Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!topaz!christian From: christian@topaz.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.religion.christian Subject: Re: Questions on Christianity Message-ID: <9120@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Wed, 11-Feb-87 03:51:05 EST Article-I.D.: topaz.9120 Posted: Wed Feb 11 03:51:05 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 12-Feb-87 00:03:30 EST Sender: hedrick@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU Lines: 190 Approved: christian@topaz.UUCP This is a response to some of the issues raised by Vasu Murty recently. It is in addition to the letter by Charles Hedrick, which I enjoyed and highly recommend. I will attempt to refrain from extended discourse, but instead state points succinctly, considering that this group is moderated. Vasu, I enjoyed your letter and respect your questions. I believe you are truly looking for answers, and I will try to be a resource to you. I apoligize for the attacks you have suffered from Christians. I hope that this letter does not have that tone, but if it does in any way, please let me know. First, regarding the differences in the gospel accounts of the resurrection, I would just like to briefly state that they are like four stereo soundtracks, each slightly different from the others, but together giving a much greater depth and reality than a single account could have. Now, I am not such a Bible student that I can answer all of your questions here about the differences. I will give what I can, but I don't know all the answers. However, may I suggest that the points you raise are actually fairly small and tangential to the main thrust of the story? I don't mean that they are unimportant, at least for establishing the veracity of the observers, but they are not central to the main event of the resurrection. Do you understand what I am trying to say? I do not want to evade your questions, and I will try to answer them as best I can in a moment. But I want you to have a sense of proportion, of perspective, and to see that we are discussing details, not themes. A) At what time in the morning did the women visit the tomb? In both the Mark and John accounts, the tense of the Greek verb translated "came" is the historical present. The following is from the New American Standard Bible: "In some contexts the present tense seems more unexpected and unjustified to the English reader than a past tense would have been. But Greek authors frequently used the present tense for the sake of heightened vividness, thereby transporting their readers in imagination to the actual scene at the time of occurrence." Most translations will indeed translate these historical present tense verbs as past tense. But here, if one considers the picturing of the women *coming* to the tomb, then is it not possible that they began their walk to the tomb while it was still dark, and by the time they had gotten there, that the sun had just risen? Also, in the Luke account, the tense of the Greek is past tense, and the time given there is "at early dawn" (Luke 24:1). B) Who came? Well, at least everyone agrees Mary Magdalene was there! Actually, it appears to have been a group of women of those who followed Jesus (Luke 23:55) and I expect that each of the various gospel writers named only some of the women involved. Thus I would suggest taking the union of the various sets, and leaving room for possibly others as well. No gospel says that Mary the mother of James was NOT there! C) Was the tomb opened or closed when they arrived? I think that it was open. In the Matthew account, it says that at the time they arrived, an earthquake had already occurred, and that this earthquake was a consequence of an angel of the Lord coming down from Heaven and rolling away the stone. It does not specifically say that the women saw the rolling away of the stone, but that the guards did, and were terrified. (Wouldn't you be? :-) Presumably the writer of Matthew learned of this event from the guards talking about what they had seen. "And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it." (Matthew 28:2, NASB). Keep an eye out for those tenses, they can really test you! D) Whom did they see at the tomb? I believe that it was two angels, and that one spoke to the women. Angels apparently can look very much like men, and some people are said to have entertained angels unaware (Hebrews 13:2, Genesis 18:1-3). So the use of "man" or "men" should be taken to describe their appearance, not their nature. As for the number, as in question B above, it appears the Matthew and Mark accounts only mention one, but there could have been another one there that they do not write about. I would not be surprised, by the way, if these were the same angels that appear at Jesus's ascension, in Acts 1:10-11. E) Were these men or angels inside or outside the tomb? Inside, I think. The description of the angel in Matthew rolling away the stone and sitting on it I believe happened before the women arrived, and by that time, the angels had gone inside the tomb. F) Were they standing or sitting? Well, this is one I can't answer. Could it be that they were sitting when the women entered, and later stood, or vice versa? Does it really matter? Actually, I don't think the Matthew account makes the angel stand or sit necessarilly at the time the women enter, and the John account refers to a later entry of Mary Magdalene to the tomb after Peter and John had visited it. So the only reconciling need be between Mark and Luke. I told you I didn't have all the answers. G) Did Mary Magdalene know Jesus when he first