I hope that you followed each linked page in sequence. That way, you have arrived here from the proper background approach.
The last page left the question, “Why did Paul say nothing about them?” unanswered until now. That is because the answer to the question and the answers to the large amount of resurrection discrepancies by the four narrative writers needs to be isolated under explanation and interpretation.
Explanation: All of these issues are true! Each writer was writing the truth! The Scriptures have always taken this approach. We will see this from considering other subjects so handled in their true spiritual manner. Unenlightened interpreters have gone a different route. This entire subject is adversely impacted by the subjective biases, both natural and prejudicial, of everyone who comes to the Word of God. Until the approach changes into that intended by the Spirit, the course, with its outcomes, will remain askew.
Consider these other subjects handled by the Holy Spirit of God through His authors.
First, regarding the miracle of the withering of the cursed fig tree. What is the time of its actual withering? Matthew states it one way while Andrew states it a completely different way. It cannot be both ways. Matthew states that the tree withered instantaneously. Andrew states that it withered with a day between the curse and the actual withering. Who was right? Which apostle was writing the truth? Both were! How can that be? Andrew reported the chronological event. Matthew reported it as transcendentally spiritual, teaching the Divine, absolute, and instantaneous authority of Jesus Christ. Both underscored the spirituality and authority of Jesus. Matthew reported it as in full measure! That was (and is) his word to the Jews. God was manifestedto Israel in Jesus the Messiah as Immanuel! The problem is not with the ancient spiritual approach. The problem is with the earthly approach that demands line on line naturalistic precision in all accounts of the same event. Spiritual things have always been discerned by the spiritual mind. In fact, Paul declared that the natural mind cannot discern the things of the Spirit. All believers need to remain full of the Spirit of God. Looking away or not growing results in slipping into the same kind of natural approach.
This is the answer for other “inconsistencies” found among the four narrative writers.
Consider the tearing of the veil in the temple that separated the holy place from the most holy place. In Matthew the veil was torn in half just after Jesus died on the cross. In Luke the tearing happened just before He died. It cannot be both ways. Who was right? Again, both were right. Luke gave the actual sequence. Matthew gave the transcendent occurrence. Both were profound spiritual events with profound implications! Matthew’s rendition revealed to Israel that upon the sacrificial death of Jesus the old order was finished and that the way into the Most Holy Place was now opened to all!
Finally, consider the purging of the merchandisers in the temple by Jesus. Matthew, Andrew, and Luke all have the monumental event occurring at the end of the ministry of Jesus; an event that helped precipitate the determined plan of the Jews to execute Jesus. John puts it at the beginning. Notwithstanding the church’s “remedy” of “two cleanings”, it cannot be both ways. The church’s remedy is false. They have put into the Scripture what is not there. This has been the easy solution of this dilemma by false interpretation. It is inconceivable in the spiritual mind that this grand event would have happened twice, like bookends to the ministry of Jesus, without Scriptural support. The “support” has only been human interpretation which is classic begging the question. Like very many other issues, this kind of solution is superficial and unsubstantiated. Why did John move the event to the beginning of the ministry of Jesus? Unlike his fellow apostles and Luke who report the life of Jesus with Jews as the primary audience, John had at the very beginning of his narrative focused on Gnosticism’s encroachments. He declared Jesus to be God, the Word of God, the Life of God, and the Light of God! Now he declared Him to be not only the Lord of the House of God, but also the very Temple of God! Gnosticism claimed special revelation about the concepts just listed. John emphasized that from the beginning the real and living Jesus Christ was and is all things for the people of God according to the express revelation, plan, and will of God.
Returning to the question about Paul’s witnesses to the risen Lord Jesus, his purpose was to remind the Corinthians of the received tradition about the resurrection. The tradition referred to was grounded in the Jewish submission to the Law of Moses. The synagogal structure was based upon that Law and that custom. The Christian assemblies, which are better understood as the Christian synagogues of Jesus, stayed within that model. That was the sole reason for the exclusion of the women witnesses to the resurrection, who were indeed the first witnesses, both in the fact and in carrying the message of the resurrection to the apostles. In the synagogal structure, only men ruled and taught and administered sole authority. The reality of the fact is that technically Paul was wrong. However, his purpose was uniquely spiritual, like those divergent ones of the narrative writers that were examined above. Therefore, he was right. So, to apply the question raised above, who was right, Paul or the narrative writers?, the answer will always remain the same. Both were right! We have received God’s spiritual book with His spiritual message, and to depart from this mindset fails to understand the book and its message. The Scriptures speak on all spiritual matters to their spiritual readers on the appropriate spiritual issue. That was how they were given to their original recipients and that is how they are properly understood and received today.
Interpretation: Having given the explanation as the needed foundation, I will turn to interpretation.
Matthew: In order that Israel understand and believe, the singular awesome angel of the Lord descended out of heaven in a great earthquake, rolled away the entry stone, and sat on top of it in all splendid authority! He caused the attending guards to faint. He told the women to enter the tomb to see where Jesus had been and then commanded them to quickly go to the disciples and tell them to go to Galilee where they would see Jesus. In their obedience, Jesus Himself met them and repeated the same instructions. The disciples obeyed the word of command and proceeded to Galilee where they saw Jesus. Jesus then told the eleven that all authority in Heaven and Earth was given to Him and commanded them to go to all nations making disciples of them through submission to all that He had taught them. He assured them that He would be with them in their task until the very end of the Mosaic Age.
