|
ALLEGED
CONTRADICTION NUMBER FOUR: Do Jesus’ Resurrection
appearances conflict with one another?
31. Was Mary
Magdalene the first person to visit the tomb as John
implies or did the other women accompany her as Matthew
and Mark state?
The seeming
contradiction between John and Matthew and Mark can be
resolved by assuming all the women were to meet together
at the tomb and were on their way when the events
happened. Therefore, Matthew and Mark are correct in
referring to them as a group on their way to the tomb. If
Mary arrived a bit earlier than the rest, then John’s
account is correct. If the stone was rolled away and Mary
looked in and found the tomb empty, it would be reasonable
to conclude that she would leave immediately to tell Peter
and John. This is what the Apostle John says happened.
After Mary
left, her other companions arrived at the tomb. The angels
appeared to them, delivered their message, whereupon they
left and ran to tell the disciples. So Mary was the first
person to reach the tomb.
32. If Jesus
appeared to Mary first (Mark 16:9), why is it that after
informing Peter and John, she stays at the tomb and begins
to weep?
(See Q. 33)
33. If Mary
were the first to see Jesus, why does she tell the angel,
"They have taken my Lord and I don’t know where they have
laid Him"?
These questions
are answered if we follow Mary’s journey after she meets
Peter and John. When Mary finds John and Peter, they start
off for the tomb (John 20:3). Mary lags behind. Peter and
John reach the tomb, look in, see the grave clothes lying
where Jesus’ body was laid. John believes. They both leave
the tomb (John 20:10). Finally, Mary reaches the tomb.
By the time she
arrives, the disciples have already left, and she has not
been told what Peter and John have concluded. Up to this
point she has not seen any angels or the Lord. So she
stands by the tomb all alone and in frustration begins to
weep.
She looks into
the tomb. At that point, the angels appear to Mary and ask
her why she is weeping. She replies, "They’ve taken the
Lord out of the tomb and we don’t know where they’ve put
him."
Jesus then
appears to Mary and in her confusion, she thinks He is the
gardener. Jesus makes Himself known to Mary in the
conversation and she recognizes Him as her Lord. So Mary
is probably the first one that Jesus appeared to. She then
leaves to go and tell the good news to the disciples.
34. Do Mark and
Luke conflict in their reports about the disciples on the
road to Emmaus?
Luke records
the appearance of Jesus on the road to Emmaus seven miles
away from Jerusalem (Luke 24:13-36). The two men in his
account return to Jerusalem only to discover the people
present already believe in the Resurrection. The people
are saying, "It is true! The Lord is risen and has
appeared to Simon" (Luke 24:34). At that point the two men
who had just returned tell of their own experience with
the risen Jesus on the road to Emmaus.
The critics,
however, claim Luke contradicts Mark who says, "And they
[the men on the road to Emmaus] went away and reported it
to the others, but they did not believe them either"
(Mark 16:12-13).1
Which account
is correct? Did the disciples believe in the Resurrection
or not believe it? First, we need to understand that the
persons exclaiming, "The Lord has risen and has appeared
to Peter" were not the apostles themselves. They
were the "others who were with them" who came to inform
the apostles that Christ was resurrected (Luke 24:33).
These other individuals had believed in the
Resurrection because they had just witnessed Christ
personally. But the ones they were telling this to in the
room had not yet seen Jesus and therefore did not
believe them.
Mark’s appendix
agrees with the Apostle John that Jesus appeared to Mary
Magdalene (Mark 16:9; John 20:14). Mark then records Mary
went and reported to the disciples that she had been with
Jesus while she was mourning and weeping at the tomb.
What was the
reaction of those who heard Mary? Mark tells us in Mark
16:11, "And when they heard that he [Jesus] was alive, and
had been seen by her, they [the disciples] refused to
believe it."
Next, Mark
records Jesus’ appearance to the two men walking in the
country along the road to Emmaus. These men return to
Jerusalem and report to the others. What happened to Mary
happened to these two men. Mark records, "They [the
disciples] did not believe them either" (Mark 16:13).
