waiting with the same hope [Lk.2:25, 38]. This may part of the pattern of Luke’s text: As a child Jesus was declared to be the one for whom prophecy had been waiting; now in his resurrection that promise is being fulfilled, and at Pentecost the power to continue the bringing of that Kingdom would be unleashed. Luke emphasised that Joseph had not consented to the Sanhedrin’s decision to arrest, try and condemn Jesus. Other Gospels assert that the vote against Jesus was unanimous, thus placing the blame firmly on the religious elite [Lk.20:70; Mk.14:64]. If this is right, it may mean that Joseph was not present at the meeting. But his commitment to truth and to Jesus would probably suggest that he would have wanted to be there to defend Jesus. Perhaps, as some have conjectured, Caiaphas had been selective in the members of the council that he called together in the night, a time when trials were illegal in Jewish law anyway. Of course, Joseph might have been a coward in the situation, as Peter had been under pressure. But he must have come out into the open as a follower of Jesus by offering his newly-cut tomb for the body of the Rabbi whose teaching he supported. Affirming his allegiance in this way would have been a brave decision. To have become a membership of the Sanhedrin he may have been a man with a substantial reputation, more than that of just being a “good man”. His social position may have been a reason why his approach to the Roman authorities to receive Christ’s body was granted by the governor. Supporting Jesus would have been difficult for someone in that position, though we are told that other men and women in strong social positions also supported Jesus. Joseph may have been rather like the scribe who came to Jesus by night earlier in his mission, who Jesus had claimed was “not far from the Kingdom of God.” [Mk.12:28-34].
The removal of Jesus’ body from the cross, to be buried in a tomb was not always the normal Roman custom. There was understandable reluctance to hand over the bodies of traitors, for fear that they might be regarded as martyrs and exacerbate the cause for which they died. In many cultures the Romans often left the executed on their crosses as a warning to other potential criminals, or to throw the bodies on the floor or in a pit for desecration by feral dogs, rats, raptors and the elements. Some might be buried in a public grave, but without the usual burial honours. Tacitus claimed that “people sentenced to death forfeited their property and were forbidden burial” [Annals VI.29]. They were not often allowed to be buried in family tombs.
In Jewish culture an executed body could not be left in the open overnight and had to be removed before sunset [Deut.21:13]. In the Hebrew Scriptures to give someone burial was an act of piety [2Sam.21:12-14]. The body of someone who had been executed could be returned to the family for burial, but this was solely at the beneficence of the magistrate or governor. In practice, if relatives asked for the corpse of a condemned, it was often given over to them The fact that Pilate allowed Jesus’ body to be removed and entombed privately, may have been partly to prevent the bodies causing offence over the Passover festival, and potentially because Pilate recognised that this had been the execution of a very different and, in his opinion, an innocent man. To have left his body on show might have roused his followers or aggravated the authorities, since he was labelled “King of the Jews”. To allow Joseph, a significant loyal citizen, to bury him privately could have been politically astute. Being from Galilee, Mary and most of the disciples would not have had a local place to bury their dead, so it might have seemed logical for a significant local follower of God to offer a suitable burial site.
We cannot be sure of the original location of Jesus’ tomb. It would have been outside the city walls, as no burials were allowed within the City, but rock hewn tombs were fairly common in C1st Jerusalem. It was most probably north or north-west of Jerusalem beyond the Ephraim Gate and the Gennath Gate (the ‘Gate of the Garden’). Only Matthew mentions that this was Joseph of Arimathea’s own personal tomb, thus appearing to fulfil the prophecy in Isa.53:9: “they made his tomb.... with the rich”. The description of the tomb as being rock-hewn in Lk.23:53 may indicate Joseph’s high social standing and wealth in being able to afford such a tomb. It may also intend to suggest the honourable status of the burial given to Jesus.
Tradition claims that the tomb was on the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which is in the area suggested above. The tradition is and ancient one, presumably within the Christian community. Archaeological evidence shows that this site had been a cemetery in the C1st C.E., utilising the rock walls of an abandoned quarry. The evidence for the authenticity if this as Jesus’ burial place cannot now be corroborated since the present Church of the Holy Sepulchre stands on the site of an ancient temple built c135C.E. When Constantine’s workmen excavated the site in 325 C.E. they are said to have found the cave of the tomb [Eusebius’ Life of Constantine III.25-29]. However, in building the original church of the Holy Sepulchre Constantine’s builders cut away much of the rock of the cave-tomb that they had found, and further building work destroyed more of the cave’s original form. Although the evidence for this having been the true site is relatively weak, the evidence for the ‘Garden Tomb’ further north of the Fish Gate is even weaker, though the form of the tomb is probably closer to an idea of what Jesus’ original tomb had been like. The tomb would have consisted of a hollowed-out cave, with a low entry. There would possibly have been a central pit to allow for head-room, with flat ledges or benches around the walls to support the bodies before they were placed in recesses in the wall. In the tombs of the less wealthy, a large boulder was often set in the entrance to prevent ingress, but richer tombs had disc-shaped stones, rather like millstones rolled across the entrance. I have exaggerated the size of this in my painting. Usually it was only about a metre in diameter. But it would still require the strength of several men to shift it, especially as it often rolled into place down a groove with an intentional incline to secure the stone in place.
What would probably have happened when Jesus was taken down from the cross, was that his body was handed over to Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, and was brought to the tomb by them and Jesus’ family and friends. However long the journey, the body would have been moved outside the city walls. I and many painters and sculptors have emotionally empathised with the feeling of Jesus’ family and friends through images of the Deposition, Entombment and particularly Pieta images of Christ’s mother grieving as she embraced the body of her son. Michelangelo’s Pietas, especially the Florentine Pieta, are among my favourite works of art. My own several many attempts at the subject, particularly the central panel of my Gloucester Cathedral Lady Chapel Altarpiece, examine the emotions of Mary accompanied by John or Mary Magdalene. But I had never really considered how Jesus’ body had been prepared for the grave. This subject is significant if we want to imagine what his body was like when resurrected.
Deuteronomic law required that a body of a hanged man should be buried before dark [Deut.21:22-3]. Josephus claims that this was also the case for the crucified [Josephus The Jewish Wars iv:317]. If Jesus was taken down from the cross in the evening before sunset, there would have been little time for the washing of the body, an anointing, embalming or wrapping. Traditional preparation of the body would have taken at least an hour, even if the family and friends had the materials with them near Calvary or the tomb, which would be unlikely. Someone would have needed to return to the city to gather the necessary water, cloths, spices and oils. By this time, I expect that shops or market stalls would have been closing or closed, as this was the eve of a significant public holiday, so the initial materials for the burial would probably have to be gathered from supportive friends. Perhaps Joseph of Arimathea already had burial materials in preparation for his own burial, though he is said to have ‘bought’ the new linen shroud [Mk.14:36]. It would not be surprising if the preparation of the body was not fully completed in the time available and that the women who were close to Jesus were intent on returning on the morning after the Sabbath to worthily inter the body of a man who was so important to them.
3a: JEWISH BURIAL PRACTICES
John’s Gospel claims that Jesus was buried ‘according to the burial custom of the Jews”... “wrapped with spices in the linen cloth” [Jn.19:40]. No mention is made in any of the Gospels of the washing of Jesus’ body, which was an important Jewish practice. But the traditional washing of a body was considered so important in the culture that to was a permitted activity on the Sabbath [M. Shabbath XXIII.5], so it is very likely that the body would have been fully washed before being wrapped in the new linen grave cloths bought by Joseph. But the same Jewish law did forbid burial on the Sabbath [M.Shabbath XXIII.5], so it is probable that the body would have been entombed by about 6.00pm. on the Day of Preparation. We cannot be sure whether Jesus’ body was prepared as fully and honourably as tradition would have wanted and whether those who prepared him would have had the time or materials to anoint his body with the traditional oils and spices.
In Jewish tradition, spices were not used for mummification, but apparently to cover-up the odours of decomposition. Bottles of perfumes and jars of aromatic oils were also left in tombs for this purpose (several have been found in archaeological excavations of tombs). Mary Magdalene and the other women coming to the tomb on the morning after the Sabbath, bringing these materials suggests that they may not have prepared his body sufficiently, though they may simply have been bringing extra spices and perfumed oils as their personal offerings to add extra honour to the burial of their leader and friend. Mk.16:1 states that they came to ‘anoint’ him [‘aleíthōsin’]. In Jewish custom this would have included pouring oils over his head, which would have been both an honouring and blessing of him and an act of piety on their behalf. In the climate of Palestine bodies decomposed quickly, even in the cooler atmosphere of tombs, (as in the story of the raising of Lazarus, where Martha states that after 4 days the body already stunk [Jn.11:39]). So it would have seemed important to spice and perfume Jesus’ corpse as quickly as possible.
The word for spices in most of the Gospels is ‘arōmata’, which could denote any highly perfumed substance, edible spices or perfumed ointment or embalming and anointing oils. Luke includes the term ‘mura’ which implies that this was perfume or ointment. If Jn.19:39 is not an exaggeration, the “mixture of myrrh and aloes” brought by Nicodemus is a huge amount. If it is not a deliberate exaggeration, the many pounds of spice used in Jesus’ burial, especially those brought by Nicodemus. If our understanding of measures is correct “100 litrai” (sometimes translated as ‘pounds’) - approximately 33 kilogrammes - over 5 stone. Alternatively the Roman ‘pound’ was about 317 grams, which would be a more believable amount. Whatever the true amount, the description indicates that Jesus was given the privilege of the burial usually associated with a wealthy and important person. A ‘pound’ of Myrrh, for example, was the price of a Roman soldier’s salary for a month. There would certainly have been no need for the women to have brought extra spices and oils after the Sabbath. If the amount is an exaggeration, John may have been trying to demonstrate that Jesus was given the equivalent of a rich royal burial, as befitted the Son of God, which would correspond to the theological emphasis in much of John’s Gospel. The care and expense taken over Jesus’ body implies that he was being treated with far greater honour and dignity than a simple criminal, and the piety of those who buried him. The fact that Pilate gave the corpse to a significant member of the Sanhedrin continues this sense of honouring of someone who Pilate had regarded as innocent.
We do not know whether grave clothes into which these spices were wound, were a shroud, as in that purportedly at Turin, or broad or thin bandages, as I and artistic tradition most often depict them, because they appear more dynamic in a picture. They could have been a combination of these. There would probably not have been sufficient time to completely wind the body as fully as one would a mummy. I imagine Jesus’ body as having been briefly cleaned-up, covered and lightly wound in the linen interleaved with spices. When, on Easter morning, Peter and John apparently witnessed the empty grave-clothes still wound and folded, they would not therefore have been as tightly wound as a mummy (which is how they are often depicted in Orthodox icons. It might even suggest that some of the cloth had been left folded by the body, ready to be used properly after the Jewish religious holiday.
In the story of the raising of Lazarus, Lazarus is described as coming out with his feet and hands bound in bandages (‘keiriai’) and his head wrapped in a cloth (‘soudarion’). The bandages appear to have been used to keep the arms and legs in position, and the ‘soudarion’ was used to prevent the jaw dropping. There is no mention of the rest of Lazarus’ body actually being bound.
Often the burial practice was to dress the figure in their best clean garments, having washed and anointed the corpse. So the image of the entombed Christ that I and other artists have imagined in the past and represented in the early Stations of the Resurrection as an almost naked figure, wrapped like an Egyptian mummy is probably incorrect. If he was clothed, however, it would need to have been in clean clothes provided by the women, Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus, as Jesus would have been naked on the Cross, and his previous clothes had been divided among the soldiers. The synoptic gospels say that Joseph or Arimathea bought and wrapped Jesus in a clean linen shroud or sheet – a ‘sindon’ in Greek. This term does not just describe a piece of linen, it literally means ‘fine cloth’ but in different contexts it seems to have specifically referred to a large sheet or shroud. John describes it in the plural – the linen cloths (‘othonia’), and a napkin (‘soudarion’) over his head. In Luke those finding the empty tomb found ‘othonia’ lying by themselves [Lk.24:12]. ‘Othonia’ is a diminutive word that could refer to small bandages, or include linen pieces of any size. In the context of John’ Gospel, it may refer to the bandages that helps Jesus’ wrists and ankles together, or the shroud as well.
3b. WHAT MAY HAVE HAPPENED AFTER JESUS BURIAL?
The women and anyone with them would most probably have been forced to leave the tomb before dark, when Joseph, Nicodemus and Joseph’s servants rolled the stone across the opening, before the city gates would have been shut. We cannot be certain when the soldiers were told to set a seal on the tomb to prevent interference and set a guard. Only Mathew’s Gospel refers to this sealing and the guard, so some commentators question its authenticity, suggesting that Matthew may have been including this detail to discredit prevalent claims that the disciples had stolen the body. Matthew’s Gospel implies that the religious leaders only came to Pilate to request this after the Sabbath was over, which could mean that the tomb was left unguarded for over a day – ample time for someone to remove the body, but it might be expected that the soldiers would have checked that the body was there before resealing the tomb. By mention of both the Sadducees and Pharisees coming together to Pilate to request the sealing of the tomb [Matt.27:62] Matthew’s might be deliberately suggesting that these otherwise opposing factions were still united in their opposition to Jesus as they had been in conspiring for his death.
Jesus’ body was hardly three days in the tomb according to popular reckoning. If he was there from dusk on the Friday to dawn on the Sunday the body lay in the dark for just about 36 hours. The mention of ‘three days’, however is significant, not just because Jesus had spoken of rising or reappearing after three days [Matt.26:51; 27:40, 63; Mk.10:34; 14:58; 15:29; Jn.2:19-20]. It was believed in Palestine that after 3 days a body would begin to putrefy. There was a popular superstition that the soul or spirit of the deceased remained around the body for three days then departed to the place of the dead.
What happened in that time in the grave is a question of speculation, debate and different faith traditions, such as the Harrowing of Hell, discussed below. Some sceptics propose the argument that the cool of the tomb and the smell of preparation herbs and spices revived Jesus’ body, which they infer had only swooned. Medically, it is hardly possible that a body that had lost so much blood and undergone horrors of whipping and flaying, then the torment of hanging dehydrated for hours in the sun, struggling to keep himself upright to prevent choking, could revive on its own, even if he hadn’t died. But it is almost certain that Jesus must have died: Roman executioners knew their job and would not have released his body unless they were certain. The spear recorded as being thrust into his side was probably the final test, as they did not feel the need to break his legs to finish off the process of suffocation. The flow of blood and transparent liquid, described as ‘water’ [Jn.19:34] would imply that Jesus’ heart had literally burst on the cross. With a rupture of the heart and the separated constituents of the blood filling the this was what happened, there would have been no possibility whatsoever of later revival.
The mystery of what happened after Jesus’ entombment to continue the developing process of salvation has been speculated upon over time. Only one canonical passage of scripture suggests that Christ was active in some supernatural way. 1Pet.3:19-20 speaks of Jesus “quickened by the Spirit”... “going and proclaiming to the spirits in prison, who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which few, that is eight persons were saved through water”. Around this single difficult passage a whole dogma of ‘The Harrowing of Hell’ has been built. It is only corroborated by a similar verse in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter, where after Christ has been helped form the tomb and is reaching the heavens “they heard a voice out of the heavens crying “Have you preached to them that sleep?” and from the cross there was heard the answer “Yes”. [Gosp. of Pet.10:42]. This passage was probably derived from the idea in 1Pet.3.
It is very possible that the concept of the Jesus going gown to the place of the dead and releasing the souls of the righteous redeemed who had followed God before the advent of Christ’s redeeming action, is intended as a metaphor. Rather than being a physical going down to the place of the dead, it might just suggest that salvation reaches backwards as well as forward in time. Orthodox icons of the ‘Anastasis’ or Resurrection represent it very literally, showing the risen Christ reaching into the cave and lifting Adam and Eve from the grave accompanied by Jewish patriarchs and other significant figures from the Hebrew Scriptures. The pit of the grave or tomb itself often filled with broken locks, open padlocks and keys, representing the freedom of salvation to which Christ has now raised us. It also sometimes contains the skeleton of Adam, who has now been re-clothed for resurrection, or occasionally a demonic figure, depicting Christ’s triumph over the power that once dominated, enslaved and imprisoned the dead. Fra Angelico’s powerful fresco of the Harrowing of Hell in the friar’s cells of San Marco, Florence, shows demons fleeing to hide in the cracks of disintegrating the cavern of Hell, while Jesus has kicked down the formerly securely locked and bolted door, trapping another demon beneath it. Meanwhile, a crowded queue of the redeemed reach out to Christ’s hands, which proclaim release to them.
Of course even if it could be proved as a fact that Jesus was brought back to life, it does not prove that he is God or that the story of salvation, which he revealed in his teaching is true. In the Gospels we read of Lazarus, the daughter of the widow of Nain and the centurion’s servant being raised from death and there is no indication that they were not expected to die again at a later time. Nor are they talked of as divine. So resurrection does not necessarily indicate that the divine plan of Salvation is being achieved or that evidence was being given for the truth of the rest of Jesus’ ministry. But Christian theologians and commentators have inferred this from the preaching and teaching of the apostles onwards. In Studies 34 and 35 I discuss the ideas about salvation that the story of the Resurrection has been interpreted as proclaiming.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
It appears certain that Jesus died on the cross and was not in a swoon when he was entombed. How easy do you find it to believe that Jesus truly came to life again, and what has this implied to you in the past?
4 THE EARTHQUAKE, TEMPLE VEIL & AN ANGEL ROLLING BACK THE STONE [Matt.28.2-4] (STATION 2 in my series of Paintings)
Did Matthew make up the earthquake and the rising of the dead (presumably temporarily) from their graves after Jesus’ death [Matt.27:52]? Matthew implies that there were two separate earthquakes, one at Christ’s death and then later at the time of his resurrection. They give drama to the scenes, but there is no other evidence for the seismic events from other witnesses or in the other gospels. Matthew claims that many people saw the raised bodies of the righteous dead entering Jerusalem [Matt.27:51-53]. This supernatural phenomenon appears to be intended to be interpreted as a foretaste of Christ’s Resurrection and the promise it offered to others. Mark, probably the first Gospel to be written, and a partial source of Matthew, does not mention either event, so Matthew may have been referring to another unknown source.
The tearing of the veil, of the Temple [Matt.27:51] is not mentioned elsewhere, a desecration which one would have been expected to recorded in Jewish Temple annals, and would probably have been included in John’s Gospel, where Jesus’ divinity is most clearly indicated. If the veil of the Temple really tore as Jesus expired, it is understandable that the religious authorities might have been worried about the implications of Jesus’ death and feared some sort of uprising. The Passover festival had so often been the time when messianic pretenders had arisen. There were two curtains to which Matthew could be referring. Most commentators and preachers over the centuries have assumed that this was the curtain which separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of the Sanctuary building, but there was also a curtain between the main Sanctuary building and the Court of the Priests. In either case the interpretation made by generations seems to be intentionally indicated by Matthew, that Christ’s death and Resurrection had broken the barrier of the sacrificial system, which separated human beings from God. With the Sanctuary or Holy of Holies open, the role of the Temple was no longer the same. The mystery of God and the relationship between God and people had become more inclusive than the former system and God was more directly accessible by his people.
The guarding of the tomb may therefore have been a wise precaution as the chief priests and Pharisees’ argued in Matt.27:62-66. Many commentators suggest that Matthew interpolated after the event their statement that Jesus had said “...while he was still alive, “After three days I will rise again”.” [Matt27:63]. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the support for Jesus at this time of Passover was growing, perhaps into hundreds if Peter explained all that had happened in the Resurrection and Ascension to a crowd of about 120 believers [Acts1:15f.]. St. Paul’s claimed that the risen Christ had appeared to 500 followers [1 Cor.15: 6].
The Greek of Pilate’s reply to the priests requesting a guard is ambiguous. It could mean either “Have a guard”, in which case Pilate may have supplied Roman soldiers, or “You have a guard”, stating that the authorities needed to supply guards from their own temple guards. The priests are unlikely to have argued with Pilate, since he was probably already probably frustrated with them over being persuaded against his conscience to execute Jesus. Pilate’s frustration with the religious leaders may have accounted for his refusal to change the statement placed over the cross: “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews” [Matt.27:37]. It is impossible to be sure whether the guardians of the tomb were Roman soldiers. In the Greek Pilate’s word for the guard is “koustōdían” unused elsewhere in the New Testament. It is a direct transliteration of the Latin ‘custodia’ so may well imply that Pilate supplied Roman guards. However the likelihood that they were temple guards is suggested by their reporting the disappearance of Jesus’ body first to the high priests. A different argument could be made for Pilate supplying the guard. He would also have been very wary of insurrection during this sensitive period, so may have supplied soldiers to prevent this. His own soldiers may have been among the cohort under a ‘chiliarch’ at Jesus’ execution. John claims that the contingent involved in Jesus’ arrest in Gethsemane were “a detachment of soldiers together with police from the chief priests and the Pharisees.” [Jn.18:3]. We cannot be sure when the guard at the tomb was posted. It would have been logical to have set a guard from the first moment of Jesus’ entombment but some of the account in Matthew’s Gospel seems to claim that the priests only came to Pilate to ask for the sealing of the tomb on the day after the Sabbath.
The seismic events in Matthew’s narrative certainly make the moment of Resurrection dramatic and memorable, in which case one might have expected them to be included in Mark’s Gospel (probably the earliest and most dramatic record, from which Matthew and Luke are thought to have borrowed), which likes to describe events and miracles as powerful and immediate. Matthew’s words taken literally imply that this event was witnessed by “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” coming early to the tomb at dawn. “an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning and his clothing white as snow.” Is Matthew over-dramaticising for effect, or was this a record of the women’s testimony? Did they perhaps exaggerate their experience? Was it elaborated upon over time, before reaching Matthew’s ears? Or did Matthew include these details for a specific theological or evangelistic purpose? One cannot know for sure. Taking the Gospel narratives as a whole, they do not appear to suggest that the women going to the tomb actually witnessed the event of the Resurrection. Matthew’s statement seems to be anomaly, though we may be misinterpreting him in sensing that he is suggesting that the women were witnesses of the event. Matthew also implies that the guards fled from the event shortly before the women arrived at the tomb. In the pattern of the gospel, some commentators suggest that a parallel may be being drawn between the guards informing the chief priests and Mary Magdalene later informing the disciples. This may be over complicating the text, though the Jewish idea of parallelism is common in poetic literature especially.
Some commentators believe that Matthew’s description of the raising of the dead at Jesus’ death may have been a metaphor to explain that the general resurrection of the dead. Some of Jesus’ teaching had referred to the promise of the dead being raised though his ministry, and by the time of the writing of Matthew’s Gospel, it may have become a key part of Christian doctrinal belief. Matthew may be implying that the seismic events (which are not uncommon along the middle-eastern fault-line) could be signs of the cosmic importance of Jesus’ death and Resurrection and that its spiritual results had already furthered the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven. It seems likely to me that Matthew included the seismic activity to demonstrate the significance of the Resurrection, since it was widely believed at the time that unusual natural phenomena accompanied or were signs to supernatural events: (e.g. the star appearing at Jesus’ nativity, the voice from heaven at Jesus’ baptism, and the darkening sky and earthquake at Jesus’ death).
Only Matthew and the non-canonical Gospel of Peter describe how the stone was rolled away. In Mathew the angel, who the women later encountered in the tomb, descended and rolled away the stone, then sat upon it. In the Gospel of Peter, as two shining men descended from heaven the stone rolled aside of its own accord, which like the walking and talking Cross that accompanied Jesus from the tomb, seems definitely to be ‘an unnecessary miracle too far’. When we compare Matthew’s account with the account in the Gospel of Peter, written over a century after Matthew’s Gospel, it is clear that the prevailing and developing culture encouraged people to elaborate upon stories from the life of Jesus. Matthew was obviously not as dramatic as some of these later Christian texts. Matthew may also have known the tradition repeated later in the Gospel of Peter of miraculous events being witnessed in the morning at the tomb [Gosp. of Pet.]. It is more likely, however, that the Gospel of Peter relied on Matthew’s Resurrection account and 1 Pet.3:19-20.
.
As Matthew’s Gospel is so often concerned with how the life of Jesus fulfilled Hebrew Prophecy, where in the Hebrew scriptures might he have found any mention of earthquakes? Elijah encountered one 1Ki.19:11-12; Amos 1:1; Isaiah 29:6; Ezekiel 38:19; and Zechariah 14:5 mention them, but none seem to suggest that earthquakes might herald the Messiah or an earthquake release from death. It is left to the later Book of Revelation to prophesy earthquakes as elements of Messianic revelation. Quakes are sometimes mentioned in scripture as a sign of God performing mighty acts [Judg.5:4; Ps.114:7-8]. They were particularly mentioned as sign of God’s judgement [Joel 3:16; Nah.1:5-6]. It is improbable that the writer of Matthew had himself witnessed the earthquake in Jerusalem, with first-hand evidence, unless he really was the Levi mentioned among the apostles. But he may have heard the tales and interpreted them in the light of past Hebrew scripture, as part of his belief that the death and Resurrection of Christ were apocalyptic events foretold in Jewish tradition. The rising of the dead from their graves may refer back to Ezek.37:12-13 which promised resurrection from their graves to exiled Israelites, especially as the wording in Matthew is so close to the LXX Greek translation of Ezekiel. Ezekiel’s text was probably creating a metaphor for the return of his people from exile, but it seems to have been interpreted more literally as resurrection from death by later Jews. Matthew’s account may also resemble the rising of the dead from sleep in Isa.26:19 and Dan.12:2.
If Jesus’ Resurrection wass a true physical event, whether there was an earthquake, or just an empty tomb, it is no wonder that the guards ran away. If they had been asleep, it is very possible that they might have made up a story of an earthquake to cover up their neglect or abandonment of their duties [Matt.28:11]. If they had been Roman soldiers, such abandonment of their post would have led to almost certain execution.
We will probably never be sure of the accuracy of the details of such resurrection stories in the Gospels. It seems very probable that they would not have been elaborated and developed through the oral telling, which could account for the discrepancies in the Gospel accounts. Christians throughout time, have tended to elaborate or exaggerate, thinking that it may persuade others. Believers in many religions and other ideologies do the same regularly. But it is not these details that are of primary importance or significance. The possibility that Jesus rose from death is the main focus of each of the Gospel accounts, not the correspondence of events around it.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
Would you disregard belief that there could be basic truth behind the stories of Jesus’ Resurrection, just because certain details do not correspond between the Gospel accounts?
5 (STATION 1 & 3) JESUS IS RAISED FROM THE DEAD [All Gospels]
I believe that there can be no doubt that the historical figure of Jesus truly died. Roman troops knew how to kill and would not have released the body of someone they had executed if it was only in an unconscious swoon. We are told in Mk.15:44 that Pilate was surprised that Jesus had died so quickly, and sent inquirers to make certain that he was dead. It is almost impossible that anyone would have merely swooned after such an horrific and physically damaging torture of hours on a cross, certainly not if his heart had burst, as discussed earlier. And after undergoing such an execution, even if a man had revived by some fluke, surely such a weak and damaged body could not have convinced so many, as Jesus seems to have done, that God had performed a glorious miracle and brought him back to complete life. His body would have been so weak that he would have needed help to move and months of support for healing. Instead the biblical narratives suggest that he was the one to convince strengthen and support others. Surely something more significant must have happened to bring about the vibrant life which made the frightened small Christian community believe in a miracle of resurrection.
Some who believe in Christ’s way, but who find real difficulties in believing in the possibilities of miracles sometimes try to explain Jesus’ Resurrection by claiming that his followers came to the realisation after his death that his teachings and the spirit of all for which he stood was still alive in them. So they developed the stories of the Resurrection as a way of relating and understanding this metaphysical phenomenon. This is somewhat akin to the idea sometimes expressed at funerals that though a deceased may have physically gone, their memory, character and example lives on in those whose lives they touched and influenced. Part of what they were and their influence stays alive in us.
The rational side of me that always wants to comprehend things by the most logical and reasonable explanation would love to believe that this rationalistic, non-miraculous explication could be true of Christ’s Resurrection. But I do not believe that it fits the evidence sufficiently. Would Mary Magdalene and the grieving women suddenly come to such a realisation and halt their grieving? Would despondent disciples who realised that they had lost their rabbi and considered returning to their former professions, like fishing, quickly regain sufficient courage and vigour in their message to put their lives on the line and expend so much energy in continuing Jesus’ ministry? It would be more likely that they invented the story of the Resurrection, yet I cannot believe that they did. No one in their right mind would put so much energy for the rest of their lives into promoting a lie, and even if they had done, an institution or a form of belief rooted in a lie would hardly have lasted, flourished and stood up to challenge for the number of centuries that Christianity has done.
Having said that I believe that something physical rather than just in the minds of the followers happened that led to the belief that Jesus was raised from the grave, we do not have any evidence of the process by which the body of Jesus was supposed to have been reanimated. There is no description of it in any of the Gospels or other literature. The apocryphal Gospel of Peter describes the angels descending from heaven, entering the tomb and supporting Christ’s figure as they exit and lift him to heaven. But even this apocryphal text did not attempt to describe or explain what happened in the tomb itself. Christian doctrine teaches that Jesus of Nazareth was God’s representative to the earth in human form, and combined divinity and humanity within his nature. If the all-powerful nature of God is a true concept, anything would be possible for such a force which created everything from nothing and sustains the cosmos. We should not limit the possibility of resurrection, or any aspect of faith, to just what our human minds can conceive. God is beyond what can be conceived or achieved by even the greatest human minds and physical powers. So, whether we believe or not, we much accept that if the infinite, unlimited God described in scripture is real, Jesus’ resurrection from death is truly possible. Faith in the Resurrection comes down to whether we might be able to believe or trust that this God is behind the enormity of the cosmos of which we experience only a small dimension. If so, can we believe that Jesus, the peripatetic teacher with such a meaningful message, was a figure worth reviving? Such a resurrection might interfere with the natural process of death, but if Jesus was the Christ, the divinely appointed Saviour, the Resurrection becomes a reasonable belief.
My representations of Jesus often appear much stronger and perhaps more handsome than one might expect the real figure of Jesus to have been. That is certainly true of the image in my first Station of the Resurrection of a muscular Christ coming into the light. Isaiah wrote of the Suffering Servant, who later became identified with Jesus, that “he had no form or majesty that we should look on him; nothing in his appearance that we should look at him...” [Isa.53:2]. In my personal imagination Jesus was probably an ordinary looking, not particularly tall man, though lithe and swarthy through training as a carpenter from early years and walking hundreds of miles in his ministry. Perhaps during his ministry he might also not have been particularly clean, through irregular ability to wash on his travels, though he would have been washed in his preparation for burial. The only historic descriptions of Jesus to survive are ones that derive from critics of Christianity who describe him in disparaging terms and were probably written by people who had never seen him. The representations of Jesus in my paintings are only illustrative metaphors for the real man. I paint him stronger and more attractive than I imagine him to have been, because I want to present a figure who one can trust. He is represented as an amalgam of a real man and a super-hero. His physicality is intended as a visual metaphor to show that Christ can be spiritually strong enough to bring about the salvation of the world and carry us spiritually through our own problems. St. Paul only suggests that Jesus’ body was ‘transformed’; he makes no attempt at description of his physical body [1Cor.15:3-5; 44]. 1Jn.3:2 merely says of our own resurrection bodies in comparison with that of Christ: “what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed we will be like him, for we shall see him as he is”.
I have painted the resurrected Christ standing as if bathing triumphant in a shower of God’s light. By his stature have tried to suggest physicality: implying that this is physical resurrection, as the scriptural texts imply, not just an illusion, hallucination or vision. The scripture stories describe the risen Jesus as being able to be touched, embraced, eating, walking, talking and discussing with his followers and performing miracles. However, other qualities like appearing through locked doors imply that this physicality was different from normal. Nevertheless the resurrected Jesus is certainly claimed to have been tangible. N.T. Wright calls this nature, as described in scripture, ‘transphysical’ [Wright 2003 p.654], intending to suggest that his body was a physical, reality, which people recognised, touched and responded to, yet he was able to appear, disappear and reappear as required. Luke 24:37-43 especially emphasised that the disciples were assured that he was no ‘ghost’ or ‘spirit’ (‘pneûma’): “They were startled and terrified, and thought that they were seeing a ghost. He said to them “Why were you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? Look at my hands and my feet: see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have feet and bones as you see I have...” [Lk.24:38-39].
Some believe that Jesus had actually ‘ascended’ or transferred to the spiritual dimension after his death, This suggests and that the body in which he appeared to the disciples, before the event we call “The Ascension” was not just Jesus’ reanimated corpse, but his actual spiritual form, still bearing the scars of his Passion, which could move between dimensions. The Ascension would then be the point at which Jesus spiritual form left the disciples top carry on his mission with the guidance of his spirit. This explanation would seem to fit the evidencing in scripture of a tangible body that could interact with others, yet could appear and disappear at will in different places. It appeals to the rational side of my mind. But the truth is that we cannot know the reality of what form or nature the disciples experienced.
Just as we don’t know how Jesus was resurrected, we have little idea what death is like. We certainly do not know what it was like for Jesus or what he experienced between his crucifixion and Resurrection. Orthodox icons representing Christ’s Resurrection illustrate the legend of the ‘Harrowing of Hell’ - the tradition that between his death and resurrection Christ journeyed to the world of the afterlife and released imprisoned souls who had been waiting through history for redemption. The only biblical justification for this is a sentence which is difficult to interpret in the First Epistle of Peter 3:18-20: “He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is eight persons, were saved through water.” It is not at all clear from this sentence that the ‘Harrowing of Hell’ is what is being talked about, since its context is a defence of baptism as a sign of salvation. (Baptism in this context is a going down into the realm of death (the water) and being brought up into the air of a new life (redemption). The idea that the tradition Harrowing of Hell was conveying is nevertheless meaningful. It asserts that, through his death and resurrection, Christ brought about for humanity both salvation and a release from the threat and imprisonment of death.
What may rising from death have been like for Christ? As with his death, this is way beyond our imagination. People who have been resuscitated sometimes relate experiences of having seen a bright light and a sense of being valued and loved. In this case the Saviour had achieved through his life and activity the will of God in bringing about the salvation of the cosmos. So I imagine that his sense of coming alive to the light and love of his Father God would be overwhelming. Goal scorers rejoice in their triumph and are embraced by their tram-mates; how much more would Jesus triumph and feel himself embraced and loved after achieving salvation! That is part of the feeling that I was trying to convey in this, the first of my small Resurrection Station paintings.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
Although we know so little about Jesus’ resurrected nature, Christian doctrine claims that through his Resurrection, Jesus triumphed over death and has taken away the fear of what might happen after death from us. What sense do you have of what Jesus has triumphed over in relation to you?
6 THE AUTHORITIES CONSPIRE TO COVER-UP THE DISAPPEARANCE OF JESUS’S BODY [Matt:28:12-15].
Matt.27:54 records that the earthquake and subsequent events led the “centurion and those with him” (probably meaning ‘the centurion and some of the soldiers with him’) to exclaim, despite their terror: “Truly this was Gods Son!” Mark just mentions the centurion. Church tradition has named him as ‘Longinus’, though we cannot be sure of the source or origin of this.
From what we are told in the Gospels of the various conspiracies of the Sadducees, Pharisees and Scribes, which led to Jesus’ arrest and death, it is not surprising that they are recorded as conspiring together to conceal reports of Jesus’ Resurrection. As leaders of the religious community they would have protected their position and acted first and foremost as politicians, protecting their institution, reputation or their personal priorities before considering holiness. Sadly similar self-centred attitudes are often the priorities of many leaders of churches and church institutions today. Politicians with religious faith similarly usually care more about their position, and domination of their personal priorities, rather than prioritising truth. For the religious leaders of Jesus’ time it appears that it was their power that mattered far more than any evidence that God might have performed a miracle and revived a man they regarded as a trouble-maker. They could not believe that Jesus could have been the Messiah.
The Priests and Pharisees are described as going to Pilate to request a guard on Jesus’ tomb [Matt.27:62-6]. Matthew claims that they already feared Jesus’ claim that he would rise after 3 days and wanted to prevent his followers from stealing the body, as they called him a ‘that deceiver’ [‘ekeinos ho planos’]. The close collaboration of the religious groups whose theology was so diverse that they often opposed one another would be itself surprising. But Matthew was obviously passing further blame onto the Jewish religious authorities. The claim that the disciples stole Jesus’ body was again attributed by Matthew to conspiracy among the Jewish religious leaders, this time the ‘chief priest, other priests and elders’ [Matt.28:13]. We should not fully blame the religious leaders for this. There had been various fraudulent claims of Messiahship in Jewish history, and the Hebrew Scriptures frequently warned against false prophecy, false religious teaching and false spiritual claims. At the time of Passover the leaders were particularly aware of the dangers of messianic claims. So it is understandable that those who did not believe in Jesus were suspicious. However, balancing this, Jesus himself had himself reiterated the Hebrew warnings against the fraudulent activities of false prophets priests, as Matthew recorded earlier, particularly in Matt.23:13-29.
N.T. Wright claims that it would be surprising if the religious authorities actually knew much personal detail of Jesus’ claims that he would rise again after 3 days. In Mathew’s Gospel Jesus’ words about his return are found mostly in his private discussions with the disciples [Matt.16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Wright 2003 p.639]. However the sign of Jonah rising after 3 days is found in Matt.12:39-41; 16:4, in the context of arguments with the Scribes and Pharisees [Matt.12:38] then with the Pharisees and Sadducees [Matt.16:1]. Shortly before Jesus’ arrest he also made the claims about destroying the temple and raising it again after 3 days, which so incensed the Temple authorities [Matt.26:61].
If the guards of the tomb were temple-guards rather than Roman soldiers, it is not surprising that they would have been tired and fallen asleep. During the Passover festivities they would have been extremely busy, manoeuvring the crowds and on constant watch for trouble. Another piece of evidence that they could have been temple guards not Roman soldiers is their reporting of the empty tomb to the chief-priests not Pilate. If Roman soldiers had admitted the loss of the body to their commander, they could well have been condemned to death on the spot for dereliction of duty. A soldier could be executed for both falling asleep on duty and leaving their post. It would have been convenient for the priests to bribe their own guards to spread a false story of the stealing of the corpse, in order to draw attention away from the possibility that a supernatural event had occurred.
Matthew’s wrote that the authorities conspired with and bribes the guards to claim that the disciples had stolen the body. He seems to have been deliberately trying to counter a contemporary claim Jesus’ body had been stolen. He wrote that this story “has been spread among the Jews to this day [Matt.28:15]. The accusation that Jesus’ body was stolen, probably by the disciples, was common when Justin Martyr was writing c155 C.E. [Disputation with Trypho the Jew: 108]. This claim was contested at an early date by Origen, who was one of the first to argue that men do not suffer persecution and martyrdom, as the disciples and early Church did, for something they know to be a lie [Contra Celsum 2:56]. However, if the accusation was circulating against the disciples, it is not surprising that in the aftermath of the Resurrection they sheltered behind locked doors, and some of them if not all soon moved away from Jerusalem to Galilee. The idea that the disciples stole the body has been promoted by many critics since the Enlightenment. Grave robbing may have been common in several ancient societies, but that was of the grave goods, not the body itself. In Jewish society contact with the dead would have been considered to make the perpetrators unclean. Thomas Woolston suggested as early as 1729 that the disciples had bribed the soldiers and made them drunk so that they could perpetrate the fraud of the Resurrection. Woolston was fined and imprisoned for blasphemy at the time, but the idea has continued.
It is easy to see why the religious authorities could have benefitted from the tale that the disciples had stolen the body to prevent Jesus being lauded as a martyr. But if they had stolen or moved the corpse they would have uncovered it when tales of the Resurrection began to spread. What reasons could the disciples have had for perpetrating such a fraud? It is unlikely that they would have thought through the implications to the full, or faked the wound grave-clothes to appear as though the body had dematerialised through them. It is understandable and just possible that they may have wanted to keep their leader’s body with them, but how might they have planned to transport it in secret to a more personal local resting place? To keep a body unburied for several days in the atmosphere of Israel or on their journey north was not just against religious law, it was unsavoury and dangerous. To deal with a corpse would also have rendered those who touched it ritually unclean for several days. Why would the disciples want to keep the body of one they loved, if he had been given the honour of a salubrious and rich entombment in the capital city of their nation? They might have wanted his remains to be near them in Galilee, but could never have afforded him such an honourable grave. They would not have been able to entomb him privately with such reverence in Galilee if they had stolen the body.
One other suggestion that has been made is that the owner of the land, (if it was not Joseph of Arimathea,) may not have wanted such a notorious body to have been buried on his land, so he or his employees moved the body to another site and kept it hidden. He may not have wanted visitors to the tomb, either scoffers or pilgrims, to invade the privacy of the land. This seems an unlikely explanation as pilgrimages to historic tombs at the time were mostly confined to those of figures like the patriarchs. It was mostly with the advent of Christianity that the practice of pilgrimage expanded greatly.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
Do you consider it likely that Jesus’ body had been stolen from the tomb? If not, what other explanations might there be for the disappearance of the body? It there enough convincing evidence that Jesus came back to life?
7 (STATION 5} THE WOMEN FIND THE TOMB EMPTY [Matt:28:1; Mk.16:1; Lk.24:10; Jn.20.3-8]
The Gospel records differ over when the tomb was first found to be empty, and by whom. It is not precisely clear when Mary Magdalene is being claimed to have come to the tomb. As Jewish days began at dusk, did she first return to the grave in what we call ‘morning’ after the Sabbath or at the beginning of the Jewish day, which was in the evening. Matthew’s phrase in 28:1 is ‘opsè edè sabbátōn tê èpiphoskoúsé eìs mian sabbátōn’, literally translates as ‘late of the Sabbath, at the dawning, on towards the first day of the week”. This could mean either that Mary and the other woman came to the tomb literally at dawn, or that Mary came at the beginning of the Jewish day after the Sabbath, i.e. in the evening. The other gospels say that Mary or the group of women came around sunrise.
In the Hebrew Scriptures, the early morning is often associated with significant actions by God. In Ex.14:24, the People of Israel began to cross the Red Sea and at dawn the pursuing Egyptians were drowned vs.37. In 2Ki.19:35 the extent of the angel of the Lord’s defeat of the Assyrian leader Sennacherib was revealed at dawn. Most appropriate to the Resurrection story is the phrase in Ps.30:5: “Weeping may linger for the night, but Joy comes in the morning.” We cannot be sure whether the Evangelists were intentionally making these theological connections with the morning, though it is probably that the writer of Matthew may have recognised the connection as he so frequently found comparisons and parallels between the Hebrew Scriptures and Jesus’ life and mission.
The introduction of the stories of Mary Magdalene and the women being the first to find the tomb empty may be evidence of its authenticity. If someone from a Jewish culture had been making up the story of the Resurrection, it is highly unlikely that they would have claimed that the first witnesses to the empty tomb and the risen Jesus had been women. Jewish culture did not accept the evidence of female witnesses [M.Rosh-Ha-Shanah 1:8]. Of course this could be a ‘double-bluff’ to make us believe the tale, but I cannot believe that is how the disciples’ or evangelists’ minds worked at the time. I sense that that the part of the story that places women as the first witnesses is probably based in truth. Whether it was Mary alone or Mary together with other women, or whether there were two visits by Mary depends on the reliability of the oral source
Who were all these Marys?
Luke’s Gospel especially mentions a number of women who supported Jesus in his ministry out of their own resources [Lk.8:3]: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and also Lazarus’ sisters Mary and Martha are among those who are named, but Jesus seems to have had a significant number of women among his followers. The first witnesses of Jesus’ tomb being empty are recorded in all cases as being women, though the Gospels differ on the number of people who went early to the tomb and their identity. All mention Mary Magdalene: Mark also mentions Salome and Mary the mother of James the younger/less and Joses (another form of the name of the patriarch ‘Joseph’) [Mk.16:1]. Matthew mentions two women: Mary Magdalene and ‘the other Mary’. This could have been one of the women who he mentions at the crucifixion - ‘Mary the mother of the sons of Zebedee’, or ‘(Mary) the mother of James and Joses. Mk.15:40 identifies the later Mary as the mother of James the Less, as distinct from James the son of Zebedee. James the actual brother of Jesus, who was to become Bishop of Jerusalem, may well not have yet been a disciple, as we are told that several of his family did not yet believe in him []. Luke and John don’t give a number to the women at the tomb. Luke includes Joanna [Lk.24:10] instead of Salome with Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, ‘and the other women’. (Joanna is earlier mentioned as one of the wealthy women who supported Jesus’ ministry in Galilee, whose husband Chuza was ‘steward’ or perhaps financial manager to Herod Antipas [Lk.8:3]. Commentators have suggested that she may have been a source for the material that Luke included, especially the records of events in Herod’s household. John just mentions Mary Magdalene as the first witness [Jn.20:1]. The later apocryphal Gospel of Peter tells of a large crowd from Jerusalem and the surrounding area. None of the Gospels actually mention Jesus’ mother Mary, being among them. Of the named witnesses Salome [Mk.16:1] is mentioned in Mk.15:40 as one of the witnesses at the crucifixion, alongside Mary the Mother of James the younger/less and Joses. John mentions another woman at the crucifixion, Mary ‘the sister of Jesus’ mother’ and the wife of Clopas [Jn.19:25]. Salome may have been the sister of Jesus’ mother, which would have made Salome Jesus’ aunt and James and John first cousins. This would account for her closeness to the group going to complete the rites for Jesus’ body, especially if her sister Mary remained at home distraught.
It is not surprising that there are so many ‘Marys’ in the narrative about Jesus. ‘Miriam’, of which ‘Mary’ is the common translation, was most probably the commonest woman’s name used in Israel at the time. Miriam was the name of Moses’ sister, known particularly for her song of victory [Ex.15:20-21]. As an important figure of rejoicing and a triumphal heroine among Jewish women, Miriam may have been a favourite name because it was considered to be happy and providential for a female child. (There does not seem to have been superstitious about Miriam’s later problems in speaking against Moses and contracting leprosy [Num.12:1-16] or her death before reaching the Promised Land [Num.20:1]. Seven different Marys are mentioned in the New Testament while three of the four women followers of Jesus described as being at his crucifixion were Marys.
