« PreviousContinue »
Jerusalem. brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my John xx. 17.
Father and your Father, and to my God and your
had risen, meets again with Salome, and the other Mary-Christ
MATT. xxviii. 9, 10. JOHN xx. 18. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples John XX. 18. that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.
women in Matthew, and of the angel to the women in Matthew and Mark, “ Fear ye not, be not affrighted ;" that, if it were supported by any manuscript authority, I should willingly adopt it. But the sacred text should not be altered on conjecture only.
Bowyer, in his Conjectures, proposes uí, pov črtov. "No; (I am not the gardener, as you suppose ;) touch me.” And for this he quotes Paulus Bauldrius, in Neoceri Bibliotheca. But it seems to me too far-fetched a reading, and inconsistent with Mary's previous recognition of Christ, in the appellation of Rabboni.
Koecher observes, that Michaelis proposes to make it an interrogation, “Do you not touch me ?" as inviting that test of his real appearance. Kypke, in his Observ. (he says) explains the passage as a prohibition of adoration until after his ascension.
On the whole, I continue to adhere to Chandler's explanation ; to which I would add, that dupibibyras is explained by the Pseudo Didymus, as περιβέβηκας, υπερμαχείς, clearly giving it a present signification, and shewing that the other compounds of the same verb are used in the same manner. Thus too the preterpluperfect tense of the simple verb is used by Homer to denote merely past time, as equivalent to the aorist of other verbs, & oŰluutóvde bebhkel, Il. a'. 221. which the same scholiast interprets by dnenú Set, επορεύθη. Aristophanes has βεβήκως περί σκυμνούς, which the scholiast explains by υπερμαχών σκυμνοίς. .
St. John has a similar form of another compound of Baiyw, used for the present tense, chap. v. ver. 24. αλλά μεταβέβηκεν εκ του θανάτου εις την ζωήν. Some of the Latin MSS. in this place translate perabénkey by "transit ;" and some Greek MSS. of inferior note and modern date, feeling a supposed incongruity, read perabhoetai, as thinking the future more consistent with the rest of the context
Homer has Bebnke, or Bebńket, in the sense of a simple, present, or past, and that in a connexion, which so marks it, six or seven times, and never otherwise, Dr. Laurence's Remarks on Scripture, p. 73–75.
9 That Mary Magdalene rejoined her two friends when Christ appeared to them, seems to be most probable, from comparing Matt. xxviii. 9. with John xx. 18. Dr. Townson translates St. Matthew's words, they were going to tell [to
And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jerusalem. Jesus met them, saying, All hail
. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid : go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
Matt. xxviii. 11.
Priests the Resurrection of Christ.
MATT. xxviii. 11-16.
And when they were assembled with the elders,
Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept ".
And if this come to the Governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.
So they took the money, and did as they were
Matt. xxviil. 12.
Matt. xxviii. 13.
Matt. xxviii. 14.
Matt. xxviii. 15.
report] to the disciples; and St. John, Mary Magdalene cometh to tell [to report] to the disciples. He speaks of her, not as arrived among them, but on her way to them.
It may be made probable too by the behaviour of the women. Mary would have told them, if she thus rejoined them, that Christ had actually appeared to her; and they would have been thereby prepared to meet him, with that composure which they seem to have done. Immediately on seeing him, they embraced his feet, and worshipped him. When the others saw him, they did not know him, and were terrified. This conduct appears to be the result of some preparatory disclosure.
2 The absurdity and folly of this story are admirably displayed in Mr. West's treatise. No complaint was made against the soldiers, no punishment inflicted on the disciples, no alarm had been given when the poor dispirited disciples came to roll away the stone, and break the seal, and profane the sepulchre ; all the sixty soldiers, and their commander, were with one accord asleep, although at the same time the penalty of sleep was death ; and the noise of rolling away the stone could not awake even one of the party. And this overpowering sleep had seized them, when they had been placed here for one night only, for the special purpose of securing the very tomb which was thus profaned ! But it was in this instance, as it is in the general conduct of men: reasoning, which would disgrace an idiot in the common occurrences of life, is amply sufficient to excuse us to ourselves, for denying or disbelieving the solemn truths of Christianity.
Jerusalem. taught : and this saying is commonly reported Matt
. xxviii. among the Jews until this day.
8 Matt. xxviii. 1.
Spices on the Evening previous to the Sabbath, having had a
LUKE xxiv. 1, 2, 3. Now 5 upon the first day of the week, very early Luke xxiv. 1. in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre > bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
And they found the stone rolled away from the Luke xxiv. 2. sepulchre.
And they entered in, and found not the body of Luke xxiv. & the Lord Jesus.
