At some time during this last Galilean ministry Jesus laid upon the apostles the importance of a return to Jerusalem. There they must “wait for the promise of the Father, which ye have heard of me.” This promise of a gift of Holy Spirit power was one which had been repeatedly made to them. They needed this divine help. How could they, out of their own puny mental equipment, understand all that had been committed to them, or bring all things concerning the words and works of Jesus to remembrance? How could they convince the world of its sin, and of God’s righteousness in Christ, and of Messiah’s judgment to come? (Jn. 16:7-11). How could they guide the growing ecclesia into all truth or bid it set its hope on the salvation that was yet to be brought in the revelation of Jesus Christ? For such work to be done with truth and power, the dependable guidance of the Holy Spirit was palpably necessary. On an earlier occasion, when Jesus had sent them forth preaching and healing, the Spirit’s guidance had been openly manifest. Soon, promised Jesus, they would know the powers of this heavenly Advocate and Guide in yet more startling fashion.

But where else could this bestowal of heavenly grace be made except in Jerusalem, for did not one of the prophecies which Jesus himself had expounded speak of an abundant outpouring of the Spirit in Jerusalem? It was emphatically declared in the context of that promise that: “in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call” (Joel 2:28-32).

The promise of the Comforter had plainly implied that these disciples were to be left without the strength and inspiration of their Master’s personal presence. But human nature is always loth to face up honestly to unpalatable truth. So this discouraging aspect of Christ’s words they quietly ignored, and concentrated instead on the unmistakable fact that the Joel prophecy of the Holy Spirit was closely associated with the bringing in of Messiah’s kingdom.

‘Preach! preach!’

Accordingly, then, when Jesus re-joined them in Jerusalem, they pressed eager enquiries upon him: “Wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” Their minds were filled with an expectation even more intense than at the time of their Lord’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem. But from Jesus came no encouragement whatever of their mood of confidence.

‘It is not for you to know beforehand when this desired consummation shall be,” he said. This remains in the Father’s knowledge only. But, (he added, apparently changing the subject abruptly) there is meantime an important job for you to do, and God’s gift of Holy Spirit power is specially to help you in it. This message concerning me is to be made known to all men through your preaching. Here, then, is your task. You will begin, of course, in Jerusalem and the area around it, next go to the Samaritans (an unexpected commission!), and then (when they were expecting a big emphasis on Galilee, the scene of his own major effort) go to the remotest parts of the earth.” (cp. also: “Revelation” HAW, p.268).

Their Jewish outlook would allow them to interpret the last part of this commission in only one way — they were to extend their assignment to include Jews everywhere (see Acts 11:19), even in the obscure corners of the Roman Empire and in the eastern countries where the legions had never marched. Even with this limited interpretation it remains a matter of no little surprise that they were so unenterprising in the fulfilment of their mandate. Years later they were still in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and had to be forced further afield by the ravages of the wolf of Benjamin. Their Lord really had meant “all nations.”

There is another aspect of this commission now entrusted to the apostles. Was Jesus abruptly changing the subject when he spoke in this way, or was he saying: “It is not for you to know precisely when the kingdom is to be established, but I can tell you this—the coming of that great Day depends on yourselves and the work of preaching which you and your successors do in my name”? Not that the kingdom was or is to be brought in through preaching (if so, the work of Christ is a permanent failure), but rather that in the divine purposes there is a subtle connection between the way men respond to the message of the kingdom and the time of the Lord’s coming to establish it. (The RV of Acts 3:19,20 and 2 Peter 3:11,12 should be pondered here). This is a much-neglected meaning of Christ’s words.

If there was uncertainty regarding the scope of the task now assigned to them, it was an uncertainty in their own minds rather than in the Lord’s re-statement of it, for his language was unmistakably comprehensive in its scope: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel (this gospel of my resurrection and coming glory) to the whole creation.” What a contrast with his explicit instruction concerning their earlier preaching: “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5,6). But now no effort must be spared to take the message to men of every race and calibre: “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…” (Matthew 28:19). There is a neat suggestion about the shape of this expression in the Greek text that though the message was to be proclaimed to the masses, they were to be received into the church of Christ as individuals, each separately becoming a disciple. The same emphasis is even more pointed in Mark: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”

A triune baptism

This baptism was to be “into the name of the “Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Not a three-fold dipping, as some have erroneously inferred. This strange notion is vetoed both by the form of the words and by early church history. Nor was it intended to be an outward acknowledgment of belief in a Trinitarian creed, for such concepts did not crystallize out in the early church for well over a century after the writing of the gospels.

Some have argued for the omission of this three-fold baptismal formula, almost entirely on the ground that this passage is unique. But such cavalier methods betray a strange unscholarly attitude. The textual evidence in favour of Matthew 28:19 is overwhelming. However they are understood, the words must be accepted. For all its misdemeanours the early church must not be accused of a comprehensive forgery here. Two of the earliest Christian writings (the Didache and Justin Martyr) bear witness to the validity of these words. And, by implication, a mass of New Testament passages supports the vital idea that this baptism is the seal of a salvation which the Father has wrought for men through the death and resurrection of His only-begotten Son, a salvation which has been brought near to the’ believer through the power of the Holy Spirit in the message preached and passed on in inspired Holy Scripture. (The following are a few of the passages relevant to this theme: 1 Peter 1:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:13,14; Acts 2:33; 5:30-32; 15:8-11; 19:1-5; 1 Cor.6:l 1; 12:4-6; 2 Cor.l3:14; Jude 20,21; Matthew 23:8-10 R.V; Revelation 1:4,5 (See “Bible Studies”, ch. 12.09).

Continuing instruction

Very pointedly Jesus steered his disciples away from any mistaken notion of baptism into the Faith as a beginning and end. Once baptism was administered, there was still the need for “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I command you.” All too often the mistake has been made of spending long laborious hours on the careful systematic instruction and preparation of a candidate for baptism, only to leave the spiritual fledgeling to fend for himself once the rite has been administered. By contrast the words of Jesus stress the importance of expanding the spiritual education of converts after baptism. That this was a feature of life in the early church may be inferred from the fact that it was to assemblies largely made up of slaves and commoners that some of the most profound letters ever written in human history were addressed. A high level of spiritual perception is presupposed by the letters of Peter and Paul and John.

More than this, these words of Jesus convey also the impression that the pattern of community life which took shape in the early years of the church did not come about by accident or by any slavish following of Jewish precedents. All was according to the principles which Jesus himself had taught the apostles during those fruitful forty days.

Sensational signs

There was also a promise of dramatic vindication of the message: “These signs shall follow them that believe.” It is understandable that in an age dominated by a wonder-working paganism, these vivid and incontestable tokens of true divine power would be necessary as a decisive witness against the vested interests of well-organized cults of magic. Today the same signs would probably be more of a hindrance than a help to the well-balanced preaching of God’s saving grace in Christ. Indeed it is not altogether untrue to say that even the mention of signs here is read by some modern believers with misgivings: casting out devils, speaking with tongues, handling deadly snakes, drinking poison, healing the sick by the laying on of hands. Why should these powers be imparted to the early church and then so soon disappear, leaving later generations to apologize lamely for current ineffective witness and also leaving the door wide open for sensational charlatans with loud-mouthed claims to be the heirs of apostolic powers?

The withdrawal of the gifts of the Spirit is a thing to be profoundly thankful for. For, in the first place, this lapse of open Spirit blessing would never have happened had it not been in the best interests of the believers. The Lord has certainly done what is best for the well-being of his people. But, further, let it not be forgotten that the key virtue in Christian life is faith. What very limited scope there would be for faith today if these signs were openly available for the confutation of unbelief! “Blessed are they that have not seen (either empty tomb or Holy Spirit powers), and yet have believed.”

But those who have not seen are nevertheless blessed with their own opportunity to know the risen Lord through these narratives about him. For, although Jesus provided many other signs for his disciples during the wonderful Forty Days, these which are included in the record “are written that ye (readers further afield and of later days) might believe. “Indeed, the massive omissions John refers to were deliberate. It was “that ye might believe” – for the conviction that comes from seeing and handling is hardly of the same quality as the faith which has . had no opportunity to see as the disciples saw, and yet is happily content to read and to believe on the strength of that.

Luke wrote with the same intention and the same unwavering emphasis: “… that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed” (1:4). And thus, John adds, “continuing to believe, you may continue to have Life through his

name”—he uses Life here in his own special idiomatic sense (e.g. 3:15,36; 1 Jn.3:14_; 5:12,13).

John’s witness

Again, at the very end of his gospel John underlines that the writing of it has been part of his commission from the Lord. His witness is true not only because he himself saw with his own eyes (19:35) but also his record is authenticated by dependable witnesses.

The Muratorian Fragment (date c. 1 80 A.D.) has this remarkable story about how John’s gospel came to be written:

“It was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should narrate everything in his own name subject to the revision of the rest.”

And Clement of Alexandria (c. 190), obviously an independent witness, gives this account:

“The tradition of the elders from the first that John, last, having observed the bodily things that had been set forth in the gospels, on the exhortation of his friends, inspired by the Spirit produced a spiritual gospel.” Peter, the bishop of Alexandria in 300 A.D. says that he had seen the autograph copy.

Here, besides an emphatic declaration of divine inspiration, there is once again the mention of others associated with the apostle. Thus is explained the sudden occasional emergence of the pronoun “we”, not only in this passage (21:24), but also in John 1:14; 19:35, and also in several places in the Epistles:! Jn. l:lff_;5:9_;3Jn.12;(see”Seven Epistles” HAW).

It is worth noting also that, if John had contemporaries who out of their own experience could authenticate the apostle’s record, it must have been put on paper much earlier than his closing years when he was a really old man who had outlived his own generation.

The last verse of the gospel reads like a literary flourish. But is it that? –

“And there are also many other things which Jesus did (after his resurrection?) the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.”

The reason for this is (Ecc. l2:12) that much study of anything to do with Jesus is a weariness of the fleshly mind. So if a man would see himself transformed into a higher and better being, a bona fide member of God’s New Creation, let him lay aside all hopes of achievement through wrestling and high endeavour, and let him learn to relax in the fellowship of Christ. It was for this that John and the others wrote their gospels.

It may be that with his idiomatic use of kosmos (see ch. 107), the apostle meant it literally: The Jewish world will not be able to find room for books about the risen Jesus. They (e.g. Schonfeld) still seek to kill him, because his word has no place (s.w.) in them (Jn.8.-37).

Nevertheless, in spite of all disbelief, whether of orthodox Jew or religious Gentile, these things stand true — in token of which John appends his Amen: This is Truth!

NOTES: Matthew 28:18-20

19.	Teach = make disciples. It is not sufficient that a man be instructed. He must also be baptized, and follow.
	Therefore. Because (v. 18) all authority is now appointed for Jesus, therefore all nations must hear; Acts 17:31.
	In the name of… In Gen. 1, the word 6aracomes three times.
20.	All things: Acts 2:42.
	I am with you. The Forty Days taught them this. Cp. Ex.3:12; 4:12,15; Mt. l :23 (this gospel begins and ends with this).
	To the end of the world; The consummation or climax of the age; cp. 13:39,49; Dan. 12:13 s.w.

Mark 16:15-18

15.	Go ye into all the world; cp. Jn.20:21; 21:15; Col. 1:23 (the process under way); Ps. 19:4 (Rom. 10:1 8); and contrast Mt. 10:5,6.
	The gospel; i.e. this gospel: 1 Cor. 15:2
17.	Gk. dative.- to, or for, them that believe. How reconcile with 1 Cor.l4:22; Heb.2:3b,4?
	New tongues; i.e. new to the speakers.
18.	Serpents; Mt.23:33; Ps.91:13.

Luke 24:49

49.	I send the promise of my Father; Jn.14:16. Here ‘send’ is present tense.
	This detail and tarry ye in Jerusalem both suggest that this paragraph belongs to the end of the Forty Days.
	Tarry means, literally, sit. But after receiving the Holy Spirit they still sat, for something like 14 years. Why? The Judaist problem was the great hindrance (see “Acts”, H.A.W., ch.40).
	Endued; i.e. clothed — different from ‘in-breathed’ (Jn.20:22).

John 21:24,25

24.	This is the disciple; cp. the authentication in Ex.6:26,27 (& Mk. 16:18 follows Ex.4:4).
	Testifieth; 15:26,27. Many refs. in 1 Jn.5 allude to the writing of this gospel; see ‘Seven Epistles’ H.A.W
25.	I suppose Gk: dokeo is stronger than this; I am confident.
	The world itself. Possible meaning: the Jewish world would not be able to tolerate them — because of their implications concerning his Person and his Power.
	Amen; unwarrantably omitted by many modern texts.

258. Ascension (Luke 24:50-53; Mark 16:19,20; Acts 1:9-12)

There came a day when Jesus led the eleven out of Jerusalem, probably at first light of dawn, along the familiar road towards Bethany. It was by this road that he had made his triumphal entry into the city. It was by this road that he had left the city each evening in the week before his crucifixion. It was by this road that he had led the disciples to his last Gethsemane. Now, once again, he was to be taken from them, but not this time to the accompaniment of hatred and threats. During the past weeks their minds had been prepared for their Lord’s departure by his discourses concerning the work they were to do in his absence and also by the unnatural suddenness of his appearances and disappearances. Now they had good reason to believe that even when he seemed to be absent from them, he was still present, though unseen.

