Conclusion of Synoptic Study

The Purpose of John’s Gospel and the Ending of John 20

Alright, well, we are very close to finishing our study of the Synoptic Gospels, well actually all the Gospels, because today we're going to be in John 21, which in the book is section 367, or if you just want to turn to John chapter 21.

We're looking at the post-resurrection appearances. We are noting that this is a 40-day period, that the Gospel writers only give us a very, very, very brief glimpse into the events of this time period, that many of the accusations of contradiction amongst the Gospels are due to the fact that people will assume that each Gospel is intended to be an exhaustive account, and therefore Matthew, for example, only mentions the Galilean appearances of Jesus and doesn't go into what Luke and John go into, and therefore they must be contradicting each other, but that's assuming that they are meant to be exhaustive accounts, which clearly and obviously, given how brief all of them are, is a very questionable assumption.

But we looked at Luke's account, now we're looking at John's account, which of course is the longest of the post-resurrection accounts, and chapter 21 is sort of viewed... Well, actually, I do need to look at section 366, which in your text is called The Ending of John, and then John 21 is viewed as an appendix.

Well, obviously we don't know how John was written. The idea here is sort of like, well, this was an addendum later on, there are no manuscripts of John that end at 20 and 21 just floats around by itself, or anything like that at all.

But it does seem that in verses 30 -31 you sort of have a concluding statement, which we didn't look at last week. We primarily focused on John 20 -28. Hopefully you all are able and ready to defend the reading of John 20 -28 and what it says when Jehovah's Witnesses come to your door.

But we didn't look at verses 30 -31. Now, Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book, but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

Now, I mention this very briefly simply because very often people point to this and say, see, none of the gospels are historically reliable because there was a purpose for which they were written. And if someone writes a book for a purpose, especially a theological purpose, then the assumption is they'll be dishonest with the historical facts.

Now, obviously, the idea that a modern standard of journalism, as if that still exists anywhere, is to be applied to these ancient works is an anachronism. It's applying a modern standard to an ancient text that should not be made.

The gospels are not shy about announcing the reality of the fact that they're not being written by some neutral person. And neutrality today, allegedly, is a great and wonderful thing. I don't think it exists, actually.

It's a myth, both as far as worldview and on a number of other bases. But the gospel specifically says, these are written that you may believe that he is the Christ, Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

So there is a recognition on the part of the gospel that there is a purpose in these things and that they are to communicate something to you, that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that believing that you may have life in his name.

And then you'd say, well, that sounds like a good way to end things, but it doesn't end there. And then we have chapter 21. After this, Jesus revealed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias.

The Miraculous Catch and the Reality of the Resurrection

And of course, scholars are always looking for something to write a new paper on, and so on and so forth. And so the idea is, well, it sounds like that's where the original gospel ended, and then there is this addition maybe from the community of John, which would be the people closest to him, maybe in his older age or something along those lines, is what is theorized.

Well, almost everybody I know of does view John as the last of the gospels. Whether that means pre -70 or 95 to 98 or wherever else it might be, there's been people all over the board as far as where that goes.

But even if they view him as the last of the gospels, then there isn't an issue with the idea that there were people around him that were involved in, you know, as emanuencies, scribes, people that helped him put these things together.

The idea that you simply have to have John alone in a room with this strange, ethereal light glowing, for that to be real, quote-unquote, inspiration, just doesn't have any basis. The Apostle Paul, for example, dictated his epistle to the Romans.

Does that make it uninspired? No. It just helps us to understand something about what inspiration actually means. But we get these ideas in our head, and if anything differs from that, well, it just can't be that way.

Let's look at John 21 and see why people view it the way I do. After this, Jesus revealed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias, and he revealed himself in this way. Simon Peter Thomas called the twin Nathanael of Canaan and Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples were together.

I don't know about you, but that sounds rather specific to me. I've been reading on the Dividing Line. I've read two of the Gnostic Gospels recently. People really seem to enjoy story time with Uncle Jimmy, Grandpa Jimmy.

Grandpa Jimmy is what we've been calling it. They really enjoy it, though they don't really enjoy the Gnostic Gospels all that much. I'm going to do the Gospel of Thomas this week, and they're really not going to get that one.

