The Women at the Tomb

All right, we are in Section 17, the

Resurrection, number 352, page 325. Literally a matter of a few pages left.

But as we have worked through the entirety of the

Synoptic Gospels, and I'm sure there's a couple places, I'll confess that I've probably forgotten to deal with some issue that just slipped my mind or thought

I had dealt with it because I had discussed it someplace else or something. I, you know, who knows? But obviously, sadly, one of the main reasons that most of us end up turning to these texts anymore, especially this time of year, coming up March, April, with Easter, is the constant drumbeat of the impossibility of harmonizing in a meaningful fashion the texts that we have before us in regards to what they say concerning the

Resurrection of Christ. And so, the one thing that is very noticeable as we look at these texts is, while there has been a pretty close tracking of the

Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, up through the Crucifixion, that ends at this point.

You've got new glasses. Wow. Those are computer glasses?

Oh, okay. I'm sitting here, I mean, there are some things in life that never change.

And the Brickster is one of them. And to look over and all of a sudden there's this yellow -orangish tint in the glasses.

It's sort of like, whoa, whoa, whoa, stop. We can't, I'm a Reformed Baptist. I can't change.

No, no, change. Change is not, yikes. So, does it make it easier to see computers?

Computer, it does. Computer, it does. Oh, okay. I'll have to keep that in mind. It was ruining my eyes, so I had to figure something out.

Oh, okay. All right. Good, good. All right. So, what we were talking about, Moses was in the bulrushes.

And what was that? Oh, yes. Once we come to the story of the resurrection, once we leave basically section 351, go to section 352,

Matthew, Mark, and Luke, well, they're all on different tracks now. And why would that be?

Well, you'll notice this section is Mark 16, 1 through 8. One of the largest, well, what are the two multiverse textual variants in the

New Testament? What are the two of them? You need to know this. We've talked about it. Multiverse, multiple verses where you have a textual variant in the manuscripts.

There's two. You see, it was just a few weeks ago we covered this.

I said, you need to know this. Listen, this is a test. This is a test. One of them is real obvious given what

I just said, so. Huh? Yes.

That's correct. That's correct. John, right? What's what?

753 through 811. 753 through 811. And both of them are exact, all verses. So, the longer ending of Mark, Mark 16, 9 through 20.

And John 753 through 811. Those are the two multiverse variants.

Much better evidence for the longer ending of Mark than there is for the woman taken in adultery.

Much earlier evidence. But the problem is, you not only have that one, you have two other endings.

Not including the short ending, which is just ending at verse 8. So, point being that Mark, you might theorize, well, the reason that Matthew and Luke seem to go different directions from Mark is because they no longer had

Mark to follow. But that's not the case. At least the first eight verses of chapter 16, they did. All manuscripts of Mark have those.

So, that's not an issue. So, why would there be such divergence?

Those who, and again, I realize this is over nine years ago. We haven't covered it in a long time. But those who use the idea that Matthew and Luke are just sitting there with Mark and they're making emendations and changes.

Pretty hard to explain why when you get done with the crucifixion, all of a sudden,

Matthew and Luke are off doing something else. It's actually, this is one of those places where not following the standard quote unquote consensus today, which is called the

Marken Priority Hypothesis, actually answers more questions.

In other words, if we are drawing from oral tradition for Matthew, Mark and Luke, not just copying from each other, they don't have a copy of Mark and they're making edits and blah, blah, blah, blah.

But you're drawing from that one apostolic proclamation of the church.

Then, once it comes to the resurrection, this is where you would have such a focus in the history of the church in regards to the, this was the central message that the church was delivering, was the resurrection of Christ.

And you would have far more of the witnesses to that being involved in that proclamation.

And so, it's easy to understand if you're narrating a parable that Jesus told multiple times, well, there's only so much variation in how that parable would be told.

But once you get to the resurrection, we have all these different people that are now giving their aspects, their part of the story, and now this is, how often are you going to hear a parable told?

Once you've preached on it, you're probably not going to want to preach on it the next week or the next week after that or something like that.

The resurrection is part and parcel of, I mean, it's a part of everything that the early church was all about.