If we carefully
examine what Luke says about these events, we will see he
agrees with Mark. Luke records that after the two men
recognized Jesus on the road to Emmaus, "They returned to
Jerusalem, and found gathered together the Eleven and
those who were with them, saying, ‘The Lord has really
risen, and has appeared to Simon.’"
The key issue
is: Who is Luke speaking about when he says, "And those
who were with them"? This reference must be to Mary (Mark
16:10-11) whom they had earlier refused to believe and
probably the other women who had seen the angels and the
resurrected Lord (Matthew 28:5-10).
Luke only tells
us the Eleven were "listening" to those people who had
come to them, who were with them and testifying, "The Lord
has really risen." Nowhere in Luke’s account does
he say the Eleven actually believed what the others were
telling them. How do we know this?
There is clear
evidence that indicates the eleven disciples did not yet
believe in the Resurrection. While this entire group is
gathered together, Jesus Himself appears to them and
rebukes them for doubting His Resurrection. Luke records,
"they [the Eleven] were startled and frightened, thinking
they saw a ghost" (Luke 24:37). Jesus encourages all of
them to "Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and
bones as you see I have." And even then, Luke records,
"They still did not believe it because of joy and
amazement" (v. 41).
Mark records
these words, "Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they
were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and
their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him
after He had risen" (Mark 16:14).
In conclusion,
when Mark reports that the disciples in Jerusalem did not
believe Mary, nor did they believe the two men from the
road to Emmaus, he must be telling the truth. Luke does
not contradict Mark’s report concerning the two men on the
road to Emmaus.
35. How can
most of the alleged conflicts be easily resolved?
By now it
should be obvious that most of these questions are
answered simply by constructing a plausible sequence of
events that shows the accounts do not contradict each
other. We would like you to consider this account given by
Noval Geldenhuys which is just one of many reconstructions
that answers many of these questions:
Very early on
the Sunday morning the resurrection took place, the
earthquake followed, the angel descended and rolled away
the stone (Matthew 28:2-4), and the guards of soldiers
fled (Matthew 28:11).
A little
later Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and
Salome hastened to the sepulcher while another group of
women followed with the spices. Mary Magdalene reaches
the sepulcher first, sees that it is empty and
immediately goes to inform Peter and John (John 20:1ff).
The other
Mary and Salome approach and see the angel (Matthew
28:5). Thereafter the other women with Joanna among them
come along; they see the two angels and receive the
message that Jesus has risen (Luke 24:1ff).
In the
meantime Mary Magdalene reaches Peter and John, and they
hasten to the sepulcher (John 20). Mary also follows
them again and arrives at the sepulcher after the others
have already departed.
She weeps at
the sepulcher (John 20:2ff) and sees the two angels, who
ask her why she is weeping. After this she sees Jesus
himself (John 20:14).
In the
meantime the other women had gone to the other disciples
and told them their experiences. But their words were
regarded as idle tales (24:11) until Peter and John
confirm them.
When the
women were afterwards probably again on their way to the
sepulcher, Jesus meets them (according to the true text
of Matthew 28:9, which simply reads: "And behold, Jesus
met them and said...").
Later in the
day the Savior appeared to Peter alone (Luke 24:34 and 1
Corinthians 15:5), toward evening to the men of Emmaus,
and a little later to the whole group of disciples, with
the exception of Thomas (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-24).
A week later
he again appeared to the disciples, including Thomas,
who was convinced of the certainty of the resurrection
(John 21:1-23).
And during
the 40 days before his ascension the Lord also appeared
in Galilee to the seven disciples at the Sea (John
21:1-23) (obviously the Galilean disciples, especially
after Jesus’ command that they should go thither, left
Jerusalem after a few weeks for Galilee).
He also
appeared to the five hundred of his followers in Galilee
(as a result of the command of Mark 16:7 they would
probably, after the reports concerning Jesus’
resurrection had been brought to them, have assembled
spontaneously in expectation of his appearance). When
Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 15:6, most of the five hundred
were still alive as living witnesses of the fact of the
resurrection.
