Support the Café

Search our Site

Richer for the Variety

Richer for the Variety

Wednesday, April 11, 2012Wednesday in Easter Week

Readings for the Daily Office (Book of Common Prayer, p. 959)

Psalms 97, 99 (morning) // 115 (evening)

Exodus 12:40-51

1 Corinthians 15:(29)30-41

Matthew 28:1-16

[Go to for an online version of the Daily Office including today’s scripture readings.]

Today we move to Matthew’s version of the resurrection. Matthew had access to Mark’s gospel and used some parts of it word for word. Comparing the resurrection appearances helps us see a common form of development in the story of Jesus. Matthew adds some dramatic elements — a great earthquake, and angel who rolls away the stone, fearful guards. In Mark, the women at the tomb meet a “young man dressed in a white robe.” In Matthew, it is an angel with an “appearance like lightning and clothes white as snow.” The women get the same instruction — to tell the disciples Jesus has risen and will meet them in Galilee.” Unlike Mark’s account, where the women are afraid and tell no one, the women of Matthew’s story run with fear and joy to tell the disciples. Mark’s account ends with these words: “So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.” But in Matthew’s version, Jesus appears to the women, they take hold of his feet and worship him, and he speaks to them.

In Biblical narratives as well as in our everyday life, stories tend to accumulate details and more drama as they are repeated over time. Sometimes repetition will invite exaggeration or creative elaboration. An earthquake adds drama. A young man becomes an angel. The women’s fear and silence becomes a joyful reunion with the Risen Lord.

As the early church developed its teaching and story, the church looked to the past to interpret their present. Early on the church saw in Isaiah’s suffering servant a tradition that helped them to interpret the death of Jesus, after all, it was a more common expectation that the Messiah/Christ would be a triumphant leader who would expel Israel’s enemies and establish the nation as the greatest of nations. In finding interpretations to help them understand the meaning of Jesus’ death and their experience of his resurrection, the early preachers incorporated some elements of the Hebrew Biblical narrative and prophecy into their story of Jesus. Some elements of detail and elaboration came into the story because they showed how Jesus was the fulfillment of scripture. So Matthew adds to Mark’s simpler account a detail about the soldiers dividing Jesus’ clothes among themselves and casting lots, drawing upon the words of Psalm 22: “they divide my garments among them; they cast lots for my clothing.”

One of those places of debate and conversation among scholars is the question of how many of these details that we have in our gospels are “history remembered” or “prophecy historicized.” Such studies make for great sport among scholars. I’m satisfied to read with devotion the various accounts that we have been given, to honor them as the faithful preaching of our evangelist ancestors, to draw meaning from it all, and not to get too exercised over the unknowable question of “what really happened” in detail. After all, does it really matter whether or not little George Washington really did cut down the cherry tree? What matters is that he was an honest man. The story tells us that truth, whether it is history remembered or a metaphorical fiction.

Matthew and Mark are addressing two different audiences and in many ways are doing two different things. We can be thankful that our ancestors preserved both accounts for our benefit and didn’t try to edit or exclude because of inconsistencies in their stories. We are richer for the inconsistencies.


Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lowell Grisham

My thought about Mark’s abrubt ending as being the original version were influenced by Bill Barnwell’s study of Mark that he wrote for the DOC program some years ago (Disciples Of Christ — a renewal-study series that originated at Trinity, New Orleans and then was picked up by Sewanee). I thought he made a strong case for the ending as genuine. I looked for the book on Amazon, but it appears that it is out of print.


In Today’s Speaking to the Soul Lowell Graham speaks about the differences in the resurrection stories we have in the Gospels. Near the end of his comments he says “I’m satisfied to read with devotion the various accounts … to draw meaning from it all, and not to get too exercised over the unknowable question of ‘what really happened’ in detail.” I’m pleased to see the author make this comment because both the literalists, on one side of the coin, and the atheists on the other side loose sight of this concept. In the Old Testament story of Jonah and the whale (fish), for example, the literalists will say that this actually happened as it is written and the atheist will look at both the story and the reaction of the literalist and say, “How can you be so gullible; this could not have possibly happened.” What both points of view tend to loose sight of is the truth that God wants us to take from the story; namely that when God tells us to do something we had better do it. This method of reading the scriptures “…to draw meaning from it all”; reading with the eyes of faith would be more productive than mounting the unnecessary and untenable defenses of taking all scripture literally. That and the more liberal Christians (echoing the atheists) would not have to say, “How can you be so naive.” and we could get on with the real work that needs to be done, loving God and people and all that that entails.

– Norman Hutchinson

A Facebook User

Mark’s ending to his Gospel, as wonderfully terse and delightfully abrubt and maniacally incorrect from a grammatical perspective, could not have been his intended ending. Please don’t read into these comments that I think any of the endings we have for Mark’s Gospel are Mark’s orignal either, because it is clear that they are not from the same hand let alone the same mind as the rest of this Gospel. Mark probably just didn’t finish what he started. For whatever reason, he seems to not have gotten the opportunity to take back up again his writing. We can speculate endlessly about what could have happened to keep him from finishing it, suffice it to say, human will being what we know it to be, doesn’t always finish even the holiest of deeds.

A Facebook User: please sign your name next time you comment. Thanks ~ed.

Ann Fontaine

I think the Mark ending (added later) was meant to keep women silent in church.

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café