24 The reasons which have induced West, Townson, Cranfield, Doddridge, Horsley, Newcome, Gleig, Pilkington, and I believe every writer since the time of West, to conclude that two parties of women came to the sepulchre at different times, have been already noticed. At present let us enquire, according to this hypothesis, when the second company arrived at the tomb; whether between the two visits of Mary Magdalene to it, or after the second ? For the following reasons, their arrival seems rightly placed after she left the sepulchre the second time: it is certain that no one was there earlier than she was, and therefore they who did accompany her, but made a distinct visit thither, and, as the case requires, neither saw her nor her friends, nor was seen by them, must have come during her absence. Her first absence was when she ran to tell Peter and John: but then she left the other Mary and Salome behind; who went into the sepulchre, and saw and heard the angel. When they were fled away, came the two apostles ; and these were followed by Mary Magdalene returning. The time, therefore, between the departure of the other Mary and Salome from the sepulchre, and the coming of John and Peter to it, seems too short an interval for the arrival and departure of the other women in such manner, that both parties might keep clear of all sight of each other. And the more we prolong this interval, the less probable we make it that Mary Magdalene, after she had seen the Lord, should have rejoined her two friends, when he shewed himself to them also. And yet it appears so much the sense of St. Matthew, and I think of St. John, that she was with them, that it is a point by which we ought to abide, unless there are cogent reasons to the contrary. As I am not aware of any such, I espouse the opinion which seems the most likely, that Mary was gone the second time from the sepulchre, before Joanna and her company got to it.
Luke xxiv. 5.
SECTION XXI. Two Angels appear to them also, assuring them that Christ was risen, and reminding them of his foretelling this fact.
LUKE xxiv. 4-10.
plexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them
And, as they were afraid, and bowed down their
He is not here, but is risen: bremember how he h Matt. xvii. spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,
Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into
And they remembered his words,
these things unto the eleven, and to all the restas.
* Or, him that liveth.
Luke xxiv. 6.
Luke xxiv, 7.
Luke xxiv, S.
25 A great difficulty has been found in this passage of St. Luke xxiv. 9, 10. by those commentators who consider the tenth verse to be explanatory of the preceding verse. The five verses preceding the ninth give an account of the appearance and speech of the angels to the women of whom St. Luke has been speaking. The ninth informs us, that these women came and reported all " these things” to the apostles, and all the disciples. The tenth is supposed to be explanatory of the ninth; and therefore that the women named in it had been at the sepulchre together, had there seen the vision of the angels, and then had come as one company to the apostles and all the disciples.
On a larger view however of this history, another construction may be judged necessary.
Gerhard (a), Benson (), Macknight (c), Lardner (d), Pilkington (e), and Doddridge (f), have all concluded that “these things are to be taken distributively; that Mary Magdalene reported some things, and the other women reported the rest. They believe that, though St. Luke has, in the tenth verse, put the whole account of what the women related together, the Evangelist refers to that which was related by Mary Magdalene, as well as by the second party of women.”
The evidences of the resurrection, then, which the women could produce, were these :
1. The appearance of the angel to Mary the mother of Joses-of two to Mary Magdalene-of Christ to Mary Magdalene-his second appearance to the wo
(a) Harmon. Histor. Evangel, de Resurrectione Christi, cap. i. p. 240, col. 1, &c. (6) Summary View of the Evidences of Christ's Resurrection, Lond. 1745, 8vo. p. 25. (c) Harmony of the Four Gospels, sect. 150, p. 663, second edition. (d) Observations on Macknight, 4to. p. 44. (e) Notes,
(5) In loc.
Mary Magdalene unites her Testimony to that of the Galilean
The Apostles are still incredulous.
And they, when they had heard that he was Mark xvi. 11. alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
And their words seemed to them as idle tales, Lukexxiv.11. and they believed them not.
men—the two angels who stood by the women, when they had been in the tomb, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
It will be observed, from this statement, that each of the women had something different to relate. The expressioa of St. Luke," these things,” must be referred to the various collected reports they had all brought. The expression therefore in the ninth verse, απήγγειλαν ταύτα πάντα, must refer to the report of Joanna, whose account he had been immediately relating, and ai Eleyov-raðra, to the whole company. See this point discussed at length by Townson, Cranfield, &c.
28 I have not discussed the question whether the 16th of Mark, after ver. 9. is genuine. It is certainly omitted in many manuscripts of great authority, or it is marked with an asterisk, or separated from the preceding part of the Gospel. It relates nothing inconsistent with the accounts of the other Evangelists, and appears to have been drawn up as an epitome of the various appearances of our Lord.
Mr. Cranfield has laboured much to prove that this verse refers to the first visit of St. Peter mentioned by St. John. Dr. Townson, on the contrary, has defended the present order of St. Luke, and concludes that the Evangelist here relates the second visit of St. Peter to the sepulchre, when our Lord manifested himself to him. It is certain that Christ appeared to Peter about this time ; for when the two disciples came from Emmaus to the other disciples, this very circumstance was the subject of their conversation. This fact is further confirmed by St. Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 5. He was afterwards seen by the other apostles.