But it's so different than those Gospels, which are very vague. The story just sort of floats along. It's not placed anyplace, and you don't have the specificity that you have, even here in this particular account.

Simon Peter said to them, I'm going fishing. They said to him, we will go with you. They went out and got out of the boat. But that night they caught nothing. Just as day was breaking, Jesus stood on the beach, yet the disciples did not know it was Jesus.

Jesus said to them, children, have you any fish? They answered him, no. He said to them, cast it on the right side of the boat, and you will find some. So they cast it, and now they were not able to haul it in for the quantity of fish.

That disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, it is the Lord. And, of course, that disciple whom Jesus loved. This is the Gospel of John. That's the terminology that the author uses of himself. Then Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord.

He put on his clothes, for he was stripped for work and sprang into the sea. But the other disciples came in the boat, dragging the net full of fish. For they were not far from the land, but about a hundred yards off.

When they got out on land, they saw a charcoal fire there with fish lying on it and bread. Jesus said to them, bring some of the fish that you have just caught. So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore.

And everybody in this room, I'm sure, knows that the Greek term for haul the net ashore is the same term that's used in John chapter 6, unless the Father who sent me draws him. And so people go, see, I'm very certain that Peter didn't look at that net and go, come on little fishies, come up on the shore, and try to woo them up on the shore.

No, he grabbed the net and he dragged it up on the shore. Well, just because a word is used in one particular way in the Gospel doesn't mean that it has that exact same meaning everywhere else it's used in the Gospel.

So you need to be careful. But at the same time, people who try to emasculate John 6 .44 by saying, no one is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me woos him or says nice things to him or whatever, is missing the fact that the Greek term that is used here does refer to the exercise of power.

It is a drawing, and here it is a forceful, powerful drawing that takes place, and you've probably heard this discussion a number of times before. So Simon Peter went aboard, hauled the net ashore full of large fish, 153 of them, and although there were so many, the net was not torn.

Now, I've forgotten the specific details, but there's a few dozen stories down through church history where someone has tried to read something into 153. I know Harold Camping did. That didn't work out too well for him.

But I know he had a big thing about the 153 and what that meant and the numerology and how you break it up and all the rest of that kind of stuff. And I've forgotten what the details were. I apologize for having forgotten that.

But there's something else about some other ancient story that had 153 in it or something, as if as long as a story over here had 153 in it and a story over here has 153 in it, then therefore there's an automatic connection between the two.

You know, I'll bet you every single hymnal in this room has hymn number 153. Oooh. What does that mean? Nothing. But for a lot of people today, especially people into conspiracy theories and stuff like that, you know, I really honestly think that, and I can guarantee you, Brother Callahan's going to agree with me on this, I honestly think there should be a basic logic class required of all American citizens by at least the second grade and repeated three times before you graduate.

And you have to pass that class to be able to vote. What do you think? Is that good? I knew he'd agree with me because he was my logic professor. And I enjoyed that class. I hope you appreciate, Brother Callahan, that of all my years of education, that one sticks out in my head as one of the most useful classes that I've ever taken.

And I hope that you appreciate that. But part of it was because you, but to be perfectly honest with you, is because people don't think logically anymore. They think emotionally. They think that feelings are facts.

And they just, it's, and I'm going to start preaching here in a second if I'm not careful. So anyway, if you run into some wacky thing about 153, they're probably making a connection here. Yes, sir. As a young teenager, I used to fish.

Yeah? Did you catch 153 fish? Yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah. Oh yeah, yeah, I did. Yeah, and they were large fish. They weren't the little, they weren't, this wasn't, these weren't guppies. You could pull 153 guppies in pretty well, but not something like this, no.

And although there were so many, the net was not torn. That must be the observation being made there, that I imagine nets would tear under strain, especially back in those days, and you couldn't make nets quite the way we do today.

Jesus said to them, come and have breakfast. Now none of the disciples dared ask him, who are you? They knew it was the Lord. Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and so with the fish. This was now the third time Jesus revealed to the disciples after he was raised from the dead.