In order to explain the number of Marys in scripture and the confusion around them, by the middle ages legends had developed around them. Some were based on relationships suggested in the biblical text, such as Salome and Jesus’ mother being sisters. Others developed upon early, probably false traditions, like that which conflated Mary Magdalene [Lk.8] with Mary of Bethany [Lk.10; Matt.26; Mk.14; Jn.12], the sinner who washed Jesus’ feet in the house of the Pharisee [Lk.7], and sometimes the woman taken in adultery [Jn.8:3-11]. The Golden Legend compiled by Jacobus de Voragine c.1260, claims that Anna, the mother of Jesus’ mother Mary was married three times and from each marriage she had a child who she called ‘Mary’. She first marries Joachim, the father of Jesus’ mother. Then after his death she married Cleopas, brother of Jesus’ father Joseph, by whom she bore another child who she called Mary, who married Alpheus. This Mary had four sons: James the Less, Joseph the Just (also called Barsabbas), Simon and Jude. This explanation seems intended to alleviate the problem that Jesus’ mother might have had other children after Jesus. After Cleopas’ death Anna then is said to have married Salome (a man’s name, not the daughter of Herodias, or the Salome who witnessed the crucifixion and the empty tomb [Mk.15:40; 16:1]), by whom she bore another Mary who married Zebedee and bore James the Great and John the Evangelist [The Golden Legend transl. W. Granger Ryan 1993 vol.2. p.150]. This very neatly identified many of the characters mentioned at the cross and in the Resurrection narratives, as well as identifying the relationship of some of the disciples to Jesus and attempting to resolve uncomfortable issues of Jesus’ kin. The scant source evidence in the Gospels does not justify their close connection through Anna, a figure not mentioned in the Gospels. The only mention of an Anna is the prophetess in the Temple in Lk.2:36, though it is possible that the name in the legends of Mary derives from her. If one was a prosecuting lawyer the mediaeval legends would make the evidence for the Resurrection more suspicious, since they identify most of the witnesses as belonging to the same family.
The Possible Intentions of the Women in Coming to the Tomb
By three in the afternoon when Jesus had died, and permission was obtained from Pilate to remove and bury the body, we are told that it was already evening [Mk.15:42], so the preparation must have been done at speed, before the Sabbath officially started as sunset. Mark and Luke state that the women who came to the tomb intended to complete the anointing of the body (not mentioned in Matthew). I have always imagined (and have painted) the preparation of Jesus’ body as performed by women relatives or his closest friends. The Gospels, however states that the first preparation of the body was done by Nicodemus with Joseph of Arimathea [Jn.19:38-40]. Matt.27:59 and Lk.23:53 claim that Joseph of Arimathea “took the body and wrapped it in a linen cloth”. Mk.15:46 adds that Joseph went to buy the linen cloth to shroud Jesus’ body and wrapped Jesus in it. John claims that Nicodemus brought an enormous weight of spices (“100 Litrai”) which were wrapped into the linen around the body [Jn.19:39-40]. Having laid Jesus’ body in the tomb wrapped in the spices and linen, Joseph had the stone rolled over the entrance. The Gospel texts suggest that the women came in the morning with spices and oils. The spices provided by Nicodemus were more than enough, but maybe there had not been time of properly perform the rites of anointing, and perhaps the women brought the extra spices and oil as personal gifts to their dead friend and leader, and to perform a more personal, less hurried and more full and honouring preparation of the body. Contact with the corpse of course would have left them temporarily unclean. Similarly the earlier preparation would have left Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, with the servants who may have done the work for them, unclean for the Sabbath.
The emphasis on the preparation of Jesus’ corpse in Mark also has parallels in Mark’s account of Mary of Bethany lovingly anointing him earlier: “She has anointed me beforehand for my burial” [Mk14:8]. Perhaps in the confusion as the day of Jesus’ crucifixion closed and the Sabbath rest approached Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus had only had time to cleanse and wrap Jesus’ corpse with a linen shroud and spices. Just because Mark only mentions Nicodemus and Joseph preparing the body does not necessarily indicate that only they were involved in the interment. The women may well have also been involved. The women’s return in the morning possibly implies that they intended to anoint him further with perfumed oils, and a few herbs laid in the linen wrappings. Mark implies that the women had withdrawn over the Sabbath to gather together more of the traditional preparations. Whereas we are told that Joseph of Arimathea bought the linen shroud before shops closed for the Sabbath (i.e. before c.6.00 on the Friday). Mark implies that the women bought spices as soon as the Sabbath was ended, presumably on the Saturday evening after 6.00pm and before 9.00pm. when stalls would have closed. Anointing oils and spices were expensive. A wealthy woman like Joanna or Susanna may already have had rich perfumes and ointments in store at home, as perfumed oils were highly prized by wealthy Jewish women. Lk.8:2 suggests that Mary Magdalene had also been wealthy in earlier times. Perhaps she still was, but her home was presumably around Galilee, so her resources may have been there, or they may have diminished through her support of Jesus’ mission. If the women came to the tomb before daybreak, stalls or shops would not have yet been open for them to buy them in the morning. The timing of their visits differs in the Gospels. Mark’s account of coming to the grave very early, [‘lían prōí’] suggests that they may have come at the earliest time between 3.00am and 6.00am [Mk.16:2], which would have been before sunrise. Some commentators suggest that the phrase in Mark might merely be interpreted to mean ‘as early as they possibly could’. However Mark then says that they came to the tomb ‘as the sun rose’ [‘anateílantos toû helíon’]. Luke says ‘sunrise’ [24:1].
Their journey to the tomb could also possibly have been part of their intention to continue the process of lamentation, though in that case they would not have needed to enter the tomb, so the worry, mentioned only in Mark and the Gospel of Peter, about how they might have the strength to roll away the stone would have been unnecessary [Mk.16:3; Gosp. of Peter 9; 13:53-54]. They apparently would not have known about the official seals set upon the tomb, which only Matthew introduces. John’s Gospel suggests that Mary Magdalene had come primarily to visit the grave, which would be understandable for so close a friend. Although art-historical imagery often represents Jesus’ mother Mary among the women, she is not mentioned as being there ain any of the gospel accounts. It is understandable that she might not have been among the group of women on this morning, as she may have been traumatised by the events of the Crucifixion and staying inside, supported by John. I have deliberately not included her in the early Stations of the Resurrection, to give greater focus on the other women witnesses.
There are several anomalies in the Gospel accounts beside the number of women witnesses. Mark says that they remained silent and told no-one about what they had seen out of fear [Mk.16:8]. This links with several commands to silence which occur in Mark’s Gospel [Mk.9:9]. It seems unlikely that they would have remained silent as this was such a momentous event, which needed to be recounted and spread. The only reasons for not telling might have been a natural reticence which doesn’t seem to have been a characteristic of the women whose spiritual emancipation Jesus encouraged, or the belief that no-one would believe them, as Mark implies. Mark’s Gospel was written to encourage others to pass on the good news of Jesus and his teaching, so the inclusion of silence may be intended to contrast to the enthusiastic and confident witness, which Christ’s Church was now expected to give.
At the time of Jesus, women’s evidence wasn’t admitted or listened to as legal witnesses in Jewish courts Josephus Antiquities 4.219]. It is not certain, whether such evidence was considered unreliable or deemed invalid because Hebrew culture at the time considered women to be inferior to men (a belief that continues in some communities). Even a group of female witness, rather than the witness of an individual would not have been sufficient to provide truthful evidence in that male-dominated society. The inclusion of women as the first and major witnesses, therefore suggests an authenticity in this aspect of the story. If the Resurrection of Christ was invented by his followers, there is little reason why they would have claimed that the main initial witnesses were female. This is attested by Origen’s debate over the ideas of Celsus, which reports early critics like Celsus finding ways to debase and deny the Resurrection story through disregarding the involvement and witness of women. If the early Christians were inventing the idea of resurrection they would surely have invented reliable and recognisable male witnesses.
Several critics of the story have suggested that the women may have gone to the wrong tomb or that Joseph of Arimathea or others had buried the body elsewhere. Others suggest that the women may have misunderstood the young man who they encountered, who had told them that Jesus was not there. Some suggest that by “he is not here” the angel had intended to redirect them to the correct burial place, but his words were interpreted differently and the women passed on their mistake to the disciples. If that had been the case, Joseph would surely soon have cleared up the mistake, and solders would not have been placed to guard an empty tomb. The Synoptic Gospels seem to clarify that there was no such mistake by stating specifically states that “Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where the body was laid” [Mk.15:47]. “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there sitting opposite the tomb” [Matt.27:61]. “The women who had come from Galilee followed and they saw the tomb and how his body was laid” [Lk.23:55].
The Gospel of Peter, claims that a crowd of people including soldiers and elders, as well as the women witnessed the resurrection: “Early in the morning when the Sabbath dawned, there came a crowd from Jerusalem and the country round about to see the sepulchre that had been sealed. Now in the night in which the Lord’s Day dawned, when the soldiers, two by tow, in every watch, were keeping guard there rang out a loud voice from heaven and they saw the heavens opened”... (two bright men then descend from heaven, the stone rolls back on its own, they entered the tomb)... “When the soldiers saw this they awakened the centurion and the elders – for they also were there to assist at the watch.” [Gosp. of Pet. 9:34-10:42]. (These were all suggested to have witnessed the two men supporting and leading the figure from the tomb.) This exaggerated spiritualising of the account is one piece of evidence for the Gospel of Peter being a later work and not a source for or parallel to the canonical Gospels. If there were known to be more witnessed to the Resurrection, particularly male ones and a ‘crown from Jerusalem and the country round’, it is most likely that the other Gospel compilers would have included this as more reliable evidence. (The passage also refers to the Lord’s Day, which only appears elsewhere in scripture in Rev.1:10, and though used by the early Church, seems to indicate that the Gospel of Peter was probably formulated at a late date. This is not necessarily the case, however, since in Matthew’s Gospel Jesus is recorded as speaking about his ‘Church’, which is obviously a later interpolation into the text after the establishment of the church.
The Gospel of Peter also elaborates what Mary Magdalene and those accompanying her witnessed: “they stooped own and saw there a young man sitting in the middle of the sepulchre. Handsome and wearing a brightly shining robe. He said to them: “Why have you come? Who are you looking for? Surely not him who was crucified? He is risen and gone. But if you don’t believe, stoop this way and see the place where he lay, for he is not here. For he is risen and is gone to the place from which he was sent.” Then the women fled in terror.” [Gosp. of Pet. 13:55-14:57]. The repeated statement that “he has gone” seems to imply that Jesus is not just regarded as risen, but that he was regarded as having also already ascended.
The response of the women to meeting the angel is one of ‘worship’ [v.9], a response to events fairly common in Matthew’s Gospel [Matt.2:2, 8, 11; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 20:20; 28:17. The message of the angel is to tell the women to inform the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee, as in Mark’s Gospel [Mk.16:7].
Important as the visit of the women to the empty tomb is, it was not the empty tomb that primarily created belief in Christ’s Resurrection. The appearances of a risen Jesus were much more significant in convincing people about that he was alive.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
Whose evidence about spiritual things has helped you to believe? What was it about the evidence that convinced you that their message was true and authentic? Can you learn anything from this to help the effectiveness of your own witness and ministry?
8 (STATION 4) MARY MAGDALENE FINDS THE EMPTY TOMB [Mk.16:9; Jn. 20.1,2]
We do not know the nature of the loving relationship which Mary Magdalene felt towards Jesus. It has been surmised by many, particularly in popular literature, that she was in love with him. Whatever their relationship it is almost certain that she was the first witness to the empty tomb, but whether she was alone or in company depends on the Gospel account one reads. John’s Gospel claims that she went alone to the tomb early in the morning, while it was still dark [Jn.20:]. In Matthew and Luke she was in the company of other women. Perhaps she made her own way there and the other women came from a different direction.
On the surface Mary’s visit to Jesus’ grave seems to be a different encounter to that in which she and the women met the angelic beings at the tomb, because John says that she “came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed... so she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one who 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”. There is no mention of the angel or of other women, although Mary’s words “we do not know where they have laid him” suggests that she may not have been alone at the tomb. There is no mention that Mary had initially met an angel, or Christ himself, which John’s narrative suggests occurred immediately afterwards. She genuinely seems to have believed at this point that Jesus’ body had been taken. It could be inferred from the text of John that Mary went back to the tomb after Peter and John had run ahead to the tomb, and that there, unlike Peter and John, she saw two angels, before turning and meeting Jesus [Jn.20:11-14]. Even then she did not recognise him at first “supposing him to be the gardener” [v.15].
The Synoptic Gospels claim that Mary Magdalene went with the other women to the tomb, and there met the angelic beings before in Luke’s Gospel meeting Jesus himself. If it is possible to correlate John’s chronology with the others, which I doubt, it could be that:
1/ Mary went first to the tomb, either alone or with other women who are not mentioned in John, then
2/ she went back to Peter and John, and perhaps other disciples and told them that Jesus’ body was missing,
3/ they ran ahead to the tomb, then
4/ following Peter and John, on her second journey back to the empty tomb she may have met the women coming to the tomb
5/ together the women Mary met the angels and received their message, then
6/ when the other women had departed Mary stayed behind in the garden, in grief searching for answers
7/ In the garden she met the risen Christ, at first mistaking him for the gardener, then
5/ she reunited with the other women and together they met Jesus.
6/ As Jesus requested, Mary returned to the disciples and announced the news of Jesus’ Resurrection, beating the other women back to Jerusalem.
Such a correlation is possible, but the ability to correlate the Gospel accounts in dubious. It seems better to take each of these parts of the story as separate events in which to find meaning, without attempting to correlate them. The sources from which John was compiling material were probably very different from those that informed the compilers of the Synoptic Gospels. It would not be unlikely that the original stories had altered in the oral telling over the period between the Resurrection and the compilation of the Gospels. Among the community of Christians that transmitted the story to those who compiled and wrote John’s Gospel, Mary’s importance may have been promoted in the retelling, while the other women’s identities may have declined in importance or been omitted because they were relatively unknown to that particular community. This is of course speculation, but it is still more useful to consider each section of the Resurrection narratives separately.
I discuss Mary’s encounter with Jesus later but John’s mention of her coming alone contains several ideas to ponder. Although Mary is often represented in art carrying a jar of anointing oil, she may not have come to the site of Jesus’ burial with any intention of anointing Jesus’ corpse, or of going into the tomb at all. It is clear from the text that she expected the stone to cover the entrance. It is most likely that in her grief she had slept or rested very little over the Sabbath, since his arrest and death. She may have left where she was staying early, and wandered to the tomb as a place to let out her grief, just as many visit the burial places of those they have loved. Her going so early in the morning (or while it was still night) may be a sign of the extent of her love. She may have wanted to be alone with him, or near him, and pour out her grief in a more intimate way than she had been able to do in company, in the confusion and rush to entomb him before sunset.
Mary may not even have known why she went; she had lost a person to whom she felt both closeness and gratitude for her released life [Lk.8:2]. She had believed in him so much that she had used her financial resources to support his ministry, and was very probably among his regular followers. She certainly had become well known as one of his disciples, since she is mentioned so clearly by name in the Gospels.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
Mary’s commitment to Jesus possibly stemmed from the spiritual freedom that he had brought through healing her. It led her to both support Jesus’ mission financially, and offer continued emotional commitment to him, even at a time of his most severe trials, when even some of his closest disciples deserted him. To me the most important challenge coming from the depth of Mary’s commitment, is whether I too am equally grateful for all that I have been released from by Christ. Do we truly love him and respond to God as sincerely as was Mary’s response to all that he had done for her?
9 (STATION 5) THE ANGEL APPEARS TO THE WOMEN [1xAngel Matt.28.5-8 / 1x Angel Mk.16.3-8 / 2 Men Lk.24.2-9; Acts 1:10 / 2 Angels to Mary Magdalene Jn.20:12-13] He is not here, for he is risen!
The text of Luke and Acts 1:10 claim that the women arrived at the tomb and found it empty before the sudden appearance of the two men or angels in dazzling clothes. In John, when Mary Magdalene entered the tomb she found it empty, but then later met the angels, sitting where the body of Jesus had been. Only in Matthew and John is it specifically indicated that the figure or figures that the women saw in the tomb were ‘angels’ / ‘ ‘angelos’ pl. ‘angélous’. Mark describes the women entering the tomb and finding, sitting on the right side, “a young man [‘neanískon’] clothed in a white robe” [Mk.16:5], Luke describes “two men [ Gk.‘andres’] dressed in shining clothes”. [Lk.24:4]. Matthew describes an “angel of the Lord descending out of heaven... (he) rolled away the stone and sat upon it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow” [Matt.28:2-3] or in a variant reading in other manuscripts he resembled Jesus at the Transfiguration: “white as light” [Matt.17:2]. The appearance ‘like lightning’ reflects Daniel’s vision of the appearances of spiritual beings [Dan 10:6 & 7:9]. In the Gospel of Peter the figures are described as handsome, glowing and larger than life-size [Gosp. of Pet.]. Some commentators believe that Luke considered that the figures were just human beings, but it seems obvious from the context that they were considered to be spiritual or angelic beings. I have discussed the meaning of the term ‘angel’ in my ‘Advent Meditations’. Whatever their identity, the meaning of the term claims that these figures were ‘messengers’ from God. They have the shining qualities of those who have been in the presence of God. This quality was described of Moses returning from Mount Sinai [Ex.34:29]; the Ancient One on the throne of heaven [Dan.7:9] and the Transfiguration [Matt.17:2; Mk.9:3; Lk.9:29]. The white of their clothes is not necessarily a description of their actual garments, but an indication of their glory [as in Mk.9:3; Rev.6:11; 7:9, 13]/
What the angel/messengers told the women also differs between gospels: In Mark and Matthew the message is that the women and Jesus’ male followers will meet him again in Galilee [Mk.16:7; Matt.28:7]. On the Mount of Olives, on the night before he died Jesus had already said to his disciples, that as a result of that night they would fall away and be like scattered sheep, yet: “after I am raised up I will go before you to Galilee.” [Matt.26:30-32; Mk.14:6-28].In Matthew’s Gospel Jesus appears to the women in Jerusalem briefly before telling them to send his brothers to Galilee where he will meet and commission them [Matt.28:8-10, 16]. Matthew does not mention when the disciples left for Galilee, but neither does the his Gospel mention any appearances in Jerusalem. John’s Gospel describes revelations of Jesus in both the vicinity of Jerusalem and Galilee [Jn.20:14, 19, 26; 21:1]. The angels in Luke remind the women that while they were still in Galilee, Jesus had predicted his death and resurrection. But Luke’s Resurrection narrative makes no mention of Galilee appearances after the Resurrection and implies that Jesus only appeared in and near Jerusalem. In Luke Jesus tells the disciples to “stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high” [Lk.24:49].
The reaction of the women to the angel is described as a mixture of fear, amazement and joy. Mark’s Gospel uses a dramatic Greek word to describe the women’s enormous astonishment: ‘ekthambéthésan’ [Mk.16:5]. Only Mark uses this word, which is again found in Mk.9:19, where the astonished crowd run to Jesus between the Transfiguration and the healing of the convulsive boy. In ch.16 Mark then goes on to describe the women’s response as ‘trembling’ / ‘trómos’ and ‘amazed bewilderment’ / ‘ekstasis’. Lk.24:5 describes the women as being ‘terrified’ / ‘emphóbon’ then ‘bowing their faces to the ground’, which in Jewish culture was a sign of respect, perhaps worshipful honouring of the two men as spiritual beings.
Mark describes the women as telling nobody because they were afraid [Mk.16:8]. In Mark’s Gospel, ‘fear’ is the response of many to revelations about Jesus [Mk.4:1; 5:15, 33, 36; 6:50; 9:6, 32]. By contrast Luke and Matthew claim that despite their terror, the women went to tell the news “to the eleven and all the rest” claiming that the message was shared with the other followers of Jesus who were around them. [Matt.28:8; Lk.24:12].
The longer ending of Mark claims that Mary Magdalene told ‘those who had been with him, while they were mourning and weeping. But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it.” [Mk.16:10-11]. This lack of belief on the part of the disciples is also in Luke “these words seemed to them an idle tale and they did not believe them.” [Lk.24:12]. The response of Peter is different in Luke, who runs off to check the evidence [Lk.24:12]. Having found the empty tomb he does not immediately believe but returns home wondering. It is interesting that in Mark’s Gospel the phrase “the disciples and Peter” is used twice [Mk.16:7; 1:36], clearly distinguishing Peter as the leader of the group. But in Mk.16:7 it may also be a deliberate reference to the fact that Peter particularly needed to be reassured and restored to his position with Jesus after his denial, so that he could be confident in his future leadership [Mk.14:66-72].
I do not think that we should too quickly condemn the disbelief or scepticism of Jesus’ other followers to the women’s message, or the fear of the women. Mark and Luke seem to regard the disciples’ scepticism as a failing. In the longer ending of Mark, Jesus “upbraided them for their lack of faith and stubbornness, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen” [Mk.16:14]. But in our post-Enlightenment age scepticism is the natural opinion of many. So it is important to find ways to confirm belief within an age which does not accept faith without clear examination. The doubt with which the Resurrection evidence was received is understandable to thinking people. Too many believers, throughout the history of the Church, have claimed that one should just believe and supress one’s doubts. But that is not the way to become strong in faith. If we work through our questions we will also develop a much more convincing apologetic with which to share our faith in a doubting world.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
If you have had strong spiritual experiences that have confirmed your faith, are you afraid or hesitant about discussing them with others in case they do not believe you, consider you credulous and naïve, or think less of you? How might you make the conveying of your message of faith more convincing?
10 (STATION 7) JESUS MEETS THE WOMEN [Matt.28.9,10]
Many of the women among Jesus’ followers had stayed loyally with him until the end of his life, when all his male friends except John seem to have disappeared after his arrest. The rest of the disciples may have scattered temporarily, perhaps to different places where they variously stayed, though they gathered together at times. By contrast several of the women seem to have remained together and were more proactive than the men.
If we try to unite the Gospel stories chronologically they present difficulties, as we have seen. Luke makes no mention of the women seeing Jesus. If the women as a group were the first to meet Jesus, and Mary Magdalene was among them, where does John’s story that Mary was alone when she met Jesus fit in? It is said that she didn’t immediately recognise him, but if the group of women had met him before, she might surely have done so. If they met him after Mary had spoken with and recognised him, why was she still with them, not running to the disciples with the news? As a result of these questions I have not been certain in which order in the Stations to place the scenes of women meeting Christ. I choose to place the encounter with the group of women first because the encounter with Mary feels more intimate and leads immediately to her informing the disciples of what she had seen. Of course the two incidents may have been the same encounter, and John’s Gospel just failed to mention the other women. But if they were not the same, Mary might have met Jesus again after the first encounter, while walking about the garden confused by, and considering, all that had happened.
As described earlier, We cannot be sure of the identity of these women. Mary Magdalene is unanimously mentioned in the encounter. Mark mentions her companions as Mary the mother of James and Salome. Matthew mentions Magdalene “and the other Mary” [Matt.28:1]. Luke initially just mentions them as “the women who had come with him from Galilee” [Lk.23:55]. He then names those who went to tell the apostles as “Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and the other women” [Lk.24:10]. John only mentions “Mary Magdalene” [Jn.20:1]. Works of art usually represent Jesus’ mother Mary among the group as she is so significant a figure in religious devotion. But there is nothing in the Gospel accounts that specifically mention her as a witnesses to the Resurrection. The only possible references to her could be the mention of ‘the other Mary’ [Matt.28:1] or ‘Mary the mother of James’ [Mk.16:1]. Jesus had a brother James, but this is more likely another James, (perhaps the other disciple ‘James the younger/less’ whose mother was a witness of the Crucifixion [Mk.15:40] (also mentioned as the “mother of Joses or Joseph” [Mk.15:40, 47; Matt.27:56]). Surely the important mother of Jesus would not be described in such peripheral terms. For the reason of possible accuracy to the Gospel accounts I have not painted Jesus’ mother in these particular scenes. Rather I imagine the other companion of Mary Magdalene as a figure like perhaps Mary the mother of James and Joses, or other witnesses of the Crucifixion: “Mary wife of Clopas” or “the sister of Jesus’ mother”, both mentioned in Jn.19:25, or “the mother of the sons of Zebedee” [Matt.27:56]. The temporary disappearance of Jesus’ mother at this point could well be accounted for by her need to recover from the trauma of her son’s execution, and the disciples’ protection of her. In my Stations I include her again as the positive news of Jesus’ Resurrection begins to spread.
Jesus told the women to go and tell his disciples that they were to travel to Galilee where they would see him. This seems to be a message to more than the eleven. By this time Jesus had many followers, including those in Jerusalem who had not deserted him at his arrest. Some may even have been mingling among the crowd that called for his death. Earlier Jesus had sent out ‘seventy’ in mission to spread his message [Lk.10:1-20], so by this time the group who spread his message may well have been far more. We are told in Acts1:15f. that Peter explained all that had happened in the Resurrection and Ascension to a crowd of about 120 believers. This is one reason why some commentators believe that the crowd of five hundred, to which Paul says Jesus revealed himself “at one time” [1Cor.15:6] might not have been the exaggeration that others critics imagine it to have been.
It may have been awkward for the early Church that the first witnesses to the Resurrection and the first to actually meet the risen Christ were women since their testimony would not have been considered valid in the Jewish culture. Famously one ancient critic of the Resurrection, Celsus, used this evidence by women to completely discredit the idea that the Resurrection could be true. [Origen Contra Celsum]. Despite the continuation of bias against women in some contemporary culture, we live in an age which largely regards women as far more equal to men than at any previous time in human history. In this cultural situation Jesus’ appearance to women has developed a slightly different interpretation. Jesus’ later appearance to his male disciples is often regarded as giving them proof of his resurrection and strengthening them for mission. By contrast these revelations of himself to women are often interpreted as more emotional and intimate, as though he is offering his care and support for them. But is this too sentimental a reading of the appearances to Mary Magdalene and the women? The women were to be his evangelists too. In fact Thomas Aquinas hailed Mary Magdalene as ‘the Apostle to the Apostles’, since she was to first to spread the message of Christ’s Resurrection.
Women had been among the major financial backers behind the mission of Jesus and his disciples. Although they were considered less significant in Jewish and Roman society at the time, women appear to have held important positions within the early Church. Christian communities met in their homes; they helped the Church in the role of deacons, making sure that the communities were equipped, financed and spiritually supported. Luke’s Gospel particularly referenced Jesus’ mission among women or the role of women in Jesus’ story and mission. Acts does not mention many women, although figures like Lydia are shown to have fulfilled important roles. But in the growth of the Church we might imagine that women had significant witness, especially in their evangelism among other women, in the growth of faith in their households and among their children and wider families. Paul may not have allowed women to preach in church, but the very fact that he seems to have been frustrated with the ministry of women shows that they were taking strong roles in the early Church. The long-needed creep towards equality in the ecclesiastical hierarchy and ministry has begun to expand, even though it is still too weak in some areas. But Christ’s encounter with the women shows that he trusted them to effectively engage in his mission. They may have been limited at the time by the constraints of society, but despite their relative silence in the Book of Acts, women’s contribution to the growth and stability of the early Christian community must have been enormous, as it was in the support and growth of Christ’s ministry.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
Are there any constraints upon your ability to carry on the mission of Christ, or are there impediments to the credibility of your message? Could greater confidence in your relationship with Christ overcome these?
11 (STATION 6) MARY MAGDALENE MEETS THE RISEN JESUS [Jn.20:14-17; Mk.16:9-11]
On surface reading, the story of Mary Magdalene meeting Jesus on her own seems to be confined to John’s Gospel, but in the longer ending of Mark the claim is also made. If, as most believe, the ending of Mark was a later addition, these verses could be based upon knowledge of John’s Gospel by the time the addition to Mark was written.
The extent of Mary’s grief is emphasised by the verb which John used in Jn.2-:11 to describe her ‘weeping’ / ‘plaíō’, which implies loud wailing, rather like the expression of grief seen in middle Eastern cultures today. The same term was used of the lament over Lazarus [Jn.11:31].
I don’t know whether it is because I imagine things visually, but I am fascinated by why Jesus was not recognised immediately by several who saw him [Matt.28:17; Jn.20:14; 21:4]. Mary Magdalene especially is recorded as being particularly close to him. Was she so distraught, and blinded by profuse tears that she did not recognise Jesus through blurry eyes? Alternatively, had his appearance altered so much through the torturous crucifixion or his experience in the tomb, or was his risen image very different after the process of resurrection? The story of Thomas implies that Christ’s body still bore the scars of Crucifixion. That is why I indicate them fairly prominently in my paintings of the Resurrection Stations, though not as horrendously as they would probably have appeared as a result of such ferocious whipping, then Jesus’ struggling on the cross for three hours, attempting raise his body enough to be able to breathe. The difficulty in recognising Jesus appears to me to be another detail of the story that may contribute to the suggestion of its authenticity. If one were inventing the Resurrection as a story, one might have shown as proof that Jesus’ friends recognised him immediately.
Various ideas have been proposed for why several followers did not immediately recognise the risen Jesus. The most convincing is that his presence was not obvious to them because they simply were not expecting to see him again. In Mary Magdalene’s case her tears may have clouded her vision. In the confused and grieving states of mind of most of his followers, they might very possibly not have recognised his identity at first because they knew him to be dead. Some commentators claim that it may have been God’s or Jesus’ intention that he was not at first recognised, so his identity remained spiritually obscured from others for a time, in order for him to give them sufficient time to acclimatise to the idea or receive significant teaching to benefit from the experience. But this explanation seems a little contrived, putting Jesus’ Resurrection in a similar genre to some of his parables, where he claimed “If they have eyes to see, let them see” [Matt.13:15-16;Mk.8:18; Lk.10:10:23]. The less-reliable longer ending of Mark claims that Jesus was “in another form” [Mk.16:12]. This particular passage is closer to the idea in Greek myths that the gods assumed different forms through which they interacted with people before eventually revealing themselves. But that idea is actually very different from the idea of Christ’s appearance in the gospels. Apart from the three heavenly visitors to Abraham and Sarah at Abraham near the Oaks at Mamre there is little evidence of a similar attitude to vision in the Hebrew Scriptures. Those interpreters who believe that the Resurrection was just in the minds of the disciples, rather than physical sometimes suggest that the lack of recognition is a metaphor for the time it took the disciples to realise that Jesus was still with them metaphysically in their hearts and minds.
People laughed at me about 20 years ago, when I first suggested that Mary may have mistaken Jesus for a gardener because, if Jesus had been resurrected naked, he might have borrowed the gardener’s clothes from a shed in the garden. So I was excited in reading about the Resurrection appearances in 2020 to find that the proposition had been made years before by the eminent theologian H.E.G. Paulus, who promoted the idea that the risen Jesus had stripped off his shroud and put on the gardener’s clothes. Though nothing is impossible for an omnipotent God, I cannot imagine Jesus having been resurrected in a newly-created white nightie as represented in some art. Why then have I painted Jesus in white, since surely no self-respecting gardener, or anyone of poverty walking around Palestine would wear white! I must stress that these paintings are only intended as metaphors for whatever might have really happened in history. The white robes are used to deliberately distinguish the resurrected Jesus within the scenes. Disciples are often also painted in white or light colours, but I don’t see this as a particularly saintly colour, unlike the figures in dazzling white who were reported to have been at the tomb. My use of white is meant as an indication that we are dealing with a happy theme suggesting promise and light. I originally considered painting the whole series of images in varied hues and tones of white, but this made the scenes seem too ghostly, implying that the Resurrection was a vision not physical. Purely white images would also be hard to distinguish from a distance.
Though the angelic beings, who are recorded as being at the tomb when the women arrived, are described as dressed in white or ‘glowing and radiant’ in the Gospel of Peter, the risen Jesus is not described as radiating light, unlike the description of his appearance at the Transfiguration. He seems relatively ordinary and physical. I have used light in my Stations as a metaphor for the miraculous appearance of the risen man, and to distinguish him among groups of figures. But in the canonical Gospels he seems to have had an ordinary physical appearance, indistinguishable from others, except in his ability to perform miracles and materialise or dematerialise at will.. I have tried to paint Jesus as a physical being, casting shadows and with shadows cast upon him, not as a vision. The only exception in scripture to this is St. Paul’s assertion that he met Christ in a blaze of light. As this apostolic encounter was after Jesus’ Ascension he would most probably have been a vision or, less likely, a re-materialisation.
Jesus’ first words to Mary “Woman, why do you weep, who are you seeking?” echo the words recently spoken to her by one of the angels. It may perhaps have been in the way that he spoke her name that Mary recognised him. Earlier in the Gospel Jesus had said that the sheep know the voice of the Good shepherd [Jn.10:3]. This recognition seems similar. Mary’s response “Rabboni” or “Rabbouni” is an ancient Aramaic term used in early Jewish literature and the Palestinian Pentateuch Targum. It was apparently not often the word used of a human Rabbi, but was a way of addressing God as one’s teacher and leader [L.Morris 1981 p839]. John may be making a parallel with Thomas’ declaration “My Lord and my God,” when he met the risen Christ [Jn.20:28]. The implication may be that when certain people recognised the risen Christ they recognised a new aspect of divinity in him. However, the same term is used by blind Bartimaeus in Mk.10:51, when he asked to receive his sight. (In many translations this verse “Rabbouni” is rendered as ‘Lord’ or ‘my teacher’, though neither translation carry the double meaning in the term of ‘divine leader and teacher’ Though there is little suggestion there that Bartimaeus believed Christ to be divine, he certainly recognised God’s involvement in his healing and we are told that he “followed him (Jesus) in the way” [Mk.10:52]. In that case the very next scene in Mark is the Triumphal entry into Jerusalem, where people call out: “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!” [Mk.11:9]. Like Bartimaeus, this again points to Jesus’ divine purpose.
Jesus response to Mary is commonly translated: ‘Do not touch me”, which was a direct translation of the Latin Vulgate ‘noli me tangere’. But this translation has sometimes been interpreted confusingly: As a child hearing the story I believed that the resurrected Jesus could not be touched, because when had regained a certain divinity, he must have become the heavenly equivalent of ‘radioactive’. (This misconception resembled the story of the danger of touching the Ark of the Covenant, which killed Ussah, son of Abinadab [2Sam.6:6-7]. It also seemed to imply that in some way that there was a magical aspect about the risen Christ that gave a false sense of distance between him and us. Yet this must be a false idea. Other Resurrection appearances imply that Jesus’ Resurrection was physical. The women clung onto his ankles [Matt.28:9]; he told Thomas to touch his wounds; he could physically eat (broiled fish in his first appearance to the disciples, a meal at Emmaus and breakfast on the beach in Galilee, where he could also light a fire). The Greek verb for ‘touch’ [‘apton’], used for Jesus’ words to Mary in Jn.20:17, is in the present imperative tense, which implies that Mary was already grasping onto him and Jesus was telling her “stop clinging to me.” The realisation that a better translation of Jesus’ words is “Do not hold onto me”, or “Do not cling onto me” opens up our understanding to recognise that Jesus’ reaction to Mary was not from any lack of care or superstition that his risen body was untouchable. The instruction not to cling onto him might be interpreted (as Wenham suggests p.95) as a reassurance that she need not worry about leaving him to give the news to the disciples, for he would not be leaving or ascending immediately. But it seems to me to be far more personal than that. There was a close relationship between them. He appears to have been emphasising that she should not hold onto the form of relationship that they had formerly enjoyed. He was leaving and she needed to realise this and release former ideas that she had of him. He would be leaving so that she could be fulfilled spiritually in a different way. The relationship she had with Jesus in his life could only have been temporary. After he had left her physically, his power and the continuing of his relationship could be within her life and the lives of all his followers through his Spirit.
Jesus mentioned that he had not yet ascended to his Father, but Mary would not probably have understood what he meant by that until after the Ascension 40 days later. She could possibly have interpreted it as meaning that Jesus had not risen from death just to return to his old way of life. He had a new mission to undertake, so she must not think that things could return to the sort of relationship that they had enjoyed before. She had to learn to relate to him in a different way. As he immediately sent her to his disciples to give them the message of his Resurrection, he could have been telling her to give the same message to them: that things were not to be as they had been before. In his conversation with Mary, Jesus called the disciples his ‘brothers’ [as in 2:12; 7:3, 5, 10] thus emphasising that though the future relationship will be different, it will also be intimate. He spoke of “my Father and your Father; My God and your God”, perhaps indicating that she and the disciples would share the close relationship that he had prayed for his followers to share with him in his ‘High-Priestly Prayer’ of Jn.17:7-24.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
How do you imagine that Mary felt when she realised that Jesus was with her? Try to imagine yourself into her character. Does this feeling of Mary relate to anything in your own life and spiritual relationship with God?
12 (STATION 8) MARY MAGDALENE PROCLAIMS THE RESURRECTION TO THE DISCIPLES [Mk.16.10-11; Jn.20:18]
The appearance of Christ to Mary is given real importance in John’s Gospel. But her report back to the disciples is confined to a single verse, probably because John was about to describe Jesus’ appearance to more of his followers. Mary was later adopted as a patron saint of the Dominican friars since Thomas Aquinas proclaimed her, (as already mentioned,) to be the first ‘Apostle to the Apostles’. She had the privilege of first being given physical proof that Jesus had returned to life. In Luke’s Gospel the two men in shining robes told the women to tell the disciples the news of Jesus’ Resurrection, but to the disciples “their words seemed as an idle tale and they did not believe them” [Lk.24:11]. This could be why Luke laid emphasis on the later experience of at least one male follower on the road to Emmaus. We aren’t told the disciples’ response to Mary’s reported meeting with Christ, but that may be because Jesus was to be described as revealing himself to them in the next verse. As in Luke, authenticity of the women’s witness was perhaps being reinforced by men discovering the same truth.
Mary’s response to meeting with Jesus was very different from the description of her first her first reaction to the empty tomb in Jn.20:2. There she was confused and told Peter and John: “they have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre and we do not know where they have laid him”. Now, rather than being mystified and confused, she had met Jesus and was certain that the angels’ message to her was true. John does not recount Mary’s words to the disciples after meeting Jesus. Rather we are told: “she told he disciples that she had seen the Lord and that he had spoken these things to her.” [Jn.20:18]. This is rather a matter-of-fact description, rather than expressing the excitement that must have been in her words. The scene in John then shifts immediately in the next verse with Jesus appearance to the disciples who were sheltering together behind locked doors.
If you were one of those disciples who had hidden away out of fear since Jesus’ crucifixion, what might your reaction have been to this woman rushing in with a story that she had met your dead leader? You would have known her for some time, and would probably have trusted her not to lie. Knowing her close relationship with Jesus, you would not have expected her to mistake is identity. However you would also probably have known that in her past she had suffered mental or spiritual troubles [Lk.8:2; Mk.10:9], so the disciples may have questioned whether she was being hysterical or deluded by wishful thinking. Logically, you would have had justified reasons for doubt, like that expressed later by Thomas. After Mary’s first report of finding the empty tomb, Peter and John had rushed off to verify the facts and discovered that the tomb was deserted as Mary had said. Peter and John are not described as having met the angel messengers at that point, nor later. The vision of angelic figures seems to have been confined to the women. It is possible that after this second message of Mary recalling that she had met and spoken with the risen Christ, they again may have rushed back to the garden, hoping that they too might have met their risen master, if the story was true. However, we are not told about this.
Mary Magdalene has often been misinterpreted in the literature of the Church over the centuries. She was wrongly equated with the woman taken in adultery [Jn.8:3], the woman who had been a sinner who washed Jesus’ feet at the house of the Pharisee [Lk.7:37], and Mary of Bethany [Jn.11:1], among others. She was probably mistakenly associated with the penitent recluse Mary of Egypt. Thomas Aquinas also probably exaggerated her role in calling her the ‘Apostle to the Apostles’, and legends like her later mission activity in France seems to have been based on dubious evidence. We do not know much for certain about her relationship with Christ, which has probably been romanticised over time. More recently the discovery of the apocryphal ‘Gospel of Mary Magdalene’ has led some to proclaim that she had a far more prominent role among the disciples than was previously ascribed to her. This seems highly unlikely to other commentators.
Despite this she is an important example as a disciple. She valued him because he had been involved in releasing her from her mental oppression [Lk.8:2; Mk.10:9]. Her financial support of Jesus’ mission is attested in scripture as is her standing by Jesus in his time of suffering [Matt.27:55]. The significance of Mary being the one to pass on the news of Jesus’ Resurrection may also be a slight exaggeration. It could possibly have been any of Jesus’ followers who had gone to the tomb first, found it empty, met the risen Christ and in their excitement rushed to tell others. Yet to have gone so early to the tomb seems to be a sign of Mary’s deep commitment to Jesus and her wish to be near him, even when he was dead.
The excitement of Mary at meeting the risen Christ and the suspicion with which her message was received, even by those who knew her, could influence our own attitude to our witness to faith. Enthusiasm definitely draws people’s attention to one’s message and suggests that there is something real and authentic in our experience. Yet we need to realise that all people have different characters, and therefore many respond differently to ideas of faith and varieties in the ways that people witness. The enthusiastic witness of new converts to faith can be infectious; they are often much more excited and energetic about sharing their newly-found relationship with God than long-established believers. This should partly shame those of us who have been Christians for many years into being more open in our witness. However it is also important to recognise that some might consider us fanatical or brain-washed in our faith, so we need to present a reasoned witness, not just bubble over ecstatically with our enthusiasm. Witness that is realistically explained yet retains the enthusiasm of sustained love is often the most effective way of persuading people that our relationship with God is real and could make a positive influence on the lives of others.
Witnessing from our personal experience and by the authenticity of our Christian lives are as important as reasoned explanations (perhaps more important). Scripture may have attributed Mary’s former instability to spiritual possession [Lk.8:2], but she is far more likely to have been suffering from a mental problem. If the story of Mary finding mental stability through her relationship with Jesus is true, he had led her to experience a significant change in her life. Many of us may not have had such dramatic spiritual experiences as hers, though many others of us have certainly had significant things that have happened in our lives, which we believe relate to and are attributed at least partially to our relationship with God.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
What experiences in your life do you attribute to your relationship with God?
How enthusiastic are you over the idea that Christ is alive, available for you and acting for you? Do you convey your spiritual response to God sufficiently in your everyday witness?
13 (STATION 9) THE DISCIPLES RUN TO THE EMPTY TOMB
Luke’s Gospel speaks only of Peter running to the tomb to check Mary’s story and seeing the grave-clothes. [Lk.24:12], though later Cleopas (the Aramaic name for Peter) states that “some of those with us” had gone to the tomb [Lk.24:12]. Peter in Lk.24:24 also seems to refer to more than one person going to the tomb with him. John’s Gospel mentions that both Peter and John ran there in response to Mary’s report [Jn.20.3-8]. It would have been logical for two or more disciples would have been sent off to check the story. Several may have impetuously felt that they wanted to go, though some may have been afraid of leaving their place of safety so soon after the persecution of Jesus. Both Peter and John were both trusted leading members of the group and, as the closest friends of Jesus, would have certainly been expected to go. If the disciples were still afraid of possible reprisals to their group after the punishment of Jesus, it might have been considered safest to venture out with a trusted friend, to look out for and potentially protect one another.
Having been gives some insight by scripture into the character of Peter and the ambition of John, it is not surprising that there may have been a little competition between them to be the first to get to the tomb. We are told that John, who won the race was hesitant about entering and waited outside. Impetuous Peter would, I’m sure, have wanted to win the race, yet he may have been older, more solid or slower, or perhaps he too ran in hesitation, remembering that outside the court-room where Jesus was on trial, he had failed Jesus under questioning. Peter’s reaction when Jesus later tested his loyalty would seem to suggest this. In my paintings I have represented Peter as strongly built, but a little overweight, perhaps puffed through his exertion in the race to the tomb. We are told that he entered the first, perhaps again out of impetuosity and found it empty, then John entered, saw the evidence “and believed”. I have chosen to represent Peter outside the tomb, perhaps considering what he had already seen, thinking through its implications, wondering if the body had been stolen. John is in the tomb in a more devotional posture. We are told that they found the tomb empty, suggesting that there was no sign of the heavenly figures who the women met there.
In my picture the entrance of the tomb is far higher than it would have probably been in reality, to give greater drama and to allow us to see more clearly into the tomb. The actual entrances of such tombs were sometimes little more than a metre in diameter. For a similar reason, I have brought the niche in which the body would have been laid closer to the entrance, rather than deeper in the cavern.
John, appears to have been a very different character from Peter; he was very close to Christ in a different way. Probably not as impetuous as Peter, what we know of him suggests that he was contemplative, more theologically trained and spiritually intuitive. He is described as going into the tomb, considering what he found but we cannot be sure what is meant by the term “he saw and believed” [Jn.20:8]. The next verse claims “for as yet they did not understand the scripture that he must rise from the dead”. It has certainly been assumed by commentators that “he saw and believed” implies that John immediately believed that Jesus had somehow been revived or risen? As the gospel account was compiled and written ‘after the event’, it could be that the tradition of John’s early belief in the Resurrection had been handed down in the Johannine community. The compiler/s might therefore have added the idea that John believed that the Resurrection that Jesus had predicted had occurred, though for John it might probably have been a later realisation.
John is described in the gospels as the companion who was emotionally closest to Jesus, (“The disciple who Jesus loved” [Jn.21:20], though he was not the dynamic leader of the group in the way that Peter was. He may have been the more spiritually mature among the group. Some assume from the theology of John’s Gospel that John may have had training in theology, perhaps with links to the Temple, but this appears to contrast with the description of him as a fisherman in Matt.4:20. It may be that the theological content was expanded by the compiler/s, developing upon the teaching of John after the Ascension. The emphasis on John’s early belief in the Resurrection, contained in Jn.20:8 contrasts to the suggestion in Mark and Luke that the others disbelieved the women’s story.
Luke 24:12 describes Peter as running to the tomb, stooping to look in, witnessing the empty grave clothes and going away. Later, on the road to Emmaus Jesus’ companions told him that “some of our number” had gone to the tomb, implying that perhaps more followers than Peter and John had gone to witness the empty grave [Lk.24:24]. It would be a logical reaction for close friends to want to review the place and the evidence themselves. It might have also been a logical reaction for the authorities to have sent investigators and sealed the tomb a second time to discourage stories.