From Acts
1:3,4, and from the whole history from the commencement
of Christianity, it appears that during the 40 days
before his ascension Jesus often appeared to his
followers and spoke to them about many things in order
to prepare them as builders of his church.
Toward the
end of the 40 days he no doubt commanded them to go to
Jerusalem and to remain there until the promise of the
Holy Ghost should be fulfilled.
After their
return to Judaea the Savior also appeared to James (1
Corinthians 15:7) and to the apostles (Luke 24:33-53;
Acts 1:3-12); and after his ascension he appeared to
Paul near Damascus (Acts 9:3-6, 1 Corinthians 15:8) and
again in the temple (Acts 22:17-21, 23:11).
Also Stephen,
the first martyr, saw Jesus after his resurrection (Acts
7:55). Last of all, the Savior also appeared to John,
the gray-haired exile on Patmos (Revelation 1:10-19).
Thus we have
a mighty cloud of witnesses that Jesus has indeed arisen
as the Conqueror over the grave, death and hell, and
lives forever!2
But even though
most of the apparent problems can be resolved by supplying
a chronological sequence of events, we must remember there
are times when this is impossible simply because we do not
have sufficient information.
As Geldenhuys
observes, the Gospels are primarily accounts of the
apostles’ preaching about Jesus. They are not complete
biographies. Because of this fact, we are not entitled to
demand that they supply us with an exact, detailed, and
chronologically connected narrative of all the various
events they discuss. Geldenhuys writes:
When we are
faced with assertions (sometimes of a very arbitrary
character) that the Gospels contradict one another as
regards the particulars of the resurrection-appearances,
we should bear in mind that the Gospels give such a
condensed and selective account of the resurrection that
no one knows whether the episodes described in one
Gospel are the same as those mentioned in one or more of
the others.... And because we know so little of the less
important particulars of those events, we are unable to
see how the various narratives fit into one another. In
any case, all the Gospels proclaim the main facts and
leave no doubt as to the certainty that Jesus did arise.3
36. Did Jesus
appear in Jerusalem or only on a mountain in Galilee?
We must
remember that there were at least twelve separate
appearances of Jesus after His Resurrection from the dead.
Michael Green succinctly outlines the major Resurrection
appearances for us:
The Gospels
profess to give us only a selection of events in the
Jesus story (John 21:25) but even so there is an
impressive list.
•
Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene
(Mark 16:9; John 20:1-18),
•
to the two Marys (Matthew 28:1-10),
•
to Simon Peter (Luke 24:34; 1
Corinthians 15:5),
•
to the disciples on the road to
Emmaus (Luke 24:13-31),
•
to the Eleven and other disciples
(Matthew 28:16-20; Luke 24:36-49; John
20:19-23; 21:1-14; Acts 1:3-9; 1 Corinthians 15:5-6),
•
to Thomas (John 20:24-29),
•
to James (1 Corinthians 15:7),
•
to Joseph and Mathias (Acts 1:22ff),
•
to five hundred people at once (1
Corinthians 15:6),
•
to Peter and John together (John
21:15-24),
•
to Nathanael and some other disciples
on the lake (John 21:1-14),
•
and to Paul (Acts 9:4ff; 1
Corinthians 9:1; 15:8).
Taken
together, these appearances to individuals and to
groups, to men and to women, in country and in town, in
the upper room and by the open lake, on the road and on
the hillside, constitute testimony to the resurrection
that needs to be taken very seriously indeed.4
Now in
answering the critics’ questions concerning these
Resurrection appearances, let us remember that the mere
fact that Jesus appears in different places to different
people is hardly a contradiction in itself. On any given
day, each one of us appears in different places to
different people. Given these twelve Resurrection
appearances which took place in various locations to
numerous individuals and groups, it should not be
surprising that four independent writers would select some
details and not others.
The first thing
apparent is that all four accounts do agree that the
Resurrection did, in fact, happen. Second, these accounts
give every evidence of frank and honest reporting. There
is no cover-up, and even the doubts and skepticism of the
apostles themselves are laid bare as part of the record.
