Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

38. — [And after tJiis Joseph of Arimathma.] This verse begins St. John's account of our Lord's burial. The manner of that burial was one of the things predicted by Isaiah (ch. liii. 9), in a verse which is not correctly translated. It should be, " His grave was appointed with the wicked: but with the rich man was His tomb." The details of His burial are carefully recorded by all the four Evangelists. Each of them names Joseph as the prime agent in the transaction, and, singularly enough, each mentions something that the other three Gospelwriters do not mention. St, Matthew alone says that he was " a rich man." (Matt, xxvii, 51.) St. Mark alone says that he was " an honorable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God." (Mark xv. 43.) St. Luke alone says that he was " a good man and a just," who had " not consented to the counsel and deed of them,... who himself waited for the kingdom of God." (Luke xxiii. 50, 51.) St. John alone says here that he was "' a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews." It is another singular fact about Joseph, that we never hear a word about him in Scripture, except on this occasion of our Lord's burial. Both before and after this interesting event, the Bible, for some wise reason, is entirely silent about him. Nor can we explain how an inhabitant of Arimathaea happened to have a new tomb at Jerusalem. We must either suppose tliat, as a rich man, he had two residences, or else that, though born at Arimathaea, he had lately removed to Jerusalem. The utmost we know is that the article in tae Greek before " Joseph," and before " of Arimathaea," seems to indicate that he was a person well known by history to the readers of St. John's Gospel.

About the place whence Joseph came, "Arimathaea," nothing certain is known. Some think that it is Ramali, where Samuel dwelt, (1 Sam. vii. 17.) The Septuagint Greek translator certainly calls Ramah " Arraathaim," which looks like it. St. Luke calls it a " city of Judaea." Nothing certain seems to be known about it.

[Being a disciple...secretly...Jews.'] The Greek word rendered *' secretly," is literally " a concealed " disciple, — a past participle. The expression teaches the interesting fact that there were Jews who secretly believed that Jesua was the Messiah, and yet liad not courage to confess Him before His crucifixion. We are distinctly told in John xii. 42, that " many of the chief rulers believed, but did not confess Christ, because of the Pharisees." But the character given of them, that " they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God," is so condemnatory, that we may well doubt whether Joseph was one of these. Want of physical or moral courage was probably the flaw in his character. It is only fair to remember that, as " a rich man and a counsellor," he had far more to sacrifice, and far more opposition to encounter, than poor fishermen or publicans would have. His backwardness to confess Christ cannot of course be defended. But his case teaches us that there is sometimes more spiritual work going on in men's minds than appears. We must not set down every one as utterly graceless and godless, who is not bold and outspoken at present. We must charitably hope that there are some secret disciples, who at present hold their tongues and say nothing, and yet, like Joseph, will one day come forward, and be courageous witnesses for Christ. All is not gold that glitters, and all is not dross that now looks dirty and makes no show. We must be charitable and hope on. — His case should also teach us the great power of that mischievous principle, the fear of man. Open sin kills its thousands, but the fear of man its tens of thousands. Let us watch and pray against it. Faith is the grand secret of victory over it. Like Moses, we must ever live as those who " see Him that is invisible." (Heb. xi. 27.) And to faith must be added the expulsive power of a new principle, — the fear of God. " I fear God," said holy Col. Gardiner, " and there is none else that I need fear."

[Besought Pilate...take...body...Jesus.] The conduct of Joseph deserves our praise and admiration, and his name will be held in honor by the Church of Christ, in consequence of it, as long as the world stands. Whatever Joseph was at first, he shone brightly at last. " The last are first " sometimes. Let us see what he did.

(a) Joseph honored Christ, when our Lord's own apostles had forsaken Him. He showed more faith and courage than His nearest and dearest friends.

{b) Joseph honored Christ, when it was a dangerous thing to do Him honor. To come forward and avow respect for one condemned as a malefactor, for one cast out by the High Priests and leaders of the Jews, — to say practically, " I am Christ's friend," was bold indeed. St. Mark particularly says, " He went in boldly unto Pilate " (Mark xv. 43), showing plainly that it was an act of uncommon courage.

(c) Joseph honored Christ, when He was a lifeless corpse, and to all appearance could do nothing for Him^ It was not when Jesus was doing miracles and preaching wonderful sermons, but when there remained nothing of Him but a dead body, that he came forward and asked leave to bury Him.

"V^Tiy Joseph's " fear " departed, and he acted with such marvellous boldness now, is a question which we have no means of settling. But reason points out that in all probability he had been an eye-witness of much that had happened this eventful day. He had possibly stood within a short distance of the cross, and seen all that took place, and heard every one of our Lord's seven sayings. The miraculous darkness for three hours, and the earthquake, must have arrested his attention. Surely it is not presumptuous to conjecture, that all this must have had a mighty effect on Josei3h's soul, and made him resolve at once to cast fear away, and avow himself openly one of Christ's friends. It is almost certain that he must have been near the cross at three o'clock, when our Lord gave up the ghost, or else how could he have known of His death, and had time to think of burying Him?

After all it is a deep truth, that circumstances bring out character in an extraordinary way. Just as the developing liquid brings out of the dull grey glass in the photographer's hands, a latent image which you never suspected before, so do circumstances bring out in some men a decision and power of character, which before you would have thought impossible.

Rollock remarks, " When Christ was working wonders, and speaking as never man spake, all this moved not Joseph to come forth and show himself. But now, Oirist beiug dead and in shame, he comes out. Whereunto do I ascribe this? I ascribe it to the force that comes from the death of Christ. There was never a living man in the world that had such power as that dead body had. More mighty was His death than His life."

[And Pilate gave him leave.] The entire absence of difficulties in Joseph's way is, at first sight, rather remarkable. We may easily believe that Pilate was willing enough to grant Joseph's request. He did not grant it till the centurion certified that Jesus was actually dead, and the ends of justice (so called) attained. Then at once he gave permission. It is fair to remember that he had regarded our Lord as guiltless all along, that if left to his own free will he would have released Him. It is probable, moreover, that he was vexed and annoyed at the obstinate pertinacity with which the Jews pressed for our Lord's death against his wish, and that he would be glad enough to pay them off, and spite them, by gratifying any friend of our Lord. But we must also remember that to the burial of our Lord's body the Jews themselves had no objection, and had even asked that the death of the criminals might be hastened and the dead bodies got out of the way. Wliat they would have done with the body of our Lord, if Joseph had not come forward, we cannot certainly tell. Lightfoot Bays there was a common grave for the bodies of malefactors. In any case Joseph's request was not likely to meet with objection either from Gentile or Jew. But, for all that we must not forget tliat it made him a marked man, as a friend of Christ, and utterly ruined his character with Caiaphas and the high priests.

[He came therefore...took...hody...Jesus.'] The word rendered " took " here, is the same that is rendered " took away " j ust above. — Some think, as Tholuck and Ellicott, that the Roman Boldiers took the body down from the cross. But I see no certain proof of this, and I think it unlikely they would take the trouble to do it, if others were willing to undertake the task. The meaning, in my opinion, is that Joseph came up to the cross, raised' and lifted from it the lifeless corpse of our Lord and took it away for burial. Whether this was done by rearing a ladder against the cross, as Rubens' famous picture represents, and so letting down the body after drawing out the nails; or, whether by taking up the cross out of the hole in which it was fixed, laying it on the ground, and then taking out the nails, is a question which we have no means of deciding. To me it seems far more probable that the latter plan would be adopted than the former, and that as the cross was most likely reared up with the body on it, so it was taken down again with the body on it. But every reader must judge for himself.

In whatever way the body was taken down, or taken off the cross, everything seems to me to indicate that Joseph was the person who did it with his own hands. This is the more remarkable, when we consider that to touch a dead body made a Jew ceremonially unclean, and that this was the afternoon preceding the passover Sabbath. There seems, however, no reason why we should suppose that no one helped Joseph. He could hardly lift the cross, or reverently lift oif the body of a full-grown person in the prime of life, without some aid. Why should we hesitate to believe that John and Nicodemus helped him?

It is a curious coincidence, though perhaps only a coincidence, that it was a " Joseph," who probably first touched and received our Lord's body when He was born into the world at Bethlehem, and again a " Joseph," who was the last to hold, and lift, and handle the dead body of the same Lord, when He was buried.

39. — [And there came also Nicodemus... night.'] The fact here recorded is quite peculiar to St. John's Gospel. For wise reasons, neither Matthew, Mark, nor Luke, ever mention the name of Nicodemus. John mentions him three times, — first as a secret inquirer (John iii, 1); secondly, as a timid advocate of justice towards our Lord in the Jewish Council (John vii. 10); and lastly, in this place. Both here and on the second occasion, he emphatically inserts the explanatory comment, that it was the same Nicodemus which " at first came to Jesus by night."

The verse before us seems to show that Nicodemus came forward as a volunteer, and helped to bury our Lord, and did not Bhrink to take part with Joseph in his good work. I can hardly think that he went with Joseph to Pilate. There is not a word to show this in any of the four Gospels.

Some think that by agreement Nicodemus went to fetch the hundred pounds' weight of spice (no slight burden to carry), while Joseph went to Pilate.

I should rather conjecture, that when Nicodemus saw Joseph coming boldly forward and showing anxiety to honor our Lord's body, — Joseph, whom doubtless as a Pharisee and counsellor, he knew well, — his own heart was stirred within him, his own timidity fell to the ground, and he came forward and offered to aid. In so doing he deserves praise and honor, though in a lower degree, like Joseph, He showed more reverence and love to our Lord when dead than he had ever done when alive. Once more we see that circumstances bring out character in very unexpected ways. The man that began seeking Jesus by night, at last confesses Jesus openly before the world, in the full light of day.