So, I think that's the reason why you have the variation here is because the tradition, the oral tradition of which they're drawing would become much more diverse and have a lot more in it and they'd have a lot more to choose from in regards to communicating to their particular audience the specific aspect of the resurrection that they want to communicate.

This is especially true with Luke, who has some really interesting and unique material in his resurrection narratives not to be found in the others.

I think there's also one other aspect to keep in mind here. It seems to me that, you know, if we ask the question, could

Mark have actually ended at the end of verse 8? It seems like there's something missing there.

It seems to me that these Gospels, at least Mark, is written in such context that it is assumed that it will be being read and it certainly was being read by its original audience within the context and lifetime of the eyewitnesses themselves.

And so, if it was meant to be a part of the church as far as the gathering of the church, one of the reasons that it might end where it ends was that it was leaving room for then the personal testimony of those individuals who would then be able to give testimony to having been one of those that saw

Jesus or knowing someone who had seen Jesus. In other words, it would have fit right into then the proclamation of the resurrected

Christ within the congregation itself. That may be one reason that I think has some merit to it as to why

Mark would have ended where he ended was that he was then allowing the application to take place, the testimony to take place within the church itself.

And then, as those people began to pass away and Matthew, Luke, and John had the extra material that the longer ending was constructed so that Mark would sort of fit in with the others.

I think that's probably at least the best understanding I've been able to come to as to why Mark would end where Mark ends.

So, you will hear, and this is not just this time of year, but if you go to Phoenix College, Glendale Community College, ASU, U of A, NAU, Listemal, Mesa Community, whatever,

Rio Salado, what you will hear will very frequently draw from,

I think, a rather surface level reading of certain of these texts and will say, well, you might say that the very central aspect of the

Christian faith is resurrection. You know, what happened all depends on which gospel you read. One of the reasons you should memorize, he almost does the exact same words in the gospel you read, what time of day it was depends on which gospel you read, and the whole idea is to inculcate this contradiction.

Now, you may recall that we've discussed what a contradiction is.

We live in a day where specificity of language and the use of language is passing away rapidly.

I made the mistake last night after finishing up a workout of turning the television on because I figured there was still something interesting going on back in South Carolina.

And, of course, being a debater, watching those things being called a debate, especially last night, it would have been a little bit better to debate or food fight.

I think food fight was probably a little closer than debate would have been descriptive of what we saw.

But the use of specific language, very, very rare in public discourse today.

And so when we talk about contradictions, the law of non -contradiction is normally illustrated by something along the lines of you cannot say that the chair is in the room and not in the room at the same time in the same way.

And so you cannot affirm the truthfulness of a statement at the same time in the same way.

In other words, allowing for, you know, well, the chair is in the room. Well, it's now, but it wasn't an hour ago, so if you had made that statement an hour ago, then it would have been different.

Changes in time, issues relating to other realms of semantics, things aside, a contradiction would be

Matthew saying X and Mark saying not X about the same thing at the same time in the same way.

They're both saying yes, the other is saying no. That would be a contradiction.

If one gospel says Mary came to the tomb and the other gospel says

Mary was accompanied by another woman, that is not a contradiction. That is an additional piece of information, but that is not a contradiction unless the first gospel said

Mary came what? Alone. Now, that simple observation that we just made is missing from 99 % of what is said about the

Bible in the public educational systems today. And so you must understand that no matter who you're talking to today in almost any context, unless you're talking to folks that have as much of the white stuff as Paul and Brick and I and so on and so forth have, they've been raised in a context where that's what they've been being hit with and so they've heard people say over and over and over again, they're contradictory, they're contradictory, but they've never been challenged to think through what a contradiction actually is.

So, we have exactly that going on at the beginning of our section here.

So, now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other

Mary went to see the sepulcher. That's Matthew. Mark has, and when the Sabbath has passed,

Mary Magdalene married the mother of James and Salome bought spices so they might go and anoint him.

And very early in the first day of the week, they went to the tomb and the sun had risen. So now you have Mary Magdalene and Mary.

