Today may not be the best day of your life.

As you climb the mountain of your day, the climb may be steep and even dangerous.  You may encounter frightening beasts or enemies who seek your demise.  The heat of the day could make you fainthearted, or the wind and rain may drive you to your knees.  Your footing may slip and you’ll lose your balance.  You may even get lost for a time.

If you’ve had a personal and intimate encounter with Jesus, the living Son of God, you have no reason to fear.  The Lord God is my strength; He will make my feet like deer’s feet, and He will make me walk on my high hills  (Habakkuk 3:19).

Whatever your “high hills” may be today, this may be the best day of your life because Jesus is strengthening your feet.

Beside themselves with grief

Baffled about how they would move the stone

Bewildered about Friday

Bemused about the empty tomb

Bowled over by the angels*

Blurred vision through the tears

Blissful in recognition

Blessed by the impossible

Breathless with excitement

*Some later less reliable manuscripts include these words:

‘Behind you’ chuckled the angel

‘Boo!’

I find that this is one of the most difficult services of the year to prepare. That’s not because the subject is difficult. Neither is it because I don’t have any ideas. It’s because it is one of the services where different people have very different hopes and aspirations for the service and it’s almost impossible to meet them all. To some extent that is true of most services in churches, especially those like ours that have an eclectic congregation (a good thing imho). But on Mothering Sunday it seems to be heightened.

For example: some want to maintain traditions that go back a long time, such as giving out flowers. And others don’t want flowers at all and would prefer we stopped that tradition. It’s not easy to give out flowers and not give them out simultaneously. Now I am not against the flower-giving, I am just using as an example of the sort of tensions that exist. I could also have mentioned the difficulties for those who are childless or have been bereaved in contrast with those who want to celebrate their children, or those who want to focus on the ‘motherhood’ of God and those who struggle with seeing God that way, and many more…

Each year I (usually along with other colleagues) seek to prepare a service that blesses all those who come. And each year I know that some people will go away upset or unhappy. And that’s the last thing that I want to happen. But is it inevitable?

As ‘worship’ is not for our benefit but for God’s, shouldn’t we all simply put aside our preferences and focus on him? Shouldn’t we come expecting to give him pleasure rather than hoping to be pleased by what happens? It is possible that this is part of the answer – if we come to give to God rather than looking to receive, we will not be so disappointed, unless the service does not enable us to give our worship to him.

Yes. I have often heard speakers say things about us not bringing our consumer culture into church services for that reason. I have probably said it myself.

But I want to add a rider to that. Because God is so gracious and generous that he does not want us to leave empty-handed when we have gathered together in Jesus’ name. Long before it became the thing to do to give out party bags at the end of children’s parties, God was giving out party bags at the end of services. Yes, they are metaphorical, but they contain blessings from him – a glimpse of the divine, an encounter with Jesus.

It may be that a worship song or hymn blesses us, lifts our spirits or inspires us. It may be that someone prays in a way that blesses us. God may speak to us through the reading of the Bible or (dare I suggest) even through the sermon. One of the mysteries of collective worship is that as we offer our worship to bless God he meets us by his Spirit and blesses us.

While we may not come to church because of what we get out of it, just as we don’t attend a birthday party for the party bags, we should expect to be blessed because we were there. So if or when people leave a service disappointed or upset it is right for the people who were leading the service to think about what happened and whether they gave God enough opportunities to bless people through the service even as we worshipped him.

That brings me back to the original conundrum about the inevitability of disappointing some people this coming Sunday. I am coming to the conclusion that while there are things I can do (or avoid) so that people are not unnecessarily upset, a service is first and foremost for an audience of One. If we can enable people to worship Jesus they may also see Jesus in the service. If we can help them to encounter him, then they will not leave the service empty handed, even if the contents of their party bags are not what they were expecting!

Be blessed, be a blessing

Mums who have teenagers understand why some animals eat their young.

A mother’s love never ages, but a child ages you quicker than anything else on the planet.

If at first you don’t succeed, do it the way your Mum told you to do it.

First Reading:

Neh 8:2-4a, 5-6, 8-10

Second Reading:

1 Cor 12:12-30

Gospel:

Lk 1:1-4; 4:14-21

In the first readings from Nehemiah, the priest-scribe Ezra stands to read the Book of the Law of Moses to the families who have just returned from Babylon. Their souls are thirsting for the word of God. Like men who find water in the desert, they drink in the message, spending the entire morning listening to the Book of the Law. They are “re-awakened” and are moved to tears thinking about all the time they avoided the Lord’s assistance.

The description of the congregation’s reaction to the reading of the Word of God serves as a reminder to us to listen with our hears and to “drink in the teachings” of the Word. The readings are meant to move us to action, to lead better lives, and to serve as better examples of Christ’s love for all. The Word is the source of life and wisdom, “It revives the soul,” “gladdens the heart,” and gives” light to the eyes.”

When we in our modern world listen to the Word, we are challenged to allow the Word to work on us, with us and through us just as it did 2,000 years ago. In our world, perhaps, we allow too much trash from TV, DVDs, Facebook, our computers and cell phones to eat up all our time that could be spent more wisely with just a few minutes each day of “Listening with our Hearts to the Word of God.”

In the Gospel, something quite magnificent takes place. Jesus, an outsider, not even a priest, reveals himself as one “With the Power of the Spirit in him.”

Jesus tells the assembly, “The Spirit has been given to me, for he has anointed me.”

