Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” Then Peter and the other disciple set out and went toward the tomb. The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent down to look in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the cloth that had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciples returned to their homes.

But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb; and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying, one at the head and the other at the feet. They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to him in Hebrew, “Rabbouni!” (which means Teacher). Jesus said to her, “Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”; and she told them that he had said these things to her.

——————–

This is one of the two Gospel selections possible to be read aloud on Easter Sunday, Year B principal service, according to the lectionary for the Episcopal Church. While the Track 1 and Track 2 options that become vogue during the Ordinary season after Pentecost have not officially begun in Easter’s season, one might presume that choosing the mandatory Acts 10 reading as the choice over the Old Testament reading from Isaiah 25 would lean one towards a Gospel reading from Mark afterwards. This reading from John seems like it would be chosen if the mandatory Acts selection were to override the Epistle reading from 1 Corinthians 15. Whichever the case [knowing Episcopalians never have the time to excessively read Scripture, preach about its meaning briefly, and then allow a full-pledged discussion that would lead anyone towards faith in Yahweh], something on the schedule will not be read and something will.

When one realizes this reading from John is an option in every year of the Episcopal lectionary cycle [A, B, and C], it has a chance to be read every year. The option of Mark 15, however, is now or never. The days when someone Episcopalian asked, “Want to study more from the Bible?” and anybody said, “Yes” are long gone.

The appearance of this reading from John [two blocks above] gives the impression it tells two stories, one of Peter and another disciple and another of Mary Magdalene. In reality it tells of three parts, where the first part is only verse 1. That first verse is John’s assessment of the eight verses that are told in Mark 16:1-8 [the alternate Gospel choice]. Matthew and Luke also wrote about this event, with both adding details that add to the depth of Jesus being found risen. Still, the scope of Mark, Matthew and Luke does not go beyond John 20:1-10. This makes the part of John’s story about Mary Magdalene seeing Jesus unique and above and beyond what the others tell.

In the NRSV translation, verse 1 begins by stating, “Early on the first day of the week.” While this is heard and quickly understood as being Sunday, there is unseen significance in John writing this. The Jews were limited in how far they could travel outside the city on the Sabbath.

The end of John 19 tells of Jesus being prepared for burial and then placed in the tomb of Joseph Arimathea. That took place on “the day of preparation,” which means Friday, the day before the Sabbath. This means Jesus was placed in the tomb before 6:00 PM on Friday, when the Sabbath technically began, so everyone could go to a place to observe the Sabbath. That Sabbath was actually the last day of the festival of Unleavened Bread, but because all Jews were limited to going no further than .569 miles [two-thousand cubits] on the day of rest, they all hung around town. There they would be restricted as to how far they could walk, until 6:00 AM on Sunday, meaning thirty-six hours would have passed since Jesus was placed in that tomb.

In actuality, the literal translation of the Greek John wrote says, “This next one of the sabbath.” In that, the word “Tē” is capitalized, which means more than that being the first word of a new chapter. Capitalization shows importance, such that divine meaning shines on those words capitalized. The word written is the feminine dative article, which normally states “the.” However, as “This” (an acceptable alternate translation), the capitalization says John is writing divinely, so “This” alerts the reader the Word of Yahweh according to John is continuing here.

That is then followed by the word “de,” which is often not translated, but means “next, on top of this, or moreover.” Therefore, the first two words are importantly announcing the next divine occurrence in the story of Jesus. “This” begins the “next” stage of the divine life of Jesus.

The word “mia” means “one.” In Hebrew, “the first day” is written “yom echad.” That really only says “day one.” By John writing “mia” it has been assumed that “day” was implied, since the word “yom” is absent. While that assumption can be correct, it is not the only way to read the number “one,” following the importance of “This” which follows as “next” in the story of Jesus. The number “one” becomes a new “one” of importance, which follows an older “one” of importance. Think of this as why Christians recognize the seventh day on the first day of the week.