The Ascension is described by Luke (twice) and by Mark, but a careful reading of Matthew and John reveals that they imply it: Mt.24:30; Jn.3:13; 16:7; 21:23.

All the manifestations of the risen Jesus had been to believers only — “not to all people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even unto us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.” But it is an impressive thought that on this last occasion, if on no other, as Jesus led his brethren out of the city, down into the valley, and up the oblique climb of Olivet, he must have been seen by others who were all unaware that the Glory of God passed by.

They breasted the slope until Bethany came in sight over the shoulder of the hill, and then Jesus bade them farewell — not the conventional goodbye of a departing friend, but a true “God be with you.

He gave them his blessing, the blessing of a true Melchizedek-Priest (Gen.14:1 9). In doing so, he uplifted those hands (Lev.9:22) in which the marks of crucifixion were still plainly to be seen. Probably he used the words of the familiar benediction, for now none had any right to use them but himself:

“The Lord bless thee, and keep thee:

the Lord make his face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace” (Numbers 6:24-26).

The Shekinah Glory

Even as the words were spoken, the Lord was taken up from before them. It was the experience of Elijah over again, and with a like significance — not the end of a ministry, but a change to a different kind of ministry. The impressive signs and wonders were henceforth to give way to a ministry of the “still small voice” among the seven thousand who would not bow the knee to Baal.

It would be a mistake to imagine the eyes of the disciples following Jesus on high until he was lost from their view in the misty vapours of a morning cloud. If this was all that the record intended to say, the detail would be almost too trivial to be worth mentioning. This cloud was the Shekinah Glory of God which had been manifest in cloud and fire to Abraham, to Moses and the children of Israel, to David, to Hezekiah, to Elijah and Elisha, and to the disciples on the mount of transfiguration. It was the Glory of the Lord which John was to see in Patmos and which all the world will behold when Jesus comes again “in the glory of his Father.” “Behold, he cometh with clouds ,” in like manner as he was received up.

In this manifestation of heavenly glory lies the explanation of Luke’s added detail that “they worshipped him.” They received his high-priestly blessing as Israel received a benediction from their high-priest, in an attitude of worship. Then they stood, staring into the sky to catch any last glimpse of their Lord. The ascension of Jesus was no instantaneous thing, for the Greek verb: “carried up”, is continuous. And in his return he will “so come in like manner” — and only disciples will be able to observe and understand and marvel.

The apostles would have stared for a while longer had not their attention been claimed by two men of startling appearance. Vivid white raiment, impressive demeanour, and tone of authority all proclaimed them angels of heaven, perhaps the very angels who had announced the resurrection of Jesus to the women at the tomb.

“Ye men of Galilee (they knew who the disciples were!), why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

The repeated phrase (and again in verse 10) could hardly be more emphatic. It was not intended, however, to emphasize their loneliness or spiritual destitution, but rather the opposite, for even at that moment the Father was saying to the Son: “Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies (the nation of Israel!) thy footstool.” So the day must certainly dawn when the Messiah will assume full authority in a world which, up to the present day, has seen no beauty in him that they should desire him.

And he will come in like manner. A bodily Jesus who could be handled, and who ate with his disciples, will once again be bodily in their presence, eating bread and drinking wine as the abiding tokens that he, the Lord of Glory, was once a sacrifice for sin. As he went away visibly, so he will return visibly: “every eye shall see him.” And the very place of his return will be the same: “his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives” (Zechariah 14:4).

So the disciples returned to the city “with great joy” (Luke 24:52). Would they have been so joyful had they known that two thousand years were to drag their sinful course before their Master was seen again? The words imply strongly their expectation that this promised return of Jesus would happen in their own lifetime. And many other inspired Scriptures say the same thing: e.g. Matthew 10:23; 24:34; 26:64; Romans 13:11; 16:20; 1 Corinthians 7:29; Philippians 4:5; 1 Thessalonians 4: 15,17; 5:23; Hebrews 1:2_; 10:37; James 5:9; 1 Peter 4:7; 1 John 2:17,18; Revelation 1:1,3,7; 2:5,16,25; 3:11. These words constitute one of the biggest and most neglected problems of the New Testament. See “Revelation,” H.A.W., Appendix.

The grounds for the disciple’s confidence lay not only in the authoritative reassurance of the angels but also in the emphatic teaching of the Scriptures which their Lord had lately taught them to read with better vision. Before they were back in Jerusalem their minds, responding to the new habit of seeking Christ in all the Scriptures, were dwelling wonder-ingly on such passages as Daniel 7:13,14 which their Lord had at least twice appropriated to himself (Matthew 24:30; 26:64): “I saw in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations and languages (Rev. 5:9) should serve him.”

With glad excitement they talked over the sequence of passages in Ezekiel describing the departing of the Shekinah Glory of God from Jerusalem — how this visible token of God’s Presence was seen by the prophet to remove from the inner sanctuary to the door of the Holy Place, and thence to the temple gate, and thence to the Mount of Olives, and thus was withdrawn from human sight (Ezekiel 8:4; 9:3; 10:4,18,19; 11:23). How their spirits would have been depressed, by the contemplation of this prophecy, had there not been also the equally vivid description of a return: “And, behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east: and his voice was like a noise of many waters: and the earth shined with his glory… And the Glory of the Lord came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east,… and behold the Glory of the Lord filled the house” (Ezekiel 43:2,4,5).

The apostles quickly saw the need why their Lord should leave them. Had he not fore-warned them? — “It is for your benefit that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you.” As his followers became a growing community it would no longer be fitting for Christ their Lord to be localised. Instead, through the gift of the Holy Spirit, divine guidance would be available to all. So he had ascended on high to receive and distribute the Spirit’s gifts to men, that thus the Lord God might dwell among them (Psalm 68:18; Ephesians 4:8).

When the Feast of Pentecost came, bringing greater blessings than the first Pentecost could ever bestow (Exodus 19,20), the disciples were no longer puzzled by the strange paradox in their Master’s words. He had bidden them remember him in Bread and Wine, and thus “show forth the Lord’s death till he come”—the words declared his real absence, not his real presence. Yet were not his very last words to them: “Lo, I am with you all the days, even to the consummation of the age”? His earlier use of the same expression had clear reference to a return from heaven as judge of all (Matthew 13:39 RVm). So in all ages the guidance and blessing of the disciples was assured. If at times there has seemed little of blessing or spiritual prosperity among them, must it not be through downright lack of faith in this promise? But the eleven were untrammelled by any such handicap, and they “returned to Jerusalem with great joy.”

NOTES Luke 24:50-53.

50.	He led them out. This Gk. word is used often for the deliverance of Israel; e.g. Acts 7:40.
	As far as to Bethany. There is implied symbolism here, for it was in Bethany that a friend of Jesus was risen from the dead when at last the Lord came to his graveside. Also, Bethany = Place of Date Palms. On this see “Bible Studies”, H.A.W, p. 135.
	Blessed them. The Law began and ended with curse: Gen.3:14-19; Mal.4:6; but the Gospel with blessing: Lk. 1:42; 24:50, and in v.51 the verb is continuous inform. The Melchizedek blessing is implied also in the repetition of heaven and earth in Mt.28:l 8 from Gen. 14:19.
51.	Carried up into heaven. In LXX this verb is commonly used for the presenting of sacrifice before God.
	Jesus had been impatient for the cross (Lk. 12:50; Mk.l 0;32) but the language of this verse suggests a reluctance to leave the disciples.
52.	With great joy;Jln. l6:20,22; 14:28.
53.	In the temple. See “Acts”, H.A.W, p.20.

Mark 16:19, 20.

19.	RV: The Lord Jesus. A unique title in Mark. Cp. in this respect ch.1:1.
	Received up into heaven, cp. 2 Kgs.2:9-12: ” the Spirit…taken up (s.w.) into heaven… parted…saw it” and instead of the Cloud, a whirlwind and chariots of fire.
	Sat on the right hand of God: 1 Sam.7:18; Ps.110:1
20.	They went forth and preached everywhere. What a remarkable contrast with Lk. 24:52,53.
	Confirming the word; Is. 44:26.
	see also “Studies in Acts”. H.A.W, ch.4.

259. The Last Twelve Verses of Mark

Today it is an almost universally accepted conclusion of modern scholarship that the last twelve verses of Mark’s gospel were not written by Mark. “It may now be regarded as an assured finding of criticism that these verses are not part of Mark’s Gospel. The internal evidence, in itself really decisive for their rejection, is confirmed by the external testimony.” This quotation from the notes of Weymouth’s “New Testament in Modern Speech” (15th ed.) may be taken as typical of the opinions to be found, with scarcely an exception, in modern text-books.

Vigorous scholarly protests against this “assured finding” were made in the last century by Burgon, Scrivener and Cook separately, but their protests and arguments seem to have carried no weight whatever; indeed, the present writer after a fairly extensive search amongst modern text books has so far failed to come across any attempt at all to cope with the arguments these conservatives advanced. Dean Burgon especially, in his ₍“The Last Twelve Verses of Mark,” was most vehement (and on that account all the more readable!) in his theological dialectic. Not for nothing did contemporaries refer to him as “the dear old dean of Billingsgate.” It may well be that the swashbuckling vigour with which he withstood the tide of modern criticism did his cause more harm than good. Opponents assumed from his invective a paucity of sound argument and so left him severely alone.

It is proposed here to review the entire problem pro and con. An effort has been made to get at the actual facts, and of necessity it has become needful to rely a good deal on Burgon, for he was one of the few with an intimate personal acquaintance with all aspects of the question. His energy and industry in combing over the relevant details of manuscripts and early Fathers were phenomenal. The study becomes a revealing commentary on the methods and “scholarship” of modern criticism.

In what follows an attempt has been made to maintain a reasonable degree of accuracy, but in a field as vast and complex as the textual criticism of the gospels, it is almost impossible (as will be seen by and by) for even front-line specialists to put out work free from error. The summary given here may be regarded as substantially correct.

The first and biggest part of this study must be a review and examination of the reasons advanced for disallowing the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20:

1.	The more ancient manuscripts (uncials).
	The verses in question are entirely omitted by the oldest — the Sinaitic and Vatican Codices. Two .others give two conclusions: one which is generally recognized to be spurious, and then the twelve verses in the A.V
2.	The less ancient MSS (cursives).
	Of these no less than thirty include a marginal note to the effect that the last 12 verses are omitted from some codices.
3.	The versions (ancient translations of the Greek New Testament into other tongues). The spurious fjf- ending mentioned in par.) is given by one Old Latin MS, one Harkleian Syriac and two Ethiopic, v.9-20 being omitted altogether. Several Armenian MSS stop at v.8.
4.	The Early Christian Fathers.
	In their writings Eusebius, Jerome, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Hesychius of Jerusalem, Severus of Antioch and Euthymius all throw doubt on the authenticity of the last 12 verses. Tertullian and Cyprian, who commented copiously on the Gospels, make no reference to them at all. Nor is any reference to them to be found in the writings of Clement of Rome or Clement of Alexandria.
5.	Both style and vocabulary in these verses demand a different author from the rest of Mark’s Gospel (compare the earlier quotation from Weymouth). A good deal will have to be said about this by and by.
6.	There is a serious discontinuity in the story at v.8. The women are described as fleeing in fear from the tomb, and they then disappear from the narrative. There is nothing to indicate where they went or what they did or how their amazement was later turned to conviction.
7.	Lastly, an explanation is available of the origin of these disputed verses. At the beginning of this concluding section an Armenian MS of the 1 Oth Century has the note: “according to Ariston.” Here, surely, is a hint that the author of this portion of the Gospel was Aristion, a personal disciple of Jesus, who is mentioned by Papias (about A.D. 100).

Catalogued in this way the evidence for the rejection of Mark 16:9-20 appears to be overwhelming. Whatever can be said on the other side, there would seem to be sufficient evidence here to settle the question out of hand. It turns out, however, that a careful cross-examination of this formidable list of witnesses leads to a series of unexpected results.

1. The evidence of the Uncial MSS.

Whilst it is undeniably true that the 12 verses do not occur in the Vatican MS (Codex B), there is in it at that point a blank column — the only blank column in the entire folio containing almost the whole of the Old Testament and New Testament. Here surely is plain evidence that the scribe of B copied from an older codex, which included the 12 verses. Hence B is an indirect witness in favour of their retention.

The Sinai MS (Codex Aleph) similarly omits the verses, but has no space. Instead, the words of the preceding section are spaced out deliberately so as to fill up in part the column that v.9-20 would have occupied. There are actually 560 letters in this column as against 678 in the one adjoining. To this must be added the fact that the scribe, still faced with the unusual feature of a column only partially filled, included at Mark 16:8 a long ornamental arabesque, unique in this MS which was obviously inserted to prevent any later scribe from adding further material. Thus indirectly Codex Aleph also adds its testimony to the ancient character of Mark 16:9-20.