If the disciples had wanted to make up stories, they would
have left out these unflattering remarks about themselves.
If four
contemporary TV reporters covered similar events, what
problems would they face that were also faced by those
writing the Resurrection accounts?
If four
reporters covered a key battle during the war in Vietnam,
or filed reports on the election results and key political
speeches made by leaders in East and West Germany, or
covered a serious airplane accident involving three
airplanes which landed in two different locations
(including weather reports), or wrote reports on a
Presidential visit to twelve European cities, each of
these four reporters would select different material,
emphasize what he thought was really important, and leave
out what he did not have time to report or judged was not
as important as other material. If this is true for
contemporary reporters, why is it that the accounts of the
four Gospel writers concerning twelve Resurrection
appearances would be any different?
If there merely
appeared to be a contradiction between the accounts
of our contemporary newsmen, would we not assume that no
contradictions existed because of the many different
details involved? And finally, wouldn’t we assume our own
lack of knowledge of the events covered and in light of
that, not accuse them of lying for seeming contradictions
merely because we cannot resolve them immediately?
Concerning the
different locations in which the accounts say Jesus
appeared, how can these be resolved to remove any charge
of contradiction or error? Lilly discusses the problem and
supplies plausible answers for why Jesus made the
appearances He did:
The chief
difficulty relative to the recorded appearances is the
place or places where they occurred. According to Saint
Matthew our Lord appeared to the holy women at
Jerusalem, and to the disciples in Galilee at the
mountain which he had appointed them....
Mark mentions
no appearances at all, but in the appendix there is
mention of several appearances which, however, are not
localized.
Saint Luke’s
recorded appearances all took place in or near
Jerusalem, while Saint John tells us of appearances
which occurred both at Jerusalem and in Galilee.
Another
difficulty is the command of Christ, delivered to the
apostles through the holy women, to go to Galilee; that
there he would see them. This seems to be inconsistent
with the appearances which he granted them the very
evening of his resurrection at Jerusalem and at Emmaus.5
It is
certainly true that Jesus appointed Galilee as a
rendezvous for the disciples. His first intention may
probably have been to have the Apostles leave the
hostile atmosphere of Jerusalem for the much more
tranquil territory of Galilee, where he would show
himself to them and give them his final commission.
But the holy
women delayed to report the direction to the Apostles,
and when finally the message did reach them, they
remained incredulous, labeled the report contemptuously
"idle tales."
The only way,
at least the most effective way, to overcome this
incredulity was for Jesus to appear to the Apostles
directly, establish faith in their minds as to the
reality of his resurrection and prepare them for the
final and more important appearances in Galilee. I say
more important because it was during these that Jesus
imparted the great commission....6
Lilly proceeds
to discuss the manner in which each apostle’s method and
purpose accounts for the material included or deleted:
We must bear
in mind the particular method used by each Evangelist.
Father Buzy in this connection says: Matthew’s method
"is to pass over facts not pertinent to his plan, and to
group in a synthetic picture the facts he considers
indispensable to his purpose. Since the Evangelist’s
purpose is not to recount the doings of the Apostles
during Easter week at Jerusalem, he is content with
presenting us the disciples back in Galilee." Thus he
omits the Jerusalem appearances entirely but by no means
denies that they occurred.
Saint Luke’s
plan both in the Gospel and in the Acts, as is well
known, is geographical. Accordingly he conducts Jesus
and the Apostles through Galilee to Jerusalem. There it
concludes the story of Jesus, and there he leaves the
Apostles, to present them to us again in his second
volume, the Acts.... We understand perfectly well why,
according to the geographical plan, he does not concern
himself with the Galilean appearances, but sums up and
localizes at Jerusalem all the post resurrection
utterances of Jesus which the Gospel’s plan and purpose
require.
There is
therefore no well-founded objection against the
historical accuracy and trustworthiness of the Gospel
accounts of the events connected with the resurrection.
