You Were There (03/18/13)
A couple of thoughts occur as I contemplate what it would have been like to be Peter or John in this moment. But, to fully grasp that, it is first necessary to set aside the reaction that comes of knowing how this all worked out. We who come to the risen Lord cannot fail to rejoice at the empty tomb, for it is emblematic of all our hope and confidence. But, for these? Mary’s reaction was telling. An empty tomb meant nothing more than further antagonism by the powers of the day. Somebody must have stolen it. What other explanation could there be?
These two are somewhat better informed, having been privy to Jesus’ more private teaching sessions, and particular targets of His most intensive training. Their background as fishermen has likely made them somewhat tougher skinned. But, even with that, to come to an open tomb in the dim light of morning might be a bit daunting. Consider that this tomb was known to have been filled with a fresh corpse just a few days back. Consider that these men know what that corpse could be expected to smell like after three days. Consider that they will have to get down on hands and knees to go into this cave. Consider that, so far as we know, they have no torch or lamp with them. The only light will be whatever can filter in from the dawn sky.
Now, then: With all that in mind. Would you go in? I recall the storm drains that we used to explore in younger days. Here was a dark hole indeed, and if one did not go on hands and knees, it was not so very far removed from that approach. The dark was absolute. Of course, we knew there would be no smell of death and corruption. We knew that this was not sewage but only runoff. So, one had that going for them. But, I also recall well how we would entertain ourselves when somebody new was brought along. Listen! If you’ve never experienced such absolute darkness, if you’ve never had your eyes playing tricks, trying to perceive a ceiling that cannot be seen, and yet always seems to be sloping downward before you, then you may not realize just how receptive you can become to suggestion in that state. So, much would be made of the occasional flood of water that would be released to flush the system. And, we who had explored well knew where the next drain pipe joined. We knew where the somewhat loose cover-plate in the middle of the street was, and could be assured that it would make an appropriate sound when some truck went over it. Oh, the marvelous panic!
But, if I were to think back a bit further, to the first time I encountered that hole: I am pretty certain it required a bit of cajoling to get me to go in there. It required a challenge, a dare, and maybe a cousin going first. So, let us suppose for the moment that John’s hesitation was not respect for Peter’s priority of position, but just the need for a bit of moral support. Is that so shocking a thing? Not really. Of course, they are men and not children. They have a bit more experience with harsh realities behind them. Then again, they also have a lot more experience with the supernatural behind them as well, particularly where this One is concerned!
One must also wonder if those soldiers are still about. It’s unclear how long they were knocked out for, and when exactly they trotted off to tell the priests what had happened. If they are still present, that would be a much stronger cause to think twice about going in than the nature of the hole itself.
But, this is the striking thing: Unlike Mary, these two do not leap to the conclusion that His body has been stolen or moved. Unlike the other ladies, they do not get to speak with the angels so as to have an explanation of what they are witnessing. All they have to lean on is what Jesus taught them. And, the evidence would suggest that what Jesus taught them stood them in good stead. I find, in reading Luke’s description of Peter’s response, that I wish the translations had done somewhat better with the word he chose. To be sure, there is that sense of wonder, of marveling. But, that seems to me to cut the description short. It’s not the marveling of disbelief. It’s not that confused, well what do we do now, response that the ladies had experienced. It’s that sort of wonder which embodies a great deal of admiration.
Think about that for just the briefest moment, and one recognizes where Peter’s thinking is. This is reinforced by the comment that John, upon seeing the situation, believed. Believed what? Believed that Jesus was resurrected. He had truly risen from the dead. This is the thing that brings out Peter’s admiration: It’s not just that He’s risen from death. They’ve seen that before in the person of Lazarus. They knew He could do that part. But, when Lazarus came forth, the grave clothes came with him. Not so this time!