Mark has Mary Magdalene, Mary, and Salome. Luke just simply says they.

Just makes a nice plural. But then John has, now on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early while it was still dark.

So, the first, there are two issues there. The first issue is the number of women.

Well, Luke makes it very plain. It's a plural. We have the specific number in Mark.

Not repeated in Matthew or Luke, as far as the specific number.

Matthew only mentions two. Mark gives three. Luke's a plural and John only has one.

Now, why would that be? Well, John's going to focus specifically on Mary Magdalene's interaction with Jesus, not anybody else's, so he doesn't give the rest of the information.

It's also quite possible that at some point during the narrative, especially prior to the interaction that John's going to be focusing on between Mary and Jesus, the other two women depart, and therefore it would just be a distraction because then you'd have to add in an explanation of where the other ladies went, and so on and so forth, so you don't want to do that.

But the assertion that it is a contradiction to provide further information or to not provide information that was available to you, again, all the way back nearly ten years ago now, we addressed these issues and addressed the fact that an author has the right to include what information they want to include in the story.

And again, there is decisions made on what audience you're speaking to, how you want to be clear.

I mean, the idea that we are supposed to use modern, well, I was going to say modern standards of journalistic accuracy, and then went,

I'm sorry. Do forgive the anachronism there. Standards of journalistic accuracy from about 60 years ago and applied to these texts would be very much an anachronism.

But what was the other issue here? I remember years and years and years and years ago, I mean, back when, before Internet, when some of us are old enough to remember bulletin board systems,

BBS systems, where you could communicate electronically, it just would take sometimes three or four days for your message to make the rounds and be responded to by somebody else.

But those are actually better days, to be honest with you, because the speed at which things happen now, speed generally makes people stupid.

And so back in the BBS days, you actually had time to go, let me think about that, and actually thinking about it helped.

Anyway, I remember an extended discussion with a local atheist on the second issue that is raised just by these verses that we looked at right here.

And that is, what time does this take place? And it's such a, to me it seems like such a simple thing, and such a small thing, but especially when you get the resurrection, because the

Christian faith is so focused upon it, then we shouldn't be overly surprised that the opponents of the Christian faith are likewise focused upon the same thing.

And that is, in Matthew, we have toward the dawn of the first day of the week.

Toward the dawn. Now, we already mentioned this before, but especially in the ancient world, but even today, the method of keeping time and temporal language was not nearly as exact as some of the things we can do today.

I mean, you can pick up your phone, and one of my favorite weather apps provides you with the temperature throughout the day and stuff, and it also throws in the middle sunrise.

So, sunrise, oh, I don't know how in the world I got to Atlanta. Okay, there we go. Sunset tonight is at 611, and sunrise tomorrow morning is at 712.

Okay, so we have now, but I learned a long time ago, okay, sunrise is at 712, but that does not mean that the sun's rays will actually be hitting you at 712.

Especially when I ride my bike in the summer, I really appreciate the fact that there's about an eight or nine minute difference before you actually start getting baked.

You know, I got eight or nine more minutes before, you know, smoke starts rising from the cactus and stuff like that.

And because that may be sunrise, but there's mountains over there.

And sometimes if you're riding toward the mountains, you'll, you know,

I'll even, I remember once I was, it was just something fun to do, but I was riding along the canal and you get over toward, you know,

Squaw Peak and stuff like that, and you can sort of try to keep the sun behind, you know, racing the shadow basically to try to keep from getting hit by the sun a little bit longer.

So, there are variations, but you also know, okay, what did

I say, 712 tomorrow morning? Well, that means if I were to plan on a run in the morning and I plan on getting done by ten after seven, depending on how long the run is,

I'm probably not going to have to take a light because we know that dawn is a specific point in time, but it's plenty bright to see well before that.

And then there's this thing called civil twilight and there's all this stuff you can look up on some of the websites as to, you know, when civil twilight starts and what is twilight and sunrise and cloud cover determines, you know, how much light you're going to, you know, there's all sorts of stuff like this.

And so, you know, we have all the astronomical stuff that we can throw in there, which they did not have nearly as much of as we do back then.