And aren’t we anointed at Baptism and again in the sacraments of the Church later in life? Aren’t we also supposed to be filled with the Holy Spirit and serving others with our “Christ-like Life”?

One of the fruits of our Catholic life, our “Christ-like life,” is supposed to be the “Indwelling of the Holy Spirit.” That should fill us with inner joy — we are not asked by Jesus to be miserable people but Joyous in our proclamation of His Word.

No?

Friday during the “March for Life” in Washington D.C. several reporters commented upon the “light-heartedness” of the crowd. When a newspaperman called me to ask about that, I said to him simply: “‘This crowd is mostly  made up of Christian young people doing the Work God Gave Them To Do. Of course they are joyful and lighthearted. We should expect that.”

I noticed nobody called the gun control paraders of yesterday “lighthearted.”

One of the fruits of meeting Jesus and having a daily encounter with him through His Word and His sacraments is the “Indwelling of the Holy Spirit” and “inner joy.”

God Bless us all!

John Francis Carey
Peace and Freedom

*****************************

Related from Pope John Paul II:

The Church Bears Witness to Christ: A Spiritual Reflection by Pope John Paul II, May 20, 1992

“Carly, 17, Catholic. My goals in life are to follow Jesus Christ and run a mediocre blog. So far, so good.” — She’s Lighthearted!

http://iamcharlesbingley.tumblr.com/post/4146
6447626/march-for-life-2013-a-success

(“Voldemort” is “The Dark Lord” from the Harry Potter stories)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Voldemort

Walk For Life Protesters Called “Light-Hearted”; Day Called “A Turning Point” on Abortion; Crowd “Record Breaking”

See also:

Deacon Greg Kandra

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/201
3/01/homily-for-january-27-2013-3rd-sunday
-in-ordinary-time/

As if to reinforce this sense of something beginning, our gospel this Sunday is, literally, about something beginning. We encounter the first words of Luke’s gospel, which then leads us to an episode a few chapters later in a synagogue, for the start of Christ’s public ministry. Even that echoes another beginning, since it took place where Jesus’s life began — in Nazareth, the scene of the Annunciation.

And in this moment, I think, Jesus offered another Annunciation: he was announcing glad tidings, liberty to captives, sight to the blind, freedom to those who are oppressed.

What comes through in this brief passage must have been startling to those who heard it; the people sitting in the synagogue weren’t hearing the fire and brimstone of John the Baptist. This wasn’t a call to repentance. This was something else altogether. In Christ’s first public teaching moment in Luke’s gospel—the Messiah’s first message to the world—he was proclaiming, in every sense, good news.

This is what the gospel is all about

The dictionary tells us that the very word “gospel” comes from Middle English, from “god-spell,” meaning, literally, “good tale.” Good news. And as we just heard, it is very good news. It’s about recovering what has been lost: sight, freedom, dignity.

Somehow, though, it’s that message that often gets lost and that needs to be recovered.

Last year, Cardinal Timothy Dolan put it beautifully in an interview about vocations. “The Church,” he said, “is always looked upon as saying ‘no’ to everything. And, we aren’t saying ‘no.’ The Church is one big ‘yes.’ Yes to anything that will make us happy in this life and the next.”

We need to remember that. We are people who believe in salvation. In reconciliation. In renewal and conversion. We are people who believe in the resurrection.

We believe in faith, hope and charity—to help the helpless and defend the defenseless.

We believe in the most enduring and challenging three words of Christ’s teaching: love one another.

Following Christ’s example, we are people who proclaim good news. Glad tidings. Joy.

We are a people of “Yes.”

So why doesn’t the world see that? It may be that we aren’t communicating it. It may be, in fact, that we aren’t living it.

In the synagogue in Nazareth, people listened with expectation to what Jesus had to say. As Luke puts it: “The eyes of all in the synagogue looked intently at him.”

Twenty-one centuries later, the eyes of the world are looking intently at us. What do they see?

Do they see people who are living the gospel, the “good tale”?

Do they see people who have a deep and abiding friendship with Christ? People who have taken what he taught to heart? Do they see people uplifted by the sacraments, especially the Eucharist—people who literally receive Christ into their hearts and bodies and lives and want to share that with the world?

Or do they see people who are indifferent? Judgmental? Unforgiving? Hypocritical?

Do they see people who profess one thing on Sunday, but do another on Monday?

Do they look at us and see people still captive, still oppressed, still blind? The healing work that Christ proclaimed in Nazareth extends far beyond the physical limitations mentioned in Isaiah. It also encompasses the stifling limitations of sin—the blindness and captivity we carry in our hearts. That is what he truly came to change.

And his message reaches far beyond the geographical boundaries of a synagogue in 1st century Galilee. It cries out to us here and now.

Are we listening?

If there is one New Year’s resolution worth keeping, it’s this one: embrace Christ’s “glad tidings.” Resolve to live with Christian joy. As Cardinal Dolan might put it, resolve to live with “Yes.” Resolve to say “Yes” to the gospel, the “good news” again and again and again. Say “Yes” to possibility and to hope.

Luke’s gospel today is about great beginnings—the greatest, really, in all of history.

Four weeks into a new year, it reminds us that there is always time to begin again.

To start anew.

To say “Yes.”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench
/2013/01/homily-for-january-27-2013-3rd-
sunday-in-ordinary-time/

Coptic Cathedral, Aswan, Egypt

Last time, we began and ended with the assertion that “the most important thing about you is what you believe about God.”

