The Vision (4.25.25): Resurrection Appearances (Luke 24)

 

Image: Azaleas, North Garden, Virginia, April 2025.

Note: Devotion taken from morning and afternoon sermons last Sunday on Luke 24.

“And they said one to another, Did not out heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?” (Luke 24:32).

“And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you” (Luke 24:36).

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 Paul summarized the key four historical facts that were essential to his preaching of the gospel or good news of the Lord Jesus Christ. Those four basic facts: (1) Christ’s atoning death; (2) his burial; (3) his resurrection on the third day; and (4) his resurrection appearances.

The second and fourth of those points affirm or prove the first and third point points. We know that Christ truly died on the cross, because his lifeless body was placed in the tomb. We know that Christ was truly raised again from the dead, because he appeared to his disciples in his resurrection body.

All four of the canonical gospels reach their climax with these four points. One German scholar from years ago said that the Gospels were “passion narratives with extended introductions.”

Luke 24 presents an inspired narrative of Christ’s resurrection appearances on the first Lord’s Day,  to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (24:13-32) and then to the twelve in Jerusalem (24:36-48).

Aside from providing the true historical details on what transpired that day, Luke, driven along by the Holy Spirit, also provides a template for what will continue to happen when the saints gather on the Lord’s Day. The risen Lord Jesus Christ will make himself present and known to us. This happens now by the Spirit since Christ has ascended and is seated at God’s right hand till he comes again with power and glory.

When meeting with him we will say, as the disciples of old did, “Did not our heart burn within us… while he opened to us the scriptures?” (24:32). The risen Lord Jesus himself will stand “in the midst” and say to us, “Peace be unto you” (24:36). He will extend his pastoral care to us, asking, “Why are ye troubled? And why do thoughts arise in your hearts?” (24:38).

Let us continue to gather each Lord’s Day to meet with the one who died on the cross for our sins, was buried, rose again the third day, and appeared to his disciples.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

The Vision (2.7.25): Four Lessons on Life After Life from the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)

 

Image: The Rich Man and Lazarus, Drawing by John Everett Millais, 19th century, Harvard Art Museums/Fogg Museum.

Note: Devotion taken from last Sunday's sermon on Luke 16:19-31:

“There was a certain rich man,… And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus….” (Luke 16:19-20).

In our Lord’s Day afternoon services, we are currently doing a sermon series on eschatology (the doctrine of last things). At present we are examining topics related to personal eschatology (What happens when we die?), and later we will look at topics related to cosmic eschatology (How will the world and all history end?).

Last Sunday we looked at Christ’s account (not a parable) of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31).

I offered these four simple points from the text:

First Lesson: There are two ways or two outcomes at death: the way of the rich man or the way of Lazarus (vv. 19-21).

Second Lesson: There are two destinations: Either hell (Hades), or the bosom of Abraham, Paradise, the heavenly rest (vv. 22-23).

Third Lesson: There are two very different experiences: “torment” or “comfort” (vv. 24-25).

Fourth Lesson: There are no second chances after death, no purgatory, no post-mortem evangelism, no moving from one place to another, but “a great gulf fixed” (vv. 26-31).

In this life we either confess Christ before men and are confessed by him before the Father, or we deny him before men and are denied by him before the Father (see Matthew 10:32-33).

We ought soberly and seriously to consider these four lessons.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Jots & Tittles 22: Is Mark 16:12-13 another account of the road to Emmaus?

Notes:

This episode was stirred by my reading and review of Jakob Van Bruggen’s discussion of Mark 16:12-13 in his book Christ on Earth: The Gospel Narratives as History (Dutch original, 1987; English translation, Baker Books, 1998).

JVB on Mark 16:12-13:

JVB argues against the assumption that Mark 16:12-13 is another account of Christ’s appearance to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24:13-35. See Christ on Earth, pp. 284-286.

He sees two contrasts between the narratives:

First, the destination:

In Mark 16:12 the two disciples are going eis agron (AV: “into the country”).