The case of Nicodemus is deeply instructive. It shows us how small and weak the beginning of true religion may be in the soul of man. It shows us that we must not despair of any one because he begins with a little timid, secret inquiry after Christ, It shows us that there are wide differences and varieties in the characters of believers. Some are brought into full light at once, and take up the cross without delay. Others attain light very slowly, and halt long between two opinions. It shows us that those who make the least display at first, sometimes shine brightest and come out best at last. Nicodemus confessed his love to Christ when Peter, James, and Andrew, had all run away. What need we have for patience and charity in forming an estimate of other people's religion! There are more successors of Nicodemus in the Church of Christ than we are aware of. We may see some marvellous changes in Bome persons, if we live with them a few years. The strongest, hardiest trees, are often the slowest in growth. He that sets down men and women as graceless and godless, if they do not profess full assurance of hope the first day they take up religion and hear the Gospel, forgets the case of Nicodemus, and exhibits his own ignorance of the ways of the Spirit. All God's elect are led to Christ, undoubtedly, but not all at the same speed, or through the same experience.

Calvin remarks on the conduct of Joseph and Nicodemus, " Here we have a striking proof that Christ's death was more quickening than His life. So great was the efficacy of that Bweet savor which the death of Christ conveyed to the minds of these two men, that it quickly extinguished all the passions of the flesh."

Quesnel observes, "Wonderful is the power of Christ's death, which gives courage to confess Him in His deepest humiliation, to those who, when He was doing miracles, came to Him only in secret."

Henry observes that Joseph and Nicodemus showed weak faith, but strong love. " A firm faith in Christ's resurrection would have saved them this cost and expense." But they showed their deep love to our Lord's person and teaching.

[And brought...myrrh... aloes...loeight.] The mixture here mentioned was probably in the shape of powder. The two ingredients were strongly aromatic and antiseptic. The large quantity brought shows the wealth and the liberal mind of Nicodemus. It also shows his wise forethought, A dead body go torn and lacerated as that of our blessed Lord, would need an unusually large quantity of antiseptics or preservatives, to check the tendency to corruption which such a climate would cause, even at Easter. Considering also that everything must have been done with some haste, the large quantity of spices used was probably meant to compensate for the want of time to do the work slowly and carefully.

40. — [Then took...tody...wound...clothes... spices. 1 Here we are told the precise manner of the preparation of our Lord's body for burial. As always in that time and country; He was not put into a coffin. He was simply wrapped up in linen cloths, on which the preparation of myrrh and aloes had been laid. Thus the powder would be nest to our Lord's body, and interpose between the linen and His skin. How the linen clothes were provided, we are told by St. Mark. Joseph " bought fine linen." (Mark xv. 4G.) Joseph, being a rich man, had no difliculty in supplying funds for this purpose.

The sentence before us supplies one more strong evidence of the reality of Christ's death. Joseph and Nicodemus could not possibly be deceived. When they touched and handled the body, and wrapped it in linen clothes, they must have felt convinced that the heart had ceased to beat, and that life was extinct. There is no mistaking the feel of a dead body.

{As the manner... Jeios... bury.] This is one of those occasional comments or explanatory remarks, which St. John sometimes makes in his Gospel, supplying strong internal evidence that he wrote for all the Church of Christ in every land. Gentiles as well as Jews, and that he thought it wise to explain Jewish customs. The reference appears to be to the wrapping of the body in linen, rather than to the use of the spices. Lazarus at Bethany came out of the grave wrapped around with cloths.

The wise foresight of the Spirit of God appears strongly in the details here given of our Lord's burial. The quantity of spices used was so great, that it anticipates the objection that our Lord's body miglit possibly " see corruption" in some degree before His resurrection. At the same time the special mention of Joseph being " a rich man," and Nicodemus " a ruler " helping him, completely stops the mouths of those who would have said that the followers of our Lord could never have found means to prevent the wounds of His body corrupting. By God's superintending providence, inclining rich men to come forward, the difficulty was obviated, and the means provided.

Besser says, " Twice was Jesus Christ rich in the days of His poverty. Once, immediately after His birth, when the wise men from the East offered Him gold and frankincense, and myrrh; and now, after His ignominious death, when a rich man buries him, and a distinguished man provides spices to anoint Him. Yea, a rich Joseph has taken the place of that poor Joseph who stood by the manger."

41. — [iVbwJ in the place... crucified...g<irden.] This verse tells us the place where our Lord was buried. It was in " a garden " close to the spot called Golgotha, where He was crucified. This fact alone seems to dispose of the theory, that the " place of a skull " meant a place where the skeletons and bones of executed criminals were lying about! Reason and common-sense point out, that, even if there were no argument against the theory from the Jewish customs about bones, it is very unlikely that " a garden " would have been near such a loathsome place. Golgotha could hardly be a place of execution, or a place where criminals were frequently crucified, if there was a garden near! The pictures that commonly represent the scene of the crucifixion as a bleak desolate-looking rocky hill, are manifestly quite incorrect. It was a place near to which, or where " there was a garden."

The curious coincidence that the fall of the first Adam, the agony, the cross, and the sepulchre of the second Adam, were all alike connected with a garden, can hardly fail to strike a reflecting mind.

[And in the garden...new sepulchre...laid.1 Here we have the very receptacle described in which our Lord's sacred body was laid. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all tell us it was " hewn out of a rock," — the limestone rock, which is the rock of the place. John tells us that it was " new; " and, like St. Luke, adds that " never man was laid in " it before.

It is curious that Matthew alone tells us that this tomb was Joseph's own, " which he had hewn out of a rock." (Mati. xxvii, 60.) Theophylact remarks, that it is a striking proof of our Lord's poverty, that while He lived He had no house of His own, and when He died He was buried in another's tomb.

It is almost needless to say that both the conditions of the sepulchre above mentioned are of great importance, and deserve careful notice, (a) Our Lord's tomb was hewn out of a hard limestone rock. This made it clearly impossible for any one to gay, that the disciples made a subterraneous entrance into the tomb by night and stole the body away. By the entrance that it was carried into the sepulchre, by the same it must be carried out. — (6) Our Lord's tomb was a new one, in which no one had ever been laid. This made it impossible for any one to say, after the resurrection, that there was no proof that Jesus rose from the dead, and that it might possibly be some one else. This could not be, when His body was the first and only body that was ever laid in this grave. Wonderful is it to see how at every turn the overruling wisdom of God has stopped, obviated, and frustrated, by wise provisions, the objections of infidels. 42. — [Then laid they Jesus, etc.] In order to see the full meaning of this verse, we should slightly invert the order of the words, and paraphrase them in some such way as this: — " In this new rock-hewn tomb, therefore, Joseph and Nicodemus laid the body of Jesus, because it was conveniently nigh at hand, and because the Jews ' preparation day, or day preceding the passover sabbath, left them little time, and made it necessary to hasten their proceedings." — We may well believe that these two holy men had but little time, when we consider that our Lord did not give up the ghost till three o'clock, that the day ended at six, and that only three hours were left for Joseph to go to Pilate and get leave to remove the body from the cross, for Joseph and Nicodemus to take the nails out and lift the body from the tree, for wrapping the body in linen with a hundred pounds of myrrh and aloes, and for finally carrying it to the tomb and rolling a huge stone to the mouth of the tomb. When we remember, besides this, that the body of a full-grown man wrapped in linen with a hundred pounds of additional •weight in myrrh and aloes, would be a most awkward and difficult burden for two men to carry, we may well believe that nothing but severe exertion could have enabled Joseph and Nicodemus to finish their labor of love before six o'clock. The wonder is that they managed to do it at all. It certainly could not have been done if they had not got a sepulchre nigh at hand. Again the Holy Ghost appears to me to foresee the objection that there was not time to bury our Lord, and mercifully supplies the words which answer it: "the sepulchre was nigh at hand." Even then we can hardly doubt that John and the women from Galilee must have lent some help. At all events it is distinctly recorded that the women were present, and that they were sitting by and beheld where the body was laid.

Thus ended the most wonderful funeral the sun ever shone upon. Such a death and such a burial, — so little understood by man and so important in the sight of God, — there never was, and never can be again. Who need doubt the love of Christ, when we consider the deep humiliation that Christ went through for our sakes! To tabernacle in our fiesh at all, to die after th« manner of a man, to allow his holy body to hang naked on a cross, to suffer it to be lifted, handled, carried like a lump of cold clay, and shut up in a dark, silent, solitary tomb, — this was indeed love tliaf, passeth knowledge. What true believer need fear the grave now? Solemn as is the thought of our last narrow bed, we must never forget that "it is the place where the Lord lay." (Matt, xxviii. 6.) " The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. XV. 56.)

Henry observes, " Christ's death should comfort us against the fear of death. The grave could not long keep Christ, and it shall not long keep us. It was a loathsome prison before, it is a perfumed bed now. He whose Head is in heaven, need not fear to put his feet into the grave."

Every Bible reader knows that Isaiah's famous prophecy contains the words, " He made His grave with the wicked, and with the rich in His death." (Isa. liii. 9.) But not every one knows the interesting fact that the more correct translation of the Hebrew words would be, " His grave was appointed to be with the wicked; but with the rich man was His tomb." This is the opinion of such eminent scholars as Capellus, Vitringa, Bishop Lowth, and Bishop Horsley.

1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and eeeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and Baith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulclire, and we know not where they have laid him.

3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the Bepulchre.

4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.

5 And he stooping down, and look-

ing in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.

6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,

7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.

9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.

10 Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.

The chapter we have now begun takes us from Christ's death to Christ's resurrection. Like Matthew, Mark, and Luke, John dwells on these two great events with peculiar fulness and particularity. And we need not wonder. The whole of saving Christianity hinges on the two facts, that Christ died for our sins, and rose again for our justification. The chapter before our eyes deserves special attention. Of all the four evangelists, none supplies such deeply interesting evidence of the resuiTection, as the disciple whom Jesus loved.

We are taught in the passage before us, that those who love Christ most are those who have received most benefit from Him.

