The expression, " turned herself," in this verse, is rather curious. We know, from the fourteenth verse, that Mary had already turned once from the grave, when Jesus appeared behind her. Here again we are told that she *' turned herself." The simplest explanation seems to be, that when she did not recognize the person who spoke to her, and thought He had been the gardener, she partially turned away, as a woman naturally would from a strange man, and hardly looked at Him, while she spoke of taking the body away. But the moment the voice of Jesus sounded in her ears, she turned again directly to Him, aad made some movement towards Him, as she uttered the cry, " liabboni." — Thus there were three movements: first, a turning round to see who was behind her; second, a partial turning away, when she heard a voice she did not recognize; and finally, a quick, passionate turning round entirely, when the well-known voice of her Master said, " Mary." So at least it appears to me.
Chrysostom says, " It seems to me that after having said, 'Where hast thou laid Him? ' she turned to the angels to ask why they were astonished; and that then Christ, by calling her by name, turned her back to Himself from them, and revealed Himself by His voice."
The boundless compassion of our Lord Jesus Christ to His believing people comes out wonderfully in this verse. He can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities. He knows how weak our bodily frame is, and how much excessive sorrow can unnerve and stupefy our minds. He can pass over much darkness of understanding, much slowness of comprehension, when He sees real, genuine, hearty, bold, persevering, thorough love to Himself and His Person. We see this prominently brought out in His dealing with Mary Magdalene, when He revealed Himself to her. He graciously pardons her forgetfulness of His oft -repeated declaration that He would rise again after His death, pities her deep sorrow, and abundantly rewards her love. These things are written for our learning. Jesus never changes. What He was, when He revealed Himself to Mary Magdalene, He is at this day,
Rabboni, according to Parkhurst, " is nearly of the same import as Rabbi. St. John explains both by the same word, — teacher. But Lightfoot and others say it was a term of higher respect." Parkhurst thinks it is formed from the Chaldee,and includes the idea, " my Master."
17. — [Jesus saith... Touch Me not...my Father.] This saying of our liOrd is undeniably a very " deep thing," and the real meaning of it is a point wliich lias greatly perplexed commentators. I Buspect it is one of tliose things which will never be fully settled until the Lord comes. In the meantime we must be content to make humble conjectures. It will clear our way to remember that our Lord could not possibly mean by saying, " Touch Me not," that there was anything sinful or wrong in Mary touching His risen body. The mere fact that a few minutes after this interview wuth Mary, he allowed the other women who had been to the grave to "hold Him by the feet" (Matt, xxviii. 9), completely settles that point. Moreover, within a week after this very day, He says to Thomas, " Reach hither thy hand and thrust it into my side." (John xx. 27.) This alone entirely contradicts the notion that our Lord's body might not be touched before His ascension. But having cleared the way negatively, the question yet remains, " What did our Lord mean positively? "
In order to understand the meaning of " Touch Me not," we must try to realize the state of mind in which Mary Magdalene was, when our Lord revealed Himself to her. A very slight knowledge of human nature, and especially of woman's nature, will tell us that the sudden discovery that Jesus was alive and standing before her, would throw her into a violent state of excitement, and produce an immense revulsion of feeling, from deep despondency to extravagant joy. May we not well believe that under the influence of this excitement, this holy woman might be more demonstrative than was seemly, and might exhibit her feelings by actions and gestures that our Lord saw it absolutely needful to repress? Can we not understand that a warm-hearted, impulsive Jewish woman, holy and pureminded as she certainly was, would be likely to cast herself at our Lord's feet, to say the least, in a passionate ecstasy of delight, and to hold them fast, kissing and embracing them, like the woman in Simon's house, as if she would never let them go? — And can we not well understand that our wise Master, who knew all hearts, thought it good to check and repress her, and therefore, for her soul's benefit, and not unkindly, said, " Touch Me not." — Nothing would be more likely to calm the good woman's mind, and to recall her to a reverent sense of what was due to herself and to her Lord, than this prohibition to " touch." Such is my view of this wonderful expression. It is to my mind a very suggestive one, and deserves the especial attention of ministers, in carrying on their private pastoral work. But I forbear. Let it however never be forgotten (and I desire to speak with the utmost reverence and delicacy), that when our Lord allowed the women, mentioned by St. Matthew (Matt, xxviii. 9), to " hold Him by the feet," there were several women present together, and some of them mothers and not young. When, on the contrary. He said to Mary Magdalene, " Touch Me not," He spoke to one who in all probability was a young woman, and He and she were alone 1
The Greek word we render " touch," according to Liddell and Scott's Lexicon, frequently means "fasten oneself to, cling to, hang on by, lay hold of, or grasp." Homer constantly uses the word in this sense. This deserves special notice. Schleusner and Parkhurst agree with Liddell and Scott.
The words, " for I am not yet ascended to my Father," are even more difficult than " Touch Me not; " and the connection between the two sayings is the hardest knot of all the sentence.
(a) Some think that the sense is, " I have not yet ascended to my Father. Till 1 have ascended and taken my seat at His right hand, my work as your Saviour is not perfect and complete. Do not therefore touch Me and fasten upon Me, as if you would fain keep Me upon earth forever, now that I have risen again. Remember that my ascension is as much a part of my great work of redemption as my crucifixion and resurrection, I have not yet ascended. Do not, therefore, behave as though you wished to detain Me here below, and never to part with Me again."
(6) Some think that the sense is, " I am not yet ascending to my Father. I shall not ascend for forty days. There will, therefore, be abundant time for seeing, touching, hearing, and conferring with Me. Do not therefore now waste precious time on this eventful morning by embracing my feet, and demonstrating your affection to my person. Kather rise, and lose no time in going to my brethren, and telling them that I am risen. Think of others; and do not occupy yourself, as you are disposed to do, in touching my feet and gratifying your own feelings. Natural as it is, there is other work to do now. Go and do it, and do not linger here. Touch Me not." This is the view of Beza, Brentius, and Bishop Hall.
(c) Some think, as Melancthon, that our Lord had in view His second advent and kmgdom, when all who have known and loved Him on earth, shall at length dwell with Him in holy familiarity, and go out from His presence no more. Me-
lancthon says, " It is as if Christ would say, Then shall you touch Me, when I have ascended to my Father: that is, when I shall bring thee and all my Church to the Father at the last day. Another kingdom and another life remains yet to be given, in which you shall enjoy fellowship with Me and my Father."
I honestly confess that I find it almost impossible to say which of the three opinions I have here described deserves most attention. If I must decide, I incline to prefer the second one, and I think it is more in keeping with the latter part of the verse. The weakest point of this view is the future sense which it puts on the words, " I am not ascended." The Greek word is in the perfect tense, and the perfect is undoubtedly used sometimes in the sense of a future. (Compare Horn. xiv. 23, John xvii. 10; and see Telf's Greek Grammar, vol. ii., p.
65; and Winer's Grammar, p. 288. Clark's edition.) But it is rather awkward that " I ascend " comes immediately after in the present tense. The reader must decide for himself which view he prefers.
Chrysostom says, " Methinks Mary wished still to converse with Jesus as before, and in her joy perceived nothing great in Him, although He had become far more excellent in the flesh. To lead her therefore from this idea, and that she might speak to Him with awe (for neither with the disciples doth He henceforth appear so familiar as before). He raiseth her thoughts, that she should give more reverent heed to Him. To have said, * Approach Me not as you did before, for matters are not in the same state; nor shall I henceforth be with you in the same way,' would have been harsh and high-sounding. But the saying, ' I am not yet ascended to my Father,' though not painful to hear, was the same thing. For by saying, * I am not yet ascended,' He showeth that He hasteth and passeth thither, and that it was not meet that one about to depart thither, and no longer to converse with men, should be looked on with the same feelings as before."
Augustine says, " There is a spiritual meaning latent here. — Either this is so spoken, ' Touch Me not, for 1 am not yet ascended,' that the woman is a figure of the Church of the Gentiles, which did not believe on Christ until He was ascended unto the Father; — or else Jesus would have men so believe in Him, or touch Him spiritually, as knowing that Himself and the Father are one. — Mary might believe in such a way as if she thought Him unequal to the Father, which thought is forbidden to her. ' Touch Me not ': i. e., ' Do not believe in Me in such wise as thou art yet minded in thy thoughts of Me: let not thy perception reach only to the'thing I was made for thee, without passing beyond to that by which thou wast made. I am not yet ascended to my Father. Then shalt thou touch Me, when thou believest Me to be God not unequal to the Father."
Calvin says, " The meaning of these words is, that Christ's state of resurrection would not be full and complete, until He should sit down in heaven at the right hand of the Father. Therefore Mary did wrong in satisfying herself with having nothing more than the half of His resurrection, and desiring only to enjoy His presence in the world."
Lightfoot says, " These words relate to what Christ had spoken formerly about sending the Comforter, and that He would not leave them comfortless, but would come to them. Christ says to Mary, ' I must first ascend to my Father, before I can bestow those things upon you which I have promised. Do not therefore touch Me, and detain Me upon any expectation of that kind. Rather wait for my ascension, and go and tell the same thing to my brethren for their encouragement."
Poole says, " The best opinion seems to be the opinion of those who think oar Saviour saw Mary too fond, as if she thought He had been raised up to such a converse with them as He liad before His death. This error is all He tasks her of, not forbidding any kind of touching, so as to satisfy herself He was truly risen, but restraining any gross conception. — He reminded Mary that He was about to ascend to His Father, though He had not yet ascended, and was therefore not to be enjoyed by them with so much freedom and familiarity as before."