It was just really a functional thing as to, you know, if you're talking about dawn, you're talking about exactly when you can see the sun.

Well, that's going to differ even in the same city, depending on whether there are mountains around or stuff like that.

Are you talking about when it's bright enough not to fall off a cliff because you can't see the thing coming?

What is it? And so there is ambiguity, necessary ambiguity, in the language.

And so, toward the dawn, Mark has, very early on the first day of the week, they went to the tomb when the sun had risen.

Well, does that, is that the same, does that mean, well,

I'll give you another consideration here in a moment. Luke, at early dawn, but John, while it was still dark.

Can't put those together. Well, a few things. You'll notice that there is the taking of spices, when you have multiple people, they're probably going to be getting together at some point in time, to where they're going to meet up.

We'll meet up at such and such a corner, or we'll meet up at so and so's house, or I'll bring the bandages, you bring the spices, okay, go, go, go.

And they're not taking public transportation. They're walking. And so there is going to be a time period involved.

Are they referring to when they started? When they arrived?

Are they referring to events during their journey? Does the sun rise on the way?

Has it just risen when they get there? Was it dark when they started? All of this, to most of us, most of us, and again, most of the time you're talking about this, you're either talking with an atheist, who probably is not functioning with any sense of fairness at all here anyways.

Or you're talking to a religious person that comes from a tradition that does not believe that the Bible is accurate for whatever reason that might be.

There are all sorts of reasons for that. Almost always the reason for that, however, is because they have another religious authority that they're putting above the

Bible. So you have to attack the accuracy of the Bible and say, yeah, it's okay, but you need our book.

Okay, you need our revelation to go along with that, whatever the group might be. And so, yeah.

Yeah, that's the other thing.

Now, which one was that, Mark? Yeah, yeah, yes, Mark. Yeah, I was actually going to ask our

Greek -speaking brother about this. I'm not sure...

My assumption is that syntax of participles has changed somewhat from the

Koine period to the modern period, but on a

Tylantos to Heliu, there in verse 2, the timing of the action of the participle is dependent upon the main verb of the sentence.

And again, on a Tylantos, we are tending to ask, is that supposed to have the level of accuracy of this?

Or could we not find a wide spectrum of usage of that particular term to refer to the point of time where things become visible, all the way through the point in time where the sun's actually striking things, or even to the point of time where shadows begin to diminish because the sun is finally high enough that you don't have dark shadows and things like that.

I think the whole time period would be included. And so, I would assume that that would be in reference to the time they arrive at the tomb, not the time that they leave.

That would actually fit all of them together. But, yeah, it is a translational issue.

Was there anything you wanted to add to that, brother? No? Was that fair enough?

Very, very early. That is explained. Very, very early.

They can express this as dark. See, like, you get up in the morning and the sun hasn't sunned yet, but there is light, and you do not express it as the sun is, you know.

The way I understand it is it was really, really early in the morning, and this empirically says that.

This would be the difference between... They're all saying the same thing. And, again, the issue also that I think is very important is this is not a singular event.

The traveling to the tomb took time. And so, if you just simply are fair, it's not an issue.

But, believe me, people will bring that to the fore.

Like you said, they're copying. Oh, exactly.

They're not just copying. It's not. In fact, I don't think any of them use the exact same terminology.

Heavy morning. Yeah. Very early, heavy dawn.

Early dawn, yeah. Very early dawn. Yeah, that is an unusual phrase.

It emphasizes that it was really, really early dawn. So the perception of somebody at that time...

Well, but notice even here it's saying it would seem to me that since what follows after that is that they went to the tomb, that that's when they started the journey was at early dawn.

See, you can harmonize all this together if it's early dawn when they start and the sun has just risen when they arrive at the tomb.

I mean, so you can see them scurrying through the darkness heading to the tomb.

But when they get to the tomb, there is sufficient light to not only recognize that the stone has been rolled away, but also to be able to confirm with some...

If it was pitch black, how do we know they got the right tomb? Right? I mean, that's sort of important.

So it's the crack of dawn. They start when it's dark. They arrive when the sun has just come up.