Evidently, if anything, B and Aleph should be cited as witnesses for the defence rather than as witnesses for the prosecution.

The other two uncial MSS, both of them late (8th or 9th century), are really ambiguous in their testimony by the way in which they include two endings to Mark. Indeed they proclaim their unreliability on this particular question by including what is unquestionably a spurious insertion.

2. The evidence of the cursives.

Here, likewise, it is perfectly true that 30 cursives add a scribal note against v. 9-20 that these are wanting in some codices. But it should also be mentioned — a fact which has often been omitted when this part of the evidence is under review – that without exception they also add that v.9-20 are “undoubtedly genuinely,” “part of the text.” “in many copies,” “in the ancient copies,” “in the true Palestinian copies,” “in the approved copies preserved at Jerusalem.” So once again witnesses for the prosecution become witnesses for the defence!

3. The evidence of the versions is by no means as forceful as at first appears. Some of those omitting the section in question dilute their own authority by including the spurious ending already referred to. Others are demonstrably away from the main stream of tradition, as in the case of the solitary Old Latin MS (codex Bobbiensis) which omits the 12 verses, for it turns out that its testimony is contradicted (and surely confuted) by no less that 37 other Old Latin codices. The small group of Armenian MSS also which decide against the 12 verses are all of them, of fairly late date (9th century, approximately), and consequently of comparatively small authority.

4. The Early Fathers. Here the long catalogue of venerable names, some of them going back to a date anterior to that of the oldest MSS, looks really impressive. Yet, thanks to some brilliant detective work by Burgon, it is here where the case against the 12 verses is weakest, if not altogether non-existent. There was an admirable dictum of Dr. Routh, the centenarian President of Magdalen College, Oxford: “Let me recommend to you the practice of always verifying your references”.

With terrific industry Burgon made some remarkable and impressive researches. The story of his discoveries reads like a modern ‘who-dun-it.’

a.	The passage which has led to the inclusion of the names of Gregory of Nyssa, Severus of Antioch, and Hesychius of Jerusalem as adverse witnesses turns out to be part of a homily which has been attributed at different times to each of these three. Thus these three witnesses boil down to one. Is it slapdash scholarship or desperate determination to pile up a large number of witnesses in support of a weak case which prompted the use of this “trinity”? Two of these — the first two, let it be supposed — must be scored out of the list cited earlier.
b.	Further “verifying of the references” establishes conclusively that the remaining Hesychius together with Jerome and Victor of Antioch are not really giving their own independent opinions but are actually quoting verbatim from the writing of Eusebius (Jerome paraphrases slightly). In other words the names of these three must be deleted from the list of adverse witnesses because they are merely echoes of Eusebius whom they are following blindly and — as Burgon demonstrated — most unintelligently. Even on other grounds it is evident that Jerome should be called for the defence, rather than against it, because when he produced his authoritative Latin version of the New Testament called the Vulgate, he included the last 12 verses of Mark without indication of any degree of doubt whatever.
c.	Thus there now remain, out of what was a formidable list, only Eusebius and Euthymius. Of these the latter can be quietly dropped in the waste-paper basket, for he was not an “Early Father” at all, but a commentator of the 12th Century (the Dark Ages of scholarship). To include Euthymius at all is surely a confession of weakness.
d.	And even Eusebius turns out to be a doubtful starter. The question of these last 12 verses crops up in replies which Eusebius wrote to problems posed by a certain Marinus. One of these concerned the harmonizing of Mark 16 and Matthew 28. The gist of Eusebius’s long and prosy reply is this: The difficulty may be solved in either of two ways. First, to say — as some do -that Mark’s narrative ends at verse 8 (the rest of that chapter being met with only seldom), and thus the supposed contradiction ceases to exist. On the other hand, allowing the passage at the end of Mark to be genuine, it is the job of the student of the gospels to find a means of harmonizing Mark with Matthew. Whereupon this early Father of great reputation proceeds to suggest a rather feeble way of achieving “harmony.”
	Now this is surely a strange way of settling a difficulty — first, to say the text is spurious, and then to proceed to discuss it as though it were genuine. Eusebius himself does not appear to be convinced that the 12 verses are to be rejected, yet strangely enough he succeeds in convincing the modern critics! And, further, it is noteworthy that most of the critics (if not all) cite the first of Eusebius’s solutions to Marinus’s problem without even a mention of the alternative which he propounds. For what reason? — carelessness or bias?
e.	The citing of Clement of Rome and Clement of Alexandria, of Cyprian and Tertullian on this question likewise appears in a very different light when carefully examined. It is true none of these four Fathers quote from Mark 16:9-20, but what are these facts worth? The argument from omission is notoriously unsafe and inconclusive. Readers may be acquainted with Bishop Whateley’s clever demonstration that Napoleon never existed and that the Napoleonic wars never took place, by carefully selected applications of the same phoney principle! Clement of Rome does not quote from Mark’s Gospel at all, so where is the point in insisting on his ignoring Mark 16? The argument from omission is of rather greater force where Cyprian and Tertullian are concerned because they wrote more copiously on the Gospels. But even so, the argument still remains precarious and certainly is not strong enough to allow both Westcott and Hort to lean on it as confidently as they do, making it in fact one of their most decisive lines of argument against the 12 verses. But for Matthew 11:20,21 it would have been possible to argue (from omission) that Jesus never went near Chorazin and hardly at all to Bethsaida, whereas actually most of his miracles were done in those places. But for John 18:2 it would have been possible to argue (from omission) that Jesus went to Gethsemane only once.
	The evidence of the Early Fathers has now boiled down to a quite unimportant residuum, if indeed it has not evaporated altogether. And the investigation has exposed the methods of textual criticism as none too dependable.

5. Style and Vocabulary

A really detailed discussion of this facet of the evidence cited against the authenticity of the twelve verses would fill half a volume. All that one can hope to accomplish here is a brief review of the question, together with a few illustrations.

It is asserted that “there are in this short passage as many as twenty-one words and phrases which do not occur elsewhere in the Gospel” (Hammond). It is suggested that this affords a plain demonstration that the twelve verses had a different author from the rest of Mark’s Gospel. Examples (the present writer has attempted to simplify this part of the discussion by eliminating direct citation of Greek phrases and – arguments based on grammatical forms):

a.	v. l1,14: the Greek word for “see” used here occurs nowhere else in Mark’s Gospel. True enough! But it is also true that the word “willing” (15:15) occurs in this place only in Mark, whilst in 25 other places Mark uses a different word for the same idea. Does this unusual circumstance cast doubt on the Marcan authenticity of chapter 15? Many examples of this kind can be cited in all the Gospels. What are they worth? Statistically, more of these than can ever be possible out of twelve verses need to be cited before a dependable case can be made.
b.	v. l1,16: the Greek word for “believeth not” is found nowhere else in Mark.
	But this same word is found only twice in Luke, and both of those occurrences are in his last chapter — for obvious reasons, when one considers that in each case it is the unbelief of disciples concerning Christ’s resurrection that is being described! So what force is there in “evidence” of this nature? Further, on investigation it turns out that Mark several times does use what is, in effect, the same word — it is only the termination that is different (apistein — apistia, ch.6:6 and 9:24; apistos, ch.9.-l 9). Consequently, if anything, this use of “believed not” supports the Marcan authorship of the twelve verses. But the traditional believer does not need such flimsy arguments to support his conclusions, as will be seen by and by.
c.	v.20: “everywhere.” This particular Greek word comes nowhere else in Mark.
	But then, neither does it occur in Matthew or John, and only once in Luke (ch.9:6). So what is to be gained by emphasizing this fact? If indeed the word were used by Matthew, Luke and John (say) half a dozen times each and nowhere else in Mark at all, the fact might begin to have significance as a criterion of style and vocabulary. But as it is, one is inclined to suspect a determination to make bricks without straw.
d.	v.9: would a writer who has already referred to Mary Magdalene in v. 1 now (in v.9) describe her somewhat belatedly for identification purposes as “Mary Magdalene out of whom he had cast seven devils”? Does not this betray the hand of a different author?

Well, does it? Then what of the following examples?:

John 21:7? “the disciple whom Jesus loved” John 21:20: “the disciple whom Jesus loved, which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?”

The sudden elaboration of John’s description of himself is seen immediately to have point when the incident is studied carefully. Might it not be so also in Mark 16?

Again, Mark 15:40: “Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses.” Mark 15:47: “Mary the mother of Joses.” Mark 16:1: “Mary the mother of James.”

Is one to infer three different writers here within a space of ten verses? Yet no one has suggested these facts as a basis for “higher criticizing” Mark 15!

On the other hand, what could be more appropriate than emphasis on the fact that the Lord’s first appearance after his resurrection was to a woman out of whom he had cast seven devils, as though to demonstrate that “where sin abounded, grace did much more abound”?

If a similar attempt be made on the basis of style and phrasing to cast doubton other sections of Mark’s Gospel, astonishingly impressive results can be obtained. Burgon did it with part of Mark 1, with much gusto and derisive enjoyment. And Broadus, a Baptist scholar in America, did it with Mark 1:1 -12 and also with 15:44 -16:8. Yet it is this “vocabulary” test which is in these days regarded as “really decisive” (Weymouth).

6. What of the objection that v.9-20 involve a serious discontinuity in the narrative at v.8? The women are described as fleeing from the sepulchre in fear and confusion, and their story is left unfinished.

First, even if such were the case, it would scarcely constitute an argument against the validity of the rest of the chapter. John 21:19,20 describes how, after the meal by the sea of Galilee, Jesus bade Peter: “Follow me” Peter did so, and so too did John. But the story is never finished,. There is no indication given as to why Peter was bidden follow. Yet no critic has risen up yet to suggest that here is good reason for believing the rest of the chapter to be spurious. The fact is that a careful pondering of the incident soon supplies reason enough for the story being left incomplete. And so also, doubtless, in Mark 16 — if indeed it were permissible to consider Mark 16:1-8 as unfinished. But is it? The angels told the women (v.7): “Go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.” This mentioned, it is characteristic of the very concise nature of the Gospel story, and especially of this close- packed summary of the resurrection in Mark 16, to assume without further mention that the fulfilment of the commission duly took place.

In the light of these considerations how convincing is the argument of the critics?

7. But is not the non-Marcan authorship of the twelve verses supported and explained by Conybeare’s Armenian manuscript attributing the verses to Aristion?

Let the facts be considered. The MS in question belongs to the ninth century — a far cry from the days of the early church. Strange that such an important fact should survive so long without a vestige of a trace of it in any of the hundreds of others MSS far more ancient, or in any of the Early Fathers also far more ancient!

But granting (for the sake of argument) the authenticity of this addition it might mean only “these verses were added on the authority of Ariston.”

But even if it does mean “Ariston wrote these 12 verses,” there is still the identity of Ariston with Aristion to be assumed before identification with Aristion (the first century disciple of the Lord mentioned by Papias) can be claimed.

There are too many uncertainties about this theory of alternative authorship to be convincing. By contrast with it Burgon’s suggestion of the origin of the problem (to be summarized by and by) is so very simple and carries such an obvious degree of probability that one marvels that anyone should look for or prefer an alternative theory so ill- supported by evidence.

The Evidence in Favour

So far this study has necessarily consisted of a patient investigation of all the reasons that have been advanced for disbelieving in the authenticity of the last twelve verses of Mark.

Over against this must now be set a summary of the evidence in favour of accepting the twelve verses. Though this can be quickly stated, it is impressive by its vastness.

1.	Apart from the handful that has been mentioned, every single manuscript of the Gospels, whether uncial or cursive, includes the twelve verses.
2.	The ancient Versions are equally emphatic. The various Syriac Versions, all the Old Latin MSS (except one), the Memphitic and Thebaic Versions of Egypt, the Vulgate of Jerome, the Gothic Version – all of these, going back to the fourth century (or much earlier in the case of some) testify to the general acceptance of Mark 16:9-20 by widely separated branches of the early church.
3.	The evidence of the Early Fathers goes back (in many instances) much further than any of the MSS, and here again – apart from the doubtful exception of Eusebius — the testimony is unanimous. In the 1st Century, Hermas and Papias quote from the twelve verses. In the 2nd Century Justin Martyr and Irenaeus do likewise. Then come in quick succession famous names such as Hypolytus, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria. Besides these there is the weighty opinion of the Council of Carthage (A.D. 256), expressing the conviction of the early church of N. Africa. Add also the evidence of the so-called Acts of Pilate and the very early Apostolic Constitutions, and it can be seen that even if there were little supporting evidence from the MSS, the case in favour of the authenticity of the twelve verses would still be remarkably strong. It becomes evident from the cataloguing of so much testimony that the reader may set doubts at rest. Mark ] 6:9-20 was part of the Gospel of Mark from the earliest times.

The Origin of the Problem

Not only did Burgon do some magnificently thorough work in sorting out the facts concerning this question. He also put his finger on an extremely simple and likely reason why a small minority of manuscripts came to omit v.9-20.

To make this plain it is necessary first to explain some of the characteristics of early church lectionaries.