Bishop Hall says, " There may be a kind of carnality in spiritual notions. " If I have known Christ after the flesh, from henceforth I know Him no more.' That Thou livedst here, my Saviour, in this shape, that color, this stature, that habit, I should be glad to know: nothing that concerns Thee can be unusef ul. Could I say, here Thou safest, here Thou layest, here Thou wast crucified, here Thou wast buried, I should with much content see and recount those ceremonials of Thy presence. But if I shall so fasten my thoughts on them, as not to look higher, to the spiritual part of these achievements, to the power and issue of Thy resurrection, 1 am none the better.' "
Rollock says, " The meaning in effect is this. It is not time for thee to touch Me now, till that time I be in glory, and then touch Me by the arm of faith as much as thou canst or may est. Ye must consider, that she was too much addicted to His bodily presence. She thought He should have remained and dwelt on earth as He did before. Therefore He would not let her come near Him, until He instructed her of a spiritual touching, and that He was not to stay here, but to dwell with His Father in heaven.
" Mark this lesson. Some men love the Lord entirely, and yet when they come to His service they fail: for such is the grossness of our nature that we cannot incline to that spiritual service which He chiefly requires. Popery is full of this grossness. They can do nothing if they have not His carnal presence, either in Himself, or in a stock or stone, or in a piece of bread, and therefore they draw a bodily presence of Him in the sacrament. All their religion is earthly, — no grace, no spirit in it. But did the Lord accept that gross service that Mary offered? I am certain He loved Mary better than the Pope and all his priests; yet well as He liked Mary, He liked not her service. He says to her, Touch Me not! The Lord keep us from gross service, and make us touch Him by faith."
Andrews says, " The most we can make is that here Mary failed in somewhat. Not that she did it in any immodest or indecent manner. God forbid! Never think of that. But she was only a little too forward, it may be: not with the due respect that was meet." — " I tell you plainly I do not like her Kabboni. It was no Easter-day salutation; it should have been some better term, expressing more reverence." — "The touch was not the riglit touch, and all for want of expressing more regard; not for want of reverence at all, but of reverence enough." — " It is no excuse to say it was all out of love. Never lay it upon that. Love, Christ loves well. But love, if it be right, doth nothing uncomely, keeps decorum, forgets not what belongs to duty and decency, carries itself accordingly."
" A strange kind of love, when for very love to Christ we
care not how we use Him, or carry ourselves toward Him. Which, being Mary's case, she heard and heard quickly. Touch Me not, — you are not now in case till you shall have learned to touch after a more regardful manner.
Sibbes says, " Mary was too much addicted to Christ's bodily presence. It is this that men have labored for from the beginning of the world, — to be too much addicted to present things and to sense. They will worship Christ; but they must have a picture before them. They will adore Christ; but they must bring His body down to a piece of bread: they must have a presence. And so instead of raising their hearts to God and Christ in a heavenly manner, they pull down God and Christ to them. And, therefore, saith Christ, ' Touch Me not in that manner: it is not with Me as it was before.' We must take heed of mean and base conceits of Christ."
Sherlock, in his " Trial of the Witnesses," says, " The natural
sense of this place is this: Mary Magdalene, upon seeing Jesus fell at His feet and laid hold on them, and held them as if she never meant to let them go. Then Christ said to her, " Touch Me not, or hang not about Me now. You will have other opportunities of seeing Me, for I go not yet to my Father. Lose no time then, but go quickly with my message to my brethren."
Mary to touch Him, to have been meant as a signification of His intention to see her and the disciples again; just as in ordinary life, when one friend says to another, ' Do not take leave for I am not going yet,' he means to let him know that he purposes to see him again before he sets out on his journey."
Lampe mentions a strange view of "Touch Me not" maintained by Bauldry, a German professor. He would put a full stop at " not," and place it first in the sentence, rendering it thuj, " No! I am not the gardener. Touch Me, and see that I am Thy Saviour risen." He also mentions a view held by many, that it means, " Do not try whether I am risen by touching Sle. It is 1 myself." Both views, however, seem very improbable.
Paul us, the German theologian, maintains the monstrous notion that our I-.ord meant, " Do not lay a fing(ir on Me, because my wounds still smart." This is simply ridiculous, to say the least.
Hengstenberg says, " The reason of the prohibition must be Bought iu the personal character of Mary, and in the passionate nature of the touch which sprang from that character. ISlie tliought that the limits which had formerly existed between herself and the Lord {the old style of confidence is a very incor-?'ec^ic?6f/.) were, now that the Saviour had passed into another form of existence, removed, and that she might now give free course to her feelings without fearing the admixture of anything human in her sentiment toward her Lord. But her Lord repelled her: Touch Me not."
Wordsworth says, " The term (in the Greek) indicates not only a prohibition of a particular act, but forbids a habit: i. e., of clinging to Ilim with a bodily touch. And the words, ' I have not ascended,' contain a precept concerning the time when the habit of touching Christ may be exercised. He ia to be touched after He has ascended,— that is. He is then to be truly touched, when He is beyond the reach of the bodily touch. And one of the purposes of His absence and His ascension into heaven was to elicit and exercise that touch, — the touch of faith."
Burgon remarks what a strange thing it is, that " both the old world and the new should have begun witli the same prohibition, Touch not."
[But go...my brethren...say unto them.] This sentence is strikingly full of wisdom, tender thoughtfulness, and kindness. Wisely our Lord summons Mary Magdalene to an act of duty to others. He bids her n(jt spend time in demonstrations of affection, but arise and be useful. — Thoughtfully our Lord's first consideration is for His poor scattered disciples. Weak and erring as they had been, He still loved them, and at once sends them a message. He did not mean to cast them off, or forget them. — Kindly He calls them "my brethren." All was pardoned and forgiven. He still regarded them as His dear brethren, — risen, conqueror over the grave as He was, — and would have them look on Him as a'n elder brother. This is the first time our Lord ever called the disciples " brethren."
Bucer thinks that " my brethren" in this place really means •* my brethren according to the flesh:" i. e., James and others, whose faith was weaker y^erhaps than that of the other Apostles. But the vast majority of commentators see in the expression nothing of the kind, and regard it only as a term of affection applied to all the Apostles. Calvin properly refers us to Psalm xxii. 22: " I will declare thy name unto my brethren." See also Heb. ii. 11.
Andrews remarks that the words " my brethren " was " a word to be touched and taken hold of. It was so once when Benhadad's servant laid hold on the word of the King of Israel, ' He is my brother.' " (1 Kings xx. 32, 33.) He adds that it implied identity of nature, and identity of love and affection after tlie resurrection, and no change.
Let us mark wliat a strong proof we have here of the duty of telling others the good news of the Gospel. The very first work that a risen Christ proposes to the first disciple to whom He revealed Himself is the work of telling others. It was a deep saying of the four leprous men: " This day is a day of good tidings, and we hold our peace: if we tarry till the morning light, some mischief will come upon us." (2 Kings vii. 9.)
Cyril remarks what an honor was put on woman, when a woman was commissioned to be the first person to proclaim the tidings of the resurrection.
[/ ascend...my Father...your God.] The message which our Lord desires Mary to carry to His disciples is remarkable. He does not bid her say " 1 have risen," but " I ascend." He would evidently have them understand that His resurrection was only a step towards His ascension, and that He did not rise again in order to tarry with them upon earth, but in order to go up to heaven as a conqueror, and sit down at God's right hand as their forerunner, representative, priest, advocate, and friend. The message is clearly elliptical. It is as though our Lord said, " Say unto them that I have risen from the dead, and that I am soon about to ascend into heaven, to Him who is my Father and my God, and their Father and their God also."
When our Lord dwells on His ascension more than His resurrection, it seems to me that He names it as the great conclusion and accomplishment of the work He came to do, and the necessary consequence of His rising again. It is as though He said, " My work is finished, my battle is won, and I shall not be much longer with you in the world. Get ready to receive my last instructions."
Calvin says, " Christ forbids the Apostles to fix their whole attention on His resurrection viewed simply in itself, but exhorts them to proceed further, until they come to the spiritual kingdom, the heavenly glory, and God Himself."
Andrews remarks, " We ourselves had better lie still in our graves, better never rise, than rise and rising not ascend."
Flavel remarks, "If Christ had not ascended, He could not have interceded, as He now does in heaven for us. And do but take away Christ's intercession, and you starve the hope of the saints."
When our Lord speaks of God as ""My Father and my God," He seems as usual, to point to the close and intimate union which He always declared to exist between Himself and the First Person in the Trinity. " The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Peter i. 3), is a kindred expression. — He does not, we should observe, say, I ascend unto " our Father," etc..
but " my Father and your Father." He thus shows that there is a certain distinction between His relation to the Father and ours. Believers are not naturally sons of God: they only become so by grace, by adoption, and by virtue of union with Christ. Christ, on the contrary, is in His nature the Son of God by an eternal generation.
When our Lord speaks of " Your Father and your God," He seems to me to speak with a special view to the consolation of His disciples. It is as though He said, " Do not be troubled because I go away. He to whom I go is your Father and your God as well as mine. All that He is to me, the Head, He is also to you, the members."
It may well be doubted, when we read this verse, whether Christians, as a rule, assign sulficient importance to the great truth of Christ's ascension into heaven. Let us never forget that if our Lord had not ascended into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of God, His resurrection would have been but of little value. It is His going into heaven itself, to appear in the presence of God for us. that is the great secret of Christian comfort. It is not for nothing that St. Paul answers the question, " Who is he that condemneth? " by saying, " Christ hath died, — yea, rather hath risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." (Rom. viii. 34.) The death, the resurrection, the ascension, the intercession of Christ, are four great facts that should never be separated.
It ought not to be forgotten that there seems to be a close connection between the ascension of Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Ghost. This, at least, seems to be the meaning of the text in the Psalms, quoted by St. Paul: " When He had ascended up on high. He led captivity captive, and received gifts for men." (Psalm Ixviii. 18. Ephes. iv. 8.)