Docetism and the Physical Resurrection of Christ

So what's the emphasis that John is making here? Well, it's the same emphasis we find in, for example, 1 John. And again, this is why people try to say this is a later addendum, is what was one of the, as far as we can tell, earliest falsehoods about Jesus that appeared amongst believers?

Well, it makes sense when you think about it. When you think about what the message of Jesus was, when you think about the context of the ancient Roman world, where you had God-men in the sense of the gods of Olympus would come down and have sex with women and they would have this weird demigod-type offspring and things like that.

People who would hear a part of the story of Jesus, it makes sense that they would start trying to fit him into what they were familiar with. And so one of the earliest heresies was called docetism, from the Greek term dokain, it means it seems.

And so the idea was that it only seemed that Jesus had a physical body. And John's very concerned about emphasizing the reality of the physical resurrection. And there are still people like that today.

When Brother Renahan and I debated John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg in the Gulf of Alaska in 2005, I think it was, on the subject of resurrection, halfway through, I forget which one it was, they looked at us and I said, Do you really think that Jesus' tomb was empty?

Yeah, that's what we really believe. It's amazing. And liberals still struggle with that concept. And that's what John is attempting to defend here. He's defending against the idea that Jesus was just a phantom or there wasn't a reality of a resurrection.

And so Jesus is able to eat with them. He engages with them in this way that once again demonstrates the reality of his resurrection. And this is the third time in John's narrative that he appears to them.

And this time it is, in fact, up in Galilee around the history of the paper. Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? He said to him, yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him, feed my lambs.

The second time he said to him, Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me? He said to him, yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him, tend my sheep. He said to him the third time, Simon, son of John, do you love me?

Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, do you love me? And he said to him, Lord, you know everything. You know that I love you. Jesus said to him, feed my sheep. Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you gird yourself and walked where you would.

But when you are old you will stretch out your hands and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go. This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God. And after this he said to him, follow me.".

Peter’s Restoration and the Meaning of Apostolic Succession

Now just very, very briefly, this is one of the Petrine passages that is utilized by the Roman hierarchy to establish the concept of the supremacy of Peter over anyone else. Three times, feed my lambs, feed my sheep.

And so this is what Peter is to do and therefore his successors as the bishops of Rome are to have the same role and charge that Peter had. Now, I don't have time right now, we're going to be doing church history here eventually and we will be dealing with this much more in depth at that time.

But again, the vast majority of the early church fathers never saw anything about Rome in this text. There isn't anything about Rome in this text. The line of reasoning that you have to follow to make this relevant to the bishops of Rome is extremely circuitous, extremely torturous, and is liable to collapse at any point by any meaningful historical examination.

The reality is that the play on words that's going on here is when Jesus says to Peter, do you agape me? Peter's response is, you know that I phileo you. And there may be, because the third time Jesus drops down to Peter's term phileo, and that's when he's grieved, there does seem to be a play on words there.

In this context, there would seem to be some difference between agape and phileo. You've probably heard lots of sermons where people say agape is the self-giving love and it always means you got to be careful and stuff like that.

Every word has a meaning in its context. Beware of Strong's exhaustive concordance sermons. They are normally wrong. In this instance, however, there does in this context seem to be something, a give and take in regards to the use of the term love and of course the fact that Peter had denied Jesus three times.

So three times Jesus asks the question and Peter then becomes grieved because the three-fold question reminds him of his three-fold failure. But what is very strange is that Rome has so little foundation to build upon.

When you think about everything they've built into the Greek term kikaritamene at Luke 1, full of grace, the edifice of theology has been built upon the greeting of an angel. The same thing has to be true in regards to the papacy.

There's just so little that you can build anything upon. You have to use Matthew 16, you have to use I've prayed your faith will not fail you in Luke, and you have to use this text in John 21. You've is restoring Peter after Peter's public and rather humiliating failure, having said he would die for Christ and very shortly thereafter denying him.

And so then you have somewhat of a prophetic statement in regards to Peter's death. Now we don't know exactly how Peter passed away. Tradition and tradition is tradition's tradition folks. Sometimes tradition has a semblance of a germ of historical reality to it.

Sometimes we just can't tell. I mean the first really full Christian history that's written is written in the fourth century. Eusebius' history of the church and it's very valuable to us, but it's also filled with some stuff that makes you go hmm okay.