Now, we are not told the condition of those wrappings, whether they are unraveled or left more like the husk of a katydid such as we used to find in the fall. Those wrappings, recall, were saturated by layers of myrrh and aloe, some seventy five pounds of the stuff! And the body had been rolled in that mixture. It would be like having a full-body cast on. Yet, it’s empty! Honestly, whether those bandages were laying unwound in a pile on the floor, or still retaining something of His form on the bench there, it would make little difference to their admiration of what He had done. What was clear, exquisitely clear from that carefully rolled face cloth, is that this was not the work of robbers, nor of His enemies.
So, joining these two with the limits of understanding that were theirs in that moment, would I have believed? Would I have reached the conclusion that He was resurrected? These two apparently did. They may not have understood in full, and who can really blame them? But, in this absence of a body there was already something of their faith confirmed. Whatever else their mistakes, it’s clear the Pharisees were right about this much! There is a resurrection and we have seen the proof.
New Thoughts (03/19/13-03/21/13)
Before I approach the topics which this passage suggest to me, there is one technicality of translation I would like to address. This has to do with the way both accounts are translated so as to imply that the disciples went, as the NASB puts it, ‘to their own homes’. In Luke’s account, there is not even the least suggestion of such a destination. He says merely that Peter departed. No destination is hinted at. Apeelthen is the term used, with its component parts apo, indicating motion away from, and erchomai, to come or go. Thus, to go away, or to depart. That’s it. John adds only the word autous to describe their destination.
Here, it behooves me to note what Thayer says of how this autos, or self, is used. “Very often autos is used rather laxly, where the subject or the object to which it must be referred is not expressly indicate, but must be gathered especially from some preceding name of a province or city, or from the context.” Well, what is the context, here? To begin with, we’re in Jerusalem, not Galilee. To suggest that, having seen the cave, they packed up and departed for points north seems an awful lot to read into that clause. Young’s suggests that they ‘went away again unto their own friends.’ This, too, requires a fair amount of interpolation, for their friends are nowhere mentioned here. To find them even implied, one would have to suppose them present to have heard Mary’s despair, in which case, why are only Peter and John found at the tomb? It would seem to me that the simplest understanding is that they returned to wherever it was that the disciples were presently encamped, quite likely back out at the garden, still, or perhaps in Bethany, with Mary, Martha and Lazarus. It remains, after all, the week of Passover. Surely, they would be remaining in the city for that in spite of what has happened.
For the remainder of this study, I think I shall be focusing upon the dividing line between wisdom and knowledge, and upon the balanced tension between faith and evidence. As to the first distinction, that between wisdom and knowledge, I find it is illustrated by the response of Peter and John in this instance. They do not, as Mary did, conclude that somebody must have moved the body. At the same time, they do not possess complete understanding of what they are witnessing. Knowledge, such as it is understood and pursued in our day, would require scientific inquiry. Explanations for the evidence must be posited, tested, and verified before the conclusion that this Jesus was resurrected could be drawn. Wisdom, on the other hand, recognizes the preponderance of evidence. Wisdom does not insist on full explanation of all pertinent facts and details.
They saw and they believed. What God saw fit to reveal in the evidence provided was sufficient. Notice that John specifically says they did not understand. They didn’t grasp every nuance of the significance. They didn’t see the ramifications. But, they believed the Truth that He had risen. Peter, says Luke, marveled, but it is that sense of wonder and admiration. One can imagine the thoughts going on in Peter’s head. He did it! Well, I’ll be. Don’t know how. Don’t know if He’s out wandering the streets of Jerusalem, or just moved on from this earthly existence, but this much is clear: He is no longer in the grave!
The point I seek to observe here is that, as wiser men than I have said before, God reserves the right to keep certain knowledge for Himself. He is not required to reveal every last intent of His will and every detail of His purpose. There is a reason that the Church speaks of mysteries. Paul writes of mysteries. Granted, he most often writes of those which he has been granted to explain. But, it remains true that there are those facets of the ineffable God that shall remain ineffable. His ways, however much He may choose to reveal and explain, continue to be far and away above our own. His thoughts remain in many ways alien to our own. In short, He continues to be God and we continue to be man. There comes a point where the earnest inquiries of man arrive at a border set in place by God. Beyond this border, He will not answer. And, while the question itself cannot be construed a sin, yet the insistence on an answer He has already indicated shall be withheld might well be so construed.