18. — \Mary Magdalene came and told, etc.] In this verse we see the effect that our Lord's words had on the loving disciple to whom He first appeared. She meekly accepts the reproof of her over-forward zeal to touch Him, without gainsaying or answering again. Like a good servant, she proceeds at once to do what she is told. The use of the present tense shows the promptness of her obedience. The Greek words would be more literally rendered, " Mary Magdalene cometh, telling or declaring to the disciples that she has seen the Lord, and that He has said these things to her," — that He has given her this message to carry to them, and that He calls them His brethren. The use of the participle makes the words sound as if she went open-mouthed, telling every disciple as she went, and hardly stopping to sit down, till she had told every one whom she could find in Jerusalem. We need not doubt that the first house she went to was that where Peter and John lodged, and one of the first persons to whom she told the joyful news was the mother of our Lord. A few minutes after she departed on her joyful errand — running, we need not doubt, as she had run before, — our Lord appeared to the other women, as is recorded by St. Matthew. (Matt, xxviii. 9.)
Brentius remarks what honor this passage puts on women. Sin came into the world by Eve, a woman. Yet God, in mercy, ordered things so that of a woman Christ was born, to a woman Christ first appeared after He rose from the dead, and a woman was the first to carry the news of His resurrection. He quaintly says, ' Jesus made Mary Magdalene an Apostle to the Apostles."
Cecil remarks, " Singular honor is reserved for solitary faith. Mary has the first personal manifestation of Christ after His resurrection. She is the first witness of this most important and illustrious fact, and the first messenger of it to His disciples."
21 Then said Jesus to them again. Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on ihem^ and saith unto them, Eeceive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace he unto you.
20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
Ths verses we have now read contain things hard to be understood. Like all the events which followed our Lord's resurrection, there is much in the facts before us which is mysterious, and requires reverent handling. Our Lord's actions, in suddenly appearing among the disciples when the doors were closed, and in breathing upon them, might soon draw us into unprofitable speculation. It is easy, in such cases, to darken counsel by words without knowledge. We shall find it safer and wiser to confine our attention to points which are plain and instructive.
We should observe, for one thing, the remarkable language loith which our Lord greeted the apostles, when
He first met them after His resurrection. Twice over he addressed them with the kindly words, " Peace be unto you." We may dismiss as untenable, in all probability, the cold and cautious suggestion, that this was nothing better than an unmeaning phrase of courtesy. He who " spake as never man spake," said nothing without meaning. He spoke, we may be sure, with special reference to the state of mind of the eleven apostles, with special reference to the events of the last few days, and with special reference to their future ministry. "Peace" and not blame, — ** peace " and not fault-finding,— " peace " and not rebuke, — was the first word which this little company heard from their Master's lips, after He left the tomb.
It was meet, and right, and fitting, that it should be 80, and in full harmony with things that had gone before. " Peace on earth " was the song of the heavenly host, when Christ was born. Peace and rest of soul, was the general subject that Christ continually preached for three years. Peace, ani not riches, had been the great legacy which He had left with the eleven the night before His crucifixion. Surely it was in full keeping with all the tenor of our Lord's dealings, that, when He revisited His little company of disciples after His resurrection. His first word should be " Peace." It was a word that would soothe and calm their minds.
Peace, we may safely conclude, was intended by our Lord to be the key-note to the Christian ministry. That same peace which was so continually on the lips of the Master, was to be the grand subject of the teaching of His disciples. Peace between God and man through the precious blood of atonement, — peace between man and man through the infusion of grace and charity, — to spread such peace as this was to be the work of the Church. Any religion, like that of Mahomet, who made converts with tlie sword, is not from above but from beneath. Any form of Christianity which burns men at the stake, in order to promote its own success, carries about with it the stamp of an apostasy. That is the truest and best religion which does most to spread real, true peace.
We should observe, for another thing, in these verses, the remarkahle evidence which our Lord supplied of His own resurrection. He graciously appealed to the senses of His trembling disciples. He showed them "His hands and His side." He bade them see with their own eyes, that He had a real material body, and that He was not a ghost or a spirit. " Handle Me and see," were His words, according to St. Luke: " a spirit hath not flesh and bone, as ye see Me have." Great indeed was the condescension of our blessed Master, in thus coming down to the feeble faith of the eleven Apostles! But great also was the principle which He established for the use of His Church in every age, until He returns. That principle is, that our Master requires us to believe nothing is contrary to our senses. Things above our reason we must expect to find in a religion that comes from God, but not things contrary to reason.
Let us lay firm hold on this great principle, and never forget to use it. Specially let us take care that we use it, in estimating the effect of the sacraments and the work of the Holy Ghost. To require people to believe that men have the quickening power of the Holy Spirit, when our eyes tell us they are living in habitual carelessness and sin, or that the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper are Christ's real body and blood, when our senses tell us they are still bread and wine, — this is to require more belief than Christ ever required of His disciples. It is to require that which is flatly contradictory to reason and common sense. Such requisitions
We should observe, lastly, in these verses, the remarkahle commission which our Lord conferred upon His eleven Apostles. We are told that He said, " As my Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." It is vain to deny that the true sense of these solemn words has been for centuries a subject of controversy and dispute. It is useless perhaps to expect that the controversy will ever be closed. The utmost that we can hope to do with the passage is to supply a probable exposition.
It seems then highly probable that our Lord in this place solemnly commissioned His Apostles to go into all the world, and preach the Gospel as He had preached it. He also conferred on them the power of declaring with peculiar authority whose sins were forgiven, and whose sins were not forgiven. That this is precisely what the Apostles did is a simple matter of fact, which any one may verify for himself by reading the book of the Acts. When Peter proclaimed to the Jews, " Repent ye, and be converted," — and when Paul declared at Antioch of Iconium, — " to you is the word of this salvation sent," — " Through this man is preached the forgiveness of sins, and by Him all that believe are justified," — they were doing what this passage commissioned the Apostles to do. They were opening with authority the door of salvation, and inviting with authority all sinners to enter in by it and be saved. (Acts iii. 19; xiii. 26 — 38.)
It seems, on the other hand, most improbable that our Lord intended in this verse to sanction the practice of private absolution, after private confession of sins.
Whatever some may please to say, there is not a single instance to be found in the Acts of any Apostle using such absolution after confession. Above all, there is not a trace in the two pastoral Epistles to Timothy and Titus, of such confession and absolution being recommended, or thought desirable. In short, whatever men may say about private ministerial absolution, there is not a single precedent for it in God's Word.
Let us leave the whole passage with a deep sense of the importance of the minister's office, when that office is duly exercised according to the mind of Christ. No higher honor can be imagined than that of being Christ's ambassadors, and proclaiming in Christ's name the forgiveness of sins to a lost world. But let us ever beware of investing the ministerial office with one jot more of power and authority than Christ conferred upon it. To treat ministers as being in any sense mediators between God and man, is to rob Christ of His prerogative, to hide saving truth from sinners, and to exalt ordained men to a position which they are totally unqualified to fill.
19. — [Then the same day at evening, etc.] This verse describes our Lord Jesus Christ's first appearance to the Apostles, in a body, after He rose from the dead. It took place in the evening of the same Sunday when He had appeared to Mary Magdalene in the morning. Between that morning and that evening He had already appeared three times, — once to the company of women returning from the sepulchre, as described by St. Matthew, — once to Simon Peter, as we are told by St. Luke and St. Paul, — and once to the two disciples walking to Emmaus. (Matt, xxviii. 9; Luke xxiv. 34; 1 C'or. xv. 5; Luke xxiv. 13, etc.) This, therefore, was the fifth appearance which our Lord graciously vouchsafed. Each of the five appearances, we should observe, was peculiar in its circumstances, and unlike the others. We need not wonder that this Sunday, from the earliest ages, was always marked by the Ohurch as a day which ought to be had in remembrance, and kept with peculiar honor.
*' When it was evening on that day, tlie first day of the week." The precise houi' is not specified; but, considering all things, it seems probable that it was after sunset, and when it was dark, in order to avoid observation. — The cause of the disciples assembling, we may reasonably suppose, was the tidings received from no less than four distinct sets of witnesses, that Jesus had risen from the dead, and was alive. It would have been strange indeed if they did not assemble on hearing such news. — The place where the disciples assembled is not mentioned. But at a time like the passover feast it would not be difficult to find some " upper room," where ten men might meet together. 1 can see no improbability in the supposition that the very room where the Lord's Supper was instituted on the previous Thursday evening, might be the same room where the disciples gathered together on Sunday night. The words of St. Mark incline me to think that the person to whom the " upper room " belonged was one of those Jews who were friendly to Christ, though they had not courage to confess Him openly. (Mark xiv. 13—15.)
That the " doors " should be " shut, where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews," is a circumstance that need not surprise us. The Apostles might well regard their lives as being in imminent danger, when they remembered how their Master had just been treated. Moreover, the story of the guard placed round the sepulchre, that " the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus," might reasonably incline them to expect further ill-treatment themselves. They did their best therefore to avoid observation, and closed the doors of the room where they assembled after sunset.
Concerning the precise manner in which our Lord appeared to the disciples, there is no little difference of opinion, {a) Some think, as Calvin, and many of the divines of the seventeenth century, that He suddenly caused the doors to open, passed through them when open, and suddenly stood in the midst of the company assembled. (&) Some think, as Chrysostom, Cyril, Augustine, the Romanists, and nearly all Lutherans, that the doors continued fastened, and that our Lord miraculously appeared standfing in the room where the disciples were, instantaneously, in a moment, and without notice. I do not know that it signifies much which view we take. Ta either case a miracle was wrought. Our Lord's risen body must evidently have had a power of moving from one place to another, and of being visible or invisible, as He thought fit, according to His good pleasure, after a manner that we cannot understand. In any case, we must carefully remember that it was a real, material body, — a body that could be touched, and felt, and seen, and handled, and yet a supernatural and peculiar body. With such a body it was as easy for our Lord to appear suddenly standing in the middle of the room, while the doors remained fastened, as it was to open the doors (as He did the doors of Peter's prison), and to walk into the room, like another man. To my own mind there is no proof positive either way, and I must leave it to my readers to choose for themselves. One thing alone we must not forget. Even if our Lord did appear in the room, without unfastening the doors, it is no proof that He can be literally, and locally, and corporally present in the Lord's Supper, under the forms of bread and wine. Moreover, it does not follow, because He could move from place to place invisibly, that His body could ever be in more than one place at one and the same time. When He rose from the dead. He rose with a body of a far more spiritual kind than He had before, but a body for all that which was a real human body, and not a mere seeming and shadowy body, like that of a ghost or a spirit.