What did Peter, John and others find in the empty tomb in terms of the empty grave-clothes [Jn.20:8]? We cannot be sure what John saw that convinced him that something had happened beyond the stealing of a body. The phrasing of Jn.20:6-7 implies that the bandages, grave-clothes or shroud and napkin for his head (‘othonia’ and ‘sindon’) were arrange in such a way as to suggest that the figure had not simply removed them or been unwound by others. The complex wording seems to suggest that the figure had in some way dematerialised or disappeared through the cloths, leaving them collapsed upon themselves like an empty cocoon. We cannot be sure of this description, but if it is true (unless they had been carefully faked, which the disciples would not have had time or probably the inclination or skill to do), a supernatural form of resurrection is more likely than Jesus merely reviving and removing the restrictions from his body. If the corpse had merely been stolen or removed it is most likely that it would have been carried away still wrapped in the grave cloths. It would hardly have been possible to carry a naked body far, and why leave the shroud and spices, which would have been more valuable than the body itself?
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
How keen are you to look for evidence for your faith and how energetically do you pursue understanding?
14 (STATION 10) JESUS APPEARS AND TALKS WITH HIS FOLLOWERS ON THE ROAD TO EMMAUS [Lk.24.18-35; Mk.16:12-13
In the longer ending of Mark, which may well have been partly based on the Gospel of Luke as well as John’s Gospe, Jesus is described as having appeared “in another form to two (of Jesus’ followers) as they were walking into the country” [Mk.16:12]. Mark does not name the followers, but this was probably a reference to the same event as the journey to Emmaus in Luke 24. Mark’s one-verse account is regarded as a late addition to the Gospel, and it does not add any enlightening detail to the narrative in Luke. Luke’s Gospel, as I have already discussed, does not specifically mention any of the appearances of Jesus to women. Though Luke talks more than any other gospel of the involvement of women in Jesus’ life and ministry, the only reference to them here in the Resurrection appearance is that “some women from among us astonished us: going early to the tomb and not finding the body, they came saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who say that he is alive. And some of those with us went off to the tomb and found (things) just as the women had said; him they did not see.” [Lk.24:22-24]. The first appearance of Jesus to anyone in Luke’s Gospel is this encounter with a man named as Cleopas and his companion on the road to Emmaus. Luke may have been claiming that men were the first to meet the risen Jesus in order to give credence to the Resurrection among those who would not accept the witness of women. Perhaps the emphasis that the women did not see him implies that the women’s encounters and their message of this to the disciples came after their initial visit to the tomb. Alternatively, Luke may just not have had access to the source of information about the meetings with women mentioned in the other gospels.
The incident resembles several aspects of other appearances of the risen Christ in the gospels: These include: delayed recognition [Jn.20:14-16; 21:7-12]; the sharing of food or a meal as proof that this was physical and not a ghost [Jn.21:12-13; Lk.24:41-43; Acts 10:41]; the temporary nature of Jesus’ appearances [Jn.20:9]. It is obvious from the discussion among these two disciples that Jesus’ followers were left puzzled rather than immediately believing that a physical return had actually taken place. The Emmaus story is therefore very relevant to contemporary Christians as we try to witness to the reality of our spiritual experiences in a sceptical world. Even though others may not be convinced by the biblical story itself, our own experiences in our relationship with God may help to convince others.
Of the two followers who Jesus joined on the journey, we are told the name of ‘Cleopas’ but not the name of his companion. Several modern commentators suggest that the most logical identity of his companion would have been his wife. In traditional works of art the companions are both men. ‘Clopas’ wife is mentioned as one of the Marys who stood near Jesus at the Cross [Jn.19:25], and it is very probable that ‘Clopas’ and ‘Cleopas’ are the same person. I have represented his wife in my paintings of these Resurrection scenes in places where Jesus’ mother is often represented, since the Gospels do not mention Mary as being at the tomb. But the companion’s identity is far from certain. One problem with the idea that the companion might have been female is Luke’s failure to talk of women as witnesses who had met the resurrected Christ. If Luke was deliberately omitting women witnesses because he was writing to those who might not have recognised the validity of women’s evidence, it is possible that he did not name the other companion for this reason.
The popular mediaeval book ‘The Golden Legend’ identified Cleopas as the brother of Jesus’ father Joseph, but this seems based on tradition rather than early evidence. Eusebius of Caesarea, writing in the C4th C.E. [Ecclesiastical History III:11; IV:22] mentions the C2nd Palestinian historian Hegesippus as the source for ‘Clopas’ being Joseph’s brother. It seems likely that Cleopas and Clopas were the same figure. If he was the ‘Clopas’, husband of Mary, sister of Jesus’ mother Mary mentioned in Jn.19:25, he could therefore have been and uncle to Jesus and the father of James the Younger/ James theLess. However, in the lists of disciples this James is described as the “son of Alphaeus”. Both names could be versions of the same Aramaic name ‘Chaliphae’ (Alphaeus the Latinised name, Cleopas the Greek name).
If Cleopas was closely related to Jesus, he and his wife would have known Jesus well. So as they did not recognise him on the journey, there was most probably something different about the appearance of the resurrected Jesus’ which meant that they did not recognise him. One problem with the idea that Cleopas’ companion on the road being Clopas’ wife is that according to John’s Resurrection narrative, she had already met the risen Jesus, so would not be as surprised by the news that they were discussing [Jn.19:25]. (It has been suggested that Mary, the wife of Clopas may have been a source for some material in Matthew’s Gospel, which could account for Matthew’s mention of her at the Cross, as well as the family information in the Nativity narrative. However most mention of her is in John’s Gospel, though little more is said of her.
These two followers were obviously deeply moved, saddened and mystified by all the events that had taken place since Jesus’ arrest, and the recent accounts of appearances. They described Jesus as ‘a prophet, mighty in deed and God’ [Lk.24:18]. Their mention that their companion on the road “must be the only stranger/visitor in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have taken place there in these days” suggests that the disappearance of the body was by this time well-known in the city, rather than just among the disciples. The mention of Jesus as a ‘prophet’ might be a reference to the common contemporary cultural belief that a sign of the coming of God’s Kingdom would be the return to a prophet – particularly Elijah or Moses. In other passages in Luke the prophetic nature of Jesus was also stressed: [Lk.4:24; 7:16; 9:19]. Yet the travellers also suggest that they believed that Jesus was even more significant than an ordinary prophet: “It was our hope that it is he who was to redeem Israel” [Lk.24:21]. God was seen as the redeemer [Isa.41:14; 43:1-14; 44:22-24; Pss. Sol.9:1; 1Macc.4:1]. This mention of Jesus as a redeemer [also found in Lk.1:68 and 2:38] links him to God in a way that probably suggests that he was not just passing on a message from God but directly and actively doing God’s work. Cleopas statement that “we had hoped that he was the one who would redeem Israel.” [Lk.24:21] may be Luke deliberately recalling the prophecy of Simeon earlier in Lk.2:34: “This child is set for the fall and resurrection of many in Israel.”
As with the way that Jesus is described as opening the scriptures to the disciples in Lk.24:44-47, it would be really useful to know to which scripture texts Jesus referred in his conversation on the road to Emmaus. Jesus apparently talked not just about the suffering of the Son of Man, but also his glorification. He is said to have interpreted “Moses and all the prophets” [Lk.24:27]. But this reference was probably meant to be interpreted by Luke’s readers to also include the ‘Writings’, and the ‘Psalms’, thus implying that all the Hebrew Scriptures pointed to Christ [as in Lk.24:44-47]. It was a conviction of the early and also the mediaeval Church that all parts of scripture pointed to the Messiah, just as everything in creation contained aspects of its maker. Their exegesis often used obscure references as proofs of this, drawing parallels between ‘Old Testament’ figures and scenes and ‘New Testament’ examples which fulfilled them. A key part of the conversation on the way to Emmaus seems to have been Jesus’ explanation of the scriptures’ prophetic emphasis that “The Son of Man must suffer and be raised” [Lk.24:7]. The angel had said the same just a few verses earlier, reminding the women at the empty tomb that Jesus had taught this when he was in Galilee. [Lk.24:6-8]. The emphasis on the ‘necessity’ (‘dei’) of what ‘must’ happen, is a term that is repeated throughout Luke [Lk.2:49; 9:22; 13:33; 15:32; 17:25; 22:37; 24:26].
The figure who is said to have appeared, walked and talked with the disciples on the road to Emmaus could certainly not have been a body that had only recently recovered from having swooned on the cross and been entombed alive. This ‘swoon theory’ had been particularly promoted by the German theologian H.E.G. Paulus, suggesting that the cool atmosphere of the tomb and the aromatic spices combined to revive him. But if the Road to Emmaus story is true, no recently revived, damaged body could have made such a journey, discussed faith so animatedly and convinced those who he accompanied that he was vitally active.
Luke’s Gospel includes several journeys, and journeys continued regularly in the Book of Acts. Some commentators suggest that this journey from Jerusalem to Emmaus following Passover may be deliberately paralleling the Journey to Jerusalem at a former Passover festival, when Jesus accompanied his parents, and was later discovered debating with the elders in the Temple,. Mary and Joseph had hurried back to the city of Jerusalem to find their son and searched for three days [Lk.2:46]. On the third day after the crucifixion and entombment Cleopas and his companion hurried back to tell the disciples the news of the risen Jesus’ appearance to them. The parallel of the tree days with Jesus’ three days in the tomb might be either coincidental or deliberate. Just as Jesus had reprimanded his parents for looking for him, when they should have known it was necessary that he would be involved in his Father’s business [Lk.2:49], so Luke has Jesus telling his companions: “Foolish ones, slow of heart to believe all that the prophets had spoken! Was it not necessary for the Messiah to suffer these things?” [Lk.24:25-26]. Like Mary and Joseph’s response to the child Jesus in the Temple, Cleopas and his companion are left in awe. Near the end of the journey Jesus was about to move on but was asked to stay, rest and dine with them, no doubt not just out of hospitality, but because he had awakened spiritual hope in them and they probably wanted to hear more wisdom from him [Lk.24:28-29].
We are not told whether Emmaus was Cleopas’ home, in which case, he might have journeyed to Jerusalem for the Passover and was travelling back to spend the week-long Feast of the Unlevened Bread in his own house. We have no certainty about the geographical position of Emmaus. The name means ‘place of warm springs’, which may identify it as a place connected with healings. Luke tells us that it was “a village 60 stadia from Jerusalem” [Lk.24:13], which would make it within a radius of about seven miles from the city. [A ‘stadion’ was 607 feet]. There were a number of places called Emmaus in Palestine, though some of these have disappeared which is probably the case with the village in Cleopas’ story. One Emmaus was west-north-west of Jerusalem [1Macc.3:40, 57; 4.3; Josephus Jewish Wars 2.63; Ant.17.282 and Eusebius]. This was later called Nicopolis, and is now named Amwas (the Arabic translation of the Greek name Emmaus). Amwas is about 14½ miles from Jerusalem, so some have reinterpreted Luke’s text from 60 to 160 stadia. Josephus names another Emmaus about 3½ miles north-west of Jerusalem on the site of ancient Mozah [Josh.18:26]. Those who propose this site as the Emmaus of Luke’s narrative sometimes suggest that the 7 miles mentioned in the gospel was the round trip from Jerusalem to Emmaus and back. During the time of the Crusades, Emmaus was identified as Qubeibeh, just over 7 miles from Jerusalem on the road to Lydda. It is today also called Amwas, though there seems to be little ancient reference to this Arabic name for the village.
One key message of the story of the journey seems to be intended to be that the risen Jesus was involved with his followers, came alongside them and helped them to understand that there was scriptural evidence for what had happened. It would be wonderful to know what he pointed his listeners towards. It could have been the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, Psalm. In Lk.18:31-32 the evangelist had already mentioned that Jesus, suffering had been foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures. Here he also added that Christ’s entry into glory is also to be found there, which may also refer back to Luke’s mention of glory in Lk.9:26, 31-32; 21:27; Acts 22:11. It is likely that by clarification Luke was referring not just to the Resurrection or Ascension, but the belief that Jesus would return to the throne of heaven. In Lk.9:26 Jesus refers to the Son of Man coming again in his glory, and in 19:12 he is referred to as going away to receive his recognition and power as king, before he returns.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
In what ways has God in Christ come alongside you on your own life-journey? What are some of the things that you feel God has taught you on your journey?
15 (STATION 11) JESUS IS RECOGNISED IN THE BREAKING OF BREAD. [Lk.24:30-31]
It is uncertain whether Emmaus was Cleopas’ home or if they stopped at a hostelry or guest house there, with the intention of travelling further. Luke’s text implies that Emmaus was the intended end of their journey for that day at least. Evening was drawing on as they approached the village: Luke’s phrasing is literally “already the day has declined”. When Jesus “made as if to go on further” the two companions “pressed him to remain with them” [Lk.24:28]. Presumably they were extending the common courtesy of hospitality, which was considered a virtue in many ancient cultures. Hospitality was considered to be a religious or pious responsibility in Hebrew culture, as with the hospitality of Abraham [Gen 18; Heb.13:2]. The two travellers were also probably particularly keen to hear more of their companion’s wisdom and teaching, since they later said that their hearts were burning within them as he opened the scriptures to them [Lk.24:32]. Their offer of hospitality is expressed in very similar language to Judg.19:9 and Gen.19:103 but in both those stories the hospitality of individuals is ruined by the wicked action of others. Heb.13:2 talks of ‘entertaining angels unawares’, but here it is the Messiah to whom they have offered a meal and a bed without knowing it.
In Jewish households of the time, the main meal of the day seems to have been served in the late afternoon. It was a common feature of Jewish meals for the host to break bread with a prayer at the opening of a meal. This would have been a prayer of thanksgiving for the provision of the meal, rather than a spiritual blessing of the food. According to Jewish tradition it would probably have begun: “Blessed are you, O Lord...”. The thanksgiving for and breaking of the bread is similar to Jesus’ actions and words in Lk.9:16 and 22:19. In those passages Jesus was undeniably the host. It went against Hebrew tradition for the guest to bless and break the bread, rather than the host. We are not told whether Jesus automatically took the bread or, perhaps more likely, whether his two companions recognised the importance and spirituality of their visitor and offered him the privilege of breaking the bread and giving the thanksgiving. The two may not have been present at the Last Supper but they may have witnessed other meals which Jesus shared with his followers, so recognised his actions, words or manner.
By the time of the writing of Luke’s Gospel, the sharing of the Lord’s Supper or breaking of bread must have been a regular activity among Christians. From St. Paul’s comments about this meal, it seems that a liturgy or at least certain memorable phrases must have already developed to make the meal a formal memorial of Jesus’ last Passover with his followers before his death. As the stories of Jesus circulated in oral form before the writing of the Gospels, it may well be that the ‘Supper at Emmaus’ was also remembered at the memorial meal, as part of Christ’s revelation of himself. Luke was not necessarily claiming that the risen Jesus was inaugurating the Eucharist in taking and breaking the bread in either the Last Supper or the supper at Emmaus. He was probably creating an analogy with the early Church Eucharistic practice of his time. All Jesus’ meals with his followers, including the feeding of the four thousand and five thousand, gave a precedent by which his followers might recognise his presence with them.
For Cleopas and his companion “their eyes were opened and they recognise him.” [Lk.24:47]. Epiphanies at meals are frequently found in scripture: Adam and Eve’s “eyes were opened and they know that they were naked” [Gen.3:7]. Abraham and Sarah had a revelation of God in a meal at the Oaks of Mamre [Gen.18:2]. Belshazzar recognised the message of God at a feast [Dan.5:1-9]; Jesus revealed himself at the Wedding Feast at Cana [Jn.2:1-11]; he taught decisively at a meal in the house of the Pharisee [Lk.14:1] and revealed his and his followers’ future at the Last Supper [Matt.26:20-29; Mk.14:17-25; Lk.22:14-38]. The statement that “their eyes were opened”, may be meant to imply that God chose that moment to clarify to them that this was God’s Son, or this may just have been intended as a normal mental recognition. It also made them remember the way that their conversation on the road had made his revelations burn within them.
Luke’s Gospel does not include Jesus’ frequent association with bread as an extended metaphor, which is so strong in John’s Gospel: [Jn.6:31-59; 13:18; 21:9, 13], particularly Jesus claiming to be ‘The Bread of Life’ [Jn.6:35, 48] and the ‘Bread that came down from heaven” [6:41]. Yet there are passages earlier in Luke, which could possibly be related to the later Emmaus meal:
- “Command this stone to become bread.... One does not live on bread alone” [Lk.4:4]
- Jesus reminded the Pharisees of the story of David taking and eating the Bread of the Presence [Lk.6:4]
- “Give us each day our daily bread” [Lk.11:3]
- “Friend, lend me three loaves of bread, for a friend has arrived and I have nothing to set before him.” [Lk.11:5]
- “life is more than food” [Lk.12:23]
- “hired hands have enough bread and to spare.”[Lk.15:17]
Luke lays more emphasis than the other Gospels on Jesus eating meals with others: The Last Supper is the supreme example [Lk.17:8; 21:20; 22:8, 13] and also the feeding of the crowd in Lk.9:25-26. There is a long discourse on food, hospitality, places of honour and the honouring and provision for those in need, in the house of the leader of the Pharisees [Lk.14:1-24]. Jesus’ Parable of the Dinner Guests and the Banquet is a response to a fellow guest’s remark that “Blessed is anyone who will eat bread in the Kingdom of God” [Lk.14:15-24].
The Resurrection appearance at Emmaus story fascinates me. There’s so much that we don’t know about it – unanswerable questions: Several sites claim to be Emmaus, but no-one is sure; it is possibly one of many small villages that have disappeared or been renamed over time. Then who were these disciples travelling on the road? Several theologians speculate whether one companion was a woman, which may be why she was unnamed, perhaps Cleopas’s wife. And how could they have walked so long with Jesus and not recognised him? Were they disciples who had only followed or seen him at a distance in the crowds, so didn’t know his face too well, or were they relatives? Was the Risen Christ’s appearance markedly different from his former body? What did Jesus do in breaking the bread that made them finally recognise him? Did he then dematerialise in disappearing from them? These are all ‘unknowns’, yet the Emmaus narrative remains one of the most intriguing and exciting of the appearances.
It is a scene that has challenged artists like theologians for centuries – from early church murals to Caravaggio, Rembrandt, Jan Steen and modern artists like Ceri Richards and Stanley Spencer. Though I once led a whole day of meditations on the Emmaus story for the Friends of the Community of the Resurrection at Mirfield, I have only tried to paint it myself three times. The most successful only showed Christ’s hands breaking bread and offering it to their hands. The whole idea of painting the Resurrection scenes is a challenge. How can you possibly represent a mystery sufficiently in a physical image? Rembrandt did it with light; Jan Steen suggested it with symbols, including broken and empty egg-shells.
The story is also challenging faith-wise. I wonder how often the risen and ascended Christ walks beside me and along-side each of us to teach and encourage us by his spirit, while we fail to fully recognise his presence or what he is trying to teach us. It is fascinating to imagine what proofs from scripture Jesus gave to these two fellow travellers. Several commentators on this passage say: ‘wouldn’t it be useful if those two disciples had recorded Jesus’ teaching, so we might know how Jesus imagined history and scripture pointing to him, and revealed the meaning of his death and resurrection’. But perhaps we do have evidence for this: The teaching probably fed into the teaching of the early Church. Matthew’s Gospel, the Epistle to the Hebrews and St Paul especially were keen to explain how Jesus’ life, ministry and death were rooted in the prophets and Hebrew tradition. Jesus’ opening of scripture to the disciples may be the remembered source of some of these arguments, handed down over time within the Church. His breaking bread with them is not just the way that they become aware of his reality and their risen Lord. It has become a key aspect of our Eucharistic liturgy since early Christian times to combine the sharing of bread and wine with the exposition of scripture. The combination was the way that the early Church and the modern Church recognised and shared truths about God. The Spirit can open the meaning and implications of our scriptures to us. We also discover spiritual truth and recognise the presence of God with us through our relationships with one another as we share together.
Jesus’ proofs, nice as it would be to know them, would probably not convince people today any more than evidence that we work out ourselves, because not all believe the Bible. Each generation needs to build upon what has gone before. Each Christian needs to find for themselves the reasons for faith that convince them. Some Christians long to go back to emulating the simple faith and practice of the Early Church. But you can’t do that, since culture and human reasoning have moved on. If we stood outside a shopping precinct and preached about Jesus’ Resurrection, as Peter or Paul might have done, hundreds would probably not be suddenly convinced and join the Church. We live in a different world where people have different intellectual requirements, questions and experiences. What we need to do is find the faith and truths that give us confidence now to face 21st Century challenges - ways of being Christians and a Church that work in our society. We need to be even more true to the Spirit and teaching of Christ than the Church attains at the moment. It is important to work hard to find contemporary ways to convince others today that faith is true.
Most people today would not be convinced if you gave them proofs from scripture. Why should they? For many the Bible is a collection of ancient writings that seem irrelevant to them, historically dubious, or have an outmoded view of the world. Many think that the Resurrected Jesus is just a superstition, distancing the Church from the needs and thoughts of the everyday world. As Christians we know that such scepticism isn’t true and have a high regard for scripture which we recognise still speaks to us today. But people who have not yet discovered the truths that Christianity has to offer are more likely to be convinced of faith if they see faith really working in our lives. Jesus at Emmaus convinced these two disciples by his presence and what he left in their minds and emotions, even more than by his explanation of scripture. It was the company of a miraculously godly man whose encouraging words of truth burned within them, which helped them recognise that he himself was the truth when he broke bread with them at their destination. We ourselves need to be authentic in emulating Jesus in our communities, so that people become convinced that faith is real and true and are attracted to want to share what we have found.
We in our small ways as individuals and as churches in our community are the people who walk beside our neighbours, friends, work-colleagues, people we shop and live beside, people we meet walking the dog or on our way to church. We are the people who walk beside other real people and can have those effective conversations or live faith-filled lives, which, like Jesus on the road to Emmaus, convince others that faith is true. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if one of your neighbours said of you: “weren’t our hearts burning within us as we talked over the garden fence or over coffee or walked together”. Or they said of you… “I can see that you know God by the truth in your life... help me to follow and walk with your Jesus!”
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
Contemplate the relevance to you of the verse: “weren’t our hearts burning within us as we talked!”...Could people say the same of their contact with you and what they encounter in faith? What aspects of our faith ‘burn within you”?
16 JESUS DISAPPEARS AT EMMAUS [Lk.28:31] & THE TWO TRAVELLERS RETURN TO INFORM THE DISCIPLES [Lk.24:33-35].
In their invitation for Jesus to stay with them and share a meal with them, Jesus two companions on the road to Emmaus put into practice the Jewish tradition and virtue of hospitality. They were also acting upon Christ’s teachings about the humility with which one should show hospitality in Lk.14:7-25 and respond to need in Lk.11:5-13. Their response to the revelation of his identity similarly followed his encouragement to the disciples to spread the good news. Unlike his message through the women who met him, Jesus had not told Cleopas to return and tell his friends that he was alive. But the automatic response was also to rush back to Jesus’ followers as immediately as practicable, in order to pass on the truths that Jesus had shared with them.
The disappearance of Jesus after the breaking of the bread at Emmaus is as much of a mystery and Jesus appearing to the disciples despite them hiding behind locked doors [Jn.20:19]. This incident is the first indication in the Gospels that the nature of the risen Jesus was anything other than a normal physical human figure who had returned from death. Mary Magdalene may have not recognised him at first, but for him to disappear after revealing his identity through his actions at the meal table, is the first supernatural, unusual miraculous action. As with the folded linen grave-cloths, these events suggest that though Christ’s risen body had a physicality, he was able to dematerialise and rematerialize in different places. (We are not told of him travelling between one place of self-revelation to another. This is taken by some to consider that he had already returned to the spiritual dimension at the Resurrection rather than waiting until the Ascension, and could pass from one dimension to another in some form that appeared physical. There are similar mysterious disappearances or departures in Lk.1:11, 38; 2:9, 15; 4:13; 9:30, 33; Acts 8:39; 10:3, 7; 12:7, 10.
Once again, such events pose understandable difficulties for those rational Christians who find it difficult to believe in such miracles. Some suggest that these incidents describe different points and places where believers came to realisations that Christ’s presence was still with them in their mental and spiritual understanding. They find it hard to conceive that these were literal materialisations and dematerialisations of his body. I understand the argument, but consider that there must have been something more concrete in the events to convince Jesus followers that the tragedy of his death had led to the triumph of his spirit living among them.
It is probable that the two companions intended to remain for longer at Emmaus, especially if Emmaus was their home village. However the situation had changed: the news that they felt compelled to share of their meeting with Jesus was too important and exciting. The two followers rushed back from Emmaus to the apostles and those who were with them in Jerusalem and told what they had experienced. Their words added to the evidences that were building up to convince the rest of Jesus’ followers about his Resurrection. On their return, however, they received the news that more revelations had occurred and that the risen Jesus had already appeared to Peter [Lk.24:34]. The importance of Peter among the disciples is emphasised in several passages in Luke [Lk.5:1-11; 22:31-34]. However, nowhere in any of the gospels is this early encounter with Peter described, other than the report in Lk.24:34 that “he has appeared to Simon”. St. Paul’s mention of a meeting between Jesus and Peter (Cephas) in 1Cor.15:5 could be referring to this encounter, or to Jesus’ commissioning of Peter on the beach in Galilee in Jn.21:15-19.
Our own personal witness to our relationship with God through Christ, or the evidences of faith that we attempt to give to people may be the words or catalysts that convince someone of faith. But more often our personal witness is only part of the activity of God’s Spirit working to convince the world of truth. Our words may just add to many other influences that contribute to the development of understanding in others. Yet we are responsible for making our personal witness authentic and convincing. We are part of a world-wide body that is meant to convince the world that Jesus is true and that following his way is the best, truest way to live. Our contribution is vital; we are at the coal-face of the sharing of the Gospel. No individual, worldwide Church, institution or diocese will ever convince everyone that faith is true. In fact, the Church in the media spotlight too often shoots itself in the foot and desecrates its witness. It is full of internal squabbles, rivalries for power, doctrinal clashes, internal conflicts and controversies. Its rulings show many of its leaders to be out of touch with how the world feels about ethical issues, gender roles, sexuality, money, power. Too often our diocesan, national and international synods and are way behind the community and society in their understanding. Despite saying all the right words politically-correct words, some receive the impression that the Church is not actually not interested in real people’s struggles.. Jesus on the road to Emmaus met the emotional needs and intellectual questions of two people who were struggling to know what to believe. By convincing them through his teaching and actions he reassured their faith and helped to form them into enthusiastic, authentic witnesses who passed on his message effectively and reliably. Part of our commission is to be equally authentic and enthusiastic.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
If you were walking alongside two friends how would you explain your reasons for faith? What evidence would you give to convince others of the truths behind Jesus Resurrection?
17 (STATION 12) JESUS APPEARS TO THE DISCIPLES IN A LOCKED ROOM IN JERUSALEM, [Mk.16:14-15; Lk.24:36-43; Jn.20:19-23]
We cannot be sure whether this appearance is supposed to have happened in the same upper room where Jesus had shared the Last Supper with his disciples or whether for safety and security they were staying in the homes of various friends in the city. We do not know for sure which disciples Jesus revealed himself to. Was it just the ten remaining apostles, without Thomas, who was not there at the time? It would seem logical that Mary and Jesus’ other women friends could have been with them, as well as other male followers who had been committed to Jesus and his mission. Most must have been confused by the various accounts that they were receiving of the empty tomb and people claiming to have met the risen Jesus. It would be understandable, therefore if extra followers of Jesus had joined the group to confirm the rumours that were circulating.
They may well have been a large group, so it is very probable that they were staying in various homes, but gathered together to regroup discuss their future possibilities and plans.
Luke, unlike John, does not mention that the room where they met was locked. Perhaps John was deliberately emphasising the divine miracle behind his appearance by suggesting that he walked through a barred door. If he just walked into the room normally it is still miraculous, but not quite as mysterious as a materialisation.
We are told that most of the disciples fled in fear at Jesus’ arrest [Matt.26:56; Mk.14:52] and most are not mentioned as being present at Golgotha, or at least not standing near him, unlike the women followers who appear to have been less afraid to be there. Luke’s phrase for Jesus’ followers near the Cross, translated in NRSV as ‘acquaintances’ is ‘pántes oí gnostoì aùtō’ / ‘all those known to him’, which does imply that the group included men, though the text also mentions that they were standing ‘at a distance’ [Lk.23:49]. They were a terrified group who had lost their leader and their purpose. After the tragedy of his death they probably felt the need to regroup for security, and wondered together what they should do next. It seems reasonable to suggest that after Jesus’ arrest and execution, the disciples would have returned to places of known security, where their host or hosts might have been friendly, understanding and supportive of their cause. They would certainly not have continued to camp in the open in Gethsemane after Jesus’ arrest, if that had been where they were staying previously. In the courtyard outside Jesus’ trial it is suggested that Peter was probably been recognised as being a follower of Jesus by his northern accent as much as his appearance. Several of his fellow disciples would have felt similarly vulnerable to recognition.
Matt.28:17, perhaps set in Galilee, not Jerusalem, claims that as the disciples met Christ for the first time “some disbelieved / doubted”. Mk.16:13 [the longer ending of Mark] also claims that they did not believe the two disciples who claimed to have met him on the road and follows this by stating that when Jesus met them “he upbraided them because they did not believe those who saw him after they had risen” [Mk.16:14]. The verb for disbelieve or doubt in Matthew is ‘disdazō’, which indicates hesitation and uncertainty not entirely confirmed in their unbelief.
When they met him later, the disciples’ immediate response is described by Luke as being ‘terrified’ / ‘ptoéthentes’ and ‘full of fear’ / ‘emphoboi’. To reassure them Luke and John state that Jesus attempted to pacify their fears in the statement: ‘Peace be with you’. He assured them that he was physical flesh, not a ghost as they initially supposed [Lk.24:37]. As evidence that he was real he showed them his wounds [Lk.38-40], and told them to touch him, as the women had done [Lk.24:39]. Jesus emphasised this physicality by eating some broiled fish. (One early but unreliable manuscript adds that he also ate ‘honeycomb’, which is included in the A.V. translation.) In Luke we are told that the followers’ response turned from doubt and puzzlement, terror and fear, to ‘joy’ [Lk.24:41]. This joy, we are told, continued after Jesus his Ascension, expanding into their joyful worship, thanksgiving and blessings of God in the Temple [Lk.24:52-53].
On the issue of showing his wounds, I have a confession about my representation of the risen Christ. It is probable that if Jesus was in traditional Palestinian dress of the time, he would have had long sleeves and loose robes, and in showing his wounds he may have just rolled up his sleeves. In my paintings I show him in more flowing classical robes, which reveal the body more fully than any possible clothing that he might have actually worn. I have deliberately used a different form of clothing in order to focus on the Classical setting, but also to be able to place more emphasis on the scars of Christ’s wounds. I have also probably over-emphasised Jesus’ muscularity. Although he would have gained strength in his training as a carpenter, his ascetic, peripatetic lifestyle would probably have made him more wiry. I have tried to represent Christ as a powerful character, strong enough to carry us spiritually rather than seeming like a wimp in a nightie.
It was traditional for devout pilgrims to Jerusalem for the Passover festival to remain in the city for at least the six days of the Feast of Unleavened bread that followed the Passover. So Jesus’ followers may have been intending to stay rather than returning to Galilee immediately. Though Jesus had sent the message in other Gospels [Matt.26:32; 28:7, 10; Mk.14:28; ] that he would go before them and meet them in Galilee, this appearance in Luke does not necessarily contradict the idea of Jesus’ early self-revelations in Galilee in Matthew and Mark and John. It might merely suggest that he appeared to them in Jerusalem before they left.
You can imagine the added fear in the disciples when Jesus suddenly appeared in their midst, especially if it was behind locked doors as John describes. No wonder he needed to reiterate to them twice “Peace be with you” [Jn.20:19, 21]! They may have worried that their temporary locked fortress was not as impregnable and hidden as they had thought. This could be used as a metaphor for the times when we try to put up our barriers to God. Several saints are described as initially resisting God’s way, as did Francis Thompson in his poem “The Hound off Heaven” or George Herbert’s resistance to forgiveness in “Love bade me welcome but my heart held back.” The passage suggests that God’s power can break though the barriers that any of us might make, though our personal will and integrity is never usurped.
The appearance of Jesus despite the locked doors does imply that there was something beyond what we normally call ‘physical’ about his resurrected body, as far as the Gospel-writers described it. He could appear and disappear at will, as he had done after the revelation at Emmaus. He could walk, talk eat and in the case of the miraculous draught of fishes, could still perform miracles. He appears to have also been able to travel from one place to another in another dimension, as he revealed himself in Jerusalem, on the road to Emmaus and in Galilee. He showed them that he still had the wounds of his passion, so this was not a ‘new body’. The buried body had reappeared but in a new form that was not always immediately recognised. (Neither Cleopas nor Mary Magdalene initially recognised him). In some miraculous way, in his Resurrection Jesus’ body had transformed or transmuted, and showed different qualities. Some have theorised that he had already ascended or moved into the spiritual dimension, and that his reappearances were manifestations in which his body could pass from one dimension to another, enabling him to communicate directly with his followers. There seems to be some reason in this supposition, though a literal reading of Jn.10:17 might question this.
Jesus gave some proofs of the physical reality of this different sort of body in which he was revealed: He reassured them that he was not a ghost by showing them his wounds then asking to eating with them, [Lk.24.36-43] as he did in the breakfast with them on the beach [Jn.21:12]. Whether it is significant that they gave him ‘broiled fish’ to eat in the upper room, we cannot be sure. Some commentators connect it symbolically with the bread and fish of the feeding of the five thousand [Lk.9:13, 16]. But Luke’s emphasis is definitely placed on “he took it ate it in their presence” [Lk.12:43]. The writers of the Gospels were obviously certain that there was a physical reality in Jesus’ Resurrection. Luke and John’s mention of the risen Jesus eating are given as evidence of this, as was the walk to Emmaus in Luke. However, scripture also speaks of angels eating and drinking [Gen.18:; 19:3; Tobit 12:9]. Matthew’s mention of the women clinging onto Jesus’ feet [Matt.28:9] even perhaps John’s mention of Jesus ‘breathing’ his Spirit onto them also give the idea that this was a physical not a mental manifestation.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
Do you have any experiences that have convinced you of the reality of Christ and of God’s presence in your life? Our religious experiences may be regarded by many as subjective; most are not actually provable, but they often help to assure us that our faith is based on truth.
18 (STATION 13) JESUS OPENS SCRIPTURE TO THE DISCIPLES [Lk.24:44-47]
Like the conversation on the road to Emmaus, it would be wonderful to know what scriptures and traditions Jesus used to confirm issues about himself which so convinced the disciples of the truth of their faith in him. This was his final teaching before his Ascension, and contains an emphasis on the disciples’ mission and witness, which is not mentioned as being part of the Emmaus discussion [Lk.24:47-49]. As well as convicting the disciples, the teaching must also have strengthened their witness and their apologetic. Although we do not know the particular details of scriptures to which Jesus pointed, it is likely that some of his argument has filtered into the teaching of the New Testament, where Jesus is regarded as fulfilling predictions in scripture. Matthew so often points to Christ’s life and actions being fulfilments of passages in the Hebrew Scriptures. To a lesser extent these fulfilments are also represented in the other gospels, though not to the extent of Matthew. The fulfilment of scripture is also a feature of many New Testament epistles, especially in the writings of Paul and the Letter to the Hebrews. So we are probably not totally unaware of what Jesus was teaching his followers after his Resurrection. Numerous books have been written on the subject of ‘Jesus in the Old Testament’, ‘Christ in Isaiah’ etc. Some of these attempts to explore how much of Jesus’ life and mission was predicted in prophesy, ave no-doubt contorted scripture in seeking to wring out every minute detail and parallel. We see this particularly in the exaggerated parallels between the testaments emphasised in mediaeval teaching.
Jesus specifically referred to the teaching that he gave while he was still with them [Lk.24:44]. By mentioning that there was evidence of him in “the law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” Jesus was probably implying that there was no part of scripture which did not bear witness to the coming Messiah. According to Luke he then went on to clarify the scriptures’ references to the Messiah’s suffering, death and resurrection [as in Lk.24:25-27] and the spreading of his message through the earth. The disciples to whom he was talking were those who would fulfil these prophecies by their mission, once the Spirit had empowered them.
It is possible to make the error of mediaeval thinkers who believed that every passage in the ‘Old Testament’ had its parallel in the New Testament’ and become over-obsessed with seeking out and contriving those parallels. Like those who are obsessed with finding esoteric numerology and other metaphysical symbolism in scripture, this is not using scripture as intended. The spirit in which the scriptures were meant to be read is to find their relevance to our lives and enhance our understanding and worship of God, not to intellectualise. Neither the Hebrew Scriptures nor the New Testament are intended as esoteric metaphysical texts, with the possible exception of some apocalyptic symbolism. ebres Sciptures H It is probably wise not to speculate on the possible details of what specific scriptures Jesus opened up to his followers. Far more useful is to recognise that Jesus claimed that he was fulfilling the spirit of the past scriptures. We should read both the New Testament and the Hebrew Scriptures in the light of Jesus’ revelation about God, about himself and how we should follow and live by his way.
We have far better access to scripture today than at any time in history. In rural Palestine during the first century there would have been scrolls of scriptures in the local synagogues, but rarely in private hands. Only in cities might there have been more copies of the scriptures, but we cannot be sure that people had access to the complete scrolls of scripture. Some may have had the Pentateuch or Psalms. But the whole canon of the Hebrew Scriptures may not have been fully compiled, and certainly was not available to all, even to all religious teachers. Rabbis would have taught orally and most people knew their scriptures primarily through memory and repetition. Local students of the rabbis were taught to memorise important scripture passages. Not everybody would have been able to memorise exactly, even though, in an age of oral teaching, Jesus’ contemporaries were evidently more adept at memorisation than most modern Christians. Most would not have known or been able to recall in detail more than a few verses that later Christians applied to Jesus Christ. Paul, as a Pharisee, and other religious leaders who we are told were converted to Christ’s way, would have probably known their scriptures far more than most. It is likely that the scriptures that the early Christians used to apply to Jesus were from memorable sections of the Hebrew Scriptures. Some of these might have included the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, verses from well-known Psalms and significant imagery in the Pentateuch and Prophets. We do known from Matthew’s use of scripture that he applied specific verses, sometimes apparently obscure ones. It may be that, as the early Jewish Christians attended their local synagogues, they were particularly attuned to listen for parallels with Jesus and to note them as the scriptures were read. That would not require as detailed or holistic understanding of the scriptures as commentators have access to today.
A key aspect of Luke’s account is that Jesus is said to claim that the spread of the gospel and the message of repentance, forgiveness of sins, and presumably the offer of salvation “to all nations” was foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures. This must surely be interpreted as referring to Gentiles, not just dispersed Jews. It contrasts greatly with the exclusivity of many of Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries, who emphasised the distinctiveness of the relationship of their people with their God. We do not know, once again, to which scriptures Jesus referred, but right from the first covenant with Abraham, God’s message was that through the Jewish people, others in the world would be blessed: “I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make our name great, so that you will be a blessing... and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” [Gen.12:2-3]... “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You shall be the ancestor of a multitude of nations” [Gen.17:4]. By the C1st C.E. and beyond, this inclusiveness of the mission of the Jews to the peoples around them had lessened and sadly continues today, particularly in the inequity of the treatment of Palestinians. Far too much emphasis is being placed by some on the central section of the first covenant promise “those who bless you I will bless and the one who curses you I will curse” [Gen.12:3a]. Jesus’ ministry among Samaritans, Greeks and others began a significant refocussing towards the intended mission that all people can equally enjoy the blessings of God and find salvation through the covenant promises, which Christ renewed, expanded, and sent his disciples to spread further.
One of the main aspects of the preaching of the gospel in Luke 24:45-48 is that the disciples are ‘witnesses’ of what Jesus had done among them, his death and resurrection. They were also to be his witnesses by going out to preach repentance and forgiveness. The apostles had a key role as witnesses, and as leaders of the other witness, which is one reason why Matthias was elected to join them after Judas Iscariot’s death. He is described as a follower who had been with them “as one of the men who had accompanied (them) during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among (them)” from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry to the Ascension. [Acts1:21]. Presumably Matthias had also been one of the “seventy” sent out by Jesus to spread his message [Lk.10:1-20].
As believers we now have inherited that commission. Our knowledge of scripture should inform and strengthen the way that we spread Christ’s message. But most important for our witness is the authenticity of our relationship with God, which gives us the experiences form which we draw, to try to convince others of the truth within our belief.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
What scriptures speak most clearly to you of the nature of God in ways that enhance your relationship with God and your worship?
What scriptures most convince you of the truth of Christ and the truth behind his Resurrection?
What scriptures would you point others to, in order to most clearly explain the nature of God and the value of belief and discipleship?
19 (STATION 14 & 15) JESUS PROMISES THE SPIRIT [Lk.24.44-49] & JESUS BREATHES THE SPIRIT ON THE DISCIPLES [Jn.20.22,23]
Though not as literal and specific as Matthew in stating how Jesus fulfilled Hebrew Scripture, John’s Gospel is replete with allusions and metaphors that point to Jesus being the fulfilment of Jewish hope and biblical associations. None of the Resurrection narratives in the Gospels over-emphasise these prophetic foretellings, though Luke tells us that Jesus opened to the disciples the scriptures that pointed to his death, resurrection and the continuation of his mission. The gospels give the events and evidences for the Resurrection in a much more straightforward way, as though emphasising that they contain real, unembroidered truth, not events that had been invented to appear to fulfil scripture,
However the description of Jesus ‘breathing’ the Spirit onto the disciples would seem to be an exception to this. It is the same word [‘emphysaō’] as is used of God’s Spirit breathing life into humanity in the process of Creation [Gen.2:7]. In many scriptural passages the Spirit is breathed into people to give life, renewal or spiritual understanding: Job.12:10; 27:3; 32:8;33:4; Ps.33:6; 104:30; Isa.42:5; 57:16; 59:19; Jer.38:16; Lam.4:20; Ezek.37:5-10, 14; Wis.15:11]. Here in Jn.20 it recalls the statements about the Word at the beginning of the Gospel: “In him was life, and that life was the light for all.” [Jn1:4].
In breathing the Spirit on the disciples, Jesus was giving them the power that would equip them for following his commission to them to carry on his work. As he promised in Jn.14:18, he was not leaving them orphaned, but giving them an even more intimate power than he had been able to give them by living alongside and teaching them. His Spirit would be in them, guiding, strengthening, bringing remembrance of his teaching, empowering them and taking them forward, as he had promised in Jn.14 and 16. The breathing of the Spirit upon Jesus’ followers may have similarities with the way spiritual power was transferred to Elisha from Elijah [2Ki.2:9-10]. There too it was accompanied by the disciple, Elisha witnessing the disappearance of his master into heaven.
We cannot be sure how this breathing of the Spirit might link with the story of the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, recounted by Luke in the opening of Acts. John links this with the first appearance of Jesus to the disciples behind locked doors. After assuring them of his identity by showing them his wounds, he commissions them and breathes the Spirit on them. “Jesus said to them again “Peace be with you. As the Father sent me so I send you.” And when he had said this he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit (‘pneûma hagion’). If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” [Jn.20:.21-23]. In Luke’s account of what seems the same encounter, the only reference to a spirit is Jesus reassurance twice that he was physical, not a spirit or ghost (‘pneûma’) [Lk.24:36-43]. Although the word ‘pneûma’ is used in both Gospel passages, it appears that the Evangelists were suggesting different interpretations of Jesus’ words about the Spirit. It has been speculated that in John’s account Jesus was breathing the potential of the Holy Spirit’s influence into their lives in a sort of anointing, in preparation for Pentecost. But that is not what the text of John actually says. Jesus seems to be breathing his Spirit into the disciples as God’s Spirit was breathed into the prophets for their ministries, only perhaps in a more permanent way. To suggest, as some commentators do that this breathing of the Spirit upon the disciples was only a preliminary foretaste of what was to come at Pentecost, does not seem to be what Jesus was saying. He definitely seems to be breathing his own Spirit and his own divinely-entrusted power into them. The words ‘breath” and “spirit” as well as “wind” are almost interchangeable in translating the scripture words in Hebrew and in Greek [‘rû(a)ḥ’ and ‘pneûma’]. The verb ‘breathed’ ‘enephúsésen’ suggests that he did not so much breathe ‘upon’ them but ‘into’ them.
We are told later that Thomas was not with them at the time of this first encounter in John, so his empowerment for mission might have come later. Alternatively, as God’s Spirit is not confined by boundaries of time or place, there is no reason why Thomas might not have received the Spirit’s blessing and infilling at a distance, wherever he was, temporarily away from the rest of the group.
In John’s Gospel after Jesus breathed his Spirit on the disciples, he told them “as the Father sent me, I am sending you” [Jn.20:21]. This is similar to his message to Mary Magdalene a few verses earlier: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, my God and your God” [Jn.20:17] and his prayer in Jn.17 that his followers may be one in him as He is one with the Father, as well as knowing unity with the Father [Jn.17:20-24]. The Spirit has an essential role in the uniting and sending of those who would take on Christ’s mission. Over forty times in John’s Gospel Jesus is referred to or refers to himself as being ‘sent by the Father’. Now he is preparing them to take his mission further by sending them. He had already sent out the twelve [Lk.9:1-6] and the seventy to spread his message and to work in his power [Lk.10:1-20]. Now they would need another spiritual power like his own behind their mission.
Jesus had already spoken about sending the Spirit [Jn.14:16-29; 15:26-27; 16:7-14.]. The words of ‘sending’ in Jn.20:21 are different: The Father’s sending of Jesus is ‘apostellō’; Jesus’ sending of the disciples uses the word ‘pémpō’, but it may be that John is not meaning any particular distinction, since elsewhere the words are used interchangeably. In the case of Jesus being sent, he regularly emphasised that he was completely dependent on the Father for his mission and knowledge. Similarly the apostles would be completely dependent for their ministry. on the Spirit for the power, wisdom and memory of Christ’s teaching. [Jn.16:13].
It is not particularly important whether Jesus breathing the Spirit on the disciple in Jn. is only a preliminary action or whether it was John’s way of describing the Pentecostal experience. What matters far more is the teaching that Christ transferred his Spirit to his followers, so that they could continue his mission with his power and guidance within them.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
With the Spirit breathed into your life what do you feel commissioned to do in your present life?
20 (STATION 15) JESUS GIVES THE DISCIPLES HIS PEACE AND POWER TO FORGIVE SINS. [Jn.20:23]
Jesus’ initial statement on meeting the disciples: “Peace be with you”, could be interpreted as simply a greeting like: “Hi!”. But in this context it seems to carry a far more intense meaning. If they were terrified at his appearance among them, they certainly would have needed to have their fears pacified. We do not know how Jesus might have intended these words, but after his death the disciples were in a state of fear, confusion, disillusionment and more mixed emotions. They would need his peace to be able to continue his ministry. The words “Peace be with you” therefore read like a healing message.