The first whom St. John names among those who came to Christ's sepulchre, is Mary Magdalene. The history of this faithful woman, no doubt, is hidden in much obscurity. A vast amount of needless obloquy has been heaped upon her memory, as if she was once an habitual sinner against the seventh commandment. Yet there is literally no evidence whatever that she was anything of the kind! But we are distinctly told that she was one out of whom the Lord had cast " seven devils " (Mark xvi. 9; Luke viii. 2), — one who had been subjected in a peculiar way to Satan's possession, — and one whose gratitude to our Lord for deliverance was a gratitude that knew no bounds. In short, of all our Lord's followers on earth, none seem to have loved Him so much as Mary Magdalene. None felt that they owed BO much to Christ. None felt so strongly that there was nothing too great to do for Christ. Henx;e, as Bishop Andrews beautifully puts it, — "She was last at His cross, and first at His grave. She staid longest there, and was soonest here. She could not rest till she was up to seek Him. She sought Him while it was yet dark, even before she had light to seek Him by." In a word, having received much, she loved much; and loving much, she did much, in order to prove the reality of her love.

The case "before us throws broad and clear light on a question, which ought to be deeply interesting to every true-hearted servant of Christ. How is it that many who profess and call themselves Christians, do so little for the Saviour whose name they bear? How is it that many, whose faith and grace it would be uncharitable to deny, work so little, give so little, say so little, take so little pains, to promote Christ's cause, and bring glory to Christ in the world? These questions admit of only one answer. It is a low sense of debt and obligation to Christ, which is the account of the whole matter. Where sin is not felt at all, nothing is done; and where sin is little felt, little is done. The man who is deeply conscious of his own guilt and corruption, and deeply convinced that without the blood and intercession of Christ he would sink deservedly into the lowest hell, this is the man who will spend and be spent for Jesus, and think that he can never do enough to show forth His praise. Let us daily pray that we may see the sinfulness of sin, and the amazing grace of Christ, more clearly and distinctly. Then, and then only, shall we cease to be cool, and lukewarm, and slovenly in our work for Jesus. Then, and then only, shall we understand such burning zeal as that of Mary; and comprehend what Paul meant when he said, "The love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge that if One died for all, then were all dead: and that He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them, and rose again." (2 Cor. v. 14, 15.)

We are taught, secondly, in these verses, that there are widely different temperaments in different believers.

This is a point which is curiously brought out in the conduct of Peter and John, when Mary Magdalene told them that the Lord's body was gone. We are told that they both ran to the sepulchre; but John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, outran Peter, and reached the empty grave first. Then comes out the difierence between the two men. John, of the two more gentle, quiet, tender, reserved, retiring, deep-feeling, stooped down and looked in, but went no further. Peter, more hot, and zealous, and impulsive, and fervent, and forward, cannot be content without going down into the sepulchre, and actually seeing w^ith his own eyes. Both, we may be sure, were deeply attached to our Lord. The hearts of both, at this critical juncture, were full of hopes, and fears, and anxieties, and expectations, all tangled together. Yet each behaves in his own characteristic fashion. We need not doubt that these things were intentionally written for our learning.

Let us learn, from the case before us, to make allowances for wide varieties in the inward character of believers. To do so will save us much trouble in the journey of life, and prevent many an uncharitable thought. Let us not judge brethren harshly, and set them down in a low place, because they do not see or feel things exactly as we see and feel, and because things do not affect or strike them just as they affect and strike us. The flowers in the Lord's garden are not all of one color and one scent, though they are all planted by one Spirit. The subjects of His kingdom are not all exactly of one tone and temperament, though they all love the same Saviour, and are written in the same book of life. The Church of Christ has some in its ranks who are like Peter, and some who are like John; and a place for all, and a work for all to do. Let us love all who love Christ in sincerity, and thank God that they love Him at all. The great thing is to love Jesus.

We are taught, finally, in these verses, that there may he much ignorance even in true believers.

This is a point which is brought out here with singular force and distinctness. John himself, the writer of this Gospel, records of himself and his companion Peter, " As yet they knew not the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead." How truly wonderful this seems! For three long years these two leading Apostles had heard our Lord speak of His own resurrection as a fact, and yet they had not understood Him. Again and again He had staked the truth of His Messiahship on His rising from the dead, and yet they had never taken in His meaning. We little realize the power over the mind which is exercised by wrong teaching in childhood, and by early prejudices imbibed in our youth. Surely the Christian minister has little right to complain of ignorance among his hearers, when he marks the ignorance of Peter and John, under the teaching of Christ Himself.

After all we must remember that true grace, and not head knowledge, is the one thing needful. We are in the hands of a merciful and compassionate Saviour, who passes by and pardons much ignorance, when He sees " a heart right in the sight of God." Some things indeed we must know, and without knowing them we cannot be saved. Our own sinfulness and guilt, the office of Christ as a Saviour, the necessity of repentance and faith, — such things as these are essential to salvation. But he that knows these things may, in other respects, be a very ignorant man. In fact, the extent to which one man may have grace together with much ignorance, and another may have much knowledge and yet no grace, is one of the greatest mysteries in religion, and one which the last day alone will unfold. Let us then seek knowledge, and be ashamed of ignorance. But above all let us make sure that, like Peter and John, we have grace and right hearts.

The two last chapters of St. John's Gospel are taken up with accounts of oar Lord's appearances after His resurrection. Like Matthew, Mark, and Luke, St. John dwells very fully on the history of the crucifixion and resurrection. But, as in other parts of his Gospel, so here also, he supplies many deeply interesting details, which the other Evangelists, for some wise reasons, have not recorded. A few preliminary remarks on the whole subject will not perhaps be found uninteresting. The matter is one about which every Christian ought to have very clear and correct views.

(a) Concerning the importance of Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead, it would be hard to speak too strongly. It is a cardinal article of the Christian faith, second to none in value.— It is the grand proof that He was the promised Messiah whom the Prophets had foretold. It is the one great sign which He named to the Jews when asked to give convincing evidence of His Divine mission, — the sign of the Prophet Jonas, the rebuilding of the temple after destruction. (Matt. xii. 89; John ii. 19 — 2i.) If He did not rise again after three days, they were not to believe Him. — It is the completion of the work of redemption which He came into the world to accomplish. It proved that the ransom was accepted, and the victory over sin and death obtained. Christ " was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification." — " We are begotten again unto a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." — (Rom. iv. 25; Pet. i. 3.) If He had not risen again, our hope would have been a huge uncertainty. — It is a fact which has the closest connection with the spiritual life, and position before God, of all believers. They are counted by God as " risen with Christ," and they should regard them- Belves as partakers of Christ's resurrection life, and sitting in heavenly places. — Not least, it is the pledge and assurance of our own resurrection at the last day. We need not fear death, and look at the grave with despair, when we remember that Jesus Christ rose again in the body. As surely as the Head rose, so shall the members be raised. — Let these points never be forgotten. When we think of them we may understand why the Apostles, in their preaching and Epistles, dwell so much upon the resurrection. Well would it be if modern Christians thought more about it. Myriads seem unable to look at anything in the Gospel except the sacrifice and death of Christ, and altogether pass over His resurrection.

(6) Concerning the evidences of Christ's resurrection, — the proofs that He actually did rise again from the grave with Hia body, — it is most remarkable to observe how full and various they are. He was seen at least eleven times after He rose again, at different times of day, in dififeient ways, and by ditfer- ent witnesses. He was seen first bv one woman alone, tlien by several women together, then by one man, then by two men, and each time in the open air. Then He was seen by ten disciples in the evening iu a room, then by eleven disciples again in a room, and afterwards on five different occasions, at one of which no less than five hundred people were present. Those to whom He appeared, touched Him, talked with Him, and saw Him eat and drink. (Matt, xxviii. 9; John xx. 27; Luke xxiv. 42.) Nor must it be forgotten that all who saw Him were most unwilling at first to believe, and most slow to credit the report of His resurrection. Yet they were all finally convinced! If there is any fact in Christianity that is well supported by evidence, it is the fact of Christ rising again from the dead. It is the one fact that no infidel has ever fairly grappled with. One thing at any rate is most undeniably certain, and no infidel can escape it. The Apostles a few weeks after our Lord's crucifixion, were utterly and entirely different men in every way from what they were before the crucifixion, — bolder, more decided, more unhesitating followers of Jesus of Nazareth, than they used to be, to a most enormous extent. Even such men as the German Rationalists, Paulus and Strauss, according to Tholuck, are obliged to make the curious admission, — " Something extraordinary must have occurred."

(c) Concerning the best mode of harmonizing the accounts which the four Evangelists give of our Lord's appearances, after He rose again from the dead, there is undeniably some difficulty. But it is probably far more apparent than real. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, each tell their own story. There is a most decided absence of any appearance of concert or collusion about them. How to reconcile the seeming discrepancies in their narratives, has exercised the skill of commentators in every age. Dean. Alford says fiatly, that he *' attempts no harmony of the accounts, and that he believes all such attempts to be fruitless." I do not agree with him at all, and I think the statement to be unworthy of the able writer who makes it. I think the accounts can be harmonized and reconciled, and that too without any unfair violence to the narratives of the four Gospels.

The order of Christ's eleven appearances between His resurrection and ascension, I believe to be as follows: (1) to Mary Magdalene alone (Mark xvi. 9; John xx. 14); (2) to certain women returning from the sepulchre (Matt, xxviii. 9, 10); (8) to Simon Peter alone (Luke xxiv. 34); (4) to two disciples going to Etnmaus (Luke xxiv. lo); (o) to ten Apostles at Jerusalem, and some other disciples, Thomas being absent (John xx. 19); (0) to eleven Apostles at Jerusalem, Thomas being present (John XX. 2G — 29); (7) to seven disciples fishing at "the sea of Tiberias (John xxi. 1); (8) to eleven Apostles on a mountain in Galilee, and perhaps some others with them (Matt, xxviii. 16); (9) to above five hundred brethren at once (1 Cor. xv. 7);

(10) to James only (1 Cor, xv. 7); (11) to all the Apostles, and probably some others, on Mount Olivet, at His ascension.