The first words that our Lord spake to the disciples afford a beautiful proof of His loving, merciful, tender, thoughtful, pitiful, and compassionate spirit. He said, " Peace be unto you." That expression, in my opinion, must on no account be taken as a mere formal salutation, without meaning. It was intended to reassure and cheer the minds of the disciples, by exhibiting at once His mind towards them. Not a word of reproof, or rebuke, or fault-finding, or blame falls from our Lord's lips, notwithstanding all their sad faint-heartedness and desertion on the preceding Thursday night. All is forgiven and forgotten. The very first word is " Peace." This was almost the last word that our Lord had spoken on Thursday night before He prayed: " These things I have spoken, that in Me ye might have peace," (John xvi. 88.) This was the last legacy He had left His disciples: " Peace I leave with you: my peace I give unto you. Let not your hearts be troubled," (John xiv. 27.) Can we doubt that this comfortable word would cheer and calm the minds of the little company, when our Lord suddenly appeared?-" Once morel stand among you: and once more I proclaim peace; — not excommunication, not rejection from my friendship, not rebuke, but peace." We cannot realize the fulness of comfort which the word would supply, unless we bear in mind the events of the last few days, and especially the conduct of the Apostles on the night before the crucifixion, when, after loudly professing their faithfulness, they all " forsook Him and fled,"
The parallel account in St. Luke would lead us to conclude that there were others present on this occasion beside the Apostles. He speaks of " Them that were with them." (Luke xxiv. 33.)
20. — [And when He had so said, etc.] After speaking, our Lord proceeded most graciously to supply tangible evidence that He had really risen from the dead, and stood before His disciples with a material living body. When it says He " showed them His hands and side," we cannot doubt that He bade them touch Him. lu fact St. Luke, when describing this very same inter view, expressly records that our Lord said, " Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have." (Luke xxiv. 39.)
The mention of the " hands and side " points clearly to the wounda made by the nails on the one, and by the spear in the other. Those wounds appeared visibly and unmistakably in His risen body, and our blessed Master was not ashamed of them. Even in the glory of heaven, according to Revelation, John saw Him appear as a " Lamb that had been slain." (Rev. v. 6.) I think we need not doubt that when He ascended up into heaven, those wounds went with Him, and are a perpetual witness to angels that He has actually suffered for man's sins. When we see His real presence in the day of His appearing, we shall see "the man Christ Jesus," and see the marks of His crucifixion. I give this however as my private opinion, and I think it is fair to say that many divines think differently. For instance, Calvin strongly holds that our Lord's '* use of the wounds was only temporary, until the Apostles were fully convinced, and that His glorified body is without them." I cannot, however, agree with him. After a great victory, the scars of a conqueror are marks of honor.
Concerning the actual condition of our Lord's wounds it becomes us to speak reverently. A very slight acquaintance with surgery will tell us, of course, that a lacerated wound in the hand or foot, or a deep wound in the side inflicted on Friday, would naturally, to say the least, be very painful and in flamed on Sunday night. But we must carefully remember that our Lord's risen body, though a real and material body, was evidently not subject to all the conditions of an ordinary human body, or of His own body before His death. It was in fact such a body, as we may hope to have when we rise again. We may, therefore, conclude that the wounds made by the nails and spear were not wounds that were sore and inflamed, though it is equally certain that they were not closed up, and only scars left behind.
How it was that the two disciples going to Emmaus did not recognize our Lord by the wounds in His hands and feet, is a question that admits of two answers. Either we must suppose that " their eyes were hoi den," and that they were miraculously unable to discern who it was that walked with them, and did not even know Him by His voice; or else we must suppose that our Lord's hands and feet were covered during the walk, and that they only saw the wounds in His hands when He broke the bread. St. Mark's account would lead ua to believe that our Lord was pleased to assume another body on the way to Emmaus. He says, " He appeared in another form." (Mark xvi. 12.)
The expression " were glad when they saw/' would be more literally rendered " rejoiced seeing," and " having seen." I cannot myself think tliat these words fulfilled our Lord's saying, " 1 will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice." (John xvi. 22.) That joy, I believe, is the joy of the whole Church at the Lord's second advent, and is yet to come. It is a joy of which our Lord said, " No man taketh it from you." I believe the phrase before us simply means that the disciples "were greatly delighted and rejoiced, when they saw before them their risen Master. It relieved their anxious minds, revived their hopes, and set at rest all their fears. " Our Master is actually alive again and has overcome death. Now all will be right."
We should not fail to observe how our Lord condescended to satisfy the senses of His disciples, — the sense of sight, and the sense of touch, — when He showed Himself to them after His resurrection. If their senses had contradicted the news that His body had risen again to life. He would not have required them to believe it. Things above reason and sense the Gospel calls on us to believe often, things contrary to reason and sense never. This is precisely what we should remember when a Romanist bids us believe that the consecrated wafer in the Lord's Supper is the real Body of Christ. Sense, sight, taste, and chemical analysis, combine to tell us that the wafer is still bread. The Romanist, therefore, has no right to demand our belief.
Rollock remarks, " When I mark this place, I see in it what then shall be the estate of the godly, when they shall meet with their Lord. The first sight shall so ravish them, that they shall wonder there ever could be such glory.'
21. — [Then said Jesus... again, etc.] In this verse our Lord proceeds to tell the disciples the work which He now wished them to do, but in general terms. He meant to send them forth into the world to be His ministers, messengers, and witnesses, even as the Father had sent Him into the world to be His messenger and witness. (Heb. iii, 1; John xviii. 37.) As He had gone up and down preaching the Gospel, testifying against the evil of the world, and proclaiming rest and peace to the heavy laden, BO He intended them to go up and down, as soon as He had ascended up into heaven. In short. He at once prepared their minds for the work which was before them. They were to dismiss from their minds the idea that the day of ease and reward had come, now that their Master had risen and was with them once more. So far from that being the case, their real work was now to begin. He Himself was about to leave the world; and He meant them to take His place. And one purpose for which lie appeared among them was to give them their commission.
The repetition of the salutation, " Peace be unto you," is very noteworthy. 1 cannot doubt that it was specially intended to cheer, and comfort, and animate the disciples. Glad as they doubtless were to see the Lord, we may easily believe that they were frightened, and overcome by a mixture of feelings; and the more so when they remembered how they had behaved when they had last seen their Lord, Jesus read the condition of- their hearts, and mercifully makes assurance doubly sure by repeating the gracious words, " Peace be unto you." As Joseph said to Pharaoh, " the thing was doubled," in order to make it sure and prevent the possibility of mistake.
Augustine says, *' The iteration is confirmation. It is the * peace upon peace ' promised by the prophet." (Isa. Ivii. 19.)
It is curious that two entirely diflferent Greek words are used to express the English " sent " and " send " in this verse. Parkhurst says that the word used where our Lord says " My Father hath sent Me," is a more solemn word than the one used when our Lord says, " I send you." Yet I do not think this is proved; and certainly Liddell and Scott flatly contradict the idea. At any rate the second or less solemn word is repeatedly used in St. Luke in the most solemn sense. (John v. 2'6, 24, 30.) It is just one of those things which we ought to notice, but cannot explain. There is doubtless some reason why two words are used, but what it is has not yet been discovered.
22. — [^And when He had said...lreathed, etc.} In this verse our Lord proceeds to confer a special gift on the disciples, and, as it were, to ordain them for the great work which He intended them to do. And we have in it a remarkable emblematical action, and a no less remarkable saying.
The action of our Lord, " He breathed on them," is one thai stands completely alone in the New Testament, and the Greek word is nowhere else used. On no occasion but this do we find the Lord " breathing " on any one. Of course it was a symbolical action, and the only question is, What did it symbolize? and Why was it used? My own belief is that the true explanation is to be found in the account of man's creation in Geneeis. There we read, •' The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." (Gen. ii. 7.) Just as there was no life in man until God breathed into him the breath of life, so I believe our Lord taught the disciples, by this action of breathing on them, that the beginning of all ministerial qualification is to have the Holy Spirit breathed into as; and that, until the Holy Ghost is planted in our hearts, we are not rightly commissioned for the work of the ministry.
1 do not however feel sure that this view completely exhausts the meaning of our Lord when He breathed on the disciples. I cannot forget that they had all forsaken their Master the night that He was taken prisoner, fallen away from their profession, and forfeited their title to confidence as Apostles. May we not therefore reasonably believe that this breathing pointed to a revival of life in the hearts of the Apostles, and to a restoration of tlieir privileges as trusted and commissioned messengers, notwithstanding their grievous fall? — I cannot help suspecting that this lesson was contained in the action of breathing. It not only symbolized the infusion for the first time of special ministerial gifts and graces. It also symbolized the restoration to complete power and confidence in their Master's eyes, even after their faith had so nearly breathed its last, and given up the ghost. The first symptom of returning life, when a man is recovered from drowning, is his beginning to breathe again. To set the lungs breathing, in such cases, is the first aim of a skilful doctor.