The most important thing about you is not that you are handsome, smart, went to Princeton, what or who you know; it’s not that you’re healthy and rich, recently divorced, or are about to be married; not that you are an American, Asian, survivor of Alcatraz or fifth grade; not even that you have a loving family and a wealth of devoted friends or fans … All of this pales into dust before the significance of what you believe about God.

Regardless if you are atheist or agnostic, evangelical or charismatic, Hindu or Hare Krishna, you believe something about God. For the atheist, of course, it’s the belief that God is … not. Based on that belief about God—that there is no God—the atheist develops a concept of life which in turn forms his or her worldview.

This isn’t a question of whether or where you attend church, or if you’ve never set foot inside a religious building. You believe something about God. What you believe affects every other aspect of your life. People from the same belief system—let’s say, two evangelicals or two Catholics—would believe that God exists but they likely believe different things about God, his activity in the world or in their lives, whether or how much he loves them, on and on. They may even attend the same church but each may believe different things about God. As a result, those two people attending the same church, professing faith in Christ as their Lord and Savior may perceive God in slightly different ways.

The early part of my life, I thought it was most important what kind of church I attended. But then I did a dangerous thing. I allowed myself to be “contaminated” by people like Mike Gower (now with the Lord) whose lives had been transformed by an encounter with Jesus, the Son of the Living God. Their lives were quite different from mine, although we went to the same church. They believed the same things as I did about God, as far as I could tell, but they had a bigger concept of God. It was more personal, like they knew Jesus. They believed something about God that was out of the scope of my experience. They had a maturing relationship with Jesus; whereas, I had mostly information about him and enough belief to get me into heaven. But while they were enjoying fellowship with him, I had just enough religion to interfere with my conscience.

Not that I was denied the rite of passage to this relationship God, mind you. Jesus was there all the time but when he said follow me, I stopped short—every time. Without thinking, I habitually stayed where I was. Intuitively, I suspected that if I followed this man Jesus, I’d probably have to give up people who accepted me as I was, stop doing the activities I enjoyed, change my priorities re what I did with my money and time and … I could go on but you know what I’m talking about.

To bring this together: I couldn’t believe the things about God that Gower and the others did because, frankly, I didn’t trust God enough. There it was—faith. Without faith that God would do all he said he would do, I was watching from the sidelines. Or rather, until I made the commitment to trust Jesus with my whole life, I wouldn’t know enough to believe that God would take care of my finances, my romances (I was still single.), and my circumstances. (I kinda got carried away there … but this isn’t the place to explain.)

So, this business of believing certain things about God requires commitment and willingness to follow him. As stated in James 2:19: You believe there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

What about you? What do you believe about God? Would you like to have a personal relationship with him? Find a Bible-believing pastor who can show you or email me personally and we can phone, email, or whatever …

By bringing the faithful to a real, living encounter with Jesus, it would follow with the Church’s missionary activity which, according to the Second Vatican Council, is the very purpose of the Church.  In theology and philosophy, the purpose of a thing is what defines it as what it is.  Thus, if the purpose of the Church is to be missionary, then she is missionary in her very nature.

That, in a nutshell, is what the New Evangelization is.  Yet, many people misunderstand or misconstrue the real essence of the New Evangelization and presuppose that the adjective “new” entails different methods of evangelization.  There is, therefore, many people who think that the New Evangelization is all about using what is ‘new’ in the world, especially in the realm of technology.  The proponents of such a view, when speaking of the New Evangelization, also in the same breath use words such as Twitter, Facebook, Blogs, Mobile Communications, etc.

Such a mentality is blatantly contrary to the mission and purpose of the New Evangelization.  If one were to glance at the Lineamenta (the working document for the upcoming synod on the New Evangelization), one would read, under the section “Areas In Need of the New Evangelization“, the following quote:

The fifth sector is scientific and technological research. We are living at a moment when people still marvel at the wonders resulting from continual advances in scientific and technological research. All of us experience the benefits of this progress in our daily lives, benefits on which we are becoming increasingly dependent. As a result, science and technology are in danger of becoming today’s new idols. In a digitalized and globalized world, science can easily be considered a new religion, to which we turn with questions concerning truth and meaning, even though we know that the responses provided are only partial and not totally satisfying. New forms of “gnosis” are emerging where technology itself becomes a kind of philosophy in which knowledge and meaning are derived from an unreal structuring of life. These new cults, increasing each day, ultimately end up by turning religious practice into a clinical form of seeking prosperity and instant gratification.

This is not much of a supportive mindset in regards to social media.  Nor is it, though, a condemnation of social media and technology in general.  Yet, it asks for a detailed reflection on the nature of technology, its positive and negative impacts, etc.  One must be cautious and discerning with all things.  We cannot presume that because it is new that it is good.  This is a danger of many in North America especially, where technology so influences every aspect of our lives.  The warning in regards to the idolatry of technology is a warning we in North America must especially heed.

Furthermore, the call to having a discerning mind in regards to technology is also a call to enter into these areas.  It is not because these areas are necessarily a good in themselves – they may in fact be harmful to our psychological development!  However, we are called to enter them because, increasingly, it is where people interact with each other.  Unfortunately, people depend less and less on personal encounter.  Even talking to people over the phone is becoming an increasingly foreign thing with the advent of text messaging.

