This essay originally appeared here in May, 2009 and has been extensively edited for 2010.
Mark says nothing about specific resurrection appearances. Instead, he essentially repeats the kerygma, the proclamation, of the earliest Church, as first recorded by St. Paul in First Corinthians 15: 1-11.
In Mark a proclamation of resurrection faith is stated within the empty tomb. There, an angel says that Jesus is not in the tomb; that he has been raised, and is going ahead of Peter and the disciples to Galilee where they will see him.
This speech by the angel is a divine explanation of the meaning of the empty tomb. But angels aren't humans and and human reaction is not necessarily one of casual acceptance. Rather, Mark records that the women to whom the angel speaks are simply terrified and flee from the tomb in amazement, and tell no one!
There, on that strange note, Mark ends his Gospel!
I believe that Mark intentionally ends his Gospel this way. Mark wants each individual reader to make his or her own decision about who Jesus is. Mark would have us look at the evidence He provides in his Gospel and decide without the comfort of human testimony. Mark demands that we have faith based on the word of Jesus, and that of an angel after he had risen.
But not many are blessed with such trusting faith. And so, without realizing it, Mark lays the groundwork, via the statement of the angel in the empty tomb, for the later Gospel writers, who do include specific descriptions by eye-witnesses to the appearances of the Risen Lord. The three later Gospel writers tell us "what happened" after Mark's gospel ends.
Matthew, who wrote decades after Mark, is the Gospel writer who adheres closest to Mark's story, building his entire narrative on Mark's Gospel, but expanding it greatly and adding a lot of other material as well.
Mark wrote primarily for a gentile audience. Matthew, on the other hand, is the most "Jewish" of the Gospel writers and his small church was a Jewish sect within a Jewish world. As such, Matthew knew first hand the harsh accusations of the Jewish leadership and the condemnations of orthodox Jews against the upstart Christian sect within Judaism.
The hardest accusation of all was that the resurrection was faked by the disciples. Thus Matthew is interested in telling details of the story that Mark chose not to tell; or, perhaps, did not even know.
In any case, Matthew reports two separate appearances by the Risen Lord, the first immediately outside of the tomb in Jerusalem and the second later appearance on the mountain in Galilee, where the disciples worship him, yet some doubt.
It is there on that mountain in Galilee where the Risen Christ gives them what we know as "The Great Commission." We'll come back to these two scenes in a moment, but first, let's look at something else that Matthew reports of which that Mark says nothing.
Matthew tells the story of what happened at the tomb quite differently than does Mark. Matthew weaves into the story of the death of Jesus the undoubtedly true idea that the Jewish leaders were afraid that Jesus' followers would fake his resurrection.
Thus in Matthew we learn that the Chief Priests and the Pharisees go to Pilot and tell of an alleged plot by the Christians to steal the body and to claim that Jesus was raised. Pilate, in turn, tells them to place guards at the tomb to keep that from happening and to "secure" the tomb.
They do; and we are told that the guards "seal" the tomb. This extra caution is to no avail, and Matthew describes a far more dramatic scene at the time of the resurrection than Mark reported. Matthew tells us that the two Marys go to the tomb at dawn on Sunday - and everything goes crazy!
There is an earthquake; an angel descends from heaven and rolls away the stone and sits on it! The guards shake in fear and then go catatonic. And, in typical angelic fashion the angel tells the women not to be afraid!
Then the angel proceeds to tell them exactly what the angel in Mark told them. And, the women do not run away in terror, although this scene is far more terrifying than that depicted by Mark, but leave in both fear and "great joy", running to tell the disciples!
To say the least, that is different than Mark's report. But then it gets even more different, for Jesus suddenly appears before them, saying simply, "Greetings!" Matthew tells us that they are not afraid of him, or of him having appeared to them; but rather, that they come to him; fall at his feet, worshiping him.
He, like the angel, tells them not to be afraid, but to go tell the brothers to meet him in Galilee. Thus, in Matthew, we see not only that Jesus will meet the disciples in Galilee, as he promised, but that he first meets the women in Jerusalem, reassuring them of the truth of what the angel had spoken.
In the first place Matthew's community has entirely different stories that have been handed down within it than the stories told in Mark's community. In addition, Matthew is determined to undermine any idea that the followers of Jesus had stolen the body. Matthew highlights God's heavenly power: the earthquake, the angel, the angelic rolling away of the sealed stone from the tomb, and the trance placed on the guards. All of these actions are to indicate that Jesus being gone from the tomb has nothing whatsoever to do with human mischief, and everything to do with God's divine intervention.
And, to top it off, in case there are any who still think that the dead Jesus has been carried off; we see a very alive Jesus who is actually called "Jesus" not "Lord." In other words Matthew makes it clear that this is the same Jesus who was dead that we now see speaking calmly to the women.
Whatever lapses Matthew found in Mark's account which he thought would allow the claim of the Jewish leadership that the body was stolen, are completely covered here by Matthew's detailed defense of what happened.
What Matthew is doing here is trying to turn the tables on the accusers: arguing, in effect, that the hoax is not the resurrection, but rather the real hoax is the attempt by the Jewish leadership to cover up the resurrection!
So Matthew reports that the guards awakened from their catatonic state and went to the chief priests and told them what happened. Not content to let the truth prevail, the priests then bribed the guards with a large sum of money and told them to lie about what really happened! Listen: "You must say, 'His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.'"
Matthew says that the guards agreed, and took the money; and that "to this day" -- meaning when Matthew was writing his Gospel some 30 years later -- this lie still was circulating among the Jewish leadership.
Thus we see Matthew taking head-on the argument against the truth of the resurrection. Matthew becomes then the first great Gospel apologist (defender) for the Good News of Christ.
Matthew ends his Gospel on a much more positive note. The eleven remaining disciples, less Judas, go to the mountain in Galilee to which Jesus directed them. Matthew is unclear here as he never says when or how Jesus told them to go to a mountain, rather than just to go to Galilee. In any case they go there and see him and they worship him.
Interestingly, Matthew admits that "some doubted." This is undoubtedly reported correctly because Matthew would be very reluctant to put that in had it not been a key part of the testimony that was passed forward to him. Our text implies that some of Jesus' own disciples doubted, even after seeing him, since there is no indication that anyone other than the disciples was on the mountain top, although "disciples" can include many followers other than the original twelve, and we know that Jesus had a large group of followers when he entered Jerusalem.