There is a natural and satisfying explanation of each of
the pretended inconsistencies in the four-fold
record,—satisfying for anyone who is willing to be
satisfied and is not obstinately determined to reject
the historic reality of the resurrection of Jesus out of
blind devotion to a philosophic postulate.7
Now we shall
examine some of these same criticisms as presented by
contemporary critics.
37. Do the
Resurrection accounts involve clearly contradictory
historical traditions as critics such as John K. Naland
maintain?
Why does John
K. Naland say that the Gospel writers totally disagree on
where they saw Jesus?8
In his article
on the Resurrection accounts in Free Inquiry Naland
refers to the "clearly contradictory historical
traditions—one placing all post-crucifixion
appearances in the Jerusalem area, the other placing them
in the region of Galilee."9
In this
article, Naland admits that all four Gospel writers agree
that someone experienced a risen Jesus. However,
"the...thing the sources disagree on is who, when, where,
and how—which is quite a bit. They agree on what? That
someone experienced a risen Jesus. But they totally
disagree on what it was, when it was, where it was.…"10
Naland implies that when Luke says Jesus appeared on
Easter in Jerusalem and Matthew says Jesus appeared
on Easter in Galilee, then this is a contradiction.
Notice he says that Luke places all Resurrection
appearances in Jerusalem, whereas Matthew places them all
in Galilee.11
38. Why does
Hugh J. Schonfield believe the Gospel writers contradicted
each other in citing where Jesus appeared to them?
Hugh J.
Schonfield in his book, The Passover Plot, is
another critic who claims the accounts conflict. He
writes:
According to
Luke...the "appearance" to the apostles is in the Judean
tradition.... This is at variance with the Galilean
tradition followed by Matthew.... In the Judean
tradition Jesus positively identifies himself to the
apostles in Jerusalem.... We may regard the information
as in the highest degree questionable in view of the
rival record in Matthew, which suggests that the
apostles did not see Jesus in Jerusalem....12
Answering the
Charges Made by Naland and Schonfield
Should Jesus be
limited to appearing in only one location?
The Apostle
John records about one of the appearances of Jesus, "This
was now the third time Jesus appeared to his
disciples after he was raised from the dead" (John 21:14).
Luke records in his second book, Acts, that "He also
presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many
convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of
forty days and speaking of the things concerning the
kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3). From these two authors we can
see that there were many separate appearances of Jesus to
the disciples. Isn’t it a little absurd to demand Jesus
appear in the same location over a 40-day period?
Matthew not
only gives a Galilean appearance (Matthew 28:16), but he
gives a Jerusalem one as well (Matthew 28:9). John has
both Jerusalem and Galilee appearances (John 20 and 21).
Luke certainly gives Jerusalem appearances but in his
second book, Acts, he shows he is not unaware of Jesus’
other appearances in different places over a 40-day
period. Mark records the message of the angels, "Go tell
his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going before you into
Galilee. There you will see him....’" (Mark 16:7). In
brief, the evidence goes against Naland and Schonfield’s
assertion that there are rival traditions.
If the critics
force Matthew and Luke to say Jesus could only
appear in Jerusalem or Galilee, then of course, they would
contradict each other. But neither of them sets limits on
Jesus’ appearances, nor demands by what they say that
Jesus cannot appear in some other geographical location.
Michael Green
shows that each of the authors did not place Jesus’
Resurrection appearances in only one geographical
location:
But are there
such major diversions in the accounts? The one most
commonly adduced seems to me the weakest of all. It is
the claim that in Matthew (and by prediction in Mark
16:7) you get appearances of Jesus in Galilee; whereas
in Luke and John you get appearances in Jerusalem. But
this objection is totally jejune.
Matthew does
indeed give a Galilee appearance, but he gives a
Jerusalem one as well, by the tomb itself (28:9f).
Luke
certainly gives Jerusalem appearances, but then in his
gospel he offers us a continuous narrative from the
resurrection to the ascension in highly compressed
style, and he has a clear theological emphasis on
Jerusalem as the centre from which world mission spreads
out until it takes over Rome itself.