To then find the Greek word “tōn” written, which is the genitive plural form of the article “the,” this becomes translated as “of the.” As a case stating possession, “one” is “of” that which then follows. Still, rather than use the generality of “the,” it is again worthwhile to translate “tōn” as “of this.” This leads one to see “one” as the “next This of” value.

This is where the word “sabbatōn” is written, which translates as “sabbath.” Because the Greek is not capitalized, the assumption is that “seventh” refers to the number of days in a “week,” so the translators see John stating “on the first day of the week.” Again, while that assumption can be seen as correct, it again becomes too limiting, especially when this series of words began with a capitalize “This,” signaling the reader to see what “This” is. What this word means, in the lower-case spelling, is a new sabbath [seventh day, a day made holy by God] is being determined from this event. Therefore, John wrote divinely, “This next one of the sabbath,” meaning Sunday will become the new Sabbath, because of the events about to unfold.

The NRSV translation then shows written, “while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb.” This is a paraphrase of what was actually written. The Greek literally states, “Mary the Magdalene comes early , dark still it being , to the tomb”. By paraphrasing this, it appears that John’s sole focus was on one woman, “Mary Magdalene.” That becomes a limitation of John’s Gospel that can lead some to argue difference in the Gospels make them questionable. That is wrong and can be explained.

The central focus is incorrectly paraphrased by mistranslating the Greek written: “Maria hē Magdalēnē” as simply “Mary Magdalene.” We see her having a last name, just like we see Jesus Christ having a last name [he does not]. In that written, two capitalized words [names] are present, with capitalization a signal of divine importance, such that two statements of divine importance are states as “Mary” and “Magdalene.” When the Greek word “hē” [or “ἡ”] is seen as the feminine normative article [as “the”], it too can be translated as saying “this.”

By realizing that, the capitalization of “Maria” can then be seen as stating the woman’s name “Mary,” with the name being importantly stated. Without any further clarification, as to which or how many going by the name “Mary” there are, one word now becomes the focus of John. Any number of women named “Mary” is stated. When that possibility of multiple people being named is realized, all being individually a “Mary,” John is not excluding Mary the mother of Jesus, nor Mary Salome [who are named by Luke in this story]. It still includes Mary Magdalene, simply as “Maria,” because she too was a “Mary.”

It is then from that name that John attached the feminine normative article “hē” [“ἡ”], which then separates one from three women name Mary. The focus turns from three to “this Magdalene.” That mention becomes necessary because three women of the same name are present at the same time.

The word “comes” [from “erchetai”] is stated in the third person singular present, meaning John’s focus is now only on the one Mary, who was differentiated from the others of the same name as “Magdalene.” That names means “Of The Tower,” which should now draw closer attention, as a capitalized name of divine meaning [as it should every time it is written]. In this, the name should not be seen simply as some weakly understood name of a place from where Mary came, as the names of places demand knowing the root meaning of that naming. Thus, John is singling out Mary Magdalene because she reflected a “tower” among the followers of Jesus.

The symbolism of a tower is confinement, in the sense “Magdalene” needs to be seen as a divine statement of one [in this case, feminine] who has submitted self-ego unto a higher power, but feels trapped by that commitment. Instead of the name being an indication of one filled with the Holy Spirit and having become a wife to Yahweh, it reflects one who has been submitted [sacrificed by others] to a commitment in marriage, for holy purposes, but not wholly of one’s own choice.

For those who have pondered the idea that there was a relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, seeing this name of distinction in this light makes it easy to see such a relationship. It would have been arranged; and, Mary can be seen as not completely fulfilled by her submission to Jesus, more than she willingly [at a young age] submitted to be placed in such a “tower.” This makes her sacrifice become relative to an Essene religious belief system, where the prince Jesus needed to be paired with a vestal virgin priestess. Because she was placed in a “tower” of responsibility so young, she never had been allowed the complete freedom to know life as a woman [not that ancient Judea or Galilee offered women much in such freedoms].

