The first verse of this chapter takes us to the first day of the week. Nothing is mentioned of the Sabbath or of the Passover. Too many people just rush through the verse on their way to the next verse. I want to stop and ask questions. I want to study the details others rush past. One such detail is the three-day period that Jesus was in the grave. The Bible gives us a three-day period in order to make a connection between Jesus and Jonah who spent three days in the belly of a fish. Jesus was interred on the evening of the day of preparation before a High Sabbath of the Passover feast. Jewish days ran from the evening to the morning. Going to the morning of the Sabbath is only one day. Going to the morning of the day following the Sabbath is only two days. To have a full three days, Jesus would need to be in the grave from the evening of the preparation day (a Friday as the Sabbath fell on a Saturday) to the morning of Monday. Verse one has us at the first day of the week and therein lies a problem to simple logic. The Jews consider Sunday to be the first day of the week.
I will leave that for others to hash out. I want to turn my attention to Mary Magdalene, a very persistent character in the story of Jesus. She was said to be with him from the beginning of his ministry. If memory serves, Jesus' ministry began at or around the wedding at Cana. Information on Mary is limited in the Bible but every instance of her in the story of Jesus gives off the vibe that she was more important than the scriptures record. I see it in the little details like her being with Jesus' mother at the crucifixion and being present at the burial. That she was the very first to his grave after the Sabbath reeks of importance. I have to ask, where was she staying during that time? I have to ask, what state of mind was she in that caused her to be out before the sun came up? Had she lost sleep? Was she distraught? I suppose other disciples and apostles were distraught at the death of their master but none of them were up before the crack of dawn. I can picture Mary walking in the dark with a small lamp. But why her? Mary rushing to the grave at the earliest possible opportunity speaks of personal feelings that go beyond the distress of an apostle without a master.
There are four versions of Mary going to the grave and the John version is the only one that has her going alone. Still, in verse two, when she runs to Peter with the news, she uses the expression “we know not where they have laid him,” indicating a consensus rather than a solitary opinion. In the three other gospel versions, Mary goes in the company of other women. In two of the three other versions, the women have prepared spices to anoint the body of Jesus. Those two versions raise some rather serious questions. First, I must ask, how did they presume they could roll away the stone? Were two or three women sufficient to the task? Second, I must ask, why would there be a need to anoint the body of Jesus a second time? Joseph and Nicodemus are recorded in John 19:39-40 doing that at the time of the burial, “And there came also Nicodemus . . . and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred-pound weight. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen cloths with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.”
It would be great to know more of the facts. Why did Mary run to Peter, for example, and not to Andrew? Why were Peter and the unnamed disciple whom Jesus loved hanging out together? Where were they staying? Where were the other disciples? How far did Mary have to run to reach them on that dark morning? If the unnamed disciple was John – didn't he take Jesus' mother to his home? Was the mother of Jesus there somewhere? If we recall, when Jesus came down to the Passover, with those who came with him, he went to the house of his friend, Lazarus, to stay. Were he and his disciples lodging with Lazarus? Was the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene staying at the house of Lazarus? Had all of the early morning running taken place on the Mount of Olives between the Lazarus home in Bethany and the graveyard on the same Mount of Olives?
In verses three through eight, those two disciples ran to the grave but it is not mentioned, at this point, that Mary went with them. Let's take a look at the race of the two disciples. One of them was faster than the other and arrived first at the grave. What does that suggest? It might be a clue that Peter was older. It might be a clue about the disciple that Jesus loved. His racing so hard to get there speaks of the love that was reciprocated. It might speak of a deeper relationship or one that was more long-standing. If that disciple was James, the brother of Jesus, we are clued in to a deep brotherly love that speaks of more than cousins. If that disciple was Lazarus, we are clued into a long-standing love for the entire Lazarus family of whom it was recorded in the Bible that Jesus “loved” them.