From very early days the church had a system of regular Bible readings. The “Bible Companion” is new (comparatively) only in name. The idea can be traced back definitely to the fourth century and with a high degree of probability to the second or even earlier. In fact, just as the early church inherited many of its forms and practices from the synagogue, so also was this lectionary system a copy of Jewish observance. To this day the Jews have a pattern of Old Testament readings in the synagogue which many scholars consider to have come down from very ancient days, so that it becomes possible to make probable inferences as to the time of the year when Jesus read Isaiah 61 in the synagogue at Nazareth and the time of year of Paul’s preaching in the synagogue at Antioch.

But of course this early church lectionary did not follow chapter divisions, for such did not exist then. The daily readings were usually marked off in official church copies in red ink, but also in other ways.

This lectionary system was also responsible for various minor modifications (and some of them not minor) creeping into the manuscripts. Four interesting examples of this might be mentioned here.

a.	A reading was sometimes introduced by the addition of the simple explanatory phrase: “And Jesus said.” The present writer has more than once heard similar improvisations added to the public reading of Scripture. An example of this which has crept into the text of the King James Version is to be found in Luke 7:31, where the RV correctly omits: “And the Lord said.”
b.	“It was customary in the reading for the day before Good Friday to include Luke 22:43,44 (about the angel and the agony in Gethsemane) after Matthew 26:39, and to omit it from Luke 22 on a later occasion. Influenced by this practice the Vatican MS omits Luke 22:43,44 from the proper place and has in turn influenced the Revisers to include a quite unwarranted note of warning in the margin there.
c.	It was likewise customary to include John 1 9:34 (about the piercing of the side of Jesus) after Matthew 27:49. Here again the Vatican Codex is at fault and has again become the chief ground for an unjustifiable addition in the RV margin.
d.	The early lectionaries prescribed the reading of John 7:37-8:12 for Whit Sunday with the omission of 7:53 — 8:11 (the woman taken in adultery). This omission from the reading led to the practice of leaving out 7:53 — 8:11 from official copies, and thus became the origin of modern doubts about that section.

With his usual acuteness Burgon observed that Mark 16:8 was the end of a recognized “reading,” according to the early lectionary system, for Easter and Ascension Day. Further, he noted that it was frequently the practice to mark out the “readings” by writing “beginning” (arche) and “the end” (to telos) in the margin at the appropriate places. Indeed he was able to draw attention to one place in the famous Codex Beza where “to telos” had crept into the text at the end of a lection (Mark 14:41) so as to make utter nonsense of the passage. The Freer MS of the Gospels in Washington has it as well.

Next, examination of many manuscripts revealed the fact that a large number of them have “the end” written in the margin at Mark 16:8. The significance of this addition is, of course, quite simply that Mark 16:8 ends one of the daily readings. But how easy it would be for a not over-intelligent copyist to take “the end” as meaning “the end of the Gospel,” and so omit the remaining verses!

This, then, is Burgon’s conjecture, well supported by facts, as to the origin of the doubts concerning the last twelve verses. It is a suggestion altogether more plausible than the utterly unsupported speculations that the autograph of Mark’s Gospel lost its last leaf before ever a copy of it could be made, or that Mark died suddenly just before completing his task.

But whether Burgon’s explanation of the omission be accepted or not, the preceding review of the factual evidence pro and con relating to Mark 16:9-20 will surely leave little doubt in the minds of those who have followed it through with any degree of carefulness.

Mary, who had followed Peter and John back to the tomb, still lingered disconsolately there after the two apostles had gone away. There was no reason at all why she should, except that this was the spot where she had last set eyes on her Saviour. In the past two days she had shed tears as never before, and now, more than ever, they refused to be restrained. If only her love and deep loss might express themselves in some practical act of service and solicitude, if only she might have the opportunity to lavish all her devotion on his poor crucified body! But now that her Lord had been mysteriously removed, even this crumb of comfort was denied her.

Could it be that Joseph of Arimathea had decided, for some reason which she was unable to guess, that it would be better to have Jesus interred elsewhere? But then, in that case he would hardly have acted with such unseemly haste, nor would he have taken such a step without consulting or at least informing the disciples.

Unable to make any sense of the situation, she wept the more. Then it suddenly dawned on her that as yet she had not seen for herself. Was there anything to be learned from a closer examination of the sepulchre? So, as the apostles had done, she also stooped to peer within — and immediately saw two men sitting there, as though at the head and feet of Jesus. But there was no Jesus!

Perhaps she was greatly startled to see these men, and showing it, was quickly reassured by them. But there is no sign of this in the narrative. More likely she assumed without surprise that these were two of Joseph’s men. Only in later days did she, and John also, see the wondrous significance of two angels sitting in this dark Holy of Holies and between them the stain of blood shed to take away the sin of the world. In the temple on Mount Zion no ark of God’s covenant, no over-arching cherubim of gold, sanctified the sanctuary as the place where sin was put away. Instead, here in this lonely spot, witnessed by only one worshipper (and she blinded by tears and imperfect knowledge), was the true Mercy-seat. Within a matter of minutes Mary was to understand it all.

Dramatic encounter

“Woman, why weepest thou?” Why indeed? “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.” Yet she would have had much greater cause for weeping had she found Jesus lying there!

Even as she spoke, she turned away again. Was it because she assumed that they could not help her, for they would surely have given her news immediately, if they had news to communicate? Or was it because the two men in the tomb stood to greet one whom they could see behind Mary? The Greek text seems to imply a sound of footsteps behind her.

There came a dramatic change. Staring into the rising sun she was able to see only the outline of the stranger who now drew near. This, for certain, must be Joseph himself. He would be able to help her. And all her love and anxiety were poured out in one intense irrational plea: “Sir” — the word is really Lord;’ imagine it addressed to a gardener! But how appropriate for the garden’s owner (and this is a possible reading),-“If thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.” As though she could — a weak woman, and single-handed!

Alternatively this part of the resurrection narrative should be interpreted differently. “Woman, why weepest thou?” Why did Mary not recognize the voice? Perhaps her instinctive recognition was expressed in the word “Lord” — but then ‘common-sense’ re-asserted itself: ‘Of course, it is not Jesus speaking to me. It cannot be!’ Her mind would move quickly to the only alternative — he must be the gardener. It would seem that Mary expected nothing of help or comfort in response to her appeal, for she was already moving away when one more spoken word arrested her. The Good Shepherd calls his own sheep by name (Jn. 10:3,4). She turned again, stared incredulously, and then in a moment was at his side, grasping his hand and feeling his arm and shoulder for the reassurance by which to turn the impossible into certainty, and all the while incoherent with gladness. (Or did she prostrate herself before him, holding his feet? cp. Mt. 28:9). There was nothing she could say except one exultant word of greeting and of self-reproach: “Rabboni!” The bourn from which no traveller returns’ had yielded back the one whom she longed to see above all other, and how blind her eyes had been not to recognize the fact. Instinctively and appropriately, she used the title which Bartimaeus had bestowed on Jesus in the day when his blindness was taken away (Mark 10:51). A wild welter of glad emotions jostled for supremacy in her mind, and all the while she sought to make assurance doubly sure by the renewed evidence of her own senses.

It became needful to restrain her. “Do not keep on touching me” he said —and with reluctance, one may be sure, for he too was unspeakably glad to be once again with so loyal a friend. Yet, precious as the moment was for both of them, he could not stay longer. “Do not keep on touching me for I am not yet ascended to my father.”

The words have often been read as the equivalent of: ‘Keep away, I am not to be touched. The uncleanness of death is still upon me. I am still as mortal as you are — I have not yet ascended to tht; divine nature of immortality.’ It cannot be too strongly stressed that there is no Bible evidence whatever for such an interpretation. But there are several serious difficulties in its way:

1. The Greek continuous imperative implies definitely that he was being touched.
2. Suppose the Lord were still in a mortal condition, why should he not be touched? In his mortality before crucifixion people had touched him often enough.
3. There is no Bible evidence that “ascended to the father” signified a change of physical nature.
4. The normal meaning of the word is that of “go up to the temple,” “go up to Jerusalem,” “ascend to heaven” (John 7:14; 5:1: 1:51).

So this interpretation, so often given uncritical acceptance, is only to be received if there is no other available.

On the other hand, to take “I ascend to my Father and your father” as having reference to the ascension from the mount of Olives forty days later, is to reduce the words of Jesus to incoherence: ‘Do not touch me because I have not yet gone to heaven, but go and tell the disciples that I shall do so in six weeks time.’

Neither does this satisfy.

Ascension

The only alternative seems to be this: Jesus was speaking of an ascension to the father which must and did happen at that very time.

There is something singularly appropriate about this idea. In the sacrifices under the Law, the evidence of the slaying of the animal was always brought into the presence of God — blood at the foot of the altar, or blood smeared on the horns of the altar of incense, or (in the case of the most important sacrifice of all) blood sprinkled on the mercy-seat in the Holy of Holies. In that sacrifice which all these foreshadowed must there not be something which corresponded to this vital feature? And how else could this happen in the experience of Christ except by his appearing in the presence of the Father with the tokens of his sacrificial death evident in pierced hands and side?

The typology of the Passover ritual is specially instructive here. The Law prescribed that on “the morrow after the (Passover) sabbath — i.e. on the morning Christ rose — there must be offered a wave-sheaf of barley, without leaven: “Christ the first-fruits” (1 Corinthians 1 5:20,23). With this there was also offered “an he-lamb without blemish of the first year, for a burnt-offering unto the Lord” (Leviticus 23:1 2). Here was the Passover lamb come into life again, so to speak, and re-consecrated to the service of God.

Normally these offerings were presented in the temple at the time of the morning sacrifice — the very time when Jesus appeared to Mary in the garden. Hence the urgent words, implying: ‘Do not detain me here, for a higher duty calls me. But go and tell my brethren. This will explain to them why they do not see me through the rest of this day.’

Other Scriptures conform to this interpretation “The Lord hath said unto me (the Messiah), Thou ar» my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” (Hebrews 5:5 applies this Scripture to the glorifying of Cnrist “to be made an high priest,” thus pointedly referring the words to the resurrection — and not the birth or baptism —of Jesus). When, it may be asked, did God make this declaration to His Son on “this day,’ except at this “ascension to the Father”?

Again, it was appointed in the ordinance for the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:6) that, before the blood of the sin-offering on behalf of the people be brought into the Holy of Holies, Aaron must first go into the Sanctuary to “offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself alone.”

Also the experience of Hezekiah — one of the most outstanding types of Messiah in the Bible— must surely have its counterpart in the greater work of Christ: “Thus saith the Lord, the God of David thy Father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up to the house of the Lord” (2 Kings 20:5).

Although not actually seeing their risen Master until near the end of this day of tantalizing uncertainty, the disciples were to be reassured, if they were willing to be, by the intimate nature of the message which Mary brought: “Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend to my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your God.” Yet even as these words emphasized the close kinship to subsist henceforth between Father and Son and brethren, they also maintained a distinction. Jesus did not speak of “our Father.” for his own relationship to the Almighty was necessarily far more intimate than it could possibly be as yet for his disciples.

Would that expression “my brethren” remind them again of the words of Psalm 22 which had been repeatedly forced upon their minds throughout the day of his crucifixion: “I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee” — and the name of God which he declared unto them was “Father.” The psalm, if recalled, would also carry a strong assurance that, even though long slow hours would pass that day and he be still absent from them, he would yet come among them, declaring the Father’s name “in the midst of the congregation.”

Mary would fain have lingered there, convincing herself, again and again, that her Lord was truly risen, but he himself was taking leave of her. Ana had he not given her a commission to fulfil? No messenger ever had more joyful news to impart. So again she went away as fast as she could go to find Peter and John once more, again to gasp out excitedly the news of an empty tomb, but this time with the true heart-warming explanation to impart solidity to the new-born faith of John and to kindle a spark of hope in the mind of a puzzled wretched Peter.

NOTES: John 20:11-18

11.	And: in Gk. text therefore, to be linked with v. 13 because
12.	Sifting: “They sit m the empty tomb who stand in the presence of God; Lk. 1:19.
13.	Why weepest thou? There would have been good cause for weeping if the tomb were not empty
14.	She turned herself back Any link here with Gen. 22.13? See also John 1:27, 29
	And saw Jesus The Lord’s first appearance was not to his mother.
	Why these remarkable resemblances? Jesus standing (Rev 5:6); Mary weeping (Rev. 5:4); she turned herself (Rev. 1:10,12).
15.	Whom seekest thou? Whom? not What? Then did Mary hope that Jesus would rise? Here, questions lead to a confession of faith; in Gen. 3:9,11,13, to a confession of sin
	Supposing, NT. usage; fairly sure.
	The gardener This second Adam in this garden is a “gardener” (Gen 2:15)
16.	Rabboni; normally used for an outstanding teacher Jesus was certainly that now, by his very appearance, and more so, by v. 17
17.	Touch me not In nearly all NT occurrences, the word means “touch”. But the parallel to Mt 8:15 in Mk. 1:31 definitely means “hold” or “grip”; and this is the usual meaning in classical Greek (L. & S.). Perhaps also in Lk 7:14; 1 Jn. 5:18. The imperfect tense requires the idea just mentioned.
	Do not keep holding me. The alternative explanation that the uncleanness of death was still on Jesus cannot be sustained.
	My brethren. Jesus brought this term into use after his resurrection: Ps. 22:22; 1 22:8; Mt. 28:10; 25:40; Rom. 8:29; Jn. 21:23; Acts -frequently. Heb. 2:11.
	I ascend; 16:16,28.
	My God Spoken after resurrection, these words veto trinitarian doctrine. Compare also Eph. 1:17; Heb. 1:9; Rev. 1:6; ch.3:2,12; Mt. 27:46.
18.	I have seen: Gk. pf. tense implies: And what I saw is still vivid in my mind. So also v.25,29; Lk. 24:23. John’s Greek splendidly represents Mary’s disjointed speech.