It is then from this grasp of the name “Magdalene” that John wrote she “comes early.” This is where the Greek word “prōi” appears, rather than as the first word shown in the paraphrase of verse 1. The Greek implies a timeframe that is “early in the morning” or “at dawn.” Again, while this clearly leads one to assume John was referring to “early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark,” that single understanding misses the importance of two names being presented.

A deeper meaning surfaces, from seeing “Magdalene” as not only relative to one Mary, but to all three named Mary. They were all similarly placed in “towers” of commitment at a young age [see the story of Gabriel and Mary at sixteen], where that “early in life” commitment was what led them to go prepare the body of Jesus for moving to the family tomb [see the story of Lazarus].

Following a comma mark, separating the word stating “early in the morning,” John wrote “dark still it being” [“skotias eti ousēs”]. Set apart by comma marks, those three words can be seen as standing alone in meaning, saying separately: “spiritual darkness even now exists.”
Here, John was making a statement about those in the “tower” of religious devotion still being unfulfilled. All the potential of willing submitting to serve a sect of religion still has not brought the light of truth, as all three women are still “in the dark” spiritually.

This can be better seen when one realizes “at dawn” [the meaning of “prōi”] is when light of the sun has reached the horizon. While “darkness” means the sun has not fully risen, the Jewish clock begins at the “morning hour” of 6:00 AM. This timing is relative to sunrise, as well as denoting when the Sabbath officially ended and the first day began. Thus, women would be less likely to walk in darkness, and more as soon as sunrise made a trip of commitment safe in morning light.

When John then wrote the next segment of words that say, “to the tomb” [“eis to mnēmeion”], here the dual meaning says women named Mary went to the tomb where Jesus’ body had been laid the prior Friday. Still, it is also making a statement about the commitment made by the three women servants. They were prepared to go to their own tombs in the darkness they were surround by, each in a “Tower,” in particular one rising from Jesus

It is at this point, following a comma mark, that John wrote the word “kai,” which signals the reader to pay close attention to the following segment of words. Here, John wrote [literally translated]: “she sees the stone having been removed from the tomb.” Once again, there can be found dual meaning coming from these words, which the use of “kai” says to look for.

More than simply seeing ahead to the garden where the tomb is, and more than seeing the round stone used to seal the tomb has been rolled away, the deeper meaning speaks spiritually. As such, the sight become spiritual perception, which is the future of Mary [each of the three] perceived to lead to her [their] death[s], because Jesus was the “cornerstone” thought to be the escape from the “Tower.” Instead, the darkness of captivity in a mortal body, committed to serve Yahweh blindly, the three women were thinking [“she perceives”] Jesus’ [“cornerstone”] death [“tomb”] ends that hope and promise.

The happy ending to this first verse of John is then by “seeing the stone” of Jesus “having been removed from the tomb.” That becomes an important prophecy [the use of “kai”] that foretells all has not been lost, as their minds had thought from Jesus’ death. Simply by seeing the tomb’s doorway opened becomes the promise that hope still exists. While the three Marys did not know this, this says their hearts began beating faster when they saw the tomb open.

I have purposefully delved deeper into this first verse of John’s reading because it is important to see how this one verse more closely aligns with that which Mark wrote [as well as Matthew and Luke]. One needs to realize that this story [told by all four Gospel writers] was written well after the event of Jesus being found not in the tomb. Neither story contradicts another. They all sew together as a perfect robe for a priest of Yahweh. And, with verse 1 now explained in that deep manner, I will now more quickly address the rest of the verses in this reading.

Verse 2 then tells, “So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!” At this point, after realizing John did not exclude anyone named “Mary” from having the same vision of the tomb of Joseph Arimathea being opened, the immediate reaction would not to think that someone robbed the tomb. It also certainly would not be that Jesus had risen like promised, maybe inside cleaning the tomb up, because it was a loaner. The women had left early to get there to prepare the body for moving to another tomb, one in Bethany. Seeing the tomb opened would have immediately made the women think, “Oh my! The people coming to remove Jesus’ body have already beat us here and taken the body!”

It is from that panic that the two older women would have said to the younger Mary, “Run and get help!”