We must imitate our Lord Who would go into places that were perhaps taboo, even engage in social interactions that were taboo (I am thinking especially the Samaritan woman).  We must go into these places not to use them as ends in themselves, but rather as places where we can bring the Light of Christ.  By encountering that light, things begin to seem to be as nothing in comparison with the gift of Christ to our lives.  In short, we enter them not to stay within them – we don’t get a twitter account in order to stay there and communicate there.  Rather, we enter there so that we can introduce others to the grace of Christ’s loving gaze that will draw them out of these areas.  If we believe – as many scientific studies have shown – that many technological advances have adverse psychological effects on us, then we ought to be doing what we can to help people come out of these spaces.  Yet, we can only do it by first going where they are going.

I can speak simply from personal experience.  Growing up – especially in high school – the computer was everything to me, so much so that I decided to study Computer Science at UVic so as to further engage in my passion.  I found Computer Science boring and uninteresting, but my obsession with the technological did not cease.  Yet, since my conversion, since my encounter with the face of Christ, I have been drawn to a Person Who is real – more real than any reality of this earth!  My purpose now is to act on that reality with greater devotion and conviction each and every day. Thus I finally gave up my Facebook account because I found that I was giving too much time to technology.  Now, frankly, because I don’t use Facebook, I am barely on my computer – though this is at times a detriment as I forget to answer e-mails and renew library books.

Yet, it still is a struggle, and I battle with this struggle daily.  I find myself continually enraptured by the latest technological advances.  It is not helpful, furthermore, when most people around you are buying the latest advances and so you see them being used.  I think there is something to this enrapturing quality of technology that is worthy of another post, but what I wish to say is that I still struggle, but I do see progress in my life.  Despite how cool I think having an iPad would be, of being on all these social networks – of ‘feeling’ connected, I am starting to learn that there is a Presence more important than anything else and that my yearning towards these innovations is simply my deeper yearning for Him.

In the end, then, our purpose in using social communication is not to use the means as an end in itself.  We must take seriously Marshall Mcluhan’s famous statement: “the medium is the message”.  This is not the statement of an optimist, but one who is discerning towards the reality of things.  The medium becomes confused as the message, thus obscuring the message.  We must be discerning and use these communications wisely, yet always demonstrating that, ultimately, our use of social communication is an expression of communicating in a social and real with an Other.

in Christ

-Harrison

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, ⁴that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, ⁵and that He appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. ⁶After that, He appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. ⁷Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles, ⁸and last of all He appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.” -1 Corinthians 15:3-8

This passage written by Paul, is a brief overview of the events contained in the gospels. He briefly recounts Christ’s death by crucifixion, for what cause, His eventual resurrection, and His appearances to the apostles, His brother, crowds, the early church, and finally, Christ appearing to Paul himself. This can be said to be more of a historical summary, for it quite simply contains events without any references to the teachings of Christ, or the preexisting Scriptures, in the form of the Old Testament. Paul obviously brings the Old Testament and New together, illuminating them within His other writings, indicating and revealing to us, that the Scripture does not exist in two parts, rather it is one large narrative, Christ being revealed, both implicitly and explicitly, since the beginning. Indeed, because of the Gospels, Paul, and independent sources such as Pliny the Elder, or Josephus, The vast majority of historians believe Christ to have been a real person, but the events surrounding the crucifixion, resurrection and who Christ was, are the topics that are truly questioned by the students of history.

Though Paul obviously believes Christ to be fact, that He was both man and God, and that He died and rose again, there are some details missing from Paul’s “historical” synopsis. One of these concerns the appearance of Christ to Mary Magdalene and other women who visited the tomb on the third day. Why was it not included if it is indeed fact like the gospels tell us? It is this question, among others, I am going to endeavor to explore.

"Christ Appears to The Holy Women," by James Tissot. watercolor, c. 1886-1894

The first thing we need to understand, is that as Christ and Paul revealed the complete unity in both the New and Old Testaments, and we find that even in the case of the Gospels, they are not supposed to stand on their own, though they most certainly can. Rather, they mesh or interlace perfectly to form a concise narrative of the events that took place. Though perfect as a whole, it helps to recognize that each gospel was written to address a different purpose or group of people. This may account for that which was included or omitted in the particular gospels.

• Matthew Levi wrote the Book of Matthew. Matthew prior to his discipleship was a tax collector and therefore, not exactly a revered individual in the eyes of the world. His gospel was directed at the Hebrews and contains many quotes from the Old Testament.
• John Mark wrote the Book of Mark. This books scope of focus was directed at the Romans. It is believed that Peter had a large influence on the authorship of this Book, and indeed it is believed to contain more words of Peter than any of the other gospels.
• Luke wrote the Book of Luke and was a close confidant of Paul. His book is said to take more of a “scientific” approach, and Luke, a physician and not being one of the original Twelve, acted as a historian, gathering the accounts about our Lord and Savior. This is the longest book of the New Testament and was directed at the Greeks.
• John was responsible for the writing of the Gospel of John. This gospel is the most broad in terms of focus and audience. In addition, the book contains more words of Christ than any other.

Another thing to consider is that if something is omitted, this in no way, like some suppose, represents an inevitable contradiction. In fact, using more than one gospel can give us a much clearer understanding of the events which surrounded Jesus Christ, and what He went through for us, that we may be saved by faith upon Him. For example, let us look at the question concerning Mary Magdalene’s visit from the Lord and how it’s omission by Paul doesn’t necessarily lead to contradiction, or even suggest that it didn’t happen. By using the accounts from Scripture, we can begin to piece together what happened at the time of the resurrection without any contradiction being evident.