You know not quite up to modern standards of historiography at that level. And so you know tradition is tradition, but tradition says that that Peter was crucified in Rome upside down. That he requested to be crucified upside down so because he did not feel worthy of being crucified in the way that his Lord was crucified.

And some traditions say it was on an x-shaped cross instead of a tau-shaped cross. Whatever that may be, the idea is that when he is old another will gird you and carry you. You do not wish to go. And so part of this is that Peter is going to live for a while, but part of this is also that his ending is not going to be under his own control, is the meaning of this.

Now it seems like what happened is that story was told and as it got out then other things began to develop around it as we see right here. And after this he said to him, follow me. Peter turned and saw following the disciple whom Jesus loved who had lain close to his breast at the supper and said to him, Lord who is it that is going to and had said Lord who is it is going to betray you?

When Peter saw him he said to Jesus, Lord what about this man? So Jesus had just said something to Peter about what his life was was going to be, not in great detail, but sort of in an outline fashion about the end.

And Jesus said to him, if it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me. So in other words Jesus' response is, it's none of your business. If I want him to live until I come, what is that to you?

Follow me. The saying spread abroad among the brethren, the disciple was not to die, yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but if it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?

So obviously this is written at a later point in time, and it is correcting on John's part, and I'm sure this would have caused John some concern. Let's imagine the age of John comes, you know he's speaking to a group at Ephesus and afterwards someone comes up to him and says, you know we heard in the church in in Philippi that Jesus said that you weren't going to die, that you were going to live until until Jesus returned.

So that would have bothered John a good bit, because John knew that that was not what Jesus himself had said. And so there's a correction, and I don't know why that bothers people, given that we the vast majority see John as the last of the Gospels written, and it's simply correcting an errant idea that had gone out.

And in fact what it does is demonstrate that the Gospel message was being preached before these words were ever committed to papyrus, I guess would be the way that we should put it. And that the eyewitnesses were still there, and here's an example actually of an eyewitness correcting a false tradition that had developed during the Apostolic period.

I mean that's good stuff, that's important. And yet some people look at it like, oh I'm not sure I like about it, I'm not sure I like that, you know, and I'm not sure. And then obviously this last section, this is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true, but there are also many other things Jesus did where every one of them to be written, I suppose the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

Now you'll notice the switch back and forth. This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, that's John, that's the beloved disciple, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

So there's a shift, and then it goes back to, I suppose the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. So what do you have going on here? Is this the community saying, and we join with John, and we add our testimony that we know that his testimony is true.

We've observed this man, we've lived with this man, we've seen the life that he has lived, and we are adding to his words our commendation to you, we know that this man is true. That seems what's going on at that point, at least that one line.

And then the always interesting statement, many other things which Jesus did, where every one of them to be written, I suppose the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Well, that's not meant to be a literal description.

Okay, I mean hopefully we all can see that. You could obviously write down a historically accurate, moment-by-moment description of every single action that a human being takes in their entire life, and the world would be able to contain those books.

Let alone a flash drive in our day. But the point is that what is being said here is, this is not meant to be an exhaustive account. This is just but a sampling. There is so much more, and I think a lot of this was meant to be preached and read and spoken.

Remember, they're still living in the days of the eyewitnesses, and so they're not looking at these things as being, you know, John doesn't look at his gospel as being the be-all and end-all of all things.

This gospel exists within that living community, and the eyewitnesses, and the other apostles, and all the rest. And when you think about it, you know, if you did write a gospel, and if you wrote it in such a way that this is it, that would be a little bit on the arrogant side, and would be a little bit like, you know, I really don't care what Luke says, I really don't care what Mark says, I'm the one that's got the...

No, that's not how they were thinking, and that's not what they intended in their books. They do, and John does intend his book, however, to be one that upon reading it, you would be able to believe that Jesus is a Christ, the Son of God, and that in believing that, you might have life in his name.

And so, here you have the end of John. There are, is given to you then, and we're skipping over the longer ending of Mark, we've talked about that. So, we've looked at Luke through section... No, it wasn't 325, where did it go here?