Consideration of the first appearances of the risen Christ (Mark 16:9) would be incomplete without some attention being also given to a related problem of some magnitude. Apart from the mention of Mary Magdalene as one of those who went early to the tomb, Matthew has no further allusion to her. Instead, he adds words which read like a brief summary of a further appearance of the Lord to the other women from whom Mary had become separated when she ran back to tell John and Peter: “And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet and worshipped him. Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me” (Matthew 28: 9,10).

The difficulties here are three:

1. Matthew is here departing from his customary parallel with Mark by omitting all reference to the first appearing to Mary and by substituting instead an appearance to the other women.
2. Mary had had time to go to Jerusalem to John and Peter and to return to the tomb, to linger there a while, yet at some time after this when Jesus appeared to the other woman they were still on their way “to tell his disciples.” This time element is distinctly difficult.
3. The words appointing a meeting with the disciples in Galilee are a repetition of what the angels had already said to these same women (v.7). Were they, then, likely to forget or ignore the angelic commission, that Jesus must re-impress it on their minds?

Problems – possible solutions

Here are three suggested ways of coping with these problems:

1.	All of these singularities immediately disappear on the assumption that these words are actually Matthew’s version of the Lord’s meeting with Mary. Two striking verbal resemblances support this point of view: (a) “They came and held him by the feet;” this is implicit in the words of Jesus to Mary: ”Do not keep on holding me;” (b) “Go end tell my brethren” is an otherwise unique phrase, common to both narratives Add to these the fact that Matthew, Mark and John are now in perfect harmony in their accounts of the first resurrection appearance, and there is much to encourage belief that a solution to an awkward problem has been found.
	But is the harmony perfect? Two matters call for attention.
	According to John, Jesus appeared to Mary when she was lingering at the sepulchre, whereas the introductory words in Matthew are: “and as they went to tell his disciples”. It so happens, however, that these words are omitted altogether from the Revised Version and most modern texts of the New Testament. There is a good deal of evidence from ancient manuscripts and versions to support this omission.
	It may also be argued against the view just propounded that when Jesus appeared to Mary she was alone, whereas Matthew uses the plural “they”. The explanation of this otherwise peculiar feature may be found in the fact that Matthew, in common with Mark, omits all mention of the division of the group of women and Mary’s hasty return to the city. He is describing what happened to “the women” without suggesting any distinction between different members of their party. This kind of thing is characteristic of the gospels. For instance, Matthew describes the disciples as grumbling at the waste when Jesus was anointed in Bethany, whereas John makes it clear that Judas was the grumbler. Matthew and Mark record that in Gethsemane, “they all forsook him and fled”; nevertheless John describes how Peter and himself penetrated into the courtyard of the high priest’s palace in their determination to keep close to Jesus. Matthew tells of two blind men at Jericho, but Mark and Luke mention only one. John 20:1 appears to describe Mary going Slone to the tomb, yet the very next verse supplies an indirect indication that she was actually accompanied by others.
	Thus this plural pronoun in Matthew 28:9,10 is quite in harmony with the methods employed by the witness of the gospels. Also, Matthew’s account of the resurrection appearances gains much in coherence if the interpretation advanced here be adopted.
2.	Another possible solution to this problem of Matthew 28:9,10 follows rather different lines and at first sight is rather of the nature of an ad hoc solution. The narratives of Matthew, Mark and John are immediately and fully harmonized if it be assumed that when Mary ran to tell Peter and John and also when she returned to the tomb, she was accompanied by one of the other women from the original group. The plural pronouns of Matthew are then explained and the continuity of his narrative throughout verses 1-1 0 is preserved.
	This suggestion is not as drastic as it might at first appear to be. Consider, for example, John 20:1 which reads as though Mary went to the tomb alone. It is only the “accidental” pronoun “we” in the next verse which betrays the fact, quite incidentally, that John was at all aware that Mary was accompanied by others. Again, in the same chapter John makes no actual mention of Mary returning to the tomb in the footsteps of Peter and himself. This is added only by implication when the next mention of Mary describes her as lingering at the tomb. Examples of this “narrative by implication” could be compiled from all the gospels. It is characteristic of them all, and especially of John who indulges in this kind of thing considerably. Consequently it is not unreasonable to suppose (taking Matthew 28:9,10 as a hint in that direction) that Mary was not alone at the tomb. There is one small detail in John 20 which might serve to imply something of the kind. Mary’s offer to the “gardener” to carry away the body would be a practical possibility, and not just the expression of a distracted mind, if she had a friend with her at the time.
3.	An alternative suggestion, then, is this: The encounter with some of the women took place more than a week after the Lord’s resurrection, as they were still busy going from place to place telling various other disciples that the Lord was risen indeed.
	In that case the main point of this appearance was to ensure that disciples (other than the eleven) lingered no longer in Jerusalem in hopes of seeing Jesus again. Instead it served to emphasize that if they would be with him, they must get away to Galilee. The main difficulties here lie in the sequence of the narrative in Matthew 28 and especially in the ensuing words: “Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city…”

The entire question remains problematical.

NOTES: Matthew 28:9, 10

9.	Behold: Mt.’s characteristic word of surprise; v.2,11.
	All hail: Gk. chairete, which also means Rejoice — with good reason!
	Met them: stood over against them; hence the word came (to him).
10.	Be not afraid. Why fear rather than surprise at the sight of Jesus? Was the Glory to be seen in his face?
	Tell my brethren. Unless this phrase is read with reference to other disciples, and not the apostles, the command about a meeting in Galilee is distinctly difficult, for the eleven stayed at least another week in Jerusalem.

It was “the third hour” — the hour of prayer, the time of the daily burnt-offering —when the actual job of crucifying was finished. The soldiers settled down to the monotony of guard duty: “then they sat down, and kept watch over him there” (RSV). But there was to be little monotony. It proved to be a day which those men talked about for the rest of their lives.

Because Golgotha was hard by the Great North Road and close to both city and temple, the crowd which stopped to stare was considerable (Lk.23:35,48), the more so because the crucified had been so much in the public eye —Barabbas’s men, and Jesus the prophet of Nazareth. Recognition of a big number of great men from their Sanhedrin standing there would also add to the grisly fascination of the scene. It is a measure of both the hatred and the anxiety of these leaders in Jewry that only a few hours before the Passover began they took the trouble to go out to Golgotha to see Jesus crucified: “They look and stare upon me” (Ps.22 :17). Would they have done that for any other man in Israel?

Their relief at seeing him now safely impaled on the cross, and enduring its agony and shame, was so great that they could not restrain their feelings. These men of consequence and power threw aside all their dignity and set the example to the rest in a sustained taunting and derision (Ps. 109:25) which would have been unbecoming even in school-boys. Matthew’s word: “reviled” also means “blasphemed”. “He saved others (and here they used a word which implied that Jesus was no better than anybody else); let him save himself (Lk. 23 :35,37,39), if he be Christ, the Chosen of God.”

Taunts provide comfort

There can be little doubt that the point of this jibe was in their allusion to the great Messianic Psalm-Psalm 89-which Jesus must fulfil if indeed he were the King of the Jews, as the inscription of his cross stated: “I have exalted one chosen out of the people. I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed (christed) him” (Ps. 89 :19,20). Yet did not these men stop to think what they were saying? For the very word which this Scripture used in their common version for “exalted” was the word familiarly employed also for crucifixion: “and I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” And did they not give a thought to the context of the passage?: “The enemy shall not exact upon him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him. And I will beat down his foes before his face (within an hour or two this became almost literally true), and plague them that hate him … He shall cry unto me, Thou art my Father, my God, and the rock of my salvation . . . Remember, O Lord, the reproach of thy servants . . . wherewith thine enemies have reproached the heels of thy Christ” (v.22,23,26,51).

Whether the priests and scribes thought of these words or not, the Crucified surely did, and found courage and strength in them; and thus the very things intended by these vengeful men to twist the dagger in the wound would have the opposite effect in the mind of their dying victim.

In yet another way their taunt would bring succour to Jesus, for the challenge: “Save thyself”, must have been deliberately based on another Scripture which only a week ago Jesus had explicitly appropriated to himself: “behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and saving himself (or, having been saved): lowly and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass” (Zech. 9 :9). That triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem must have been a great worry to the enemies of the Lord. But now they thought they had the perfect answer to his claim. Any man could pose as Messiah by staging a formal entry into the city on an ass. But let this Jesus now do the infinitely more difficult thing and “save himself.”

How little they appreciated the dramatic irony of the situation! By dying as he did Jesus was not only bringing salvation to thousands but was also saving himself: “By his own blood he entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained for himself (Gk. M.V.) eternal redemption.” And indeed, had he come down from the cross, as was doubtless within his power, he would not have saved himself.

“Let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him,” they taunted. Yet, responding to their challenge, he would have been providing the plainest possible proof that he was not the Son of God. It was the second temptation over again. Had Jesus listened to the Tempter and cast himself from the pinnacle of the temple, the outcome of such a sensational feat would no doubt have been an immediate acceptance by the people of Israel, but for wrong reasons which gave little place to the glory of God. And so also here at Golgotha.

In any case it was a false promise which they made, for on the third day Jesus provided a yet greater sign than his coming down from the cross could be, and still the truth concerning him was stubbornly shut out.

They jeeringly asked to see, that they might believe (cp. Mt.16 :4; 1 Cor.1 :22) —and by and by a sign was given (see Study 231). But in contrast, Jesus promised a special blessing on those who have not seen and yet have believed. And this acceptance of him was to be through his not coming down from the cross: “And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me.”

The mockery of the priests also took a different turn. They knew something of the unflagging emphasis which in his teaching Jesus had put on their Holy Scriptures, and they had more than once tasted his powerful handling of prophecies which he claimed to fulfil in his own person. Now was the opportunity to turn the tables on him. So with evident relish and vicious satisfaction they derisively threw at him familiar Bible phrases which came to their minds.

Especially they found Psalm 22 well suited to their purpose: “He trusted in God; (the Hebrew go/was perhaps their crude pun on Golgotha); let him deliver him now, if he will have him” —”if He wants him,” this battered crucified body.

Had they stopped to think, they would surely have hesitated before making such ribald use of divine words, for in the psalm this passage is introduced with the words: “All they that see me laugh me to scorn; they shoot out the lip, they shake the head saying . . .” All unaware, these priests were providing their own superbly accurate fulfilment of this prophecy of suffering; and were thereby supplying indisputable verification of the claims of Jesus.

But what would be their reaction when, an hour or two later, Jesus himself began reciting that very psalm as his own prayer of need. Without realising it these spiteful men had turned the mind of Jesus into the best channel possible—they had set him meditating in his misery and loneliness not only on the Bible’s detailed anticipation of his own wretched plight but also on its equally vigorous picture of the wondrous outcome of the sufferings of this Son of God. Thus even the malevolence of the Lord’s implacable adversaries was turned to the Glory of God.

A temple destroyed and re-built

Yet another taunt thrown at Jesus was this: “Thou that destroyest the temple and buildest if in three days, save thyself.” It was a cruel jibe, based on his own name (Mt. 27 :40,42,49).

Matthew and Mark are explicit that this came from “those that passed by,” wagging their heads (Lam. 2 :15; Ps. 22 :7). But this was the accusation which had been raked up against Jesus by the Sanhedrin (Mt. 26 :61). And now the same cynical misrepresentation came from the common people. It is probable, then, that the priests had deliberately put the story into circulation in Jerusalem that Jesus had been condemned on these very grounds. The three ideas in Mt. 27 :40,42 – destroy the temple, Son of God, King of Israel-were precisely the main lines of attack on Jesus when before the Sanhedrin (26:61,63).

Yet what had Jesus really meant? Obsessed by the magnificence of their temple these people of Jerusalem missed altogether his allusion to the tabernacle in the wilderness. When Israel journeyed in the wilderness the tabernacle was taken down, and “the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them three day’s journey, to search out a resting place for them” (Num.10 :33,34), and there the tabernacle was re-erected. The foreshadowing of the experience of Jesus is clearly discernible here. Appropriately, this passage in Numbers describes Israel’s departure from the Mount of the Law—a typical indication that the better “resting place” for the people was only to be reached by making a break with the Law given at Sinai and by following the Ark of God’s Covenant which the visible glory of the Lord constantly overshadowed. Appropriately, too, Jesus did not use the normal word for “destroy”. What he said was “Unloose, dismantle this Sanctuary…”

At the time, however, those who in vulgar scorn repeated these things were blind to what they might mean, even though the dismantling of God’s Tabernacle of Witness was going on before their eyes. Yet it may be taken as fairly certain that in later days earnest disciples, guided by the spirit of the Emmaus Bible Class, pondered this deeper significance of their risen Lord’s words and work.