I mean, that's... Most likely, they have no case. No, no. Well, again, depends on whether case means guilty until proven innocent or innocent until proven guilty.

And we know how that works with a lot of folks when it comes to the biblical text.

Okay, so Mark gives us very interesting information that the ladies were practical.

Remember, we had just seen right across the page here that they were there when

Nicodemus... Nicodemus was there and when...

Joseph of Arimathea. And they must have observed the difficulty with which the stone was placed before the tomb.

And so they're practical and they're going, um, who's going to roll the stone away for us?

So in other words, they're admitting, don't think that's something that we can do. Obviously, it was easier to roll it into the tomb and in front of the tomb than to roll it away from the tomb.

It would have had sort of a thing that it would have locked into and it had been sealed as well.

So who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb? And as they are discussing this and looking up, they saw the stone was rolled back for it was very large.

Very large. John has something of the same. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb. Matthew gives us the supernatural background, the miraculous background.

Behold, there was a great earthquake for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came rolled back to stone and sat upon it. Now, I don't think that Matthew is intending...

Well, I suppose he could, but I don't think that it's his intention to say that while they're standing there, all this took place.

Because that's not in Mark, Luke or John. You do have to explain where the guard has gone at this particular point in time.

Angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came rolled back to stone and sat upon it. His appearance was like lightning and his raiment white as snow.

And for fear of him the guards trembled and he became like dead men. So guards don't do well in the crucifixion resurrection narratives.

Remember they came for Jesus in the garden and when Jesus said, I am, they're falling back upon the ground.

And now they... To use... It's interesting. For fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men,

Matthew, Luke, and as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground. So they're like, okay, all right.

Now, the order of things again here, Mark simply has, looking up, they saw stones rolled back.

It was very large. And in the tomb they saw a young man sitting on the right side dressed in a white robe and they were amazed.

And he said to them, Do not be amazed. You see Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified. He is risen. He is not here. See the place where they laid him, but go tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee.

There you will see him as he told you. And they went out and fled from the tomb for trembling astonishment to come upon them and they said nothing to anyone for they were afraid.

And then Mark is out from that point on. You have the resurrection and you have the command of the women to inform the disciples.

Matthew has the descending of the angel and Luke likewise has, they come to the tomb.

They do not find the body. While they were perplexed about this, behold two men stood by them.

Now, what does it mean to go into the tomb? Again, the issue is looking into a tomb the same thing as going in and ransacking a tomb.

And when we think of a tomb, are we thinking of the same thing as what existed then?

I have not been to Israel. I may get a chance to go there in the not too distant future, but there is a couple of different places that traditionally are said to be the location of the tomb.

I am highly skeptical that we know the specific location of the tomb.

The idea normally is, well, it's just a small area with a place for a body.

But there could have been room for more than one body. It's possible,

I think, I'd have to double check this, but I think they have found some tombs where you had a place for a body, but then you also had alcoves for ossuaries.

So, in other words, you could seal the tomb for that one year while the body decayed, then come in, collect the bones, put them in the ossuary, and put them in a particular alcove of the tomb, and then the tomb could be used again for another body of the family during that period, and then bones collected, put in another ossuary, put in another part of the, you know,

I'm wondering if that's one of the reasons that they put alcoves in these and had things separated was because they were like, they didn't get along in life, we don't need to make them fight in death either, so, you know, mom's side goes over there, and dad's side goes there, and that one cousin goes over there, because nobody would get along with him.

I don't know. But, you know, the possibility exists. Some of you are going, that's not a bad idea, and I'm thinking about it.

I have to think about that. But, anyway, we aren't given a description.

I mean, I guess there's a movie coming out. We can just wait for the movie. That'll have it exactly right. It comes from Hollywood. They did all the research, right?

And we can just trust whatever they have to say. I've been told, you know, I've been told that it actually, you know, okay,

I've heard some people say they got the biblical story right. Well, I heard somebody say it about the Noah movie too, so what can

I say? That was pretty bad. But it sure would be nice if so, but still, we don't know what it looked like.