Most of these eleven appearances require little or no explanation. The ninth and tenth in the list are only recorded by St. Paul; and some think that the appearance to five hundred at once, is the same as that to the eleven in Galilee, though I doubt it. The appearance to Peter is one of which we know nothing except the fact; and, in my judgment, it certainly is not the same as the appearance to the two who were walking to Emmaus. The only appearances, after all, about which there is any difficulty, are the two first in the list, and to my own mind the difficulty is by no means insuperable. The knot to be untied is this. St. Mark expressly says that our Lord appeared first to Mary Magdalene. (Mark xvi. 9.) St. John also describes this appearance; and it is quite plain from his account that Mary Magdalene was alone. (John xx. 11 — 13.) Yet St. Matthew says that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to the sepulchre together, — saw an angel, and heard that our Lord had risen, — ran to bring the tidings to the disciples, and were met on the way by Jesus, and both saw Him at the same time. Now how is this to be explained? How can the account of these three witnesses be made to harmonize and agree? I will try to show.

(1) I believe that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary did not go alone to the sepulclire, on the morning of the resurrection. By comparing Mark xvi. 1, and Luke xxiii. 55, and xxiv. 1, with Matt, xxviii. 1, it is quite evident that several " other women " accompanied them.

(3) I believe that, on drawing nigh the sepulchre, the company of women saw the stone rolled away from its mouth. At once, on seeing this, it flashed on the mind of Mary Magdalene that the body of Jesus had been removed from the tomb, and, without waiting a moment, she ran off to Peter and John, and told them, as recorded in John xx. 1, 2. This is the view of Chrysostom and Cyril.

(3) I believe that, while Mary Magdalene ran off to tell Peter and John, the other women went up to the sepulchre, found the body gone, saw a vision of angels, were told that Jesus had risen, and were commanded to go and tell the disciples. They departed to tell the news. Some went in one direction and gome in another; Mary and Salome with one party; Joanna with another.

(4) I believe that while this was going on, Mary Magdalene, who had run off alone to tell Peter and John, had found them, and that they all three came to the sepulchre shortly after the other women went away. Whether Mary got there so soon aa Peter and John, perhaps admits of doubt.

(5) I believe that Peter and John saw the empty sepulchre, and went away, leaving Mary Magdalene weeping there.

(6) I believe tliat, as soon as Peter and John went away, Mary Magdalene saw the two angels, and immediately after saw our Lord Himself, and was told to carry a message to His brethren. (John XX 17.)

(7) I believe that in the meantime the other women had gone in two or three directions, to tell the other disciples who lived in a different part of Jerusalem from that where Peter and John lived. Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Salome, were yet on their way when Jesus met them, very shortly after He had appeared to Mary Magdalene.

(8) I believe that one party of the women, with Joanna at their head, saw nothing of our Lord, but went to the disciples and told them the message of the angels.

(9) I believe that, shortly after this, our Lord appeared to Simon Peter, who very likely had gone again to the grave on hearing Mary Magdalene's report.

(10) I believe that in the course of the same day our Lord appeared to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, who had left Jerusalem after Joanna and the women reported the vision of angels, but before our Lord had appeared to Peter.

(11) Finally, I believe that in the evening of the same day our Lord appeared to the Apostles, and others with them, Thomas being absent. Luke says, " The eleven Apostles were gathered together." But he evidently means the Apostles generally, as a body. (See my note on Luke xxiv. 34.) This was our Lord's fifth appearance on the day that He rose.

I know not whether this scheme of reconciliation will satisfy all my readers. On a point so much controverted, it becomes a commentator to speak humbly and diffidently. I content myself with saying that I see far fewer difficulties in it than in any other scheme that I have met with. 1 see, moreover, nothing unfair or unreasonable about it, and nothing which is not consistent with the variety that may justly be expected from the testimony of four independent witnesses.

To those who wish to study the subject more fully, I strongly recommend a careful study of " West on the Resurrection," and " Birks's Horae Evangelicae."

1. — \_The first day of the week.] This, I need hardly say, means our Sunday, the Lord's day, the first day following the Jewish sabbath. Between the end of the nineteenth chapter and these words, we must suppose an interval of thirty-six hours to have passed away. During these hours our blessed Lord's body lay still in the tomb, and His soul was in paradise, while the disciples were quiet in their respective abodes, and honored the fourtli commandment. The chief and principal breakers of this Sabbath were the priests and Pharisees, who came to Pilate and obtained leave to set a watch around the tomb, and put a seal on tlie stone wliicli lay at its mouth. The very men who made a boast of the law, through breaking of the law dishonored God, and disgraced themselves. The very followers of Him whom they had slain, kept the law more strictly than they did.

[Cometh Mary Magdalene... early...dark...sepulchre^ St. John names none bat Mary. Yet it is clear, by examining the account of the other three Gospel writers, that she did not come alone. She was only one among several women from Galilee, — including Mary the wife of Cleophas, or Alpheus, Salome the mother of John and James, and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward. These all appear to have been near our Lord when He was crucified, and to have looked on, if they did not actively help, when He was buried. They then probably agreed to come to the tomb early on the morning after the sabbath in order to do more for our Lord's body than there was time to do on Friday afternoon. On the sabbath they rested according to the commandment. They now came as early as they could, even before the sun was up, in order to begin their pious work as soon as they had light to do it. Foremost among the whole party was Mary Magdalene.

Rupertus and Ferus maintain that Mary Magdalene lived at Bethany, and therefore came alone to the sepulchre, from a different road to that by which the other women came. But this seems pure conjecture, and probably arises from confounding Mary Magdalene with Mary the sister of Lazarus.

[And 8eeth...stone... sepulchre.] It seems to me, from these words, that Mary Magdalene was the first who detected in the dim twilight that the stone was rolled away from the mouth of the tomb. It may be that she was in advance of the other women, and thus saw it first. It may be that strong feeling and anxiety made her more quick-sighted and keen of observation than her companions. Indeed we do not know for a certainty that all the women came together in a body. For anything I can see they may have come separately, or by twos and threes, and Mary may have been the first of the party. It is quite consistent with her character to suppose this. In any case her conduct this memorable morning was so remarkable and prominent, that St. John speaks of her alone. All the women showed faith and courage and love, he seems to intimate; but none so pre-eminently as Mary Magdalene. She was first to come near the tomb, first to discover that the stone was rolled away, first to conjecture that something remarkable had happened, and first to act at once on what she saw.

Let us note Mary's courage, and zeal to honor her huried Lord. Not every woman would have dared to go outside the city while it was yet dark, to a grave, and specially during the passover feast, when thousands of strangers were probably sleeping under any slight shelter near the walls of Jerusalem.

Let us note how St. John takes it for granted that his readers were acquainted with the other three Gospels, and knew that " a stone " had been rolled to the door of the sepulchre. He here speaks of " the stone." Yet he has said nothing about it before.

There seems strong internal evidence that Mary, and the other women who agreed to come with her to the sepulchre, could not have known of the Roman guard having been placed around it. It seems, at all events, highly improbable that they would have gone there before the sun was up, if they had expected to find Koman soldiers at the place.

Andrews observes that four special favors were granted to Mary in one day: (1) To see the angels; (2) To see Christ at all; (3) To see Him first of all; (4) To be employed by Christ to carry a heavenly errand. And why? Because she loved much.

He adds, " We cannot say that she believed much. By her thrice repeated saying her Lord was ' taken away ' (2, 13, 15 verses), it seems she believed no more than the high priest would have had the world believe, that He was taken away by night."

2.— {Thensherunneth?i I believe this expression means that Mary Magdalene, the moment she saw the stone rolled away from its place, ran off alone to tell the news to Peter and John. She did not go a step nearer the tomb, but left the other women to go up to the grave and look in, and thus missed seeing the angel whom they saw. She waited for nothing. The stone was moved. The body, she at once concluded, had been taken away. She turned on her heel at once and ran off to tell the two chief Apostles. The rest of the party probably drew near to the grave slowly and hesitatingly, not knowing what to think or expect; and Mary was probably a long way on the road to the dwelling of Peter and John, before they finally turned away from the tomb. This should be carefully noticed, if we would reconcile the narratives of Matthew and John. It is clear to my own mind that there was something peculiar and striking in the conduct of Mary Magdalene this wonderful morning, and St. John desires on that account to direct our special attention to it. " Mary," he seems to say, " was the first to come to the tomb, the first to see that the stone was removed, and the one that ran off alone to tell me and Peter. Many of the Galilean women showed faith, and love, and zeal that morning, but none more than Mary."

\^And cometh...Peter... other disciple.Joved.'] The other disciple here mentioned was unquestionably John. Mary's reasons for running to tell these two first were probably these, {a) They were chief men among the Apostles, (b) They had been the two who had stuck most closely to Jesus up to the last, and Bhown most faith and love, and were naturally most anxious to know about His body, (c) Wherever John was, Mary the motlier of our Lord was. Can we doubt tliat Mary Magdalene would think of her as one among the first to be told about the stone being rolled away? It is moreover highly probable, though a matter of conjecture only, tbat Peter and John were staying at some house very near the sepulchre. It is most likely that the other Apostles were " scattered," according to our Lord's prophecy, in diiferent parts of Jerusalem, and none were so near the tomb as Peter and John.