This idea was so repugnant to later redactors that some translations say that "others" doubted, implying that there were others on the mountain who saw Jesus, and those who doubted were not followers. Which may be true, but the text does not support it. The harder translation to swallow, that even after seeing him some of his own disciples doubted, is more likely correct.
Both Mark's and Matthew's Gospels are full of times when the disciples did not understand, and often doubted, both what Jesus was doing and what he said, including that he must die and be raised.
While we might wish that all of us were of one convinced mind on all important matters of the faith, the truth is that we are not. We are all individuals and are at different places in our own faith journeys. And each of us go through personal periods of doubt. I am comfortable with that as you know. I believe that doubt is a normal experience of faith development.
But many people are not comfortable with any doubt, including their own. You will have to make up your own minds, however, because there is no way to confirm the text.
What is clear is that when you read differing accounts of things that happened long ago, the logical thing to do is to accept the account that would be the hardest for the writer to accept, but could not leave out since it was part of the story as handed down.
What is far more important, however, than the question of who doubted that the Risen Lord was indeed risen was the instruction he gave them. We now call that instruction "The Great Commission."
The Great Commission is the basis for the mission of the Church, and is literally Christ's own instruction about what his disciples are to be doing with our lives. The fact that lay Christians most often do not do what he instructs us can be disheartening to those of us who like to think that we all should be trying to live as Christ would have us live. Regardless of how we respond to it, his message is clear and unequivocal.
Jesus' last words before his ascension are:
"All authority in heaven and on 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 and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age."
Christ is clear. And it is equally clear that his resurrection was for the purpose of reestablishing relationship with us, and, through Christian ministry, with all humankind.
After he was risen Jesus said very little to us that is recorded in the Bible. This is by far the clearest message that the Risen Christ sends to those who call themselves Christians.
Sadly, very few lay people in the Church pay much attention to me when I tell them that the Great Commission is what we should be doing with our lives. It is, they tell me, what we hire pastors and missionaries to do. But that is only partly true.
When I was a pastor I hated to be the one to tell them, they were wrong to think that the commandment of Great Commission could be foisted off on paid staff. The truth is that there is nothing a Christian can do in his or her day to day life that is more important than trying to fulfill the Great Commission.
I am painfully aware of the fact that the Great Commission has been abused countless times when Christians have tried to cram their faith down people's throats. But the mission is to create disciples, then to teach those disciples to obey the teachings of Christ. It is not to force, coerce, intimidate or insist upon making disciples of people who have no interest in the Christian message.
Christians are to offer the message of Jesus by teaching; offering what Jesus said and did during his ministry on earth as an example for all humanity. That is a far cry from the fervent proselytizing and "in your face" demanding of faith that has gone on over the centuries, and continues to this day.
Yet, ironically, that Christ wants lay people to do anything at all about sharing the faith is not a comfortable idea to most modern Christians. But at the very least Christians can show the way to Christ by the examples of how they live their lives. The best evangelism is living a godly life.
They can invite people to "come and see" what Christians do, how they worship, what they get out of being followers of the Way, which is what Jesus did at the beginning of his ministry. They can be warm, open, friendly and loving to those who do come and see. Perhaps those seekers will decide that they want some of that love, compassion, caring and learning that they see when they visit our churches.
Next, in the final post in this series, we'll look at Luke's story of the resurrection appearances.
God bless you.
Monte
Original post: 1312 page views as of 2010 05 02
Related posts in this series on Resurrection Faith may be found in the column to the left of this page under The Christian Calendar Series. This essay originally appeared here in May, 2009 and has been extensively edited for 2010.
I have told you that I believe that the appearances of the Risen Lord after the resurrection are the easiest way to understand the truth of the resurrection of Jesus.
Yet, we are told in the Bible, in Matthew, that even Jesus' personal appearance before his followers after his resurrection was not enough "proof" for some. Matthew says that, even as the Risen Lord appeared to them on the mountain before he gave them the Great Commission, "some doubted." For some, then, even personally seeing the Risen Lord was not enough to allow them to believe the truth of the resurrection.
Today, these appearances do not provide proof that would satisfy a scientist or a skeptic, but they do provide the testimony of trustworthy eye witnesses, which is proof enough for some, but certainly not all.
Those writers knew that while faith without proof would satisfy some, others, many others, would be more likely to believe if they included the stories of the appearances of the Risen Christ in their Gospel accounts. Those Gospels, written much later than Mark's Gospel, were already dealing with attacks on the faith by those who questioned the reason why the tomb was empty.
And so the angel's declaration in Mark that the Risen Christ is "going ahead of you to Galilee" sets the stage for the later Gospel writers, who will tell us "what happened" after Mark's gospel ends, with the intention to quell the arguments against the meaning of the empty tomb and to share the stories of the eye witnesses to the Risen Christ which had been told in their communities from the beginning.
We would not have the details of the Resurrection Appearances that Mathew, Luke or John gave. What we would have would be the simple proclamations of Jesus himself and of Paul and Mark.
I think that people may well have had a much harder time coming to belief, to making that "leap of faith" necessary to then study and learn about God's redemptive love in Jesus, the Christ.
We know that Christianity would have arisen because Paul had planted many churches with only the proclamation of faith which he lays out in First Corinthians, which includes no details at all. But we know that even within the church in Corinth there were believers who were having second thoughts, which is why Paul wrote what is now Chapter 15 of is first letter.
This is why I always come back to my original contention, that "the appearances of the Risen Lord after the resurrection are the easiest way to understand the truth of the resurrection of Jesus." Strange as some of the appearance narratives may be to our modern eyes and ears, they provide solid testimony that Christ did appear to many, and do not require what Mark insists on: what we would today call "blind faith."
For many blind faith is enough; but for many others it is not. This is true today, just as we know that for some even were Jesus to appear to us today they would not believe it. And that brings us full circle back to the essence of faith: trust in things unseen, which is precisely the point Mark makes in his Gospel by what he does NOT say, rather than what he does say.
Mark's test of faith is not for the faint at heart.
Nor was Jesus' test. His most troubling question for the believer today remains "But you; who do you say that I am?" Ultimately, with or without the aid of the stories of the Resurrection Appearances, that question lies at the heart of Christian faith and hope.