Oh, okay, it's 365. No, no, no, no. Well, we worked through a part of 365, so let's finish Luke here real quick, we'll look at Matthew, and we might get done. We might get done. There's going to be much rejoicing and a pizza party afterwards, but we sort of looked through 360, we started 365 when we looked at what Jesus said about the centrality of the Scriptures, and the fact that Jesus had to open their minds to understand the Scriptures, Luke 24, 45, and said to them, thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

You are witnesses of these sayings. Behold, I send a promise to my Father upon you, but stay in the city until you are clothed with the power from on high. They led them out as far as Bethany and lifted up his hands.

He blessed them while he blessed them. He parted from them and was carried up into heaven. They worshipped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple, blessing God.

So, once again, if you set the Gospels at odds with one another, then the Ascension ends up contradicting Matthew because that's all in Galilee. But there is no Ascension in Matthew, so there is no contradiction.

This places the Ascension specifically outside of Bethany. In both that and what you have at the end of Matthew, which is section 364, you have the same emphasis upon the coming of the Spirit, Gospel going to the nations.

This is not just something for Jews. It's found in each one of these passages. Now, if you turn back to section 359, which is Matthew chapter 28. Let's grab Matthew's version here real quick. Now, the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them.

And when they saw him, they worshipped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age, which also I believe is then section 364 as well.

Yes, so you can look at either one of them, I guess. 364 or 359, they're a repetition. Now, so when it says the eleven went to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus directed them, is that limiting or just simply saying the entire group?

Because once again, Paul's going to tell us about this incident where 500 people saw Jesus at once. Well, when did that happen? I don't think there were 500 people at breakfast in John chapter 21. There weren't 500 people in the upper room in Luke chapter 24.

So, if there is any recording of that specific incident, this would have to be it. And that would explain the division in verse 17. When they saw him, they worshipped him, but some doubted. Where does this fit in John's appearances?

Well, I would say between the second and third. But if there's already been two, then even Thomas was there for the second. So why would any of the disciples of the eleven doubt? But if there's, if the, when it says the eleven disciples went to Galilee is to be taken as just saying all of the disciples were there, but there were, this is backwards, that's interesting, anyway, but there were others that were there as well, then this could be the 500 and it would explain where there were some who doubted.

Now again, if you read the Gnostic Gospels and stuff, this is not the terminology that would ever be used. Ever be used. If there was anyone who doubted, they would be rebuked, struck dead, blind, dumb, eaten by something, I don't know.

There'd be all this weird silliness going on. And you wouldn't just simply have the bald statement, some doubted, without any correction, explanation, it's just simply the observation that there were some there, and I would take this as part of the 500, because if you get 500 people together, there's obviously people there who had not encountered Jesus before.

And they know about Jesus' death and they know the effectiveness of Roman crucifixion. So, how can this be? How can this be? And just as Thomas, who had walked with him for all those years, required something more.

No correction is given, no rebuke is made, nothing along those lines, it's just simply stated, and like I said, that would not be found in any book written, just simply to try to make you believe, on the basis of some kind of magical trick or something like that.

We know, you've heard plenty of sermons, I'm sure, on the Great Commission, I'm not going to go into that right now, other than to emphasize the fact, all authority in heaven and earth has been given to me, this is the resurrection of Christ, this is after his humiliation, no mere creature would be able to wield all authority in heaven and earth, you put this together with John 1, but Philippians chapter 2, and you will have a much more balanced understanding of what the Bible is teaching about who Jesus is, the vast majority of liberal teaching that denies this anymore, what's the foundation?

Well, you can't put Philippians and John and Matthew together, because that's inappropriate, there is no New Testament revelation, you have to chop it all up, put them all in opposition to one another, and therefore there's no reason to continue to believe all these things, but if you do believe, as the disciples and Jesus would have believed in regards to the Old Testament, there is such a thing as divine revelation, and therefore requires us to look at more than just simply one author, it's understandable what is being said here, especially when the command is to go therefore and make disciples of all nations, very important that this is found in the Gospels, it becomes foundational to Acts chapter 15, the taking of the Gospel to Gentiles and things like that, baptizing them into the singular name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and we Westerners, we go name has to be something like Bob, Tom, Phil, whatever, and it's not that way at all, so one of his Pentecostals would go, what is the name?