So, the beloved disciple arrived first at the grave but did not go in. Perhaps he was heavily winded. Perhaps he was afraid. If it was Lazarus, perhaps it was a moment of wonder and reflection as he, himself, had risen from the dead and he found himself enthralled in the epiphany of the power of God over physical death. When Peter arrived, he went in and the unnamed disciple followed. Now, we come to details that bear the weight of credibility. Jesus rose from the dead and both disciples saw a linen cloth that the body had been wrapped in. When I say wrapped, I mean with the arms inside. I mean wrapped tightly to hold the spices close to the body. It is rather like a straight jacket in that it would be extremely difficult to get out of without assistance. The author worded it thus, “and seeth the linen clothes lie.” That suggests that the linen was still in the place where it should have been – just empty. When people pen in the little details it is because they are impressive. The face cloth is mentioned for that reason. It was not where they might have expected it to be. It was set aside – and it had been folded. How many scenarios can we imagine where the linen is where it should be but the face cloth has been folded and set aside?
That was just one of the details. This is the other detail: the beloved disciple followed Peter into the grave and saw what Peter saw first. When he saw it, he believed. Let's jump way back to a point when Jesus confided to his brothers. In chapter seven of John, Jesus walked in Galilee. For a time, he avoided travel into Judaea but the feast of tabernacles was at hand and it was one of the three feasts that required Jews to be physically present in Jerusalem. I bring this up because the unnamed disciple all of a sudden believed. Seeing is believing. Right? Well, Jesus was in Galilee with his brothers. They mocked him. They mocked his ministry and what he hoped to achieve. Obviously, they knew what that was or they would not be able to mock him. In not so many words, they told him to get off the pot. They told him, if you want to make a name for yourself, you can't do that hiding here with us – go. Show yourself to the world. Verse five of that chapter explicitly states, “For neither did his brethren believe him.” Was James that unnamed disciple?
Back to chapter twenty and verse nine. It states, “For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.” Well, what had Jesus been teaching them for three years? The core twelve disciples were steeped in such teachings. As Jews who went weekly to the Synagogue, they were familiar with all the prophecies about the messiah. They were present at occasions where Jesus raised the dead and Jesus spoke to them at length during their final meal together about his death and resurrection. Had they simply not connected the dots until they saw the empty grave? James, on the other hand, was a righteous man who later governed the early church in Jerusalem but many scholars agree that he was not initially sold on his brother being the savior.
Verse ten. “Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.” Their home? Did they live together? Did they have a rented home in or near Jerusalem? Their own home speaks to me of Capernaum where they actually owned homes but the plural is not used. The singular 'home' is written. If that was not an idiom of the writer or a mistake of the interpreter, then I am left to believe that the two men lived in the same dwelling. Peter and his brother, Andrew, lived together in Capernaum. If, however, we are not considering a long trek to Capernaum, we are left to consider a local lodging that is identified deliberately as “their own home.” It is possible that they hired a room somewhere but when the running to the grave is taken into account, it seems unlikely that they were in Jerusalem. That would have been a really long run and if Peter was an older man, he might not have done well to run such a distance.
There is, on the other hand, a real possibility that they stayed in Bethany. That was a small town or city. There may have been accommodations to be had for a coin or two. I am still at a place in my thinking where the grave location seems more likely to be somewhere close to Bethany. Although, I admit the possibility that there was some halfway point between Bethany and Jerusalem where a rich old man had built himself a garden gravesite. However, to be buried in a virgin grave set alone does not quite fulfill the prophecy that the Messiah would be buried with the rich. There could have been a private garden with graves set aside for the priests and council members but they hardly qualify as rich. I say this to point out the fact that there was a nearby graveyard with many graves of the rich and renowned. It was within walking distance.
And, then, there is this from https://alt-arch.org/en/graveyard_metropolis/
Kidron Valley Antiquities
The burial monuments in the Kidron Valley, at the foot of the Mt. of Olives, are considered the grandest and most unique of Jerusalem graves. These monuments have been recognized as part of the landscape surrounding the Old City for thousands of years. The Pillar of Absalom is in our day the most prominent edifice in the Kidron Valley, easily recognizable through its singular architecture: a round dome set on a square structure. Beside it, we find the Tomb of Benei Hezir and the Tomb of Zecharia. These tombs are excavated in the rock; their facades resemble free-standing structures, and they enclose much more space than that necessary for burial.
