How Many Times Did Jesus Tell His Disciples He Would Be Resurrected Again

Post-obit is an attempt to explain the mixed messages given the role of Peter in the post-resurrection narratives of the canonical gospels. Information technology argues that Peter first met the resurrected Jesus, as per one Corinthians 15:5, some time subsequently the writing of the gospels of Marker and Matthew simply merely prior to Luke's gospel — or more likely as late equally that redaction of Luke by the author of Acts (Tyson) and effectually the fourth dimension of the Pastorals.

Let's commencement with the widely held scholarly views that (1) the Gospel of Mark was the kickoff gospel to be written; and that (ii) the epistles of Paul were written before the Gospel of Marking.

Let'due south also assume for now that Paul's first letter to the Corinthians contains evidence that some of the earliest Christian communities believed that the resurrected Christ first appeared to Peter.

Christ . . . rose again . . . and that he was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve . . . . (1 Cor. 15:3-v)

Paul'south resurrection appearances catalogue in Corinthians

It seems odd that the same writer who wrote Galatians should also requite Peter (Cephas) this identify of honour here, fifty-fifty to the point of declaring himself far behind Peter'due south status with:

For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle . . . . (xv:nine)

Contrast the mental attitude of the author of Galatians who speaks of Peter as one who:

"seemed to exist something — whatever [he was] it makes no difference to me . . . . for [he who] seemed to be something added naught to me . . . . who seemed to be [a colonnade]. . . ." (Gal. 2:6-9)

and who and then goes on to effectively declare James and Peter as existence false apostles:

But when Peter had come to Antioch I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed . . . . when [certain men came from James] he withdrew and separated himself [from the gentiles], fearing those who were of the circumcision . . . . But when I saw that they were non straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, ". . . . Why practise you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?" (Gal. 2:xi-14)

That passage, when read with the writer'southward earlier discussion about false brethren, places Peter squarely amid those false brethren according to Paul:

"fake brethren secretly brought in . . . . that they might bring u.s. into bondage . . . . to whom nosotros did non yield submission even for an hr" (Gal. 2:three-v)

The show of Galatians supports the statement that the catalogue of resurrection appearances in 1 Cor.15:three-11 is non original to that letter of the alphabet. If, every bit other evidence indicates, Paul was from early on times deemed as an campaigner "to the heretics", and if his letters were starting time known as a collection amid the Marcionite Christians, and then this catalogue of resurrection appearances in ane Cor.fifteen:3-xi has a simple explanation: information technology was an attempt by "orthodox" Christians to demonstrate Paul'south compatibility with and support for "orthodoxy". "Orthodoxy" traced its foundation to Peter and the Twelve and James and that is what the catalogue of appearances supports.

We have and so Galatians informing united states of america of a major rift between between predominantly gentile Christians led by Paul and more often than not Jewish ones led by James and Peter.

one Corinthians tells united states of america that Peter was certainly held in the highest esteem among many early Christians regardless of the actuality of the passage to the original author.

The Gospel of Mark's lack of resurrection appearances

Now come to the gospel of Marker. (I assume here that Mark's catastrophe is at 16:viii and that the following verses were a afterward effort to give the gospel a more palatable ending for new audiences. See a brief give-and-take of the evidence here.)

In this earliest of the canonical gospels Peter is treated with as little respect as the author of Galatians shown him. His name, meaning Rock, is nowhere associated with a firm foundation for the church building but rather appears to be more compatible with the apace withering fruit that comes from rocky soil (Tolbert). From an first-class enthusiastic beginning his career with Jesus gradually degenerates until by the finish he falls, similar Judas and the rest of the Twelve, ignorantly and blindly into the camp of those who deny their Lord earlier men and thus their souls. Mark drives abode the failure of this disciple for his readers by having Jesus transport a reminder to Peter that those who wish to see Jesus again must get the Galilee (the metaphorical place of the kingdom of God that replaced the kingdom of Jerusalem), a reminder Mark bitingly tells readers, Peter did not even receive. He was not so blind and deaf equally to be beyond redemption. It was as if Jesus did non really intendance that he got the message. Subsequently all, he had already made taught:

For whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed . . . . (Mark viii:38)

The tears of Peter are a warning to Mark'due south readers of the fate of 1 who denies Christ. There is no narrative redemption in them in this gospel. The tears Peter wept were the signs of ache over his condition, no more effective for salvation than Judas's torments that led him to hang himself or the bitter wailing of those other evangelists tell united states of america is the fate of those in hell.

