- The Gospel accounts of Christ’s resurrection differ. Are these differences reconcilable? For instance, when the women come to the tomb Matthew’s angel is seated astride the stone outside, but Mark’s within. Luke mentions two angels within, both of whom are standing.
The narrative allows for the angel vacating his seat on the stone for that by the grave-clothes before the women arrived. Mark’s angel spoke while they were entering the tomb, which suggests it was unlikely that all the women could take stock of their surroundings from a narrow stairway through a low door. Whilst still stooping, they would enter an antechamber separated from the main tomb by a low wall. Whilst all might see the angel on the right side of the graveclothes, it is doubtful that they would all (if any) see another angel on the left. Having ventured right inside, it is then time for Luke’s angels to be standing by the now prostrate women who have overcome their original hesitancy at hearing the voice of the first angel. The message of Luke’s angels differs from that in Matthew and Mark, the wording of which appears to be the same message related by different hearers.
- Matthew says that the women ran to bring his disciples word: Mark says they told no one. John differs from both, as Mary Magdalene sees the tomb open, then runs to Peter and John, saying the body has been removed. Are these items able to be harmonised?
In one case at least in Scripture the word ‘then’ links events separated in time by 1,000 years. (1 Cor. 15:23-24). In this case the two events most telling to the argument are linked together with no thought of chronology. It seems to me that in Mary’s case the only thing that really registered in her mind was the stark reality of the empty tomb. She could have been suffering so much from the shock of this that the experience in the tomb could not be retained by a mind benumbed. At least this seems probable, taking stock of her previous experiences to which Mark alludes in verse 9.
John mentions her alone, though she came with the other women; because she is the one around whom his narrative is woven, and the events inside the tomb have no point because the key character has forgotten them. So, when it says, ‘Then she runneth and cometh to Simon, etc.’ after she saw the stone had been removed from the tomb, the two related events are linked without regard to the intermediate ones which have no bearing in John’s narrative.
The answer to the first part of the question is worth separate treatment. Matthew says the women ran to bring the disciples word after hearing the angelic message, and leaving the sepulchre. But Matthew doesn’t say that they brought his disciples word. This purpose, I believe, was short-lived: in Mary Magdalene as explained; in the other women due to a gripping fear of what they had seen. This remained with them for a considerable time, during which they told no man anything. Mary Magdalene related nothing that the angels had said, but followed the wonderings of her own mind.
The Revised Version omits the words ‘And as they ran to tell his disciples’ in the beginning of verse 9 of Matthew’s Gospel. So Jesus need not have appeared to them whilst they were still running to tell the disciples what they had heard. It could be that after their fear had subsided and they had come to grips with the situation, they once again embarked on their errand to the disciples. This would have given time for Mary Magdalene to see Peter and John; who then visited the tomb followed by Mary, to whom Jesus shortly appeared. Mary Magdalene then probably rejoined the other women by the time Jesus appeared to them.
An alternative suggestion is that Mary Magdalene knew a short route to where the disciples stayed; but found only Peter and John. When the other women arrived, they told no one because they found no one, and spent the interval searching for them until being joined by Mary Magdalene at or near the point of time when Jesus appeared and they held him by the feet and worshipped him.
Are there any other suggestions?
- Are there any clues to identify the angels which kept not their first estate? (Jude 6).
Jude reminds the saints in Christ to whom he is writing, of two things they already know. (1) The punishment of the Israelite nation who disbelieved that the same God who delivered them from the Egyptians could repeat His feat with the Canaanites. (2) The keeping in a prison house of darkness, the angels who did not keep their principality, and the certainty of their coming judgment.
How would they have known these things except by the word of God? Where in the word of God do we find anything like this?
I believe they are both within the same incident. When the Spies came back from the Land of Canaan with their faithless attitude (except Joshua and Caleb) God dealt with them more severely than he did with the responsible remainder of the nation. They were given a chance to repent later with the space of 40 years; but not so the spies who died of the plague. It is in keeping with James 2:25 to call the spies angels, as James calls Joshua’s spies angels.
In Numbers 13:2 each messenger was a prince (Septuagint ‘archegos’) which agrees with Jude’s description of their office as being a principality (Greek ‘arche’). Only Joshua and Caleb kept their princedom, for the others were destroyed on the spot. They left (Greek ‘apoleipo’, to forsake or leave behind) their own habitation or dwelling place, the cities of Canaan, which was their own, by divine promise. (Numbers 14:16, 30 and 34). God had sworn to make them dwell therein, but they failed to attain to His promise because of their unbelief. Though possessed by the Canaanites, it was Israel’s habitation by divine decree.
What better description of the grave could we have than a prison house of darkness or bonds under darkness, as described in Job 17:13-16?
“The Valley of the Shadow”