It is interesting to notice how, all through the Gospels and Acts, Peter and John seem to have been peculiarly drawn together, and to have been close friends and companions. As fishermen, we are told that James and John were partners with Simon. (Luke v. 10.) Three times the name of James is joined with theirs, — on the Mount of Transfiguration, at the house of Jairus, and in the garden of Gethsemane, But the special intimacy between Peter and John comes out at the last supper, in the high priest's house, on the occasion now before us, at the Sea of Tiberias, at the end of this Gospel, and in the third of Acts, where the lame man was healed. All point to that mysterious drawing together between two men of widely different temperaments, which every observing eye must occasionally see in the world. John alone, of all the Apostles, had witnessed Peter's sad fall in the high priest's house, and observed his bitter weeping afterwards. Can we not understand that from Friday night to Sunday morning John would be lovingly employed in binding up the broken heart of his brother, and telling him of our Lord's last words? Can we doubt that they were absorbed and occupied in converse about their Master on this very morning, when Mary Magdalene suddenly ran in with her wonderful news?

The love and tender charity of John's character come out beautifully in his affection for Peter, even after his denial of Christ. How many modern Churches would have excommunicated Peter, and put him in a low place for months. John clings to him, and has him under his own roof, wherever that was. When Judas fell, he had no friend to raise and cheer him. When Peter fell, there was a " brother born for adversity," who did not despise him.

Bengel thinks, from the repetition of the preposition " to," in the Greek, — " to Peter, to John," — that the disciples were not together. But I cannot think this at all likely.

[And saith... taken away...know not...laid Him.] Mary's announcement was a very short one. Whether she had actually looked inside the tomb and seen that it was empty, seems more than doubtful. It would rather appear, by comparison of the four Gospels, that she had only seen the stone rolled away from the door. But that was enough for her. She had at once jumped to the conclusion that the body of "the Lord" was taken away, and so she announces it. And after all she had reason on her side. Who would have taken the trouble of rolling away the stone, but one who wanted to take away the body? If the stone was rolled away, she justly concluded the body was gone.

One thing, at any rate, will be observed by every one who carefully compares St. John's narrative with that of the other three Evangelists. Mary Magdalene had evidently not seen " the vision of angels " which the other women saw, or else she would certainly have mentioned it to Peter and John. She does not say a word about it! She had not heard the comfortable tidings that the Lord had " risen," or else she would surely have told it. She clearly knew nothing of all this; and the conclusion is plain to my mind, that she ran off as soon as she saw the stone rolled away, and waited for no companion.

Another thing should be observed. St. John's narrative here lets out the fact that Mary Magdalene did not go to the sepulchre alone. For what does she say? She speaks in the plural number: " We know not where they have laid Him." That " we " can only apply to herself and the other women who had gone with her to the grave.

We should notice that Mary's mournful announcement is almost the same that she made to the angels, when they asked her why she wept. (Verse 13.) Her repeated dwelling on the body being gone, and her wanting to know where it was " laid," should be noticed. May we not suspect that this holy woman, with all her faith and love, had not yet realized the great truth that Jesus was to rise again. She talks of His body, and longs to know where it is laid, and seems to think it must be a cold dead corpse still, and wishes to do it more honor. But she has forgotten altogether His repeated prediction that He would rise again! Alas, how little of Christ's teaching the best of us take in 1 How much we let fall!

By the word " they " we must suppose Mary meant our Lord's enemies, — the chief priests, or the Roman soldiers. Perhaps we should not press the word too closely. It may be that the good woman, in her excitement and trouble, hardly knew whom she meant, and spoke indefinitely; — " somebody " has taken away. She can hardly have meant that the chief priests had taken away the body, in order to exhibit it as the dead corpse of a conquered, wicked impostor.

It is fair to say that Ecolampadius actually thinks that Mary saw the angels, talked with them, and received the message for the disciples that Clirist had risen, but quite forgot it! This, however, seems to me an extremely improbable view.

3. —[Peter therefore went forth, and that other discijyle, etc.'] The announcement of Mary Magdalene was so startling, that the two disciples arose at once, and went to the sepulchre, in order to find out what this rolling aw^y of the stone meant, and to make sure that the Lord's body was gone. We need not doubt that they would at once ask Mary, " How do you know the body is gone? " and would receive the answer, " Because the stone is rolled away." But finding then, that Mary had not actually been inside the sepulchre, and seen it empty, they judged it best to go and see for themselves. When we remember that Mary the mother of our Lord was, in all human probability, in the house where Peter and John were, we may well imagine that she would be deeply anxious to have the whole matter cleared up at once.

St. Luke, we may recollect, only mentions Peter going to the sepulchre. The verse before us fills up the narrative, and tella us that John went with him. Two witnesses would be better than one.

4. — [So they ran both together, etc.] The simple fact here mentioned shows the anxiety and excitement of the two loving Apostles. We can well suppose that Mary Magdalene's sudden announcement completely overwhelmed them, so that they knew not what to think. Who can tell that thoughts did not come into their mind, as they ran, about our T^ord's oft-repeated prediction of His resurrection? Could it really be true? Could it possibly prove that all their deep sorrow was going to turn to joy? These are all conjectures, no doubt. Yet a vast quantity of thoughts may ruu through a mind, at a great crisis, in a very few minutes. Those who have had a narrow escape from drowning know that very well.

Why John outran Peter we know not. The common opinion is that John was the younger man of the two, and so he has been always represented by painters in every age of the Church. The only evidence, however, we have of this difference of age, is the fact that John's father is mentioned as being alive, following his calling as a fisherman with his sons, while Peter's father, Jonas, is not mentioned in the same way. Moreover, John outlived all the rest of the Apostles by many years. So he may have been a comparatively young man, when our Lord called him to be an Apostle.

After all, the matter is of little importance. Bodily strength and agility are no evidence that a man possesses superior grace. The holiest saints have often had very weak and infirm bodies. Holy and zealous as John was, we have no right to contend that he felt more zeal than penitent, broken hearted Peter, when he outran him on this eventful morning.

Lampe thinks it just possible that Peter was troubled in conscience by reason of his recent fall, and therefore went to the grave with a slow and hesitating step. But 1 doubt this.

5. — [And he stooping down, etc.] The opinion of well-informed persons who have seen the tombs near Jerusalem, is, that our Lord's sepulchre was a kind of cave hewn out of the side of a rocky hill, and that there was either a hollow place, hewn out at a little distance within the entrance of the cave, to receive the body, or that the grave ploped gradually backwards, and the body was laid at the back part of the cave. In either case we may understand that a person coming to the door of the cave (which must have been small, if a single stone could close it), could only see what was inside, by " stooping down," as we are here told John did.

When John looked in, he saw nothing whatever but the empty grave, and the linen clothes in which our Lord's body had been wrapped lying together. Not going in, it is evident that he could not see very clearly the precise state of a dark cave, with only one small entrance. He only saw enough to satisfy him at a glance that the body of Christ was not there, and that the linen clothes were there.

Why the beloved apostle " went not in," we do not know, and are left to conjecture. It may be that he was at once satisfied that the body of his Master was gone, and that was all he cared to know. It may be that he felt a holy reverence for the place where our Lord had lain, and shrunk from going in. It may possibly be that he felt some fear, and hardly knew what to expect next, remembering the earthquake and the rending of graves on the previous Friday. It may be that, being the younger man of the two, he waited for his elder brother to take the lead, and would touch nothing, do nothing, and take no step, without another witness besides himself. We cannot tell. The incident is precisely one of those little circumstantial details which bring out men's natural temperament.

It is noteworthy that John himself is the writer who records that he " went not in." Be the motive what it may, he generously gives his brother Peter the whole honor and credit of being the first of the two to go inside the grave, and thoroughly investigate the condition of it in every particular.

We should not forget that the simple fact of the " linen clothes lying," was enough to satisfy any thinking mind, that something extraordinary must have occurred. No enemy or thief, in removing our Lord's body, would have taken the trouble to remove the linen clothes in which he was wrapped. Reason points out that it would save time and trouble to take the body as it was, with the linen wrapped around it.

Jjampe thinks it possible that John did not go in from fear of being made unclean by a dead body. But I can hardly think this.

6. — [Then Cometh Simon Peter, etc.'] In this verse we see how diflferently different men act under the same circumstances. Grace does not alter natural temperaments, when it changes hearts. What John for some reason would not do, Peter did. On arriving, he went down at once through the mouth of the cave into the inside of the sepulchre. Then he saw, as John had seen, that the body of our Lord was not there, and that the linen clothes in which the body had been wrapped were lying there, and had been removed in some way from the body. How much linen was used by Joseph and Nicodemus we cannot tell. But when we consider that one hundred pounds of aromatic powder had been used in wrapping up the body, it is not unreasonable to suppose that many yards of linen had been employed. The quantity of linen wrapped round the corpse of an Egyptian, we know from the mummies, was prodigious. It is probable that the linen wrapped round our Lord's body, which Peter saw " lying," was no small heap.

It is noteworthy that two different Greek words are used, in this and the preceding verse, to express seeing. St. John " saw" at a glance. St. Peter saw as a spectator, looking round and examining. The Gr reek word rendered "lying" in one verse and " lie " in the other, is pi-ecisely the same, and without reason our translation varies. In both it should be " lying."

l.—[And the napkin, etc., etc.] The object of this verse seems to be to show that Peter found in the empty tomb the clearest evidence of a deliberate, orderly, and calmly-done transaction. The linen clothes, in which our Lord's body had been wrapped, were lying by themselves. The napkin which had been tied round his head was rolled up by itself in another place, separate from the linen clothes. There were no symptoms of hurry, haste, or fear. All had been done decently and in order. Everything that Peter saw contradicted the idea that the body had been stolen. No thief would have taken so much trouble about the clothes and napkin. In fact the person who had removed the body, whoever it was, must have entailed on himself needless labor, if he removed it as a dead corpse, by unwrapping the linen clothes in which the corpse was buried. The easiest plan would have been to carry away the body just as he found it, wrapped up in linen. Why were the linen clothes taken off and left behind? Why were the removers of the body so careful to take away nothing but the body? Questions like these must have sorely perplexed Peter's mind. The body, he saw plainly, was gone. But there was something in the whole appearance of things which he could not understand.