In the meantime, I encourage Christians to contemplate the essence of your own faith. If you, for instance, were living in Mark's community and had available to you only the statements of Jesus while he was ministering among us on this earth, the proclamation of St. Paul in First Corinthians, and the brief statement of the angel in the empty tomb, what would you believe about the resurrection?
Mark felt that we should believe based upon only that indirect evidence and the statements of Jesus that he provides in his short Gospel. Could you?
May God bless each of you.
When Thomas was confronted by the Risen Lord, who showed Thomas his wounds, Thomas finally believed that Jesus was raised, calling Jesus, "My Lord and my God!". Many think that Thomas actually put his hand into Christ's side, but that is not true. It was actually seeing the Risen Christ and the offer to allow Thomas to reach out and prove it really was Jesus that convinced Thomas that the one standing before him was Jesus.
But Jesus' reaction to Thomas is telling. While He clearly wanted Thomas to believe, and is glad that Thomas now believes, Jesus states, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe."
Jesus is not scolding Thomas here; but he is saying that there is something blessed about those who believe that He was raised without having such direct proof. And that can be a word of comfort to those who have not had to struggle with their faith. Nevertheless, there is still a large majority of people who struggle with their faith. And the testimony of the eyewitnesses can be the greatest comfort to them.
So, however you come to belief: through doubting and difficulty, or by trusting from the beginning, content with the simple proclamation that the resurrection is true, Jesus is also both demonstrating and saying that he will provide a way for us to believe.
Each of us must walk our own spiritual path. For some, like me, that path will be difficult. And there will be inevitable stumbles along the way. For others it will be smooth and mostly downhill. And yet, as in the time of Jesus, many will not believe and will take a path away from Christ.
We are told of at least one in the Bible who believed before any appearance by the Risen Lord, and before the eye witness testimony of others who had seen Him. According to St. John, when the "beloved disciple", who outraced Peter to the tomb, went into the empty tomb, and saw the linen wrappings that the body had been in, he believed.
And, at the other extreme, we are told by St. Matthew that, even after the appearances, and even as the Risen Lord was being seen and worshiped by many on the mountain before he gave them the Great Commission, "some doubted." For some, then, even personally seeing the Risen Lord was not enough to convince them to believe the truth of the resurrection.
Times have not changed all that much. I think that would be true today, were he to appear right now. Some already believe that he is here, with us; and yet others neither feel his presence nor would they believe it if he were to manifest himself to us precisely as he did to those disciples on that mountaintop.
Today there are, in fact, some who can believe simply because, for example, the angel in the tomb said he was raised; or who believe simply because the tomb was empty and the linens discarded. But it is likely that more of us are like Thomas than are like the beloved disciple. It is clear that God knew that about us, and therefore there were numerous appearances by the Risen Lord to many people between the time he was raised and the time he ascended into heaven. These eyewitnesses provide evidence for those who struggle.
Jesus appeared to them for many reasons, three of which are clear in the Bible. In addition to providing eyewitness acounts, he also appeared to them to re-establish relationships with them, relationships that had been severed at his death; to prove that, after death, relationships can and will be reestablished between God and man. And he appeared to them to put them to work: that is what the Great Commission in Mathew 28 is all about: establishing the Church and giving it a mission, a job to do.
But regardless of the motives of Jesus when he appeared to many, those appearances provide a foundation on which most people anchor their belief. They do not provide scientific proof, but they do provide the testimony of trustworthy eye witnesses, which is proof enough for those who see through the eyes of faith.
If you read all of the stories of the resurrection appearances carefully you will very soon discover that, just like the stories of Jesus' crucifixion and death, these accounts differ one from the other. There are differences in such things as to whom he appeared, how often, when, in what order, where, what he said, what he did, and so forth.
But if he appeared to many different people in many different places and at many different times it is not strange that there would be many different stories about his appearances.
We will be better served if we focus less on what is different about these stories and more on what their similarities tell us. While there are differences in the details, there are far more important and overriding similarities. And it is these similarities that provide the clues to us of the importance of these events in how we Christians live our lives.
So the remainder of this essay will focus on what the appearances as a whole tell us about the Risen Lord and His intentions for Christians. We will focus on their similarities and on their overall importance.
We do not begin with the Gospels, but with St. Paul. We may not realize it, but we first learn that there were appearances by the Risen Lord from Paul. Writing before the Gospel accounts were recorded, Paul, in First Corinthians 15, tells us the basic kerygma, or proclamation, of the faith.
15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, 2 through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you--unless you have come to believe in vain. 3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me....11b.... so we proclaim and so you have come to believe. (NRSV)
Although no specifics of the resurrection appearances are given here, this proclamation is significant. It was written in Christ's own generation and shows clearly that the belief in the resurrection was based on oral tradition, that is on verbal stories, not yet written down, but authenticated by still living eye-witnesses to the events of the appearances. For the earliest church then, what was accepted as true was the eye-witness testimony to the appearances after the resurrection, which was passed on verbally, from one local church to another.
Notice how Paul summarizes this witness: "[This] we proclaim, and so you have come to believe." Paul is telling them that they have heard the proclamation, and that their belief is based not upon their personal knowledge, but on their trust that the proclamation is true. It is based first on testimony and then on proclamation. In the church those two ways of communication are called witnessing and preaching.
Later in the life of the early church, as claims and counter-claims about the truth of the resurrection continued to spring up, and as the eye witnesses began to age and die, these oral testimonies were written down, along with all of the other stories and parables that we have come to know as the Gospels. As each gospel was written, and as more time passed, we see the trend moving from the simple narrative of Mark to the more complex and sometimes defensive (apologetic) gospel of Matthew, then to the attempt to clarify the stories of Jesus by Luke, and finally, to the unabashedly apologetic gospel according to John.
[Note: Apologetic here means "defending the faith" not "apologizing" for it. Apologetics is a form of Christian writing or speech that seeks to defend the claims of the church against any who attack those claims.]
The gospels are much more than the simple statement of the faith that Paul gave to the Corinthians, although the Gospels do contain clear statements of the faith. But they also seek to defend the truths upon which the faith is built against attacks from both within the church and from outside of it.