Verse eleven brings us back to Mary. She had followed the two disciples back to the sepulcher. After they left, Mary remained. She stood outside the open grave and cried. If she was the only one there, who recorded the event? Did Mary tell this part later? As she cried, she stooped down and peered inside the grave. She reported seeing two angels dressed in white. One sat at the head of where the body had been laid out and the other sat at the foot of the same structure. I picture in my mind a raised edifice. Joseph of Arimathaea had built the grave for himself, for a single person. There is no mention of family and, traditionally, family was interred on top of their ancestors. Keeping the family together after death was a thing back then. The gospel of Matthew tells us that Joseph carved his grave out of rock. If he was rich, as Matthew suggests, the work was done by masons. The garden was a property that abutted a rock face. Perhaps his house sat atop the escarpment. That is just my thought.
So, two angels, dressed in white, sat on a raised rock slab. When Mary peeks inside, they speak to her. This suggests a certain size limit and possible shape. It was small and tight but with enough room for two men to step down into. If the grave had been a hole in the ground, she could have looked into it standing. She stooped down and looked in, suggesting that it was a rock face but not a very high rock face. The opening was just large enough for two men carrying a body to enter, turn around and climb up out of after placing the body. If the grave was square, it had to measure more than six feet across. It was at least deep enough for men to sit on the raised slab. That suggests an internal height of around five or six feet.
Mary seems not at all alarmed that there were two men in the grave. She had followed the two disciples back to the grave and likely watched them enter and leave. The disciples mention nothing to her about angels. Her weeping and her emotional state seem to be such that she is not shocked to see such a sight. Moreover, she engages with them in conversation as if it was normal. Mary was emotionally distraught to an extreme degree. In fact, her degree of distress and anguish, when contrasted against that of the two disciples, is striking. Mary appears as a woman forsaken. The differences between men and women will not explain her state of mind.
Mary answers the strangers then rises and turns to leave as if it was common in her experience to see angels or strange men in a grave. When she turns, she sees Jesus but does not recognize him. She assumes he is the gardener. Jesus had been buried naked. Had he been naked, Mary might have made the connection. However, since she presumed him to be the gardener, we may take it that he was dressed. We also must assume, especially if the running back and forth was between Bethany and the graveyard on the Mount of Olives, that it was still dark or that the sun was not fully risen. What prompted Mary to turn away rather than continue her discussion with the two angels? Why do Jesus and the two angels ask the same question word for word?
Jesus asks her, “Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou?” Let us examine her response. She thinks the man she sees is a caretaker of the property. She asks a question that presumes he might have moved the body which, in turn, presumes that the burial may have been, at least in her understanding or confusion, a temporary arrangement. She pleads for the location of the body and assumes complete responsibility for it. One might even see in her response a spirit of ownership. Did she imagine she could carry the body away physically? She did not seem to care about the logistics at that point – she would deal with it somehow or the other. Look at Mary's response in a continuing examination of her state of mind. These are the facts of the story: Mary was the first there, she brought two disciples, the extreme degree of her distress is evidenced in her weeping, in her unalarmed, steadfast, and undeterred response to strangers in the grave and the presumed gardener. Mary is not the disciple weeping at the loss of her teacher, she is a woman weeping at the loss of a loved one.
Then Jesus called her name and she “turned herself.” She was not looking at him directly. It could well be that Mary was in shock, going in circles, turning first from the angels, then toward the gardener, then away and back toward when, at last, she heard her name. Fearfully, as one who cannot believe what is going on, she asks, 'Is that you?' She uses the word 'Rabbi' or master according to the narrative but those are just words – they could have been inserted. It appears that when it all became clear to Mary that she moved to touch him in some way for Jesus had to warn her off. “Touch me not,” he said to Mary. He did not just say to her, 'don't touch me,' he gave her a reason for the request. He was still in the process of ascension. Although she may have dearly wanted to embrace him, or kiss his hand, or kneel at his feet, contact would have had a negative outcome to the finalization of his reaching God from the mortal plane.
Verse seventeen. Whenever I see the word 'for' in the scripture, I automatically replace it, in my mind, with the word 'because.' In such verses, I see a reason. In such verses, I see cause and effect. When Jesus told Mary not to touch him, he gave a reason. He said to her, 'Don't make physical contact with me because I am still in the process of ascension.' If Mary desired Jesus as much as the previous verses of this chapter indicate, I'm sure she wanted to touch him – and Jesus was even more sure. However, he was in a stage of something that physical contact might undo. Instead of a quick hug and a pat on the back, Jesus turned the conversation by giving a goal, a purpose. He sent her to those she had just gone to, not for her own reasons this time, but for his.