This decision and despite done to the Son of God was taken up by almost all about him. The Roman soldiers saw their chance for a bit of crude fun. Taking their cue from the inscription over his head, they jeered at him as King of the Jews-yet in doing so they were jeering at the Jews just as much. And they teased the suffering thirsty man with tantalising offers of a drink from the cheap wine which was part of their ration.

Even the malefactors were goaded by their agony to vent their savage resentment against someone, so they chose him as the butt of their bitterness: “If thou be the Christ, save thyself—and us.” Indeed at this moment they cared little whether he saved himself so long as he somehow brought them the relief they were desperate for. But by and by a change came over one of them so that he became the greatest human solace Jesus knew that day.

At a time during the long drawn-out hours of pain, thirst and misery, when by jeers and taunts priests, people and Roman soldiers seemed bent on adding as much as they could to the sufferings of Jesus, there came marvellous help and encouragement from an altogether unexpected source. What was it that turned the thief at Jesus’ right hand from curses and blasphemy to the utterance of a matchless confession of faith? The gospels offer no explanation, nor do the commentators. It is ground for thankfulness that the fact is recorded.

The contrast between the two malefactors is picked out markedly by Luke’s choice of word “other” —a different kind of man. The one ends his days foaming out bitter curses and sarcastic sneers: “You are the Messiah, aren’t you?” The other not only rebukes him but also acknowledges his own fate to be well-deserved. His estimate of Jesus is remarkable: “This man hath done nothing amiss.” But how did he know that Jesus had done nothing amiss? Even if taken in a vague, general way as signifying: ‘This Jesus has committed no bloody crimes as we have,’ his words are sufficiently startling as betraying a knowledge of the kind of man Jesus was and the work he had been doing. But if the words are taken at their face value then this thief must have known Jesus before this, and known him so intimately as to be able to say with emphasis: ‘This man hath done nothing amiss; his character is without any blemish; none has ever convicted him of sin.’

By itself this conclusion might appear farfetched. But the rest of this unique incident makes it a much more likely explanation.

Eloquent confession of faith

“Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” The thief’s appeal appears to mean: ‘Remember me when you inherit your kingdom.’ But the more precise translation of the RV changes the meaning drastically: “Remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom.” These words now plainly imply the thief’s conviction that Jesus would one day come again in a kingdom, that is, with authority and power as King of the Jews.

Indeed, the implication is much more far-reaching than this. Here was Jesus dying by his side, and yet the thief expressed a conviction that he would one day “come in a kingdom.” Then he must surely have believed that Jesus would rise from the dead, and, further, that he would ascend to heaven; for unless he first went away how could he come in a kingdom?

It has to be realised, that, whilst the resurrection of Jesus and his ascension to heaven are commonplace knowledge to the believer of today, the disciples of Jesus seem to have been blind to these glorious truths until the resurrection had actually taken place. Time after time when Jesus had sought to instruct the Twelve concerning the experience that lay before him at Jerusalem, “they understood not that saying” (Mk. 9:32), “they understood none of these things; and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken” (Lk. 18;34). Indeed, after the first news of the resurrection had been proclaimed to the Twelve, it was still possible for Jesus to say to the two whom he accompanied on the road to Emmaus; “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?” (Lk. 24:25,26).

The impressive conclusion seems inescapable, then, that when the thief proclaimed his faith in the dying Jesus, he was perhaps the only man in all the world who believed also that this same Jesus would soon rise again from the grave, the conqueror of the great Enemy, and would ascend to heaven. Surely, if ever there was a justifying faith, it was in the heart of this man who now hung on a cross paying the penalty of his crime.

It is worthwhile to make a list of the articles of belief, which explicitly or by implication, were included in the malefactor’s confession of faith:

1. Jesus was sinless—”this man hath done nothing amiss.”
2. He himself was a worthless sinner: “We indeed receive the due reward of our deeds.”
3. Jesus was “Lord”, i.e. the Meessiah.
4. He would rise from the deed.
5. He would ascend to heaven.
6. He would come again,
7. At his coming he would raise dead —”remember me,” a victim crucifixion,
8. “Remember me” also implies discrimination (i.e. judgment) between those accepted and those not.
9. His coming would also establish a kingdom.

The catalogue is certainly a remarkable one, especially when set over against the blindness of the apostles who had had such exceptional opportunities of grasping the truth of the Father’s purpose in His Son.

Now it is possible to add other even more remarkable items to the list. The other malefactor, echoing the jibes of the chief priests, had railed on Jesus, saying: “If thou be the Christ, save thyself and us.” But this man made a careful distinction. He said, in effect: “I know you are the Christ. Therefore save me.” This seems to imply a realisation that Jesus must die, and that apart from the death of Jesus there could be no salvation for himself! This harmonizes admirably with what has already been learned concerning the man. It adds the crowning fact to his saving knowledge of Jesus that without the death of the Saviour on the cross his own sins could not be forgiven!

There is also this. The rebuke to his fellow: “Dost not thou fear God . . . ?” carried with it the implication: “I do fear Him.” Thus, not only did he believe, but he also made an open confession of faith. Up to that point, as a supporter of a popular hero Barabbas, he and his fellow would have the strong sympathy of the crowd. But now this was forfeited. He chose instead to share the reproach of Christ.

A lapsed disciple

The question inevitably arises: How came this malefactor to have such remarkable insight into all these divine truths? To this, there is only one possible answer: He had been a disciple of Jesus in earlier days! Not only so, to have gained such exceptional knowledge of his character and teaching he must have been one of Christ’s most intimate followers.

Consequently, it is manifestly inaccurate and unfair to represent this man as making a “deathbed” repentance-a rank unbeliever suddenly brought to belief in the Saviour when face to face with the stark horror of death.

A far more close (though not exact) parallel would be with Peter, who in spite of many vigorous protestations to the contrary, denied His Lord three times and then, coming to himself, went out and wept bitterly. For such the grace of divine forgiveness is ever available “I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin” (Ps. 32:5).

Thus it was with David; thus it was with Peter; and thus also it was with this nameless sinner, for did he not declare: “We (the other malefactor and himself) are receiving the due reward of our deeds”?

The suggestion that a man of this character could ever have been a disciple is not as unlikely as it may seem. This matter is worth exploring further.

The word “thief” in the ordinary version of the Bible is misleading. This man crucified with Christ was neither pick-pocket, cat-burglar, highwayman nor brigand. The same word is applied to Barabbas (Jn. 18:40 Gk.), who certainly was no insignificant, unknown cutthroat from the hills, but a well-known and popular figure in Judaea (a “notable prisoner”; Mt. 27:16), who had led a rebellion in Jerusalem itself against Roman authority (Lk. 23:19). This “thief” was one of a number who had been taken prisoner during this upheaval: “And there was one named Barabbas which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him…” (Mk. 15:7).

Evidently, then, Barabbas and his two fellows were Jewish Zealots, patriots who might be described in modern jargon as members of the nationalist resistance movement.

Alternative to Jesus

With these facts in mind the sequence of ideas in John 6 becomes impressive. At the time of that Passover, Jesus had fed a great multitude miraculously from a few loaves and fishes. The effect of this on the crowd was more marked than after any of his other miracles: “Then those men, when they had seen the miracles that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world. When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone” (Jn. 6:14,15).

The party of the Zealots evidently thought that at last they had found the very leader they needed. Led by a chief endowed with such amazing powers, they could speedily drive the Romans into the sea, and the Kingdom of Jehovah over Israel would once again be established in Palestine.

But Jesus quenched all such wild notions by an abrupt departure and, next day, by his discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” There was immediately a sharp reaction among the multitude: “Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is a hard saying: who can hear it? . . . From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him” (Jn.6 :53,60,66).

The more energetic and idealistic of these who now deserted Jesus would almost inevitably drift into the ranks of the Zealots. Where else could they go? And if indeed this “thief” crucified with Jesus was among that number, the sudden regeneration of faith when hanging on the cross is easily understood. He would not only recognize Jesus but would also have it driven home to his mind that Jesus, in foretelling his own miserable death at the time of Passover in order that others might have eternal life, had proved himself a true prophet. It would therefore come to him in a flash that all the other far-reaching claims included in that discourse at Capernaum must also be true- his divine origin, his Messiahship, his sinlessness, his resurrection and his coming again to raise the dead (see, for instance, John 6:46,38,51,62,54,). All of these, in one way or another, this malefactor now included in the noblest confession of faith ever made. And who can doubt that he was encouraged to it by the memory of other words of Jesus that day: “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (Jn.6:37)?

Baptized?

There need be no difficulty now over the question: Will this malefactor receive his eternal life without being baptized? The preponderant evidence of the New Testament is that baptism is essential for salvation (Mt. 3:15; Jn. 3:5; Mk. 16:15,16; Acts 10:48 and 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21). Appropriately, then, both John the Baptist and Jesus had insisted on baptism for their disciples (Jn.3 :22,23; 4 :1,2). So if this crucified sinner were indeed a renegade disciple, his earlier acceptance of Christian baptism may be safely presumed.

A question of some interest now arises. Baptism is a symbolic death with Christ. Then, since this malefactor was literally crucified with Christ, dying when he died, would he need the symbolic death also? The answer is not important for modern believers, but it is intriguing.

In that endless day of living death how Jesus would be heartened by this sinner’s matchless confession of faith. What a difference it would make to the spirit with which he now endured the torment of suffering and shame. Here was plain proof to his own eyes and ears that his work was not in vain.

Re-punctuation

No wonder, then, that he answered the man’s appeal with such emphasis: “Verily / say unto thee today, Thou shalt be with me in Paradise” —as who should say: ‘Remember you then, in the day of my glory? nay, you shall have my assurance now.’

Some are uneasy about this shift of a comma in such a way as to rid the words of Jesus of the meaning put on them by a misguided orthodoxy, but they have no need to be. Textually and grammatically, and also from the point of view of harmony with the context and the over-all teaching of Scripture, this re-punctuation of the words is altogether sound.

The same construction (in Gk.) comes in Lk. 22:61 (see RV); Acts 26 :29. There are plenty of examples in the RV of corrections of, or alternatives to AV punctuation similar to the one suggested here: Lk. 23:42 (the preceding verse!); 17:7; 13:24; 10:5; 12:1; 24:47; 21:34; 1:45; Mt. 19:28; 24:47; Jn. 1:3; 4:35; 7:21,38; 11:28; 16:23; Rom. 9:5; 15:13; Dt. 5:29; Is. 40:3; Jer. 31:33. At Lk. 23:43 the Gospel according to Nicodemus has the order of words: “Today I say unto thee . . .” Yet there may be a sense in which the promise of Jesus had its fulfilment in the very day in which it was spoken (see Study 232).

Paradise

One further detail of interest and importance remains for consideration. The malefactor asked to be remembered in Christ’s kingdom. Why, then, did Jesus answer with a promise of blessing “in that Paradise” (see Gk. text)?

There is, of course, no adequate ground for equating Paradise with heaven, as is commonly done. In Genesis 2,3 LXX uses “paradise” thirteen times. The word normally means a garden, and is used with this specific reference in Ezekiel 36:35: “This land that was desolate is become like the garden (paradise) of Eden; and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are become fenced, and are inhabited.”

Paul’s personal reminiscence about being “caught up to Paradise” (2 Cor. 12:1-4) is much too figurative and problematical to serve as proof for anything. The promise: “To him that overcometh I will give to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the Paradise of God” (Rev. 2:7), also has a marked figurative element, but it is as definitive as one could wish, for it pictures an enjoyment of this world restored to the faultless perfection of the Garden of Eden (cp. Rev.22:2 for the same idea).

A little reflection will now show that there was purpose and wonderful insight in this precise choice of words made by Jesus. It was in Paradise that Adam and his wife, whilst yet innocent of transgression, had fellowship with the angels, the sons of God (Job 38:7). Later, because of sin, that high privilege was lost. Instead they found themselves thrust forth from the garden and put under sentence of death. Yet even in the hour of condemnation they were given ground for hope in the promise of a Seed of the Woman who would crush the power of sin, himself suffering in the process (Gen. 3:15). Understanding and believing this matchless Promise, Adam gave his wife a new name: Eve, the mother of life. Thus Adam and Eve died according to the curse, but they died justified by faith in the promise of the Saviour.

All this story of human sin, condemnation and regeneration was re-enacted in the microcosm experience of this thief to whom Jesus spoke. He had known the fellowship of the Son of God: he too through disbelief had gone over to the side of the Enemy: he suffered the due reward of his deeds, for still death was and is the wages of sin, and he, believing in the promised Saviour who was even now consummating at his side the great work of sin-conquest, was justified by his faith and received the sublime and emphatic assurance of restoration to life and the fellowship of his Lord.