In Matthew, Chapter 28, several things happen which can be considered the first, or beginning of the resurrection narrative. After a violent earthquake an angel of the Lord descended, rolling back the stone and sitting upon it. In fact, it’s reasonable to say that the angel may have been the instrument of God, which brought about the quake. At any rate, there were several guards at the tomb who all suddenly became greatly frightened by the manifestation they were privy to. These guards were placed there by Pilate in Chapter 27, after the chief priests and Pharisees recounted to Pilate what the Lord had said about being raised after three days. They were afraid the disciples would come and try to steal the body, initiating a great deception. Pilate told them they could go make the tomb as secure as they wanted, until the third day. These guards were terrified by the earthquake and angel of the Lord. They were later bribed by the Jews, to say that His body was indeed stolen. Matthew, Chapter 28, Verse 15, tells us that this story was circulated among the Jews, “to this very day.” It certainly has, for it has surpassed the Jews and has become a frequently cited explanation for the resurrection of Christ.

"Roman Guards Watch Over Tomb," by James Tissot. watercolor, c. 1884-1896

In addition to the guards being witness to the event, so too, according to the Gospels, was Mary the Mother of James. Other Books even include more companions. The Book of John mentions Mary Magdalene alone, while the other books of the gospels include others in her party. According to the Book of Luke, 24:10, her companions were Salome, again, Mary the mother of James (which is held to be the Sister of Mary, mother of Jesus), and Joanna. Though some commentary considering the reconciliation of these accounts in Scripture believe Mary to be alone at some point, before running to tell Peter and John, I don’t think this is the case. I believe the Scriptures themselves refute this. The exact time this happens is similar in all the accounts, the day after the sabbath at day break. Furthermore, their purpose was not to just visit the tomb, but for anointing His body with spices and perfumes. I believe this purpose suggests a group rather than just a couple individuals. Lastly, the words of Mary Magdalene herself indicate it, when in the Book of John (the same Book that only mentions Mary Magdalene as a witness), Chapter 20, Verse 2, she says to Simon Peter and John, “They have taken the Lord out of the Tomb, and we don’t know where they have put Him?” In her statement, she says, “we,” this obvious plurality indicating that it was not just her who witnessed the empty tomb, or even the first angel.

"Penitent Mary Magdalene," by Titian. oil on canvas, c. 1565

Why does the Scripture indicate only one person when more may be involved? Simply because it may not be relevant, or because Mary, and later Peter, are the real focus of attention, for it was their experiences which are recounted, though others may have been present. At this point we have Mary Magdalene and her companions walking up to the tomb of the Lord, again to anoint His body. As far as I can tell there are two possibilities when considering how the stone was placed before the tomb. First, we look to Matthew. In Chapter 27, Verse 60, Joseph of Arimathea rolls a large stone into place. Now, it doesn’t mention other people, but that doesnt mean there weren’t more involved in this process. Yet, if we assume he was alone, we find at this time the rock wasn’t as big as often depicted. But wait, before you start writing a e-mail, there is more. In Verse 66, the guards are said to make the tomb secure by posting a guard, which in this context would be made up of several guards. In addition, they put “a seal” on the stone. Most feel this refers to a “stamp” of sorts which would discourage anyone from breaking into the tomb, for with the breaking of that stamp, one would incur the wrath of the Roman Empire. However, some other translations offer another perspective. These refer to the guards as “sealing” the stone. The Romans at this time are believed to have concrete, also known as “Opus Caementicium.” In fact, by the mid-first century, underwater construction of edifices containing this concrete were underway, so the seal could have been an actual “sealant,” of the tomb.

"Christ with Joseph of Arimathea," by Giovanni Girolamo Savoldo. oil on wood, c. 1525

Despite my pondering, the simplest explanation might be the best, for on their way to the tomb, they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance to the tomb?” It is possible that they didn’t know the actions of the Romans in securing the tomb, for this could have occurred on the sabbath, which they all observed. In spite of the fact I said Joseph may have moved the rock on his own, it doesn’t line up with Scripture, for Mark 16:4 tells us, indeed, that the stone was very large and Mary Magdalene was there to witness Joseph move the stone into place. So I do believe the latter to be the case, and feel it is easily explained by the fact that when people are in a state of grief or emotional anguish, they don’t always react or behave in a rational fashion.

Next we have a curious account of the appearance of angels and this is where many find contradiction in the Bible. Before tackling this issue, however, I think we should focus somewhat on the particular attributes of these heavenly beings, as is represented in Scripture. An angel is not only a messenger from the Lord, but can also be used to complete His commands. We even know from Revelation, Chapter 16, that they can also be used by God to pour out His wrath. Furthermore, an angel is not bound to physicality and can appear or speak to whom it wishes in accordance with God’s command.

"Angels With Jesus Inside The Tomb," by William Blake. c. 1805

The spiritual eyes of one needs to be first opened before one can perceive of an angel. For instance, contained in Numbers 22:21-40 is the account of Balaam and his donkey. In this case the donkey can perceive of the angel, but Balaam himself can’t. Thus, if one is granted to gift of seeing such beings, the angel that is perceived might not be the only angel in attendance. Also, if you are in company with another individual, it remains a possibility, that if you are privy to such a manifestation, the other party may not be able to perceive of it. This is exactly what happens in 2 Kings 6:15-17:

“When the servant of the man of God got up and went out early the next morning, an army with horses and chariots had surrounded the city. ‘Oh, my Lord, what shall we do?’ the servant asked. ¹⁶‘Don’t be afraid,’ the prophet answered. ‘Those who are with us are more than those who are with them.’ ¹⁷And Elisha prayed, ‘O Lord, open his eyes so he may see.’ then the Lord opened the servant’s eyes, and he looked and saw the hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.”