Even the first and shortest gospel, the gospel according to Mark, has far more explanation in it than does the proclamation in First Corinthians. By the time we reach the gospel of John, the explanations that defend the proclamation of faith, including God's raising of Jesus by resurrection, are much, much longer than the proclamation itself, and serve both apologetic and theological purposes far more complex than simply believing that the appearances happened.
Not counting the much later appearance to Paul on the road to Damascus, the stories of the appearances are in the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John.
Note: Mark does not include resurrection appearances in the original manuscript. In fact, the Gospel of Mark, which is the earliest Gospel written, has no neat ending; but two were supplied much later, a shorter ending and a longer ending. If you look at your Bible you'll note that the "longer ending" of Mark does include appearances. But that second ending was written much later by a different author.
We will discuss the Gospel according to Mark in the next essay in this series so we can understand why he did not include the appearances.
We also will look in the last two essays in this series at the Gospels according to Matthew and Luke. With Mark they form what are called the "synoptic" gospels, that is they can be read together and come from similar original sources
.
We will not look at John's Gospel because while there are very detailed discussions of resurrection appearances in John, the entirety of those writings are to serve apologetic and theological purposes that go far beyond understanding whether or not the appearances happened. John simply had a different agenda than did the other Gospel writers, one that is too complex to discuss in this series.
Next time we shall explore together the resurrection narrative of the earliest Gospel, that of Mark, and seek to determine why the original manuscript of the writer did not contain any mention of resurrection appearances. Many have found that to be a strange and mysterious thing, but there is actually an elegant and simple explanation.
God bless you all.
Monte
Original post: 3381 page views 2010 04 15
I am a Christian theologian. A form of this essay was first published in April, 2009. It is part of my Christian Calendar Series; and I have redacted it substantially for 2010.
This series of five essays focuses on one of the key elements of Christianity: the Resurrection of Jesus, the Christ.
These essays are not short. Understanding faith is not a series of sound bites. I write them so that my readers can use them as an aid in their own spiritual reflection. Each person must make his or her own decisions about the meaning of faith, including Christianity. Hopefully, by reading these essays the fundamental claim of Christianity, the Resurrection, can be better understood.
In this essay we will explore three things.
First, the importance to a Christian of belief that the Resurrection is true.
Second, conclusions which I have come to after years of study of the Resurrection.
And, third, the importance of the appearances of the Risen Lord after his Resurrection.
As an event occurring at the cusp of time, space and eternity the Resurrection falls within a group of events that the Church calls an "eschatological event;" meaning that it is an event signaling the "last days."
We are living in a period between the beginning of the last days, signified by the coming of God in Christ, and the culmination of the last days at the second coming of Christ.
We live in what is known in the Church as the "in-between" time; the time of "already" - meaning the breaking in of the Kingdom of God with the coming of Jesus - and "not yet" - meaning the final triumph of the Kingdom of God when Christ comes again.
Just as Jesus left eternity and entered the time and space of creation at his conception, so too, after his Resurrection and the appearances he left time and space as we know it and returned to eternity.
That is the main reason we can't "prove" the Resurrection. It was an event that moved beyond history. Certain aspects surrounding the Resurrection have been made available to our consciousness by God, in particular the appearances of the Risen Lord. Those we will look at carefully.
But, by definition, the very act of Resurrection itself lies beyond human understanding. It simply does not fit what we know about how things work.
In my Easter Reflection I told you that there were three basic reasons why people for the first 1800 years or so of Christianity believed the truth of the Resurrection.
First, they believed it because the Bible said it was true. But, since the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution that position has been challenged constantly by those who think that we either have to prove the Bible scientifically or explain a lot of it away.
You already know that I believe that we cannot "prove" almost any important aspects of the Bible scientifically and that there is no reason to try to rationalize away key aspects of the faith.
Second, they believed it because witnesses that they trusted said that they saw the Risen Lord, after his crucifixion and burial. That is, they testified that the Risen Lord, the same Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified, appeared to them after he had died.
And, third, those same disciples and many others, even to this day, testified, and still testify, that the Risen Lord is alive and active in their own lives, even as I testify to the activity of Christ in my own life.
The Christians who make up the Church are living witnesses to the truth of the Resurrection. As the body of Christ, Christians within the Church witness today to the truth of the living Christ working in our daily lives.
In fact, it is our witness that keeps Christianity alive, and provides the hope for generations of Christians as yet unborn. Without the witness of his body, the Church, Resurrection faith would die within a few generations.
It is these eye witness accounts recorded in the Bible that most clearly explain the basis of the faith of the original Christian communities.
It is the trust that the communities of faith placed in these witnesses that allows us to believe the stories of these eye witnesses. In other words, for example, when the Gospel writers write what they do about the appearances, I trust that they, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are writing truth, not lies or fabrications.
And, likewise, when Paul tells me that the Risen Lord appeared to Him on the road to Damascus, and when Luke, in Acts, confirms that event, I trust both Paul and Luke to tell me the truth, and not to lie about it.
And that trust is part of another trust: that the Bible is the inspired witness to the Word of God, Jesus Christ. In other words, Christians believe that the Bible is the primary revelation of God in Jesus Christ.
The revelation of God in Christ in the Bible is the normative revelation of God to Christians. Upon its words Christians make decisions about the nature of God and of God's relationship to us.
When Christians believe that the Bible offers such a revelation of God to us, then Christians not only trust what the witnesses to the Risen Christ say, but also trust that what they said is truthfully recorded by the biblical writers.
Rushing through complicated theological issues will likely result in little light, so we will instead walk, not run, together in this series through an overview of the appearances of the Risen Lord, and see if we can discern some fundamental aspects of these appearances. I will publish only one of the following four essays each week to give you time to read and contemplate each essay.
God bless you all.
Monte
This essay, first posted on April 10, 2009, has been extensively revised for 2010. I am posting this Reflection now so there will be time for folks to read it before, on, or after Easter. Let me make the usual disclaimer that this Reflection is written by a Christian for Christians, for those who are on a spiritual quest and are inquiring about the tenets of Christianity, and for all others who may find value in it if it helps them understand Christian belief a bit better.
The point of this Easter essay is simple: Today the Resurrection is the greatest stumbling bloc for many who otherwise would believe in Christ. Christians, and in particular, Christian pastors, are not supposed to admit such a thing, especially on Easter when pastors have a shot at saying easy, comforting things to a lot of people they may not see in church again for months.