All this remarkable parallel Jesus saw in a flash and with the divine wisdom which was with him to his dying breath he embodied it in a word, for the blessing and inspiration of generations to come: “Thou shalt be with me in Paradise.”

“Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.”

This phenomenon associated with the sufferings of Christ is mysterious. Why should it happen when it did? Why should it happen at all? It is recorded with the utmost brevity and simplicity, and without a word of explanation (which itself also is a fact needing to be explained!)

The first answer to these queries would seem to be that the gospel writers give no explanation because explanation had already been given-in the Old Testament. There are two Old Testament Scriptures which fill in the background to this impressive happening. It will not be amiss to consider them briefly.

Amos – Messianic prophet

At first sight, Amos 8 would scarcely commend itself to the student as a Messianic prophecy. Yet it presents an impressive sequence of ideas:

a.	v.8: “Shall not the land tremble for this, and every one mourn that dwelleth therein? And it shall rise up wholly as a flood.” This is earthquake, as at the crucifixion.
b.	v.9: “And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord God, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day.” Darkness, beginning at noon, “the sixth hour”!
c.	v.10: “And I will make it as the mourning for an only son (Jesus, the only-begotten Son of God,) and the end thereof as a bitter day.” With this compare Luke 23:48: “And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts…”
d.	v. 11: “A famine of hearing the words of the Lord.” Jewry first refused stubbornly to accept the proffered forgiveness of God, and then were shut out of the opportunity of accepting it. Darkness descended upon their prophets. There was no longer any “Word of the Lord” in their midst.
e.	v. 12: “And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east.” So they have, literally!
f.	v.13: “In that day shall the fair virgins and the young men faint for thirst.” With this contrast the opening of the Christian dispensation: “And it shall come to pass in the Last Days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: and on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy” (Acts 2:17,18).
g.	With these also may be aligned v.2: “And he said, Amos, what seest thou? And I said, A basket of summer fruit. Then said the Lord unto me, The end is come upon my people of Israel: I will not again pass by them any more.” What possible connection between a basket of summer fruit and such a grim pronouncement of doom? The clue is in Deuteronomy 26:1-11, which should be read carefully noting especially the word “basket” in v.2. Had Israel followed its duty to God in faithfulness, at the appropriate season of the year the temple court would have been crammed with baskets of summer fruit brought in thankfulness to God the Giver. But instead the prophet saw one basket only-in all the nation one man, and one only, who was prepared to render to God the things that were God’s. And that man —Jesus! Hence, then, the denunciation that in place of happy rejoicing and fellowship there should be death and the curse: “The end is come upon my people Israel; I will not pass by them any more. And the songs of the temple shall be howlings in that day … the dead bodies shall be many.”

In this context, items (a) and (b) —earthquake and darkness —can have only one significance: they were a drastic manifestation of heaven’s displeasure at the calculated villainy that brought about such a dreadful scene as was enacted that day at Golgotha. And as such, were they inappropriate?

A Messianic Psalm

Quite outstanding in force and clarity among the prophecies of Christ’s experience at Golgotha is Psalm 18. That the Psalm is about Jesus can scarcely be doubted in the face of the following facts:

a.	v.4: “The sorrows of death compassed me.” The Septuagint phrase is used by Peter with reference to the death of Christ, in Acts 2:24.
b.	v. 19: “He delivered me because he delighted in me” is the divine answer to the chief priests’ derisive quoting of Scripture at the Son of God as he hung on the cross. “Let him deliver him, now, if he will have him.” (Mt. 27:43).
c.	v.2: “In him will I trust” is applied to Christ in Hebrews 2:13.
d.	v.49: is applied by Paul in Romans 15:9 to the preaching of Christ’s gospel to the Gentiles.
e.	The language of v.20-24 could apply to none but Christ: “The Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands hath he recompensed me. For I have kept the ways of the Lord, and have not wickedly departed from my God . . . Therefore hath the Lord recompensed me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in his eyesight.” Only Jesus could speak with such sublime confidence of his own righteousness, and at the same time add: “I kept myself from mine iniquity” (v.23). The language fits to perfection this sinless son of God who shared so intimately the innate propensity and curse of Adam’s race.
f.	Even the title of the Psalm is consonant with this Messianic application: “A psalm of the Beloved in the day that the Lord delivered him out of the hand of all his enemies, (see Lk. 1:74), and from the hand of Sheol”-so reads the unpointed Hebrew.

The anger of God

What the gospel writers describe but do not explain in connection with the crucifixion of Jesus is described even more fully here (in verses 4-16). It also explained.

“I will call upon the Lord, who is worthy to be praised; so shall I be saved from mine enemies. The sorrows of death compassed me, and the floods of ungodly men made me afraid. The sorrows of hell compassed me about: the snares of death prevented me” (v,3-5). The sufferings of Christ on the cross are described here. At such a time Jesus, to whom prayer was as natural as breathing, turned to his Father in heaven: “In my distress I called upon the Lord, and cried unto my God: he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came before him, even unto his ears.”

The answer was immediate and awe-inspiring: “Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations also of the hills moved and were shaken, because he was wroth.” This is the earthquake described by Matthew. And, as in Amos 8, the reason for it is plainly given: “because he was wroth.” It was the anger of the Lord against the great sin of His people.

Then follows a description of a theophany to Jesus on the cross which beggars the resources of human language: “There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it. He bowed the heavens also, and came down: and darkness was under his feet. And he rode upon a cherub and did fly: yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind; he made darkness his secret place; and his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies” (v.8-11).

Certain details here call for careful examination. First, the emphasis on darkness: “a smoke . . . darkness under his feet . . . darkness his secret place . . . dark waters and thick clouds . . .” It is this darkness which Matthew, Mark and Luke all mention with such tantalizing brevity.

Over against this repeated mention of darkness is a similar emphasis on the exact opposite: “fire . . . coals of fire . . . lightnings” (five phrases).

Light and Darkness

The paradox is resolved by the fact that the Divine Glory is at once Light to those who will receive it and Darkness to those who will not. The pillar of fire was light to the people of Israel, but darkness to the Egyptians. The plague of darkness in Egypt was no mere sandstorm but the drawing near of the glory of God in warning that drastic divine action was imminent; but to Israel it meant “light in their dwellings.” Jesus was the Light of the World, but he also spoke parables that “seeing they might see and not perceive.” He is forgiveness to those who will have him, and judgement to those who will not.

Here, then, is the explanation of the mysterious happenings at Golgotha.

The idea of an eclipse of the sun is only an ignorant guess, for it was Passover, the time of full moon when eclipse of the sun is a sheer impossibility; nor can any eclipse continue for a period of three hours.

Instead, another prophecy gives the right emphasis: “We wait for light, but behold obscurity; for brightness, but we walk in darkness . . . We stumble at noonday, as in the night” (Is. 59:9,10).

Also, the enigmatic words of Jesus, spoken six months earlier, now take on a fuller meaning: “When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he” (Jn. 8:28).

So, whilst “the whole land” shuddered under the gloom of this frightening darkness, for Jesus on the cross it meant the brightness of the Shekinah glory, the lightning of the divine energy, the brightness that no man could approach unto.

A sacrifice accepted

For all this there was a reason, a big, compelling divine reason: Because “the life is in the blood,” the blood of all sacrifices must be God’s, poured out at the base of His altar or sprinkled before the veil in His Holy Place, or in the case of the most important of all sin-offerings, brought into the very presence of God Himself and there displayed upon His mercy seat between the cherubim of glory.

Yet here, at Golgotha, the blood of Jesus was being poured out as the True Sacrifice for the sins of the people but not in the sanctuary, not in the temple court, not even in the holy city, but outside the camp of Israel. Therefore, since the blood of this all-sufficient sacrifice could not be brought into the divine presence, the divine presence came to him as he hung there a-dying — came to him in the pillar of dark cloud and flashing fire, in the “smoking furnace and flaming torch” that ratified Abraham’s covenant 2,000 years earlier.

Thus the prayer of Jesus was answered. The “brightness” of Him who shone forth from upon the cherubim brought to Golgotha the Father’s glad acceptance of a life fully and freely offered up. This was His Beloved Son in whom He was well pleased! Surely such words of encouragement were actually spoken to Jesus as his last minutes of pain and wretchedness dragged on with leaden feet? “The Lord also thundered in the heavens, and the Highest gave His voice.” When, on a former occasion the Father spake to’ His Son in audible fashion, some said: “An angel spake to him”, but others, less discerning, said that it thundered (Jn.12:29). Here at Golgotha were the same phenomena: “I have glorified My name, and I will glorify it again.”

Earthquake

But whilst to the Lord’s Suffering Servant there was approval and re-assurance, to those responsible for this ghastly crime the darkness, earthquake and storm were a terrifying concentration of divine hostility to this wilful display of stony-hearted villainy and calculated rebellion: “Then the channels of waters appeared, and the foundations of the world were laid bare at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.” Here once again earthquake, but described now in such a phrase as to suggest the way by which David won a way into the holy city (2 Sam. 5:8) —”the channels of waters.” How appropriately, then, does Matthew’s record read: “The graves were opened . . . and the saints came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city.” Only after the death and the resurrection of Jesus could those who were to be blessed in him enter into the holy city!

Thus darkness and earthquake had an element both of blessing and of judgment. The darkness shrouded the vivid brightness of the Shekinah Glory shining in glad acceptance of the sufferings of Christ; but to all the rest it meant only divine displeasure at this culmination of human wickedness in the slaughter of the Innocent. The earthquake likewise was the Lord’s rebuke because “he was wroth.” Yet through it the great redemption in Christ was foreshadowed by the opening of graves and the resurrection of saints. The Psalm proceeds to celebrate the salvation of Jesus the Saviour: “He delivered me from my strong enemy (the power of the grave), and from them which hated me (the Jews who crucified him) … he delivered me, because he delighted in me.”

The two malefactors

One last consideration. If indeed the awesome Shekinah Glory of the Lord appeared to Jesus on the cross, then what did it mean for the two men who were crucified with him? The one hung there in unbelief and blasphemy, and now he was in the very Presence of God! The other had been newborn to a faith that was altogether unique. If, indeed, Jesus did say to him: “Today thou shalt be with me in Paradise,” then here was the fulfilment of his promise!

The death of Jesus on the cross was altogether abnormal in a number of ways —the remarkably short time before death ensued, the loud cry immediately before the end, the flow first of blood and then of water from his side. His burial was equally unusual, for it became the personal concern of two of the leading men in the nation of Israel-Joseph of Arimathea, and Nicodemus. These present a most interesting study in character.

Secret disciple

Joseph was a rich man (Mt.) and “an honourable counsellor” (Mk ), a title which must signify that he was not only a member of the Sanhedrin, but of ”cabinet” rank he was one of the front bench. He was of Arimathea, very, probably the birthplace of Samuel —Ramathaim Zophim. Two of the gospels (Mt. Jn.) describe him as a disciple; the others say that he “waited for the kingdom of God”. John adds that he was a disciple “secretly, for fear of the Jews”. Here is one of the biggest hardships, one of the most taxing demands, that loyalty to Christ puts upon the would-be disciple facing the shame that attaches to association with Christ. The pressure exerted by social opinion against the unorthodox in that day, could be formidable, and Joseph the honourable counsellor had silted in the face of it—he was a disciple, but only secretly.

What was it, then, that stiffened his resolution to such an extent that he now came out into the open and went boldly to Pilate to ask for the body of Jesus that he might give him decent burial?

Two hints are supplied by the narrative. One, “he looked for the kingdom of God.” This should probably be translated more strongly: “he expected (as though not far away) the kingdom of God”; and in such a context this can only mean that he was persuaded that Jesus would be its King. Yet here was Jesus a lifeless bloody corpse upon which the rigor of death was already extending its cold embrace. It is a fair inference that something had happened to convince Joseph that this Jesus, crucified and stark, would nevertheless receive back the life he had given up. And in the face of this conviction, social standing and worldly circumstance went for nothing. Thus in his crucifixion Jesus united together three men, poles apart in their origins and status, men who were all happy to confess Jesus as Lord, the Lord who would rise from the dead —and this they did at the climax of his humiliation. It may well be true that at the time Jesus died on the cross the only men who were persuaded of his resurrection to eternal life were Joseph and Nicodemus and the malefactor on the cross I

But this conclusion only pushes a stage further back the mystery of Joseph’s sudden change of outlook. What was it that so convinced him that Jesus would rise from the dead, that he was now fully prepared to face the derision, contempt and ostracism of men whose good opinion he had hitherto highly esteemed?

Present at the trial?

The answer to this enquiry may lie in the trial of Jesus. One of the strangest things about the Lord’s appearance before the Sanhedrin is that although he made no attempt whatever to defend himself, and although prosecution, judge and jury were a unique combination of unscrupulous men bent on a capital sentence and nothing less, the case against the accused broke down time after time. For some reason or other the forms of legality had to be followed, even though all were bitterly hostile to the prisoner at the bar. And how was it that “their witness agreed not together”, being apparently so hopelesly inadequate that even though these wicked men feverishly sought a verdict of “Guilty”, they dared not use such unsatisfactory grounds for condemnation?