In Luke 24:13 two disciples (Cleopas and unnamed disciple) are going eis kōmēn (AV: “to a village”).

Second, the return to Jerusalem:

In Luke the two disciples are told that Christ has already appeared to Simon (Luke 24:34). JVB sees Mark 16:12-13 as describing an earlier appearance.

In Mark 16:13 the focus is on the unbelief of the disciples. There is no direct mention of this in Luke 24:33-35.

JTR response:

First, regarding the destination:

The phrases “into the country” (Mark) and “to a village” (Luke) are not necessarily so different. Luke stresses that the distances from Jerusalem to Emmaus was “three-score furlongs” (Greek: 60 stadia, with a stadia being c. 1/8 of the Roman mile). The NKJV gives the distance as “seven miles.” The travel from Jerusalem to Emmaus would have taken the travelers into the “country.”

Second, regarding the return to Jerusalem:

Mark’s description of unbelief does not necessarily contradict an appearance to the disciples after Christ’s appearance to Peter. Compare Matthew 28:17, “but some doubted.” It makes sense for Mark to give emphasis to unbelief, since this is a theme in his Gospel and in his resurrection narrative.

Arguments in favor of harmonizing Mark 16:12-13 and Luke 24:13-35:

First, both describe Christ’s appearance to two disciples in a remote location, before these two go to the Eleven.

Second, Mark’s mention of Jesus appearing to the two en hetera morphē (AV: “in another form”; i.e., in this resurrection body) likely parallels Luke’s mention that the two did not immediately recognize the risen Jesus (cf. Luke 24:16, “their eyes were holden”).

Conclusions if JVB is correct and the two are not the same event:

First, this would show the value of Mark 16:9-20 as offering an independent resurrection appearance narrative. Contra modern critics it would show that the traditional ending is NOT a “pastiche” of accounts drawn from the other Gospels.

Second, it would mean that each of the four canonical Gospels has a unique resurrection appearance narrative:

Matthew: Appearance at a mountain in Galilee (Matthew 28:16 ff.).

Mark: Early appearance to two disciples (Mark 16:12-13).

Luke: Appearance on the Emmaus Road to Cleopas and another disciples (Luke 24:13-35).

John: Appearance to seven disciples at the Sea of Tiberias (John 21)

Overall assessment:

In the end, I am not convinced by JVB’s suggestion. Mark 16:12-13 and Luke 24:13-35 describe the same event and Mark abbreviates the longer account as found in Luke.

JTR

Article: One Thing Is Needful: Exposition of Luke 10:38-42

 

I have posted to academia.edu a pdf of my article, "One Thing Is Needful: Exposition of Luke 10:38-42." It appeared in Reformation Today, No. 305 (July-September, 2022): 24-30.

You can read it here.

JTR

Augustine, Harmony of the Evangelists.2.5: Harmonizing the Infancy Narratives of Matthew and Luke

 

Image: James Tissot, Les rois mages chez Hérode (The Magi in the House of Herod), c. 1886-1894, Brooklyn Museum.

In this episode we are looking at Book 2, chapter 5 where Augustine harmonizes the infancy narrative in Matthew 1—2 and that in Luke 1—2.

2.5: A statement of the manner in which Luke’s procedure is proved to be in harmony with Matthew’s in those matters concerning the conception and the infancy of the boyhood of Christ, which are omitted by the one and recorded by the other.

Augustine argues that there is “no contradiction” between the two evangelist in their respective infancy narratives. Luke sets forth in detail what Matthew omitted. Both bear witness “that Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost.” There is “no want of concord between them.”

Matthew and Luke both affirm that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Each is also unique. Only Matthew has the visit of the magi. Only Luke has the manger, the angel announcing Jesus’ birth to the shepherds, the multitude of the heavenly host praising God, etc.