This provides ample evidence that there may have been actually two angels in the tomb and the account of one, could have been given to Luke from a source who didn’t have eyes to see both of the heavenly beings. In fact, there could have been a multitude for we know. Yet, the Lord knows. There is even speculation that this “lone” man was actually Christ. However, I do not believe this to be the case, for not only is there scriptural evidence that shows angels can appear as man, but also, and more importantly, when Mary is weeping by herself two angels appear to her while she is in the presence of Christ. More on that later.

"The Morning of The Resurrection," by Sir Edward Coley Burne-Jones. oil on canvas. c. 1882

According to Matthew 28, we find that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary travel to go view the tomb of our Lord. As mentioned before, they had already discussed how they were going to move the rock in front. An angel, given the assignment of perhaps causing a large earthquake had come down from heaven, rolled away the stone and sat upon it. This left both Mary’s and their other companions, free to enter the tomb as they will without any hindrance at the hands of the guards, for all the guards cowered before the heavenly being upon the stone. The angel in Matthew 28:5-6 calms the women, saying to them to not be afraid, as angels frequently do. In addition, the angel tells them that Christ has risen, just as He said He would, and invites the women into the tomb to see where He had lain. The angel then instructs the women to run to the disciples once they leave.

I feel it is at this point the women enter the tomb, at the invitation of the angel outside. It was not only this angel’s duty to remove the stone, or cause an earthquake, but also protect the women from the guards, who were there from orders directly from Pilate. By entering the tomb they essentially broke Roman law, and the Romans were not known for their kind, humane punishments.

At the angels urging, the women, both Mary’s with Salome and Joanna, entered the tomb, where a “young man,” according to Mark 16:5, in white sat at their right side. Why is this angel the only one mentioned in Mark, when the Book of Luke says there are two? Concerning the nature of angels it could be that this is the only one that appeared to all, while the other may have been unseen by some of the group. It’s also important that we remember what, “angel” means. Angel, literally translated, means: “Messenger.” Perhaps there were two beings, but only one is mentioned in Mark due to the fact he may have been the lone communicator among the two. So though one isn’t mentioned in Luke, I don’t find any inevitable contradiction in the accounts, for it never says there is ONLY one. The angel restates what the angel outside said, and it makes sense. For the uniformity of their words, suggests obedience to God’s commandment concerning what they were allowed, or not allowed, to say. Although an angel of the Lord was posted outside to protect the tomb, the evidence was inside the tomb, which the woman were invited to see and report to the disciples.

Although the angel told the women that Christ had risen, Mark 16:8 gives us some insight into their state of mind. What they were just told is the phenomenal truth of Christ our Lord who had risen from the dead. It’s a little hard, knowing what we know, to conceptualize that these women couldn’t grasp the truth right away, but that’s only because we are quite distant from the actual occurrence of walking into Christ’s tomb, seeing our beloved missing, and a stranger telling us He has rose. The women were understandably confused and frightened by the encounter, not because they didn’t love Jesus, quite the contrary, but rather because it was so outside the realm of normal everyday occurrence. Such things produce fright and though they were afraid, Matthew tells us, at the same time they were filled with joy.

What I regard as the next account is what happened on the women’s way to tell the disciples of there encounter. This is recounted in Matthew 28:8-10:

“So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell the disciples. (9)Suddenly, Jesus met them. ‘Greetings,’ He said. They came to Him, clasped His feet and worshipped Him. Then Jesus said to them, ‘Do not be afraid. Go tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”

As the women were on their way to tell the disciples and had their encounter with Jesus, the chief priests and elders bribed the guards to say that His body was stolen as they slept. In addition, the elders promised that no harm would come to them if they did so. They were bribed to lie and keep quiet about the amazing events they had indeed saw.

There are some who believe that Mary Magdalene was alone, when she ran and told the disciples, or that all the women were there, but in more than one group. However, I feel the Scriptures tell us different. Luke 24:10 says explicitly:

“It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.”

Another name, Salome, is mentioned in the Gospels, but Luke indicates that there was a group of women who experienced the risen Christ. If Christ indeed appeared to this women, which nobody at first believed, citing it as “nonsense,” Why did Mary Magdalene say that she didn’t know what happened to the body? John 20:9 tells us that they yet didn’t know that Jesus had to rise from the dead, so there was obviously some confusion about what was taking place. If we interject ourselves in the resurrection account, is it really that hard to believe that such confusion was evident? Mary and her companions didn’t see the body of Christ, but saw Him on their way to inform the disciples. It’s possible that Mary considered Christ as some kind of apparition, like the disciples themselves did, and He may have looked somewhat different. We know at a later time that Mary Magdalene is unable to recognize Christ, and Mary isn’t alone in this. Christ veils His identity from a number of the disciples after His resurrection. Mary Magdalene being witness to the crucifixion, which are quite obviously grisly and brutal forms of execution, may have not realized as of yet, the nature of His new body. Thus, though she disclosed to the disciples of their encounter, what happened to the body that was missing from the tomb still could have been a mystery to Her.