I happen to believe that one of the problems with the faith these days, a main problem, is that pastors spend far too much time trying to tell people what they think the people want to hear, what they'll tolerate; and too little time telling them the Gospel truth that they need to hear. But we still need to let God speak to us through the Bible; and we need to listen to what God has to say, comforting or not, even on Easter.
Read the 15th Chapter of Paul's letter to the church at Corinth. It's all laid out there in black and white. And it's very clear. Even if you haven't picked up a Bible in years, you'll get it.
I need to say right here that there are places in the Bible that imply that God will eventually gather to himself all people who ever lived. That idea is called "universal salvation." A surprising number of Christians believe in it. I am never willing to say that I know the limits of God's mercy and grace. Our God is a God of mercy and love, and of second chances, so perhaps everyone will eventually get to share the good side of eternal life. I simply do not know if that is true or not.
But it is very clear that to be a Christian is to believe that Christ was raised. That being so, Christians need to understand that they achieve salvation through believing in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, along with a few other basics. There aren't all that many basics, but belief in the resurrection is fundamental.
So, for the Christian, if Jesus be not raised, then he died a fool on the Cross, for nothing. And we are fools as well, for we have put our faith in a fool. But if, as I believe to be true, God raised him from the grave; if he ascended into heaven, there to reign at the right hand of God, there to intercede for us, then we too, through faith in him, shall be raised to live in glory with him, at the Last Day.
It's really as simple, and as difficult, as that. That is our proclamation as Christians. That is our faith. It is what we believe. It is by that faith that we live. And it is in that faith that we die, knowing that we shall be raised to be with him.
So while many still questioned the idea, including some in the church in Corinth, the idea of resurrection was not entirely foreign to people in Paul's day.
Today it is different. And many modern Christians doubt the resurrection of Jesus. Why is that? I think that, in our rush to judge the Bible and its claims by the standards of modern science, many have found those claims wanting.
And, having been attacked by the skepticism of science, both from within the Church and from outside it, we Christians have too often tried very unsuccessful ways to defend the faith. The two main unsuccessful ways of defending the faith have been by (1) rationalization and (2) believing we were defending it according to scientific methods.
Many pastors also argue, in this case correctly, that many things in the Bible are actually metaphors rather than "fact." I have no trouble with that. Many things written in the Bible are metaphoric, not to be interpreted literally. But many are not metaphoric, and the resurrection of Jesus is one that is not.
This timidity which results in running for cover through rationalization and metaphor is caused by one thing: The challenge of the modern scientific mind. If our beliefs can't stand the rigors of scientific testing, then many Christians, including Christian leaders, think they have to be rationalized, or seen as not literal but metaphoric.
But in each case we have succumbed to the temptation to justify our faith because we are afraid of a challenge from those who insist on viewing the faith through the eyes of science. And in so doing we have forgotten what faith means in the first place. (We'll come back to what faith means in a moment. But, for now, let's relate our problem to the Resurrection of Jesus.)
But the Resurrection is one miracle that Christians can't effectively rationalize away. And the metaphors for resurrection, while often beautiful: butterflies emerging, the sunrise, new growth in spring, a rebirth after a long and cold winter, are hardly a satisfactory explanation of what is written clearly in all four Gospels.
Opponents can and do deny it, debunk it, ridicule it and ignore it. But even the best Christian can't rationalize it, short of agreeing that it never happened. And when that happens we have just given the faith away.
On Easter Sunday there are foolish claims being made from pulpits all over the world that the empty tomb "proves" the Resurrection; and other "proofs" will be alleged as well. Thousands of books have been written on the "proofs" of the Resurrection.
And arguments will be made that these proofs are just as exacting a proof of a literal fact as any scientific experiment might yield. Actually, some of them are very excellent arguments that the Resurrection makes sense. But to argue that their case is the same as scientific proof is only to show an abysmal lack of understanding of the scientific method.
So, ultimately, this is a exercise in futility. It may make us feel good. I've read many of those books, heard those sermons. But those arguments will not, can not, sway the rational mind bent on seeing "proof of the Resurrection" in a scientific sense.
The truth is that no one can "prove" the Resurrection in a scientific, empirical sense. No one. After all, nobody saw the Resurrection. And, to the scientific mind that will always be the final stumbling block to "proving" the Resurrection. The very foundation of science is built on repeatable empirical events. Not only has the Resurrection never yet been repeated by anyone, but the first event was witnessed by no human.
Their key to faith was to accept the kerygma, the proclamation, of the Gospels when it was proclaimed by believers like Peter, Paul, Timothy, James, John and the others. It is still the key to Christian faith today.
Knowing this, we can come back now to the issue of "faith." The test the early Christians applied to the Resurrection was not a test of science, but the test of faith. But many Christians today cannot actually tell you what faith is. The Bible tells us; but we tend not to look there for a definition even though that is where the best definitions are found.
Traditionally, Christians have believed the Resurrection is true because the Bible says it is true. They didn't look for definitions in the Bible because if the Bible said it, then they believed it.
We still believe that the Bible is the inspired witness to the Word, Jesus Christ. Some Christians even call the Bible the Word of God. That is a title I reserve for Jesus, but either way the Bible is seen as a Holy Book, not just another best seller.
Today Christians believe the Resurrection is true because witnesses they trust said that they saw the Risen Lord. And, most of all, they believe it is true because, believing it, they see the living Lord operating in their own lives and in the lives of their fellow Christians. In other words, they have faith.
Paul tells us in Romans 1 that "the righteousness of God is revealed through faith"; and in Romans 3 he says that we are justified, made holy, by grace, through faith. In Romans 10 he tells us that faith comes from what is "heard," and that what is heard comes to us through "the word of Christ." In 1st Timothy Paul speaks of "the faith," our faith, as a "mystery," and John, in Revelation, calls for us to endure and to hold fast to faith in Jesus.
Faith is one of the most common words in the New Testament, and nowhere is it described as something that comes from empirical knowledge. Faith comes from the grace of God. It is a gift. It is not, and cannot be, earned, or found through study, or demanded because we have gone through all the right motions.