When we remember that the wind is pre-eminently an emblem of the Holy Ghost (John iii. 8; Ezek. xxxvii. 9; Acts. ii. 2), we cannot fail to see that there is a beautiful fitness in the symbolical action which our Lord has employed.
Lampe thinks that our Lord breathed on all the disciples at once, and not on each one separately. It is probable that it was so, in my judgment.
breathe not, as Christ did on the disciples unto whom He imparted power, is that neither Spirit nor spiritual authority may be thought to proceed from us, who are but delegates and assigns to give men possession of His grace."
The words, ** Receive ye the Holy Ghost," are almost as deep and mysterious as the action of breathing. They can only signify, " I bestow on you the Holy Ghost." But in what sense the Holy Ghost was bestowed, is a point that demands attention, and we must beware that we do not run into error.
(a) Our Lord cannot have meant that the disciples were now to " receive the Holy Ghost " for the first time. They had doubtless received Him in the day when they were first converted and believed. Whether they realized it or not, the Holy Ghost was in their hearts already. " No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." (1 Cor. xii. 3.)
(&) Our Lord cannot have meant that the disciples were now to " receive the Holy Ghost," for the purpose of working miracles and speaking with tongues. They had worked many miracles already, and the gift of speaking with tongues was specially conferred afterwards, on the day of Pentecost, when they were endued with power from on high.
(c) Our Lord, in my opinion, must have meant, " Receive the Holy Ghost as the Spirit of knowledge and understanding.'' He must have meant that He now conferred on them a degree of light and knowledge of divine truth, which hitherto they had not possessed. They had been greatly deficient in light and knowledge up to this time. With all their faith and love towards our Lord's Person, they had been sadly ignorant of manj things, and particularly of the true purpose of His coming, and the necessity of His death and resurrection. — " Now," says our Lord, " I bestow on you the Spirit of knowledge. Let the time past suffice to have seen through a glass darkly. Receive the Holy Ghost, open your eyes and see all things clearly." — In fact I believe the words point to the very thing which, St. Luke says, our Lord did on this occasion: " then opened He their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures." (Luke xxiv. 45.) Light was the first thing made in the day of creation. Light in the heart is the first beginning of true conversion. And light in the understanding is the first thing required in order to make a man an able minister of the New Testament. Our Lord was commissioning His first ministers, and sending them out to carry on His work. He begins by giving them light and knowledge: — " Receive ye the Holy Ghost. I commission you this day, and confer on you the office of ministers. And the first gift I confer on you is spiritual knowledge." That this is the true view of the words, is proved to my own mind by the extraordinary difference in doctrinal knowledge which from this day the Apostles exhibited.
Theophylact thinks that our Lord only meant, " Become fit for receiving the Holy Ghost." This seems weak and poor.
The expression before us is one of those which seem to me to supply strong indirect proof of the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, as well as from the Father. It seems to me that when the Lord Jesus Christ could say with authority, " Receive the Holy Ghost," it is very strange to say that tlie Holy Ghost does not proceed from Him! Yet the Greek Church does not admit this.
The expression before us is one which, strictly speaking, no one but our Lord Jesus Christ could use. It is evident that no mortal man has the power of conferring the Holy Ghost upon another. This is a prerogative of God alone and of His Christ. When, therefore, the ordination service for Presbyters, in the Church of England Prayer-book, puts into the Bishop's mouth these solemn words, " Receive the Holy Ghost." I have never felt a doubt that the compilers of our Liturgy only meant the words to be used as in an optative, and not a positive sense, as a 'prayer: " I pray that thou mayest receive the Holy Ghost." — Archbishop Whitgift, in his Reply to the objections of the fa-
mous Cartwright, says, " To use these words in ordaining of ministers, which Christ Himself used in appointing His Apostles, is no more ridiculous and blasphemous than it is to use the words that he used in the Lord's Supper." — " The Bishop, by speaking these words, doth not take upon him to give the Holy Ghost, no more than he doth to remit sins, when he pronounceth the remission of sins; but by speaking these words of Christ, he doth show the principal duty of a minister, and assureth him of the assistance of God's Holy Spirit, if he labor in the same accordingly." (See Blakeney on the Common
shrink from expressing my regret that the words, " receive the Holy Ghost," were adopted by the compilers of our Prayer-book. They do not trouble my conscience, but I consider them likely to offend the consciences of many, and I think it would have been wiser to throw them distinctly and unmistakably into the form of a prayer. It is a simple historical fact which ought not to be forgotten, that these words were never used, in the ordination of ministers, for more than a thousand years after Christ! (See Nicholls and Blakeney on the Common-Prayer.)
One practical lesson, at any rate, is very plain in this expression. The first thing that is necessary, in order to make a man a true minister of the Gospel, is the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. Bishops and presbyters can lay hands on men, and make them clergymen. The Holy Ghost alone can make a " man of God," and a minister of God's Word. 23, — [ Whose soever sins ye remit, etc.] In this verse our Lord continues and concludes the commission for the office of ministers, which He now gives to His Apostles after rising from the dead. His work as a public Teacher was now finished. The Apostles henceforth were to carry it on. — The words which form this commission are very peculiar, and demand close attention. The meaning of the words, I believe, may be paraphrased thus: " I confer on you the power of declaring and pronouncing authoritatively whose sins are forgiven, and whose sins are not forgiven. I bestow on you the office of pronouncing who are pardoned, and who are not, just as the Jewish high priest pronounced who were clean, and who were unclean, in cases of leprosy." — I believe that nothing more than this authority to declare can be got out of the words, and I entirely repudiate and reject the strange notion maintained by some, that our Lord meant to depute to the Apostles, or any others, the power of absolutely pardoning or not pardoning, absolving or not absolving, any one's soul. My reasons for maintaining tliis view of the text are as follows:
(a) The power of forgiving sins, in Scripture, is always spoken of as the special prerogative of God. The Jews themselves admitted this, when they said, " Who can forgive sins but God only?" (Mark ii. 7, Luke v. 21.) It is monstrous to suppose that our Lord meant to overthrow and alter this great principle when He commissioned His disciples.
(6) The language of the Old Testament Scripture shows conclusively, that the Prophets were said to " DO " things, when they " DECLARED them about to be done." Thus Jeremiah's commission runs in these words, " I have this day set thee over the nations, and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant." (Jer. i. 10.) This can only mean to declare the rooting out and pulling down, etc. — So also Ezekiel says, " I came to destroy the city " (Ezck. xliii. 3;) where the marginal reading is, " I came to prophesy the city should be destroyed." The Apostles were doubtless well acquainted with prophetical language, and I believe they interpreted our Lord's words in tkis place accordingly.
(c) There is not a single instance in the Acts or Epistles, of an Apostle taking on himself to absolve, pardon, or forgive any one. The Apostles and preachers of the New Testament declare in the plainest language whose sin is pardoned and absolved, but they never take on themselves to pardon and absolve. When Peter said to Cornelius and his friends, " Whosoeve: believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins" (Acts xvi. 43); when Paul said at Antioch, in Pisidia, " We declare unto you glad tidings; " " Through this Man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins " (Acts xiii. 82, 38); and when Paul said to the Philippian jailor, " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved " (Acts xvi. 31), — in each case they fulfilled the commission of the text before us. They " declared whose sins were remitted, and whose were retained."
(d) There is not a single word in the three pastoral Epistles, written by St. Paul to Timothy and Titus, to show that the Apostle regarded absolution as part of tlie ministerial office. If it was he would surely have mentioned it, and urged the practice of it on young ministers, for the relief of burdened souls.
(e) The weakness of human nature is so great, that it is grossly improbable that such a tremendous power as that of absolutely pardoning and absolving souls, would ever be committed to any mortal man. It would be highly injurious to any man to trust him with such a power, and would be a continued temptation to him to usurp the office of a Mediator between God and man.
(/) The experience of the Romish Church, in which the priests are practically regarded as having the power to absolve sinners, and shut heaven against persons not absolved, affords the strongest indirect evidence that our Lord's words can only have meant to bear a " declarative " sense. Anything worse or more mischievous, both to minister and people, than the results of the Romish system of penance and absolution, it is impossible to conceive. It is a system which has practically degraded the laity, puffed up and damaged the clergy, turned people away from Christ, and kept them in spiritual darkness and bondage.
A question of no small interest arises out of the text before us, which it may be well to consider. Was the ministerial office and commission conferred on the Apostles by our Lord in this place an office which they transmitted to others, with all its privileges and powers?
I answer, without hesitation, that in the strictest sense the commission of the Apostles was not transmitted, but was confined to them and St. Paul. I challenge any one to deny that the Apostles possessed certain ministerial qualifications which were quite peculiar to tliem, and which they could not transmit, and did not transmit to others. (1) They had the gift of declaring the Gospel without error, and with infallible accuracy, to an extent that no one after them did. (2) They confirmed their teaching by miracles. (3) They were, some of them, plenarily inspired by the Holy Ghost to write portions of the New Testament. (4) They had the power of discerning spirits, and knowing the hearts of others to an extent that no one after them possessed, as we see in the case of Peter's dealing with Ananias, Sapphira, and Simon Magus. In all these respects they stood alone, and had no successors. In the strictest sense there is no such thing as Apostolical succession. Modern ministers are not successors of the Apostles, but of Timothy and Titus. The Apostles were peculiarly qualified, and gifted, and furnished for the very peculiar work they had to do, as the first founders of Churches. But, in the strictest and most accurate sense, their office was one which was not transmitted. With them it began, and with them it ended.
But while I say all this, I maintain as strongly as any one, that there is a sense in which the verse now before us applies to all Christian ministers, and in this sense their commission resembles that of the Apostles. It is the office of every minister of Christ to declare boldly, authoritatively, and with decision, out of God's Word, who they are whose sins are forgiven, and who they are whose sins are retained. This is his commission, and this the work for which he is set apart and ordained. Whenever a minister in his pulpit proclaims the full Gospel of Christ faithfully, he does the work which our Lord in this verse commissioned the Apostles to do, and may take comfort in the thought that he may expect our Lord's blessing. He cannot do it with such infallible power as the Apostles, but in a sense he is really their follower and successor.