It is also worth thinking about where the women had walked from, to which Mary was now running back. It is not written where anyone stayed, beyond the known upper room in the Essene Quarter of Jerusalem, for the final Passover Seder meal [the last supper]. It is unlikely that the upper room would become a place of residence for all of Jesus’ followers, as all Jesus’ disciples had their families with them, staying somewhere in or near Jerusalem for the Passover feast and the festival of the Unleavened Bread. That mandatory commitment to Yahweh had begun on Friday and just ended the day before, on the Sabbath [when Jesus was actually risen, after 72 hours of death]. Everyone would have made prior arrangement where to stay, but it would not have been in the same room.

I have a theory about this place, relative to where the three Marys had come from, to which Mary Magdalene then ran. Because Joseph of Arimathea was a secret disciple of Jesus, secret because he [like Nicodemus] was a member of the Sanhedrin, he had a place of residence just outside the walls of Jerusalem, not far from where the garden was that he had a tomb newly hewn. Not only did Joseph allow the body of Jesus be placed in his tomb, but Joseph allowed the family of Jesus to stay at his place, knowing that would make it easier on the family to move Jesus’ body to Bethany on Sunday [the first day of the week]. This would also be where Peter stayed, which would deem him a cousin of Jesus, therefore family.

When John wrote, “the other disciple, the one Jesus loved,” the translation of “the other disciple” [from “ton allon mathētēn”] is misleading. The person being identified is John himself, not naming himself directly, because at that time John was not an adult male. He was a child. He was family, based on his writing, “the one who Jesus loved,” just as was Mary Magdalene. This means the better translation of those three words is as, “this different pupil.” The one Jesus loved was taught by Jesus as his son, meaning Mary was his mother. This arrangement means Jesus was married to Mary, thus the symbolism of “Magdalene” meaning “Of The Tower.”

One should see how John had been at the execution of his father and stayed to watch the whole event with his mother and grandmother [among other women and some uncles]. Peter went and hid, along with the other disciples, making his denials more meaningful, when seen as a relative who denied being one of Jesus’ followers. John wrote about those denials, because Peter stayed with his relative, who needed to see what was happening to his father. In Mark’s Gospel [the author of Peter’s story], John was identified on the night of Jesus’ arrest as “A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.” (Mark 14:51-52) Rather than be “a young man” the text better translates to say, “a certain youth,” which was young John.

This says that Peter had taken up the responsibility of being the father figure of John, staying with the family at that time of need, knowing it was safe to be at the home of Joseph. This means that Mary Magdalene ran as a woman in her late twenties or early thirties, as well as a woman of that age could run in dress-like clothing. She first told “Simon Peter” and then she told her son John, telling both “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

This was heard by both Peter and John as a call to immediately respond, which they did. John then wrote, “So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in.” (John 20:3-5)

Here, it becomes clear that John is more agile than Peter and able to run faster, taking shortcuts that an adult male could not take. Still, after beating Peter to the tomb and finding it open, like his mother had said, he waited for Peter. That is a clear sign that John was a child and not privileged to make adult decisions. Even after John said Peter entered the tomb, John did not enter until authorized by Peter. Peter, as an adult, wanted to make sure nothing foul had been done to the body of Jesus, which would have been traumatizing for his son to see his father’s body in that way.

When John wrote, “Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen,” (John 20:6-7) this speaks of the shroud placed around the body of Jesus the previous Friday evening [of day].

In John’s nineteenth chapter, he wrote that Joseph of Arimathea “was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.” While nothing is written that says the whole amount of embalming ointments and fragrant wood lotions were used; but one would think the face covering and shroud would have reeked of dead body mixed with sweet perfumes. The rolled up face cloth and the shroud would have had to have a scent to them, but nothing is written about that detail.