Though he
selects Jerusalem resurrection material, that does not
mean he is unaware or skeptical of Galilean appearances.
He tells us that Jesus "presented himself alive after
his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during
forty days" (Acts 1:3), so he affords plenty of
opportunity for appearances to have taken place in both
locations.
John has both
Jerusalem and Galilee appearances (ch. 20, 21), and both
are implied by Paul’s list which includes appearances to
Peter and to James (manifestly in Jerusalem), to five
hundred (manifestly in Galilee) and to himself (in
Syria). Why on earth not?13
39. Are the
Gospel writers uncertain in detailing where and when Jesus
appeared after His Resurrection?
The following
citation in the Gospels illustrates that the writers were
anything but uncertain saying where and when Jesus
appeared. Mark says in 16:9, "Now after He had risen early
on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary
Magdalene." The Apostle John agrees. John 20:14 says, "She
turned around and beheld Jesus standing there...." Verse
18 says, "Mary Magdalene came announcing to the disciples,
‘I have seen the Lord’ and that He had said these things
to her." In brief, both Mark and John agree.
Also, as we
have already shown, there is no contradiction between
Luke’s account of Jesus’ appearance to the two men on the
road to Emmaus and the same event recorded in Mark
16:12-13.
No one
contradicts John’s clear depiction of Jesus’ appearance to
the Apostle Thomas in John 20:26-31.
Luke in Acts
1:3 asserts Jesus presented Himself over a period of 40
days to His apostles. From reading all of the accounts,
Jesus’ appearances fit in well with these words.
In 1
Corinthians 15:5 Paul says, "He appeared to Cephas
[Peter], then to the Twelve." This fits in nicely with
Mark 16:2-8 where we find the angels instructing the women
to tell Peter and the disciples Jesus "is going before you
into Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He said to
you." Both of these accounts agree with what Luke says in
24:34, "The Lord has really risen, and has appeared to
Simon." Another appearance is recorded in John 21:15,
where "Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon, Son of John, do
you love me more than these?’ He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord,
you know that I love you.’"
Peter himself
is adamant in declaring in his own epistle, "For we did
not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to
you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we
were eyewitnesses of His majesty" (2 Peter 1:16).
These are just
a few of the specific, clear, non-contradictory accounts
given of the Resurrection appearances of Jesus. They do
not conflict concerning time or place or any other
criteria.
40. If Jesus
really appeared to the disciples, why did they go fishing?
(See Q. 41)
41. If Jesus
really appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem, why would
He have to appear to them again in Galilee?
John K. Naland
represents many critics when he asks, "If Jesus really
appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem, why would they go
back to Galilee and start fishing again?" And why would
Jesus appear to the disciples again in Galilee?14
Initially, some
of the disciples did not believe in the resurrected Jesus,
even after He first appeared to them (Matthew 28:17). If
some were skeptical and doubted what their own eyes had
seen, it is very reasonable to assume that they would have
retired to such an activity as fishing to try and sort
things out. Even those disciples who saw and believed
would be shaken by the implications.
Why would Jesus
appear to the disciples in Jerusalem and at other times in
Galilee?
There are many
possible reasons why. First, perhaps Jesus might simply
have had a lot to tell the disciples as the Scriptures
imply (John 16:12; Luke 24:27, 45). Second, the disciples
might have needed the time between appearances to digest
and think through what Jesus was telling them. Third,
Jesus may have wanted to appear in other locations to
other disciples not present at the time He appeared in
geographical areas closer to Jerusalem.
In the four
Gospels we are told of eleven apostles and a large number
of other disciples of Jesus who lived in other towns and
places. It is obvious that not every disciple was in
Jerusalem when Jesus first appeared. It seems Jesus
appeared to some disciples first in order to instruct them
to inform others of the next time and place He would
appear. How else would they have known? That’s why some of
the disciples who were in Jerusalem may have gone on to
Galilee, not only to meet Him there, but to tell others
that He would be there.
That’s why the
objection over the different appearances in different
geographical locations is in fact the weakest objection of
all.