The Book of John tells us that Peter and John started running for the tomb once the women told of their encounters. This was dangerous undertaking especially after the charges that the elders and guards were making against them, and indeed their very lives could have been in danger. John reached the tomb first, but did not go in, while Simon Peter on the other hand did. Peter saw the strips of linen and burial shroud neatly folded up. I find it probable that at least Mary followed the two men. Then John went inside observing the same thing as Peter and believed, though John 20:9 suggests they didn’t have a full understanding of what had occurred. Also Luke 24:12 says that after Peter left the tomb, he wondered what had happened. One of the gospel accounts only tells the account of Peter running to the tomb and peering in, but this could have been a simplification, for adding John doesn’t necessarily add anything but an extra witness. There is no consequence for John being there and He may have been ommited due to it’s irreverence.

"Peter and John Running to the Tomb," by Eugene Burnand. oil on canvas, c. 1898

Continuing in the book of John, we find Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalene. The disciples returned home as John 20:10 tells us, but she stood there outside the tomb weeping. Why? Hadn’t she seen the Lord? She indeed had, but the disciples’ time to have their eyes opened hadn’t yet come to pass. I am certain she wept, at least in part, due to frustration, for the collaborating evidence she wished would be there was not. There were no men or angels while Peter and John were there, but as she leaned into the tomb after they had gone, she saw two angels of white, seated where Christ’s body had been. One at the head and one at the foot which could be symbolic. They asked her why she was crying, to which she responded, “they have taken my Lord away.” Now she turned and saw Jesus, but  here she too had her eyes blinded, until Christ spoke her name. She then recognized Him, and after being stopped from embracing Him, she returned to the disciples telling that she had seen the Lord.

"The Appearance of Christ to Mary Magdalene," by Alexander Ivanov. oil on canvas, c. 1834-1836

I offer this viewpoint of the reconciliation of the resurrection accounts, not as Gospel, but as just one possibility of what could have happened. Indeed, it comes from my own study of these accounts, thus it may be full of error. I don’t encourage anyone to follow this explanation or consider it as infallible as the Bible, please don’t, my main goal was to point out that these resurrection accounts can have many different interpretations, and don’t necessarily reach a contradiction. Some say there are at least 18 contradictions in the resurrection accounts, but I don’t find any evidence for this, for I believe the differences can be explained, and that most the citied contradictions are just examples of biblical omission.

Often times, we Christians are asked questions that do not appear within the Gospels or even the rest of Scripture. To those non-believers, and even, at times, believers, for the Bible to be true, it needs to satisfy all our curiosity concerning events. I recall once being asked how Christ’s father, Joseph, died? There is no biblical answer, other than the Bible speaking to Joseph’s character, but how He died is not stated in the Bible. Why? Simply, I believe the Bible tells us what we need to know, and there are certain details that have no consequence concerning our relationship with the Lord.

Omission in the word of God is suggested by the Gospels themselves. The last verse in the Gospel of John, 21:25 states:

“Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”

It should be evident by this verse that indeed certain events are not recorded in the Scriptures. Perhaps God, in his infinite wisdom, knew that the short attention span of man wouldn’t lend itself to a Bible that would dwarf the size of the full Encyclopedia Britannica. Thus, the Scriptures only reveal to us what we need to know, and the spreading of the word and of Christianity throughout the world testifies to its perfection. Yet, as I have brought up here and in a previous entry (see my note concerning 1 Corinthians 15:20-23, “On The Chaos of Reason, The Firstfruit, and The Transfiguration”), let us be wary not to see omission as contradiction.

In addition, we need to be aware that the Bible may contradict, not by the word itself, but because of the beliefs we hold on to, which may be perpetuated by the traditions of the Church, Catholicism or any number of other schools of theology. I recall hearing at one time that the first person Christ appeared to was His mother Mary. This tradition, as far as I am aware, began in the Catholic Church. Yet, it isn’t mentioned in scripture. However, because we know things are omitted as confirmed by the word, it doesn’t mean He didn’t, just that we can’t say for sure in a biblical context. In reality, this belief is based on what man thinks Christ had ought to have done, which is extremely prideful. If this or such tradition is juxtaposed with the word, contradiction can easily arise from it, and perhaps cause confusion among the Body.

In the 14th-century, a Franciscan friar, Father William of Ockham’s namesake was applied to a popular philosophical theory, known as, “Ockham’s Razor,” or now more commonly spelled, “Occam’s Razor.” This theory suggests that from any competeing hypotheses, the one with the least amount of assumptions, or the hypothesis containing the simplest answer, is usually the correct one. Though I have reservations about this particular philosophical theory, when it comes to finding contradiction in the Bible it applies, though not absolutely. There are times when we think too much behind scriptural passages, when the true reconciliation is apt to be something much more simple.

A great example of this is the supposed contradiction between Christ’s first meeting of Simon Peter and Andrew. The two, “contradictions,” are found in Matthew 4:18-20 and John 1:35-42. The account in John describes their first meeting with Jesus. Andrew went to see where Christ was staying, and called on his brother Simon Peter exclaiming they had found the Messiah. In Matthew however, Christ calls to Andrew and Simon Peter as they were casting a net into the Sea of Galilee. He tells the men to follow Him and that He will make them fishers of men. Many make the assumption that both of these are representational of Simon Peter and Andrew’s first meeting of Christ, but this is false. Rather, the Book of John describes how they met, while Matthew describes how they were called into discipleship. “Occam’s Razor,” turns out to be appropriate in this case, for if one lets go of assumptions and looks at the verses in a more simplistic manner, the contradiction is negated, and these two accounts come together in complete unity.

