The Women Of Easter

Every year, during the Easter Season, Christians around the world celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Some believe in a literal, physical resurrection and see Christ's Resurrection as a precursor of things to come... a literal, physical resurrection for ALL people. Then, on the flip side, there are a lot of folks who believe that the resurrection story is simply a metaphor... just as springtime signals a resurrection from the death-like grip of the winter season. Perhaps it is. Perhaps it is both. It's up to each individual to decide for themself what they choose to accept as fact and what they choose to accept as fiction.
I've read through the account of the resurrection in the Gospels dozens of times over the years and each time it seems there are things to consider that I had never seen or contemplated before. One of those things is the involvement of the women in the story of the resurrection.
In first century Palestine, women were considered "second class citizens". They were more or less included in the same category as the slaves of that era. They couldn't vote on anything and they couldn't testify in a trial because their testimony would never be accepted in any legal matter.
What I find most interesting about the gospel accounts (Matthew chapter 28, Mark chapter 16, Luke chapter 25 and John chapter 20).... all four gospels are written by men and each account gives the testimony that it was "women" who first encountered the resurrected Jesus, and it was the "women" who first actually believed it was true. The "men" needed a lot more convincing. All four gospels are written to be read as historical, factual narratives as to the events surrounding the life, death and resurrection of Christ. Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are trying to convince us that what happened, actually happened.
Now... here's the puzzler: If these guys were trying to "make up" an elaborate, almost unbelievable story, simply to embellish a fairy-tale, it seems ludicrous that they would make the chief witnesses (or at least the "first" witnesses) of the resurrection.... women. I can almost hear the conversation the writers might have with themselves: "Now, if I say it was 'women' who were the first witnesses of the resurrection, then I will have lost all credibility with my readers. Maybe I should just leave them out of the story.... Maybe I should just say it was 'Peter' or 'John' or 'Bubba the gardener' or 'Phil the tombstone-maker' to whom Jesus first appeared. Yeah, that's the ticket!... But ...then again, ...that wouldn't be the 'truth'....Do I want to write the truth.. or do I want to write my version of what I would have liked to have had happen?.... I could make MY version of the truth much more acceptable and actually 'believable.' " What to do... what to do....?
I think it was quite a dilemma for those first-century evangelists....
Personally, I'm glad they wrote it the way they did.... just told it the way it happened... and, as we say now in these modern times, "Let the chips fall where they may"... To a first-century writer, I think it was a tough decision to make.
I'm glad winter is finally over. It's been a rough one. Spring looks mighty good to me this year....
Hope you all have a great week ahead of you....

For those of you living here in K.C. or the surrounding area, I will be playing this coming Friday at Homer's Coffeehouse in Overland Park.. 7:30.. Come on out if you can....