There is no resurrection appearance to Peter in Mark'south gospel.

This despite — or more likely because of — Peter's prominence in rival Christian factions. Marking'south attack on Peter and the Twelve must have been in response to the prominence of Peter and the Twelve among meaning numbers of Christians with whom he disagreed (Weeden, Fowler, Kelber, Tolbert). Like the author of Galatians, nearly likely.

The place of Peter from the start

And then earlier Mark wrote (I refer to Marker equally the writer for convenience — no-one knows the identity of the original author except those who read more than is warranted into what Eusebius said Papias said — see "authorship". Ditto for the other gospels besides.) . . . . . so it is safe to say that before Marker wrote, Peter was held in very high esteem among many Christian communities. But non all.

The bland just blunt instrument of Matthew's first resurrection advent

The Gospel of Matthew rehabilitates Peter from Mark'south denigration. Matthew in response to Marking (whom he was in large measure copying and re-writing) chooses to drop Mark'south biting reference to Peter subsequently the resurrection completely. Where Marker had sarcastically concluded his gospel with the women running in fear from the tomb too frightened to breath a word to anyone, permit alone Peter, about what they had just seen, Matthew sends them none other than Jesus himself. Past so doing, he overturns Mark's biting attack on the credibility of the witnesses. He re-writes Mark: Sure the women ran like blazes from the tomb, but they were actually on their mode to tell the disciples, and moreover Jesus met them on the manner — so the women's testimony suddenly has authority of having seen the resurrected Jesus himself.

Many have commented on the credible pointlessness of Matthew'southward account of Jesus actualization to the women hither. He doesn't tell them anything that they have not already heard from the angel in the tomb. Simply Matthew has a very real point to make when nosotros think of him wrestling with the all-time way to re-write Marker'southward account to redeem the potency of the apostles. He changed Mark'southward young man (maybe meant to be the aforementioned equally the young man who fled naked from Jesus at his arrest in Gethsemane) to an angel. That was a first step in giving the apostles an authoritative base. Side by side he had Mark'south fearfully fleeing women run smack blindside into Jesus himself. The women were non running in fear equally Mark had said. Matthew explains that they were running in joy and only became fearful when they unexpectedly ran into Jesus himself. And they did tell the disciples not but the message of an angel but the very bulletin of Jesus himself. Matthew has added the Jesus appearance to the women to undo Marking's cynicism. Information technology hardly mattered that he could not think of anything more than to add nigh what Jesus might take said than what Mark had already fed him with the voice communication of the young man in the tomb. The betoken was the authority of eyewitness and its links between the empty tomb and the disciples to counter Mark'due south renunciation.

But Matthew does not requite Peter a resurrection appearance. Peter is non even named by Matthew — presumably to muffle the memory of Mark's sarcastic naming of him in his endmost verses (Mark 16:seven). Instead Matthew leaves information technology to the reader that Peter is among the eleven disciples who saw Jesus on a mountain in Galilee at the end.

Presumably and then Matthew, and therefore Mark, was writing before the passage in 1 Corinthians 15:v ("he was seen by Cephas") was known to him.

But what was certainly known to Matthew was the prominence of Peter as a leader in the church. Hence Matthew sixteen:17-18:

Jesus answered and said to him, Blessed are yous, Simon Bar-Jonah, . . . . And I also say unto you lot that you lot are Peter, and on this rock I volition build my church, . . . . And I volition give you the keys of the kingdom, and any you bind on earth will be leap in heaven, and whatever you lot loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. . . .

By the time of Luke's gospel

By the time Luke wrote his gospel, however, it appears that there were (noncanonical) stories floating that Peter's prominence among the churches was even more securely grounded past the resurrected Jesus having appeared start to him.

But this story had not yet taken on the mankind and bones of narrative detail. It was presented as "an event", "a fact", a new slice in the armory of those in the trenches battling for the superiority of their pro-Petrine faction's historical priority.

It may accept starting time appeared in i Corinthians 15 then. Luke's briefest, almost incidental mention, that the resurrected Jesus had appeared to Peter, is certainly strange. Luke tells good stories, fleshed out narratives. He has merely told a good one of the two travelers to the village Emmaus (24:13-33). These two rush off to tell their detailed experience with the resurrected Jesus to the disciples, where they blurt out:

The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon! (Luke 24:34)

A strange thing to say when the group they are addressing conspicuously included Simon Peter himself. (Since the group numbered the 11 the only one absent therefore was Judas.) Did he not tell anyone that he had seen Jesus? How did the 2 travelers know he had appeared to Simon? Merely most bizarre of all, it seems the two travelers had no involvement in pouring out their own experience of having only walked and talked with one resurrected from the dead — simply to tell others someone else had seen him! The story of the 2 travelers meeting Jesus has been awkwardly edited to bring in to the narrative a study of Jesus having appeared (first) to Peter.