It is intuitive. It is felt. It is a product of the Holy Spirit acting on our hearts. It rises above mere words. It is, repeating Hebrews once more, "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." And it is not, and can not be, subject to scientific "proof."
The bottom line for me is simple. I believe that the Resurrection is true. It is a truth I know by faith. A wise saint, Anselm, said that theology (the study of God) is "fides quaerens intellectum," "faith seeking understanding."
As one who spent much of my life as a Christian, yet one trying to find the truth the other way around (If I can just understand, I'll have faith!) I can tell you that it won't work that way. First, have faith. Then study and learn, seeking understanding. And understanding will flood in once the faith is yours.
And I also felt indicted by other well meaning pastors and teachers when I could not see what they said was so obvious: that they had proven some event in the Bible scientifically. Yet it was so clear to me that they failed, in spite of their fervor.
And the effect of being whiplashed between those two positions was that I felt terribly inadequate. I felt that since these were learned leaders in the church something must be fundamentally wrong with me, and I feared that I could never be a proper Christian.
Today, I know the Resurrection is true by faith. And the Bible tells me that God's grace, through my faith, is sufficient for me to feel firm in my knowledge of Christianity and of my salvation.
But, if you feel that way, I need to tell you that there is nothing wrong with you. And there is a better way for you to go than either of those well-traveled roads which only lead us away from faith.
The better way is simply to ask Christ for faith. I know it sounds too simple. But I did it and kept doing it for years and then one day it dawned on me that I believed the things I had doubts about before.
There was no lightening bolt, no obvious time when I felt I was different. It was more like I just woke up one morning and everything fell into place. I didn't dance or run down the street screaming about the change in me. Rather I felt a peace and a certainty that I cannot describe. A peace that told me that my faith was real.
Do you remember the story in Mark of the man who brought his child to Jesus for healing, a child with an evil spirit in him? And he asked Jesus that, if Jesus were able to do anything, would he have pity on his boy and help him? And Jesus said "All things can be done for the one who believes."
And the man, overcome with love for his son and at his wits end, said what so many of us need to say to Jesus, yet we are afraid to mouth the words: "Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief!" We have all been at that place at some point in our lives. If the Resurrection is a stumbling block, the prayer of that man is the prayer we need to say.
To my Christian friends I say: May this Easter be for each of you a day of wonder, of mystery, of love and of joy, a day of faith in the one who rose from the dead, who ascended to heaven and even now sits at the right hand of God and mediates and advocates for us, who promises to each who believe in him everlasting life: our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
To those are searching for faith of any kind, I say do not be discouraged, but allow yourself the peace of knowing that faith cannot be gained through study but by opening ourselves, our hearts, our minds, our spirit, allowing them to become vessels of truth. Most often I have found that it is in the calm center of the storm that rages around us that the truth comes to us.
To those who have chosen no spiritual path I say that I hope that this reflection gives you a better understanding of how Christians think about the Resurrection, and of how I believe that the only way that Christians can see the Resurrection and believe its truth is through the eyes of faith. I hope that each of you have found a peace and understanding that you find nourishes your own well being and allows you to reach out to others in love.
To all I pray that your lives will be full of love for yourselves and for others so that we may reach out in love to all who need a touch, a word, an act of kindness, or simply the ministry of our presence in their lives.
Happy Easter, everyone!
Monte
Original post: 2412 page views 2010 04 03
NOTE TO READERS: This Lenten essay was originally published on Open Salon, March 5, 2009. It is part of my Christian Calendar Series. I have edited it for 2010, clarifying certain points and improving the flow of the text.
Christian liturgy, ritual and most of Christian theology change little from year to year. The reason for the Christian Calendar is to encourage Christians to rehearse, ponder and reflect on, year after year, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, the Christ, so that His life becomes part and parcel of our family history.Why it is Good to have Four Different Views
of The Death of The Messiah
Overview:
Last Friday in Part One I introduced this series, edited for 2010, on The Death of the Messiah. I pointed out that, while we may think there is only one story of the death of the Messiah, repeated four times, in fact there are four different renditions of the story of Jesus' death, both in the details and in the portrait of Jesus presented. I also said that there is also a fifth rendition: the one that we create from the other four.
I noted that from the perspective of the Christian believer these Gospel stories were divinely inspired and that God was therefore, both mindful of the inconsistencies in the stories, and intentional in his inspiration, in that he wants us to be able to see Jesus' death from four unique vantage points.
We do not improve on the Gospel accounts by trying to harmonize them, regardless how tempting it is to try to do so. Ultimately, all attempts at harmonizing the Gospels never give a true picture of what God is saying to us in those sacred texts.
Therefore, I ended Part One telling you that having four differing stories was a good thing, in spite of the ulcers that it must give to those who want all of the stories of Jesus to be clear, concise, neat and without factual disagreement.
Part of the problem for such people is that they insist on viewing the Gospels as history, which they are not. They are theology told in narratives, stories, and are kerygma, proclamation. Mostly they are proclamations of the Good News (Gospel) of Jesus the Christ.
Part Two:
While our vanity makes this hard to comprehend, Christians should understand that the stories in the Bible are not written to meet any human standard. They only meet the standard that God wanted them to meet when s/he inspired the writers of the Gospels to write them, a standard which God has not felt it necessary to justify to us. I'm comfortable with that, since s/he is God and I am not.
But many are not comfortable with that at all, and have, unsuccessfully, tried to "harmonize" the Gospels, doing away with troublesome inconsistencies. We are not going to do that. In fact, we're going to look at a couple of those inconsistencies today, and then use them to make the point that it is a good thing that we have four differing accounts of the Death of the Messiah.
First, let's look at the Gospel narratives in general. If you think about it logically, the first thing you will notice is that all the Gospels do hold to a common, basic outline of the events leading to the crucifixion. And that makes perfect sense. After all, there was a basic order of events that took place, indeed, had to take place, and each of the Gospel writers had to take this into account.
Thus, Jesus' arrest had to precede his trial, and the trial had to precede the sentence, and the sentence had to precede His execution. And all the Gospels contain these elements. In other words, all share a common plot. And that is just what it is: a plot of a drama, one we call "The Death of the Messiah."