The giving of his Spirit seems to have involved Jesus a passing on part of his God-given authority to them: “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” [Jn.20:23]. This aspect of Christ’s teaching to the disciples has been taken by many churches for centuries to claim that Jesus passed on the ability to forgive sins on behalf of God to those of his followers who were his chosen priesthood. It would be wrong to believe that Jesus’ gift of the authority to forgive was only intended for the apostles. The context certainly implies that Jesus was passing on the responsibility to forgive sins to any who have his Spirit breathed into them.
Churches offer and proclaim the message of God’s forgiveness in Jesus’ name. It is not the prerogative of the minister to judge whether he, she, or the congregation themselves will forgive. Forgiveness of sins is the action of God, not of human beings, which was why the opponents of Jesus condemned him for claiming to forgive [Matt.9:5]. Nor do I think that it is just the act of an ordained minister to offer forgiveness. Some dogmas suggest that the gift of absolution was handed down through the apostles to leaders of the Church after them. But this does not account for the fact that when Jesus breathed into his disciples, there were almost inevitably others of his followers among them, into whom the same Spirit was inbreathed. I feel certain that as the community of believers are ‘a kingdom of priests to our God’ [Rev.5:10], any Christian has some authority, perhaps even the responsibility, to forgive on behalf of God when true repentance is made.
At man times in the history of churches, the commission to offer God’s forgiveness had been misused by religious institutions to condemn those with whom they disagree over doctrine or behaviour. Church-men and church-women have abused their authority and anathematised people with whom they did not agree, or placed them under strict measures, withdrawing communion or fellowship from them, openly condemning them to purgatorial isolation or eternal damnation. Some have resorted to torture or murder under the pretence of ‘saving sinners’ souls’. Most of this is very far from Jesus’ teaching on forgiveness, healing and restoration. St. Paul and the Letters of Revelation called the church to deal with those in the Christian community who failed to repent and change, but there is far more in the New Testament about forgiveness than about the disciplining of those who fail.
Of Jn.20:23 Leon Morris says: “I do not think that this verse teaches that any individual Christian minister has the God-given authority to say to a sinner ‘I refuse to forgive your sins. They are retained.’ But unless this can be said, the words about forgiveness cannot be said. The one goes with the other.” [Morris 1981:849]. He adds that as both the verbs ‘are forgiven’ and ‘are retained’ are in the perfect tense: “If the Church is really acting under the leadership of the Spirit it will be found that her pronouncements on this matter do but reveal what has been already determined in heaven.” [ibid]. Morris also believed that: “Jesus is not speaking of individuals but of classes. He is saying that the Spirit-filled church has the authority to declare which are sins that are forgiven and which are the sins that are retained. This accords with Rabbinical teaching which spoke of certain sins as ‘bound’ and others ‘retained’” [p.849-850]. This puts the onus on the Christian to make sure that they are following God’s Spirit and not pronouncing from their own personal or institutional bias.
Many abuses of authority in churches over the years, have involved authoritarianism and false assumptions of the level of their authority. Admittedly in teaching discipline in the Church, St. Paul and the ‘Letters to the Churches’ in the Book of Revelation [chs.2-3] encouraged the expulsion of those who would corrupt the true meaning of the gospel. But Jesus’ emphasis throughout his ministry was on forgiveness, restoration and love. He rarely condemned anyone except religious hypocrites and the evil spirits which he is said to have cast out. His ‘woes to the Pharisees’ [Matt.23:13-29] and condemnation of those who corrupt innocent minds and lives [Matt.18:6; Lk.17:2] contrast strongly with his command to Peter to forgive as many as “seventy seven times” [Matt.18:21-2], a phrase, which meant in practice ‘an infinite number of times.’ The implication of Jesus’ teaching as a whole is therefore that the authority he was passing to his followers was to forgive and release others as they too had been released. This is also the emphasis in the Lord’s Prayer: ‘forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us”.
Those churches and church leaders who take it upon themselves to believe that they have the ‘authority’ to condemn and retain the sins of others should take a very hard look at their own lives and behaviour before assuming or exercising such authority. To use Jesus’ own metaphor: If any place burdens or stumbling blocks on those who should be loved and forgiven “it is better that a millstone be hung around their necks and that they be drowned in the depth of the sea!” [Matt.18:6; Lk.17:2]. Jesus was perhaps likening those who cause such stumbling-blocks to the fate of the demons who were thought to have gone into the Gadarene swine [Matt.8:28-13]. As not even the most religious and experienced Christian has the wisdom of Christ or God’s knowledge and insight into the minds, needs and backgrounds of all, it is best to always err on the side of forgiveness, However I know from bitter experience how hard it can be to forgive those who have deliberately and seriously damaged you, or who cover-up, or refuse to acknowledge that they have sinned.
While we are called to try to forgive as or Father has forgiven us, churches do have a responsibility to protect their communities against corruption. Abuse and safeguarding laws mean that we need to be careful about those to whom we give roles of responsibility and who we allow access to the vulnerable. Spirit-informed wisdom is necessary in the administration, teaching and activities of the Church. There has been far too much authoritarianism, false teaching and failure to deal properly with abuses in the history of the Church, and it has been shown to still continue today.
Leaders and other Christians can be hypocritical in what they are willing to forgive and what they allow themselves to perpetrate. Sadly we all have prejudices and double standards. Most of us find that we are more willing to accept that God forgives us our own sins, however bad, than we are to forgive sins that we recognise in others. Jesus did talk of ‘the unforgiveable sin against the Holy Spirit’ [Matt.12:31-32] and the sin that leads to death [1Jn.5:16]. As it is very unclear what was meant by this unforgiveable sin, it is best to just resist all possibilities of sin and also to believe that all our sins are able to be forgiven. In John’s Gospel it is implied that the sin that most needs forgiveness is the rejection of Jesus [Jn.9:41; 15:22-24; 16:6]. But then, many who have at one time rejected Christ’s way, have changed direction. St. Paul is a significant example.
I had a young friend who for some time was terrified that he had committed the unforgivable sin and was therefore incapable of being forgiven and redeemed by Christ. The blame for this conviction was easily traced to the aggressively condemnatory and in many ways badly-taught preaching of his particular church, which pointed out sin everywhere and claimed that certain members possessed ‘spirits’ of ‘doubt’, ‘unbelief’, disobedience’ etc. (They even condemned ‘spirits of sexual temptation’ which was dangerous teaching to give to the number of impressionable adolescents who they attracted, and would have been tormented enough by developing sexual awareness within themselves). The very fact that this youth was so convicted of sinfulness in himself made it obvious to me that God’s Spirit was at work and moving in his life. I was not ordained as a priest at the time, but I spent many conversations trying to show him that Christ loved him, God forgave him and he had never done anything that was beyond divine forgiveness. But the idea that he had received through his church that he was not good enough for God to ever accept him was damaging him psychologically. In his case his anger against the false pressure put upon him by an over-authoritarian, badly taught and over-controlling church-eldership who over-emphasised sinfulness led him to reject of all forms of Christianity as he matured.
Many have similar confusions about whether God can love us or forgive us our past. Christians should never claim authority over others or give anyone the impression that they are beyond the love, forgiveness and redemption of Christ. The God to whom Jesus introduced us, like the father of the Prodigal Son in the parable, is a caring power who is constantly on the look-out for our return, personally cares about us, knows the full truth about us, is infinitely ready to forgive and ready, longing and able to embrace us in love and restore us. It is important that Christians reflect that character of God, showing people the way of forgiveness and love by our example. Where people find it hard to forgive themselves, it is important that we guide them towards recognising God’s love by showing 0our love and God’s love towards them.
What Jesus might have meant by ‘retaining the sins’ of some is very difficult to interpret. Some critics believe that this part of Jesus’ teaching was interpolated by later writers in order to strengthen the authority of church leaders. The Greek words for ‘forgive’ and ‘retain’ are not common in John’s text, in fact the word ‘Kratéte’ for ‘retain’ is used nowhere else in this context. ‘Aphiémi’ is the common term used many times throughout the Synoptic Gospels for ‘forgive’. Surprisingly, since forgiveness is so much a part of Jesus’ teaching, the term ‘forgive’ is only used in John’s Gospel here in 20:23. It literally means ‘to let go’, or ‘to pardon’. for ‘to release’, ‘to leave in peace’, ‘to remit’, ‘to exempt. ‘Kratéte’, translated here as ‘retain’, comes from the verb ‘kratéō’ and is the opposite of ‘aphiémi’. The word is used in different ways in the New Testament normally means ‘to be strong’, ‘to seize’(5 times), ‘to conquer’ or ‘to arrest’ (13 times), ‘to hold’ (5 times), ‘to take’ (5 times), ‘to hold fast’ or ‘keep’ (twice),), ‘to hold onto (possessions)’ (twice) or ‘to take hold of’ (twice), ‘to cling’ (once), ‘to achieve’ (once). In this context the word appears to men ‘to hold something onto or against someone’ - in other words ‘to keep them under the obligation that originally held them’. It may be that the New Testament Church used both these words in some liturgical way, or with some specific religious connection. The very fact that the word here has so many alternative potential meanings suggests that we should not attempt to be too specific about what Jesus might have meant. It certainly does not mean that the Church has the right to ‘anathematise’ at will, as was sometimes the case in the Mediaeval and Counter-Reformation Church.
Brown [1970: 1042] claims that the early Church interpreted this forgiveness or refusal to forgive as the ability to decide whether proselytes would be accepted for baptism or refused. It could possibly have developed from the disciples believing that they had been given the authority to accept certain people as part of their religious community and to exclude others. This was a practice in the Qumran community and some synagogues and rabbinical communities.
Holding the sins of others onto them does not necessarily mean that their sins are not forgivable or forgiven by God. Only God knows the true workings of people’s minds and hearts. What we retain or hold against people because we recognise that they are not to be trusted, does not ensure that they are divinely unforgivable or destined for damnation. That was a false threat held over people by some church practices es in the past and continues to be assumed by some today.
One aspect of the forgiveness of sins that has not often been considered is Jesus’ association of forgiveness with healing. It is possible that Jesus might have been referring to his passing to the disciples the ability to offer people relief from the sense of guilt and to be involves in the process of healing. He most often used the phrase ‘your sins are forgiven’ in situations in which he was using his authority to heal. It is wrong and dangerous with today’s enlightened understanding to connect illness and disability with someone’s sins. We have moved well away from that superstition, but it was a belief of many of the disciples’ ancient contemporaries. (However, sadly, some ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘literalist’ believers still attribute illness to sinfulness, which can add to the mental and spiritual suffering of those who are ill or disabled. We have no evidence for such assumptions; in fact Jesus’ teaching about God would seem to deliberately contradict this [Jn.9:3].)
It is important to remember that the commission to forgive or the ability to retain sins is not the personal authority of the individual. Jesus breathed his Spirit onto those who were gathered in the upper room. Although the Apostles were there (perhaps not Thomas at that time), it is almost inevitable that there were others of Jesus’ followers among them – perhaps the Marys who had been at the tomb, Cleopas and his companion, Joanna, Susanna and others. The breathing of the Spirit, the commission, the sending and the gift of forgiveness were for the community that would become his Church. It seems erroneous to believe, as some do today, that the gift of forgiveness or the retention of sins (whatever the latter means) are confined to being used by those who are ‘ordained’ by a Church or those given the ministry of healing. That makes the gift seem too exclusive and is open to being abused, as has been the case in the past. The gift of forgiveness is surely for every Christian to exercise. When we find the ability to forgive we are following the example of Christ. When we hold someone’s sins against them we are often showing our own weakness in our inability to overcome our personal grievance or bias.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
How easy do you find it to forgive? Think of specific situations or people where you find it hard to forgive and lift them to God in prayer.
21 (STATION 16) JESUS REVEALS HIMSELF TO THOMAS AND STRENGTHENS HIS FAITH [Jn.20.24-29]
This scene is not recorded in any other Gospels than John. In Mark and Matthew Jesus’ first appearances to the men happened in Galilee, and in Luke the appearances occur around Jerusalem. John’s Gospel account implies that the disciples remained in Jerusalem for a few days before returning to Galilee. Perhaps they remained for the eight days after the Crucifixion, which would not be uncommon, since many pilgrims stayed for the six days of unleavened bread after the Passover feast. (Eight days was an inclusive way of describing a week as the Jewish first day of the week began at dusk.) We are not told why Thomas was not with the group when Jesus first appeared to them, but in one of the following days he was among them when Christ reappeared.
The main significance of John’s inclusion of this scene would seem to be more than that it is providing another physical proof of Christ’s Resurrection. John had already given several evidences of Jesus miraculous nature and the power of the Resurrection. Thomas’ statement in response to meeting Jesus: “My Lord and my God.”[Jn.20:28], reinforces John’s emphasis on Jesus’ divinity, which began in the first chapter of the Gospel. Here a disciple, who may until this time have regarded Jesus just as a great teacher and leader, takes the revelation of Jesus’ identity even further by faith and proclaims him as ‘God’ as well as ‘Lord’. Even more emphatic as a message of the Gospel to the reader seems to be the statement made by Jesus in response to Thomas’ declaration: “Blessed are those who have not seen yet have believed” [Jn.20:29]. In the pattern of John’s Gospel, Thomas’ conclusion “My Lord and my God” brought the compiler’s argument full circle. The Gospel started with statements that Jesus was “the Word” and “the Word was God” (discussed in the introduction to my Lent Meditations). On meeting the Risen Christ, Thomas’s affirmation of his belief asserts that the evidence built up in the Gospel is convincing. John has shown seven miraculous signs of Jesus’ power and seven significant statements of who Jesus is: “the Bread of Life”[Jn.6:26-41]; “Light to the World” [Jn.8:12], “the Way the Truth and the Life” [Jn14:6], “the Resurrection and the Life” [Jn.11:25] etc. and in chapters following each statement the Evangelist has given examples and evidence in Jesus words and actions of the truth behind these statements. Thomas’ conclusion that Jesus was divine affirms the conclusion which John aimed his readers to also draw.
We are not told in what tone Jesus asked Thomas to touch him and find the evidence that he was truly alive. There is no indication that he was reprimanding him for his disbelief, unlike Jesus rebuke of his followers in Mk.16:14. He might have been being ironic, or even slightly sarcastic, as a few commentators suggest, since Thomas had claimed earlier: “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe.” [Jn.20:25]. John shows Jesus’ words to almost exactly reflect this: “Peace be with you...Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.” [Jn.20:26-27]
One difficulty with Thomas declaration of faith after meeting the risen Jesus comes when one asks whether meeting a man who has risen from the dead actually proves that he is God. Jesus raised Lazarus [Jn.11and12], the son of the widow of Nain [Lk.7:11-17] and Jairus’ daughter [Matt.5; Lk.8], but thes people raised from death were not considered divine and would eventually die again. John’s Gospel was at pains to point to the divinity of Jesus Christ, which is no doubt why Thomas is recorded as saying “My Lord and my God.”[Jn.20:28]. (Some scholars actually believe that the Gospel of John originally ended at this revelation, though there is little firm evidence for this and it seems to modern a conception of an ending.) There is no doubt that many early theologians and eventually the Church councils came to accept the evidence of the Resurrection as evidence of Jesus’ divine nature. But our belief in the nature of Christ needs to be based on more than his Resurrection. Enoch and Elijah [Gen.5:24; 2Ki.2:11] are said to have had miraculous endings to their life on earth (as did Moses according to some apocryphal Jewish legends [cf. N.T.Wright p.95 footnote 53]. But that too did not make them divine.
To debase St Thomas by the title “Doubting Thomas” doesn’t suit him at all, or the purpose of his place in the argument of John’s Gospel. If any of the traditions about him beyond the New Testament are true, Thomas spread Christ’s message geographically further than any other disciples. Christian churches in India claim to have been founded by him, and he is thought to have preached in Parthia. It would be much more correct to call him “Thinking Thomas”: he could have been made patron saint of rational Christians. His questioning had been logical: Could Jesus have really returned to life after that horrific torturous death that so many had witnessed? The answer was obviously “No!” But then Thomas had met him and was convinced that the miracle of Resurrection had happened. John didn’t really need to add Jesus’ words: “Blessed are those who believe yet have not seen” [Jn.20:29]; we are meant to be convinced by Thomas’ evidence. Yet Jesus’ words underline the evidence of John’s whole Gospel, which was intended to help all those readers believe, who did not have the benefit of the disciples’ experiences. If the words of v.29 were spoken in the tone of gentle rebuke for Thomas’ lack of immediate belief of the witnesses to his Resurrection they can only have been slight. Thomas is a model for any thinking Christian, asking the questions that need to be answered sufficiently in our minds if we are to have a valuable apologetic in a sceptical age.
Although Jesus is reported as saying ‘Blessed are those who believe yet have not seen”, he did not claim that they are ‘more blessed’ than Thomas or any of us who feel that we need to have some physical assurance of the truth of faith before we take the leap into belief. Some commentators believe that this statement is an addition by the Evangelist or later editors, to emphasise the need for trusting faith in those followers of Christ who did not have the benefit of first-hand knowledge. Some religious cults encourage unquestioning credulity and obedience, but the Christian Church needs to recognise the various psychological needs of different God-created minds. For our witness as Christians to be convincing to others, our faith needs to be seen as open to reasoning and reasonable. Sceptics, agnostics and atheists have often criticised churches for trying to brain-wash people into beliefs for which there is no evidence. While that may be true of the behaviour of some evangelism and some authoritarian dogmatic church teaching, it is far from the case in most sensible churches today. The church rightly has sometimes had a bad press for being out of touch with society’s understanding. We don’t want to be considered “credulous” or “naïve” in any way; it is right to question faith. It would be utterly stupid to give your life to a cause you can’t believe in or justify rationally. But decades of experience as a Christian convince me that my beliefs are founded on truth. I believe that critics are wrong in claiming that there is insufficient evidence for Christian belief. I believe that my faith is based on reasoning; but of course none of us can prove that Christ and the Resurrection are true.
Another passage in James 1:6 encourages: “Let us believe and not doubt”. This has often been used by across the spectrum of churches at times from Evangelicals and Charismatics to Catholics to imply that it is almost sinful to doubt faith. But that that takes James’ words out of context. The writer is saying there that once you are sure of your faith do not hesitate, backslide, or pull back from following it to the full. We need to build on secure not wobbly foundations. And that is what Thomas was able to do. His questions were answered: he was encouraged to touch and prove the risen Christ. (Whether he actually did or was convinced by what he saw we are not told.) He became assured by the encounter that the Resurrection was real and he was transformed into a confident Christian by having proofs that sufficiently convinced him. His response suggests that he was so sure that Jesus had come back from death that he was the first disciple to take the great step from Peter’s “You are the Son of God, the Messiah” to calling Jesus Christ “My Lord and My God” [Jn.20:28]. This statement would be unthinkable for a Jew to affirm unless they were absolutely convinced.
If we have questions about faith we should not hesitate to ask them and diligently seek answers. Christianity would be unreliable if it is not true. If faith is true, it should be able to stand up to the most rigorous questioning. Jesus claimed: “Seek and you shall find, knock and the door will be opened for you” [Lk.11:10; Matt.7:8]. That is not to say that the questions will be easily answered. There are still a myriad of mysteries to which my conclusions are only tentative. But seeking answers to our deepest questions can help strengthen our faith enough so that we have the confidence to share our belief in Christ with others, as Thomas apparently did according to tradition.
This incident with Thomas refusing to believe unless he touched Jesus and knew he was alive is one of those passages from scripture that helps to convince me that faith is based in truth. When sceptics or those who oppose faith have their minds and lives turned around by recognising Christ’s truth they tend to become among the strongest spreaders of faith: St Paul as Saul was certain that Christianity was blasphemous. St Augustine wanted a sensual life, not to be challenged by Christ. Dietrich Bonhoeffer would not be convinced by simplistic Christian answers to the problems of the world. C.S. Lewis was sure that Christianity was based on believers’ self-deception. Yet we know that through their sincere search for answers about faith they became some of the greatest apologists for the Christian faith. This strength came particularly because they challenged Christian teaching to discover what was true, and they thoroughly worked through their questions.
We don’t have the first hand evidence that proved to Thomas that Christ returned to life after 3 days in the grave. The Resurrection was a divine miracle that convinced many sceptics, not just Thomas, that Christ’s was from God and that his teaching was true and to be followed. In order to grow strong and effective, the Church today needs similar confidence to those early disciples that, however we make sense of it, Christ’s Resurrection life is real. Our world is full of many sceptics, many dubious religious teachings and fanatics, many people with real problems. People need a true, positive faith to build their lives upon and find healing and abundance. The Resurrection assures us, as it did Thomas, that Christ offers truth: He came into the world to heal it with God’s love and assure us that we can build better, truer lives through him. So if you haven’t worked out what you believe about the Resurrection, challenge yourself to consider what helps you believe in ways that strengthen your faith, and consider what Christ’s renewal of life offers you and our world.
Thomas conclusion that Jesus was “My Lord and my God” implies that through our understanding of Jesus there is a renewed closeness between believers and God, which was a rare quality in faith before Jesus’ teaching. In legend Adam and Eve walked and talked with God before the Fall [Gen.3:8], Abraham was described as God’s friend [2Chron.20:7] and made a covenant relationship with God [Gen.17:1f], Moses spoke with God as a friend [Ex.33:11]. Enoch and Elijah were considered so close to God that they had been transported to heaven rather than dying [Gen.5:24; 2Ki.2:11-12. Psalmists sometimes wrote of an intimacy with God; God’s glory was revealed to Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel [Isa.6; Ezek.1; Dan.7]. But the intimacy of the relationship of friendship was opened up by Christ in ways that would have been previously considered unimaginable. God is still God – not a truth to be considered lightly or taken for granted. If Jesus is “Lord and God”, as Thomas is said to have concluded, his teaching and way are to be considered and followed as seriously as following the ways taught by our Source of Life.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
Consider the evidence that you have for who Jesus was. How convincing is the evidence that he is “Lord and God”?
Do you follow Christ’s ways as seriously as you should, if he is God’s direct representative teaching and guiding you?
22 (STATION 17) JESUS APPEARS BY THE SEA OF TIBERIAS AND EATS BREAKFAST WITH HIS ELEVEN DISCIPLES [Jn.21:1-14]
All the previous appearances seem to have occurred in or around Jerusalem. But the shining figures at Jesus’ tomb had informed the women that the disciples would meet the risen Jesus in Galilee [Matt.28:7]. If the disciples left Jerusalem after about eight days, they may have been in Galilee by the middle of the second week after Jesus’ Resurrection. The sea of Tiberias and the sea of Galilee are synonymous. The term Galilee represents the general area; Tiberias was the main town almost half way up the west edge of the Lake. It is possible that the Resurrection incident of the miraculous draught of fishes is being indicated as occurring in an area somewhere in the vicinity of that town. However in the Gospels, Tiberias is only mentioned by John [Jn.6:1, 23; 21:1] so it may just be a name applied to the whole vicinity by that evangelist. John does also mention Galilee as an area seventeen times, as many as the other evangelists. Jn.6:1 indicates that the sea was called both ‘Galilee’ and ‘Tiberias’.
John tells is that there were seven who decided to go fishing, following Peter’s suggestion. They are specifically named as:
"Simon Peter
THomas
Nathaniel of Cana in Galilee
The sons of Zebedee (James and John)
and two other disciples.”
We do not know why the disciples decided to go fishing. Preachers have regularly surmised that the only thing they could think of returning to after losing Jesus was to return to their former profession, but there is no indication of this in scripture. It may be that they were still confused by recent event and were returning temporarily to something that had formerly been a normal part of their lives. Their mission had been financed by those who supported Christ; perhaps they had lost that financial security. They would have needed to find some way of supporting themselves, if only temporarily, as their savings might well have been depleted after living for several days in Jerusalem. Even if their accommodation had been provided by supporters, it would have been an expensive city to stay in, especially during a time of festival, when traders raided their prices.
Galilee was somewhere where the disciples would have been known, and their relationship with Jesus was known. This would have been both an advantage and disadvantage, but it would probably not have felt so dangerous for them as being in or near the city where their leader had been persecuted and died. They probably had family and friends around the lake and in the vicinity, who might have helped to support them. But there may also have been others who had been hostile to Jesus and could have ridiculed their failure.
The breakfast that Christ shared with them is yet another meal at which his nature is said to have been revealed. In the first miracle in John, his special character was shown in the changing of water into wine at Cana; in the feeding of the 4,000 and 5,000 his miraculous powers had been revealed to more; the various meals at the house of the Pharisee, the home of Mary and Martha, the Last Supper and the Supper at Emmaus all helped to confirm his character, his powers, or his wisdom and message. On the shore of Galilee, Jesus ate with them, as he had eaten broiled fish with them behind locked doors in Jerusalem, giving evidence that his risen nature was physical and still active in the world, not a ghost or apparition.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
What do you do when you feel frustrated or unsure of your direction? How easy has it been to trust God in times of trouble? Can you think of times when you have been supported in your times of difficulty?
23 (STATION 17) THE MIRACULOUS DRAUGHT OF FISHES [Jn.21:4-8]
I must admit to a personal discomfort with this scene. Having kept fish as pets for several decades and studied them at close quarters I recognise them as sentient and sensitive creatures. They have individual personalities, develop relationships with one another, protect each other in situations where they feel fear or panic, support one another when ill or vulnerable, feel pain, mourn when a companion dies, become bored when on their own. Their memory is definitely longer than the popular belief of 3 seconds. So you can imagine that the story of the miracle of the miraculous catch of an enormous number of fish causes me some emotional discomfort for the fish, which would have panicked in the situation. I am not a fan of the fishing industry, as unless killed immediately, I can imagine the panic of the fish in nets when crammed together in a trawl, their inability to find enough air to breathe. Live fish hauled out of water into buckets, baskets or onto a slab die of a prolonged form of asphyxiation not too far different from the choking and that Christ would have experienced in his struggle on the Cross. I felt uncomfortable even painting the laden net being hauled in by the disciples, even though it is such a significant and memorable part of the Resurrection narrative.
Why might Jesus have allowed this natural massacre, if the narrative is based on truth? It could, after all, as some commentators suggest, have been created as a story to emphasise the abundance of the fruits of the mission in which the disciples were called to engage. He had said to Peter and the disciples earlier that their mission would be to fish for people [Matt.4:19; Mk.1:17; Lk.5:10]. If I were Jesus, I might have given them the ‘green’ option and said: “OK, now I’ve made my point, let all the fish go free and come and have breakfast of some warm bread I have baked over the fire!” But I admit that it is probably far more likely that they would have speared a number of fish and cooked them. Why then so many fish? It certainly emphasises that this was a miracle, not an everyday occurrence. They were experienced fishermen; though they had been away from their occupation for up to three years, they knew the lake, and probably knew where the shoals used to congregate. If they borrowed the boat or if it was owned by a member of their families, they may have asked some confirmatory local knowledge from other fishermen they knew, who had been fishing more recently. However, they had fished all night and caught nothing, which is not necessarily an indictment of their fishing ability. The inclusion of the story in the Gospel seems definitely intended to imply that God was in charge of nature, and they were no longer meant to return to their previous roles. It also seeks to remind the reader (like the stilling of the storm early in his ministry [Matt.8:23; Mk.4:37; Lk.8:22] that Christ was lord of nature, so at his command nature might hide from being caught or be attracted towards the nets.
The inclusion of the miracle would seem to be linked to Lk.5:1-11, where earlier in the preparation of the disciples Jesus had shown them his power over nature. Jesus’ miracle of the loaves and fishes also seems to indicate the expansiveness and inclusiveness of Christ’s mission. Just as with the scene of Jesus’ appearance to Thomas, a major emphasis within the story is not the miracle itself, but the disciples’ response. Thomas had eventually exclaimed: “My Lord and my God” [Jn.20:28]. On recognising him on the shore Peter had exclaimed “It is the Lord” [Jn.21:7], the disciples, in joining him, “did not dare to ask him “Who are you?” because they knew it was the Lord” [Jn.21:12]. John seems to be showing that this is part of the growing recognition of the immensity of who Jesus actually was, which his Gospel had been emphasising from the proclamations about ‘the Word’ in the first chapter.
Just as we should not criticise Thomas for his doubts, before he had witnessed the risen Christ, we should not blame these disciples for deciding to return, either temporarily or permanently to their former occupation. How were they to support themselves, without an important leader who attracted donations? What could they do without him? They did not yet understand the full promise within his former teaching that he would send them his Spirit to guide and empower them. They needed to support themselves. They would also have been despondent and confused. Would you not consider regaining security by returning to the only other profession which you knew - your former trade? It might even be possible that Christ’s gift of this huge catch of fish was to be sold by them to help finance of the group during their initial weeks without him. If the daytime fishing had also been poor recently for others on the lake, this haul would probably have been welcomed by villagers or townspeople and attracted a good price.
But all that speculation, of course, is not the central message of the story or the main reason which the Evangelist or compilers chose to include it Like the stilling of the storm earlier in his ministry [Matt.8:23; Mk.4:37; Lk.8:22], this is a sign that Christ is in control. He can control nature, and will be in control of their future mission. The story implies that though we might choose, like the wealthy man [Mk.10:22] to go a different way from that which God intends for us, we will be more effective, more satisfied and more fruitful if we follow our intended direction.
This poses a different conundrum: Is God actually SO in charge that our lives, careers and fruitfulness is controlled by him? I do not believe that God controls our lives in that way. It is superstition to believe as the Hebrew Scriptures are sometimes interpreted as suggesting, that all our lives are planned, mapped out and controlled by God. That would deflate our quality of freedom as human beings and creatures which choose in love to follow God’s guidance. We are not puppets with God pulling our strings and directing us. We have free will and act autonomously. (Presumably the rest of creation has similar autonomy, so the fish may not have been drawn into the net by Christ’s influence either).
There is perhaps another significant reason why the miraculous draught of fishes may have been included by John as an important message for the early church. He was writing for a church which was struggling to witness. No matter how enthusiastic the Evangelist was over Jesus’ divine identity and the miraculous evidence which pointed to it, the church, struggling to evangelise and facing persecution and exclusion in some societies may well have felt to many early Christians like the disciples struggling to fish all night, yet having little or no success. After the miracle of an amazing draught of fish in Lk.5:4-9, Jesus had told his followers that they would be ‘fishers of men’... “From now you will be catching people” or more literally “from no you will be taking people alive” [Lk.5:10]. This second interpretation of the Greek words gives emphasis to the aim for our mission to provide Christ’s Message in ways that will bring people to abundance of life. We aren’t here to persuade or less honestly to con people into a boring form of life and belief. We are intended to bring people to a life-style, belief and relationship with the spiritual world that will enliven, enhance and advance their lives.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
How fruitful do you consider your mission as a Christian to have been?
How do you think that you might more fruitfully follow Christ’s way?
24 (STATION 18) JESUS CONFRONTS PETER, FORGIVES HIM COMMISSIONS HIM TO FEED HIS SHEEP & FORETELLS HIS MARTYRDOM [Jn.21.15-19]
Jesus’ confrontation of Peter is to me one of the most emotionally painful and touching scenes in any of the Gospels, other than the narrative of Christ’s Passion. The reaction of Peter to Christ is a relationship with which I so often identify personally, being very aware of my regular failure to live up to the faith and loyalty to God to which I should aspire as a Christian, and especially as a minister.
In a painting of this scene that I created over two decades ago, which is still one of my favourite and most poignant works, I represent the pain that Peter’s inability to forgive himself is causing to Christ as well as himself. In that image Jesus embraces Peter from behind his hunched shoulders. I imagined the disciple as too ashamed and feeling unable to turn and accept his Lord’s forgiveness and embrace of friendship. Peter is tense, while Jesus strains to reassure him. As a result the wounds in Jesus’ back are reopening and bleeding, as he feels the pain of his beloved friend. The sky beyond reflects the pain in its stormy confusion. Yet there are two small details in the picture, which people often miss when viewing it, and which relieve the sense of anguish: Peter’s hands. One finger of his right hand is in the process of lifting to touch Jesus’ embrace. Peter seems to be considering turning his head towards Jesus and his clenched left hand is just beginning to unclench as he feels the power of love reaching out to him. Have you ever felt that combined sense of shame, yet being forgiven and loved? It is a regular feature of my own relationship with God through Christ.
In my more recent, and rather less moving representation of the scene in my ‘Stations of the Resurrection’, Jesus is himself bending low to attempt to embrace the figure of Peter who is curled up, almost assuming foetal position in his shame. But again Christ’s touch is gentle and Peter’s hands, clutching his head in emotional pain, are just beginning to uncurl and accept that his Lord and friend loves him.
The scene of reconciliation focuses on Peter’s rehabilitation so that he could regain his position as leader and encourager of the apostles. It must also have strengthened him for his mission, so that he could regain and deserve the image of a ‘rock’, the name which Jesus had given him. Previously when Jesus called Peter, he had said that he would be a ‘fisher of men’, now Jesus commissions him to ‘feed my sheep”. For Peter, this may have had an extra significance than just being told to take up a pastoral duty. He must have heard Jesus talk of himself as the “good shepherd” [Jn.10:2-17], and would have known well Jesus’ frequent us of sheep and shepherds as metaphors for leading the people. Jesus took over that metaphor from the Hebrew Scriptures, where God was called ‘Shepherd’ [Gen.48:185; 49:24; Ps.23:1; 80:1; ] and religious and political leaders were often spoken of a ‘shepherds of God’s people’ [2Sam.5:2; 7:7; 1Chron.11:2; 17:6; Ezek.34:5f; Zech.10:2-3; 11:3-17; 13:7]. Jesus had quoted Zechariah’s condemnation of false shepherds, and had spoken of false leaders as “hireling shepherds” who at the first sign of danger run off and desert the flock [Jn.10:12]. The disciples had done this when Jesus was arrested. Only Peter and John apparently had the courage to follow Jesus to his place of trial, gaining entry because John was known to someone there. But under the pressure of questioning, even Peter had three-times denied any knowledge of Jesus. Through his desertion, he might have regarded himself as no better than those who had fled from Gethsemane at Jesus’ arrest.
We certainly gain the impression from Peter’s response to Jesus’ questioning three-times whether Peter truly loved him, that Peter was ashamed of his earlier denial. Yet Jesus does not seem to have been questioning Peter in as accusatory way as Peter was probably accusing himself. Jesus may just have been using this form of questioning to point out that this previously bombastic disciple had weaknesses. From now on Peter was not to be a hired hand who deserted his sheep. Jesus was passing on to Peter, as the leader of the other disciples, his own role as ‘good shepherd’ who would protect and nurture the sheep and lambs. It is a very moving idea that a man who had wept as the cock crowed, considering himself to have failed, should be entrusted with leadership and such important pastoral responsibility.
The message of Jesus to Peter might be summarised in the following verse, which accompanied my earliest painting of this encounter:
“I questioned love, not as a test but to confirm
Rise, feel your Lord’s embrace my powerful friend.
You are forgiven. I knew your fear and vulnerability.
You thought yourself a rock, now sense your breaking point.
For that will make you strong enough to serve for me and to care.
In knowing truth you can bless others with forgiving love.
Never will I deny a one who clings in trust.
I questioned you, now go, bless others with my love.”
Perhaps it was the sense of reliance on Jesus forgiveness and recognition of his human weakness which turned Peter from being a rather over-confident, blustering disciple, who made so many mistakes, to a courageous pillar of the early Church. In my experience those believers who are arrogant, self-assured, or believe that they are always in the right often make the least humane and understanding leaders. I have seen this in many situations. Humility and recognition of our own faults can lead us to be more sympathetic and outreaching in our relationships with others.
While I have mentioned that 1am uncomfortable with the metaphor which the Authorised Version puts into Christ’s mouth in commissioning his disciples to become ‘fishers of men’, the metaphor which Jesus used after forgiving Peter is much more comfortable but challenging: “feed my sheep” [Jn.21:15-17]. Our role as witnesses to Christ and as sharers of his gospel should not entail ‘catching’ people in any way; our role is to teach and nourish people on the path to belief then to build them up to strong faith through continued nourishment. We are to persuade through the truth, not to trick or entrap. It is therefore wrong to use any fictional explanation, lies or exaggerations in representing Christ or the gospel. We should be demonstrating the truth of Christ’s message as authentically as we can. That does, of course, include using metaphors to explain faith and talking of beliefs that we do not fully understand, as we cannot be certain of many aspects of the gospel message. Any explanation we give for faith or commentary on scripture certainly has a fictive aspect because we are conveying biblical teaching that conveys mysteries and ideas that may be beyond our personal experience. Paintings or creative writing about the biblical story is even more distant from whatever reality is behind the words of scripture. But our own calling to ‘feed God’s sheep’ and ‘not leave them as sheep without a shepherd’ presents us with a challenge to lead people in as authentic ways as we can.
Peter is the popular patron saint of many churches, not just those that are close to fishing areas. If you ask most Christians who their favourite disciple is it is likely to be Peter or John, the disciple to whom Jesus seems to have been emotionally closest. Of all the disciples Peter is the one we know most about, possibly because he travelled on mission with John Mark, and so many stories about him may have been passed on through Mark’s followers into Mark’s Gospel. We couldn’t know so many of his mistakes unless Peter himself had confessed them to the early Christians. We know as much about Peter’s failings as his successes, which is both poignant and meaningful, making him seem as human as ourselves. This makes him a useful example to follow.
In his early life as a disciple Peter often spoke or acted before he thought: wanting to walk on the water like Jesus or coming out with the naive response: ‘Let’s build three tents for Jesus, Moses and Elijah’ after the glorious vision of the Transfiguration [Matt.17:4; Mk.9:4]. Drawing his sword on soldiers to protect Jesus at his arrest, could have got the whole community of disciples killed. That could easily have put an end to Jesus’ intention for his followers to continue his mission of teaching, training in discipleship and spreading peace, love, forgiveness and healing.
Peter was brave before Jesus’ arrest, and later in mission and leadership of the disciples but he showed understandably human cowardice in denying Jesus after his arrest. In the Gospels or the Acts of the Apostles he does not come over as arrogant but as confident. Scripture suggests that he probably became aware of his tendency to rashness and clumsiness. The modesty in the epistles attributed to Peter suggests that he had learned from his mistakes. We cannot be sure that Peter was the author of these epistles, in fact it is probable that he was not. But it has been suggested that this tradition of his later modesty was handed down through the Church, which is why the epistles were ascribed or attributed to him. Perhaps it was the memory of that failure, which only he could have confessed to the early Church, that helped to transform Peter and sent him out much braver in his future mission. He stood up and confronted persecutors and witnessed for Jesus despite regular threats to his life, which led to his eventual imprisonment and martyrdom. Are we that brave? Peter was far braver than most Christians, but he was just like you and I in so many other respects, including weaknesses and failings.
That’s why Peter can be such an example to each of us. His life demonstrates that real people like us can commend faith to others and act effectively as Christians in the world. Despite all our weaknesses, all the regular ways we fail and churches make mistakes; despite many of us being old or not as strong as Peter; his enthusiasm encourages us to share with our neighbours the truth of God, to tell of our experiences and beliefs, to encourage others to faith. A danger of over praising the saints is that we tend to see them as super-heroes with spiritual powers and characters unattainable by us. Yet Peter encourages us to recognise that saints were often just like us, and we are able to attain spirituality like theirs, by discipline, reliance on God and closeness to God. We ALL have weaknesses and never reach our intentions and aspirations: Yet Christianity is a realistic, practical faith. It encourages us towards self-advancement by reliance on God’s Spirit and by following the example of Christ. Jesus said “be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” [Matt.5:48] because he wanted us to grow spiritually and not be weakened by sin. But God recognises that we, like Peter, are human, weak and fail in our aspirations. The saints are our family in heaven; they’re our brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles and god-parents - examples of lives transformed for us to follow.
Peter’s example should inspire and encourage us to be courageous, faithful followers of God, as we faithfully present Christ’s message to others. Christ is our friend as Peter and Jesus were friends. Let’s aim to be as close and faithful friends as Peter was before his denial, and as he became after this scene of his forgiveness? Remember Jesus said: “You are my friends if you do what I command you” [Jn.15:14]. Do you follow and live by Jesus’ teachings as Peter tried to do? Peter was forgiven by Jesus over and over again. He allowed himself to be restored and made useful. It appears that Peter didn’t wallow in self-pity for long after Jesus reprimanded him, and especially after his traumatic denial and Jesus’ Crucifixion. His mistakes seem to have encouraged him to greater bravery and stronger intent to faithfully continue Jesus’ work. Eventually he died for his faith. Are you and I that brave?
Peter suffered hardships and imprisonment but he wouldn’t desert what he knew to be truth. He’s lived close to Jesus, he had seen miracles, witnessed Jesus’ Transfiguration, Resurrection and Ascension. He knew that the message Jesus brought was true and he wanted to free people as Jesus had freed and transformed him. Are you as convinced and alive in your faith as Peter became? Is your relationship with God, through Christ, life-giving, true and freeing? We need to work on this relationship with God and develop confidence in what we believe. Peter was SO convinced of the importance of what Jesus brought that he travelled thousands of miles to spread Christ’s message and build the church: As you consider your own and your churches’ future, how far are you ready and willing to move outside your comfort-zone, to tell others about what you have found in your relationship with God and draw others into God’s friendship?
When we make mistakes, like Peter, we need to pick ourselves up, admit our failings, not be dismayed by our past, become confident in God’s love, be strengthened by accepting our weaknesses and see our vulnerability as valuable. Like Peter’s humility, in our witness as Christians we should never be arrogant or patronising because we recognise that we are as sinful and weak as anyone else. Each time we fail we can receive God’s forgiveness, ask his Spirit to re-strengthen us, return to following the example of Christ and the saints and step out like Peter to live fulfilled lives and share Christ’s life and truth with our world. All of us: men, women, young people, elderly or youthful can learn from Peter. We can go out with our authentic experiences and represent Christ faithfully, growing in faith and teaching faith to others.
Though Peter denied Jesus under pressure, he was also spiritually astute: he was the first to openly recognise Jesus as Messiah, the Son of the living God. Jesus called him a “rock on which he would build his church” [Matt.16:18]. Building his church upon Peter, Jesus recognised that it is not always the strong, confident or arrogantly bold who give the best witness. We can become a dynamic witness to all around and build the Kingdom of God through being reliant on God’s Spirit, not on ourselves. Peter and his fellow disciples were fragile and few in number yet after Pentecost they changed the world.
Many excuse themselves as aging, lacking understanding of faith or without energy, but Peter is a beautiful character because he was weak too and as human as us. One of the most useful things that happened to Peter was his recognition of his weakness and failings about which we know as much as Peter’s successes. Judas betrayed Christ and it destroyed him. Peter betrayed Christ and it taught him a lesson, empowering him with a conscience not to repeat his mistakes, but to stand up for all Christ taught, as he did before the Sanhedrin when they forbade him from preaching, or when he was imprisoned and opposed in his ministry. He focused his energy into being a faithful follower, from Christ’s Resurrection onward even under the pressure of much suffering.
Peter was brave before Jesus’ arrest, and later in mission and leadership of the disciples. He showed understandably human cowardice in denying Jesus after his arrest yet later he stood up and confronted persecutors and witnessed for Jesus despite regular threats to his life. Tradition suggests that Peter may have lived and led the Church for about 35 years after Jesus died, but many of his companions who built the Church lived only a few years before being martyred, some only weeks. Think of the sadness of the vicar of Bagdad, who baptised 15 adult Christians during an Easter service and within a fortnight they had all been murdered. Faithful witness has its effect, even where we’re weak or suffer.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
What has Christ forgiven in you, which might strengthen you for pastorally supporting others?
If you were told, as Peter was, that his ministry would lead to persecution and probable death, would you still be strong enough, and confident enough in the truth of your faith, to accept Christ’s commission?
25 (STATION 19) PETER ASKS JESUS ABOUT JOHN’S FUTURE [Jn.21:20-23].
After the reinstatement of Peter his question about the future of John seems a very strange addition. It seems to many commentators to be more of an interpolation, to clarify the position and future of John within the church. If, as was commonly thought formerly, John himself had written the Gospel named after him, it could be interpreted as the modesty of the Evangelist pointing out that his longevity was not miraculous, but had been implied, though not specifically confirmed by Christ. It seems more probable that the Gospel was compiled from the memories, teachings and traditions of the group of Christians who had been followers, disciples and pupils and hearers of John. Their inclusion of the question about his future, similarly seems intended to point to the apostle’s modesty about his place among the disciples and not to boast about his longevity. In the time of the early Church, and among some Christians today, longevity is sometimes regarded as the blessing for a good and saintly life. Like the prosperity Gospel this is a fallacy: many good, innocent and saintly people die tragically young.
It seems strange that Peter would ask such a question about John’s future? Peter himself would understandably be concerned by Jesus’ prophecy of his own martyrdom, just two verses before [Jn.21:18-19]. It would seem uncomfortable if he would then turn to John and ask Jesus whether John too would meet a violent end. But perhaps, as Jesus had spoken several times about his followers facing suffering as he had done, the thought might have been on both of their minds, and Peter could have been voicing it.
They were both leaders among the disciples, but there does not appear to have been rivalry between these two disciples. If they had competed Jesus would have surely reprimanded them as he did earlier to John and James, the sons of Zebedee and their mother [Mat.20:21-23; Mk.10:37]. Jesus was very critical of disputes about greatness and importance among disciples [Mk.9:34; Lk.9:46 Lk.22:24-27]. So Peter’s question about John is a slightly incongruous passage in the Resurrection story. Peter and John were certainly among those closest to Jesus. But by the time of the writing of the Gospels, John would have learned the lesson of his family’s previous misguided ambitions for him and his brother. Were these verses perhaps inserted as a lesson that John had emphasised to his followers in order to counter any superstitions and legends that were growing up about the disciple’s longevity. According to tradition, John appears to have survived to an older age than many of the other apostles. The compilers of John’s Gospel appear to have been aware of rumours that Jesus had claimed that John would not die and would remain alive to witness his Lord’s return. The Evangelist might have been at pains to contradict this. Those who compiled his Gospel may have wanted to reinforce his humility and counter the superstitions.