Augustine notes that a deserving inquiry can be raised as to the precise timing of the events in both Matthew and Luke, and how they can be harmonized with one another. He then provides a narrative in which he weaves Matthew chapters 1-2 and Luke 1-2 into one unified account, in this order:

Matthew 1:18: Introduction

Luke 1:5-36: The conception of John and Jesus

Matthew 1:18-25: Announcement to Joseph

Luke 1:57—2:21: Luke’s birth account (shepherds, angels)

Matthew 2:1-12: Matthew’s account of birth (wise men)

Luke 2:22-39: The visit to Jerusalem

Matthew 2:13-23: Flight to Egypt and return to Nazareth

Luke 2:40-52: Family Passover visit to Jerusalem when Jesus is twelve

Conclusion:

Augustine provides his own merging of the two infancy narratives, perhaps in the same way earlier writers like Tatian had attempted to blend the Gospels into one account in his Diatessaron. Augustine is likely drawing on Old Latin translations and his narrative provides several interesting textual variants. For example, the angelic announcement in Luke 2:14 reads “and on earth peace to men of good will [Hominibus bonae voluntatis],” diverging from the traditional text, which would be rendered, “and on earth peace, good will toward men.” So, this chapter is interesting not just for insights into harmonization but also textual issues via the Old Latin version(s) cited.

JTR

TBS 2022 Text & Translation Conference: A Defense of the Received Text & Luke 23:34a

 

JTR

Text Note: Luke 4:18: "to heal the brokenhearted"

 

Image: North Garden, Virginia. March 19, 2022.

From my twitter (@Riddle1689) (3/17/22):

Devotional reading today in Luke 4 on Christ's Nazareth sermon. Sad to see that the modern text omits the phrase "to heal the brokenhearted [ιασασθαι τους συντετριμμενους την καρδιαν]" (v. 18).

The phrase is there in the source of the quotation at Isaiah 61:1, but modern scholars would see its omission as the supposedly "more difficult" reading.

The phrase appears in the early uncial Codex Alexandrinus, and it is the consensus reading of the Majority Text. It's also there in early versions like the Syriac Peshitta.

It's there in all the old Protestant translations (cf. in English: Tyndale, Geneva, KJV) based on the Received Text.

The phrase is missing, however, in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Wescott and Hort, therefore, omitted it from their Greek NT (1881).

It was then omitted from the English Revised Version (1881) and from the other modern translations that flowed from that stream (ASV, RSV, ESV).

JTR

Book Review posted: Jeffery Smith, The Rich Man and Lazarus

You can listen above to an audio version of my book review of Jeffery Smith, The Rich Man and Lazarus: The Plain Truth About Life After Death (Evangelical Press, 2020).

You can also read a pdf of my written review which appeared in Puritan Reformed Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2 (July 2020): 244-245.

Enjoy! JTR

Text Note: Luke 2:14: "good will toward men" or "toward men of good will"?

Image: CRBC Outreach at Epworth Manor Apartments (12.19.18)

First: The Issue:

What is the song of the heavenly host in Luke 2:14 at the birth of Jesus? Do they announce: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men [en anthrōpois eudokia]” (as in the KJV) or “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased [en anthrōpois eudokias]” (as in the ESV).

As Metzger rightly observes in his Textual Commentary, the difference between the KJV and modern renderings of Luke 2:14 “is not merely a matter of exegesis of the meaning of the Greek, but is first of all one of text criticism” [This and quotes from that follow from Metzger, 111.].

The difference is one letter in one word. Does the text read eudokia (nominative) or eudokias (genitive)? The difference is one letter, a final sigma. Do the angels announce “good will [eudokia] toward men” or do they announced peace on earth “toward men of good will [eudokias]”?

Second: External Evidence:

First: The following mss. and versions are listed in support of the modern critical reading in the NA28:

Aleph*, A, B*, D, W, Vulgata Stuttgartiensis, (Sahidic Coptic), Origen (partim) [d. 254], Cyril of Jerusalem [d. 386]

In addition, the NA 28 also highlights the Latin tradition here:

Hominibus bonae voluntatis [“to men of good will”]: Old Latin, Clementine Vulgate, Latin translation of Irenaeus (c. 395)

Second: The following mss. and versions are listed in support of the traditional reading in the NA 28:

Aleph (second corrector), B (second corrector), K, L, P, Γ, Δ, θ, Ξ, Ψ, f1, f13, 565, 579, 700, 892, 1241, 1424, 2542, 1844, Majority, Syriac Harklean, Bohairic Coptic, Origin (partim) [d. 254], Eusebius of Caesarea [d. c. 339], Epiphanius of Constantia [d. 403]

Third: Internal evidence:

Metzger suggests that “the genitive case” is “the more difficult reading” “supported by the oldest representatives of the Alexandrian and the Western groups of witnesses.” He further explains, “The rise of the nominative reading can be explained either as an amelioration of the sense or as a paleographical oversight,” adding that the difference is altered “only by the presence of the smallest possible lunar sigma, little more than a point.”

What Metzger fails to acknowledge is that contrary conjectures seem just as plausible. Namely, the nominative might be original, while the genitive reading came about as the result of “an amelioration of the sense” or by “paleographical oversight.”

The traditional reading clearly takes eudokia as referring to the divine good will. It expresses a call for both peace and divine good will on earth, alongside glory to God in heaven, at the birth of Christ.

The modern translations based on the modern critical text’s genitive reading (eudokias) seem uniformly to assume that “good will” here also refers to the divine good will, and that it is particularly applied to men who are among the elect of God.

Here are a few modern renderings:

RSV (1952): “among men with whom he is pleased.”

NRSV (1989): “to those with whom God is pleased.”

ESV (2001): “among those with whom he is pleased.”

NASB (1995): “among men with whom he is pleased.”

NIV (2011): “to those on whom his favor rests.”

NLT (2015): “to those with whom God is pleased.”

CSB (2017): “to people he favors!”

Metzger cites the RC scholar J. A. Fitzmyer in arguing, “The point seems to be, not that that divine peace can be bestowed only where human good will is already present, but that at the birth of the Saviour God’s peace rests on those whom he has chosen in accord with his good pleasure.”

Metzger further notes that before the Dead Sea scroll discoveries the phrase “men of [God’s] good pleasure” was considered “an unusual, if not impossible, expression in Hebrew.” The discovery of several Qumran hymns in the DSS which seem to have a similar phrase, however, has buttressed the argument in favor of the Semitic background for this phrasing.

Overall, we can observe that this slight textual difference raises important theological questions about election.

At least, two questions might be posed:

First, does the traditional reading reflect a more universalistic viewpoint: “good will toward (all) men (without exception).”? Not necessarily. The “men [anthrōpoi]” here could be a reference to the benefits that generally come to humanity through the incarnation (cf. John 1:9 which describes Christ “as the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.”) or it could refer to the universal scope of electing grace, in that it encompasses all kinds of men: Jews and Gentile, male and female, slave and free.

Second, can the modern reading be taken as referring to human “good will” rather than divine? In this case the modern reading would be affirming that God’s peace rests only upon those persons who have “good will.” It would be, then, a “conditional peace.” Though no popular translation takes this stance, John T. Carroll, in his 2012 Luke commentary, notes that the phrase “could also be rendered ‘among people of good will’; the gift of peace would then come to human beings who order their lives in a way that welcomes it” (70). David Bentley Hart’s individual translation (2017) likewise renders the phrase: “among men of good will.”

Fourth: Conclusion:

The external evidence for the modern critical reading does not seem to be particularly strong. It appears in only five Greek uncial mss., though some of these are very early, dating to the fourth century. There is no supporting papyri evidence. It also does not have strong support from the early versions, other than the Old Latin.

The traditional reading, though not in the earliest uncials, does have some uncial support and became the dominant Majority reading in the minuscules and versions. Early correctors amended Sinaiticus and Vaticanus to conform.

A plausible argument can be made on internal grounds for the originality of the traditional reading (see above). The modern critical reading opens the door for an interpretation (though not one reflected in the current popular modern English translations) that would reflect a conditional view of election (i.e., “toward men of good will”) that could be theologically questionable.

In the end (and, no doubt, to no surprise of my regular readers), I think it is safest to continue to affirm the traditional reading.

JTR