Chrysostom observes, " The linen cloths lying was a sign of the resurrection. For neither if any person had removed the body, would they, before doing so, have stripped it; nor if any had stolen it, would they have taken the trouble to remove the napkin, and roll it up, and lay it in a place by itself. They would have taken the body as it was. On this account, John tells us, by anticipation, that it was buried with much myrrh, which glues linen to the body not less firmly than lead, in order that when thou hearest that the napkin lay apart, thou mayest not endure those who say He was stolen. A thief would not liave been so foolish as to spend so mucli time on a superfluous matter. Why should he undo the cloths? How could he have escaped detection if he had done so? He would probably have spent much time in doing it, and been found out by delaying. But why did the clothes lie apart while the napkin was wrapped together by itself? That thou mayest learn that it was not the action of men in confusion or haste, the placing some in one place and some in another, and the wrapping them together."

Theophylact, as usual, follows Chrysostom; and adds, that linen cloths wrapped round the body with myrrh, would stick to it like pitch.

The word translated " napkin," is only used four times in the Xew Testament. On one occasion, and one only, it is rendered " handkerchief." (Acts xix. 12.)

8. — [Then went in also that other disciple, etc.] We are here told how John at last followed Peter, and went inside the tomb. He does not seem to have gone in at first with Peter, but to have waited without, while his brother Apostle investigated and examined everything. Then, on hearing his report, he resolved to go inside himself, and see with his own eyes. Why he hesitated at first, we are left to conjecture. Perhaps, like Mary Magdalene, he was so absorbed and overwhelmed by the fact that his Master's body was gone, that he could pay no attention to the minor details of the transaction. But when he did go inside the tomb, and saw with his own eyes the clear evidence of a deliberate, orderly removal of the body only, and the cloths left behind, it seems to have flashed across his mind that the Lord must have risen. For we are told that he "believed."

Concerning the true meaning of this word " believed " in this place, there has been some dispute, but without good cause. It cannot of course mean that John became a true believer now for the first time. Such an idea is absurd. Nor yet can it only mean, I think, that John at last believed that the body of our Lord was not there. Such an interpretation seems to me cold, tame, and shallow. I hold that it can only bear one meaning, and that is, that John, when he saw the state of the tomb, believed that Christ had really risen from the dead. In short, he was the first of all our Lord's followers that believed His resurrection.

0,_[ii^6»r as yet they knew not, etc.] This parenthetical comment of the Evangelist is hardly rendered with accuracy in our English version. It would be more literally translated, " As yet they had not known," in the pluperfect tense. The meaning obviously is, — " Uj) to this time these two disciples, like all the rest of our Lord's followers, had not fully understood the meaning of the Scriptures, which taught that Christ must rise again from the dead, after dying for our sina."

Augustine suggests that one reason why the disciples did not understand our Lord's prediction of His own resurrection, was His custom of using parables in His teacliing. "Being accustomed to be spoken to in parables by Him, they supposed Him to be signifying some other thing," But the worthy Father rather seems to forget that although our Lord spoke parables to the multitude, " when He was alone He expounded all things to His disciples." Yet the suggestion is worth remembering. Dwellers in the cold prosaic north, can have little idea of the enormous quantity of figurative and flowery language used in oriental countries. An Englishman going for the first time among Orientals, finds it hard to know whether those around him are using flowery expressions which mean nothing, or speaking of facts.

Whether St. John referred to any particular text, in using this expression about " Scripture," is matter of doubt. To me it is far more likely that he had in view the general teaching of the whole Old Testament, both in types and typical events, as well as in direct texts. I suspect that he refers to such things as the receiving back of Isaac by Abraham on Moriah after he had offered him, the whale casting up Jonah on the dry land, the living bird being let go free in cleansing the lep. er, the scape-goat being let go alive on the day of atonement^ and other like things written for our learning.

The subject, I must honestly say, is a very deep one. It is vain to deny that the manner in which texts are quoted from the Old Testament in the New Testament, is sometimes very puzzling. The safest and most reverent line of thought is to believe that there is a fulness in Scripture which many of us have never realized; and that scores of texts refer to Christ's life, death, and resurrection, though we know it not.

When it says here, " He must rise again," the meaning is literally, " It is necessary, or it is becoming that He should rise." It was necessary for the accomplishment of man's redemption, and for the completion of the work wliich Jesus came to do as our Substitute and Representative. The second Adam must die and rise again, in order to win back what the first Adam lost.

The case of the Apostles is a striking example of the extent of spiritual ignorance there may be in a man, while his heart is right with God. Who would think of denying that Peter and John were true believers, and loved Christ, and were oa the way to heaven? Yet here we are plainly told that up to this time they had not understood that Jesus must rise again on the third day, after dying for our sins on the cross. Surely we must take care that we do not hastily condemn men as heretics, and set them down as graceless and godless, because they are deficient in head-knowledge. After all, how many Christiana there arc in the present day, who talk about Christ's blood and Christ's death, but seem to know nothing of Christ's resurrection, and hardly give it a place in their religion, except as a fact.

It is very noteworthy, that while Peter and John and their companions seem to have overlooked and forgotten our Lord's predictions that He would rise again the third day, there were certain Jews who did not forget them at all. And who were they? The very last men that we might have expected, — the chief priests and Pharisees! It is written in Matthew (ch. xxvii. 63 — 64), that they went to Pilate, and said, " We remember that deceiver said, while He was yet alive, after three days I will rise again." What a curious fact is that! Peter and John forgot their Lord's predictions, while Caiaphas and his wicked companions remembered them!

Burgon quotes from Ainsworth, a saying of a Jew, commenting on Gen. xxii. 4: " There are many a three things in the Holy Scripture, of which one is the resurrection of the Messiah."— I add to this, that any one who examines Ainsworth's commentary on this verse will find, that he gathers together as many as fifteen places in the Old Testament where " three " is spoken of as a mystical number.

10. — {^Then the disciples iDent...their own hoiise.] This verse describes the end of the visit which Peter and John made to the grave. They had seen with their own eyes proofs positive that Mary Magdalene's report was true. The grave was empty, and their Master's body was gone. They both felt that there was no need for tarrying at au empty sepulchre, and resolved to return to their lodging. They could do no good by staying longer. They might do good by going away. They therefore went home: Peter confounded and perplexed, and unable to account for what he had seen; John convinced and persuaded by what he had seen, that his Master had risen from the dead. Doubtless he could not prove it yet, had not seen Him alive, and could not convince Peter of it. But for all that he believed it.

The Greek words which we render, " To their own home," mean literally, " To themselves." It can only signify, in my judgment, the lodging which they occupied in Jerusalem. Though John was acquainted with the high priest, and may have occasionally visited Jerusalem on the business of his fisherman's calling, there is not the least likelihood that he had a house there. Wherever John was in Jerusalem it is interesting to remember, in looking at the events of this wonderful morning, that Mary, the mother of our Lord, Avas probably under his roof, in accordance with our Lord's last command. May we not fairly suppose that one reason why the disciples did not linger at the tomb, like Mary Magdalene, was their earnest dev3ire to return home, and tell the mother of our Lord what they had. seen? I see nothing fanciful or unreasonable in the thought.

Cyril suggests, with some probability, that one reason why Peter and John went away from the tomb so soon, was fear of the Jews. They might well expect that the anger of Caiaphas and his companions on finding the sepulchre was empty, and the body of Jesus gone, would be very great, and they would naturally turn their wrath on the helpless disciples. The day was breaking, and the sooner they got home the better. Mary Magdalene might stay near the tomb with more safety.

Beza thinks that this verse leaves John, Peter, and Mary in three different states of mind. John was convinced, and be lieved that Jesus was risen from the dead. Peter was uncertain, wondering, and amazed. Mary could not yet believe it at all.

11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down and looked iuto the sepulchre,

12 And seeth two angels in white Bitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

13 And they say unto her, "Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto thein, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.

14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.

15 Jesus saith unto her. Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest

thou? She, supposing hini to be the gardener, saith unto him. Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.

16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary, She turned herself, and saith unto him, Kabboni; which is to say. Master.

17 Jesus saith unto her, touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

18 Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these thincfs unto her.

The interview between the Lord Jesus and Maiy Magdalene immediately after His resurrection, described in these verses, is a narrative peculiar to St. John. No other Evangelist has been inspired to record it. Of all the accounts of the appearances of our Lord, after He rose from the dead, none perhaps is so pathetic and touching as this. He that can read this simple story without a deep interest, must have a very cold and unfeeling heart.

Christ most diligently and perseveringly, are those who receive most privileges from Christ'' s hand. It is a touching fact, and one to be carefully noted, that Mary- Magdalene would not leave the sepulchre, when Peter and John went away to their own home. Love to her gracious Master would not let her leave the place where He had been lain. Where He was now she could not tell. What had become of Him she did not know. But love made her linger about the empty tomb, where Joseph and Nicodemus had lately laid Him. Love made her honor the last place where His precious body had been seen by mortal eyes. And her love reaped a rich reward. She saw the angels whom Peter and John had never observed. She actually heard them speak, and had soothing words addressed to her. She was the first to see our Lord after He rose from the dead, the first to hear His voice, the first to hold conversation with Him. Can any one doubt that this was written for our learning? Wherever the Gospel is preached throughout the world, this little incident testifies that those who honor Christ will be honored by Christ.

As it was in the morning of the first Easter day, so will it be as long as the Church stands. The great principle contained in the passage before us, will hold good until the Lord comes again. All believers have not the same degree of faith, or hope, or knowledge, or courage, or wisdom; and it is vain to expect it. But it is a certain fact that those who love Christ most fervently, and cleave to Him most closely, will always enjoy most communion with Him, and feel most of the witness of the Spirit in their hearts. It is precisely those who wait on the Lord, in the temper of Mary Magdalene, to whom the Lord will reveal Himself most fully, and make them know and feel more than others. To know Christ is good; but to " know that we know Him " is far better.