So, if the stone's rolled away, can you just do this and be able to see that the body's gone?

Or do you have to go down steps and turn a corner? I don't know. So, when it says going in, is that the same thing as peeking in?

Could one author interpret sticking your head in is the same thing as going in? I mean, we know that Peter and John, when they get there, you know, there's a hesitance of going in.

And there would be a hesitance going in. I mean, Jewish people and dead bodies are not real friends along those lines.

So, there would be a hesitance at that point. But, the point being that what we have is a communication of a specific message.

And the message is the same. And that is, Jesus is not here.

Come, see the place where he lay. He has risen. He is not here. See the place where they laid him.

He is not here, but has risen. Why are you seeking the living among the dead? And then

Luke, not surprisingly, given how much time he's going to spend on the fulfilled prophecies regarding the resurrection, has, remember how he told you while he was still in Galilee that the

Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified on the third day rise. They remembered his words and returning from the tomb, they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest.

So, they don't stop. They don't, they're not running through the streets going, he's risen, he's risen, he's risen.

Because, as Mark says, they didn't tell anyone. Instead, they're fulfilling the command to go and to tell the disciples.

And that is likewise said in Matthew. So, the broad outlines are the same as to what is communicated to them, what they're told to go do, and what they do.

But, it's the stuff that we don't know about where you have added information that ends up causing a lot of the issues.

For example, one of the arguments that you will hear is, well, was there an angel or was there a man?

So, that comes from two men stood by them in dazzling apparel.

Well, again, you know, most of us sort of chuckle at that going, well, isn't that fairly obvious that those are the angels?

They're normally described in human form. The dazzling apparel thing might be a clue.

You know, it's not like they had special lights or batteries or anything like that.

So, the dazzling apparel might give it away. Yeah, I know, but the point is as long as you use each of these accounts has to be a photocopy of the other account standard, then it's real easy to come up with all sorts of alleged differences between them.

Most people have never been challenged to think about, well, why would we have four

Gospels if they're supposed to be photocopies of each other? Why would you bother? You could just need one.

You know, that makes it a whole lot easier, doesn't it? They're not meant to be that way. They are meant to give us multiple perspectives because multiple perspectives gives us deeper understanding if we will but take the time to look at it, which, unfortunately, a lot of people are not willing to do.

So, you have the prophetic fulfillment. Luke, then in verse 10, gives us more information as to who was there.

Now, it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary, the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles, but these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them, but Peter rose and ran to the tomb.

Stooping and looking in, he saw the linen clothes by themselves, and he went home wondering at what had happened. And so, now we get into the second part, and that is what is the reaction of the disciples themselves.

But, before we leave this, how many angels, whether you describe them as angels or men, again, is merely a difference in expression.

It is not a difference in what actually took place. Given Matthew and Luke's description,

Matthew gives us an encounter between the angel of the

Lord and the guards, which Luke does not.

Luke does not tell us what happened to the guards, doesn't even mention them.

Instead, you have the women who are at the tomb.

The stone has already been rolled away, and they are perplexed about this.

And while they were perplexed about this, verse 4, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel, and as they were frightened, they bowed their faces to the ground.

So, unlike the guards, who, again, like I said, have a real tough time, who become as dead men, the women, instead, bow their faces to the ground, which would be, again, a very contextually accurate thing.

That would be the natural reaction of Jewish women to the appearance of men in dazzling apparel in a context like this.

But the difference being Matthew and Mark have a single angel doing the speaking.

Luke records there is more than one. Is that a contradiction?

Again, as we said earlier, no, it's added information. But the difference is there, and no matter what, and no matter how many times you have to explain it, you have to be aware of it and be able to explain it to folks.

Alright, so we'll pick up with the transition from that into what the disciples did next time around.

Alright? Okay, let's close the work there. Father, once again, we rejoice in the empty tomb.

We rejoice in the fact that after all of these centuries, you've gathered us in this place, and we live in light of the events of that morning.

We thank you for that. We ask that the same power that raised Jesus from the dead will be with us now to conform us to his image as we hear his word, and that his spirit would be amongst us, we pray in Christ's name.