[Index] [Previous] [Next]
2.1.1 - A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age
Primitive Jewish Christianity
The New Beginning - Dispersion & Manifestations
The immediate effect of Jesus' crucifixion, according to our earliest sources, was the dispersion of his disciples [Matt. 26:31, 56 ; Mark 14:27,50]. In spite of the fact that he had endeavored so to prepare them for his approaching death that they should not be thrown into confusion by it, but should immediately take up the work which he had begun and carry it on without interruption, when his death came it found them unprepared, and it left them apparently demoralized.
Our sources do not warrant us in asserting positively that his disciples had no idea the he would die [but Luke 24:21 certainly points in that direction], but they make it clear that they were distressed and bewildered by his death.
If it be assumed, then, that they did expect it, we must conclude that they had supposed it would be immediately followed by such a manifestation of God's power as should vindicate their faith in Jesus, and introduce the consummation of the kingdom for which they were looking, and upon which all their hopes were centered.
We must conclude, in other words, that they believed his death would be but his translation into the heavenly sphere, in order that he might at once appear in glory as the conquiring Messiah. For a death unaccompanied by any such manifestation they were certainly not prepared. Nor were they prepared for his bodily resurrection after three days and for his reappearance in the same for which he had worn before his execution.
There are, it is true, a number of passages in our sources in which Jesus is represented as explicitly telling his disciples that he would rise from the dead after three days [Mark 8:31, 9:21, 10:34; Matt 16:21, 17:23, 20:19; Luke 9:22, 18:23 -- (Mark is evidently the original for, the phrase of Matthew and Luke being an effort to make the statement more precise) -- Compare also Mark 9:9 and Matthew 17:9, where the resurrection is referred to without a reference to the "three days"]. But it is clear, in the light of their subsequent attitude, that they must have interpreted his words, if they attached any meaning to the, not as a promise of his reappearance to them in his old form, but as an assurance of his immediate entrance after death upon the glorious career of the conquering and reigning Messiah.
It is significant that Jesus in none of the passages in question makes his resurrection a bodily resurrection, or speaks of his bodily reappearance to his disciples. He simply refer to a resurrection without more nearly defining its nature, and it was therefore quite possible for his disciples to interpret his words as a promise of his immediate entrance after death upon his Messianic career. Mark and Luke, who, of course, when they wrote their Gospels, interpreted the words in question as referring to Jesus' bodily resurrection and reappearance to his disciples, distinctly say that the latter did not understand what his words meant [Mark 9:10, 32; Luke 18:34].
It is not necessary to suppose that the words "after three days" were used by Jesus or understood by his disciples as referring to a fixed and definite interval, for the phrase was a proverbial one to denote a very brief period of time, and might therefore have been employed in the present case simply to emphasize the immediateness of his restoration to life. Compare Hosea 6:2; Mark 15:29; Luke 8:32; John 2:19.
But though the disciples seem not to have been prepared for either the death or the resurrection of Jesus, nothing is more certain than that within a few days, or at most within a few weeks, after his execution, they reached the assured conviction that he still lived. Moreover, there can be no question that the basis of this confidence was found in appearances of the risen Lord, which were of such a character as to convince his followers of the absolute reality. A number of manifestations are mentioned in our sources, but the accounts differ so widely, that it is impossible to construct a consistent narrative which shall include all the details. [An appearance to Mary Magdalene is recorded by the Gospel of John and the appendix of Mark's Gospel; to Mary Magdalene and another Mary by the Gospel of Matthew. But Paul in 1 Cor. 15, where he enumerates various manifestations of the risen Jesus, does not mention such an appearance, not do the Gospel of Mark and the recently discovered Gospel of Peter. The Gospel of Luke, though it refers to the presence of the women at the sepulchre and the angels' announcement of Jesus' resurrection, evidently knows nothing of his manifestation to them (Luke 24:5,22). Paul, in the epistle already referred to, which constitutes a source of the first rank and whose account of the resurrection is of indisputable trustworthiness, mentions first of all an appearance of the risen Lord to Peter, as if he knew of no earlier one or considered them of no importance. Of such an especial manifestation to Peter we have no record in our Gospels except in Luke 24:34, where the disciples of Jerusalem are represented as saying" the Lord is risen indeed and has appeared to Simon." But there is some confusion in our sources not only as to the persons to whom the risen Jesus appeared, but also as to the place where his appearances took place. Matthew and Mark agree in sending the disciples to Galilee for a meeting with the Master there (Matthew 28:7, 10; Mark 16:7, cf. Also Matthew 26:32; Mark 14:28), and that meeting is described by Matthew in 28:16 (also the Gospel of Peter). On the other hand, while Matthew records appearances both in Galilee and Jerusalem, the appendix of Mark, Luke and John (if John 21, which is a later addition to the Gospel, be left out of sight) report such appearances only in Jerusalem and its vicinity. There is no reason to suppose that John was ignorant of the Galilean meeting; the closing verses of chapter 20 may include Galilee as well as Jerusalem, and the episode related in Chapter 21, though not recorded in the original Gospel, implies an acquaintance in John's immediate circle with an independent tradition of days spent in Galilee. Of Luke, however, less can be said. His silence both in the Gospel and in the Acts can be explained only on the supposition that he knew nothing of a post-resurrection visit to Galilee. Indeed, the account given in the Gospel is so constructed as to seem to exclude such a visit (cf. Especially 24:36,44, and 49).
But we shall doubtless be nearest the actual facts if we assume that the great majority of Jesus' disciples, dismayed by his awful death, fled in fear and discouragement to Galilee, where most of them had their homes, and that they there became convinced that their Master still lived, and, with this conviction already established, made their way back speedily to Jerusalem. It is here that we find them in the opening chapter of Acts, which represents Jesus as appearing and conversing with them during a period of forty days, after which "he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight. [Acts 1:9].
Used by permission of the publisher.
[Index] [Previous] [Next]