We see, secondly, in these verses, that the fears and sorrows of believers are often quite needless. We are told that Mary stood at the sepulchre weeping, and wept as if nothing could comfort her. She wept when the angels spoke to her: " Woman," they said, " why weepest thou? " — She was weeping still when our Lord spoke to her: " Woman," He also said, ** why weepest thou? " — And the burden of her complaint was always the same: "They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him." — Yet all this time her risen Master was close to her, with "body, flesh, and bones, and all things pertaining to the perfection of man's nature." (Article IV.) Her tears were needless. Her anxiety was unnecessary. Like Hagar in the wilderness, she had a well of water by her side, but she had not eyes to see it.

What thoughtful Christian can fail to see, that we have here a faithful picture of many a believer's experience? How often we are anxious when there is no just cause for anxiety! How often we mourn over the absence of things which in reality are within our grasp, and even at our right hand! Two-thirds of the things we fear in life never happen at all, and two-thirds of the tears we shed are thrown away, and shed in vain. Let us pray for more faith and patience, and allow more time for the full development of God's purposes. Let us believe that things are often working together for our peace and joy, which seem at one time to contain nothing but bitterness and sorrow. Old Jacob said at one time of his life, "all these things are against me" (Gen. xlii. 36); yet he lived to see Joseph again, rich and prosperous, and to thank God for all that had happened. If Mary had found the seal of the tomb unbroken, and her Master's body lying cold within, she might well have wept! The very absence of the body whieh made her weep, was a token for good, and a cause of joy for herself and all mankind.

We see, thirdly, in these verses, what low and earthly thoughts of Christ may creep into the mind of a true believer. It seems impossible to gather any other lesson from the solemn words which our Lord addressed to Mary Magdalene, when He said, " Touch Me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father." — No doubt the language is somewhat mysterious, and ought to be delicately and reverently handled. Yet it is only reasonable to suppose that the first surprise, and the reaction from great sorrow to great joy, was more than the mind of Mary could bear. She was only a woman, though a holy and faithful woman. It is highly probable that, in the first excess of her joy, she threw herself at our Lord's feet, and made greater demonstrations of feeling than "were seemly or becoming. Very likely she behaved too much like one who thought all must be right if she had her Lord's bodily presence, and all must be wrong in His bodily absence. This was not the highest style of faith. She acted, in short, like one who forgot that her Master was God as well as man. She made too little of His divinity, and too much of His humanity. And hence she called forth our Lord's gentle rebuke, "Touch Me not! There is no need of this excessive demonstration of feeling. I am not yet ascending to my Father for forty days: your present duty is not to linger at my feet, but to go and tell my brethren that I have risen. Think of the feelings of others as well as of your own."

After all, we must confess that the fault of this holy woman was one into which Christians have always been too ready to fall. In every age there has been a tendency in the minds of many, to make too much of Christ's bodily presence, and to forget that He is not a mere earthly friend, but one who is " God over all, blessed forever," as well as man. The pertinacity with which Romanists and their allies cling to the doctrine of Christ's real corporal presence in the Lord's Supper, is only another exhibition of Mary's feeling when she wanted Christ's body, or no Christ at all. Let us pray for a right judgment in this matter, as in all other things concerning our Lord's person. Let us be content to have Christ dwelling in our hearts by faith, and present when two or three are met in His name, and to wait for the real presence of Christ's body till He comes again. What we really need is not His literal flesh, but His Spirit. It is not for nothing that it is written, *' It is the Spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing." " If we have known Christ after the flesh, yet henceforth know we Him no more." (John vi. 63; 2 Cor. V. 16.)

We see, lastly, in these verses, how kindly and graciously our Lord speaks of His discip>les. He bids Mary Magdalene carry a message to them as " His brethren." He bids her tell them that His Father was their Father, and His God their God. It was but three days before that they had all forsaken Him shamefully, and fled. Yet this merciful Master speaks as if all was forgiven and forgotten. His first thought is to bring back the wanderers, to bind up the wounds of their consciences, to reanimate their courage, to restore them to their forme>r place. This was indeed a love that passeth knowledge. To trust deserters, and to show confidence in backsliders, was a compassion which man can hardly understand. So true is that word of David: " Like as a Father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear Him. For He knoweth our frame; He remembereth that we are dust." (Psalm ciii. 13, 14.)

tion that Jesus Christ never changes. He is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever. As He dealt with His erring disciples in the morning of His resurrection, so will He deal with all who believe and love Him, until He comes again. When we wander out of the way He will bring us back. When we fall He will raise us again. But he will never break His royal word: " Him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out." (John vi. 37.) The saints in glory will have one anthem in which every voice and heart will join: " He hath not dealt with us after our sins, nor rewarded us according to our iniquities." (Psalm ciii. 10.)

11. — [But Mary stood without...weeping.] The question naturally arises, " Wliy did not Mary go away from the tomb with Peter and John? " — The answer to that question must probably be found in the curiously different temperaments of men and women. Mary acted like a woman, and Peter and John acted like men. The head of a woman is generally weaker than that of a man, but the affections are generally stronger. — In the case before us the heart of Mary was not satisfied. Her mind was not convinced, like that of John, that our Lord had risen from the dead. It was not enough for her to know that the body was gone, and the tomb empty, and something wonderful had occurred, as it was for Peter. Her strong love aiid gratitude towards our Lord made her linger near the tomb, in the faint hope that something might yet turn up to explain where the body was gone. At any rate she could not tear herself away from the place where her Master's body had last been seen, and when Peter and John departed she stayed behind, like a real warm-hearted woman, and gave a natural vent to her feelings in tears. She felt as if she must see something, before she could be satisfied, and so lingered near the grave, perhaps hardly knowing what she expected to see. The Lord had compassion on her. Her deep love was richly rewarded.

On Mary staying at the sepulchre, Andrews remarks, " The

going away of Peter and John commends Mary's staying behind. To the grave she came before them, from the grave she went to tell them, to the grave she returned with them, at the grave she remains behind them." " To stay, while others do BO, while company stays, that is the world's love. But Peter is gone, and John too; all are gone and she left alone. Thus to stay is love, and constant love."

Epiphanius an ancient writer (a. d. 390), according to Heineius, maintains the monstrous theory that the Mary here spoken of is the mother of our Lord, and not Mary Magdalene I It is well to know that the ancient Fathers were not always wise, and are certainly not infallible in expounding Scripture.

Tholuck thinks that Mary did not go to the sepulchre with Peter and John, but followed them alone, more slowly. This is possible; but I rather doubt it.

[And as she wept...stooped...sepulchre.] How long Mary wept, after she was left alone, we are left to conjecture. Probably not very long. At last it came into her mind to stoop down and look into the grave, through the small door or opening against which the stone had been rolled. It is worth noticing that we are not told that she had either entered, or looked into the sepulchre, before. Up to this time apparently she had only heard the report of Peter and John. Now, left alone, she probably felt a natural curiosity and anxiety to see with her own eyes what they had reported, and so, in the middle of her weeping, she stooped down and looked in, and at once saw a wondrous sight.

I think Mary's case teaches us that heart is of more value in God's sight than intellect. Those who feel most and love most get most privileges. The more we love, the more we are like to Christ.

12. — [And seeth two angels...white...sitting, etc.} The incident here recorded is very remarkable and interesting. Mary saw figures in white sitting inside the grave. They evidently looked like men, but they were in reality angels, — two of those mysteriou.s ministering spirits whom the Bible teaches us God is pleased to employ on great occasions. An angel announced the coming birth of John Baptist and of Christ himself. Angels told the shepherds that Christ was born. Angels ministered to our Lord after the temptation, and an angel strengthened him in Gethsemane. And now also angels appeared in the day of our Lord's resurrection. They first announced that He was born, and they again, after thirty-three years, announced that He was risen.

The whole subject of angels is very deep and mysterious, and one about which we must beware of holding anything that is not revealed. But the case before us teaches one or two wonderful things, which we should do well to remember. These angels evidently came and went away, appeared and disappeared, after a manner supernatural, invisible, and inexplicable to our minds. It is clear that angels were at the tomb, when the party of women arrived there, after Mary Magdalene had run to tell Peter and John. It is equally clear that they were not to be seen, when Peter and John ran to the grave on hearing Mary's report. Not one word do we read of their seeing angels. Yet it is equally clear that when Mary Magdalen© looked in, after Peter and John went away, she saw two angels and talked with them. These are very deep things. They prove plainly that the angels of God appear and disappear, are visible or invisible, instantaneously and supernaturally, according as God commissions them. In short they are beings of a totally different nature to our own, and are in all the conditions of their constitution totally unlike us. For anything we know, they were in the tomb when Peter and John inspected it, but at that moment were invisible. For anything we know, they are now very near us every minute of our existence, and doing God's will concerning us, though we are utterly unaware of their presence. All this no doubt is very mysterious, and past the power of man to explain and comprehend. One thing, however, is very certain. Neither here nor elsewhere do we ever find the slightest warrant in Scripture for praying to angels, any more than to dead saints, or for giving them the smallest portion of worship, as if they were divine. Like ourselves, after all, they are only God's creatures.

The expression " in white," means literally " in white robes or garments." It is an adjective and we are left to supply the substantive. The Holy Ghost here abstains from telling us the precise fashion of apparel which these angels wore. The garment worn by the angel mentioned in Mark, at the resurrection, was a long stole or flowing robe. (Mark xvi. 5.) It is worth noticing that " white " was the color of the Lord's raiment in the transfiguration, and which is the color in which the angels always seem to have appeared. It need hardly be said that the color is symbolical of that perfect purity and freedom from defilement, which is the character of the inhabitants of heaven. It will be the garment of the saved souls in glory. (Rev. iii. 4;vii. 9.)