The name is Jesus, therefore you baptize only in Jesus' name, etc., etc. That is not the case, and the fact that it's the construction distinguishes between Father, Son, and Spirit, yet there is only one name, there is a unity and yet distinction, just as we have in the doctrine of the Trinity, and when we teach disciples to observe all that I have commanded you, as long as it is what Christ has commanded, then it's Christ's authority that is then communicated to others, and there's nothing here about, well, let's put it this way, this text would define apostolic succession, it's a very important term, apostolic succession will come to mean, in the history of the Church, an ecclesiastical succession, an organization that properly, sacramentally ordains people to positions of authority, but if this text has any meaning, apostolic succession is a succession of what?

Of a single body of divine truth that originates in God Himself, specifically through the authority of Jesus Christ, so if you teach what Jesus taught, if you teach what His disciples taught, then you stand in apostolic succession, if you do not, if you reject all of that, if you've added your own authority to it, if you've taken away, added to, whatever else it might be, I don't care what circuitous historical fiction you weave to say, we go back to the disciples, we go back to the apostles, the best way to go back to the apostles is to teach what they taught, that's the way to go back to the disciples, that's the way to go back to the apostles, and so people, they just, you know, and someone stands in front of me, well, I have apostolic authority through the Bishop of Rome to teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary, you know, I just want to go, yeah, that's fascinating, something the apostles never taught, and in fact, in that particular instance, something seven of your own bishops of Rome taught against, but hey, you know, that's just that church history stuff anyways, so we'll look at all that stuff a little bit later on.

The point is, the true apostolic authority, it comes from delivering the Gospel itself, and Jesus promised, Lo, I am with you always, even to the close of the age, and of the promise of the Holy Spirit that is found there, and the same way you have that promise in Luke chapter 24, you are witnesses of these things, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you, stay in the city until you are clothed with powerful man.

Hi, remember, Luke isn't done yet, Luke still has many, many, many chapters in a separate book called Acts coming up, and so you have a connection here between the two books, because he's then going to give you the fulfillment of this in the book of Acts itself.

Harmonizing the Resurrection Accounts Across the Gospels

So, Mark ends where Mark ends, Matthew has a brief discussion of Jesus's encounter with the disciples in Galilee, Luke focuses upon the road to Emmaus, the fulfillment of scriptural prophecy, and eventually the ascension outside of Bethany, John gives us much more about Thomas, the encounter with the disciples, and then provides that corrective, that insight into the discussion between Jesus and Peter.

Now, obviously, none of them then, none of them, there's so many questions that once again, in history past, because we would, you know, just automatically go, well, did they ever talk about this, did the disciples ever ask Jesus about that subject, and why he didn't tell them this before then, and, you know, there's a question of what it's like to rise from the dead, and, you know, there's all these things that start filling our minds and going, well, why don't we have something about that?

Why don't we have something about this? And, you know, it's the same thing with the infancy of Jesus, you know, all those Gospels were written in the 2nd century, the story is written in the 2nd century, even the Gospel of Thomas has, you know, tries to fill in some of the questions that aren't asked and answered, especially in the post-resurrection period.

But when you consider 40 days, and then consider how much material, it is plain as the nose on anyone's face that there is not being given to us some kind of exhaustive accounting that would then allow us to place the Gospels in tension with one another, to say, oh, well, but Matthew said they just went straight to Galilee and it was done.

John says something different, Luke says something different. 40 days is 40 days, and it just doesn't strike me that anyone in that time was even thinking along the line of what we would rate issues today, and it is not God's intention to delve into all these questions.

John just giving us that one conversation with people sort of tells us what can happen, because already there had been an inappropriate expansion and misinterpretation of Jesus' words. Maybe that is why there is almost nothing given to us, because the tendency on our part, well, you know, like the 153 fishes, oh my goodness, like I said, look at the ancient commentaries and stuff like that, and all the ways of trying to put special emphasis upon this, and well, now that Jesus, it is almost like now that Jesus is resurrected, what he says is sort of like more important, or it automatically has to be taken in some spiritual, ethereal fashion that what he was saying along the seashore in Galilee wouldn't be taken in that way.