In the message that Jesus gave to Mary to deliver, I see a connection in the thinking of Jesus. I see a way of thinking that might well be played back into the teachings of Jesus in the more personal moments between himself and his core twelve. I also see what Jesus thought of his accomplishment – that it was an achievement shared between himself and those he had taken as his own. I see, moreover, that Jesus identified with his own in every sense, not so much in a superior sense but, rather, as equal to the men he sent Mary to. He said, “my brethren,” he said, “my father and your father,” he said, “my God and your God.” He said we all made it across the finish line at the same time. He said the prize is ours to share. He said we are the same.
So Mary ran back to the disciples and told them that she had seen Jesus. There is not a distinction as in the earlier passage where Mary talked to only two disciples in their “own home.” She spoke to the assembled disciples. Where were they assembled? How far did Mary travel to reach the assembly? Was the place where they were gathered together the same place as where Mary found Peter and the unnamed disciple? No more is said at that point about the interaction between Mary and the disciples but I get the sense that they accepted the message. I get the sense that their thoughts had turned back to all that Jesus had told them about his death and resurrection. The narrative jumps to the evening of the same day. The evening is mentioned in connection to the fact that the doors were closed. The closed doors are mentioned in connection to the fact that they were hiding from the men who had crucified their Lord.
In other versions from other gospels, we get the sense that Jesus just mysteriously appeared among the men. The account in John ascribes no such mystery. It simply notes that Jesus came. Jesus was up and walking around that morning when he met with Mary and I get the sense that Jesus was up and walking around in the evening of the same day. He could have knocked. Imagine the surprise of the man who cracked the door and peeked out. I also get the sense that the process of ascension was a settled matter. Jesus spoke to them. He showed them his wounds, which suggests a possible examination by each of them to the point where they were satisfied rather than concerned, glad rather than troubled or fearful. They found the evidence of his resurrection physically credible.
Jesus gave commands to them and breathed on them, saying, receive the Holy Ghost in verses nineteen through twenty-three. He gives them their commission. It is interesting to note in these verses that the expression, “Peace be unto you,” is repeated. The author noted the repetition and used the word, 'again.' No question is asked as to why Jesus repeated himself. Personally, I wonder if there may have been a reason to say the same thing twice. I wonder if the placement of the expression, first as a greeting and second as the opening of the commission has significance we need to seek out. He came to them and said peace. He sent them and said peace. In and of itself, the expression obviously holds more significance than a simple hello-how-are-you-doing kind of thing.
Doubting Thomas was not present. There were ten disciples huddled wherever they were huddled. If they were afraid to be seen by the Jews, it stands to reason they were not hiding in downtown Jerusalem. Again, my thought is that they stayed with or near Lazarus in Bethany. It might also be possible they stayed with Joseph or Nicodemus. They were also disciples. Perhaps Joseph had a large property with a garden tomb and all of the foregoing may be seen as quite localized. Jesus came and left. Thomas returned. They told him they had seen Jesus. They told him they had inspected the wounds. They were certain. The one man who away on a supply run can not be blamed for not having the same degree of certainty as the others in the group. They had seen, he had not. That thing that Thomas said to them is not especially troubling – he simply wanted to see as they had seen. What he said does suggest that he wanted to physically inspect the wounds just as the other nine had done. It suggests that the initial nine did put their fingers in the prints of the nails and thrust their hands into the spear wound. I get the sense that they had recounted to Thomas that they had done just that.
Was Thomas denied proof? No, he was given the same proof Jesus had given the other nine. The exact application of the word 'faithless,' as spoken by Jesus does not necessarily mean that out of all the disciples that Jesus had taught for three years, Thomas was the only hold-out. The most basic meaning of the word faithless is the synonym, 'skeptical.' Thomas received an account that was second-hand. It was a thing told by other men. The problem with Thomas is the problem with all men. The message in this is that it is not in our nature to think that another man can know more than we do. We may be quite ready to receive that higher truth, we may be eager to believe – just not so much through another fallible human being. Not many of us have a natural appreciation for being told by another man, even another believer. When another man comes to me giving the impression that he knows more than I do, my first response is skepticism. This is my take, then – the message of Jesus to Thomas and to us through Thomas is that we can listen to and believe others – especially those invested with the Holy Ghost.
No comments:
Post a Comment