Rivalry between many Christians and groups is sadly, too often rife in the Christian Church. Some regard themselves as better than others and expect greater recognition and veneration. Different churches and denominations consider their ways of belief, practices of worship, prayer or praise more authentic than others. I have met several would-be leaders who show little humility about themselves, and are ambitious for position, power, particular gifts or recognition of themselves by others. All aspects of rivalry or jealousy are wrong in the Christian church community. They undermine Christ’s teaching about egalitarianism in the way that God loves and treats us. Rivalry can also distract from our main mission, which should be to advance God’s purposes and to spiritual develop others not ourselves. It is no surprise that we are told in scripture to “in humility consider others better than yourself” [Phil.2:3]. The following verses remind us to take the humility of Christ as our example.
Jesus’ response to Peter’s question is particularly apt in all situations of rivalry. In effect he was saying “If God chooses to bless someone in any way, which may be different to the way that he blesses you, what is that to you?” God deals with and relates to all of us differently, though with equal love and care. Our diversity should enable us to witness more effectively to all the diverse characters in the world. Similarly the differences in the ways that our lives progress, should show the world that God does not treat ‘special’ Christians differently to any others. After the death from cancer of the significant Christian teacher David Watson, many asked: “Why didn’t God protect such a faithful and active Christian who could have had such a fruitful future ministry?” They early Church could similarly have said: “Why didn’t God protect Peter, Paul and the other martyrs of the Church?” But the life of faith is not so simplistic. We glorify and work for God by living the lives that we have in the best and most fruitful ways possible.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
Do you feel rivalry with any other Christians, and how could you work to appreciate them more and release yourself and them form any sense of jealousy or rivalry.
Are your ambitions for yourself pure?
Do you have any false conceptions \bout yourself or about others that you should work to dispel in order to have a truer relationship with them.
Do others have misconceptions about you? You may not need to dispel them, but it may be important to live a life of truer Christian example before them.
26 (STATION 20) JESUS APPEARS TO OVER FIVE HUNDRED AT ONE TIME [1Cor.15.3-6]
Of all the post-resurrection appearances in scripture, to take this event literally seems the most unlikely. It is more likely that this phrase represents Jesus revealing himself to many people, whether in gathered groups or over the period before the Ascension. It is mentioned in St. Paul’s letters rather than in the Gospels, and it probably the first surviving account of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances. Paul was writing well before the Gospels were compiled, though like them, he must have been drawing from material which was circulating orally or perhaps in note form. 1Corintians was probably written from Ephesus c54C.E. Paul’s mention of Christ’s encounter with a large group of Christians comes within a list of those who had witnessed and could attest to Jesus’ death and resurrection. We cannot know what specific evidence St. Paul had for his assertions about the resurrection although he claims to have met several of the surviving apostles. Due to his travels among members of the early Church, Paul would probably have had access to some of the oral accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry on which the Gospel writers based their narratives. Potential written accounts of Jesus teachings and selected memories of his life might have existed but have not survived, other than within the New Testament and non-canonical early Christian writings like the Gospels of Thomas and Peter. But none of the Gospel writers mention an appearance of the risen Christ to such a large group of people at once, as Paul mentions. If such strong evidence had been available it is likely that at least one evangelist would have included it. That is not necessarily the case, however, as one would have expected more than one of the gospels to have included such a powerful miracle as the raising of Lazarus [Jn.11]. In that instance it was possibly not included in earlier gospels, to protect Lazarus and his family, members of which may have still been alive, though Lazarus himself may have died by the time John’s Gospel was compiled. In the case of the huge crowd that Paul mentions they and their evidence are anonymous, but Paul implies that some of them would have been known among the congregations of early churches.
In talking of Jesus’ Resurrection appearances, Paul does not mention the empty tomb, which has been suggested by some commentators to imply that he was talking about spiritual not physical encounters. However this distinction is not specifically considered in scripture. Paul lists in 1Cor.15:5-8 the appearances of the risen Jesus in what he may have considered to be chronological order:
To Cephas – (the Aramaic name for ‘Peter’). This incident seems to be separate from Jesus’ appearance to the disciples as a group in Jerusalem and Jesus’ forgiveness and commissioning of Peter after the miraculous draught of fishes in Galilee. It does not appear to be mentioned in the Gospels, unless it relates to Peter’s discover of the empty tomb.
To the Twelve (at that time only eleven unless Paul was including another who was with them, as close followers like Matthias, Mary and Mary Magdalene and others of Jesus’ family might have been. It is noticeable that Paul does not mention any appearances of the risen Jesus to women. This is less likely to have been from the misogyny which is sometimes ascribed to Paul, as because Paul may not have heard those stories, or because the witness of females might have been accepted.)
To 500 at one time “most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.” Here Paul mentions ‘brothers’ /’adelphoȋs’ rather than ‘brothers and sisters’ as translated in the N.R.S.V. though this could have been used inclusively for male and female witnesses. If such a group of followers existed, it would certainly have included many women.
Then James – presumably James the Great - an encounter again not mentioned elsewhere, though Jesus could have been strengthening James for his role as the first Bishop of Jerusalem. Sadly James has largely been written our of much common teaching on the New Testament Church, partly since the Book of Acts concentrates on Peter and Paul, though the research of Robert Eisenman sought to reinforce his importance [‘James the Brother of Jesus’: Recovering the True History of Early Christianity. Faber and Faber 1997]
Then the apostles – Paul had met with Peter (Cephas), James [Gal.1:18-19] and later corresponded about his mission to the Gentiles with them and John [Gal.2:9, 12]. He does not claim to have met the other Apostles [Gal.1:19], so it is possible that Peter, James and John told him of some further appearances to them not mentioned in the Gospels, or this may relate to the appearances in Jerusalem and Galilee mentioned in the Gospel texts. Paul seems to imply that these encounters were specifically directed towards commissioning them and strengthening them for mission.
Then to Paul himself – This appearance changed his direction to following Christ rather than persecuting Christians, and commissioned him for his mission.
I do not think that we need to interpret the ‘500’ too literally. Like several numbers in the Gospels they are probably meant as approximations. Despite the interest that some take in possible numerology in scripture, this also does not appear to have a symbolic or significant meaning. Like the ‘120 fish’ in the miraculous catch the ‘about 120’ believers who Peter taught in Acts 1:15 and the number of ‘about 3,000’ converted at Pentecost [Acts 2:41], the ‘500’ probably just indicate ‘a large number’. It would seem highly unlikely that five hundred of Jesus’ followers would meet together at once, so soon after his crucifixion. At the time of threat sensed by Jesus’ followers, there would have been very few places where a very large group could have met together without raising suspicions from the political or religious authorities, who were afraid of any sort of insurrection. They could have been together in the Temple for worship, but surely if that had been the place of encounter it would have been mentioned, as it was so significant. Or they might have gathered on one of the mounts or plains where Jesus had previously addressed crowds. But the charisma of Jesus himself was not there to attract them to come together, though a group might have joined to hear the apostles. Many of Jesus’ followers had been afraid of persecution since his arrest. Surely they would not gather in great numbers, even if there was more confidence after people felt that the risen Christ had returned and given “many convincing proofs” of his new life [Acts1:3]. We are told at Pentecost that the disciples had returned to the upper room as they came together after visiting Mount Olivet, a Sabbath day’s journey away from Jerusalem [Acts 1:12]. But no building available to them could have held so many. If so large a group did actually meet, it is more likely to have happened by pre-arrangement in the area of Galilee, to where, according to Matthew and Mark, Jesus had indicated that his disciples should follow him.
Some commentators suggest that this appearance to a mass of people is the same event as the commissioning of Jesus’ followers on the mountain, but there is no evidence of this. According to the biblical text the disciples who were commissioned on the mountain only include the eleven disciples [Matt.28:16]. Another possibility is that this is included in the events of Pentecost, but again there is no evidence. The more likely possibility is that what Paul described was not an appearance to a group ‘en masse’ but a bringing together of reports of several different appearances, as in Luke’s statement that Jesus convinced a large number of believers by “presenting himself alive to them by many convincing proofs’[Acts1:3] . The emphasis that Paul and Acts 1:3 were making were that Jesus appeared to many, and taught about the kingdom of God during the forty days after his Resurrection.
The major emphasis of all these Resurrection passages seems intended to reinforce the belief that Jesus’ Resurrection was real, not a vision nor an immaterial spirit. Modern psychological interpretation sometimes suggest that the Resurrection stories rose through the disciples reinterpreting and recollecting what Jesus had said and done in his ministry before his death. However the Evangelists and Paul regarded Jesus’ appearances as physical and material. They were convinced that enough evidence was available to reinforce this truth. Paul pointed to the fact that many of those who had met the risen Christ were still alive and available to able to corroborate the belief [1Cor.15:6] as well as James, other surviving apostles and himself [1Cor.15:7-8]. Presumably Paul had himself met several who claimed to have met the risen Christ themselves.
While I find it hard to conceive that in those early days after Jesus’ death and before the Ascension huge crowds of Jesus’ followers would have met together, it is conceivable that the numbers of people who believed that they had witnessed the risen Jesus could well have been in the hundreds. The Gospels only introduce us to a handful of significant episodes, and the end of John’s Gospel is emphatic that not all events have been recorded [Jn.21:25]. At the beginning of Acts Luke asserts: “After his suffering he presented himself alive to them with many convincing proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the Kingdom of God.” [Acts1:3]. Although Luke only indicates that these appearances were to “the apostles whom he had chosen” [Acts1:2], it is clear that more than just the eleven were witnesses.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
This evidence encourages us to turn to ourselves and ask us to consider what it is that convinces us of the truth of Christ - not just in terms of his Resurrection, but so many other aspects of belief:
- What convinces us that his teaching is true?
- What convinces us that the relationship with God to which he opens us is true?
- What convinces us that Jesus was more than just a good, righteous man and a significant teacher?
- What convinces us that the salvation and other promises that he made to us are true?
27 (STATION 21) JESUS COMMISSIONS THE DISCIPLES UPON THE MOUNTAIN [Mk.16:1-8, 15-18 (in Upper Room); Matt:28:16-20; Lk.24:1-12Jn.20.21-23]
In each of the Gospel accounts Jesus is described as commissioning his disciples to continue his mission, but in each, the words are recorded differently, so it seems unlikely that any of the Gospels exactly record Jesus’ words, unless each of the commissions was given at a variety of times.
The most famous of these commissions, in Matt.28:18, claims that Jesus began “All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me...” Matthew’s interest in paralleling Jesus’ words with the Hebrew Scriptures may be in use here, for the words of Jesus are those of Dan.7:14: “to him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away...”. Jesus had already quoted the same Daniel passage in 26:64. Through Matthew he emphasises the authority of Jesus, which gives him the divine authority to send his apostles [7:29; 9:6, 8; 11:27; 21:23-27]. Matthew’s account has been meaningfully called “The Great Commission” due to its worldwide and eternal embrace. “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. I and remember I am with you always to the end of the age”. This ending of Matthew’s Gospel; is so positive and simple in its definition of what we should be doing as Christ’s followers, but challenging to fulfil. Matthew implies that the instruction was at first given to the eleven apostles [Matt.28:16], but we have come to realise that this worldwide mission is Christ’s instruction to all Christians.
In mentioning ‘all nations’ / ‘panta ta ethnē’, Matthew was specifically referring to Gentiles as well as the mission to his fellow Jews. This term, also used in Matt.24:9, 14; 25:32, is a deliberate extension of both Jesus’ mission and that of the disciples. In the light of this it is surprising that in the Book of Acts there was so much discussion and disagreement over whether Gentiles should be admitted to the Christian community, particularly whether they should be expected to accept circumcision as well as baptism. It must have felt an impossible challenge to eleven rural Galileans to be given the commission to spread Christ’s gospel to the ends of the earth.
The Great Commission is not just to teach and preach, but to ‘make disciples’ and teach them ‘to obey everything that he commanded’ - to work to create true, believing active and obedient followers. The call to baptise them “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” includes the presence of the Father and Spirit who were mentioned as involved in Jesus’ baptism. However, as the Trinitarian formula was not yet in use until after Jesus’ time, it may be that the phrase was inserted from the liturgy of the early church, rather than Jesus’ direct words. (The same seems to be the case when Matthew states that Jesus taught about his ‘Church’, another word which may have been inserted from later use [Matt.16:18; 18:17]. The commission in Mark, Luke and John does not include Matthew’s command to baptise, though baptism at the time was seen to include the washing away of sins, so there is a possible connection. In the Book of Acts new believers are often said to have been baptised in the name of Jesus or the Messiah [Acts.2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:3-5; Rom.6:3; Gal.3:27]. The inclusion of the Spirit in Matthew’s formula harks back to John the Baptist’s promise that the one coming after him would baptise with the Spirit. Matthew’s Gospel does not mention the Ascension specifically. But the final assertion “I am with you always, until the end of time” [Mat.28:30], seems to be suggesting that after Jesus has left them physically, his presence would remain with them.
The commission in Mark’s Gospel is: “afterwards Jesus himself sent out through them, from east and west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.” [Short ending 16:8] or “Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. The one who believes and is baptised will be saved; bit the one who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe...” [Longer ending 16:15-17] ...followed by a list of miraculous signs, which seem to be later interpolations. Apart from the mention of salvation and condemnation and the miraculous signs, the commission in Mark contains similar ideas to that mentioned more fully by Matthew. The commission however expands the mission further than the ‘all nations’ in Matthew. They are told to go into all the world /‘kósmon ápanta’, and proclaim the ‘good news’ / ‘eùangéllion’ and ‘eternal salvation’ ‘ to the ‘whole creation’/ ‘páste tê ktísei’. In practice this is a similar proclamation, but it appears to have more cosmic implications than just proclaiming Jesus’ teaching to the nations. It could be interpreted as referring to a belief that Jesus’ salvation in some ways outreaches to the whole of Creation [Rom.8:19-23].
In Luke’s Gospel Jesus’ commissioning in 24:45-49 includes teaching: “he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and he said to them: “Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and rise on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his (the Messiah’s) name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And see I am sending upon you what my Father promised; so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” It again refers to proclamation to all nations. Those who have been with him are to be ‘witnesses’/ ‘mártures’ to his life and teachings, to encourage repentance and proclaim forgiveness. They are to witnesses to the truth of Christ’s saving death and resurrection.
The commission in John is less obvious. It includes a few separate verses. To Thomas: “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.” [Jn.21:29], the commission to Peter: “ Do you love me?... feed my lambs/sheep”... [Jn.21:15-17] “Follow me.” [Jn.21:19, 22]. John implies that all who read the Gospel are included in the mission field to which he is testifying truthfully [Jn.21:24]: “these are written that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God and that through believing you may have life in his name.” [Jn.20:31]. The main point at which the commission was given appears to be when Jesus breathed his Spirit on them and said “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any they are retained” [Jn.20:22]. The believer’s commission is therefore: ‘to believe’, ‘to love’, ‘to follow Christ’, ‘to testify’, ‘to receive the Holy Spirit’, and to follow Christ’s example in ‘forgiving’.
Our main aim as a Church and as individuals in the world is to live, act and speak in such ways that we convince and lead others to the truth of a relationship with God. “Go and make disciples!”… Unfortunately, scripture doesn’t give us many specifics about how to do this, but this open-endedness is surely because the expectation is different for every individual concerned and every situation in which we are to be witnesses. As witnesses to faith we need to find the ways of evangelism that are most appropriate to us and to the individuals to whom we hope to open up a relationship with God. But ‘life-style evangelism’ is not an opt-out clause; we are still all mean to be witnesses. When did you last manage to help form someone into a fellow disciple? This is where the passage becomes uncomfortable. It is very evident, from the state of the world and from general scepticism about the Christian faith that Christians aren’t sharing their faith sufficiently and are not explaining and living out their faith effectively. We don’t generally get up each morning and go out of our homes thinking: “I should be making disciples of those around me.” The guiltier we feel about our failure, or the more inept or unconfident we feel to talk about our faith, the less we are likely to do it, and the less effective we will be.
I find it hard to understand why the contemporary church has moved so far from acting as a primary witness in the modern world. Is it just that we are lazy and prefer keeping faith among ourselves within the comfort of services? Or have we not trained our congregations in the faith enough to be able to witness confidently. Ministers often preach comforting and perhaps simplistic homilies rather than challenging their congregations over their belief and teaching substantially. Many Church-going believers may understandably not feel that they have the courage, skill or knowledge to stand up for the Christian faith in the face of contemporary scepticism. Perhaps some are ashamed of seeming too exclusive, in a world which offers so many variations of life-styles and beliefs. World mission has uncomfortable ‘imperialist’ associations for many Christians today, and rightly so, since contemporary mission needs to be very different from the time of Victorian mission and evangelism.. But I also wonder whether the Christianity that many church-goers practise has become so watered-down, even occasionally insipid, that it does not bring us the spiritual experiences and challenges that strengthened so many early Christians. If you ask congregational members during coffee after church, what they have learned from or about God in the past week, you rarely find that they have had encounters, spiritual experiences or study-times that fulfil their faith. I am not talking here about every church-goer becoming an evangelist in the style of St. Peter or Billy Graham. We are all different. If we were homogenous we would only reach a very small percentage of the population. The variety and diversity of believers should enable us to witness appropriately and effectively to all the different types of people in the world. We are to witness with the gifts that have been given to us, not attempt to be people other than we are, though it is important to build up or gifts, or, as St. Paul told Timothy to “fan into flame the gifts of God that are within us.” [2Tim.1:6]. We cannot do this on our own. As Jesus emphasised towards the end of Luke’s Gospel, to be effective we need the Spirit’s power within us. [Lk.24:49], and as the end of Matthew emphasises, we need feel confident that Christ is with us “until the end of the age.” [Matt.28:20].
30 years ago I had an Evangelical friend who would talk about Jesus to anyone. If he was on the bus, train or just walking along the High Street he’d lean over to complete strangers and ask them if they knew that God loves them and do they have any needs they’d like him to pray for on their behalf. Watching this would make me cringe if I was with him. I couldn’t understand how he had the courage; in fact at times I thought he was a ‘nutter’ and ‘going about it the wrong way’, but he was utterly sincere. He was convinced that God loved people and looked out for opportunities to speak sincerely to others. But very few of us could do that, or would want to: I certainly couldn’t, and it wouldn’t come across naturally or sincerely, as it did with him. It may have had some effect in the surroundings in which he lived, but imagine stopping someone outside your local shopping centre, a commuter at the station or a mum, dad or grandparent dropping off or collecting a child on the school-run. I’m not sure that roadside preachers ever really worked effectively since the time of the Wesleys. It certainly is not the socially acceptable thing to do in our insular, individualistic communities, and is very likely to antagonise people rather than attract them. Yet we MUST find opportunities to share Christ’s Gospel effectively if the Church is to grow to influence the building of the Kingdom of God by obeying Christ’s command and bringing Christ’s hope to the needy world all around us. This passage in Matthew isn’t an optional extra; it’s a necessity.
Christ states in his commission in Matthew: “all authority in heaven and earth is given to me.” His statement on ‘authority’ is not about dominantly commanding us. It is similar to the invocation in the Lord’s Prayer [Matt.6:10] and repeated in the Didache 8:2: “your kingdom come, God’s will is done on earth as it is in heaven”. God has ultimate authority, which Jesus claimed several time had been conferred upon him. Christians accept the responsibility which Christ passed on to us to spread his truth and help God’s will to be recognised and exercised on earth as in heaven. In this respect ‘authority’ for the Christian, is more about taking our responsibilities seriously, rather than having power and authority ourselves. I firmly believe that too many Christian leaders in the past have wrongly assumed ‘authority’ to be a dominating power that they assume for themselves, or which has been conferred on them by ordination. Nor should we take the ‘authority’ of God to be ‘domination’ over all the others powers of the world, as some of the aggressive language used by the Church in the past implied. Luke and John’s record of this commission includes different and more gentle details like ‘forgiveness’, ‘love, ‘feeding’, ‘following’ which encourage us to be equally gentle in our expression of Christ’s gospel..
Jesus’ promise in Matthew that he would remain with his people “until the end of the age” gives an apocalyptic element to the commission, but also emphasises that the commission was not just for the eleven remaining disciples, but also the whole Christian church that would follow them and inherit their evangelistic responsibilities. Jesus had inaugurated the ‘age to come’ and he was commissioning his followers to continue his work towards the establishment of the Kingdom of God. Throughout Matthew’s Gospel the writer emphasised by the use of references to the Hebrew Scriptures, how Jesus was fulfilling Jewish history and the responsibility laid on Israel through the covenants and Torah to share God’s blessing with the rest of the world. Israel had largely remained insular, self-maintaining, and keeping the special relationship with God for themselves. The Great Commission reiterated that the relationship with God, which Christ made possible, needs to be inclusive of all in the world, not kept exclusively to any group. Jewish or Christian communities are meant to be extending God’s love, truth and covenant relationship beyond their borders to all our neighbours.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
How effectively to you respond to Jesus ‘Great Commission’ to go and make disciples?
To whom could you more effectively witness and how?
28 JESUS TEACHES THE DISCIPLES ABOUT THE SPIRIT [Acts1:4-8]
This incident seems to be a different from Jesus breathing his Spirit onto his disciples [Jn.20:22] and his teaching the disciples about sending the Holy Spirit to them in Jn. 14:15-31 and 16:4-15, although this may be Luke’s take on the same teaching. His emphasis at the end of Luke’s Gospel and in the opening of Acts is on waiting for the power of the Holy Spirit to guide and empower the disciples. It is a common failing within the Christian church that decisions, missions, actions, doctrines, ecclesiastical laws and rulings have often been made on worldly criteria, rather than following the Spirit’s guidance. I’m sure that in the history of the Church many would not have been so damaged by other Christians if church institutions sought the direction that God’s Spirit intends them to move with more open minds. Synods, committees, individual church leaders have often made decisions based on their own bias or over-narrow reading of scripture rather than waiting and listening to God’s Spirit in the way that Jesus himself had done in his time on earth. As Jesus’ teaching and actions showed, the Spirit of God is often more flexible, loving, inclusive and ‘humane’ (if that word can be used of God’s Spirit) than human responses often are. We see this in practice in Jesus’ dealings with the woman taken in adultery, touching and healing lepers or the woman with the haemorrhage, healing and eating on the Sabbath and spiritually reinterpreting many other Jewish legalistic restrictive practices.
Jesus links the giving of the Spirit with the worldwide mission of the Church [Acts 1:6-8]. It is sad that too often today in both advocates of contemplative spirituality and charismatic circles, the gift of the Spirit is often regarded as being for the up-building of individuals’ personal spirituality rather than the corporate up-building of all. People sometimes seek mystical or spiritual experiences or the more ambitious spiritual gifts for their own satisfaction, rather than regarding them as being given for spreading the Kingdom of God among others. There is too much self-centredness rather than servant-like spiritual humility in many Christian circles. This is totally against all that Jesus taught about the gifts and fruit of God’s Spirit. It should be the ambition of any and all Christians, particularly the ambition of all Christian leaders to build up other Christians to be better and more gifted than themselves, rather than to seek one-upmanship. Wanting spiritual gifts for one’s own pride, or for recognition of oneself by others, is a worldly, not a truly Christian spiritual ambition. The ambition should be to use the gifts and fruit developed in us by God’s Spirit to help in the development of God’s Kingdom.
When the disciples had asked Jesus, prior to his Ascension: “Lord, is it at this time that you will restore the kingdom to Israel?” he had not answered directly. He claimed that the time was for the Father to set. But he continued: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth” [Acts 1:6-8]. This commission for the mission of the church to be worldwide is shown to begin to be fulfilled in the Book of Acts. Even the previously despised Samaria is described as a place of mission in Acts 8. Oly HoluHH God’s Spirit, independently, and especially through encouraging, inspiring and empowering us, reaches out to bring to the cosmos the redemption that Christ achieved.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
How often have you tried to achieve spiritual things through your own power? What would encourage you and your church to rely more on waiting for and relying upon the Spirit’s guidance?
29 (STATION 22) THE ASCENSION OF JESUS [Mk.16:19; Lk.24:51; Acts 1.3-12]
Although Ascension Day is celebrated in many churches 40 days after the Resurrection, but we cannot be certain from scripture of the place, day or even how Jesus is said to have returned physically to God’s Kingdom. The longer ending of Mark (though it is debatable whether it is an authentic account the end of Jesus’ life on earth), implies that it happened in the region of Galilee. Galilee is not specifically mentioned in the text, though their presence in Galilee was initially mentioned in the shorter ending [Mk.16:7]. Matthew makes no mention of the Ascension, but his description of Jesus’ final commission to the disciples is based on a mountain in Galilee [Matt.28:16]. The Great Commission in Matthew ends with the phrase: “I am with you until the end of the age” [Matt.28:19], which gives the impression that this was the end of his time on earth.
Luke claims is that it occurred close to Bethany, which is on the south-eastern slopes of the Mount of Olives near Jerusalem. Luke account has persisted in the majority of traditions, interpreted as happening on the area on Mount Olivet, where the Church of the Ascension has been built. Some commentators believe that setting the Ascension on the Mount of Olives is symbolic as there are several mentions of the place in scriptural tradition and Jewish history [1Sam.15:30, 32; Ezek.11:23; Zech.14:4; Matt.26:30-32 28:16; Mk.3:3; 14:6-28]. Although some commentators consider the Ascension to be a symbolic event, Luke’s description in Acts rly seems to be intentionally describing it as a physical phenomenon.
Luke’s Gospel could also be read as implying that the Ascension happened very soon after Jesus’ Resurrection. By contrast in Acts1:9-12 Luke specifically states that Christ appeared to various people over a period of 40 days after the Resurrection. While it is almost impossible to believe that all the post-resurrection appearances could have happened in one day, it is also possible that Luke could have been using the number 40 as a symbolic rather than a precise timing. Churches have traditionally celebrated Ascension Day exactly 40 days after Easter, making it always happen on a Thursday. This sadly means that it is often a weakly attended celebration, considering that doctrinally it is as significant as Good Friday, Easter and Pentecost. There is therefore to be no real reason why is could not just as accurately be celebrated on a Sunday 35 or 42 days after Easter. In scripture 40 days is symbolic of a time of fulfilment: the Flood lasted 40 days [Gen,7:17]; Moses spent 40 days of Mt. Sinai [Ex.24:18; 34:28]; Israel wandered in the Wilderness for 40 years [Ex.16:35]; Elijah spent 40 days in hiding [1Ki.19:8]; Ezra read aloud the scriptures for 40 days in bringing renewal [4Ezra.14:23, 36, 42-45]; Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness [Lk.4:2]. Luke could also have been making an intentional comparison with the figure of Baruch in the inter-testamental Apocrypha, who instructed the people for 40 days before being translated to heaven [Apoc.Bar.76:1-5].
Like the point of Jesus’ Resurrection or the Transfiguration, scripture doesn’t give us full enough information about Christ’s Ascension to be sure what the disciples are supposed to have witnessed. It would be dangerous to over-speculate or be over-simplistic. As with so many mysteries in the Gospels, what actually happened at Jesus’ ‘Ascension’ will probably never been known. The description is fairly literal: Luke’s Gospel mentions that Jesus “withdrew” from the disciples as he lifted his hands and blessed them “and was carried up into heaven” [Lk.24:50-51. He described the event more fully in Acts than in his Gospel. After confirming that the Father would bring the Kingdom at a time know only to God, and that the Holy Spirit would bring them power to be his witnesses “in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth”, Luke describes: “When he had said this,, as they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. While he was going and they were gazing up towards heaven, suddenly two men in white robes stood by them. They said: “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up towards heaven? This Jesus who has been taken up to heaven will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.” [Acts 1:9-11].
One problem with the Gospel accounts of the physicality of the Resurrection, is that it implies a bodily ascension. It seems unlikely that Jesus actually rose up into the air, as is most often shown in images of the Ascension. This is the impression given by a literal reading of the words of Luke and Mark. They date from a time when people believed that heaven was up above the clouds, rather than a different dimension. But ‘ascension’ does not necessarily mean that Jesus physically went up into the sky. To ancient Hebrew thinking God was not thought to literally live in a region above the sky. It was a different dimension to that in which humans dwelt. ‘Going up to heaven’ did not necessarily mean rising upwards. It could mean rising, but it could also denote being exalted, which is an easier concept for modern minds to accept. Using human reason and modern understanding, it is more likely that if Jesus did physically disappear, he dematerialised. (‘Clouds taking him from their sight’ could be their only way of explaining or describing such a disappearance. Some believe that Jesus had similarly dematerialised from within the grave-clothes at the Resurrection and that the Resurrection appearances were physical re-materialising. But of course we are talking spiritual mysteries, not necessarily anything that our rational minds can comprehend. One idea of the Ascension is that Jesus’ human nature was taken into heaven, while his divine nature remained with us in the Holy Spirit. Other commentators try to reduce the sense of physical mystery and regard the Ascension as a metaphor for the recognition that Jesus’ presence was with us in a more metaphysical way.
The Gospel description of Jesus being raised up in the midst of the disciples and clouds veiling him from their sight is mysterious and awe-inspiring. Renaissance artists and Rembrandt showed the Ascension as if a cloud-elevator lifted Jesus into the air. In other paintings, Jesus’ two feet are sometimes rather naively painted as disappearing into clouds at the top of the picture. But scientific knowledge recognises that if heaven exists, it isn’t in the space above our atmosphere. Uri Gagarin cynically claimed on the first manned space flight: ‘God is not up here!’ The Gospel writers and the sources from which they drew, probably recorded the phenomenon in the only way that the disciples could describe what they had experienced of Jesus’ disappearing or dematerialising. They had witnessed the risen Jesus being alive, so some explanation needed to be given for how he was no longer with them. If the risen Jesus was like a physical, resuscitated body, an ‘ascension’ would probably need to be bodily. If the risen Christ was ‘transphysical’ to use N.T. Wright’s terminology [Wright 2003 p.654], he would have been able to appear, disappear and reappear as required. In that case there would be no need for the Ascension to have been physical.
Though only Luke describes any details of the Ascension, there are other mentions of Jesus ascending, in Jn.20:17 and a number of Epistles [Eph.4:10; 1Tim.3:16; 1Pet.3:22; Heb.4:14; 6:19; 9:24]. The New Testament often associates Jesus’ Ascension with more than just his being raised to heaven, like the descriptions of the translations of Enoch and Elijah [Gen.5:24; 2Ki.2:11]. The Ascension is also regarded as Christ’s ‘glorification’ or ‘exaltation’ by being raised to a position of authority on the throne of heaven [Phil.2:9-10; 1Thess.1:10; Rom.1:4; Eph.1:20; Acts2:32-33; 5:30-32; 13:30-37]. This led to the Church’s worship of Christ as ‘Lord’ and the development of Trinitarian thinking.
For both Luke in Acts and Paul in his teaching and epistles, the Ascension seems to be regarded as a vindication of Jesus’ life, actions, teachings and self-sacrifice. He was being shown to not just triumph over life and death; he was a representative of God’s people, offering the hope for their own vindication by God. Luke may have intended it to deliberately echo Dan.7:9-27, where ‘one like a son of man’ was envisioned as ‘coming with the clouds of heaven, being presented before the enthroned Ancient One (YHWH) on the throne of heaven, and given eternal dominion, glory and kingship over Creation’ [Dan.7:13-14]. There were parallels here with the contemporary idea in the Roman Empire that some emperors were exalted to become divine, though in Christ’s case it was considered that Jesus’ origins were divine. In Dan.7:27 this dominion was seen as being that of God’s people, so in some ways the ‘one like a son of man’ was being identified with the promises to Israel. To several New Testament writers however, the Resurrection and Ascension were seen as vindicating and declaring the person and nature of Christ and declaring the future hope of Christ’s followers.
Jesus’ last action before withdrawing and being carried up into heaven, is described by Luke as “lifting up his hands and blessing them”. Commentators have drawn parallels to this with the ending of the Wisdom of Ben Sirach 50:20-22 as well as the final actions of blessing by Abraham [Gen.49 esp. vs.25-26] and Moses [Deut.33]. Luke may also be intentionally rounding off his gospel by making comparisons and parallels with the angel of the annunciation blessing Mary [Lk.1:26-33], Zechariah’s prophecy over John the Baptist [Lk.1:67-79] and Simeon blessing of Mary and Joseph [Lk.2:34]. The earthly life of Christ may be being described as opening and closing with blessings.
The Ascension leaves us with a question of faith of where we imagine Jesus to be now after his Ascension, and in what nature or ways we imagine Christ to rule the cosmos as the New Testament suggests? In liturgical services Christians often repeat in the Creeds by rote, with a fairly literal image of the Resurrection and Ascension scenes. Many trust that there is truth in the doctrines that “he rose from the dead” and “he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father”. However many may not necessarily believe that the literal image, as represented in so many old paintings is how it happened. A literal rule from a throne in heaven is reinforced by John’s vision on Patmos of clouds parting and Christ standing among lampstands, sending inspiration for the persecuted Church in a difficult world, then as the metaphor of the Lamb seated on the throne, bearing the marks of sacrifice, ruling earth and heaven, stronger than all corrupt rulers and powers of his age. Other believers have less literal and more liberal interpretations of the Resurrection, Ascension and rule. Is it possible for a rational-thinking modern mind to imagine Jesus on a physical throne somewhere out there? Or is the Bible’s picture of a heavenly throne-room a metaphor for God’s continuing care for and ordering of the cosmos in a way that is greater than we can comprehend?
In our age, if we try to imagine a heaven from where Christ is ruling as God’s representative, in other ways than as ‘beyond the clouds’. It could be a parallel dimension to ours, not subject to the same time, space or restrictions as ours. Or it could all be a metaphor for an eternal truth, which sets up a mirror to our world and challenges us to live holily, authentically and responsibly.
In what way of form might Christ rule? Jesus’ form after his Resurrection seems to have been different from his physical body before death: He disappeared and appeared in different places, seemed to walk through a locked door, was not always recognised as his former self. Yet just as Jesus could physically be touched by Thomas and he could eat with the disciple, presumably Christ’s form and powers are even more different in the dimension we call heaven. It is doctrinally sound to try not to conceive of God in any way or form at all, except to trust that God is true: God IS the truth about whatever God IS. That is the sense of that Hebrew term ‘YHWH’: ‘I am what I am’ or ‘I will be what I will be’. Did Jesus then, on his return to heaven reabsorb into that one power we call God? (Christians who believed that were once denounced as heretics, but in the face of the mystery of God it is an understandable question.) Or did Jesus somehow retain an individual identity, as the concept of ‘the persons of the Trinity’ and the New Testament indications of Christ’s rule suggest? Scripture and traditional Christian doctrine imply that Jesus retains his unique nature in heaven. Yet at the same time we should also regard the persons of the Trinity as one unity. Rather than struggling to keep reasoning through such a mystery, as I and many have tried to do for so long, I find it easier to believe that God is whatever is the ‘truth’ behind so much that we do not understand.
Christ’s ‘rule’ is a similar mystery, yet if he taught the true ways to live, we follow that rule by adhering to such truths. In celebrating Ascension Day, Christians have come to proclaim that Christ now rules from on high. But we live in a world where people’s aspirations don’t always want what Christ brought or want such a rule of truth rule. We see clearly what lack of adherence to such truth creates in our world: the horrors of human inhumanity to others, the despoiling of the world of which we are meant to be careful stewards, the lack of equality caused by the materialism in society, the lies and corruption of so many human rulers, the disasters that human self-centredness, or false ideas of God corrupting religion. We don’t yet ‘see’ Christ, and certainly don’t witness his ‘Kingdom’ yet being particularly evident in society, or even, unfortunately, in many churches. Yet our hope and belief is that God, through Christ and the Spirit, somehow exerts power over our world and every dimension of the cosmos. Our imagination of the ascended Christ needs to expand to inspire awe and holiness in response, just as Jesus, in his time on earth, unveiled the invisible truth of God more fully than ever before.
Scripture [especially Heb.4&8 and Jn.2:1-6], suggests that in heaven Christ represents us gloriously, personally and caringly because he understands us thoroughly, having lived like us. This implies that the ascended Jesus retains in the dimension beyond ours something of our humanity and memories of his experience on earth. He was so unique that it’s hard to imagine that he lost his identity on returning to heaven. We can’t imagine our own existence beyond death: The writer of 1Jn.3:2 admits that we have little idea what our form or existence will be like. Yet as Jesus described heavenly life, we can imagine ourselves retaining something of our own personal identities when we discover whatever is the life in eternity which Jesus promised. Presumably we will have some of the individual character we have now. I guess that situation is similar with Christ now, only in a much more exalted way. New Testament epistles and the Book of Revelation describe Christ raised higher than any other power in heaven or earth, given authority over us and over the cosmos: It is a glory beyond our comprehension, but not beyond our imagining. Imagination is one of our greatest human powers. So from our painful world it is useful and encouraging to lift our thoughts by imagining Christ in glory!
A key to faith is to trust in Christ’s reign without fully knowing how Jesus rules, where exactly he rules from and how his rule and the Father’s rule are shared. We’ve no idea what it feels like to be Christ, but I imagine one of Jesus’ great feelings after his Ascension was that he was free from the constraints of human life. If he is God, as orthodox doctrine claims, he would again have been free to exercise his divine nature and work universally in the world through his Spirit. Yet he kept caring because he knows, loves, understands us and gave his life for us.
We can experience Christ’s rule when we follow what he taught as a framework to transform our lives. Christ showed God as a loving ruler. The divine aims that we attribute to God are for us to live in love, peace, unity, trust, righteousness, justice and equity, with confidence that faith and the revealed ways of life are true. Unlike those who oppress our world, Jesus’ true rule would make us and all free: free to become the individuals and the communities that we are created us to be. Christ doesn’t rule by terror, oppression, fear violence, or self-centredness. He wants us to freely transform the world through living by God’s love and valuing all. In many ways it appears that Christ exercises his rule on earth now in many ways through us. The words of Teresa of Avila are appropriate: “Christ has no hands and feet now on earth but ours, no eyes or tongue but ours”. I am not sure that the term ‘no’ in the quotation is doctrinally true. Christians believe that God has ways in which to influence creation, otherwise what is the value of prayer? Yet we can bring God’s loving presence, God’s healing and God’s freedom to the lives of others if we are faithful examples of Christ and work for God in our world.
Only God’s power can bring in the Kingdom and disable the powers that so damage our world. But while we pray daily for God to transform the world by his power, we can allow Christ’s Spirit to transform us and use our ministries and our church as part of bringing in divine rule. This is a responsibility and a privilege! We are intended to be examples of God’s kingly rule in our dimension – ambassadors of what heaven is like. We’re Christ’s image in our world and Christ’s workers to build the Kingdom for which he worked and taught. The Church needs to be really careful in how we represent Christ’s rule. Religious terrorists in some cultures think they serve a frightening God by dominating, threatening and even murdering. The mediaeval Church, the Crusades, Reformation, Counter-Reformation and Inquisition promulgated this idea that God was to be thoroughly feared. They tortured and murdered with the false belief that they were working for truth. Yet Jesus showed clearly that God is not a despot of whose power and one should be terrified. God rules by loving, caring, forgiving, healing making us free, bringing us peace. Our example as Christians should reflect that in all righteous ways.
As described in scripture Jesus’ rule appears to be more intimate than distant. He is described as not just ordering Creation or commanding us to follow his ways from the outside. Through his Spirit Jesus’ rule can be in our hearts, minds and spirits. “We live in him and he in us” as this Eucharist reminds us; he is present with us and inspires and rules us internally by his Spirit. We believe that Christ is now both in another, eternal dimension and also here among all of us. He is here when we let him rule inside our hearts and minds. Amid the pain and dishonesty of our world, it is important for Christians to be inspired by Christ’s glory and glorify him by how we live in his world.
SUGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
In what ways do you live according to Christ’s rule and where do you fail at present?
30 THE DISCIPLES WORSHIP GOD IN THE TEMPLE [Lk.24:53]
Luke completes his gospel account with a description “And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and they were continually in the Temple blessing God.” [Lk.24:52-53]. Luke’s Gospel had not previously used the term ‘worship’ / ‘proskuneîn’ to describe people’s response to Jesus, whereas Matthew and John had done so [Matt.14:33; 28:9, 17; Jn.9:38]. In Luke’s account of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness Jesus response to the temptation was: “worship the Lord your God and serve only him.” [Lk.4:8]. So in using the word here, the writer may be implying that the followers’ response to Jesus’ Ascension brought them to a sense that there was an aspect of the divine in Jesus. Alternatively the verse may refer to the disciples worshipping God in thanks for sending them Jesus.
It may be intentional that Luke ends his Gospel in the Temple. The Gospel began with the story of Jesus with Zechariah in the Temple [Lk.1:5-24]. Throughout Luke’s Gospel Jesus’ involvement with the Temple is mentioned more than most of the other gospels:
- Jesus’ presentation in the Temple [Lk.2:22-38];
- his journey to the Temple as a child [Lk.2:41-52];
- his temptation on the pinnacle of the Temple [Lk.4:9];
- his parable of two men praying in the Temple [Lk.18:10];
- his cleansing of the Temple [Lk.19:45-46];
- his teaching in the Temple courts and the plotting of the religious authorities against him [Lk.19:47-48; 20:1];
- the questions and challenging of the Sadducees [Lk.20:27-44];
- his praise of the poor widow’s offering to the treasury in the Temple, by contrast to the gifts of the rich [Lk.21:1-4];
- his prophecy of the destruction of the Temple [Lk.21:5-6];
- his trial before the Temple council [Lk.22:66-71];
- The disciples worshipping in the temple after the Ascension [Lk.24:53].
Luke appears to be giving the impression that the presence of the disciples regular Temple worship is partly due to their thanksgiving to God for the blessings that they had received in Jesus, but also part of their waiting for the power, which Jesus had promised would come upon them. It seems clear that Jesus’ followers did not initially intend to form a new community of believers and new churches. It may have been their aim to continue with their Jewish religious faith and practice, only with the renewed and reformed understanding that they had learned from Jesus. Unfortunately this did not prove possible since the Christians were persecuted by the religious authorities. Jesus himself had criticised the Sadducees, the Temple authorities, the Pharisees and Scribes and over-literal, inflexible strict adherence to regulations. He had himself been criticised in the synagogues. But he and his initial followers continued the religious practices which were part of their Jewish tradition. This inevitably changed as the authorities and social communities increasingly persecuted the members of the early Church. The practice of meeting together on the first day of the week to commemorate Jesus developed more formally. Separate community worship seems to have become the practice by the time of Paul’s Epistles. The book of Acts suggests that Peter, Paul and others continued to go to the Temple or to the synagogue to worship as well as to evangelise in the Temple courts, though they also took part in the meetings where communities of Christians received teaching, shared the Eucharist and initiated others into the Christian faith, following the Great Commission.
The Christian Church today is far from the perfect faithful community that Jesus aimed to found. In some ways it has expanded beyond the intentions of its source, as the Sadducees, Scribes and Pharisees had done. Yet it seems important for us to try to work within the institution to return believers’ minds to the original aims of Christ and reflect God’s Kingdom righteously and practically. Sadly over the centuries divisions over doctrine and practice have brought schisms, with some groups attempting to more closely reflect Jesus’ teaching, while others fought to maintain power, authority or a status quo. It is important to try to maintain and reassert unity among Christians, so it is useful to attempt to bring reform through remaining united. Yet it is also true that the best developments within the history of the Christian Church have nearly always happened through revolutionary reform, when believers have sought to more clearly focus on Christ’s teaching and principles.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER
How closely do you and your Church adhere to the priorities of Christ in your actions and worship?
Where might you need to reform to be closer to Christ’s ideal?
How important is worship of God within your life of faith?
What do you worship God for, and in what ways is your worship ‘in Spirit and in truth’, as Jesus encouraged? [Jn.4:24].
31 (STATION 23) MARY &THE OTHER WOMEN WAIT WITH THE DISCIPLES IN PRAYER [Acts1:12-14]
We are not told the number who met together after the Ascension. Often artists and some traditional commentators assumed that it was just the 11 Apostles, but there is no indication of this in scripture. As Peter apparently addressed 120 followers of Jesus after the Ascension, we may assume that although the Apostles remained distinguishable among Jesus’ many disciples, a large groups of male and female followers continued to be loyal to the cause and gathered around the eleven. So probably several more of Christ’s followers remained in Jerusalem, following Jesus’ call at the end of Luke: “I am sending you what the Father promised: so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” [Lk.24:49].
Acts 1 explains more fully what they might have been waiting for: “After his suffering he presented himself alive to them with many convincing proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the Kingdom of God. While staying with them he ordered them not to leave Jerusalem but to wait there for the promise of the Father. “This” he said, is what you have heard from me: for John baptised with water, but you will be baptised with the Holy Spirit not many days from now. So when they had come together they asked him “Lord, is this the time when you will restore the Kingdom of Israel?” He replied: “It is not for you to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth.” [Acts1:3-8].
What they understood by this coming ‘power from on high’, ‘the promise of the Father’ or ‘baptised with the Holy Spirit’ we cannot be certain. Their comment about “will you restore at this time the Kingdom of Israel’ certainly suggests that they were still thinking of Jesus’ mission as Messiah in terms of the mission to the Jews. Jesus’ response seems to be reiterating his earlier teaching during his career, that his message was for all, not just those included in the covenant with the Jews. They were to witness “in all Judea, Samaria and to the ends of the earth”, so Christ’s message was intended to be universal.
In John particularly we are told that prior to his execution Jesus had been teaching about the Holy Spirit [Jn.14-16]. We are also told in Jn.20:22 that he had breathed the Holy Spirit upon them before his Ascension. But it is not clear what further power they were expecting: probably not the infilling with dynamic power that Luke describes in Acts 2. In some ways this scene has similarities with opening scenes in Luke’s Gospel: Mary opened herself to whatever God had in store for her; Simeon was waiting for the consolation of Israel. But neither of them knew what their openness to God’s activity would entail or bring about. Zechariah and Elizabeth questioned the possibilities of the promises made to them, but they were open to following God’s way, accepting what God’s Spirit brought, and they trained John in preparation for whatever his prophetic mission might become. In the days between the Ascension and Pentecost we can imagine that in the minds of his followers there were many questions, challenging thoughts and confusion over the mystery and intention behind Jesus’ promises. Debate would have been natural. Nevertheless it appears that they were open to receive whatever would be brought about by time and God’s actions.
The important lesson within this part of the Resurrection story would seem to be that Jesus’ followers obeyed his command and ‘waited’. This is an important lesson for those Christians who might have a tendency to go into situations with their spiritual guns blazing. If God’s Spirit is not behind and within our initiatives, they are unlikely to be particularly productive, as has again been the experi8ence of the Christian Church over centuries. In the contemporary Church, many plans and appointments in churches are made on secular business models, often without the depth of reliance on the Spirit’s guidance that is involved in ‘waiting’ and ‘being open’.