I believe that so much was taken by Nicodemus because the Temple elite feared some zealot [they called the Essenes that a lot] would come and try to steal the body of Jesus and say he rose from death, but then ran away. Matthew wrote of the guards placed around the tomb to make sure that did not happen. Thus, one can assume that Nicodemus carried with him so much strong ‘dead body’ perfumes, not so much to anoint Jesus’ body with sweet smells, but to get some of that identifying scent on any would-be body thief. Still, because John did not write about a strong odor [nor anyone else], it becomes safe to assume that God [His angels] made sure there was no smell of death or perfume present.

In verse 10 the NRSV shows, “Then the disciples went back to where they were staying.” There is more to this than is shown.

The literal Greek states, “Returned therefore back with themselves these disciples.” While this can be read as John simply saying, “Peter and John returned to where they were staying,” that misses the importance of the capitalization of “Apēlthon,” which means, “Returned, Arrived, or Followed.” The divine elevation says Jesus not being found in his tomb, with the linens folded and rolled, means “Jesus has risen.” He is “therefore back with these disciples,” just like old times between “themselves.”

It is at this point that the duality of verse 10 means both, in the sense that Mary Magdalene has returned to the tomb. Peter then goes back to find the other disciples and tell them what he found. John, seeing his mother is there, stays with her, especially since she is crying and peering into the tomb. Just like a child not being able to make decisions left for men to make, neither could Mary Magdalene simply walk inside a tomb she did not own. By John staying, he could write about what took place next as a firsthand eyewitness. Had he returned with Peter, he would be telling something Mary told to him alone [a sign of a mother speaking to a son].

Here also, one is able to see how the other Mary women had never left. They had remained, most likely in prayer, arising to join Mary Magdalene when she returned and after Peter had left. This makes Luke’s account [mother Mary’s story] of “two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them” [Luke 24:4] be no different than John writing that “saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.” (John 20:12)

While the other Mary women would have seen the same “two angels,” it makes sense that the other two Marys left after being told, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.” (Luke 24:5-7) It would have been the dawning that Jesus said he would rise after three days that sent those two off to tell the others what they remembered. That would have left Mary Magdalene and John alone at the empty tomb.

Still distraught because she does not know where the body of her husband is, even if he has risen, this is when a figure comes to Mary and asks her why she is still crying. Here, John wrote, “Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.” This needs to be heard with ears that understand she too heard Jesus say he would die and be raised after three days, but Jesus never said what state of life raised that would be. She probably thought Jesus was barely alive, in need of medical attention, having seen all the damages done to his body the past week. To see someone obviously not in need of medical attention made Mary see Jesus as someone else, without looking closely at who came up to her.

When John wrote, “Thinking he was the gardener,” he began that series of words with the single capitalized word “Ekeinē,” which says, “She.” This word does not show in the NRSV translation, and it is stated separately, before what John said Mary thought of this person.

As the feminine normative singular of “That one,” the proper substitute is “She.” Following the question asked, “Whom do you seek?” the divine elevation as the female companion of Jesus, “She” being “That one” who should be seeking her husband be the “Wife.” The importance of that one word statement [between a question mark and a comma mark] becomes why “She” began “thinking [Jesus] is the gardener.” This becomes a connection between Jesus and Mary as that same connection between Adam and Eve, where Adam was the gardener of Eden. In this case, “thinking” [from “dokousa”] becomes a spiritual flashback, of Freudian proportions.

John then wrote, “Jesus said to her, “Mary.”’ In that, “Mariam” is written, unlike the “Maria” of verse 1. For an unrecognized figure to speak the name of Mary, perhaps in a close personal ‘pet name’ way, it was a voice that Mary recognized. It might have even been the cemetery gardener in whom the soul of Jesus had entered and spoke, or it might have been an apparition [like the two angels or men dressed in gleaming white]. Regardless of who or what appeared, the voice spoke as Adam to Eve. Either way, the voice of Jesus was heard speaking lovingly to Mary, as there was no shouting her name, as if a call for her attention.