"The Calling of Peter and Andrew," by Duccio di Buoninsegna. tempra on wood, c. 1308-1311

Within this entry I have attempted to identify some of the means by which people are tripped up by contradiction. I believe that most of it is based on assumption, tradition, and omission. Indeed, these are some of the very things that have led me astray in the past. We need to be aware of the stumbling blocks such things pose and that it is the Scriptures that should change our point of view, rather than our view distort the Scriptures. I pray that all those attempting to find answers would rely on the revelation and teaching of God and not that of man, who due in part to his faulty nature, can promote the use of assumption within the Word of God. May the Lord protect His word and keep us free from falsehood. Amen.

I would like to once again acknowledge Terie for her input concerning this entry. Her propensity for grammar is an amazing gift, that I tend to lack. Thank you Terie!

The man in the Pig Puzzle begs to follow Jesus, follow him in close physical proximity back to his home.  (“Beg” shows us that he really meant it.) And Jesus’ response – “No, go back to your family and tell them all the wonderful things God has done for you.”  I think I would have been tempted to sneak along anyway, but the man does what Jesus says and goes back to his home telling of his experience as he goes.

The woman who had been ill for twelve years is given a gentle dismissal, “Daughter, your faith has made you well. Go in peace.”  No demands, no expectations, but I guess a ready follower whose life has been transformed.  She’ll be grateful for ever.

Jairus and his wife, the parents of the little girl in the Twelve Puzzle, are overwhelmed by the emotion of the day, and Jesus insists that, “they not tell anyone what has happened.”

I accept that there may be other reasons why Jesus says what he says to these people, but I do like the idea that he is treating them each as they need to be treated at the time, with a personal touch, that enriches and grows their faith.

Jesus and his disciples take a boat trip across the lake and Jesus lies down for a nap.  He’s relaxed, knowing that he is in good hands – he is with experienced fishermen after all.  They must have been used to handling a boat in a storm, but when this baby comes, they panic.  And with good reason – “they were in real danger.”  They shout at Jesus to wake him, warning him that they are going to drown.  (It’s not clear whether they expected him to intervene, or whether it was a wakeup call to share their terror.)

Jesus is calmness itself.  He rebukes the wind and the waves, the storm subsides and peace is restored to the boat. 

But it’s not all peace for the crew.

Yes, the storm has stopped.  Yes, the boat is no longer listing dangerously.  Yes, they are safe.

But they have encountered Jesus at work in a way that shakes their inner “teacup” world.  They are left questioning, “Who is this man, that even the winds and waves obey him?”

Which is the worst storm – the physical tossing of the boat, or the inner rocking to Jesus question, “Where is your faith?” 

He still asks probing questions.

This is what happened to the people who were around when Jesus interacted with the demon-possessed man (you can check out the story in Luke chapter 8:26-39) – “All the people in that region begged Jesus to go away and leave them alone.”   These were the same people whom Luke tells us had wanted to see what had happened for themselves.  In reality, Jesus was not what they expected.

What rattled them so much?

Jesus was a visitor to their region, a Jew visiting Gentile territory.  It’s a strange story, and the fate of the pigs which ran lemming-like down the cliff to their deaths is not easy to explain.  With no Facebook or Twitter, no blogs or mobiles, the news travelled fast.  Look at the reactions – the herdsmen ran away telling everyone about their lost pigs; the man who had been shrieking and distressed such that he had been living alone in a cemetery, now sat quietly beside Jesus…no wonder the people wanted to check this out for themselves.  And when they looked, they were…

Afraid.

The man wanted to follow Jesus, to leave his region and go back with Jesus to his part of the country.  But Jesus had other plans…and that’s another story.

Jesus severely rattled cages.  The “gentle Jesus meek and mild” of popular imagination is fiction.  We don’t get what we expect when we meet him.

Each week we will go over a specific encounter with the Savior and attempt to understand what each encounter can teach us about our Lord.  My prayer is that we will walk away from these encounters as changed as the the people who had them. 

This week we will be reading Mark 5:24-34 and looking at encounter the hemorrhaging woman.  Please take some time to read this story and think about the following questions before we meet on Wednesday.

1. What must it have been like for the suffering woman who was continually bleeding from her uterus?  Read Leviticus 15:25-30 to help you understand the cultural significance of the condition she had.  What social and religious stigmas did she constantly have to endure?
2. What do you think most people thought was the reason she was suffering?
3. How do you think her ailment (in its advanced stages) would have affected her physically?
4. When we suffer in this life is it always because we have sinned? 
5. What was the ultimate result of her suffering after none of the doctors could help her?  What did it drive her to do?
6. Given this, what do you think is one reason that God allows us to suffer in this life?
7. Why was the woman healed just by touching Jesus’ garment?
8. There was a crowd, a mob pressing around Jesus.  What are some of the reasons they were there? 
9. How do the reasons the crowd was there contrast with the reason the woman was there?
10. How is Jesus’ response to the woman different from His response to the crowd?  Why?  Who does Jesus respond to today?
11. What is the significance of Jesus using the word “daughter” to address the woman?  Why did He do this?
12. How many times have you mingled in the crowd, going through the motions of being a “Christian”, and touched Jesus only in the business of religious activities?  How many times have you walked away from the crowd following Jesus unchanged?
13. At what points in your life have you felt nearest to God?  When did you grow the most?
14. What does this passage reveal about the character of Jesus?