However in the final verses of Luke and Acts 1 it appears that Jesus’ followers were not entirely inactive while they were waiting. We are told that they went ‘continually’ to the Temple giving thanks to God [Lk.24:53]. I doubt if ‘continually’ means continual daily presence in the Temple. They would surely have continued to feel afraid of recognition as being those who had been associated with Jesus. Even though the Resurrection had given them new confidence, they would have still felt vulnerable. The idea of their continual worship could suggest that their worship and sacrifice continued regularly. Perhaps they were going to the Temple to offer thanksgiving sacrifices for all that God had brought to them through Jesus. Luke implies that there was spiritual rigour in their openness to receiving what God would bring. So as well as praying in the Temple and waiting for God’s power to come upon them as Jesus taught, they may have been meeting together, reminding each other of Jesus’ life and teachings, and worshipping God privately together in the manner of the synagogue, as Jesus their rabbinical teacher had shown them.
The positive events around Jesus’ Resurrection and whatever happened at the Ascension, appears to have given them courage to go forward in their spiritual lives, rather than remain shielding behind locked doors. Luke’s emphasis on their worship suggests that the events of the Resurrection and Ascension had encouraged them to continue to trust of God and await whatever Jesus’ words of commission would lead them into.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER
How patient are you and your church or Christian organisation in your waiting to know what you should be following spiritually?
How do you know that your guidance comes from God’s Spirit rather than primarily from intuition or earthly orientated plans?
How courageous are you in acting upon what is revealed to you?
32 PETER REMINDS THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS’ TEACHING & THE APPOINTMENT OF MATTHIAS [Acts1:15-26]
Acts 1 gives the impression that Jesus’ followers recognised that after Jesus had left them there was further work for them to do as a group. So we are told that before Pentecost Peter addressed a group of about 120 followers, presumably to encourage and keep them motivated. Just as we are not told the biblical references to which Jesus’ pointed in his explanations to his companions on the road to Emmaus, we do not know the full content of Peter’s explanation of Jesus’ teaching to the followers waiting for whatever ‘power from on high’ was to come upon them.
Part of his explanation evidently included the claim that Judas Iscariot’s betrayal of Jesus had been foretold in scripture. This may have been intended to help them realise that Jesus’ death had not been the tragedy that all had thought, but an element of God’s plan. We are told in Acts 1:16 that Peter pointed to the Holy Spirit prophesying through David as one source. Presumably he primarily had Ps.41:9-10 in mind: “Even my closest friend in whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, has lifted his heel against me. But you, O Lord, be gracious to me, and raise me up...”. Peter might also have pointed to Ps.55:12-15 as a foretelling of Judas’ death: “It is not enemies who taunt me – I could bear that; it is not adversaries who deal insolently with me – I could hide from them. But it is you, my equal, my companion, my familiar friend, with whom I kept pleasant company; we walked in the house of God with the throng., Let death come upon them; let them go down alive to Sheol; for evil is in their homes, their hearts.” Ps.88:13-18 could also be a source for Peter’s explanation: after describing the terror and pain of the one who is suffering it concludes that some friends do not stand by the sufferer, while other friends feel the darkness of confusion, as Jesus’ disciples were feeling at the time: “They surround me like a flood all day long; from all sides they close in on me. You have caused friend and neighbour to shun me; my companions are in darkness.” [vs.17-18]. Some commentators understandably claim that Peter may not have had a strong biblical knowledge from which to draw, so they suggest that these explanations may have been added by the writer of Acts. But Peter had been receiving religious teaching from Jesus for about 3 years. The learning of the Psalms was also a significant part of the rabbinical teaching of children in the synagogue. So Peter may have recognised connections between the Psalms he knew and aspects of his master’s life..
Peter’s speech continues with the proposal that a trustworthy follower who had been with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry should be elected to replace Judas among the apostles, to help in their continuation of Jesus’ mission. Matthias was chosen by lot. [Acts1:26]. It would have been more logical for the election of Matthias to have been made after Pentecost, when one might have expected that the power of the Holy Spirit would have guided their discernment. This is not what the Book of Acts implies, though it is possible that Luke’s sources mixed the chronology. Equally, Jesus had given the disciples elements of his strength and wisdom, so it is possible that the election of Matthias by lot was guided by their master. As they were planning to carry Jesus’ teaching and mission forwards by their own ministry, it is also possible that their election of Matthias was made in preparation for their continued mission. The mention of drawing lots does give the impression that they were calling on God to guide and direct their choice, since in many ancient cultures it was believed that the result of casting lots was directed by the gods. Although contemporary Christians rarely encourage gambling or this sort of decision-making, the casting of lots seems to have been a fairly common way of making choices in Jewish culture. It is mentioned many times in the Hebrew Scriptures: [Lev.16:8; Josh.18:6-8; 18:10; 1Chron.24:5. 31; 25:8; 26:13-16; Neh.10:34; 11:1; Job.6:27; Ezek.21:21; 24:6; Joel3:3; Ob.vs.11: Jonah1:7; Nah.3:10]. Ps.22:18 was seen as prophetic of the casting of lots for Christ’s clothing at his crucifixion [Matt.27:35; Mk.15:24; Lk.23:34; Jn.19:24].
The stipulation for the choice of this extra apostle was “one of the men who had accompanied (them) during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among (them), beginning from the Baptism of John until the day that he was taken from (them). Thus the choice must have been one who had witnessed almost the entire scope of Jesus’ ministry up to the Ascension. [Acts1:21]. It is most probable that Matthias had also been one of the “seventy” entrusted with being sent out by Jesus to spread his message following his sending out of the twelve [Lk.10:1-20]. If Luke was genuinely recording Peter’s message, rather than just indicating ‘the beginning of Jeus’ ministry, very few of the group must have witnessed Jesus’ baptism by John. These were probably those who left the circle of disciples around John the Baptist in order to follow Jesus. So it is possible that Matthias had been one of this group, described in Jn.1:35-40 [also 3:22-36; Matt.9:14; Lk.7:18-23]. In Jn.1:40 we are told the name of one of these disciples - Andrew, brother of Peter - but not the name of the other. If this was Matthias, as a former companion of Andrew, he might have known Peter well and been an obvious figure tor Peter to submit to the list of potential choices.
This is not the place to discuss the legends of Matthias in detail, as we are focusing on Jesus’ Resurrection, but there are two strands of legends related to him. The most common is that he came from an important family from Bethlehem and was well educated in scripture before joining the apostles. After being chosen as one of the twelve, tradition claims that he went on to preach throughout Judea, and was involved in the conversion of many through his persuasive erudition and through healing and other miraculous signs. He was confronted by the religious authorities who attempted to force him to recant his beliefs. Eventually they had him stoned and his body beheaded. His body was said to have been transferred to Sta. Maria Maggiore in Rome, then to Trier in Germany, where it remains today in the crypt of St. Matthias’ monastery church. Another version claims that his ministry was in Macedonia, where he was protected by God from poisoning and healed many converts who had been similarly poisoned and blinded. Of course there may be no truth in these traditions, though, having visited chapel beside his supposed sarcophagus, in the simple crypt of sensitively reordered Sanct. Matthiaskirche in Trier, I must admit that I and my companion found it to be one of the most spiritually inspiring places we had ever visited. We felt an inner conviction to sit in silence in the chapel and turn to prayer.
What most matters about the story of the choice of Matthias would seem to be the recognition that, although the twelve original apostles had special access to Jesus during his ministry, there were many others who were as close, or almost as close to Jesus, including several women. These followers, many of whom are anonymous, seem to have been almost equally important to the spread of Christ’s message as the original apostles themselves. Although the ‘apostles’ were regarded as a special band, who had particular significance because they had been particullary chosen by Jesus, there was room for others to be drafted into that group for special recognition. We do not know why Peter thought that keeping the number of the apostles to twelve was so significant. Twelve is a symbolic number in Hebrew tradition (12 commandments, 12 tribes of Israel etc.) Perhaps Peter retained certain superstitions and was under the impression that twelve was a particularly efficacious. Alternatively he may have recognised that because Jesus had chosen twelve companions, twelve would be the number to lead the growth of the Church.
The word ‘apostle’ / ‘àpóstolos’ was used in the ancient Greek-speaking world to mean not just ‘someone who is sent’, (the literal meaning of the word,) but was also used as an official name for an ‘envoy’ or ‘ambassador’. It was also used of a prophetic figure who was a mouthpiece of the gods. Though the commission to take Christ’s message to the world applies to all Christians, the ‘apostle’ was a specially commissioned envoy called by Christ to represent Christ.
St. Paul (originally called ‘Saul’ before his encounter with Christ,) claimed himself to be an apostle, on the grounds that he had met and been sent by the glorified Christ: sent to speak for God on God’s authority as a bearer of God’s message. Paul was adamant that he met the risen Jesus Christ and was therefore directly commissioned by him and authorised as an ‘apostle’. [Acts 9.1-19 ; 1Cor.15.8-9]. Although some series of Stations of the Resurrection include the appearance of Christ at the conversion of Paul, I have not chosen to represent this among my Stations. Since Saul was persecuting the early Church communities, it would seem to be more logical, as this event presumably happened sometime after Jesus’ ‘Ascension’, to presume that Paul had a vision or an encounter with the ‘ascended’ Christ rather than meeting the ‘risen Christ’. But this is not how Acts and Paul chose to describe his experience. If Christ could materialise and dematerialise at will in revealing himself to the witnesses of his Resurrection, there would seem to be no reason why he might not have rematerialized during the conversion of Paul.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
How do you personally feel that you have been called by Christ, and what have you been called to do in following him and witnessing for him? You may not be an apostle but how do you feel about being a messenger for God? And how do you convey that message?
33 (STATION 24) THE HOLY SPIRIT DESCENDS AT PENTECOST [John 20:19-23; Acts 2.1-11].
Pentecost is not named, as some Christians seem to think, after the moving of the Holy Spirit among Jesus’ disciples on that day. It was a well-established Jewish harvest festival, celebrating the first-fruits of the harvest, fifty days after Passover. One of the reasons why the disciples could have met so many people of various nationalities in Jerusalem on the day would have been that many pilgrims who had made long journeys from different countries to the Holy City to commemorate Passover, often apparently stayed on for another month and a half to also celebrate Pentecost in the city.
Jesus’ physical life with his disciples had ended at the Ascension. The coming of the Spirit at Pentecost marks the point of Christ’s ministry towards them changing. From now on he would be alongside them in the dimension of heaven, and living and influencing them by his Spirit living within them.
Imagine that you are one of those early disciples, man or woman, gathered in that upper room and scared. Less than two months ago you saw Jesus, your life-giving leader horrifically executed; the hope you had in him died. Then a few days later rumours grew that he had returned from death; more and more friends you trust claim to have met him, in small and large groups. Then you met him yourself, spoke with him, touched him, ate with him: You know for sure that a significant perhaps miraculous event has happened: God seems to have brought Jesus back to life. Before he left, Jesus had commissioned you: You now are among those who must continue his challenging mission. Jesus returned to heaven but told you to wait and pray. You are not to try anything in your own strength, but wait until the Spirit that he promised from God, inspires and empowers you.
Imagine now that you, me, and our Christian friends are among that group of Jesus’ followers, praying for guidance to know what they should do: to find how to effectively reach our community with Christ’s message of love and salvation. We want to know how to persuade people to believe in Jesus’ message, change their lives and open themselves to God’s influence. Suddenly that inspiration and power comes: The air stirs; a strong, swirling wind moves among us. We warm to a glow inside, as though we’re filling up with meaning and understanding. We feel on fire; our faith in God is being revitalised: We can’t keep it to ourselves: if we don’t let it break out we’ll explode. Our love of God and recognition that he is present here, filling us, is SO intense we spontaneously erupt in worship… We feel and intense love for those around us too, and long for them to share our experience. So full are we with emotions, joy, loving and feeling loved, and enjoying the meaningful experience of what we’ve found, that we can’t even think or speak straight. Some of our praise erupts in sounds, phrases and languages we don’t understand. We intuitively and spontaneously come alive spiritually and physically: We can’t stay in the house where we have sheltered any longer: we burst outside, dispersing into the streets, telling and showing everyone we meet just how great this power of God is.
That’s the imagery of Pentecost! It sounds exhausting, enervating and exciting but it may also feel frightening or at least worrying, because it is so different from most of our experiences of faith. Most of us don’t praise or witness with anything like that positive conviction and joy. Most Christians, me included, wouldn’t feel capable of such confident, spontaneous declaration and sharing of our faith. But more particularly are we sure that is the sort of faith we want, or want to see in our churches? It would be demanding! But maybe it doesn’t feel as though it fits our personalities either. Pentecost is an exciting scene and an exciting festival to celebrate in the Church. Despite that excitement, while some of us would like something like that to happen to us, probably a lot of us are relatively content with the far tamer faith we have. We know that we would fail if we tried to do exciting things in our own power. Any mission is scary, whether we rely on God’s power or on our own skills and personalities. Pentecost should challenge us to be open to allow God’s Spirit to move us in any way that God chooses. Yet God does not expect us to be anything that we are not able to be naturally.
The good, comforting news is that God’s Spirit respects and works with our particular personalities and character. God formed us with our varieties of personality and individuality: no one is intended to try to be something we are not. It seems intentional that God’s Spirit works in us as we are, and develops faith in us in the ways than most suit our personalities and natures. But that must not be allowed to be a let-out clause: Each of us is gifted by God in some ways; we are unique and each of us is expected to use all that we are, our gifts and what we have, to be examples of Christ to the world around us, guided and strengthened by God’s Spirit.
In talking about God’s Spirit we are in the presence of another mystery which is almost impossible to describe, but in some way is God’s power exercised within creation and living within God’s people. Scholars often point to the symbols of the Spirit in scripture: a dove, flames, wind, breath, a seal of God’s ownership, oil that anoints us, something to clothe ourselves in, a pledge, life-giving water, wine to cheer and spiritually inebriate us, advocate, helper, comforter, (which in this context means ‘giver of strength’). These are important metaphors for aspects of the nature, character or activity of God’s pervasive Spirit. But they can sometimes make God’s Spirit seem abstract, a slightly distant symbol. What matters more is that there should be life in our relationship: God’s Spirit lives inside us! Our union with the Holy Spirit is a bit like marriage or for those of us who aren’t married, a deep, united, supportive, close relationship. People can feel so close that they feel themselves to be one with each other. Or one can be linked to someone yet live almost separate lives that don’t enliven either partner. It can be the same in our relationship with God. One can feel united to God through the thrill of knowing that he is with you and alive within you. But that is rarely something that the believer feels continually. There may have been past excitement and closeness in your relationship with God, which enlivens your faith but it is not uncommon for people to lose their former passion, especially if they do not work at keeping their relationship alive and vibrant.
It is as challenge to build upon what grew from Pentecost: Like a good marriage our relationship with God’s Spirit, and acting in the strength of that relationship can daily fan into flame our love. Keeping spiritually alive can encourage confidence, our joy and love of others as well as our love of God for all that has been given us and done for us. It can awaken our personality to become more fully, more authentically, and more abundantly the person we are able to be. Whatever our age or condition we have the potential to grow to live meaningfully and fruitfully through God’s Spirit in ways that enliven us, bring variety to our lives, challenge us and keep setting us and our faith on fire.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
God’s Spirit brought a rich variety of experiences to those early Christians, Pray for yourself and your Christian community to be, that God’s Spirit will bring variety, vibrancy, meaningful life, intensity of faith and experiences, courage, inner joy and inner peace, whatever your age, your health and abilities, or your physical circumstances.
Consider the times that you have felt closest to God and most guided. Not every Christian feels that they have had an experience of the Holy Spirit, but this is probably a misapprehension. God has promised through Jesus that he is with us and in us throughout our lives. It is not for every believer to share the same experiences, gifts, ways of coming to believe, or ways of believing.
Pray that God’s Spirit will open up to you the right ways and the right experiences for you to follow God’s truth and live a godly life.
34 (STATION 24) THE DISCIPLES WITNESS IN THE STREETS [Mk.16:20; Acts 2:4-13]
In this aspect of Pentecost, there may be a clue to our potential for mission. People from all tribes and nations are said to have heard and received the disciples’ message. The gospel was communicated to them in various ways that helped them respond, this may possibly have not just been the same message their diverse languages. We receive the truth from God in the ways that are most appropriate and useful to us. You only have to remember the variety of responses of members of congregations to effective sermons. Some hear the intended message of the preacher; some are touched by something that they thought the preacher said, but wasn’t said at all; others may have gone off on a tangent in their thoughts mid-sermon and been spoken to about a completely different issue. That seems to be a way that the Holy Spirit works. It can be a bit disconcerting for a preacher if they have spent hours considering the subject, praying over the Bible passages and finding what feel to be the most meaningful ways of communicating. But it is a relief to know that the responsibility is not totally on the preacher or teacher to speak for God, since the best ministers usually know their limitations.
If Christ’s message is “the Way. The Truth and the Light”, is relevant to all, though often in different ways: Intellectuals and those with learning difficulties, the shy or the extrovert, the old and the young, the poor and the wealthy, the employed and those who cannot find work to support them, those of various cultures despite any cultural differences. At Pentecost it appears that those of different cultures or social classes heard the gospel in the particular ways that helped them respond. Christian truth is not just for the Western world, the middle class, working class, upper-class, the employed who can afford things, the unemployed, the artist or the scientist, the naïve or the thinker. God’s truth is for ALL. Fulfilled Christian life is offered equally to the infant and the mature, the fit and disabled, the already good, those who realise they’re really sinful and those who fail to accept that they may be in the wrong. However you describe yourself, whatever your culture, Pentecost shows that Christ’s message is relevant to you and everyone around you, among whom you live and work.
In fact our diversity should help us spread Christ’s message as widely as possible. If we were all ecstatic Charismatics, as in the popular image of what happened at Pentecost, we might put off the shy introvert. If we were all dynamic extroverts we might not be able to communicate faith with some who are quiet, humble and thoughtful. Those who have experienced grief may be sensitive to help the grieving and suffering to understand God. The musician or poet might be able to help those of similar temperament. Philosophical or scientific minds might help those who think similarly to reason through faith. Close friendships and relationships, however are often between people who are very different. So someone of one way of thinking and understanding may convince those of completely opposite character by something they do or say, or by the way they live. I was convinced of faith by a friend at university who was almost my opposite – a confidently logical, reasoning mathematician, while I was then a more intuitive, emotion-driven, introverted, depressive romantic. (I hasten to add that I have changed in many ways during the almost 50-years since!) The Holy Spirit can work with us, or often despite us.
Pentecost warns us clearly not to try to witness or even be a Christian, by reliance our own strength or skills. We should lean far more than we do already on God’s power moving within us, inspiring and guiding our thoughts. That command of Christ “Wait in Jerusalem until you receive power from on high” [Lk.24:49] is NOT an excuse to fail to witness or live openly for Christ. It’s a call to make ourselves open and prepared for God’s Spirit to use us by praying for greater courage and inspiration from God, and by being willing to follow the openings that are created for us. John Wesley’s Covenant Prayer, printed at the end of this meditation, is an important one for any Christian to consider, though very challenging to pray with sincerity.
We have God’s Spirit already. Jesus promised that his Spirit would be with us and in us. That does not mean that there is nothing that we can do to strengthen ourselves spiritually. Paul told Timothy to “fan into flame the gift of God’s Spirit within you” [2Tim.1:6]. Fanning our flame could involve us practising the gifts we have, seeking and working for greater faith and spiritual strength, studying scripture more regularly and contemplating and thinking through its meaning until we are clearer about what and why we believe and what we should be doing with our lives. Few of us can expect to witness as fluently and spontaneously as the disciples at Pentecost. Perhaps we need to practise sharing our faith by talking through what we believe more with each other and others outside. The disciples were probably far less intellectually and socially capable than most of us; they certainly did not have our breadth of education or the breadth of experience that is available in contemporary churches. But their proximity to Jesus for three years must have given them confidence that faith was authentic since they had seen several miracles that confirmed the truth that God was with him. No doubt Jesus as a good rabbi encouraged the disciples to discuss their faith with each other as part of their training. That is something that we don’t do enough. If we haven’t the courage or words to talk with each other, in the comfort of a Christian community, about our spiritual experiences and what helps us believe, how will we have a message and courage to share with strangers or neighbours? While we rely on God’s Spirit to empower our worship and build our personal faith, the Spirit often challenges us to step out in that faith and do things of which we fell less capable. As a community, church-members should be ready to encourage teach and challenge one another about issues of faith. We should above all be examples of true faith to one another, as Christ set an example to those who were with him.
Any who really know me know I’m not strong, physically or emotionally and quite an introvert. But God’s Spirit uses our personalities and even our weaknesses to show the world that Christ’s power is realistic, relevant and appropriate for all. None of us should claim that we can’t witness for God or are not ready yet to do so, using the excuse that our faith isn’t strong enough. God’s Spirit lives in all who believe; we often need to step out of our comfort-zones, as the disciples did and in the Spirit’s strength explode sensitively for God into the life of the community around us. With all our different personalities, experiences and gifts, the broad variety God’s people, led by God’s Spirit and Christ’s example, have the possibility of communicating God’s truth to the huge variety of people and personalities in our world. The theologian Helen Oppenheim wrote that we (the Church) “can be the presence, the ‘findability’ of God upon earth… Our diversity should enable God to be found by people in all areas of life in our world…The word multi-faceted comes to mind. The Church may be a prism breaking up the white-light of God’s dazzling majesty.” [Helen Oppenheim. Theology 93. 1990 p.133-141]
As is promised in the baptism service we are commissioned to shine Christ’s light and God’s truth out into all the world. God’s Spirit cares about believers but equally cares also for the good of the whole cosmos. All of us are commissioned to be God’s witnesses in different ways that are appropriate to us in as broad a way as we can.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
How sincerely could you commit yourself to John Wesley’s Covenant Prayer:
“I am no longer my own but yours.
Put me to what you will,
rank me with whom you will;
put me to doing,
put me to suffering;
let me be employed for you
or laid aside for you,
exalted for you
or brought low for you;
let me be full,
let me be empty,
let me have all things,
let me have nothing;
I freely and wholeheartedly yield all things
to your pleasure and disposal.
And now, glorious and blessed God,
Father, Son and Holy Spirit, you are mine and I am yours.
So be it,
and the covenant now made on earth,
let it be ratified in heaven. Amen.”
35 (STAION 26) DRAWING CONCLUSIONS ABOUT JESUS’ RESURRECTION
There is so much evidence in the Gospels, early chapters of Acts and 1Cor.15 that Jesus’ Resurrection was a physical event that it would be wrong to discount it just because certain critics maintain that anything miraculous in scripture must necessarily be untrue. There are certainly several discrepancies in the accounts, but many of these might be attributable to variations in the memories of several sources and the way the stories were handed down orally. Certain narratives include similar events, though may differ over the identification of certain characters, order or place. One major discrepancy is over whether Jesus’ followers travelled to Galilee as Matthew and John claim, and is implied Mark, or stayed in Jerusalem as Luke claims. We can never reach a sufficient conclusion over this, but the real question should be whether these discrepancies are of significant importance, compared to the overall meaning behind the narrative of Christ’s resurrection.
All sources claim that the body of the historical Jesus’ disappeared from the grave. If so, the obvious question is who might have had reason for stealing it?
- The authorities might have taken it to prevent him becoming a martyr. If so, they would almost certainly have disinterred it and revealed it when the rumours of the Resurrection arose, to correct the rumours.
- If the women or other visitors had made a mistake over the site of the tomb, someone would have corrected them, shown the true tomb and exposed the real body.
- The same would have happened if someone had moved the body to another tomb.
- Jesus’ followers might have taken the body of their hero to keep a memorial of him close to them. But if they had, it is highly unlikely that they would have accepted the death by martyrdom for promoting Jesus’ message, which so many suffered. People rarely give their lives to maintain a lie.
- Jesus’ followers might have taken the body to give it a personal burial, rather than have it buried in the tomb of someone who was less known to them. If so, they would probably have told the truth to their circle and the Resurrection story would not have arisen.
- Jesus’ followers might have taken the body to perpetrate the idea of Resurrection as a hoax. If so the church would probably never have developed far on the foundation of an untruth.
- The owners or workers in the garden might have moved the body to a different grave to prevent too many visitors to the garden. If so they would surely not have allowed the story of the Resurrection to develop. (One story that developed in the Jewish world was that a gardener traditionally called ‘Judah’ took the body, reburied it elsewhere and later produced it to discredit the Resurrection. [Tertullian De Spectaculis 30. Nolland 1993Vol.C. p.1187].
- It is just possible that a few individuals had stolen the body for a joke or some other incentive, but that would not account for the later development of the Resurrection narratives and the growth of the Church upon them.
- The women and men who believed that they had met the risen Christ were mistaken. If so, what happened to the body if it was not still in the tomb?
None of these attempted explanations make sense. If any of them had been the case, it is almost certain that the truth of what happened to the body would have been brought into the open at some time. If Jesus dis actually rise from the dead there remains a mystery of what Jesus resurrected body was like and what happened to him between appearances. Some believe that he dematerialised and moved to the dimension of heaven soon after his death and that his appearances were crossing from the heavenly to the earthy dimensions. That is only conjecture; no one knows. But the spiritual lives of so many believers in relationship with God, is evidence that there is truth somewhere within all the mysteries.
Is the evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection convincing?
Most would accept that the Resurrection of Jesus is either true, a mistaken belief which has stood the test of history and challenge, or an invention. There is more reported evidence for Christ’s Resurrection than for most ancient historical events that are accepted as factual. However the majority of this comes from sources that could understandably be called biased, because they were written within Christian communities. No evidence has yet been discovered in archaeology / literature / epigraphy to disprove Christ’s Resurrection. But of course, one cannot prove something to be true from silence or lack of evidence. To me, variations in Gospel accounts suggest authenticity. Memories must have circulated verbally among different Christian groups and were evidently interpreted in various ways before being compiled by the Gospel writers in different church circumstances. If the accounts were identical it would be more suspicious, suggesting that material had either been invented or edited to corroborate claims.
New Testament Evidence
The New Testament provides the primary historic source for information on the Resurrection. If these collected writings recorded secular events their authenticity would generally be regarded as valid though obviously biased by those who wrote them, as are many ancient writings. Records of historical events and the lives of significant figures are often slanted or amended according to the bias of the writer or the culture to which they are communicating. Yet it seems evident that something significant happened that convinced and changed the direction of Jesus’ followers from despair and disillusionment after his death. Early Christians, some of whom would have known people who claimed to be witnesses to Christ’s Resurrection were convinced of the truth of the narrative and lived out a faith in which they felt that they had true experiences of a relationship with the risen and ascended Christ.
Archaeological discoveries may increasingly confirm accuracy in New Testament details but of course, like arguments from silence, they will never be able to prove the event of the Resurrection, since it is inevitable that no physical proof is left. We just have the written sources. A few sceptical archaeologists and historians have tried to claim to find ossuaries labelled as containing Jesus’ bones, etc., but they have always been proved fallacious. Sceptical scholars frequently question the miraculous events and ascribe the appearances to the imagination of the disciples. But it is hard to conceive that illusions would be experienced by so many apparent witnesses. Although the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection appearance include different events and varied characters, the basic biblical texts does not vary on the main detail that Jesus was described as being alive and physical, and could interact with people.
Contemporary Witnesses
Three days after his death and burial, women who knew Jesus’ tomb claimed to have found that the body had gone from the tomb. If the story was invented, it is almost certain that Jewish Christians would have invented male witnesses, as women’s witness was legally unacceptable.
Jesus is claimed to have appeared to his followers over a period of 40 days, (a substantial time) in several unconnected incidents. They became convinced he had risen from death by what Paul called "infallible proofs" [1Cor.15:3-8]. If the number of eyewitnesses was as large as described in scripture (over 500) this helps to establish the Resurrection as probable, for such a large number could not have been fooled by an invented story or subscribed to hoax. Over several weeks more disciples claimed that God had raised Jesus from the dead and that he had appeared to them various times before being described as ascending into heaven. As many appearances were to multiple witnesses, it is hard to attribute this to mass-hallucination, wishful thinking or mass-self-convincing.
The written evidence claims that the risen figure was not a ghost or figment of their imagination, he could be touched, ate food, had a physical body.
After Jesus’ Ascension and Pentecost the disciples returned to the city of Jerusalem, among other places, to teach about the Resurrection, where, if their teaching about the empty tomb had been false, they would have been exposed by those who knew the truth. If they had altered the facts, witnesses hostile to the faith could have corrected them or even produced the body.
Some New Testament accounts of the Resurrection were circulated in the lifetimes of those who had witnessed the events [1Cor:15:6]. These could have confirmed or denied the accuracy of the accounts.
Saul of Tarsus was at first vehemently hostile to Christ’s followers. He would have been sceptical of any stories of Jesus’ Resurrection. As a well-trained Pharisee with a commission to persecute Christians, he would have had access to Jewish leaders’ evidence against the sect. Yet he claimed that he had encountered the risen Christ and became so convinced by the meeting that he transformed into the apostle Paul, became a convincing witness to the Resurrection’s truth, writing about its application to the believer.
Paul’s are among the earliest records of Christ's Resurrection appearances. He appealed to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Jesus had been seen by more than 500 people and reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned to confirm his message.
As well as his own encounter with Jesus, Paul had talked to some who witnessed Christ appearing. He had met some disciples and compared evidence. And his claim that many of the 500 witnesses mentioned above were still alive and could corroborate the Resurrection, implies that he had met and questoioned some of those witnesses..
Some Christians believe that the Gospel writers themselves had been witnesses of the risen Christ. This is doubted by many scholars today, but they almost certainly, had contact with circles which included witnesses, or drew together related accounts of eyewitnesses. Luke particularly states [Lk.1:1-3] that he sought reliable witnesses and authentic evidence. The Gospel writers appealed to common knowledge of the facts of the Resurrection.
Empty Tomb
Jesus’ body, in accordance with Jewish burial custom, was securely wrapped in a linen cloth. About 10 pounds of spices, which would traditionally have been mixed to a gum were applied to the wrappings about the body. An extremely heavy stone (probably about 2 tons) was rolled against the entrance of the solid rock tomb by means of levers. It is almost certain that no one or no group could have moved the stone or stolen Jesus' body without the guards' awareness. It is also unlikely that he could have unravelled himself, and certainly a previously crucified man, had he survived, would not have had the strength to have moved the stone himself.
Disciplined Roman soldiers guarded the tomb and sealed it. Roman seals were to prevent access. Anyone moving the stone would break the seal, incurring the penalty of Roman law - automatic execution, reportedly by crucifixion upside down. Jesus' disciples displayed signs of cowardice, hiding after Jesus’ arrest. Peter denied Christ under pressure. They surely wouldn’t have had the courage to steal or take his body from a guarded tomb.
So many security precautions were taken with the trial, crucifixion, burial, entombment, sealing and guard at Jesus’ tomb that it is difficult to find a solution to his disappearance other than the miraculous.
The Position Of The Grave Clothes
Peter and John are described as seeing the grave clothes undisturbed in form and position, where Jesus body had been, empty like an empty chrysalis. Something mysterious appears to have occurred to release the body without unwrapping it, which helped to secure their belief that the body had been raised, not just taken.
If the body had been stolen, for speed it is most likely that is would have been removed while still wrapped.
The Roman Guard Left The Empty Tomb
According to Matthew’s Gospel, the Roman guards fled, leaving their place of responsibility. Roman military discipline was exceptional; desertion incurred the death penalty [Justin: Digest 49]. With such a threat over their heads it is unlikely that an entire professional unit would have slept or afterwards left to report the loss unless the tomb was empty.
Hostile Witnesses
Though hostile authorities tried hard to invent stories of a stolen body etc., none fully convinced. The hostility of the authorities to Jesus’ followers in the decades after his life would surely have meant that they interrogated Christians to plumb the evidence and force someone to admit to a forgery. One of the most hostile opponents, the intelligent Pharisee and active persecutor Saul of Tarsus, claimed to have met the risen Christ, become convinced of the truth about him, and was transformed into a believer. He was so convinced that he followed the Christian way despite regular persecution, and justified the new dimension of faith that he had found in his teaching.
Both Jewish and Roman hostile sources and traditions admit an empty tomb (Josephus, Toledoth Jeshu). Gamaliel, a Sanhedrin court scholar, suggested that God might have been behind the Christian movement. He would have been contradicted if the tomb was still occupied or if Jewish leaders knew where Jesus’ body was.
Difficulties
The orthodox belief of Christianity is that Jesus was bodily resurrected in time and space by God’s supernatural power. Such a miracle of resurrection is difficult to believe, but the problems in unbelief present even greater difficulties. It is almost impossible to explain the Resurrection away by natural causes, the idea that Jesus may not have fully died, hallucinations among his followers, Mary or others going to the wrong tomb etc. If Jesus did not rise, where was the body, and why wasn't it produced when the story of Resurrection arose? If he was raised, faith in him and the God who raised him is probably true!
Was Jesus Death Mistaken For A Swoon?
Jesus must have been really dead, not in a swoon; Romans knew how to execute a test that a victim was dead. It is not possible that, if Jesus had managed to scramble half-dead from the tomb, crept about weak, flayed, ill, in need of medical treatment, he could have convinced the disciples that he had conquered death and was Prince of Life. Belief in the Resurrection drove their future ministry. A weak resuscitation would have weakened their belief in Jesus’ life and message, not transformed their sorrow to enthusiasm and worship.
Was The Body Stolen?
It is unlikely that the disciples would have attempted to steal the body; they were afraid and had turned cowardly on his arrest.
If Jewish or Roman authorities had moved the body or knew where it was, when the disciples preached the Resurrection in Jerusalem they would have denied it and produced evidence to destroy Christianity.
What would have been the purpose of stealing Jesus’ body? The authorities or owners of the land might have moved it to prevent the tomb becoming a place of pilgrimage. Jesus’ followers only reason for moving to corpse might have been to keep his body to themselves. But this is unlikely, as their culture had a very different attitude to a dead body than has developed in Christian times.
The Change In The Disciples' Lives
Convincing testimony is seen in lives, joy and courage of early Christians spreading the news of the risen Christ against increasing opposition. If they had stolen the body or made up stories of Resurrection, the disciples wouldn’t have died for a lie. It brought them few benefits (not prestige, wealth, increased social status etc.). Instead their full allegiance to the message of the ‘risen Christ’ brought suffering, persecution and martyrdom. The fact that so many laid down their lives for the teaching is evidence of their complete confidence in the truth of their message.
Jesus taught only a little about his return from death. It appears that his disciples didn’t understand this teaching, so were not expecting or looking for his reappearance and did not believe the news of Resurrection when it was first reported. So it is very unlikely that their understanding would have completely changed just by realising that the spirit of Jesus’ teachings was still in their minds. It is claimed that their own meetings with the risen Christ were what convinced and encouraged them to share the news with others.
The international growth of the Church appears to be evidence. Beliefs based on a lie would surely not have developed so fruitfully, to survive through multiple generations. Many Christians through the centuries feel they have met and related to the risen and ascended Christ through the activity of God’s Spirit in their lives. My own relationship with God convinces me, alongside this evidence, that Christ is true, alive and active through his Spirit in the world and in Christian lives today. I may not be able to prove the resurrection and the faith that develops from it, but my reaction to the evidence and my own spiritual experience I feel it is true.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER
How do you evaluate this historical evidence about Christ's empty tomb? What is your conclusion?
What difference does this make to you personally? Does it make a difference whether or not you believe fully that Christ rose again and died on the Cross?
If the evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection is convincing, does it help you recognise that Jesus offers full forgiveness of sin and an eternal relationship with God?
Does anything in your life and experience convince you that you have met or know the risen and ascended Christ yourself?
The main question seems to be: whether the reader can believe,. on so much varied evidence, that Jesus actually rose from death, and if so, what that might mean for us in its broadest sense?
36 WHAT IS SALVATION & HOW MIGHT CHRIST’S RESURRECTION BE INVOLVED?
The term ‘Salvation’ is often used for the main gift that Christ has achieved for us. Yet few churchgoers may be able to define this word that is so often used in services, beyond the offer of ‘life after death’. Theologians and preachers for centuries have attempted to explain what the Bible means by ‘salvation’. Yet in many ways, like ‘resurrection’, much about the idea remains a ‘mystery’ – something that Christians believe is spiritually true yet is difficult to explain or understand. The term ‘salvation’ as used in scripture has various interpretations and changed in meaning as the culture of Israel & the Church developed. Initially it was used of rescue from enemies, then protection by God. Over centuries it became associates with existence beyond death and rewards after life. Different Christian groups define it differently according to particular doctrinal beliefs. In various periods different aspects of salvation have been emphasised. One problem in defining ‘salvation’ is that the Bible often describes it in metaphors:
Justification - being seen as, and being openly declared to be righteous.
Peace - finding ‘shalom’/’wholeness’, with no aspect of us being unwhole.
Reconciliation - brought back into relationship.
Restoration - brought back to perfection.
Redemption - bought back by a price, all debts having been paid.
Release - from slavery and bondage to sin and death.
Rescue - deliverance from peril/threat/eternal punishment.
Revelation - seeing spiritual truth face to face [1Cor.13:12] [Jn.3:7]
Rebirth - brought about by God’s Spirit ’from above’/ ‘anōthen’; finding the best form of true, abundant life and living by spiritual truth.
Resurrection - brought back to life.
Rewards - after death.
Reunion - with those who have gone before in Christ.
Sanctification – being made holy, consecrated, made special for God.
Victory - achieved for us by Christ over evil [Col.2:15; Heb.2:14; Rev.12:11]
Assurance - of being protected and declared righteous in any future judgement.
Many today feel the idea of ‘substitutionary atonement’ and God’s ‘retribution’ on sin by offering Jesus as a sacrifice contradicts Jesus’ emphasis on God’s love and forgiveness. Beliefs in ‘damnation’ and fear of eternal punishment have declined in popular thinking since the Enlightenment, though many may have a suspicious fear of punishment for sin that recurs at times. The Bible’s teaching on salvation is far more positive than just protection from judgement. If Christians are offering salvation to prospective believers we should not just preach far of damnation as the Church did for centuries. We should help people recognise the positive and practical elements of what salvation might consist, even if various Christians differ in understanding and experience. Strong in a church’s teaching should be how to find salvation - an essential part of Jesus’ message.
I have already mentioned in Study 27 on the Ascension that Jesus’ Resurrection became regarded as a justification and vindication of his life, teaching and death. He was spoken of as being ‘glorified’ through his Resurrection and in his Ascension. Part of the apostolic teaching was that people could turn to the risen and ascended Christ and be saved. Believers in salvation trust in the promise that in some way, God’s action, working through the death and resurrection of Christ, generated a spiritually life-giving spark in human beings. In the next study I give a brief summary in list form of the huge and broad ideas that are associated with the Church’s teaching on Salvation.
There are two words for ‘saving’ in the New Testament. One [‘rhýomai’] is mostly used to translate the Hebrew term nṣl, meaning ‘to protect’, ‘to guard’, ‘to deliver’, ‘to ward off’, to preserve’. It is less commonly used in the New Testament than ‘sṓzó’, which more often translates the Hebrew words: yš‘ meaning ‘to save’, to ‘help’, to ‘free’ It also used to translate g’l meaning ‘to release’, ‘to buy’ back, to free, to redeem, to keep. Another Hebrew word mlt - ‘to save’, ‘to escape’, ‘to achieve safety’ – is also translated by the Greek word ‘sṓzó’. Classically ‘rhýomai’ was used of protection by the gods, leaders, guards, priests. ‘Sṓzó’ was used of rescue or preservation from death, destruction, from battle, the perils of life or evil, keeping alive, being pardoned, protected, kept from want, and safe return, keeping a flame alive, preserving a memory or something that is treasured. It was also used of ‘wellbeing’, ‘benefitting’, ‘keeping good health’, ‘preserving ones inner being or nature’, ‘the preservation of the inner health of humanity’.
Both Greek words are used with similar broad intentions throughout scripture. The blessing of ‘salvation’, as described in the Bible, is a hugely expansive gift. The root of the word ‘Sṓzó’ emphasises the breadth of meaning, since it a connotation of ‘to be roomy’. It implies the spaciousness of God’s care, deliverance and mercy towards us. It is not just about the salvation of individuals, but this ‘roomyness’ suggests God’s care for the cosmos and the spaciousness of what God is leading us towards. In the Hebrew Scriptures God promised to lead his people into a ‘spacious place’ [Ex.3:8; Judg.18:10; 2 Sam.22:20; I Chron.4:40; Ps.18:19; 31:8].
In the Hebrew Scriptures salvation is a result of God’s mercy [Neh.9:8]; it is part of God’s nature, not just a magical gift. ‘Deliverer’ [Isa.63:16] is a name of God, as ‘Saviour’ was used of Jesus [Jn.4:42]. He is described as the one who brought the fruit of God’s mercy, and brought the salvation of God to human beings. So ‘salvation’, as scripture describes it, means far more than protection by God in this life and existence beyond death. In the New Testament the word ‘salvation’ is used to include rescue from extreme danger [Matt.8:25; Mk.15:30; Jn.12:27], but also to describe the expansiveness of God’s actions, attitude and blessings towards us. Faith is described as saving people in terms of saving the whole person, not just healing physical symptoms [Lk.7:50]. John the Baptist proclaimed the remission of sins as part of ‘the knowledge of salvation’ [Lk.1:77], pointing forward to the coming of a Saviour who would redeem in a more eternal and expansive way [Matt.1:21]. Lk.13:23 links salvation with entering God’s Kingdom. Lk.19:10 makes it clear that salvation is not just looking forward to a future beyond death but finding salvation and being part of the Kingdom in our present lives right now.
St. Paul takes this further. With his pharisaic training and knowledge of Jewish scripture and tradition, he expanded the understanding of salvation to include justification and reconciliation with God [1Cor.2:15; 5:5; Rom.13:11], rescue from judgement [Rom.5:9; 1Cor.3:15], the gift of eternal life, redemption and the eventual glorification of our bodies [Rom.8:24; Phil.3:20-21]. Exercising and being built up by spiritual gifts in our present life, was also part of salvation, making us effective parts of Christ’s body, and enabling our gradual transformation in righteousness into images or true representatives of God’s Son [Rom.8:20; Gal.5:5]. In Rom.8:24 Paul assured his readers that when believers received and accepted Christ’s gospel as applying to them they already received salvation. This is echoed by the writer of Ephesians who speaks of us being saved by the message of salvation [Eph.1:13]. But though we have been saved and are being saved, the consummation of salvation, like that of God’s Kingdom, is still to come in the future [Eph.2:5-7]. Salvation may not just relate to human beings; some scriptures imply that the created ‘cosmos’ or ‘world’ will be transformed as part of Christ’s saving act [Rom. 8:21; Jn.3:17; 12:47; Rev.21:1].
As the one who brings this about at his Father’s bidding, Christ is called ‘Saviour’ / ‘sótḗr’ [Lk.1:69; 2:11; Jn.4:42; Acts 5:31; 13:23; Phil.3:2 ]. In the ancient world this term had the connotation of a ‘rescuer’, ‘deliverer from perils’, ‘protector’, ‘preserver of life’, ‘physician’ and ‘helper’. In the Hellenistic world and among Egyptian and Seleucid rulers (who ruled Palestine prior to the Romans) and later Roman Emperors, ‘sótḗr’ was also used as a royal title, and implied that the ruler was the son of the deity. We have no proof that this divine aspect was understood or implied when the term was first used of Jesus by the early Church, but it is interesting in relation to later development of understanding of his divine nature. ‘Sótḗr’ was used in the Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures to describe God as Israel’s Saviour and ‘helper’. It was also used of God’s human helpers, heroes, occasionally of judges, kings, and in Isa.49:6 and Zech.9:9 of the Messiah. God is called Saviour in Lk.1:47, and his coming son the Messiah is given the title Saviour in Lk.2:11, a position Jesus acknowledged in Jn.4:24. In taking his gospel to the Samaritans and beyond, he was also demonstrating that he was Saviour for the Gentiles as well as the Jews: In meeting him the fellow villagers of the Samaritan woman at the well are described as claiming: “...we have heard for ourselves and we know that this is truly the Saviour of the world.” [Jn.4:42].
There is no definition in Scripture of exactly how God brought about the gift of salvation through Jesus: that is another spiritual mystery. I have already mentioned that the ‘substitutional atonement’ explanation so often given in churches appears far too simplistic. The achievement of salvation would seem to be much more complex than just Jesus sacrificing his life to cleanse us and rising to show that eternal life exists for us beyond death. Yet the New Testament teaching assures us that by Christ’s self-offering, salvation is guaranteed. Though we may not have been saved simplistically by sacrifice; we are saved from the need to any longer to take the life of any other creature as a sacrifice. Salvation brings forgiveness, freedom and love to human life.
We are perhaps not meant to understand God’s process of salvation. Yet we are promised that within Jesus’ death and Resurrection somehow his saving action has achieved the expansive gift of ‘salvation’ and that God offers it to us out of caring love to fulfil our needs. Jesus was not just offering forgiveness of sins and eternal life in whatever heaven turns out to be: He promised that he would bring those who he had redeemed and salved into ‘a spacious place’ – the Kingdom of God both in the present and future. Cynics sometimes accuse Christians of narrowness, or simply believing in ‘pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die’. But with Christ’s ‘salvation’ he offering to the world a huge gift from God to expand and consummate life now and in the future. How his death and resurrection actually achieved this remains ‘mystery’ within the process of God’s activity. But the inner spiritual life of the believer is lit by a spark that recognises that there is truth within the promises.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
Do you feel confident that Christ’s gift of Salvation has been given to you?
What is the breadth of what God’s salvation offers to your life?
37 WHAT IS THE SALVATION THAT CHRISTIANITY OFFERS?
Different faiths have varied understandings of the term ‘salvation’. To over-simplify: Mystery religions often refer to a divine saviour overcoming or helping initiates to overcome cosmic adversaries. Hindus obtain ‘moksha’ / ‘mukti’/ ‘liberation’ by being absorbed into total communion with god from a cycle of birth & rebirth (samsara). Moksha is believed to achieve karma and free one from punishment and responsibility for one’s previous actions (karma). Buddhism looks to ‘nirvana’ as a liberation from selfish attachments: mastery over self rather than annihilation. For Sikhs salvation is union with God found now & in future through service to others. In Islam salvation is totally dependent on Allah’s will: he responds to our deeds. Judaism sees ‘redemption’ as God intervening on our behalf spiritually and physically for individuals, God’s people and the whole earth.