And, in this narrative, this drama, there are not only the actions and reactions of Jesus, but also of supporting characters, like Peter and Judas and Pilate. And the drama is heightened by the contrasts between these characters: innocent Jesus and guilty Barabbas, faithful Jesus and betraying Peter, and in one of the Gospels, wise and troubled Pilate versus vile and remorseless "Jews". Even the scoffing Jewish leaders have their antitheses in the Roman soldier who, in two accounts, declares Jesus to be, in fact, the Son of God.
All of these elements, while often used quite differently in the differing Gospels, heighten our awareness of the struggle going on here, between Jesus and the world that, as John puts it, "knew him not."
The personification of the characters that surround him, the descriptions of their personalities and their desires encourages us, the readers, to participate in the drama by constantly asking ourselves the question: "Where would I have stood had I been one of these players in this drama of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus?"
Perhaps we can see ourselves as being among those who welcomed him into Jerusalem as a hero. But would we be able to see ourselves as Peter, denying him? As Judas, betraying Him? Or as Pilate, either wishing to avoid the issue altogether, as in John's account, or washing his hands of the whole thing, so he might appear blameless, as in Matthew's?
Or could we see ourselves abandoning him, as all the disciples did in three accounts, or staying at the foot of his cross until the end, as did the beloved disciple and Mary in the Fourth Gospel? Or, most telling of all, would we see ourselves, could we see ourselves, as being like the religious leaders who condemned him?
Perhaps not; but we certainly don't want anyone coming around to us individually, say, here on OS, telling us we've got our religion all wrong; haven't got a clue what God expects of us; have no compassion for the poor and have indulged our own personal gluttony in the face of God's commandment to love others! I would think our feathers would get just a bit ruffled if someone accused us of that. But that is exactly what Jesus did, isn't it?
Just so, there were many real life factors that colored the writing of the Gospels, which, as we learned last week, were all written about 30 to 70 years after the death of Jesus. The memory of what happened at Jesus' death was deeply affected by the life situations of the local Christian communities in which the Gospel writers lived; and each was a little different. Each Gospel, for example, reflects how the writers perceived the Romans and the Jews.
Take the Romans, for instance. How do you get a balanced portrayal of Jesus when writing in a nation occupied by Romans? How do you offset the negative attitude toward Jesus exhibited by Tacitus, the great Roman writer, who treats Jesus as a despicable criminal; worthy of no more than a few lines in his writing?
How would you overcome Tacitus' portrayal? What if, say, you were to portray Pilate as being a spokesman for Jesus, or at least, not against him? Two of the Gospel writers did just that. If you carefully move through the Gospels according to when they were written: Mark first, then Luke, then Matthew, and finally, John.
Yyou'll see that Pilate is increasingly portrayed as a fair judge who recognized Jesus as innocent of political ambition. This viewpoint not only rehabilitates Pilate in the eyes of Christian readers, but also rehabilitates Jesus in the eyes of Romans: if a Roman Governor of Pilate's stature saw nothing wrong in Jesus, Tacitus must have been mistaken about Jesus being nothing more than a common criminal.
Lets look at just one more example: "How would you characterize Jewish involvement in Jesus' death? Who was involved, responsible, for the death of Jesus? Was it "the Jews?" If so, was it all of the Jews? Or just the Pharisees? The Priests? All the Priests? The Sanhedrin?
What about Joseph of Aramethea, a Jew? Wasn't he in the Sanhedrin? Weren't, in fact, all of Jesus' named followers and the vast majority of all the other followers of Jesus also Jews? Wasn't, after all, Jesus a Jewish Rabbi? So just who are these "Jews" who "killed Jesus?"
Well, it depends on which Gospel you read. If you wish to go easy on the Jewish involvement, or want to limit it to a handful of leaders, read Luke. In Luke there is no calling for witnesses against Jesus and there is no Jewish death sentence against Him. In fact, there is no formal night time trial, complete with the high priest Ciaphas in charge, as in Mark and Matthew. There is only a simple questioning in the morning by the Sanhedrin.
John, who is hard on the Jews elsewhere in his Gospel, also does not write that any Jews were heavily involved in deciding Jesus' fate. John records no Sanhedrin session at all after Jesus' arrest, but only a police interrogation conducted by a different high priest, Annas.
Confused? Add further confusion: John includes Roman soldiers and their Tribune at the arrest, the others do not. This is important, because no Roman Tribune could have been dispatched without the knowledge of Pilate, which would mean that Pilate was involved far earlier and more deeply than any of the other Gospels report.
On the other hand, if you suspect that it was "all of the Jews" who accused Jesus then Matthew's Gospel leads you that way; while Mark and Luke limit their accusations to the Jewish leadership, specifically the priests and the Sanhedrin. John goes easy on the Jewish leaders during the trial period because John believes that the "world" rejected Jesus and so places blame implicitly on everybody, and does not go easy on either the Romans or the Jews as groups. Both are guilty in John's eyes.
We could spend several weeks looking at, and comparing, the Gospel accounts of such things as those above, and things like: How did Jesus view His own death? How did the disciples react at Gesthemene? What did they do at the arrest? Could the Jewish trial even have happened according to Jewish law? What happened at the actual time of death? Did the curtain in the Temple split? Were graves opened? And, later, were there guards at the tomb? And on and on.
But we really don't have time for all that. And, more importantly, if we took the time, would we find out anything that would help us better understand Jesus? Well, I have done that for decades, and can tell you that studying and arguing about such questions does almost nothing to help us learn about Jesus.
What will help us know more about Jesus is to know that each individual portrayal of Jesus' death gives us an insight into who he is such as none of the others give us.
And the reason is simple enough. Each divinely inspired evangelist knows a different facet of Jesus and his Passion, and he portrays, therefore, a different picture.
What I'm going to do now is give you a brief summary of what careful study of three of the portrayals of Jesus and the events leading to his death can tell us. We will look at Mark, Luke and John. Matthew's portrayal of Jesus is closely based on Mark's, and while Matthew adds many details about events, a discussion of Matthew's portrayal of Jesus would be covering essentially the same ground as the discussion of Mark's portrayal.
Mark:
Both Mark and Matthew portray a very human, very vulnerable Jesus. Mark portrays a scene of stark human abandonment of Jesus at the time of his Passion. Yet, in the end God turns it all around, and neither the abandonment of the disciples nor Jesus' own questioning of God affects God's moment of supreme grace in raising Jesus from the grave.