When Mary recognized her name spoken by Jesus, she called him “Rabbouni,” which John clarified meant “Teacher.” Both words are capitalized, giving them both divine essence. Both “Rabbouni” and “Didaskale” mean the same as “Master” or “Teacher,” while “Rabbouni” can mean “Rabbi,” as a clerical title. This response can mean that Mary was also a “disciple” or “pupil” of Jesus, but the divine meaning says the mind of Mary was flashing back to her soul’s time in Eden, where Adam loving called her “woman” or “wife” and she always responded, “My Master.” That means Mary responded as the wife of Jesus, to Jesus’ soul speaking. Still, the highest meaning of that says the soul of Mary was remembering the Son of God, from whose DNA ribs she had been made, making the body of Jesus be her “Master” copy.

This understanding then leads one to read John write, “Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” Here, the Greek importantly states, “Me mou haptou,” where the capitalization of “Me” places divine relevance of “Not.” To follow that with “me,” which is a statement of “being,” Jesus is importantly telling Mary that he is “Not Adam,” thus he is “Not” her biological twin standing before her, as that “Master.” Nor is the one standing before Mary Jesus, as the voice is “Not me” in that body. This makes the use of “haptou” go beyond a command not to touch, such that the word means “perceive.” This means Jesus appeared as something akin to a hologram or a ghost, which could only be perceived, not touched.

John actually wrote that Jesus told Mary, “not yet for I have ascended to the Father,” which says the body of Jesus is “not yet” back,” with his spiritual appearance being “I have ascended to the Father.” There is nothing that Mary could do to keep Jesus from doing what God would have Jesus do, so there is nothing about physical touching Jesus that would have kept him from ascending to the Father [see Thomas sticking his fingers in the wounds of Jesus to grasp that point]. This statement also has no sexual connotations, as if Mary wanted to kiss and hug someone who sounded like Jesus, but looked like a gardener. The translation of “touch” is better left alone, going with “to grasp with the senses, apprehend, perceive.” (Wiktionary meaning for “haptou“)

In this set of instructions given to Mary, where the capitalized “Patera” [“Father”] is found written three times [repetition is important] and “Theon” [“God”] is written twice, says Mary was the perfect wife for Jesus, as her soul was that of Eve [not her actual name, if she had an actual name]. Thus, the uses of Father and God apply to the Father of both Adam and Eve, who were both born as immortals, having to sin to become mortal and be sent to teach the world about Yahweh – “God.”

In that set of instructions is found one use of “brothers,” which should not be read as the sons of Mother Mary, sons of Joseph. Here, the use of “adelphous” means all of those disciples who would become Apostles. In that transformation, they too would become Sons of the Father, whose God would be their God too [Adam’s and Eve’s, Jesus’ and Mary’s]. For that to happen, the disciples would all need to be rebirths of Jesus, all as Yahweh’s Anointed Ones, so as Sons of Yahweh [including the women], who would be their Father just as Jesus would be related. That relationship would be spiritual, rather than material, so all would change by receipt of the Holy Spirit and become “brothers of me” [“adelphous mou”].

With all that understood as taking place in the cemetery where Joseph of Arimathea had a tomb, John wrote, “Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”; and she told them that he had said these things to her.” In that, Mary spoke the capitalized words “Heōraka” and “Kyrion.”

By seeing capitalization brings about a divine meaning, higher than normal spoken language conveys, she said, “I have perceived this Master.” She did not say she saw Jesus, as his body was still missing. Therefore Mary uttered a prophecy of what would happen on Pentecost, saying “I have perceived Jesus as the Lord over all of us here.” Just as Eve saw Adam as her Master copy, such that she was in Adam and Adam was in her, the same future awaited the disciples, where Jesus would be in them and they would be in Jesus, as “brothers.” Like Jesus, the Father would be in the Apostles, as the Apostles would be in the Father.

As a Gospel selection for Easter Sunday, the depth of this interpretation shows why there should be no restriction of one or two Gospel rendition of the first Easter Sunday, but a desire by all who are true Christians to make it clear to all seeking to be come true Christians how Yahweh speaks through His prophets … like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John et al. Rather than cut out one reading, to accommodate a mandatory Acts reading, true Christians should have the desire to take all the readings into their homes and pray to God for inspiration to see the truth and more firmly have true faith.