Christian salvation is not just future promise; we begin to live it now, which is the best gift we have to share. What salvation means may vary according to circumstances & how God interacts in our life. Following the summary given in the last study, here is a list of some of the perspectives on the term, and its breadth as used in Hebrew and Christian scriptures. Salvation probably includes elements of all of these. What ‘salvation’ proves to be it is likely to be far greater than we think:
OLD TESTAMENT UNDERSTANDING OF SALVATION:
Early Hebrew texts suggest that they believed death & the grave is our end [Ps.104:29]. Salvation was God’s protection of his people & gift of ‘shalom’/’wholeness’ in this life. Then belief developed in Sheol, a place of the dead [Ps.18:5]. After heroic deaths in the Maccabean Revolt, belief strengthened that for the righteous life continues after death and salvation is to receive heavenly reward for faithfulness.
- Hebrew & Greek terms for salvation contain ideas of:
- ‘Rescue’, ‘redeem’, ‘restore’, ‘deliver’, ‘to make whole’.
- Salvation is entirely the gift and blessing of God for those who God favours. It cannot be won, earned or bought. However it also relied on us keeping covenant promises.
- Salvation is described as both a result - ‘God has saved us’ - and as a process by which God works through connected events in history to bring about the divine will for the future of human beings, particularly for God’s Chosen People.
- Security in God; being able to rely on God who has our good at heart.
- Protection by God [Wisdom 3:1].
- Being in corporate covenant relationship with God “You shall be my people & I shall be your God.’ [Ps.85].
- God keeping his covenant promises.
- The creation and development of ‘God’s Kingdom’ and transformation of society by justice, peace, love, unity, righteousness.
- God’s way of dealing with the plight of the world.
- Completion of God’s plan for restoring, fulfilling and consummating creation and eliminating corruption.
- God defending us and rescuing from enemies. Triumph over enemies under God’s direct help or the guidance of a strong spiritual or political leader or the coming Messiah.
- Deliverance from political or military oppression.
- Rescue from perils that threaten the world (physical, cosmological, environmental, human, spiritual, eternal, temporal). Protection from corruption around us.
- Delivery from economic and physical want. Protection from negative political and economic conditions.
- Protection from war, wild creatures or natural disaster.
- Protection by spiritual powers [God/angels/spirits].
- Protection from malign spiritual powers [demons etc.]
- Healing of illness and disease.
- Rescue from death and the mortality of earthly life.
- Peace when we face death and peace in our place of death.
- Protection from the threat of divine punishment for sin. Release from deserved eternal punishment by God’s mercy.
- Continued life in some form beyond death.
- Having our personal identity elevated and perfected.
- The continuation of the spiritual part of ourselves after death. The phrase common used by Christians form Job: ‘I know that my redeemer lives’ [Job 19:25], may not refer to this future beyond death, dependent on when the text of Job was written, but it was later taken to refer to a more permanent salvation than just an individual’s protection in this world..
- Sacrifices could alleviate any judgement and assure salvation, since ‘sacrifice’ could mean that you are ‘dedicated’ or ‘consecrated to God.’
- Unity in the Heavenly Jerusalem [Isa.61:1-3; 66:23; Zech.14:16-13].
- God’s revelation of himself shared with others [Isa.49:6]
- The promise that in future God will write his law in his people’s hearts by his Spirit [Jer.31:33-4; Joel2:28].
- Assurance that we can be at peace from worries [Ps.23]
- The Messiah would achieve salvation through victory over evil and by giving the world an example of self-giving love. He would free God’s people from sin’s power and its consequences.
CHRIST REFOCUSED SALVATION’S EMPHASIS:
TRANSFORMING US FOR A SECURE FUTURE
- Jesus assured his hearers that there is continuity between God’s plan of salvation in the Hebrew tradition and its fulfilment through Christ.
- Christ became incarnate ‘for our salvation’ [Nicene Creed]. Salvation as God’s gift of himself to us. Christ is God’s active agent of salvation [Jn.1:2; Col.1:15] and God’s offering for salvation. [1Cor.5:11].
- Security in God through Christ [Lk.17:33; Mk.8:35]. Christ was the fulfilment of prophesies of salvation.
- Salvation is totally a gift of God through grace, given as a result of Christ’s achievement. None deserve it: “for all have sinned and fall short of God’s grace.”
- The Cross was the consummation of the cleansing and purifying promised through the God’s covenant with Israel. In Christ the eternal sacrifice had been made which would replace the need for temporal sacrifices for all time.
- A tradition interpretation was made that Christ vicariously took all judgement of us on himself. We are reconciled to God through the Cross acting as atoning sacrifice [Rom.3:25]. Calvin and other theologians expanded this to create the idea of ‘Penal Substitution’, claiming that Christ bore the penalty of our sin and was punished for us [2Cor.15:21; Gal.3:15; Isa.53]. Many contemporary theologians are uncomfortable that this is too simplistic and implies a vindictiveness in God that is not in Christ’s teaching.
- More liberal modern interpretations suggest that in whatever ways Jesus’ self-giving worked, God achieved the world’s salvation through Christ’s life and dealt sufficiently with sin to free us from its enslavement and consequences. We do not know exactly how, but somehow Christ’s death satisfied God’s requirements to free us and draw us into God’s love. Christ is the catalyst for our changed situation in relationship with God. Whoever Jesus Christ truly was, he was sufficient to accomplish whatever is understood as ‘Salvation’.
- Salvation was costly: it is spoken of as being ‘bought with a price’[1Cor.6:20]. The word used for ‘price’ is ‘lutron’/ ‘ransom’, which in ancient culture was, among other things, the price necessary to purchase a slave’s or a prisoner’s liberty.
- Christ is more than a sacrifice. He is described as the servant of God who brought salvation, though a ‘Suffering Servant’ [Isa.52-53; Mk.10:45]. When we are judged he is our representative: he satisfied God’s requirements on our behalf. [Heb.10:12-14].
- Whatever the cause or root of sin, it has been dealt with by Christ’s achievement. We are acquitted and justified. Sin is not imputed to us but blotted out.
- Christ offered himself as ‘propitiation’ for our sin. This term does not refer to him as a ‘sacrifice’, as many Christians infer. The Greek term ‘hilasterion’ translates the Hebrew term ‘Mercy Seat’ , which was seen as the throne of God in the Tabernacle. The term carries the idea of ‘to cover’ or ‘wipe away’ [Rom.3:25; 1Jn.2:2; 4:10]. This doesn’t imply that Christ placated God’s anger but that God developed a loving means of covering sin and wiping away its effects by Christ ‘embodying the ‘Holy of Holies’ – representing God in our midst and covering us by his presence and action of self-giving.
- Salvation is God’s gift in response to true penitence.
- It is the giving of God’s Son to us [Jn.3:16; Rom.8:32].
- Being brought into and given a secure personal relationship with God. Salvation is a new Exodus journey [Lk.9:31].
- Rejoicing in God’s presence known through the Son. ‘Knowing God & Jesus Christ who he sent’, and being known by God [Jn.10:14; 1Cor.1:12; Heb.8:11].
- God giving his Spirit to us [Jn.14:16; Acts11:17; Rom.5:5].
- Being transformed or transfigured into the likeness of Christ - a process that starts now to be perfected later.
- Transformation or being transfigured by the divine presence.
- Being made holy and whole.
- Having our eyes opened from spiritual blindness for spiritual truth to be revealed to us.
SALVATION BEGINS AND CAN BE ENJOYED NOW
- Salvation has present and future perspectives: we have salvation now and expect future fulfilment. Eternal life and its benefits start now [2Cor.6:2]. ‘We have been saved / we are saved / and we will be saved.’[1Cor.15:1-2].
- We are adopted into God’s family as God’s children [Gal.4:6; Mk.3:35] to enjoy the benefits of inheritance.
- Life in all its abundance now is an aspect of salvation [Jn.10:10]. Christ can give all that authentic life means to us, for our fulfilment & enjoyment [Jn.5:21, 26].
- ‘Salvation’ in the Gospels often refers to healing or is connected with healing [Lk.17:12-19].
- Salvation is a reward for endurance in faith [Mk.13:13]
- God sees us with new status because of Christ’s action.
- The gift and corporate sharing of God’s love.
- Receiving the gifts, fruit & indwelling of God’s Spirit.
- Recognising God as giver of our gifts & reconciliation.
- Entrusting oneself to God and feeling his protection.
- Having a relationship with God, especially a reciprocal covenant relationship of love, gratitude & obedience.
- Coming to knowledge of truth [1Tim.2:4]. “The truth will set us free” [Jn.8:32].
- Freedom from the Law, being ruled by God’s Spirit’s inner law. Living by the fruit of the Spirit [Gal.5:22-3] not the letter of the Law or legalism [Rom.5-7].
- Given the freedom of Christ that releases you from the rules and regulations invented by institutional religion.
- We are under the life-giving law of Christ, not the law that emphasises sin and death. [Cor.9:21].
- In the 3rd and 4th Centuries CE ideas of salvation were strongly linked to exorcism, baptismal blessing, release from demonic control on earth and mortal vulnerability in the face of violence, disaster or disease.
- We are not saved by our culture or what we profess in mere words, nor are we saved by our actions. It qall depends on God.
- Feeling forgiven and released from sin’s consequences.
- Release from the limitations of our physical existence.
- Released from earth’s ‘bondage to decay’ [Rom.8:21].
- Undoing Adam’s failure [Rom.5:12-21; 1Cor.15:45-50]
- Being opened spiritually, to receive God’s blessing, gifts and revelations, and to understand God’s love.
- The Holy Spirit applies Salvation to us.
- Recognising Christ as our source and our God.
- ‘Our life is hidden with Christ in God’ [Col.3:3].
- Beginning to enjoy the ‘communion of the saints’ now.
- Freedom from sin and its consequences.
- Taking away the consciousness and self-doubt of sin.
- Deliverance from guilt that could cripple or deaden us.
- Personal wholeness & integrity; Body/Soul/Spirit in unity.
- Corporate wholeness and unity with others.
- Being spiritually incorporated into Christ.
- Bringing alive the divine/spiritual dimension of life in us. Our spirit given life by God’s Spirit.
- Salvation is part of our identity as Christians not just our future reward.
- Being inducted into spiritual mysteries into which we were not privy before being incorporated into Christ.
- Being privileged with Christ’s gift of bringing us direct access to God.
- Knowing Christ’s love [Eph.3:18f]. Love overcoming all.
- ‘Lutron’ - release from debt, being ransomed from slavery or prison.
- Being freed to be the person we were created to be, with nothing to restrict us spiritually.
- Some believed with the Gnostics that Salvation is liberation of the soul/spirit from the decaying shell of the body but this implies the physical world is evil, which is denied by the accounts of Creation being ‘good’ and creating all to be good.
- Becoming more fully human. “Be ‘perfect’ as your heavenly Father is perfect’ [Matt.5:48] ‘Perfect’ may refer to wholeness, one-ness and being fully integrated.
- Being given meaning, value purpose by God.
- Self-fulfilment as a result of self-renunciation and loving self-giving / Heb. ‘hesed’ [Mk.8:35].
- Christ as God’s self-reconciliation.
- Life-enhancement. Christian salvation embraces all that heals & enhances human life. This may be Christ’s meaning in our ‘enjoying the banquet of the Kingdom’.
- Being transformed in our relationship with God.
- Finding God: to know God, though only partially.
- To live in God’s Kingdom now.
- Improvement of our situation and/or our character.
- Early Greek Fathers developed the idea of ‘theosis’/ participation in the life of God [2Pet.1:14; 2Cor.3:18].
- Nothing is impossible with God [Mk.10:25] and ‘nothing can now separate us from the love of God.’ [Rom.8:38-9]
- Jesus bringing God’s love into our alienated situation by forgiveness and by putting our sin behind us.
- Our forgiveness is assured because of the extent Christ went to reconcile the world to himself.
- Christ is God’s way of expressing solidarity with our predicament and solving it in himself, reconciling humanity to himself through bearing human pain. [Bonhoeffer: “only the suffering God can help.”]
- Being chosen by God for the privilege of salvation.
- God drawing us to himself through Christ [Jn.6:44]. God, not the Cross, saves us.
COPRPORATE SALVATION
- Union and reconciliation of people formerly divided [Col.]
- Being incorporated into the Body of Christ, the true Church.
- Union with all: neighbours/Creation/personal wholeness.
- We are not saved just to be individuals in relationship with God. Salvation brings us into relationship with God through other believers as part of Christ’s body, corporately united with God’s Spirit in others.
- Being incorporated into the whole company of heaven: the Church Triumphant (those who are saved who have died before us) as well as the Church Militant (those of us who are still on earth).
- Salvation includes ‘belonging’ and recognising that we belong, to God, to fellow believers and to God’s world. It does not make us exclusive; it should unite us inclusively with all that God blesses and values.
- The Church should be an agent of bringing God’s salvation through our prayer, witness and action.
- Being gifted by God’s Spirit with spiritual gifts to use in advancing others to greater faith and discipleship.
FUTURE SALVATION
- The traditional teaching of the Church has been that: the wicked and the good will both be raised to judgement at whatever ‘the Last Day’ proves to be: the good rewarded, the wicked punished.
- Finding life beyond death in a physical/spiritual/cognitive form assured by Christ’s physical resurrection. Having a different form to our present, like Christ’s imperishable ‘resurrection body’ [1Jn.3:2; 1Cor.15:50]. This is described as a ‘spiritual body’/ ‘soma pneumatikon’ - a body ‘animated by the Spirit’ rather than ‘consisting of spirit’.
- Being made alive with Christ [1Cor.15:22];
- Christ living in us [Gal.2:20], and we around him [Rev.5]
- Contemporary emphasis on salvation being here and now, means that some commentators question the idea of future rewards.
- ‘Eternal’ life in the presence of God’s truth. ‘Eternal’ / ‘ainios’ means ‘of a new aeon/age/timeless’, not necessarily ‘going on for ever’.
- Being resurrected to a new form of life through Christ, with Christ and in Christ.
- Christ’s gospel contains all that is necessary for salvation.
- In Christian mystical tradition salvation has been regarded as transformation into consummated union with God.
- Christ’s Resurrection is our forerunner [Heb.2:10, 14-18; 4:14-16; 5:7-10]. We are promised resurrection to new life of which the nature of Christ’s Resurrection was a foretaste [1Jn.3:2f].]
- Heavenly thrones after death: rewards for faithful service.
- God providing heavenly places for us to reside [Jn.14:2].
- Eternal life in the ‘communion of saints’ in the Kingdom.
- Eternal life assured after the cosmos collapses in decay.
- Under Christ’s rule being sustained by heavenly nourishment.
- Release from pain/suffering; no more sadness [Rev.21:4]
- A state where peace, love, joy & righteousness flourish and triumph. The gates of Paradise unlocked by Christ.
- A state in which we will be perfected by Christ’s action and where evil can have no dominance.
- Some Greek Early Church Fathers’ teaching suggested that our transformation into gaining immortal life would include ‘deification’ – not being made into gods but ‘forming in us a godly nature’.
- God blessing all through the final fulfilment of his covenant promises & fulfilling his justice.
- God’s victory over evil, showing that “nothing is able to separate us from the love of God” [Rom.8:38-9].
- Having our lives and faith vindicated/justified.
- Christ bestowing new life like his Easter life on us & sharing eternal life with us.
- Finally seeing God & truth ‘face to face’, now known only ‘partially’ [1Cor.13:9-10]. God’s loving nature perfectly revealed.
A COSMIC* VIEW OF SALVATION
*NB. By ‘Cosmic’ I mean how God’s Salvation relates to ‘the whole of creation’ holistically. The Greek term ‘Kosmos’ means the entire world & all that God created, including the ‘Universe’. Salvation is described in scripture as not just applying to humanity:
- God reconciling all things to himself through Christ [2Cor.5:18-19]. A world reconciled to God [Col,1:20].
- God remaking the world: a new creation free of evil, mortality and suffering [Rev.21:4]. The cosmos liberated from its bondage to decay. [Rom.8:18-27].
- A world freely reconciled to God [Col.1:20]. ‘Cosmos pneumatikos’ – ‘Creation animated by God’s Spirit.’
- The ‘New Creation’ as union with God our source.
- A new covenant [Heb.9:15], new birth [Jn.3:3-8], new creation [2Cor.5:17], life from the dead [Rom.6:5-11].
- Restoration healing and renewal of creation and ecology.
- Achieving God’s moral and spiritual aims for creation.
- Salvation includes the renewal, transformation and liberation of Creation [Rom.8:19]. We become one with the new creation rather than having dominion over it [Gen.1:28]. We ourselves become a new creation [2Cor.5:17], ‘the old has passed away.’
- The fulfilment and consummation of what history has been moving towards.
- Healing of nature – the leaves of the Tree of life. [Mal.4:2; Rev.2:2].
- Union with things visible and invisible [Col.1:20].
These lists show the expansive nature that the Bible gives to the idea of salvation. Salvation is offered to all and applicable to people of any ability, age or culture.
SUGGESTION FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
Can you believe in the breadth of the abundance of blessings in the huge list above? If so, bathe in the expansiveness of what God’s salvation is offering you.
If you find that you cannot believe it to be true, (understandably, because it seems to good and idealistic to be real), consider why you personally find it hard to believe in or aspire to it.
Perhaps take one of the promises in the above list and consider how it applies to your life.
One question that has challenged thinking Christians for centuries is whether Christ’s salvation is for believers only. Does it in some ways universally apply to all? Surely a loving God would not create millions of people destined for destruction. Yet at the same time, the idea of the freedom that God offers through love and justice wouldn’t force any people to accept salvation against their wish or deny them freedom to reject faith and a future salvation. How does this affect your attitude to your mission of spreading the knowledge of God in the world?
38 CHRISTIAN ABUNDANT LIFE
Christ’s Resurrection, Ascension. rule after Pentecost and the gift of God’s Spirit to our lives are all associated with the offer of abundant life to followers of the way that Jesus opened for us. Jesus claimed: “I have come that they may have life in its fullest abundance” [Jn.10:10]. Christ’s teaching and New Testament theology do not define ‘abundant life’ but presumably he meant many of the blessings promised in the list given in the last study. Whatever he meant, he certainly was not talking materially or in terms to which much of today’s world might aspire: abundance of possessions, wealth, social or economic position, fame, status, family, security, job, salary, self-realisation, self-assertion, self- fulfilment. The Sermon on the Mount [Matt.5-7] (particularly the Beatitudes [5:3-11]) emphasises that spiritual abundance and fulfilment can be found even by the poor, downtrodden & suffering. Abundant life is a divine gift independent of our situation, often developing despite, in response to, or in recompense for difficulties. True ‘Life’ is to be found through Christ [Jn.5:21, 26;14:16]. When William Blake called Jesus ‘the Imagination’ he implied not just that in creating the cosmos he revealed God’s supreme imaginative creativity. He meant that Jesus demonstrated the full possibilities of what human beings could be and could achieve led by God’s Spirit. In redeeming us, Jesus:
- made possible the fullness of abundant life for us.
- gave us the example of what we can be.
- showed us that as different individuals we should seek to find and live abundant life in its full variety & expanse.
- gave us his Spirit after Pentecost to inspire, guide, teach, protect and lead us to abundant life.
- commissioned us to spread his abundant life to others.
In offering Christ’s ‘abundant life’ to others Christians seek to attune people to their inner or dormant spiritual longings. We should not try to attract others to faith by worldly aspirations or methods that may lead to materialistic desires rather than true, selfless Christianity.
- Abundant life is not self-centred but other-centred, not sought for self-fulfilment but to be appreciated and shared together.
- Abundant life can be found whatever our circumstances. St Paul claimed that he could be content whatever his situation - in need or supplied, ill or in health, persecuted or free. Jesus claimed to give the Samaritan woman at the well a living, refreshing source of life that that would never leave her or us us thirsty, or needing more.
- We can finding God’s presence in ordinary life experiences: “The gateway of heaven is everywhere” [Catherine of Siena], ‘Seek the key that opens the human heart; the same key opens the heart to God.’ [John Chrysostom].
- Abundance can be found in recognising God’s love for us and our ability to love him.
- We can finding union with God in a growing relationship, integrated in worship, religious & personal activities.
- It entails ‘heart-knowledge’ of God, not just ‘head-knowledge’.
- We are being nurtured and formed by God.
- Abundance can be experienced in humility of ambition. We should be ambitious for growth to spiritual maturity to achieve our full potential ‘in God’s image’, but not to be seen as more special than anyone else.
- Abundance is found through encouraging ourselves to growing in faith, understanding, trust and love of God.
- We find abundance by living abundantly: living by God’s light, inspiration and guidance.
- Abundance can entail perceiving with Spirit-led insight, imagination & spiritual intuition. Growing in spiritual sensitivity.
- We encourage ourselves to live abundantly by developing the ability to wonder at mysteries, feel awe at God’s presence and grandeur, having time and the openness to recognise beauty and unveil truth in human experiences and enjoy the abundance of the world, wisely, without guilt or waste.
- We can be assured that we are eternally loved and have intrinsic value, whatever our circumstances, state or condition.
- We should mirroring God in our life, reflecting Christ’s example.
- The gift of Salvation and God’s Spirit allows us to live abundantly by freeing from sin and, despite our human limitations, enabling us to flourish to the best of our ability and potential.
- When we live abundantly we may feel humble and challenged by God but can remain comfortable and loved in his presence and secure for our future with him.
- We should not feel a need or striving to be something we are not.
- Freedom can come through knowing that we are obedient to God’s calling.
- Freedom recognises that God has proclaimed us righteous and cleansed through the actions of Christ, so we need not be burdened or held back by a sense of guilt or failure.
- Abundance gives us a sense of purpose because we are valued by God. This enables us to be ourselves, to find and build up our gifts, and find our place in society.
- Abundant life is not rigidly directed by life’s demands: We have space and peace to become ourselves and follow our Spirit-guided instincts and gifts.
- We are able to achieve the possibilities available to us by being strengthened and inspired by God’s Spirit in us.
- Abundance can come when we are integrated spiritually, mentally and physically, so that we sense that we have been made ‘whole’. We may never be ‘Perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect.’ But we are freed to work towards a human form of such perfection.
- Abundance can come when we feel assured that God’s eternal presence is with us and in us: God’s love, Christ’s salvation, the holy guidance of the Spirit,.
- We can sense abundance when we let God’s love and truth flow into us, and through us to others.
- We can find God’s healing presence soothing us when inevitable difficulties, challenges and physical or mental pain arise.
- Abundance comes when we recognise that we are freed by God’s grace and mercy - assured that we are forgiven and are enabled to forgive others.
- Abundance means living by grace not by rigid, narrow, sterile rules; freed from legalism to live freely, righteously & securely.
- Abundance can bring positivity and joy, releasing negativity in our attitude to life.
- Abundance recognises and can be involves in all that is good in the world. It can help us to find and appreciate good in modern culture and life but not be limited by temporal atisfactions, since we having eternal not worldly values to reach towards and enjoy.
- Abundance of life is not static; it has to keep moving and growing as our lives and circumstances alter. We should allow ourselves to be regularly renewed, refreshed and brought alive by God’s Spirit. We are made alive spiritually by Christ’s self-giving and God’s grace and mercy in salvation.
- Abundance is about living life in its full diversity not all following one way.
- Abundance enables openness to God developing the fruit of the Spirit in our lives, including: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control [Gal.5:22f.] and many others.
- We should develop, fan into flame and use our spiritual gifts, remembering that they are not primarily for our personal use or for self-centred motives but to help others in their growth.
- Abundant life is creative and enjoys variety. It is not living a mundane or boring physical or spiritual life, but rather being able to imagine and reach beyond our present condition.
- Righteous industriousness makes life worthwhile and fruitful without being burdened by the pressures of work and life: Jesus claimed:“My yoke is easy and my burden is light.” [Matt.11:30]
- Abundant life recognises the wonders in the world around us and appreciates that the whole cosmos has sacred value, made by God’s love. St Paul claimed that truths about God can be found through the world around us.
- Abundant lives develop the resources of the earth as wise stewards. We should fully use God’s gifts to advance humankind and the world, but not exploit, waste or desecrate what we have been given.
- Abundant life is realistic and practical, not just idealistic or impractical. We should develop and consider faith and life thoughtfully, not simplistically, using the full resources of our minds and the minds, achievements and discoveries of others.
- Abundant worship is ‘in spirit and in truth’, developing ways that help us and others to grow in appreciation of God, absorb God’s nourishment and go forward refreshed and challenged to follow Christ’s example.
- We should not over-fill our lives as much of our 24 hour culture encourages people to do. We need to have the time and the inclination for prayer, contemplation and study, to develop our relationship with God.
- Abundant life is a corporate life integrated with other Christians and active in the world, not isolated.
- Our lives should be diverse. We should have unity not uniformity with God’s people and creation as a ‘family’ to support each other for growth and flourishing.
- Abundant life recognises and rejoices in the values of others – spiritual and physical. It is not jealous of others’ gifts.
- We come to life when we feel responsibility towards others and act out of pastoral, loving, selfless care.
- We should grow in sensitivity towards others.
- Abundance can develop when we working for justice, peace, truth and the valuing of all. We may feel frustrated when we do not yet succeed in bringing these about, but we can feel the satisfaction of doing right.
- Abundance leads to feelings of generosity, hospitality, inclusiveness and openness to others. Having time for people; giving of ourselves.
- Our own abundance and freedom should help us enable others to be themselves, find their value and be able to use their gifts.
- Our abundance should seek to expand others’ knowledge, wisdom and experience not just our own.
- We recognise that we are part of the communion of saints, living and dead and have responsibilities in Christ’s body.
- Abundance leaves us willing to journey with God into the unknown,
- Abundance leaves us willing to be active in being used by God to fulfil God’s purposes and actions.
- Abundance makes us attentive to recognise God’s purposes and calling.
There are probably hundreds of aspects of abundance that could be added to this list; these are just a taster of what truly following God into the expansive relationship that we could be experiencing. Though the list probably feels idealistic and unattainable in this life, if God is true, the spiritual life is practical and attainable, not an unattainable goal.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTEMPLATION AND PRAYER:
Is your life fulfilling the offer of ‘abundant life’ described above? In what ways might you expand your fulfilment of life?
Perhaps choose one of the ideas in the list above and contemplate its relevance to you.
39 THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT IN THE CHARACTER OF CHRISTIANS
INTRODUCTION
In preparation for the celebration of Pente4cost I thought that it might be useful to consider our how working on the development of our Christian character might help both ourselves over this issue and support those around us. As we look towards celebrating Pentecost, I want to meditate through a series of brief studies on the ‘fruit of the Spirit’, as described in Galatians 5:22-3: “Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, Self-Control”. I’m sure that these are not all the fruit that God’s Sprit aims to develop in the lives of faithful followers of Christ’s way. Spiritual Intuition and Understanding, Self-Knowledge, Wisdom, Creativity, Appreciation of Value, Obedient Response to God’s Ways, Integrity, Honesty, Truthfulness, Trust, Trustworthiness and Security in Depth of Faith come to mind and I will mention a few others in my conclusion. Ephesians 5:22 talks of ‘living by light” and enlightenment’ as spiritual fruit: ‘the fruit of light is found in all that is good, right and true’. Hebrews calls ‘righteousness, peacefulness and true, effective witnessing’ important aspects of our fruit [Heb.12:11; 13:15]. But the nine qualities of spiritual fruit in Galatians 5 are useful places to start as we try to follow the Creator’s intention for human beings, emulate Christ and let God’s Spirit work in us to form us into the fulfilled people we were created to be. At this time of lock-down, when we are perhaps turned in on ourselves more than at some other times it is useful to expand our vision of what we are and should be as faithful Christians. This may help us personally, but also help our ministry to others to be more effective and certainly could make church communities even more attractive and outgoing for the future.
‘Fruit of the Spirit’ describes the nature of the character and life that God intends to build in those who follow Christ and the way humans are intended to be. It has often been pointed out that while spiritual gifts listed in scripture are varied and given in different ways to us according to need, the complete ‘fruit’ of the Spirit is intended to be displayed by all Christians. ‘Fruit’ is a singular word in the passage: Unlike spiritual ‘gifts’ we are not intended to display just one or two fruit; all the fruit are meant to be visible in our lives holistically. St. Paul emphasises that not all believers teach, prophesy, heal, speak in spiritual tongues etc. [1Cor.12:4-11], yet all are meant to display the wholeness of the fruit of the Spirit [Gal.5:24]. This fruit is largely how the integrity and authenticity of our faith and lives is assessed by God and others: “By their fruit you shall know them”, said Jesus [Matt.7:16]. Frequently we assess people by the sort of person they are rather that what they do. Certainly we have learned that what people say and claim does not always prove true. No Christians should compete with one another to express more fruit than others or be conceited if we bear fruit. Nor should we envy those who are fruitful Christians, just learn from their example. We should expect such fruit to be developing in all, and encourage it in each other [Gal.5:25-6].
Fruit is a term that occurs fairly regularly in Jesus’ teaching: “Bear fruit worthy of repentance” [Matt.3:8; 12:33]. Like a tree, we must “bear good fruit not bad” [Matt.3:10; 7:17-20; 12:33]; our lives must never be allowed to become fruitless [Matt.21:19]. In Luke Jesus is blessed as the ‘fruit’ of Mary’s womb [Lk.1:42]. Through him we are ‘gathering the fruit of eternal life’ [Jn.4:36]. “A seed that falls to the ground”... as in the benefits which grew through Jesus’ death, “dies and bears much fruit” [Jn.12:24]. God prunes us, sometimes drastically, so that we are able “to bear more fruit” [Jn.15:22]; he appointed his disciples to “go and bear fruit that will last eternally” [Jn.15:16]. In the Book of Revelation the Tree of Life bears twelve types of fruit, one for every month, suggesting symbolically that what God gives us nourishes and is sufficient for all seasons and situations [Rev.22:2]. The fruit of the Spirit should therefore be helpful to us at this difficult time.
In times of self-reflection it is useful to contemplate how fruitful our lives and our faith have been so far, and to make determined decisions to continue to be fruitful as God’s disciples. We should not over-blame ourselves for any failings so far but recognise these and act to remedy those failings in order to ‘prune us’ to be more effective and more fruitful followers of God’s ways in the future. In this Spring season I’m watching the fruit trees and rose-bushes in my garden full of buds. I know that those that were pruned and nourished well will be really fruitful and strong later in the year. It is sobering to realise that those which I neglected or ignored will be more straggly and far less fruitful. It’s the same with our own personal spirituality, areas of church-growth, and our witness. The fruit of the Spirit does not develop purely by the Spirit’s work; it relies a lot on our own response and effort. ‘Love’, ‘patience’, ‘kindness’, ‘goodness’, ‘faithfulness’, ‘gentleness’ and ‘self-control’ especially require disciplined action by us. Even ‘joy’ and ‘peace’, though more internal, develop through feeling that we may have been obedient, and allowing God to influence and warm us. The development of the Spirit’s fruit is a joint work between God and ourselves, part of our covenant relationship.
The more we develop the fruit of God’s Spirit in our lives the more we will reflect the character of Christ. If you look through the life of Jesus, his love, joy, peace, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control were not expressed effetely, naïvely or simplistically. He was strong, practical, active and effective in working to heal, restore and develop the world. We live in a society that often encourages more dominating characteristics like self-promotion and advance, self-sufficiency, insistence on personal rights, belligerent determination and self-protection, sometimes at the expense of others. While mistrusting aggressive and despotic leadership we also admire more humble service, like that of many medical staff and social or charity and industrial workers at present, who are being applauded as heroes for keeping society going at their own expense. But the humble are not rewarded as generously as those who work in corporate finance or even politics. That will have to wait for the Kingdom of God to be more effectively established: “blessed are the meek...” etc. [Matt.5:3ff]. The fruit of the Spirit has a more just perspective, showing that our character and self-giving nature is more important than our social or financial position.
At this vulnerable time for our world and the community around us, we can have a potentially fruitful effect on the people and society in which we live. We have the ability to spread love, peace, kindness and even a sense of inner joy, where the news is so depressing and many are feeling isolated. We can help people learn patience, gentleness, goodness faithfulness and self-control, where so much around us is frustrated, challenged and suffering. The fruit of the Spirit is important in our own lives, to help us withstand the deprivations, problems and issues within a world that is socially distancing. But it can also bring fruit into the lives of others to nourish, sustain and help them grow themselves.
It is a useful exercise to consider the character of Christians who you admire, and to try to add to the list of fruit which God’s Spirit develops in the lives and character of Christians. Remember that the fruit are characteristics which we would expect to find in all followers of Christ, unlike individual gifts. Exploring the value and character of faithful believers can help to challenge and expand our own discipleship.
N.B. I have deliberately not written suggestions for contemplation and prayer to accompany these last meditations on the Fruit of the Spirit in us, since, for each of them, I expect that readers may simply want to reflect on whether this particular fruit is sufficiently displayed in their Christian lives and consider how they might reflect these aspects of God’s nature more deeply.
40 LOVE - Fruit of the Spirit 1
In the early days of the Covid 19 crisis I spent a lot of time considering and writing about the foundations of my ‘faith and hope’ and how trust in Christ can help us in our vulnerable situation. Meditating on those two words led me to recognise a relevant aspect of St. Paul’s writings that I had not previously considered. In 1 Corinthians 13 he wrote that three things survive eternally: “Faith, Hope and Love... and the greatest of these is Love”. It’s such a beautiful, well known, poetic passage, but the primacy of love over faith and hope is perhaps not just in the beauty with which it cements our relationship to others and to God. Perhaps the spirit of love in us awakens us to be able to appreciate better all about life and God. Love may encourage faith and hope. I used to find it hard to believe that God could care for me as much as for others, because I was so aware of my personal failings and weaknesses. It was only when I found myself loved by a person who actually valued me despite, or in some cases because of my weaknesses and failings that I began to recognise that God could love me even better. My faith and life grew stronger as a result. If we have love inside us it can awaken us to values in ourselves and others that we previously devalued or took for granted.
There are of course many different kinds of love: I love close friends slightly differently from family; animals and pets differently from humans, my congregation differently from my wider community, chocolate differently from a succulent meal. The Bible, we know, uses various words to distinguish some of these different forms of love: philadelphia -‘brotherly or sisterly love and friendship’, stergo - affection as between parents and children’, agape - ‘self-giving even sacrificial love’, eros -‘passionate, sensual love’. There were also individual terms for ‘love of nation’, ‘generosity of giving’. Yet despite this variety, there is a basic warm feeling of wellbeing towards all that we love in any way: all the terms for love involve care and self-giving for another. The sense of loving or having loved expands our spirits. Love enlarges our ability to feel; it can energise us and warm us with good, even if we are temporarily separated or even bereaved and remembering those we have loved.
The word used in the Galatians 5 passage is ‘agape’, the self-giving love that Jesus demonstrated, and encouraged in his followers. True love is not self-centred or out to primarily satisfy itself; it concentrates on others and longs for their good. That is why 1Cor.13 is so often read at weddings, to remind us all of the outreaching rather than inward-looking, self-satisfying qualities of love: “Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, hopes all things, loves all things. Love never ends...” [1Cor.13:4-7]. (It is noticeable that most of the qualities expressed here resemble the ‘fruit of the Spirit’.) Of course, in expressing and receiving love we partly satisfy ourselves, but that is not the main objective of true love, which seeks and does the best for the other. “Greater love has no-one that this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” [Jn.15:13]. The nature of God’s love for us among all his creation was a major theme of Jesus’ teaching. Jesus exemplified God’s perfect love, in giving himself. That sort of love expects nothing that can balance it in return or repayment. God may desire our love and our obedience but the love poured out on the Cross did not demand our response, though God must surely long for it. God’s love perhaps resembles that of a lover longing for the object of their love to recognise and respond with love in return. This is beautifully expressed by the metaphor of God as a lover in Hosea longing for the faithful return of his love, or in Isaiah 54:5-8 promising fruitful abundance to his wife.
We are in a society where many see their right as being to ‘take’ without feeling a commensurate responsibility to ‘give’. The saddest forms of love are those which just want self-satisfaction or those which continue frustratingly to long for the impossible. This is lust or longing, not true love. Too frequently sexual love, love of money, power or position aim to get what one can without giving sufficiently in return. That is also true of some people’s feelings about the society in which they live: getting without giving. Sometimes that is reflected in spiritual relationships with God too: Many want the emotional satisfaction which comes through spirituality or which is received in a worship service, without feeling reciprocal responsibility to give to God or to others. Far too many books on esoteric spirituality just focus on satisfying oneself. Yet true spirituality, like true love is about both giving and receiving, where “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” [Acts 20:35].
Jesus’s challenge to love goes beyond ‘easy love’: He expects us to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” [Matt.5:54]; to “lay down one’s life for one’s friends” [Jn.15:13], to “give one’s life for the unrighteous” [Rom.5:8ff], to work hard at our relationship with God and others. Only that way will we ever fully understand the extent of God’s own energetic, self-giving love for all that has been made, including sinners and failures. Many in society love and indulge themselves excessively, but many others indulge themselves through lack of self-love. Commercialism has encouraged us to compare ourselves with others even more than in the past when the commandment recognised that we should ‘not covet what our neighbour has’, and ‘should love our neighbour as ourselves’. The Hebrew concept of neighbour mostly implied responsibility towards those who were of the same nation, even though God’s laws told them to support the stranger. The Parable in the Good Samaritan [Lk.10:25-37] shows that Christ expanded the concept of love to embrace all. At this time when many in society are experiencing trials and many are lonely, it is increasingly important that we recognise that ALL our neighbours are to be loved and supported.
41 JOY - Fruit of the Spirit 2
Jesus prayed for his followers in Gethsemane, “...that my joy may be in them.” How strange that, in the depths of his Passion, joy should be on his mind! Similarly it is difficult to consider joy in the midst of the present health crisis. Joy certainly seems to have been in the hearts of Jesus’ followers as they paraded him through the streets as he entered Jerusalem at the beginning of that last week. Jesus’ own emotions on the day we commemorate as ‘Palm Sunday’ must have been extremely mixed as he approached the climax of his mission. ‘Joyful’ in its modern usage is not an emotion one might consider as the main emotion in Jesus. I can imagine him enjoying the Cana wedding [Jn.2:1-11], celebrating religious festivals (despite recognising some hypocrisy there), laughing in the company of close friends and disciples, celebrating after a miracle of healing, joy in personal times of worship, delighting in the natural or rural world he described in his parables. But he was also ‘a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief’[Isa.53:3]. He was not morose yet serious, determined, frustrated in mission, content in his relationship with his Father God, so the ‘joy’ he mentions must have been deeper than a bubbly surface emotion. His love for people and his relationship with his Father seem to have given him special delight. The Psalms sing of ‘delighting to do God’s will’ [1:2; 16:3; 112:1; 119:16ff. ].
The main word for ‘Joy’, found in Galatians 5 and repeatedly in Matthew, Luke and especially John’s Gospel is ‘chará’, which denotes ‘delighting’, ‘rejoicing’. It is linked to the word ‘cháris’, which implied ‘practical, outreaching love and grace’. The ‘joy’ which Jesus knew and which the writer of Galatians is encouraging us to develop is therefore part of God’s divine, outgoing loving nature towards all things as shown in Jesus. In difficult circumstances this can speak to us: we may not be in an obviously happy state yet we can still feel and experience deep inner joy through our spiritual security in accepting God’s love and care for us and through loving what is around us.
Happiness partly depends on our personal character, background and circumstances. Some people are naturally melancholic, or have physical, medical or emotional reasons for a tendency towards depression. Others are more naturally bouncy and seem to express joy or live in a more carefree way. We cannot always help our melancholia, though indulging it can be draining. Yet people who are over-effusively joyful can also be exhausting to be with. Whatever our personality or circumstances the spiritual fruit of joy can reach in to even difficult circumstances, refresh and help to transform us. Spiritual joy can help us be more stable in our personalities, and also help us be easier to live with. Spiritual joy does not depend so much on our personal situation, but recognises that we can be secure in God’s love and care, in whatever position we find ourselves. St. Paul talks about this in 2 Cor.12:9-10 where he speaks of being content with his weaknesses, hardships and persecutions, as they made him rely more on Christ. Philippians 4:11says “I have learned to be content with whatever I have. I know what it is to have little and I know what it is to have plenty... I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” Hebrews 13:5-6 continues this idea: “be content with what you have, for God has said “I will never leave you or forsake you.” So we can say with confidence “The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can anyone do to me?”
Many people are very active in our over-busy world, yet feel no joy in their work, their relationships, possessions or the rat-race of life. You may gain everything you ever thought you wanted but not have deep inner satisfaction. Inner joy can only be ‘whole’ when our lives are whole and balanced, physically. spiritually and socially. The tragic film character Citizen Cane built around him everything that money could buy, but achieved no joy. We see recognise in several historical characters and some sad contemporary lives.
When we hold up to God in thought and prayer the people, events and thoughts about which we most care, we can experience joy, even when praying for difficulties they may be experiencing or feeling distance and separation from them. Joy, like love, isn’t focused on ‘us’ or on what selfishly makes us happy or satisfies the self; it comes most in reaching out. Jesus’ joy, which he prayed might be in his disciples, was the joy of being secure in his loving relationship with God, caring for and loving his companions, and knowing he was doing the right things in life. Jesus also talks about us being able to bring joy to the spiritual world: “there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents” [Lk.15:7]. The joy of creation, sung about in many Psalms, and the joy of heavenly powers, is perhaps related to us fulfilling our role in the harmony of the cosmos.
Spiritual joy, therefore, need not be as dependent on circumstances or personality as is general happiness. If we are able to help ourselves, and the people to whom we minister, to recognise that we have security in God’s presence with us, we can know an inner warmth, even in vulnerable times, which can help to sustain us. We should not over-push our personal joy onto people who are undergoing difficulties, for we might seem uncaring, naïve or not empathetic to their situation. Life is truly hard for many, yet in faith and in closeness to God we can discover a contentment that can form an inner joy. This might not be bubbling in rejoicing, (nor should it be in tragic circumstances like those of today,) but it can strengthen us. As Psalm 23 reminds us: “Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death (or the darkest valley) I fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff they comfort me.” The joy that God’s Spirit can build in us is not necessarily surface happiness, but can bring an inner sense of warmth and peace that sustains and strengthens.
42 PEACE - Fruit of the Spirit 3
The present health crisis has encouraged many in British society to support one another wonderfully. It is heartening to hear of so many acts of benevolence, companionship and self-sacrificial help of others, even of strangers. Sadly we also hear of increased abuse of the vulnerable, thieves exploiting the situation, some spreading and responding violently to false rumours and civil disruption in America. But in general, and certainly in the community around me here, I’ve seen so much friendship and peace displayed between many who previously might have been more private. Strangers acknowledge one another from a distance in the street and wish each other well. Ephesians 2:13-19 reminds us that the Church is comprised of many who would normally be divided, yet are now united and brought peace in Christ’s body.
When Jesus talks about ‘peace’ he was meaning far more than lack of discord or warfare. (Sadly too often discord still persists in many church bodies or between individual Christians!) Spiritual ‘peace’ includes unity, valuing one another, acceptance of difference, mutual support and working together, a sense of inner contentment and contentment with others. It involves learning to be satisfied with ourselves, our circumstances, our companions, our ministry and our environment. Spiritual peace needs to be a truthful awareness of being at peace, rather than being blinkered to problems or deliberately avoiding or ignoring disquieting issues.
The opening and sometimes the ending of most New Testament Epistles nearly always includes the joint blessing of ‘grace and peace be with you” [Rom1:7; 1Cor.1:3 etc.]. Sometimes the term ‘mercy’ is added [1&2Tim.; 2Jn.; Jude]. Ancient Roman greetings and prayers of blessing offered people “Peace” / ‘Pax’ or to be embraced by the security of the ‘Pax Romana’. Rabbis more often prayed the blessing of ‘Grace from God’, though ‘Peace’/’shalom’ is an important Jewish concept, translated into the Greek Bible as ‘eirene’. Peace originated with the idea of a treaty, the absence of hostile feelings between people, tribes, nations or the covenant agreement between God and people. It brought security, even redemption, all of which relate to God’s promises to his people. The coming Messiah would be the ‘Prince/King of Peace’ [Isa.9:5; Zech.9:9-10] establishing an eternal, paradisal ‘shalom’. As the means by which God establishes peace: “He is our peace” [Mic.5:5].
The Hebrew concept of ‘shalom’ is expansive; it meant overall ‘wellbeing’: health, good fortune, stability, national and personal prosperity, peace within the community. It especially meant being in stable relationship with God, who would provide these holistic blessings. Unlike many of their Jewish contemporaries, Jesus and St. Paul did not regard material prosperity as important as a sign of blessing. They recognised the difficulties and inequality of human life. Yet God would bring peace, truth and equity with the coming of the Kingdom for which Christ was working: The ‘poor’ and ‘persecuted’ would inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, the ‘meek’ would inherit the earth, those ‘hungry for righteousness’ would be filled, the ‘peacemakers’ would be called Children of God [Matt.5:3-11]. So people would find God’s blessing of peace in response to their needs Paul could write that in the midst of hardship, poverty, or with his ‘thorn in the flesh’ he had learned to be content and at peace [Phil.4:11-12; 2Cor.12:10]. The Epistle to the Hebrews encourages us to ‘Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have’ [Heb.13:5].
For Jesus and for Paul, ‘peace’ was a universal wish for God’s people. Jesus encouraged his disciples to give a blessing of peace to the homes of all who welcomed them hospitably in their mission [Matt.10:12-14]. But he also recognised that his teaching would separate some and cause hostility and division rather than unity and universal peace. “I have come not to bring peace but a sword” is a difficult passage [Matt.10:24]. Jesus’ mission intended peace not division, but he recognised that others, both individuals and powers, had different priorities. The present divisions in churches have various causes: obstinacy over variant interpretations of doctrine or scripture, preferential practices, self-centredness, power-struggles, dysfunctional or clashing personalities etc. Jesus reminded us that a city or nation divided cannot be at peace [Matt.12:25; Mk.3:24-5], and the body of Christ cannot work effectively as it should if its members are not working fully in peace, harmony and support of one another [1Cor.1:13; 12:12-27]. Perhaps this time of enforced contemplation and isolation might be a perfect period for reflecting on the things in ourselves and in relationship with others that disturb or destroy our peace and work to resolve them.