This is the distinction I see, that wisdom recognizes, understands, and accepts that there are borders, boundaries to what knowledge is suited to the capacity of man. Knowledge, of and to itself, rejects all limits. Knowledge, apart from God’s guidance, is amoral, and being amoral is almost assured of becoming immoral. One needn’t look too far amongst the headlines of the day to see that this is the case. Man has, in pursuit of knowledge, learned means of procreation that are no longer constrained by the consummation of a marriage, no longer even require the mother and father to know one another, or indeed even to be alive. Oh, what a wonder! The infertile can yet experience parenthood. The death of a spouse need no longer mean the end of the family line. And, of course, we can analyze the genetics, perhaps manipulate the outcome for this human-to-be. Why, we could scan for birth defects, and nip those in the bud. We could assess the genes for various health risks and either deal with those in the same fashion, or perhaps do a bit of engineering to alter the outcome. And, of course, having arrived at the idea of genetic engineering, we could, of course, consider less life-threatening aspects. Perhaps you’d like your boy to have a bit more brain power? A bit more muscle? Maybe you have a preference as to hair color, or some such? We can arrange that.
The knowledge is there. The wisdom to know whether said knowledge ought to be put to work or not seems to be wholly absent. History would seem to indicate that man is inherently unwise when it comes to the power of knowledge. We are inventive. How could we not be, who yet bear the image of our Creator God? But, we seem to be oblivious to the implications of our invention. If we can, it seems to us, that is reason enough why we ought. We can harness the power of the atom. We could use that for energy generation. On the other hand, we could use it for power over our enemies. We could use drones to minimize our losses in a war. We could also use them to manage things at home. We could bring extinct species back to life. But ought we to do so? Or ought we better to consider some of these things to be as great a danger to ourselves as was the eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
Wisdom recognizes that God remains at the helm. God ought to have the final say. Indeed, He will. More properly, wisdom recognizes that God ought to have the initial say. Wisdom pursues knowledge with that fence clearly in view. Reveal to me, O God, that which is good for me to know. And, by all means, dear Lord, keep me from pursuing that which would be to my harm.
One can hardly consider this topic without being drawn to the book of Proverbs. There is a passage from chapter 2 of that book which strikes me as capturing this line of reasoning quite well. “Make your ear attentive to wisdom, incline your heart to understanding. For if you cry for discernment, lift your voice for understanding; if you seek her as silver, and search for her as for hidden treasures; then you will discern the fear of the Lord, and discover the knowledge of God. For the Lord gives wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge and understanding” (Pr 2:2-6). If you would know, and know with wisdom, you will discern the fear of the Lord! How often this is connected in Scripture. “The fear of the Lord is wisdom, and to depart from evil is understanding” (Job 28:28). “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. A good understanding have all who do His commandments” (Ps 111:10). “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. Fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Pr 1:7). “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding” (Pr 9:10).
Oh may we have the wisdom to pursue first the knowledge of God, that our remaining pursuits might be properly bounded and directed by the fear of the Lord!
This willingness to accept God’s Truth even when He withholds the full extent of knowledge, even when wisdom’s boundary is reached before complete understanding, is one side of faith. Faith believes, and belief cannot always be built upon a complete body of evidence. This is not to say that faith has no evidence, however. Indeed, faith has a preponderance of evidence. Belief is not blind. Let us consider the case at hand in this scene.