appeared to her? No, not immediately, although after He greeted her and called her "Mary!" she knew Him (John 20:16). The brevity of the Matthew account probably precluded the detail about her delayed recognition of the Lord. Well, I hope that helped the discussion. Now I would like to return to the primary question, which is the distinction of Jesus's resurrection as compared with all others. As Vasu stated, the Resurrection of Jesus is of primary importance to Christians. Why, considering "by the time Jesus rose from the dead, this had become a rather common occurrance"? Well, hardly an everyday bit of news, but it had occurred several times before. The virtue of the resurrection of Jesus is shown in that it has several differences from these others: 1. Unlike the others, Jesus did not die again later. This was mentioned by Vasu, but not connected as an implication of a better resurrection. 2. Jesus when raised had his glorified, transformed body. He now had superior abilities to those of the body He had when crucified. This body was capable of passing through locked doors without opening them (John 20:19) and of rising through the air (Luke 24:51). Lest He seem too much like a spirit and not a man, let me stress that He also ate fish with His disciples after He was resurrected (Luke 24:42-43, John 21:12-15). This kind of glorified body is promised to all believers, and is described in 1 Corinthians 15:35-57. 3. The resurrection of Jesus declares Him to be indeed who He said He was, the Son of God, in a way distinct from and superior to all other men. (Romans 1:1-4) It is a declaration by God's power that the Father endorses not only the words and deeds of Jesus, but also the special quality of His Sonship. If Jesus had not pleased the Father, if Jesus had been a liar or a madman, God who honors the humble and honest would not have raised Jesus from the dead. 4. Other than the saints being raised at the time of Jesus's death and the man who touched Elisha's bones, all the other resurrections occurred because some man of God prayed that they would rise. But there was no such prayer at Jesus's resurrection. It was purely a demonstration of the Father's will. Please note that the appearance of Samuel was his spirit, without a body, and he did not continue on the face of the earth. Also, the appearances of Moses and Elijah with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration were not resurrections, and they went back to heaven afterwards. As for the saints who came out of the tombs at the time of the crucifixion, without pretending to know exactly what was happening let me just say that the fact that these resurrections were also not prayed for attests to the special nature of Jesus's death, that it was accompanied by such an outpouring of restored life. If you asked me for an explanation, I would say that it appears that the age-altering power of Jesus's sinless sacrifice on the Cross, breaking the power of death and sin over men, exploded in the spiritual arena and spilled over into this realm like sparks spun off from a fireball, breaking the power of death over many who had died and were buried locally. 5. Jesus's resurrection was prophesied long before; see Psalm 16:10-11 and Isaiah 53:10-12. The others were graces given by God at the time, but the resurrection of Jesus had significance that the prophets had forseen and welcomed. 6. Jesus's resurrection opens a door for us who believe in Him. As we identify ourselves with Him, by accepting Him as our Lord and Savior, we also identify ourselves with His death and resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:20-26) This is a very profound truth which I forsee may be difficult to understand, but I will try to describe it as clearly as I can. Jesus taught that all men would someday come out of the graves and be judged by God for the things that they have done in this life (John 5:28-29). So in some sense all men have a resurrection coming. But those who have trusted in Christ will not be condemned by the Father, for the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross has already paid the punishment for their sins (John 5:24). So their resurrection is not to condemnation, but to an expanse of new life and opportunity. It is as we humble ourselves and let our pride and self-sufficiency die, as Jesus died on the Cross, that we can become child-like enough to enter the Kingdom of God, and to rise up in newness of life, just as Jesus was raised to new life. The resurrection of Jesus holds not just a declaration of God's favor upon one man, but also by implication God's favor upon all who identify themselves with that man. And just as Jesus was raised by God's power out of the grave, we also who have taken Him as our Lord are promised the same power to bring us up out of all that holds us captive, all that holds us down, both the inevitable darkness of physical death and also the personal darkness of a sick and wounded soul and body. For the resurrection of Jesus becomes our experience, as a hope of Heaven someday and also a certainty of a changed life today, with power available to mend broken bones and broken hearts, miraculously. Vasu, thank you for posing some truly valuable questions. I really enjoyed doing this bible study, and hope it is helpful to you. I realized that I had asked myself some of those questions about the various accounts of the Resurrection a while ago, but just pushed the questions away without considering them in depth. Thank you for the prompting! Peter Homeier ______ Arpanet: homeier@aerospace / o \_/ UUCP: ..!ihnp4!trwrb!aero!homeier \___)__/ \