Jesus wanted to bring peace with God and peace between people: ‘Be at peace among one another” [Mk.9:50]. He achieved spiritual peace for the world through the offering of his life, particularly through the Cross [Rom.5:11; Eph.2:14]. Jesus encouraged his followers to be ‘one’ with each other as he and his Father were one [Jn.17:] ‘Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you’ [Jn.14:27]. Expressing and sharing that peace and unity should act as a witness to the world. His prayer included: “As you Father are in me and I in you, may they also be in us so that the world may see that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one as we are one.” [Jn.17:21-22]. The present witness of all churches and Christians falls far short of this glory, even when religious communities are at peace with one another. What might we do to witness more authentically and have greater personal peace and spiritual peace between each other and within all churches?
The spiritual fruit of peace in us should help us feel inner harmony as well as enable us to live and work at harmony with others. Finding spiritual peace within ourselves, within the community of Christians and feeling at peace with God is a fruit that would be so useful to share with the world at this time when many feel socially discontent, afraid, vulnerable and sometimes angry. Jesus recognised that being ‘peacemakers’ is a ‘blessed’ activity [Matt.5:9]. Christians should have more reason than many to discover this peace within ourselves, in our relationship with a God of Peace and a Saviour who has brought the possibility of peace. We have this peace to share. “Peace be with you” is an essential part of Jesus’ message.
43 PATIENCE - Fruit of the Spirit 4
The form of patience included in the list of fruit in Galatians 5 has a slightly different focus from the patience of character which we usually consider. The word for patience used here [makrothymía] is also translatable as ‘longsuffering’, ‘endurance’, ‘resignation’, ‘enforced or desperate acceptance’, ‘forbearance’. So it refers particularly to the way that we face difficulties, problems, suffering, or difficult people. This was important for surviving situations of persecution or rejection of Christians in the early church. It can also relate to our attitude to ourselves: how patient are we with our problems, bodies, minds, personal issues or lack of spiritual progress. Patient forbearance can help us stay strong amid the frustrations of the present lock-down and health and national issues.
In the Hebrew Scriptures ‘patience’ was often used of God’s gracious restraint in judgement on sin or those who opposed his way. God’s patience with humanity showed God’s faithfulness to covenant promises. The purpose of divine patience with people was to encourage them to recognise their failings and turn to righteous ways. The writings of several Rabbis contrast the ‘forbearance’ of parents towards wayward children to encourage them to develop their better character, with ‘indulgence’, which can damage their character. God’s grace and mercy does not indulge us, so we should not indulge ourselves. Jesus spoke of the patience and endurance of God in some of his parables. The father of the Prodigal Son was patient but suffering while his son was away, whereas the brother showed no forbearance when the prodigal returned in repentance [Lk.15:11-32.]. A king shows forbearance towards the debt of his servant, but the servant shows less forbearance towards his fellows [Matt.18:23-35]. In Col.1:11 and 2Tim.3:10 patient endurance and long suffering are regarded as strengthening us personally for the challenges of life and faith; Eph.4:2 shows that they strengthen the Church community.
Longsuffering patience in the Bible does not imply that the one who demonstrates it is complacent, irresolute or simply swayed by emotion or empathy. It aims for the improvement or development of the people or situation towards which patience is shown. It gives time for people to recognise their failings, learn, repent and bring change. Thus it shows practical love towards them and allows the one who is patient to also develop and change - something at which the brother of the Prodigal Son failed. Recognising God’s patience and forbearance towards us in the character of Christ should help us develop similar patience towards others. Such patience should be holy and humble, not self-righteous, developing steadfastness of faith in us. Patience aims to bring about justice and truth without seeking vengeance or using anger incorrectly.
Patience is perhaps the fruit which we learn most through having to endure it. I’ve found myself feeling impatient with people who do not learn from their mistakes, who regularly return to the same failings or sins, despite knowing that they have made them miserable in the past or do not grow in faith as they should after years of church attendance and declarations of faith. Then I look at myself and realise that I fail in exactly the same ways. I realise how far I am from the Christian who I should be, and that I am more culpable than others, since as a minster I am supposed to know more about my faith than some and have made professions and vows to be holy. I recognise how patient God is with me, so why am I often impatient with others!? I identify so often with St. Paul’s impatience with himself, though Paul was of course a FAR better Christian than me!: “I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the things I hate... For I delight in the law of God in my inner self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin... wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?” Thankfully his next sentence is “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!...” [Rom.7:21-25], in which he recognises that Jesus has the power to be our rescuer and forgiver!
There are some Christians to whom I could never confess because their response to sin or emotional or spiritual struggles seems inhuman or cold. Some can’t seem to accept the failings of others. Think of those who denounce sin coldly from the pulpit, in street-preaching or on the media. Intolerance is the opposite of patience, and is often hypocritical, not recognising or acknowledging the log in our own eye! [Matt.7:3-5]. A value in knowing that Christ is the one who intercedes for us is found in trusting that he understands what we are going through and empathises with us. Hebrews affirms that we have in the heavens a “great High Priest” who is able to “sympathise with our weaknesses”... “one who in every way has been tested as we are yet without sin...” A true priest “is able to deal gently with the ignorant and wayward because he himself is subject to weakness.” [Heb.4:14- 5:2]. As we come to understand ourselves we should emulate Christ by our patience with others, since we recognise the limitations of our own nature and actions and empathise with theirs.
There is a great difference between being patient and being ‘laisser-faire’, nonchalant or indifferent to things that are wrong. Recently churches have been criticised for their failure to deal sufficiently with internal failings, abuses or for not speaking out prophetically against failings in the nation or international, environmental or financial issues and problems. As so many of the Hebrew prophets and Christ himself remind us, we have a responsibility to speak truth to power and act for the good of God’s world. In the present crisis the national church has been offering help and keeping spiritual services alive, though at a distance, yet has been noticeably quiet in calling the government to account for weaknesses in planning and provision. Should we have been a more ‘prophetic voice’ or has it been right to be patient in order to keep people calm at a time of vulnerability? Would it be right to then challenge and consider blame at a later time? The wisdom of spiritual patience in any situation finds the right time to act, intervene, speak out or remain silent. All of these are possible ways to be true to Christ in various issues in life.
44 KINDNESS - Fruit of the Spirit 5
We often use the word ‘kind’ to just mean mildly benevolent. But the word ‘kindness’ [‘crēstótēs’ in Greek], as used in the context of Galatians 5, has a much more powerful intention. It meant ‘excellent’, ‘true’, ‘a good example of its kind’, ‘genuine’, ‘useful’, ‘honest’, ‘morally upright’, ‘worthy’, ‘respectable’, ‘good-hearted’, ‘following the righteousness and goodness of activity of God’. The Greek word is used to translate several Hebrew terms that described the way God demonstrates his majesty and care towards human beings. God was described as ‘kind’ many times in the Hebrew Scriptures: [e.g. Ps.18:50; Isa.54:8; Jer.9:24]. He directed the growth of his people and “led them with the cords of human kindness” [Hos.11:4]. He shows kindness and grace even towards those who are ungrateful [Lk.6:35; Rom.11:22]. His divine kindness allows space for repentance and change [Rom.2:4]. 1Pet.2:3 quotes Psalm 34:8, relating God’s kindness to that of Christ in his saving of humankind: “You have tasted the kindness of the Lord.”
Christians in exhibiting this form of kindness as part of their character are examples of Christ-likeness, reflecting the character of God in the ways that are most appropriate to the lives and situations in which we live. Romans 3:12 quotes Psalm 14:1 to show that kindness as a human attribute should reflect God’s kindness. Kindness, like love, reflects the true nature, character and message of God to others. Our kindness is therefore a sign of the genuineness, authenticity and sincerity of our faith and discipleship; it is an essential part of our witness. Ephesians 4:32 reminds us that Christ’s kindness should be reflected in the relationships of all Christians to each other: “Be kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake has forgiven you.” This means far more than just having a kindly disposition towards our neighbour. It works positively for the benefit of others.
Such true kindness is quite a contrast to hard-hearted expressions of faith, which too quickly condemn people with whom they disagree, criticise those who they regard as sinners, or hell-fire-and-damnation preaching that does not express humanity or divine understanding towards others. Christians should always be morally upright, set righteous examples and have a responsibility to be a prophetic voice, challenging what is wrong in society and individual lives. But we should do it with a kindness and winsomeness that resemble the qualities, mercy and grace of God. Those who condemn unkindly reflect a wrathful power that is very different from the caring, loving God and understanding Father that Jesus taught and exemplified. Romans 2:4 stresses that God’s kindness towards us is intended to lead us to repentance. Condemning people outright, trying to frighten them into the Kingdom of Heaven and not valuing them as God does, are not the best ways of encouraging people to see light, recognise the attractiveness of a relationship with God, or change their ways. It is far better to treat all with respect and care, pointing attractively to the fulfilling and abundant ways of righteous and spiritual life offered by true Christianity. Christ did give warnings, and expressed anger, at religious hypocrisy especially, but his character, words and activities attracted many. Kindness, like the love it reflects, is an attractive quality.
When Jesus said that his ‘yoke is easy and his burden is light’ [Matt.11:30], the word translated as ‘easy’ is again ‘crēstós’. The phrase in this context means: “my yoke is kind” in the way described above. In the responsibilities and mission with which God entrusts us, we are intended to reflect and exemplify the divine character authentically in our lives and ministry. That is often demanding and challenging work but not intended to be oppressive or burdensome. We are not meant to be mild, mediocre, simpering or pliable in the nondescript way that ‘kind’ and ‘nice’ are often used today. But neither are we to act in the oppressive, dominant way that some Christian institutions and leaders may have done in the past. God-like kindness is, as Ted Hughes wrote of the Cross “the power of power unexercised.” The word ‘kind’ is used in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers to describe the saving work of Christ and God’s activity in creating, sustaining and redeeming the cosmos, bringing it to consummation in the Kingdom. In taking up the Christian ‘yoke’ in our baptismal vows, we make a covenant promise to be physically and energetically involved in this mission. By showing God’s kindness we are part of the healing restoring, sustaining and redeeming of the world that Jesus gave his life to save and which God is transforming into his Kingdom.
This is relevant in many ways to the present crisis in the heath of people and the ecological crisis in the world. When Teresa of Avila said “God had no hands or feet but yours, no ears and eyes but yours; yours are the hands that offer his love... etc.” she was not implying in any way that God may be impotent to act in the world. She was asking us to recognise the loving responsibility with which God entrusts us to serve the world and give Christ’s message and kindness to the world in God’s name, reflecting God’s truth and character. In being ‘kind’ we are bringing God’s Spirit and presence to others. This is a complex and responsible task but it shows the trust and abilities with which God has gifted us as his people and his Church. As the ‘body of Christ’ we are spiritually and physically meant to be an active part of God’s own active kindness towards the world, There is no better time to show this than when people are experiencing crises. We can express God’s kindness, truthfulness, genuineness, usefulness, honesty and practical loving care in so many ways. God’s kindness, like his love does not expect anything in return. Yet through reflecting his love we may contribute to a change in the ways that people regard God, Christ, the Church and the Christian way of life.
45 GOODNESS - Fruit of the Spirit 6
In our normal English usage, ‘goodness’, like ‘kindness and ‘gentleness; are rather non-descript, general words but the intentional meaning of each word in scripture is far stronger. Goodness here: ‘agathōsynē’ means the highest form of good, something that is not just serviceable, but of real practical and effective use, of great value to God and to all. It does not carry as much of a moral meaning as the term used for ‘kindness’, but has the connotation that we are intended to be noble, healthy, strong, beautiful and valuable in every way. Plato believed that such goodness should be the goal of all action and behaviour. Goodness was believed to evoke a state of moral, intellectual and religious wellbeing in others.
Goodness in the Hebrew Scriptures is a characteristic of God, and in people it was regarded as a gift of God that reflected the nature of the God who formed it in us or through us [Gen.3:5]. In the New Testament goodness flows from God to the believer through Christ, whose nature is good. In Romans Paul emphasised that “In everything God works for good for those who love him, who are called according to his purpose” [Rom.8:28]. This may not always be apparent, as in present-day crises, but our own goodness and good actions should be reflecting the nature of God’s outgiving goodness towards others. Christ “created us for good works” [Eph.2:10] and we are exhorted to “bear fruit in good works” [Col.1:10]. This includes “good and fitting behaviour” [Rom.15:14; 2Thess.1:11]. The goodness in our behaviour is regarded as a sign that we belong to Christ and acts as a witness to others [1Pet.3:16, 21], a sign that Christ’s Spirit is developing fruit within us. We are promised that “He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Christ [Phil.1:6]. So though we may be very aware of our sins and failings in the present, we are assured that God will not let go until he has formed us more completely into Christ’s likeness [Rom.8:29; Phil.3:21].
Most people, if you ask them to define what God should be like would probably include ‘goodness’ as a major characteristic. But we live in a world that is regularly disillusioned. People have learned by experience or repute to distrust politicians, bankers, commerce, the media, religions, and even, sadly, church leaders. We therefore have a harder mission to convince the world of the truth and value of Christ’s gospel than at any time since the persecutions encountered by early churches. It is partly the worldwide Church’s fault, since we are often far from reflecting the nature of God. We do not sufficiently resemble what Christ revealed and taught. Could you truly say of yourself or any Christian you know that they are “perfect as their heavenly Father is perfect?” [Matt.5:48]. Or do most Christian organisations or groups honestly appear to strive towards that as their goal?
The principles of ‘goodness’: striving achieve the highest form of good, and being of real use and value to God and to all, should lead the church to seem ‘noble’, ‘healthy’, ‘strong’, ‘beautiful’ and ‘valuable’ in every way. Churches may strive for high a degree of excellence in their music, liturgy and preaching as their human abilities and resources will allow. We may look after our buildings and finances. But each individual Christian’s personal discipleship and knowledge of faith is rarely so determinedly striving towards the highest form of good. We often allow ourselves to get away with a mediocrity of faith and discipleship, which we would not accept in other areas of our lives or work. Paul talks of “striving” in his mission; in his letters the prayers for those to whom he ministers impress one by his sense of commitment and care for them. He talks of training himself in holiness and mission like an athlete subjecting his body to intense training to win the prize of salvation for himself as well as others [1Cor.9:24-27]. Similarly he spoke of making our bodies and our lifestyles, like our worship, as a “sacrifice worthy and acceptable to God.” [Rom.12:1; Phil.4:18]. This is taken up in Eph.5:2 and 1Pet.2:5. The highest form of love and care given by God deserves and should receive the highest form of discipleship and worship in response.
We may have God’s Spirit alive inside us as believers, but we are often leaking vessels and need constant refreshment and refilling. Ps.34:8 calls us to ‘Taste and see that the Lord is good”; Heb.6:4-5and 1Pet.2:3 talk of us having “tasted the goodness of the Lord.” The more we remind ourselves of what has been achieved for us, the more likely we are to respond to the goodness of that taste, like savouring and appreciating a fine wine. Jesus criticised the religion of his day as having lost its useful qualities “like salt that had lost its taste” [Matt.5:13; Mk.9:50; Lk.14:34]. “How”, he asks, “can it be made good again?” That was the purpose of his ministry, which we now are meant to continue. We are to be “salt to the earth” and bring restoration towards the highest form of good.
46 FAILTHFULNESS - Fruit of the Spirit 7
Faithfulness [pistis] does not just refer to the extent of our faith and beliefs, or our faithfulness to God or other people. It is a wider term, implying that all these qualities grow from the authenticity of our relationship and commitment to God and others. The God to whom Jesus witnessed and exemplified was a force who could be trusted because God was powerful enough for anything, personally cared about Creation, especially human beings and especially those with whom covenant promises had been made. Jesus emphasised that although God had contracted covenant promises with the Jewish people, a close relationship with God was not exclusive to the Jews and he commended the faith of several gentiles like the Roman centurion [Matt.8:10; Lk.7:9; Jn.12:20;]. Most of the worldwide Church now consists of gentile Christians who have been brought into God’s covenant relationship [Heb. 8&9; Eph.2:12 and Gal.3:17]. The trust relationship with God that Christ introduced is available for all. His ‘Great Commission’ to his followers before leaving earth was for us to teach that faith to all nations and baptise believers into it [Matt.28:19]. Faithfulness includes being faithful to that call. Christ commends ‘trustworthiness’ in God’s servants: [Matt.25:21-23; Lk.19:17].
We live in a fairly untrusting world, amid many untrustworthy situations and untrustworthy institutions. It was probably worse for the ordinary people to whom Jesus ministered. In the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly in Psalms, people’s faith convinced them that they could put their trust in God. In the Gospels Jesus often encouraged people to have ‘faith’ in God and in him: “have faith and do not doubt… Ask in prayer with faith” [Matt.21:21-22]; : “According to your faith let it be done to you” [Matt.9:29]; “if you had faith the size of a grain of mustard seed...” [Lk.17:6]; “Your faith has saved you” [Lk.7:50; 18:42]. This word ‘pistis’ was not confined to religious beliefs; it primarily meant ‘firmly persuaded’, ‘assured’, ‘convinced that something or someone is trustworthy’. Surprisingly neither words for ‘trust’ nor ‘faith’ are used in John’s Gospel, where the divinity of Christ is most strongly represented. Instead the writer emphasises 47 times that his testimony is ‘true’ [Jn.19:35; 21:24], giving proofs of Christ’s miraculous nature to encourage faith in one who taught and exemplified truth and perfectly reflected a trustworthy God.
In the Synoptic Gospels ‘faith’ and ‘trust’ are almost synonymous and often translate the same word. ‘Faith’ there has little to do with the abstract set of convictions, beliefs or doctrines that churches now define as ‘the faith of the Church’. Scriptural faith is the trust than relates us to God. When Thomas recognised the risen Christ, his trust in the experience expanded his faith to believe not just that Jesus was alive, but he took the further leap of faith to proclaim Jesus as “my Lord and my God!” [Jn.20:28]. We should be wary of requiring experiences before we believe. Since the Enlightenment, that has been a major stumbling-block to belief. Jesus told Thomas “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe” [Jn.20:29]. Yet it is encouraging when we do recognise evidences and answers to prayer that encourage and strengthen our faith. At the heart of Christianity is belief in a spiritual truth and security which we cannot prove, yet strongly sense that we can trust: ‘Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the knowledge of things unseen’ [Heb.11:1].
If we create a living, active, trusting, spiritually truthful church we can exemplify faith to outsiders more than a body which keeps its faith to itself. In a sceptical world it is challenging to make our lives, community, liturgy and witness truly reflect the true God. We have to overcome years of unfortunate experiences by our truthful witness, but thankfully God is far more effective in convicting, trustworthy and powerful than human failure. Tales of saints include some who ‘trusted God to provide everything they needed.’ Jesus encouraged his followers (first the twelve disciples [Matt.10:5-14, then seventy [Lk.10:1-20], then us [Matt.28:18-20] to trust God for their support and effectiveness when he sent them out on mission. In a modern economic world this may not be practical. St. Paul trusted God and believers to help support of his mission but he also worked at a profession in order not to be a burden to any [Acts 18:3; 2Cor.12:14; 1Thess.2:9; 2Thes.3:8]. He urged other Christians to act in the same way, so that church might support those with true needs [1Tim.5:16]. We should never believe that just because we have faith God will look after us and answer all our prayers and needs, despite Jesus’ teaching about ‘faith as small as a grain of mustard seed’ [Matt.17:20]. God’s wisdom always answers prayer in the ways that are ultimately right and best for all. Our own work is usually art of the answer to our prayers.
The disciples trusted God to help people listen and respond to their message, to convert and work miracles through them. But they did not always find it easy. In one struggle with the cure of a child Jesus showed them that they did not have the spiritual power in themselves and were always dependant on God’s will. The child’s father, when asked whether he believed a cure possible, gave one of the most poignant, meaningful responses about trusting God in all scripture: “I believe, help my unbelief!” [Mk.9:24]. Perhaps that should be our prayer far more often, where we, as modern, thinking believers feel tempted not to pray for situations which we believe are beyond even God’s intervention, rather like present crises. Jesus talked about ‘the prayer of faith’ to which he assured people God would respond [Matt.21:22]. However we know from experience that not all prayers, especially those for healing, are always answered in the ways that we would most like. Family and friends die; the disabled remain so; believers are not always protected from mishap or disease. Yet the covenant relationship which we have with God encourages us to still pray and trust.
‘Faith’, claims St. Paul, is both a fruit and a gift of God’s Spirit. When the disciples asked Jesus: “increase our faith” [Lk.17:5], they were perhaps expecting him to perfume a miracle within their minds. Instead, Jesus seems to tell them to ‘reach for the impossible’; ‘exert the type of faith that can move trees or mountains’ [Lk.7:5; Matt.17:20; 21:21; Mk.11:23]. I don’t think that Jesus was here telling us to go out and perform impossible miracles. Rather, I believe his words encourage us to practically ‘get on with the life of faith’, trusting God and involving him in all our needs. Jesus’ response to the disciples’ request for him to teach them to pray was the Lord’s Prayer [Lk.11:1-4; Matt.6:7-13]. This sort of faith recognises the priority and holiness of God (”hallowed be your name”). It asks for God to bring about his rule of righteousness, not just in believers’ lives but “on earth as in heaven”. It asks no more than what we need for today “our daily bread”. Faith recognises our sin and debt to God and others; it forgives others as we have been forgiven by God and wish others to forgive us. Trusting faith asks to be protected from anything we cannot bear “deliver us from the time of trial, temptation and from evil.”
Jesus emphasised that when he had left his followers, the Holy Spirit would be their ever-present trustworthy guide into all truth and in their mission, convicting others of God’s truth [Jn.14:16-19; 16:7-15]. “When the Spirit of truth comes he will guide you into all the truth...” [Jn.16:12]. The Holy Spirit would teach his followers what to say when they were called upon to witness. [Lk.12:12] and help them remember what Christ had taught them [Jn,14:25]. They could trust God’s Spirit, as they had learned faith from Jesus, and could trust him to bring them to life: “Because I live in you, you will live.” [Jn.14:19]. That is the sort of trusting faith that we need to develop for effective Christian living. Our own faithfulness to God and to others is our covenant response.
47 GENTLENESS - Fruit of the Spirit 8
The word ‘gentleness’ in the New Testament [praǘtēs], is also translated ‘meekness’ in several other biblical passages. When Jesus said ‘blessed are the meek” [Matt.5:5] he was not declaring that we should be mouse-like and subserviently submissive; he wanted people to be strong in faith and active but not arrogant towards God or towards any others. Meekness acknowledges the greatness and the gracious will of God yet reflects God’s mercy and gentleness in our use of power. Jesus’ humility and lowliness were a result of having his heart fixed on following his Father’s will, not on pleasing or advancing himself. His entry into Jerusalem on the colt [Matt.21:5] was a peaceful sign of his gentleness as a leader, reflecting the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9: “Lo your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and rising on the foal of a donkey.” His victory and triumph were brought about by gentleness. Jesus said of himself “I am gentle and humble of heart.” [Matt.11:29]. St. Paul (not someone one would call self-depreciating or weak) said of his own mission “we were gentle among you” [1Thess.2:7]. Jesus, Paul and so many of the disciples were strong, effective and active in their ‘gentleness’. The writer of Ephesians 4:2 recommends “humility, gentleness, patience, forbearing love and unity” as part of “living a life worthy of the calling to which we have been called.” None of these are signs of weakness. The Greek term ‘praǘtēs’ was used of even strong animals that are tame or of mild character. It was also used of pleasant people like good judges and leaders who may be in powerful positions yet are kindly, friendly and lenient towards others.
In the Hebrew Scriptures gentleness was praised as a quality ‘pleasing to God’ [Sirach 1:27] and an antidote to arrogance [10:28]. The lowly keep God’s commandments [Zeph.2:3] and show piety and expectancy, receiving humbly from God [Isa.26:6; Ps.76:9f; 37:9f]. James1:21 contrasts gentleness with anger, and calls us to “welcome with meekness the implanted word, which has the power to save our souls”. This encourages us to listen to God’s Spirit speaking not just through scripture but through others and through the intuition, conscience and wisdom which the indwelling Spirit lights within us. James 3:13 says that the gentleness of our works is “born of wisdom” and a spiritually inspired gift, as the ‘fruit of the Spirit’ implies.
Gentleness is not self-regarding or self-promoting. It recognises the value of others, shows concern for them and raises their value in comparison to us. “Esteem others as better than yourself” said [Phil.2:3]. This does not mean debasing ourselves in any way, but ‘loving others as ourselves’, valuing them as we value ourselves. Paul claims that meekness has its basis in love and is in no way weak [2Cor.10:1; 1Cor.4:21]. 2Cor.10:1 calls on people to imitate the meekness and gentleness of Christ. Col.3:12 combines it with ‘compassion, kindness, humility meekness’ and 1Cor.4:21 encourages people to ‘love in a spirit of gentleness’.
Later in Galatians the writer encourages the church to restore people to fellowship “in a spirit of gentleness” [Gal.6:1] because we recognise our own weaknesses with humility and should not be arrogant towards any. 1 Pet.3:4 admires the beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit and the writer encourages us to “defend the faith with gentleness” and correct those who disagree with us “with gentleness and reverence” [1 Pet.3:16]. How different from the antagonistic or sarcastic arguments and retorts so prevalent today, which can cause social unrest and distrust! 2 Tim.2:25 suggests that as a result, the gentle are more likely to convince or convert others to the Christian way.
This call for gentle meekness and considerate humanity is an important balance in a world that often promotes aggressive, dominant leadership that is negatively critical of opposition. Gentle leadership can still be decisive, yet be far more considerate towards the variety of people and opinions in society. The Church has sometimes been criticised for the exclusivity of its claims and its inhumane treatment of those with whom it disagrees, or those it regards as sinners. This was certainly true in past history. If we learn from the mistakes of past Christians and exhibit the gentleness of Christ, we are more likely to create a believing community with a truer faith and worship, acting in ways that are closer to God’s intention. Christ-like gentleness provides a far more persuasive witness than intimidation.
The gentleness of Christ is our model, not an interpretation of gentleness or any of the fruit of the Spirit that is weak or an easy push-over. If we believe that our faith is true and that the ways taught by God can build the most fulfilling life, we should be offering a persuasive witness. Jesus didn’t hold back; he spoke out against wrong and taught what is right but rather than being negative or oppressive, he demonstrated a far more attractive belief and lifestyle. This was a positive contrast to the legalistic Pharisees and Sadducees. Christianity is not a weak faith; it provides a way of life that is active, positive and fulfilling. It shows us when we act in mistaken ways, but provides more life-enhancing alternatives. It is rightly judgemental of evil and wrongdoing, as Christ is, but true Christianity is gentle and lenient, while being just in the ways it responds to those who do wrong. Gentleness recognises that all are in the same boat as us, and treats others as we would want to be treated ourselves. It ‘forgives others as we have been forgiven’, without condoning wrong. Gentleness is humane because it recognises the condition of humanity, just like Christ, who as High Priest deals gently with us. The Church believes in ‘the priesthood of all believers.’ A true priesthood, modelled on Christ, “is able to deal gently with the ignorant and wayward because he himself is subject to weakness.” [Heb.4:14- 5:2].
It is a useful spiritual exercise to imagine what the world, the Church and our individual lives and relationships would be like if we all treated one another as God treats us and as Jesus treated those he met. This would greatly change relationships and attitudes. It would unite people, make all strong, not undermine any, encourage truth and honesty, and discourage self-centred personal, national or corporate advance. It would probably advance all by bringing greater cooperation, equity, justice, peace and so many more social advances, through the love and care of all. The quality of gentleness reflects this care for all: It is not a submissive, self-deprecating or obsequious lowliness that encourages some to raise themselves over others. Instead gentleness recognises that we are all responsible for supporting each other under the authority of God.
48 SELF-CONTROL - Fruit of the Spirit 9
What I wrote about myself over ‘Patience’ is also true of the spiritual struggle for ‘Self-Control’. We all probably know the war within us between the will of what Paul calls the ‘Flesh’ and ‘the Spirit’ [Rom.7:14-25]. The Christians who I know who appear most holy are often those who often appear most self-controlled. Those who appear most self-indulgent are often those who I find most difficult to recognise as closely following Christ’s ways. I recognise many areas of lack of self-control in my own life, even though I may have the outward appearance of being mild. Many of us will recognise areas of our lives where we lack self-discipline. But it is also easy to be unaware, or to justify ourselves and our failings.
There is a difference between being ‘self-controlled’ and being emotionally ‘cold’. I’ve come across several Christian leaders whose ministry I find hard to warm to because they seem inhumanly controlled and organised. I know others who appear self-indulgent and don’t allow themselves to be spiritually disciplined. It is far too easy to justify self-indulgence or sin by claiming that “I am only human,” or that “I am what I am”... “what you see is what you get”. But greater self-control would build more a more fruitful and Christ-like example and leadership in all of us.
The word for ‘self-control’ in New Testament Greek is usually ‘enkráteia’, the opposite of ‘akrasía’ [self-indulgence]. Both words share the stem ‘krat’ which means ‘power or lordship’. So self-indulgence ‘allows the self to be lord’, self-control is ‘dominant over the self’. Self-control can bring about steadfastness and self-composure; self-indulgence may seem steadfast at times, but may show its true self-centred nature in situations of pressure. Socrates and Aristotle regarded self-control as one of the cardinal virtues which allowed people to be ultimately free through exercising self-restraint. It was highly valued in the ethical and religious teaching of the Essenes, a prominent, pious Jewish religious party in Jesus’ day, who criticised the Sadducees for self-indulgence. It is commended in several apocryphal writings [Sir.18:30; Wis.8:21; 4Macc.5:34]. Jesus does not mention it specifically in his teaching, but his life demonstrated considerable self-control, and he encouraged discipline in other ways.
Paul compared his spiritual disciplining of himself to that of an athlete training to win the prize of salvation, primarily for those to whom his mission was directed but also to ensure that he did not stray from the path himself [1Cor.9:25]. He earlier wrote of the need for sexual self-control [1Cor.7:9]. This disciplining of body and mind is not like that of a modern body-builder trying to impress others or themselves by their physique. It is orientated towards being fit for purpose, useful and strong enough in faith, mind and spirit to be effective in mission and in life.
Self-control is an underlying theme but not a major aspect of New Testament teaching, probably because the emphasis of biblical Christian teaching was on allowing God to be in decisive control. There is no room for autonomy of human power in scripture. This is an important consideration in the contemporary Church, which is often dominated by church politics, the economics of church-finances and survival, various mission and giving strategies, and refers frequently to secular business and leadership styles. Leaders in training are often encouraged to find the style that best suits their personality and preferred ways of working, rather than encouraging all to primarily follow the leadership model and character of Christ. While we may learn partially from many of these business principles the Christian Church should not be regarded as a secular business; God has entrusted us with different, more universal priorities and responsibilities. We need to remember that while our plans are part of our exercise of responsibility, human control and strategies do not build the Church or God’s Kingdom. That is the work of God’s Spirit! Secular priorities are often not those of God. A church built on secular foundations may seem strong in human terms, but is not primarily spiritually founded, just as someone converted to Christian belief just by human argument is not entirely spiritually converted. A self-disciplined Christian life-style is valuable in giving us time for prayer, study of our faith, worship, fellowship, witnessing, work and rest. But it essentially needs true, quality time for being with God; we must remain open, listening for God’s Spirit to move and communicate. If we are over-organised we may be insensitive and miss the needs of God or others. We may even appear cold and unspiritual to those outside to whom we want to witness.
True self-control in our spiritual and physical lives is a fruit of God’s Spirit, where it allows God to be in control and to guide us. It is linked in the New Testament to another Greek word ‘sōphronismós’, which is used for ‘self-discipline’, ‘discretion’, and ‘moderation’ but literally means “making understanding or wise”. When Jesus healed a demoniac, the man was left ‘in his right mind’ [‘sōphronoǘnta’ Mk.5:15], meaning that he was no longer in the control of others, but controlled by his own senses. Paul defended himself, when accused of maniacal preaching, by claiming that he was preaching what was true, “rational” and “disciplined” [‘sōphrosýnēs’ Acts 26:25]. He encouraged the Roman believers to think of themselves with “sober judgement” [‘sōphroneín’ Rom.12:3]. 2Tim.1:7 speaks of God giving us a spirit of power, love and ‘sōphronismós’ or ability to regulate and discipline our lives holily. 1Tim.4:3ff encourages “moderation” as our response to the ambitions of the world and our desire for possessions. Titus 2:2 includes self-discipline and self-control among a long list of virtues, which might also be regarded as fruits of the Spirit: “being temperate, serious, prudent, sound in faith, love and endurance... encouraging each other to self-disciplined, sound, worthy and holy conduct; reverent in behaviour, discouraging slander, not enslaved to drink or other appetites, teaching what is good; chastity, good management of the household, kindness, submissive, modelling good works and good sound teaching, integrity, gravity, sound speech that cannot be censured, giving satisfaction to those for whom we work, respectful, honest, demonstrating fidelity and being true ornaments who show God in a good and truthful light.” So self-control and self-discipline in scripture are not really about being in charge of ourselves, but controlling our wills, lives and actions to allow God’s ways to flourish and God’s Spirit to guide us.
Like so many others in the list of fruit of the Spirit, ‘self-control’ puts others, especially God and what is good before oneself and one’s personal wishes or personal ambition. Human beings are designed to flourish on earth but we do so by being wise stewards of God’s world and God’s people, not by domination and destruction. St. Paul reminds us, “We are not our own... therefore we should glorify God with our bodies” [1Cor.6:19-20].
49 FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT - CONCLUSION
I began these studies recognising that the nine fruit of the Spirit mentioned in Galatians are not exclusive. Several other qualities of spiritual fruit have been mentioned as we’ve explored the nine. If you consider the character of Christ you’ll find many other characteristics which we pray that God’s Spirit will develop in us as we allow ourselves to be transformed into Christ-likeness. Other passages of the New Testament are useful to suggest further aspects of the Christian character. I would recommend exploring the characteristics of Christ’s followers mentioned in the following chapters: Rom.8; 12 to 15:6; 1Cor.10; 12; 13; Eph. 4-6; Col.2-3; 1Thess.4:1-12; Titus 3; Heb.12-13; 1Pet.1:13-23; 2:11f.; 4; 1Jn.3-4. All of these passages expand our concept of what God’s Spirit aims to develop within us. They include ‘Unity’ [Eph.4:1], ‘Confidence’ [2Cor.5:6f], ‘Generosity’ [2Cor.8:8], ‘Freedom’ [Col.2:6-19], ‘Speaking Truth’ [Eph.4:25], ‘Honest Hard Work’ [Eph.4:28], ‘Being Encouragers of One Another’ especially in our language and example [Eph.4:29], ‘Humility’ [Phil.2:1f.], ‘Shining as Lights in the World’ [Phil.2:12-18].
I guess that, like me, many or probably all of us, often allow our own personalities and desires to overpower the work that God’s Spirit wants to develop in us. St. Paul said that “if anyone is in Christ they are a new creation; the old has passed, the new has come” [2Cor.5:17]. But unfortunately we all tend to hold onto several of the bad habits of our former selves, or the strength of our character, like St Paul’s, wrestles with the desires of the Flesh, often outweighing the gentle influence of Christ’s Spirit [Rom.7:14-25].
We are all different, of course, with variations of character and abilities. Some are more extrovert, or introvert, activist or passive, impulsive or meditative, sensitive or unaware, interested in particulars or consider generally etc. All our different types are needed for an effective working Christian community that has the ability to communicate with the whole world. But for the body of a church to work together authentically as God intends, we also all need to follow the way of Christ with integrity and grow in ways by which we display the fruit of his Spirit. This includes allowing his Spirit to continually refresh us. It is easy to become stagnant in faith. Regular church attendance, keeping to a spiritual discipline like daily reading scripture, studying our faith and being uplifted by devotional literature, alongside our daily times for prayer, are all useful in our spiritual development. But we can also challenge ourselves by occasionally changing our habits: reading works that offer different perspectives on faith, not just our favourite authors or themes; exploring the Hebrew Scriptures as well as the New Testament; trying new experiences that might uplift us spiritually and expand our faith; studying new aspects of our faith. Just as we grow healthy by having a varied diet, we grow spiritually by varying our spiritual nourishment. However, it is also possible to go too far the other way and change our spiritual nourishment as often as some change clothes according to fashion. Heb.13:9 and Eph.4:14 warn against constantly seeking new, spiritual experiences like running after butterflies; this can make us unstable or diffuse our energies too much. There is a constancy and stability about spiritually secure Christians which makes them personally strong to withstand the difficulties of life, and enable them to be strong foundations or buttresses for a church community.
Christ is the foundation on whom the whole Church is built, and Christ’s character and activity is the model on which all our individual and corporate lives should be built. Jesus called us to “be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect” [Matt.5:48]. Achieving that seems impossible, but imitating Christ is possible. How we live out the serious responsibilities with which God entrusts us will differ for every one of us. But to succeed, Christ calls his followers to allow ourselves to be transformed by his Spirit and to challenge others, bringing the best out of all. To be true to God’s call, none should be weak in discipleship or weak in our understanding, teaching and learning; no church or individual Christian should be un-Christ-like. The Bible suggests that God made human beings to be the pinnacle of Creation. Christ died to make transformation and restoration by his Spirit possible. God’s Spirit indwells us to give us the power for transformation. With God’s perfection to guide us, as exemplified in Jesus and guided by his teachings how can any Christian be content with a mediocre response to God’s grace and love?
None of us will ever achieve perfection or Christ-likeness in this life; we will never see the fully- realised Kingdom of God in our present world. But we can build our faith wisely to work at improvement; to fulfil our potential, allowing God to increase our spiritual enthusiasm and effectiveness. We can help God’s Spirit’s work by extra focus on prayer, exploring our Bibles and challenging Christian books to deepen our understanding and faith, worshipping with increased integrity and fervour, living out our faith, encouraging other Christians and being encouraged by them. All these are incentives to more faithful Christian living but there is no substitute for spending substantial and quality time in the presence of God asking God to reveal truth and being open to receive, learn and be guided. We have time during this period of social distancing to focus on quality time with God. Imitating Jesus in character, action and in prayer could transform us, the Church and our world!
The fruit of the Spirit and the qualities called the ‘armour of God’ in Ephesians 6:10-18 give us principles to work towards. All mature Christians should aim to, as that ‘armour’ described in Ephesians reminds us: ‘stand firm in our faith, secure that we have the truth, living righteously, prepared in any situation to share our faith, bringing the peace of Christ to others, feeling secure in Christ’s gift of salvation, thoroughly knowing the Word of God which his Spirit has given to empower and teach us.’ If we work at all these with God’s Spirit’s help, as with the fruit of the Spirit, there will be nothing mediocre about our faith or the way we live it out.
As the body of Christ we can encourage one another to be Christ-like and fulfil the work Christ calls us to do. That is the purpose of being one body. I’ve heard the activity of many churches compared to a football match - ‘thousands of people who desperately need to exercise, watching 22 people running their socks off who desperately need a rest!’ When we all aim to grow in faith we work together better as a Church, spiritually enthused by each other, recognising Christ’s transformation in each other. No Christian or church must remain static. Imitating and following Jesus and letting his Spirit grow the fruit of his character in us leads to spiritual growth and effective mission. We’ll never convince the world of Christ’s transforming truth if transformation isn’t seen in us. May God guide us all towards meaningful, prayerful, loving and transformational fruitfulness!
50 APPENDIX I: UNDERSTANDING AND DEALING WITH ARGUMENTS MADE AGAINST THECONCEPT OF CHRIST’S RESURRECION
We should not promote the idea that Jesus was raised from the dead without taking seriously the arguments that have been made against it over time, particularly since the Enlightenment. We live in a sceptical world, so should be aware of the difficulties that many have with the Christian faith. Orthodox doctrines like the Resurrection, which seem convincing to many Christians, or which we take for granted, are often not so clear or believable by thinking people who try to delve into mysteries that will never be fully understood. Many people today have not been brought up to believe. Some consider that the Christian faith is based on fairy-tales, naïvety or wishful-thinking. Considering the arguments against belief in Christ’s Resurrection should help to strengthen one’s faith. If we question the basic doctrines in order to understand what may be true within them, we do not just develop a more reasoned apologetic, but underpin the foundations of our beliefs in ways that may support us when problems, trials or emotional upheavals might otherwise undermine them. The Resurrection, like so much in the Christian faith is a mystery, but even though we may not ever be able to fully explain it, exploring it, as I have tied to do in the studies of the Resurrection appearances can help to clarify our thoughts and our certainty. “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the assurance of things unseen.” [Heb.11:1].
The main argument against the Resurrection has always been that ‘miracles do not happen.’ People do not rise from the dead. So, if Jesus had truly died, as seems almost certain, since Roman executioners know their business, he cannot have come to life again. Of course, if there is an omnipotent God, that factor completely changes the argument, since by definition, anything is possible for such a force. But for those who consider God an improbability, or unlikely there must be some other explanation for the rise of the belief that Jesus returned from death.
The most likely explanations have been considered in the above study:
- The body was stolen.
- The body was moved.
- Those who went to the tomb went to the wrong location.
- The disciples invented the story.
- Those who believed that they met the risen Christ were mistaken.
- They had some form of hallucination.
- Someone pretended to be the risen Jesus and fooled the others.
- In the emotional heat of having lost their leader, Jesus’ former followers were confused and developed irrational beliefs.
- Jesus had not died on the cross, but merely swooned into unconsciousness and revived in the cool of the tomb and under the pungent effect of the spices.
- Someone revived and healed Jesus, yet hid what they had done and told no-one.
- Someone faked the grave-clothes to make it appear that the body had miraculously transmogrified through them.
- Though Jesus of Nazareth was a real man in history, the Gospel records of his Resurrection are recounting an entirely fictional, invented or false story.
I consider that I have discounted most of these arguments in the former studies, but to summarise:
- The body was stolen. Who would do it? Why would the disciples want to keep the body of one they loved, if it had been given a salubrious entombment in the capital city of their nation? They might have wanted his remains to be near them in Galilee, but could never have afforded him such an honourable grave and it would have been difficult to transport a decomposing body such a distance without it being discovered.
- The body was moved. The disciples wouldn’t have done this. So the most likely culprits would have been the owner of the land or the religious authorities. In both cases they would have revealed its whereabouts when the stories of the Resurrection began to circulate.
- Those who went to the tomb went to the wrong location. If this had been the case, someone would have been able to immediately direct them to the right site and removed the misapprehension.
- The disciples invented the story. We are told that the disciples did not understand the parts of Jesus’ teaching that promised he would return. This claim could of course be part of the invention, to hoax readers of the Gospels into believing that the disciples could have had nothing to do with the deception. But then, why invent a story that Jesus had risen from death in the first place? There was no contemporary belief that people, even the Messiah, would physically rise and be seen on earth after death. Since the Maccabean revolt the belief had strengthened among many (though hot the Sadducees) that martyred heroes of faith would receive rewards in heaven after death. But a physical return to earth after achieving the salvation of his people was not even envisioned for the Messiah. In fact, it was not believed by most that the Messiah would die. The Suffering Servant of Isaiah and the idea that he would be buried among the rich, was not necessarily related to the concept of the Messiah.
If the disciples had invented the whole story of the Resurrection of Jesus, it is unlikely that they would have endured as much suffering as they were willing to undergo in the mission to pass on Jesus’ teaching. If the really did consider by the time of Jesus’ death that he really was the Messiah, the one sent by God to change the world, it is just about possible that they could have invented Resurrection stories to give credence to their mission to further his message. But what would be the point if the Messiah was not considered by the culture to be one who would die? Would you continue with such a mission under extreme hardships, persecution and martyrdom if you knew that you were promulgating falsehoods?
- Those who believed that they met the risen Christ were mistaken. This is of course possible; grief does strange things to the mind.
- They had some form of hallucination. (same counter-argument as above).
- Someone pretended to be the risen Jesus and fooled the others. Again this is possible, though it is unlikely that such a hoax could be perpetrated for long, without being found out. It would account for the idea that so few witnesses are described as recognising Jesus immediately. But the hoaxer would have had to go to extreme methods to reproduce the wounds of flaying and crucifixion on his body. Who would want to undergo such damage to their body to create evidence for a lie. And how could he have stages certain miracles especially the Ascension?
- In the emotional heat of having lost their leader, Jesus’ former followers were confused and developed irrational beliefs. Many of people develop irrational ideas after bereavement. We might think that the loved one is still with us in spirit. In our sleep we might dream that one we care for is still with us, and dreams can sometimes feel physical. We might imagine what it would be like if someone had not died and imagine that they could still be with us. But such imagination often lasts for a very short duration and people are brought back to reality in the cold light of day. Very few would develop the delusion that their lost one had risen from death and was still with them. If they did carry such delusions, others would try to help them to accept the reality of the situation, not perpetrate the false belief. It is highly unlikely that a delusion would affect such a large number of people as those who are meant to have encountered the risen Jesus. Mass-illusion is possible, but it is hard to imagine that it would last for long, even if people had been swept along by the emotion of the moment. Certainly it is unlikely that a faith based on such an illusion would last for generations: it would be more likely to dissipate rather than expand.
- Jesus had not died on the cross, but merely swooned into unconsciousness and revived in the cool of the tomb and under the pungent effect of the spices. This is almost impossible. The flaying prior to crucifixion would have weakened him almost to the point of collapse. The blood-loss and torture of hours on the cross would have further weakened his body. The Roman soldiers knew how to execute with awful cruelty and would have known very well when someone was truly dead or not. The spear thrust though his side would have confirmed that he was dead. Pilate had asked for assurance that he was dead before releasing the body to Joseph of Arimathea. So, even if somehow Jesus had survived all this, he would have been certain to have expired after three days in a cold tomb.
- Someone revived and healed Jesus, yet hid what they had done and told no-one. Most of the argument against this is contained in the passage above. But who would have had such skills? Some of his women followers might have had some medical skills, but not those to heal the wounds of such torture.
- Someone faked the grave-clothes to make it appear that the body had miraculously disappeared through them. This is a lot of trouble to go to and it is unlikely that a hoaxer would have bothered to think about it. The cloth and the expensive spices wrapped within it, were of more worth than the body, so it is unlikely that a thief would have left these behind.
- The Gospels are recounting an entirely fictional invented or false story. Again this is entirely possible and is the belief of many sceptics today
None of these explanations actually prove or disprove the reality of Jesus’ Resurrection, but on balance I believe that the evidence for the Resurrection answers more questions than the arguments against it.