First, there is the matter of the wrappings. I am not certain how much can be made of the choice of terms used in describing their condition, but I note that the overall sense of the word keimena, as I look across the lexicons suggests something rather more orderly than not. Zhodiates offers the idea of something laid out, placed, set in a particular spot. Thayer provides the comparative image of lying as an infant or a corpse is lain. Strong simply indicates lying outstretched. Now, notice that none of these descriptions fit the idea of the bandages that had wrapped Jesus’ body lying in a tangled heap on the floor, or on the ledge where He Himself had been lain. Every one of these suggests a careful, purposeful setting down, placing, laying out in orderly fashion, taking care as to how the thing lies.
Then, there is the added detail that John provides, of that face-cloth which had not been lain with the wrappings, but was set in a place of its own. And, not only that, but it had been rolled up. Time had been taken here. And, that is the key factor. I believe it was the NET that noted this point: All the indications are of the remover of these bandages and wrappings having taken time to neaten up. A thief, it is noted, certainly would not have done any such thing if he had come hoping to rob the dead. A thief, I would add, would have to be pretty daft to think this poor man, stripped nearly naked on the cross, and victim of Roman justice, was likely to have anything of worth left on Him. As to any other who would be moving the body for reasons fair or foul, why would they be removing the bandages at all? Sure, it would reduce the weight somewhat, but beyond that, there’s not really much available for an alternative explanation as to what has happened here.
I tend to think that had Mary stayed long enough to look inside, even apart from the angelic message, she might have found the evidence sufficient to shift her view that somebody had moved the body. But, be that as it may, the point is that here is evidence. The evidence, I should note, is hardly sufficient that a man given no other information at all would immediately conclude that a resurrection had taken place. Certainly a modern man of the west would be unlikely to reach such a conclusion. Of course, a modern man of the west would be hard pressed to reach that conclusion regardless of the evidence. That is more a comment on the state of modern man than it is the evidence.
These two, though: They already had more evidence upon which to build. Most recently, of course, there was the resurrection of Lazarus, which they themselves had witnessed firsthand as it happened. They knew the sisters. They knew that Lazarus had been interred days ago. They had not been there for that part, but they had spoken to many mourners around the house who had been. That fact was sufficiently established. And, they had physically watched him emerging from that tomb, still wrapped up tight in his grave clothes, still with the face-cloth about his head. I wondered at the time and I wonder still what that must have looked like, given that his wrappings, like those of Jesus, would have precluded any movement of the limbs to propel him as he emerged! This is almost as stunning an aspect of that occasion as was his resurrection in the first place! How did he come out?
The power on display was beyond our capacity to properly imagine, which is again due in large part to our modern stance on such things. In spite of faith, in spite of the preponderance of evidence we ourselves enjoy, the cultural training has been such that we simply find it nigh on impossible to accept that such things as God putting forth His power in such visceral, tangible fashion can really happen. Maybe back then, but not now. It is, perhaps, the most irrational attitude in the Church at large today. We believe God. We believe that He did such marvels in times past. The burning bush, the pillar of fire and smoke, the parting of the Red Sea, and so many other things: We count those real events and not some mythological tale. We believe He did these things. We believe He healed and cast out demons and fed thousands from near to nothing. We believe He calmed the storm with a word, walked upon the water unaided by any flotation device. And yet, we believe that for some odd reason, let us say it is simply His choice of changing motif, He not only does not do such things today but, if we were honest about our perspective, that He cannot do so. One could argue it would be pointless, given the bull-headedness of man in his refusal to believe anything that cannot be proven absolutely. But, then, the same could be said of the society that watched Jesus in action, watched Him die, watched Him rise again.
Honestly, who was acting on the body of evidence, and who in spite of the evidence? The disciples, it seems to me, have a faith built firmly upon evidence. The Pharisees? The Sadducees? If they can be said to have faith at all, it is more the blind sort of faith than ever a Christian possessed. It is, if you will, a willfully self-blinding faith. It is the faith that, in spite of recognizing Jesus for Who He Is, they could kill Him with impunity. It is the faith that, in spite of the many ways they had defiled the Temple and the religion they purported to uphold, the God they claimed to serve would just let it slide. It is the faith that, in spite of the lengthy record to the contrary in their own Scriptures, trusting in some foreign political power (or even a native one) rather than God would work out for them this time.