Andrew: In order that Rome would understand and believe that Jesus, rather than Caesar, was the savior and ruler of the world a young man dressed in an official robe and seated in a position of authority instructed the women to see where Jesus had been and then told them to go tell Peter and the other disciples to leave for Galilee where they would see Jesus just as He had told them previously. They obeyed and were on their way in submission, and at this point the story ends. This was not an intentional ending, but occurred because the rudimentary codex that Andrew built became detached at that point. Because this copy of Andrew’s narrative was preserved, it served later as the “Gospel of Mark”, so named by the nascent Patristic Church. Of special note in interpretation, the young man was so designated by Andrew due to the weight of testimony that elite young men serving as emissarieshad in ancient Rome. Augustus Caesar had himself carried important messages from Julius Caesar to Illyricum as a young man. At that time, he was 18 years old and went by the name Gaius Octavius. Thus, Andrew underscored to Rome the message that the authoritative messenger’s word must be heeded. In spiritual application, the young man was sent from heaven to send the witnesses to Galilee to meet the resurrected savior of the world.
Luke: This narrative reports the events as they actually occurred. This was Luke’s stated objective made to Theophilus at the beginning. He was aware of different reports, and assuredly knew why the differing narratives existed. Some, to be sure, were made erroneously, but some, like Matthew and Andrew had focused objectives discussed above. In order to remove confusion and put Theophilus on accurate chronological footing, Luke wrote out a detailed life of Jesus for him. You can follow his document to know exactly how the events occurred at, during, and after the resurrection of Jesus.
John: The word of John takes a different route. Events here differ much from those in Matthew, Andrew, and Luke. John’s stated purpose for writing was given at the conclusion of his narrative. It was that the believers continue to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing they would have life in His Name. Gnosticism was continuing to intrude into the minds of the believers. It was a pervasive heresy. John wrote his first two letters we have as canonical to combat that heresy. Gnosticism tenaciously persisted to impose itself through its “special revelation/higher insight/exclusive salvation” declarations. It falsely changed the teaching about who Jesus of Nazareth was in relation to the Christ in the spiritual realm, with spiritually deadly results. In response, in the Spirit of God John composed a narrative of the life of Jesus revealing the reality of His person and work from God. In short, it stated unequivocally that Jesus Christ was and is everything! He was born in the flesh by the Spirit of God. He was and is the Eternal Glory of God and every detail of His life and mission was purposed by the One God Jahveh, the Holy One of Israel. John’s narrative taught that Jesus was and is, in fact, One with the Father! John taught that Jesus Christ was and is, in reality, the only begotten Son of God and also the only begotten God. Every detail of John’s narrative testified to those truths. The resurrection event maintained the message.
Mary went to the tomb during the dark hours before the Sabbath ended and the first day of the week began. In this detail John revealed two things. He was not concerned with Jewish scruples about keeping the Sabbath. From his writing viewpoint, the Sabbath was already fulfilled in Jesus. But what has been overlooked is that fact that by recording the night-time arrival of Mary John implicitly put an end to the Gnostic teaching that the material world of physical darkness was a harbinger of the non-spiritual. They taught that night-time darkness was both symbolic and a coefficient of the dark world of the ignorant who did not possess the knowledge that was exclusive to their initiated followers.
The questioning of the cherubimic-posed angels (one at the either end – head/feet – where Jesus had been lain) was not like the interactions recorded by Matthew, Andrew, and Luke. It was to focus attention on the reality and presence of Jesus Christ!
The immediately following interaction between Mary and Jesus was unique to John. Jesus told her to go tell his brothers that He was ascending to His Father and their Father and His God and their God. She did that very thing and that day Jesus manifested Himself to all present and showed them His pierced hands and side. He thus revealed to them that He had been raised from the dead. At that point in time Gnosticism was in its primitive form and concerning the death of Jesus it mainly taught that He was not really crucified but only seemed to be. That was because, according to them, the initiating Christ was not subject to the lower realm of ignorance manifested in the material world of death and darkness. John’s resurrection narrative put the end to all of that.
In summary, to all who struggle with the spiritual mind-set about the reporting of the discrepancies of the four resurrection accounts in Matthew, Andrew, Luke, and John, remember the other events brought up as examples that highlight complete differences in those reports. Chronologically, they cannot be both ways; spiritually, they can and must be so understood. By way of reminder, hold in proper position Paul’s report of the resurrection witnesses given to the Corinthians as the delivered tradition. It could only be stated the was it was by the complete elimination of the first true witnesses, the women. Spiritually, the tradition was the truth! Spiritually, the account of Matthew was the truth! Spiritually, the account of Andrew was the truth! Spiritually, the account of Luke was the truth! And spiritually, the account of John was the truth! Spiritually, all of these reports are the truth! Under Link #2 I stated that looking for sameness and consistency in the record is noble and is expected! When people see contradictions, proper criticism is also expected. The problem was and is exposed in the mind-set that this statement addresses. We must receive the Scriptures in the same way that the original recipients received them – as spiritual messages given to uphold the truth of God in Jesus!