Monday, I Easter
Acts 2, Matthew 28)
The gospel mentions a refutation of the resurrection that evidently was circulated in apostolic times. Apparently some Jews claimed that Jesus did not rise from the dead but that his tomb was found empty because his disciples stole his body. We might find the explanation given of why Romans soldiers would admit to negligence-on-duty – that they were paid off and that the Jewish leaders would handle any fallout with the procurator -- as hardly plausible. However, this line of reasoning probably goes beyond what Matthew intended by telling the story.
More topical today is a question about the resurrection that the first reading suggests. Peter tries to show his Jewish listeners that Jesus’ resurrection was foretold in Scripture. Some modern skeptics have opined that the passion, death and resurrection narratives were invented by early Christians with the Old Testament in hand. According to these theorists, the apostles gleaned tidbits from the Jewish Scriptures and inserted them into the story of Jesus’ ordeal. That may be possible, but it is hardly likely. Catholic scholar Fr. Raymond Brown has written it is far more probable that the early Christians noted facts surrounding Jesus death and resurrection that corresponded with Scripture. This is why we have the emphasis on casting lots for the garment, the wine being offered to Jesus, and other details.
Skeptics can and will always raise doubts about Jesus’ resurrection. It remains a singular event in history (unless we count the Assumption of Mary for which there appears to be far less testimony). We accept it in faith because of the credibility we give to the apostolic witness, because it satisfies the longing of the human heart which God has created, and also because we have experiences the effects of his resurrection such as God’s love filling our hearts.
No comments:
Post a Comment