Back to the disciples, though. As I said, they had the evidence of Lazarus upon which to add this latest event. But, there were differences. Prime among them is the fact that, as I already commented, Lazarus came out with the wrappings still on. But, here are the wrappings with no body in sight. They would remember the nature of the pile those wrappings made when Lazarus was unbound. They could compare and contrast and see clearly that even a friendly party seeking to unwrap the live body would hardly have done this. It’s simply time and care that nobody would take over blood-stained, aloe-soaked strips of cloth. There is also the distinction that for Lazarus, Jesus had been present and alive to speak the word of power that brought Him back from the grave. Who spoke over Jesus?
John, way back near the beginning of his Gospel, gives a hint as to how he and Peter would answer. “When He was raised from the dead, His disciples recalled what He had said. They believed the Scripture as well as what Jesus had spoken” (Jn 2:22). Now, this must be balanced against what John says here, that they did not yet understand the Scripture (v9). What does that leave? They believed what He had spoken! What had He spoken? Well, on that immediate occasion it was the very statement that led to there being guards outside the tomb, as Matthew relates. “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (Jn 2:19). There were also the numerous times Jesus had made the point more bluntly as they were making their way from Galilee. The Son of Man will be beaten, spit upon, whipped, despised, ridiculed, killed, crucified, dead and buried. But, He will rise again the third day. How often He drilled that point into their heads! They rejected it. They didn’t want to hear it. It was in severe conflict with their conception of Messiah. But, the Word was spoken, and it did not fail of its purpose. They entered the cave the third day, and lo! No body, just the wrappings. And they believed. They believed because the evidence and the teaching confirmed one another.
They believed not because of complete understanding. John makes that abundantly clear. The believed in spite of lacking that complete understanding. But, they did not believe in a data vacuum. They believed upon the preponderance of evidence, and because (we might say) no evidence could be produced that disproved the proposed explanation. Seems pretty close to the scientific method, if you ask me. Propose theory, analyze data. If data disproves theory move on. Else, as the body of confirming data grows, theory – even if it cannot be proven fully – achieves theorem status. It’s still just possible that said theorem will in time have to be rejected as false, but the likelihood has been greatly reduced. Here, we are encountering what is really the culminating point of evidence. But, it is added to a body of evidence stretching back over millennia. And, throughout that record, no counter-evidence is found. The whole fits together coherently. To be sure, critics will look upon that body of work and find what they take to be discrepancies. However, I find that for the great majority of these, even without in depth knowledge of linguistic nuances, ancient history, and so on, one can also observe in the apparent discrepancies a means of arriving at congruence.
I have had to confront this many times working through these four Gospel accounts. There are many points at which one could choose to construe the accounts as mutually exclusive. Yet, the majority of these can also be seen confirming one another. Recognizing that no one of these four men sought to lay out an exhaustive history of Jesus’ life and ministry, that even the events they do go into detail on are not treated with an intention of describing every last detail, it becomes possible to visualize a reconstruction of the scenes that admits of all accounts. In the end, it seems that one’s perspective coming into the effort has more to do with what is observed than anything else. If one comes with the premise that the Bible is full of contradictions and a desire to prove the untrustworthy nature of the text, one is likely to find evidence that supports that preconception. If one comes with the premise that the Bible is infallible, being the inspired word of God Himself, one is likely to accept that his own limitations are more likely to lay at the base of any perceived contradictions, and to seek rather to understand how things might be harmonized than to settle for the present lack of wisdom and/or knowledge.
As for those of us who come late to the party, who are given to believe in a Christ we have never seen, we are not required to function on blind faith either. We have as foundation this very text. We have the testimony of eye witnesses. Look to the summation that Paul provided to the Corinthian church (1Co 15:4-8). “He was buried. He was raised the third day according to Scriptures. He appeared to Peter, then to the twelve. He appeared to more than five hundred of the brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then, He appeared to James and the apostles, and last of all, as to one born at the wrong time, He appeared to me as well.”