42. Do the
Gospel writers agree they saw the same Jesus or did they
see a different Jesus?
Bishop Spong
claims the Gospel writers conflict because they do not
describe Jesus the same way in every appearance. He
asserts:
Was it the
resurrected but not yet ascended and glorified Lord who
appeared, or was it the resurrected, ascended Lord of
heaven that they experienced alive? Paul clearly implies
the latter. Mark says nothing but hints that it will be
the ascended, glorified Lord they will meet in Galilee.
Luke argues that all resurrection appearances ceased
with the ascension....
For Luke, it
was the risen Lord who, after appearing to his
disciples, ascended into heaven; and it was the ascended
Lord now united with the Father who poured the Holy
Spirit out on the gathered church at the day of
Pentecost.
Matthew
implies that it was the resurrected but not yet ascended
Lord who confronted the women in the garden, but that it
was the ascended, glorified Lord who possessed all
authority and power who met them and commissioned them
on the Galilean mountain top. John says that the
resurrected Lord appeared only to Mary Magdalene ("Touch
me not for I have not yet ascended."), but it was the
resurrected, ascended, glorified Lord who appeared to
the disciples and breathed on them, imparting the Holy
Spirit, and inviting Thomas to examine his body....15
One sometimes
wonders at the extent to which intelligent men will go to
find contradictions in the Scriptures. The "issue" Bishop
Spong has raised here is not even an issue. There is no
reason why Christ could not have gone to heaven several
times throughout the 40-day period of His appearances
before finally ascending into heaven.
According to
John, Jesus told Mary not to keep touching or holding onto
Him because He had not yet ascended. Then He adds
for her to tell His disciples, "I am returning to
my Father and your Father" (John 20:17). The fact that
Jesus later invited the disciples to touch Him (Luke
24:39) would indicate He had ascended to heaven and
returned. How many times Jesus did this is not known, but
why should anyone imply He couldn’t have done it if He
wanted to?16
Further, the
accounts are in absolute agreement that every appearance
of Jesus to every disciple or group of disciples concerned
the same resurrected Christ. A few appearances
apparently occurred before His first ascension and the
remainder apparently occurred before His final ascension
40 days later.
But Spong makes
five entirely arbitrary distinctions concerning Jesus:
"the resurrected, ascended Lord of heaven" vs. "the
resurrected but not yet ascended and glorified Lord" vs.
"the ascended Lord now united with the Father" vs. "the
resurrected but not yet ascended Lord who confronted the
women in the garden" vs. "the ascended, glorified Lord who
possesses all authority," etc.17
Certainly these words describe the activities of Jesus,
but why should we think Jesus became a different person as
a result of doing these activities? These are all
arbitrary and useless descriptions for the purpose of
creating false contradiction in the Gospel accounts.
Notes:
1
It should be noted that Mark’s appendix, 16:9-20, is not
found in the earliest manuscripts.
2
Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 627-628.
3
Ibid., pp. 626-627.
4
Michael Green, The Empty Cross of Jesus (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984), p. 114, formatting
added.
5
John Lilly, "Alleged Discrepancies in the Gospel
Accounts of the Resurrection," Catholic Biblical
Quarterly, Vol. 2 (1940), pp. 109-110.
6
Ibid., pp. 110-111.
7
Ibid., p. 111.
8
John K. Naland, "The First Easter: The Evidence for the
Resurrection Evaluated," Free Inquiry, Spring
1988, pp. 16-17.
9
Ibid., p. 16, emphasis added.
10
The John Ankerberg Show, unpublished transcript of a
debate between Dr. John Warwick Montgomery and John K.
Naland, televised April 1990, p. 43.
11
Naland, p. 16.
12
Hugh J. Schonfield, The Passover Plot (New York:
Bantam Books, 1969), p. 171.
13
Michael Green, The Empty Cross of Jesus (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984), p. 120.
14
Naland, p. 44.
15
John Shelby Spong, The Easter Moment (San
Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1987), pp. 129-130.
16
Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982), p. 350.
17
Spong, p. 129.
|