Mark's gospel intends to shock. And it does. In Mark, long before the Passion the disciples were almost universally clueless as to whom Jesus really was, and, even when they came close to the truth they could not accept the idea of a dying Messiah. And it only gets worse as the tension mounts toward betrayal and death.
In the garden at Gethsemene they fall asleep, not once, but three times. Judas betrays him, but Peter is hardly better, denying that he ever knew him. All flee, one in such haste that he leaves his clothes behind, literally saving his own skin - the very opposite of leaving all things to follow Jesus.
The Roman and Jewish judges are seen by Mark as great cynics. Jesus hangs from the cross for six hours, and three of those hours are filled with mockery and three with utter darkness. And Jesus deeply feels abandonment, even by his heavenly Father. Mark's very human Jesus cries but one thing from the cross, quoting the 22nd Psalm, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"
Yet, in the end, God vindicates his Son. If the trial before the Sanhedrin was to assess his threat to tear down the Temple, God in an act of judgment and vindication, tears the veil of the Temple in two. And an outsider, a hated Roman, is heard to say what no Jew, disciple or priest, could ever figure out: "Truly this was the Son of God." In Mark, only after his death on the Cross is it possible to see that Jesus was no false prophet, but was, indeed, the Son of God.
Luke:
Luke portrays a very different Jesus. And the disciples are shown in a far more sympathetic light. They remain faithful to Him in his trials. And, while they fall asleep while Jesus prays, once, not three times, it is only out of their "sorrow." Even the enemies of Jesus look better in Luke. There are no false witnesses produced at the Jewish trial, and even Pilate acknowledges three times that Jesus is not guilty.
The people are not rabble calling for his death, but rather are grieved over what has been done to him. And, just as they show great concern for him, so too is he less anguished by what will happen to him than by what happens to them. At the arrest he heals the slave's ear and on the road to Calvary he worries about the fate of the women in the coming trials. Further, he forgives those who crucified him and even promises paradise to a thief who merely asks to be remembered, a scene only in Luke's Gospel.
Thus, in Luke, the crucifixion becomes a time of divine forgiveness and care. Jesus dies in tranquility, unlike in Mark, saying simply. "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit."
John:
In stark contrast to either Mark or Luke, John portrays a triumphal Jesus, even in death, a Jesus who long before the passion defiantly announced, "I lay down my life and I take it up again; no one takes it from me!" This Jesus knows, in advance, exactly what is going to happen to him and when, and it will happen as and when he says.
When the Roman soldiers and the Jewish police come to arrest him they fall to the ground powerless. In the garden he does not pray for the cup to pass him; for it was for this moment he was born. He is so self assured that he offends the high priest; and even Pilate feels his power. Jesus has no fear of Pilate. saying, bluntly, "You have no power over me." Nor does anyone carry his cross; this is something he is perfectly able to do for himself. Even his royalty is proclaimed in three languages on the cross and is, in fact, confirmed by Pilate.
Totally unlike the three other Gospels, Jesus does not die on the cross abandoned, but with his mother and the beloved disciple with him. And speaking to them from the Cross he gives the beloved disciple and his mother to one another, creating, as it were, a family of loving disciples to carry forward the message.
This Jesus can not cry out "Why have you forsaken me?" because the Father has always been with him, literally "in" him, and will be so through death to resurrection and glorious ascension. His last words bear no anxiety or pain, but the simple statement that he has done what he came to do: "It is finished." And only then, when he declared that he has done what was needed, does he hand over his spirit to the Father.
Even in death he continues to dispense life as living water and blood flow from his pierced side. And his burial is not something hurried and unprepared as in the other Gospels, but he lies in state amidst 100 pounds of spices - as befits a king.
In the final two posts in this series we will go into this in more detail. But let me ask you: do you despair because these portraits are so starkly different? Do you think that one is, must be, more correct? Remember, all three descriptions are given to us by one Holy Spirit, the one Spirit that inspired the writers of each Gospel.
And, understand this well, no one Gospel, or all four Gospels combined, exhaust the meaning of Jesus! In fact, a true picture of Jesus can only just begin to emerge because we have at least four differing depictions.
Why, then, is this Good News? Because by having these differing descriptions people with different spiritual needs can find meaning in the cross. And even the same person, at different points in his or her life, can find meaning there.
As Jesus did in Mark's Gospel, have you never needed desperately to cry out "My God, My God Why Have You Forsaken Me?" Have you never felt that? Do you not need to know that when you feel that way, just as Jesus did, God has not abandoned you and that he can reverse tragedy in your life?
As in Luke's Gospel, have you never been hurt by others, deeply hurt, and have finally found some relief from your anger in forgiveness? Is "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" not something that we need to hear, knowing that our Savior had far more reason to hate than we shall ever have?
Don't we, with Luke's Jesus, need from time to time to turn ourselves over fully to God, having been unable to fix things for ourselves? Can we not find hope and comfort in saying, "Into your hands, O God, I place myself."?
Yet, as in John's Gospel, are there not times in your life when you desperately need to know that evil and sin and all the perfidy of this life cannot prevail against God and those who have faith in him?
With John don't we often need to believe that we worship an all knowing, fully in control, always in command, Jesus who will guide and protect, defend and defeat every foe and evil, be it the prevailing powers, or the principalities or the purveyors of lies?
Jesus is all of these and more, far more than can ever be captured by putting pen to paper. These descriptions do not exhaust the portrayal of Jesus, they begin the task. Each Christian will ultimately find a portrayal of Jesus the Christ that fits his or her personal needs. And that portrayal will not be complete for everybody else, and may change over time as we learn more about the One in whom we place out trust.
Hopefully this brief Lenten series has begun to outline for you some of the major characteristics of Christ that will give you a basis for a better understanding of the One whom Christians call "Our Lord and Savior."
Listen to Fr. Raymond Brown. "To choose one portrayal of the crucified Jesus in a manner that would exclude the other portrayals or to harmonize all the Gospel portrayals into one would deprive the cross of much of its meaning. It is important that some be able to see the head bowed in dejection, while others observe the arms outstretched in forgiveness, and still others perceive in the title on the cross the proclamation of a reigning king."
That, my friends, is Good News.
Monte
Original posting, 1400 page views before counter was removed
This posting for 2010:
Posts
All Comments