Now, note this well, as does Paul: The great majority of witnesses he is pointing to were alive and well at the time of writing, and of the church reading his letter. The folks in Corinth could speak to those who had seen. I am particularly struck by that point that five hundred – most of them alive and available for interview – had seen the resurrected Christ in one sitting. It’s not the twelve in collusion. It’s not some game the Apostles are playing to create a profit or a power structure for their benefit. There’s hundreds of others, hundreds who have no stake in this new sect by any earthly measure. They are necessarily off on mission trips like Peter and Paul, making their living in part upon the contributions of the converts. They are not, like James and John, establishing some sort of power of authority as leaders of a new sect. They are simply believers, men no different than yourselves. Yet, they confirm! There’s that soldier at the cross that John has mentioned. He, too, confirms what happens. If I am reading that part aright, it would seem he was a frequent visitor to churches of the region, gladly testifying of his own role in that terrible and yet glorious event, how he came to recognize the Son of God, how he was forgiven by that same Son of God, risen from a death he himself had confirmed was quite real.
The Resurrection is a real event in real history involving a real Man and a real God. That’s what this all requires us to understand. Again, I can turn to Paul, that master of not only theology but also of rhetoric in its best sense. If this were not the case: If the crucifixion did not involve the real death of a real and perfect Man, if the resurrection is a hoax perpetrated by religious frauds, then we are of all people the most pitiful. We are still dead in our sins, and deluded to the point of no longer trying to do what might yet save us from that awful fate. Nay. We are without hope if this is the case. The evidence against us is already beyond any human capacity to counter. We are doomed even as we live. Except that the evidence is in, and Jesus did die! Jesus did rise again. We may not understand all the mechanics of how that can be. We certainly don’t know how to do this for ourselves. We may not, in spite of our sense of wisdom and in spite of two thousand years of literature exploring the subject, completely grasp all the implications. But, we have the wisdom to believe! We have the evidence to make belief wise.
I am quite thrilled, I must say, that these Gospel studies are arriving at these scenes just in time for this year’s observance of Easter. He is risen! Here it is! This is the stuff that faith is made of! This is the event that has made Life possible! What a wonderful portion of Scripture to be soaking in with that annual celebration of His Life coming up in a few short weeks.
Holy God in heaven, thank You! You know, as I know, that I have in no way sought to schedule these studies to coincide with anything. You know the days I have been stymied from pursuing my usual morning studies. You know the many side trails I’ve wandered down. You know because, as much as I have been involved with laying out the outlines, modifying them when I could no longer see why I had done as I had, decided to explore this person or that, or to wander off on some tangential topic, through all of that, You have been in control. I am back right there at that first verse ever I highlighted. “The mind of man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps” (Pr 16:9). Yes, and how often I have seen You doing just that through these long years studying the Gospels You directed to be written! How often has this study fed into what is happening in Sunday School, or been resonating with what was being preached from the pulpit? So often I’ve lost count! How wonderful was it to be considering the birth narratives during the Christmas season? And here I am again, in confluence by Your design.
I must also add my thanks on this morning for what this all signifies. You have saved me to the uttermost! You have rescued me from my own darkness to be brought into Your marvelous light. You have taken this dead man and made him alive. Yes, You are risen! But, I am also, after a fashion already resurrected by Your power. And what remains yet future for me is even more marvelous, too marvelous for words! Oh, Lord, how can it be that I go through so many days unimpressed and uninterested in Your plan and purpose? How can it be that, even as I begin preparing myself for these mornings, I find my thoughts drifting to trivial matters of the workday ahead? It’s unfitting in the extreme! Forgive me, oh my God! Train this mind, and chase out the last of these remaining shadows that occlude my sight of You.