The attitude in which the angels were seen by Mary deserves attention. " Sitting one at the head and the other at the feet," where our Lord's body had lain, they would seem to have been placed there by God as watchmen and guards over the sacred body of our Lord, during the time He was in the grave. It is written, " He shall give His angels charge over Thee." (Psalm xci. 11.)

Some have thought that the position of the angels points to that of the Cherubim, who sat on the two ends of the mercyseat, over the ark, with their faces toward each other. (Exo'd. XXV. 20; 2 Chron. iii. 13.)

Bengel thinks that this " sitting " was meant to intimate that their work was done. This seems to me doubtful, because angels need no rest.

Cyril thinks that the attitude of the two angels was meant to show Mary, thafc our Lord's body had been safely guarded by them, and that no one could have stolen it away against their consent. If one angel could slay 180,000 of Sennacherib's X army, what could two do?

Andrews observes, " We learn tliat between the angels there was no striving for places. He that sat at the feet was as well content with his place, as he that sat at the head. We should learn from their example. With us both angels would have been at the head, and never a one at the feet. With us none would be at the feet by his good will: we must be head-angels all! "

13, — [And they say unto her, Woman, why, etc.] The address of the angels to Mary is that of gentle and kind inquiry. We cannot doubt that they knew well why she wept. They ask the question in order to stir up in her mind self-inquiry, as to whether she had cause to weep or not. " What is the reason of this excessive lamentation? Search your own heart. Are you quite sure that this empty tomb does not show that you ought to be rejoicing? "

Mary's reply to the angels is almost word for word what she had told Peter and John, only in the singular number. It shows plainly that the one thing that weighed on her mind was the disappearance of our Lord's body, and her ignorance what had become of it. Of His resurrection she evidently had no idea at present. Her only thought was that his body was dead, that it had been taken away, and that she wanted to know where it was. To this one notion she sticks, and not even the appearance of angels can make her give it up. And yet the good woman must have, often heard our Lord foretell His death and resurrection. How slow we are to give up long-standing prejudices! How backward to receive truths which contradict our little private systems of religion I

It should be observed that Mary told Peter and John that "the Lord" was taken away. When she speaks to the angels here, she says, " My Lord." In both cases she speaks indefinitely of " they," without indicating whom she means.

The calmness of manner with which Mary speaks to these two angels can hardly fail to strike us. She cannot have supposed that they were two men only, whether enemies or friends. The mere fact that Peter and John had not seen them in the grave, must surely have shown her that they were angels. Yet she answers their question without hesitation, like one wh» feared nothing in her anxiety about her Lord. May we not however consider that a belief in the reality and ministry of angels was far more common among Jews than it is among Christians? They perhaps believed too much about them. It may be feared that we go into the opposite extreme, and believe too little,

Andrews remarks on Mary's needless weeping, " All was in

error: tears of grief, — but false grief, imagining that to be

"wliich was not, and Him to be dead whicli was alive. She weeps, because she finds the grave empty, which, God forbid she should have found full, for then Christ must have been dead Btill, and there would be no resurrection. And this case of Mary Magdalene is our case oftentimes. It is the error of our conceit to weep when we have no cause, and to joy when we have as little. False joys and false sorrows, false hopes and false fears, this life of ours is full of. God help us! "

14. — [And w7ien...turned...hack...saw Jesus standing.'] Why Mary turned back at this moment we are not told. I feel no doubt there was some reason. The Greek words are very emphatical: " She turned to the things or places behind her." (a) It may be that she turned away from the questioners, as not caring to continue conversation with them, {b) It may be that she heard a footstep behind her, and turned to see who it was. (c) It may be that the shadow of some one behind her fell on the entrance to the tomb. The sun would be in the east, and if the tomb faced that way, its horizontal rays would throw the shadow of any person behind her on the tomb. (cZ) It may be that she observed some gesture or motion on the part of the angels with whom she was talking, which told her that some one was behind her. Who can tell but these holy spirits, who doubtless recognized the Lord, rose respectfully from their sitting position, as soon as they saw Jesus appear. I like this last solution best, for my own part. I cannot for a moment suppose that the angels would remain sitting motionless, when Jesus appeared. And I believe that Mary, as she talked with them, detected at once by their altered manner, that there was some one behind her. This it was that made her " turn herself back." Such little touches give a wonderful life and reality to the whole narrative, in my j udgment.

Chrysostom observes, " While Mary was speaking, Christ suddenly appearing behind her, struck the angels with awe; and they, beholding their Ruler, showed immediately by their bearing, their look, their movements, that they saw the Lord. This drew the woman's attention, and caused her to turn."

The same view is taken by Athanasius, Theophylact,Brentiua, Gerhard, and Andrews.

[And knew not that it was Jesus.] There are but three ways in whicli we can explain Mary not recognizing Christ at once. {a) She was weeping bitterly, and her eyes were dim with tears. This, however, seems very improbable, (b) It was not broad day-light yet, and it was too dusky to distinguish any one. This is Cyril's view; but it can hardly be correct, considering all that had already occurred this. Sunday morning, (e) Her eyes were liolden supcrnaturally, like those of the disciples walking to Emmaus, so that she did not distinguish the figure before her to be that of our Lord. This appears to me by far the most likely solution, miraculous as the circumstance cer tainly was. But the condition of our Lord's risen bodj was altogether different from that of His body before crucifixion. We cannot pretend to explain in the least where He was, and what He was doing in the intervals between His various appearances, during the forty days before His ascension. We need not therefore hesitate to believe that He could assume Buch an appearance, that even a disciple like Mary did not recognize Him at first, or that He could cause her eyes to be unable to distinguish Him, even when close to her.

After all, what a striking emblem this little incident supplies of the spiritual experience of hundreds of Christ's believing people even at this very day. How many are ever mourning and sorrowing, and have no comfort in their religion, while Christ is close to them. But they do not know it, and, like Mary, go on weeping.

15. — [Jesus saith... Why iceepest thou...seekest thou.] The first question that Jesus asked of Mary was precisely the same that the angels had asked. " Woman, why art thou weeping? Art thou quite sure that thou art right to weep over this empty grave, and oughtest not rather to rejoice? " — The second question was even more searching than the first. " Whom seekest t^^ou? Who is this person that thou art seeking among the dead? Hast thou not forgotten that He whom thou seekest is one who has power to take life again, and who predicted that He would rise? " — I must think that in both these questions there was a gentle latent reproof intended for this holy woman. Faithful and loving as she was, she had too much forgotten her Master's teaching about His death and resurrection. These questions were meant to rouse her to a recollection of things often said in her hearing. Of course our Lord knew perfectly well why she was weeping, and whom she was seeking. He needed not to ask her. He asked for her benefit rather than His own information. But excessive grief has an absorbing and stupefying etfect on the mind and memory. Mary could think of nothing but that her Lord's body was gone, and this swallowed up all her thoughts.

[She supposing Him, etc.] Here we see what Mary's first thought was, when she heard a strange voice, and saw a strange figure. She catches at the idea that this person may be the keeper of the garden in which Joseph's sepulchre was, and that, having probably been keeping watch over the garden all night, he may know what had become of her Master's body, or may even have removed it himself. " Sir," she says, " If thou art the person who has taken away my Lord out of the tomb, only tell me where thou hast carried His body, and I will take Him away." — Once more we see that this holy woman could only think of her Master as one dead, and that her one absorbing idea was how she could recover His corpse and do it honor. As for His resurrection and victory over death, she seems utterly unable to get hold of it at present. Wonderful is it to see how mucli of Christ's teaching was apparently thrown away on His disciples, and clean forgotten! Ministers who complain of the ignorance of their hearers, should learn patience, when they mark the imperfect knowledge of Christ's own followers.

The Greek word rendered " Sir," in this verse, might have been equally correctly rendered " Lord." But it is rendered " Sir," in like manner, in the conversation between our Lord and the Samaritan woman, in the fourth chapter of this Gospel. In both cases it is a term of respect, such as a Jewish woman would address to a man.

It is noteworthy that Mary does not name her Master to the supposed gardener. She simply says " Him," — " if thou hast borne Him hence, 1 will take Him away." It is the language of one so absorbed in the thought of our Lord, that she thinks it needless to name Him; and assumes, as a matter of course, that the gardener will understand whom she means.

It is noteworthy that Mary talks of " taking Him away.'* How one weak woman like her could suppose that she was able to lift and carry away the dead body of a man, we cannot of course understand. It is clear that she either meant {a) that she would soon find friends who would remove the body, or else ip) that she spoke hurriedly, fervently, impulsively, and passionately, without reflecting on what she was saying. I incline to think the latter view is the correct one.

Luther, quoted by Besser, remarks on this verse, " Mary's

heart was so filled up with Christ and thoughts about Christ, that besides Him she neither hears nor sees anything. She is not frightened at the sight of angels. She addresses Christ abruptly, supposing Him to be the gardener; and if he has taken Him away, she is ready to carry Him back to the sepulchre."

Andrews observes, " Him is enough with love. Who knows not who it is, though we never tell His name, nor say a word more? "

16. — [Jesus saitJi unto her, Mary, etc.'] We are here told how our Lord at last revealed Himself to this faithful disciple, after her patience, love, and boldness had been fully proved. Little as she had shown herself able to understand the great truth of her Saviour's resurrection, she had at any rate shown that none loved Him more, or clung to Him more tenaciously, than she did. And she had her reward. One single word was enough to open her eyes, to let the whole truth shine in upon her mind, and to reveal the great fact that her Saviour was not dead but alive, and that He had won a victory over the grave. — Speaking in His usual well-known voice, our Lord addressed her by her name, — the name by which, no doubt, He had often addressed her before. That single word touched a spring, as it were, and opened her eyes in a moment. Need we doubt that at once the whole world seemed turned upside down to the astonished woman; and that under the influence of such an amazing revulsion of feeling as that much-loved voice must have caused, her mind could only find expression in one passionate word — " Kabboni," or Master.