This passage may be a later interpolation to give the story link with the 1 Corinthians 15 catalogue of appearances. If so, I would suspect it was from the redactor of an early on version of Luke — the same one who wrote the pro-Petrine Acts and edited Luke to make information technology fit as a companion to Acts (Tyson).

He seems not accept had one for Jesus' appearance to Peter.

Luke 24 follows the order of 1 Corinthians fifteen:4-5, with the same words, mentioning an appearance to "Simon" followed by an appearance to the entire group. "The Lord has been raised and appeared to Simon" . . . . The combination of "enhance" and "appear" in the passive voice may seem unremarkable, merely it is found only in these 2 places. Wolfgang Schenk has developed a detailed argument based upon the similarities amongst Luke 24, 1 Corinthians 15, and Galatians 1. Although the relation may seem tenuous at kickoff sight, the question deserves serious attending. Luke 24:34 may well be a reflection of 1 Corinthians xv:iv-5. (Pervo, p.lxx)

And the gospel of John?

If we take John's gospel as afterward than Luke'due south (some scholars doubt that is the case, however — Matson, Shellard, et al) and so we however have no narrative of the resurrected Jesus actualization kickoff to Peter.

By the time of Luke-Acts and the Pastorals

Past the fourth dimension the Book of Acts was being written the values expressed in the Pastoral epistles were casting a longer shadow across the progenitors of orthodoxy:

Allow a woman larn in silence with all submission. And I practise not let a adult female to teach . . . . but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

The writer of that probably liked the original ending in Mark: women running like scared rabbits and as well scared to open up their mouths (16:8). He might take had a harder time with Matthew'southward effort to undo Mark'southward damage past having the women encounter Jesus instead of oblivion (28:9). At least the author of John'due south gospel had the good sense to accept the start adult female witness of the resurrected Jesus fail to recognize him (John 20:11-16). Simply the Gospel of Luke reaffirms the ascendancy of the male function, despite some possible ambiguity over the gender identity of the 2 travelers to Emmaus.

If the passage in Luke about the advent of the resurrected Jesus to Simon Peter was from the hand of the writer of Acts (and other recent posts hither express reasons for a belatedly appointment for Acts) then we can surmise at least 1 good reason for him wishing to include this passage in Luke. Acts is about the parity between Peter and Paul. Both perform similar miracles (raising the dead, healing the cripples) and undergo similar experiences (e.g. flogging, prison, false prophets). Yet the author is also at pains to demonstrate Paul's submission to Peter and the Twelve (e.thou. Acts 15). Paul's conversion is to be by the direct revelation of Jesus himself — just equally he appeared to all the apostles, first of all Peter, in i Corinthians 15. (I've already cited Pervo and Tyson for what I consider very plausible arguments that the author of Acts and Luke did know and used Paul's messages.)

This author had no other stories about this resurrection advent of Jesus to Peter to draw on. Merely the bare fact that it happened. So it was clumsily placed in the mouths of the 2 travelers to Emmaus. From that somewhat ill-balanced position the author could speak of Paul's conversion as a consequence of a vision and not take a chance it over-shadowing the experience of Peter who had been the very start to run across the resurrected Christ.

By the time two Peter was written, as if from the pen of the apostle himself, it seems telling that not even that author could become by his seeing Jesus on the mountain at his transfiguration (ii Peter ane:sixteen-17) — presumably he thought this business relationship would give him more than administrative status than a mere appearance of a resurrected Jesus! Some scholars wonder if the transfiguration advent was a retelling of an original resurrection appearance. If so, and so it was muted sufficiently equally such to require the subsequent evolution of a carve up — and newly prioritized — appearance of the resurrected Jesus to Peter possibly as late as around the early 2nd century. Ignatius is the first non-canonical author to reference it. But that leads us to a new set of questions about dates and identities that will have to exist addressed another time.

The following two tabs modify content below.

• Bio
• Latest Posts

Neil is the author of this post. To read more nearly Neil, run across our About page.

---

If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thank you!

---

butlersustrian98.blogspot.com

Source: https://vridar.org/2007/09/16/when-did-peter-see-the-resurrected-jesus/

Share this post