The whole subject opened up in this verse is so important in modern days, that I make no apology for quoting the following passage from Bishop Jewell's Apology, which throws light on it:—
Jewell says, " We say, that Christ has given to His ministers the power of binding and loosing, of opening and shutting. And we say, that the power of loosing consists in this, that the minister, by the preaching of the Gospel, offers to dejected minds and true penitents, through the merits of Christ, absolution, and doth assure them a certain remission of their sins, and the hopes of eternal salvation; or, secondly, reconciles, restores, and receives into the congregation and unity of the faithful, those penitents, who by any grievous scandal or known and public offence have offended the minds of their brethren, and in a sort alienated and separated themselves from the common society of the Church and the body of Christ. And we say the minister doth exercise the power of binding or shutting, when he shutteth the gate of the kingdom of heaven against un
believers and obstinate persons, and denouncetli to them the vengeance of God and eternal punishment; or excludeth out of the bosom of the Church, those that are publicly excommunicated; and that God Himself doth so far approve whatever sentence His ministers shall so give, that whatsoever is either loosed or bound by their ministry here on earth, He Avill in like manner bind or loose and confirm in heaven. The key with which these ministers do shut or open the kingdom of heaven, we say, with St. Chrysostom, is the knowledge of the Scripture; with Tertullian, is tJie interpretation of the law; and with Eusebius, is the Word of God. We say the disciples of Christ received this power (from Him) not that they might hear the private confessions of the people, and catch their whispering murmurs, as the Popish priests everywhere now do, and that in Buch a manner as if all the force and use of the keys consisted only in this; but that they might go and preach and publish the Gospel, that so they might be a savor of life unto life, to them that did believe; and that they might be also a savor of death unto death, to those that did not believe; that the minds of those who were affrighted with the sense of their former ill lives and errors, after they beheld the light of the Gospel, and believed in Christ, might be opened by the Word of God, as doors are with a key: and that the wicked and stubborn, who would not believe and return into the way, might be left, shut up, and locked, and, as St. Paul expresseth it (2 Tim. iii. 13), might " wax worse and worse." This we take to be the meaning of the keys, and that in this manner the consciences of men are either bound or loosed."
Calvin observes, " When Christ enjoins the Apostles to forgive sins. He does not convey to them what is peculiar to Himself. It belongs to Him to forgive sins. This honor, so far as it belongs peculiarly to Himself, He does not surrender to the Apostles. He only enjoins them, in His name, to proclaim the forgiveness of sins, that through their agency He may reconcile men to God."
Brentius says, " This is the true and heavenly mode of remitting sins: to wit, the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Those who do not preach the Gospel of Christ have no power of either remitting or retaining sins."
Bullinger says, " The Apostles remitted men's sins, when by the preaching of the Gospel they taught that the sins of believers were remitted, and eternal life granted through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They retained men's Bins when they announced that the wrath of God remained on those who believed not."
Gualter says, *' At this day ministers are said to remit sins when they promise remission of them in Christ to those who believe, and to retain sins when they denounce damnation on the unbelieving and obstinately impenitent."
Musculus says tliat this promise does not belong " to every
and any minister, but to the real minister of the G^ospel, who teaches nothing, promises nothing else but this, — that those who repent and believe on Christ have remission of sin and eternal life, and that those who are impenitent and unbelieving remain in their sins and death. Doctrine like this is ratified and confirmed before God, because it is agreeable to the Gospel of the Son of God."
Lightfoot thinks that, in interpreting these words, we must carefully remember that they were probably spoken in close connection with our Lord's words in St. Liike, when He says that " repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name, beginning at Jerusalem." (Luke xxiv. 46.) He thinks that on hearing these words, scruples might arise in the Apostles' minds: "Is this so indeed? Must remission of sin be really preached in Jerusalem to men stained with Messiah's blood V " And then he thinks these words are spoken to encourage them. " Yes: you are to begin at Jerusalem. For whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them." Finally, Lightfoot asks, with much sense, " On what foundation and with what confidence could the Apostles have preached remission of sins to such wretched men as the murderers of their Lord, unless authorized by a peculiar commission granted by the Lord Himself? "
Poole says, " The question among divines is whether Christ in this text has given authority to His ministers actually to discharge men of the guilt of their sins; or only to declare to them that if their repentance and faith be true, their sins are really forgiven. The former view is contended for by many. But it does not seem reasonable (1) that God should betrust man with such a piece of His prerogative; and (2) that God who knoweth the falsehood of men's hearts, and the inability of the best minister to judge of the truth of any man's repentance and faith, as also the passions to which they are subject, should give to any of the sous of men an absolute power under Him to discharge any from the guilt of sin. Certain it is that without true repentance and faith in Christ no man hath his gins forgiven; so that no minister, who knoweth not the hearts of men, can possibly say to any man with certainty. Thy sins are forgiven. What certainty the Apostles might have had by the Spirit of discernment, we cannot say. But certain it is, that none hath now such certainty of any man's faith and repentance. Hence it is to me apparent, that no man hath any further power from Christ than to declare to men, that if they truly repent and believe, their sins are really forgiven. Only the minister, being Christ's interpreter and ambassador, and better able to judge of true faith and repentance than others (though not certainly and infallibly), such declarations from a faithful, able minister are of more weight and authority than from others. This is the most, 1 conceive, should be in this matter."
I leave the whole passage with one general word of caution. Whatever sense we place on the words, let us beware that we do not give to ministers, of any name or denomination, a place, power, authority, position, or privilege, which Christ never gave them. Putting ministers out of their proper place has been the root of ezidless superstition and corruption in Christ's Church. To regard ministers as mediators between Christ and the soul, to confess to them privately and receive private absolution from them, is a system for which there is no authority in the New Testament, and the high road to every kind of evil. It is a system equally mischievous to ministers and to people, utterly subversive of the Gospel, and thoroughly dishonoring to the priestly office of Christ.
The three absolutions found in the Liturgy of the Church of England, (1) that in the Morning and Evening Prayer, (2) that in the Communion Service, and (3) that in the Visitation for the Sick, were all, in my judgment, intended to bear only a declarative sense. But I can never refrain from saying that the absolution in the Visitation Service is liable to be misunderstood, and its wording is to be regretted.
England neither maintains nor countenances the opinion, that a priest, by virtue of his ordination, has an absolute, unconditional power to forgive sin. The pov\'er that the clergy have received and exercised, is purely ministerial, being defined and limited by the Word of God, which expressly declares upon what condition sin shall be remitted, and upon what retained. To suppose that any minister of Christ, since the Apostles, possesses the power of remitting or retaining sin at his discretion, is repugnant to the whole tenor of Scripture, as well as to every dictate of reason and common sense."
24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesua came.
25 The other disciples therefore said unto him. We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger mto the print of the naus, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and.stood in the midst, and said, Peace he unto you.
27 Tlien saith he to Thomas, Keach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy
hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
The story of the unbelief of Thomas, related in these verses, is a narrative peculiar to the Gospel of St. John. For wise and good reasons it is passed over in silence by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and was probably not given to the world till Thomas was dead. It is precisely one of those passages of Scripture which supply strong internal evidence of the honesty of the inspired writers. If impostors and deceivers had compiled the Bible for their own private advantage, they would never have told mankind that one of the first founders of a new religion behaved as Thomas here did.
We should mark, for one thing, in these verses, how much Christians may lose hy not regularly attending the assemblies of God?s people, Thomas was absent the first time that Jesus appeared to the disciples after His resurrection, and consequently Thomas missed a blessing. Of course we have no certain proof that the absence of the Apostle could not admit of explanation. Yet, at such a crisis in the lives of the eleven, it seems highly improbable that he had any good reason for not being with his brethren, and it is far more likely that in some way he was to blame. One thing, at any rate, is clear and plain. By being absent he was kept in suspense and unbelief a whole week, while all around him were rejoicing in the thought of a risen Lord. It is difficult to suppose that this would have been the case, if there had not been a fault somewhere. It is hard to avoid the suspicion that Thomas was absent when he might have been present.
We shall all do well to remember the charge of the Apostle St. Paul: " Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together, as the manner of some is." (Heb. x. 25.) Never to be absent from God's house on Sundays, without good reason, — never to miss" the Lord's Supper when administered in our own congregation, — never to let our place be empty when means of grace are going on, this is one way to be a growing and prosperous Christian. The very sermon that we needlessly miss, may contain a precious word in season for our souls. The very assembly for prayer and praise from which we stay away, may be the very gathering that would have cheered, and stablished, and quickened our hearts. We little know how dependent our spiritual health is on little, regular, habitual helps, and how much we suffer if we miss our medicine. The wretched argument that many attend means of grace and are no better for them, should be no argument to a Christian. It may satisfy those who are blind to their own state, and destitute of grace, but it should never satisfy a real servant of Christ. Such an one should remember the words of Solomon: " Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors." (Prov. viii. 34.) Above all he should bind around his heart the Master's promise: '* Wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matt, xviii. 20.) Such a man will rarely be left like Thomas, shut out in the cold chill of unbelief, while others are warmed and filled.
We should mark for another thing in this verse, how hind and merciful Christ is to dull and slow believers. Nowhere, perhaps, in all the four Gospels, do we find this part of our Lord's character so beautifully illustrated as in the story before our eyes. It is hard to imagine anything more tiresome and provoking than the conduct of Thomas, when even the testimony of ten faithful brethren had no effect on him, and he doggedly declared, "Except I see with my own eyes and touch with my own hands, I will not believe." But it is impossible to imagine anything more patient and compassionate, than our Lord's treatment of this weak disciple.
He does not reject him, or dismiss him, or excommunicate him. He comes again at the end of a week, and apparently for the special benefit of Thomas. He deals with him according to his weakness, like a gentle nurse dealing with a froward child: — "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side." If nothing but the grossest, coarsest, most material evidence could satisfy him, even that evidence was supplied. Surely this was a love that passeth knowledge, and a patience that passeth understanding.
A passage of Scripture like this, we need not doubt, was written for the special comfort of all true believers. The Holy Ghost knew well that the dull, and the slow, and the stupid, and the doubting, are by far the commonest type of disciples in this evil world. The Holy Ghost has taken care to supply abundant evidence that Jesus is rich in patience as well as compassion, and that He bears with the infirmities of all His people. Let us take care that we drink into our Lord's spirit, and copy His example. Let us never set down men in a low place, as gracious and godless, because their faith is feeble and their love is cold. Let us remember the case of Thomas, and be very pitiful and of tender mercy. Our Lord has many weak children in His family, many dull pupils in His school, many raw soldiers in His army, many lame sheep in His flock. Yet He bears with them all, and casts none away. Happy is that Christian who has learned to deal likewise with his brethren. There are many in the Church, who, like Thomas, are dull and slow, but for all that, like Thomas, are real and true believers.
We should mark, lastly, in these verses, how Christ was addressed by a disciple as " God^^^ loithout prohibition or rebuke on His /^ar^. The noble exclamation which burst from the lips of Thomas, when convinced that his Lord had risen indeed, — the noble exclamation, "My Lord and my God," — admits of only one meaning. It was a distinct testimony to our blessed Lord's divinity. It was a clear, unmistakable declaration that Thomas believed Him, whom he saw and touched that day, to be not only man, but God. Above all, it was a testimony which our Lord received and did not prohibit, and a declaration which He did not say one word to rebuke. When Cornelius fell down at the feet of Peter and would have worshipped him, the Apostle refused such honor at once: " Stand up; I myself also am a man." (Acts x. 26.) When the people of Lystra would have done sacrifice to Paul and Barnabas, " they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, saying, Sirs, w^hy do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you." (Acts xiv. 14.) But when Thomas says to Jesus, '* My Lord and my God," the words do not elicit a syllable of reproof from our holy and truthloving Master. Can we doubt that these things were written for our learning?
Let us settle it firmly in our minds that the divinity of Christ is one of the grand foundation truths of Christianity, and let us be willing to go to the stake rather than let it go. Unless our Lord Jesus is very God of very God, there is an end of His mediation, His atonement. His advocacy. His priesthood, His whole work of redemption. These glorious doctrines are useless blasphemies, unless Christ is divine. Forever let us bless God that the divinity of our Lord is taught everywhere in the Scriptures, and stands on evidence that can never be overthrown. Above all, let us daily repose our sinful souls on Christ with undoubting confidence, as one who is perfect God as well as perfect man. He is man, and therefore can be touched with the feeling of our in- firraities. He is God, and therefore is " able to save to the uttermost all who come unto God by Him." That Christian has no cause to fear, who can Iook to Jesus byfaith, and say with Thomas, " My Lord and my God." With such a Saviour we need not be afraid to begin the life of real religion, and with such a Saviour we may boldly go on.
2i.—[But Thomas one...tweUe...Didymus^ The story of the second appearance of Christ to the whole company of the Apostles, for the special benefit of Thomas, is one of those narratives which are only found in St. John's Gospel. We ought to feel thankful that it has been recorded. It is precisely one of those stories which supply strong indirect evidence of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures and the genuine honesty of the Gospel writers. An uninspired man, much less a dishonest impostor, would not have told us of the unbelief of a chosen Apostle. Moreover it is one of those stories which throw most useful light on a very interesting subject. That subject is the great variety of temperament which may be found among true Christians.
Chrysostom remarks, " Observe the truthfulness of the disciples. They hide no faults, either their own or others; but record them with great veracity."
Cardinal Bellarmine, according to Gerhard, goes so far as to Bay that the history of Thomas, like that of Noah's drunkenness, David's adultery, and Peter's denial, is a reason why the laity ought not to read the Bible, lest forsooth they should get harm! The worthy Cardinal forgets that we need beacons to warn us against danger, and examples of Christ's mercy to sinful and dull people in order to encourage us to repent.
Concerning the Apostle Thomas we know little. Twice in the G'ospel of St. John we find him saying something, and on each occasion he appears in the same character. When our Lord declared His intention of going to Bethany, and saya plainly that Lazarus is dead, Thomas says to his fellow-disciples, " Let us also go, that we may die with Him." (John xi. 16.) When our Lord in His parting address to His disciples said, " Whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. Thomas saith unto Him, Lord, we know not whither Thou goest; and how can we know the way?" (John xiv. 4, 5.) He always seems to be one of those desponding, fearful, gloomy-minded Christians, who look at the dark side of every subject and condition, and can never see a bit of blue sky, — who go on their way to heaven with real faith and true grace, but are so full of doubts and fears that they are unable to enjoy religion, and are a trouble to themselves and all around them. This I believe to be the true account of his character. The modern theory that he was a man of free thought and wide range of intellect, who wisely required reasonable evidence of everything in religion, and properly dreaded taking anything on trust, is a theory which I believe to be utterly without foundation, and I cannot receive it for a moment. He was simply a good man with a very doubting and gloomy turn of mind; — a man that really loved Jesus and was willing to die with Him, but a man who saw little but the dangers attending everything that a disciple had to do, and the difficulties belonging to everything which a disciple had to believe. There are many like him. It is a very useful picture. John Bunyan's " Fearing," " Despondency," and " Much afraid," in Pilgrim's Progress, are types of a large class of Christians, who are successors of the Apostle Thomas.
[Was not with them... Jesus came.'] The reasons why Thomas was not with the other ten Apostles on Sunday night when Jesus appeared to them, are not given, and we have no clue whatever to them. Most commentators consider that he was to blame; and that by his absence he missed a blessing, and was kept in suspense a week. I admit that this may be true, and I think his example teaches indirectly that it is unwise to be ever absent from the assembly of God's people without good cause. But I believe we must not press this point too far, and must not lay too much blame on the Apostle, in the absence of direct evidence that he was in fault. For anything we know, he may have lodged at a greater distance from the place of meeting than any of the eleven, and thus been unable to reach the place at an earlier hour; or he may have been detained by necessary business. One thing is very certain: the disciples found no fault with Thomas for his absence when they said, " We have Been the Lord." Moreover, our Lord Himself, when He appears, does not blame Thomas for having been absent on a former occasion, but only chides his unbelief. The simplest view of the subject appears to me to be, that Thomas's absence was a part of his character. He was slow and dull in action as well as in perception, — the sort of man would always have been last in Church, and last in a meeting. In the present instance I venture to conjecture that he meant no harm, and intended to have been present when the ten Apostles met; but that he probably started late, walked slow, and was so absorbed in doubts, and fears, and anxious meditations about the prospects of Christ's disciples, that he never reached the place of meeting till Christ had withdrawn Himself.
The question has been needlessly raised by some, whether Thomas was not deprived of the gifts and privileges conferred on the other Apostles by his absence? Lightfoot sensibly re- plies, *' Surely not: it was a privilege common to tlie whole Ape <tolate, and peculiar to them as Apostles. St. Paul was distant, while these things happened, both from apostleship and religion. Yet, when made an Apostle, he was at once adorned with this privilege." Some think that his case is like Eldad and Medad, who had their share of the Spirit, though absent, like the rest of the seventy elders. (Num. xi. 27.)
25. — [^The other disciples...said...seen the Lord.] We are not told when and where the disciples said this. I incline to believe that they said it the very evening that our Lord first appeared to them, and that Thomas came into the assembly very shortly after the Lord disappeared. To my eyes it reads as if the ten Apostles all exclaimed together, full of joy and delight at what they had seen and heard, " Thomas, we have just seen our Lord aud Master! If you had been here a little sooner, you also would have seen Him." I think this for two reasons, {a) The words of the twenty-sixth verse, " after eight days," seem to indicate that there were eight days between our Lord's first appearance and his second, and also eight days between Thomas's expression of unbelief and his being convinced. (&) It seems highly improbable that Thomas would allow a whole day and night to pass away, after the rumor of our Lord's body having been removed from the sepulchre had spread through Jerusalem, without seeking out the other Apostles and inquiring what it meant. Slow and dull in faith as he was, he would hardly sleep without finding out somethiDg about it. These considerations incline me to believe, that before the ten Apostles had time to separate, after our Lord's appearance to them, Thomas came in. Then they told him immediately, that they had just seen the Lord. And then came the remarkable declaration which the doubting Apostle made.
[But he said unto them. Except, etc.] The unbelief of Thomas, expressed in this famous sentence, was a sad fault in a good man, which cannot be explained away. He refused to believe the testimony of ten competent witnesses, who had seen Christ in the body with their own eyes. He refused to believe the testimony of ten true friends and brethren, who could have no object in deceiving him. He passionately declares that he will not believe, unless he himself sees and touches our Lord's body. He presumes to prescribe certain conditions, which must be fulfilled before he can credit the report of his brethren. He uses singularly emphatic language to express his scepticism: — " Others may believe if they like; but I shall not and will not believe until I see and touch for myself." — All this was very sad and very sinful. Thomas might have remembered that at this rate nothing could ever be proved by witnesses; and that he himself, as a teacher, could never expect men to believe him. His case shows us how foolishly and weakly a believer may speak sometimes, and how, under the influence of depression and doubt, he may say things of which afterwards he is heartily ashamed.
After all, the case of Thomas is not an uncommon one. Some people are so strangely constituted that they distrust, everybody, regard all men as liars, and will believe nothing except they can see it all, and work it all out for themselves. They have a rooted dislike to receive anything on trust, or from the testimony of others, and must always go over the ground for themselves. In people of this kind, though they know it not, there is often a vast amount of latent pride and self-conceit; and it is almost ludicrous to observe how entirely they forget that the business of daily life could never go on, if we were always doubting everything which we could not see for ourselves. Nevertheless they exist in the Church, and always will exist; and the case of Thomas shows what trouble they bring on themselves.
Two things must, in fairness, be remembered, which form some slight extenuation of Thomas's unbelief. For one thing it does not appear that any one of our Lord's Apostles ever understood, up to the time of our Lord's crucifixion, that he was really going to be crucified, buried, and rise again. Simple a3 these great facts appear to us now, it is perfectly certain that they formed no part of the creed of the Apostles, so long as our Lord was with them. This may seem astonishing, but it is true. They believed that Christ was the Messiah, but they did not realize a crucified Messiah. Of these Apostles, I would remind the reader, Thomas was one. Does not all this throw a little light on his extraordinary scepticism about the reality of the resurrection? For another thing we must remember, that Thomas, like all Jews, had a firm belief in the reality of spirits and ghosts, and the possibility of their appearing. Even after this, when Peter was delivered from prison, and came to the house of John, surnamed Mark, the disciples said, " It is his angel." (Acts xii. 15.) May we not therefore conceive it possible that Thomas, overwhelmed and confounded at the astounding news that Christ had been seen, would cling, with his characteristic incredulity, to the notion that the Apostles had only seen Christ's spirit or ghost? That they had seen something he did not dispute, but that what they had seen was the real material body of his Lord, he could not bring himself to believe. These things are worth considering. I do not for a moment excuse or defend Thomas. I only remind those who condemn him wholesale, and can find no words strong enough to use about his unbelief, that it was not quite so easy for a pious Jew, brought up and trained as Thomas had been, to receive at once the resurrection of our Lord as a proved thing, as it may appear at first sight to an English mind.
Musculus remarks, how extraordinary the unbelief of Thomas seems, when we consider that he not only had heard our Lord frequently foretell His resurrection, but had actually within a few weeks seen Lazarus raised from the dead at Bethany 1
Bengel remarks, " No doubt Thomas seemed to himself to be
entertaining and expressing sentiments altogether judicious. But unbelief, while it attributes defects in judgment to otliers, often itself discovers and betrays hardness of heart, and in that hardness slowness of belief."
26. — [And after eight days again, etc.] This verse describes how Jesus was graciously pleased to appear again to the company of the Apostles, for the express purpose of convincing and satisfying the mind of Thomas.
He came " after eight days." That means a week according to the Jewish manner of expressing a space of time, by which the first and last days were always reckoned in, if any part of them was employed. Thus our Lord was buried on Friday afternoon and rose again on Sunday morning, and was actually only thirty-six hours in the grave. But a Jew would say that He was " three days " buried. It thus appears that, both on the first and second times when our Lord appeared to the Apostles, it was a Sunday. Poole remarks that we have here the beginning of keeping holy the first day of the week.
He came when the disciples were " within." That means that they were assembled in a room, and probably in the same house where they had assembled before. The conviction and reproof of a weak disciple was a thing which was mercifully transacted in private, and among friends. We cannot doubt, moreover, that at this period the disciples would hardly dare to assemble in the open air anywhere about Jerusalem. The rumor that they stole the body of our Lord would still be rife in the city, and they might well feel the necessity of caution.
He came when " Thomas was with them." That means that He timed His visit, so that not one of the Apostles were missing. He knew exactly who were assembled, and where they were assembled, and He ordered His appearance accordingly. It should be a great comfort to believers to remember that their Lord's eye is always upon them, and that He knows exactly in what place and in what company they are.
He came " when the doors were shut." That means that He appeared exactly under the same circumstances under which He appeared a week before, in an evening, when the doors were carefully closed for fear of the Jews. Thus, as on the previous Sunday, He suddenly, without a moment's notice, stood in the midst of the assembled disciples.
He came with the same gracious salutation with which He had appeared before. Once more, the first word that fell from His lips is " Peace be unto you." Thomas was there. The disciple who made his emphatic declaration of unbelief, might well expect to hear some word of rebuke. But our Lord makes no exception. He saw Thomas, and well knew all that Thomas had said; and yet to him, as well as to the other ten. He onco more says " Peace."
We should note carefully the amazing kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ to a weak disciple, and the trouble He was pleased to take, if I may use such a phrase with due reverence, about one single soul. The unbelief of Thomas was most provoking and inexcusable, and if he had been cast out of the company of disciples we could not have said His excommunication was undeserved. But our Lord cares tenderly for this weak member of His mystical body, and specially appears in order to heal and restore him. What a wonderful example He gives to all His people! How kind we ought to be to weak brethren, and how ready to take any pains and trouble if we can only do them good! The Christian of modern times, who is ready to excommunicate every one who cannot speak his shibboleth, and see every point of doctrine and ceremonial with his eyes, — the Christian who is ready to turn away from every brother who is overtaken in a fault, as graceless, godless, and unconverted, — Buch a Christian may flatter himself that he is very zealous and faithful. But he is a Christian who lias not got the mind of Christ. What Christ did for Thomas, we ought to be ready to do for others.
T>et us not forget that Thomas continued a whole week in unbelief and doubt, while his brethren around him were rejoicing. We may well believe that it was not a very happy week with him. He that sows a short period of scepticism often reaps a long period of trouble.
Rupertus, almost alone, maintains that the second appearance of our Lord, for the special benefit of Thomas, was in Galilee, in Nazareth, at the house of Mary. But the vast majority of commentators think that it was at Jerusalem.
Musculus observes how kind and brotherly was the dealing of the ten Apostles with Thomas. They did not excommunicate him, and cast him out of their society for his unbelief, but allowed him to assemble with them as before.
RoUock observes,"The loving dealing of the Lord with Thomas teaches us this comfortable lesson. The Lord marks not narrowly the infirmities and wants that are in His own. He looks not narrowly to the weakness of their faith, to the imperfections and wants of their prayers and requests, for their prayers are full of imperfections, He oversees their infirmities. He misknows the corruption wherein their faith and prayers and desires are involved, and hath a regard to their faith, albeit they have it in small measure."
2,7.— [TJien saith He to Thomas, etc.'] The verse before us is a wonderful instance of Christ's pitifulness and condescension. To come into the world at all, and take a body on Him, — to allow that body to be scourged, crowned with thorns, nailed to the cross, and laid in the grave, — all this, beyond doubt, was astonishing condescension. But when the victory over sin and death was won, and He had taken on Him His resurrection body, to come to a doubting, sceptical disciple, and bid him touch. Him, put his finger into the nail-prints on His hands, and put his hand into the great wound in His side, — all this was a condescension which we can never sufficiently admire and adore.
The last sentence of the verse is a rebuke and an exhortation at the same time. It would have been more literally rendered, " Be not an unbeliever, but a believer." It is not merely a reproof to Thomas for his scepticism on this particular occasion, but an urgent counsel to be of a more believing turn of mind for time to come. — " Shake off this habit of doubting, questioning, and discrediting every one. Give up thine unbelieving disposition. Become more willing to believe and trust, and give credit to testimony for time to come." — No doubt the primary object of the sentence was to correct and chastise Thomas for his sceptical declaration on the preceding Sunday. But I believe our Lord had in view the further object of correcting Thomas's whole character, and directing his attention to his besetting sin. How many there are among us who ought to take to themselves our Lord's words 1 How faithless we often are, and how slow to believe!
Let us note here, as already remarked, that the wounds on our Lord's body must have been still open, from the language He addresses to Thomas, and that the wound in His side must have been a very large wound, from His telling Thomas to thrust in his hand.
Let us not fail to observe our Lord's perfect knowledge of all that passed on the previous Sunday, of all that the Apostles had said, and of the sceptical declaration which Thomas had made. Such knowledge showed clearly that He was God and not man. He hears every idle word that we say, and notes all our conversation.
Let us observe our Lord's thorough acquaintance with the special faults and besetting sins of every one of His people. He saw that Thomas's defect was his unbelief, and so He says, " Be not faithless, but believing."
28. — [And Thomas...my Lord...my God.] The famous answer of Thomas, contained in this verse, is precisely the short interjectional exclamation of a man taken by surprise, convinced at once of his own grievous mistake, and so overwhelmed by a variety of feelings that he is unable for the moment to use many words. It is the language of amazement, delight, repentance, faith and adoration, all combined in one sentence.
Whether it is to be taken in the third person, as an exclamation, " It is my Lord and my God! " or in the second person, as an adoring, loving, believing address, " Thou art my Lord and my God," is an open question which the original GreeK does not settle. If I must give an opinion, I prefer the second person. But in either case the sense is good.
The text before us is one of those which are justly quoted, as an unanswerable proof of the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. He is called " God " in the presence of ten witnesses, and He accepts the language, and does not say one word to reprove the person who uses it. Unless a person is prepared to deny the inspiration of St. John's Gospel generally, or the genuineness and correctness of this text in particular, it is hard to see how the force of the sentence in favor of Christ's divinity can be evaded. The suggestion of Theodoras of Mopsuestia, and some modern Socinians, that Thomas only used a kind of oath or exclamation, which he did not mean to apply to Christ Himself, is utterly untenable, and almost profane. It is unreasonable to suppose that a pious Jew, like Thomas, would take God's name in vain and break the third commandment, however much he might be surprised. Moreover, there is no proof whatever, although a careless Greek, Romau, or Englishman, might say " My God," when suddenly taken by surprise, that any such expression was in use among the Jews. In short there is, in my judgment, but one way of regarding the text, if we treat it honestly. It is an incontrovertible proof that Thomas looked on Christ as God, and addressed Him to His face as God, and that our Lord made no objection, and did not reprove him.