The explanation of all such difficulties could be the presence of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, one or both, at the trial. It would need only the presence of one of these, skilful in the Law of Moses, to make the enemies of Jesus realize that they could not blatantly turn the Council Chamber into a Star Chamber. The forms of law would have to be observed. And, further, when the most outrageous accusations were hurled against Jesus, it would require only the very occasional interpolation of a word from an expert lawyer such as Joseph or Nicodemus to demonstrate the contradictory nature or insufficiency of the evidence. “Joseph had not consented (s.w. Ex.23 :1) to the counsel (s.w.Ps.l :1,5) and deed of them”. And is this why Luke describes him as “a good man, and a just”? The first epithet would appropriately describe his honouring the Lord with the best possible burial; the second would apply to his unavailing stand for justice at Jesus’ trial. John’s phrase: “after this” (v.38)-i.e. after v.36,37-suggests that final conviction came by seeing one scripture after another fulfilled in spite of the efforts of the rulers.

Nicodemus

The case of Nicodemus was similar. His name is surely Greek-‘Conqueror of the people’; but if Hebrew it means ‘Innocent of blood’, innocent of the blood of Jesus. He appears at the beginning of the ministry as “the teacher of Israel” (Jn.3 :10RV), i.e. as president of the Sanhedrin, another “honourable counsellor”. He came to Jesus by night because it would be derogatory to his high office and damaging to his social standing if it were known that he had come seeking audience of the young prophet of Galilee. Nevertheless he deferred to the authority of Jesus and suffered himself to be instructed. He, the teacher of Israel, sat at the feet of an unschooled carpenter!

More than two years later he raised his voice in the council in meek protest against the illegal procedure contemplated against Jesus, only to be silenced by crude and angry colleagues. No longer was he “the teacher of Israel.” Ruthless party politics had been quick to suspect his timid sympathies with the man of Galilee, and he had been ousted from office. It was now being openly threatened that any man who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah, be he blind, beggar or front bench Sanhedrist, would be summarily excommunicated. What a thing to happen to members of the Council What a sensational piece of news this would be! How the streets of Jerusalem would hum with excitement about it!

So, although “among the chief rulers many believed on him, because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue. For they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God” (Jn.12 :42,43). Clearly these words were written with reference to men like Joseph and Nicodemus, and must be an accurate description of how things stood with them then, in the last week of the Lord’s ministry. It follows, then, that this drastic change came about in their outlook and response—their conversion, in short—took place between that time and the evening when Jesus was buried; even as Jesus had prophesied: “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all ment (all kinds of men) unto me.” It was the crucifixion which convinced both, as it had convinced the malefactor that Jesus was “the Christ who abideth for ever.” (Jn.12 :32,34). As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so was the Son of man now lifted up, and these men, believing in him at last, knew that they would not perish, but in him would have everlasting life.

So here they were, these two-honourable counsellors, truly! —humbling themselves at the foot of the cross, gladly giving homage to a dead man whose claims, when living, they had struggled desperately to hold at arm’s length. Both had found their faith when others had lost theirs. Disciples of a corpse!

One writer has pointed out what a multiplicity of twos were associated with the death and resurrection of Christ: two malefactors, two disciples to provide burial, two women watching, two angels at the resurrection, two disciples run to the tomb to verify the resurrection. Is it because “at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established”? or is there some further meaning?

Pilate grants the body

Coming to a great decision—”he took courage” —Joseph went in to Pilate to ask for custody of the body. But for this the Lord’s body might have been flung out into Gehenna (Jer.31 ;40). And how glad the chief priests would have been to have it so. But for Joseph’s riches and his high social position there would have been no access to the governor’s presence at all.

Pilate, quite astonished to, learn that Jesus was already dead within six hours of crucifixon, sought confirmation from the centurion in charge. When fully satisfied, he promptly granted the body to Joseph. Mark’s own word to describe this transaction means that he gave it as a gift, freely. There is point in this, for apparently whilst it was not unusual for the bodies of criminals to be granted to friends or relatives for disposal, it was generally expected that the procedure be helped through by means of a douceur. And Pilate was not averse to taking a bribe.

The contrast with his attitude to the chief priests should not be passed over. When they had complained about the inscription over the cross of Christ, Pilate had truculently answered: “What I have written, I have written.” Now with Joseph he is willing —nay, almost anxious-to oblige. Such was the impression made upon him by Jesus.

Thus there came about the fulfilment in remarkably detailed fashion of yet another Old Testament prophecy: “And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death” (Is.53 :9). The Nazarene, crucified between two criminals, found interment in the tomb of a rich man, instead of rotting in Gehenna. The literal translation of these words should begin: “And he gave (or appointed) his grave . . .” The unspecified subject of this sentence might be God, in which case the reference is to His inscrutable foreknowledge of all that was to transpire concerning His Suffering Servant, or-on a lower level —it might be Pilate, in which case the remarkably detailed accuracy of the prophecy is impressive; for-read thus-it anticipates that the same man who appointed that Jesus be crucified between two thieves should later decree his burial in a rich man’s tomb!

Interment

As soon as Pilate had given sanction, all was feverish but reverent haste. Joseph bought a long cerecloth of linen in the shops which were just preparing to shut for the Passover Sabbath Nicodemus brought also an immense quantity of myrrh and aloes, almost as much as was used at the interment of the famous Gamaliel II. No expense was spared. It was the funeral of a king. These two men must have had servants present (Mk.15 :46; 16 :4) to handle the body of Jesus, but if they undertook that holy task themselves, there would be no Passover for them (Num.9 :9,10).

The account of the obsequies of king Asa (2 Chr, 16 : 14) may perhaps suggest a threefold use for the spices employed: first, they were put on and between the folds of the linen in which the limbs and then the entire body was wrapped; also they were used to line the recess in which the body was laid; and, finally, some would be burned in the tomb to make it sweet and fresh.

All this, John says, was “as the manner of the Jews is to bury.” This emphasis was necessary, for the Egyptians, the great masters of the art of sepulture in ancient days, used to remove the brain and vicera before embalming the body. John is here preparing the reader for his account of the resurrection of Jesus, a resurrection that was to be complete, entire, wanting nothing. And doubtless, too, his symbolic mind saw in these facts much of significance concerning the mystical body of Christ, which is his Church.

The detailed mention of spices has pointed Old Testament associations. In Psalm 45 the king who rides in glory and in majesty is one whose garments “smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia.” This is almost to be expected, for he is one who is “anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows”, and the anointing oil prescribed in the Law had these very constituents (Ex.30 :23,24). But this anointing oil was for the priests in tabernacle and temple. Whence it follows that this king is a priest also in his own right!

The tomb was Joseph’s own, new and rock-hewn (Ex.33 :22), in Joseph’s garden hard by the place of crucifixion. “Such was our Saviour’s poverty, that as he lived in lended houses, so he was buried in a borrowed sepulchre, being rather a tenant than owner thereof” (Fuller) If the Gordon tomb is an incorrect identification (and the argument still rages), the remains of Joseph himself now rest where Jesus was laid.

The very newness of the tomb was worthy of special comment. Luke’s phrase: “wherein never man before was laid” employs a triple negative. It was the custom rather than the exception to use ancient tombs over and over again, just as in many an English churchyard a score or more of generations have been buried in the same small acre. But there is more in this. It has been pointed out that here was yet another remarkably accurate fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy: “Neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption” (Ps.16 :10). When, on the third day, the Spirit of God breathed life into the Second Adam and the angel of the Lord rolled away the stone, Jesus did not even see corruption, for his tomb was new and had never known any earlier contact with the corruption of death.

Thus, once again, the problem is provoked as to why the writers of the gospels should seize on some fulfilments of Old Testament prophecy to bring to the attention of their readers and yet should fail to emphasize others often more impressive. Isaiah 53 :9 and Psalm 16 :10, just considered, are interesting examples. It has also been observed that the gospels present a remarkable parallel between the birth and the death of Jesus. Instead of Joseph, a just man, and the birth pangs of a virgin womb by the power of the Holy Spirit, there is another Joseph, a just man, and the pangs of death leading to deliverance from a virgin tomb by the power of the Holy Spirit.

John hints at the happy coincidence that Joseph’s garden tomb should be so very near to Golgotha. Evidently the beginning of the Sabbath was almost on them as it was with little margin of time that the self-assigned task was thankfully completed. There in a garden, the Second Adam slept, that through his sleep there might come into existence his Bride-to-be.

And two of his devoted followers, Mary Magdalene and Mary the wife of Alphaeus, sat watching until the last moment when the great stone was rolled into its appointed place, and thereby they surely qualified for the high honour of being the first to see Jesus after he rose from the tomb.

Now, at last, for a short while, the Son of man had where to lay his head (Mt.8 :20). There, hidden in a cleft of the rock (Ex.33 :22; 34:6) he waited until the glory of the Lord came, proclaiming the Name of the Lord.

There is no peace for the wicked. All through that weekend the minds of Annas and his colleagues were plagued by the thought of dreadful possibilities. So much concerning the Nazarene had seemed to happen that day exactly according to familiar phrases in the prophets! More than that, all that he had foretold to his own disciples concerning his own fate (they had had it all from Judas; Mt. 16:21; 20:19) had come about precisely as he said, even though they themselves had originally planned it otherwise. Then would his other words come true as well? — how he had mysteriously said: ‘the third day he shall rise again.” Had they not themselves heard him speak of raising a destroyed temple in three days? — and they knew right well that it was not the temple on Mount Zion that he meant. Linking that with his scornful word to them about the sign of the prophet Jonah (Matthew 16:4), they might well wonder uneasily what strange impossibilities that Passover might yet hold for them. The idea was in their minds, but not one of them dared frame it in words. Yet they separately knew, each in his own heart, that this was the Heir and they had killed him that the inheritance might be theirs (Lk. 20:14).

Men in a quandary

There was nothing else for it now but to carry the thing through consistently. Even though this Nazarene Messiah was already a cold corpse they must nevertheless take every possible precaution to stifle any strange tale which might be put about concerning him. The sooner he and the memory of him rotted together, the better.

In a way the defection of Joseph, the counsellor, to join the disciples of this pseudo-Messiah was a good thing. Their morale was too low to gain much from his accession to their numbers, and the fact that Jesus had been interred in his new tomb, the making of which had been a familiar feature of recent activity outside the city wall, made it comparatively easy to take precautionary measures. If this Jesus did “rise” —and Lazarus in Bethany had been a hard pill to swallow! — they would be ready for him.

But what could they do without Pilate’s approval. Yet the man’s uncertain temper was at its worst that Passover; and no wonder, when one considered how they had bullied him, as they could never have hoped to do, in order to get the condemnation of Jesus signed and carried through that day. They had best leave him alone for a while. In any case, there was no immediate threat of trouble, for this was Passover night, and everyone – disciples and all — would be indoors. It was the one night in the year when there was not a single crime in Jerusalem. The third day would be the time of crisis. That was what they must prepare for.

Even so, relaxation on that Sabbath was an impossibility for them. Their Sabbath rest, had they but known it, was now taken away for ever. Matthew intimates as much by the way in which he refers to it as “the next day that followed the day of preparation”. So it was with light regard for Sabbath desecration that these men, who earlier had shown such public abhorrence of Pilate’s judgement hall (Jr. 18:28), and who had railed at Jesus for his “flouting” of Sabbath law, now went, in secret to the governor once again — this time unworried about defilement.

It may be safely presumed that they took with them an adequate “persuader”, for they knew well enough that Pilate was no longer disposed to oblige them. Their approach was both suave and respectful: “Sir” — the word is literally “Lord”, and contrasts sharply with the total omission of any title of dignity in their encounters with Pilate on the day of crucifixion: “We remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day.” It almost seemed that they believed what his disciples didn’t (Mk. 9:10). Yet it would not do to let Pilate think that they had any serious fear of this really happening (though indeed, this was the stark truth of the matter), so they dressed it up in a way that would represent them as zealous for the common good:…” lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead.” In twenty four hours this was the most plausible cover-up they could concoct. Even if panic-stricken leaderless disciples were to attempt such a hare-brained imposition on public credulity, would it not be sufficient to expose their desperate folly by a public challenge: “If your Jesus has risen from the dead, give us evidence, other than your own word, that he is alive again.”

Aware that they were on the thinnest ice imaginable, these Sadducee priests and their Pharisee rivals (adversity makes strange bedfellows! Jn. 18:3) rushed Pilate on past the absurdity of their postulates to the inconvenience and embarrassment of the outcome: “So the last error shall be worse than the first.” It was bad enough to have this “deceiver” claiming for three and a half years to be the Messiah, but to have the claim published that he was now risen from the dead would be vastly worse — worse in its effects on the people, and thus in its consequences for both Pilate and themselves. The vileness of these men comes out in their choice of phrase: “The last error shall be worse than the first,” they actually quoted the words of Tamar, raped by her abominable brother Amman (2 Sam. 13:16) — as though the gracious ministry of Jesus fell into the same category as such wickedness!

But now, in fact, the last truth — his resurrection -was to prove greater than the first —his virgin birth.

Bribed or not, Pilate received their plea for precautionary measures with brusque lack of sympathy: “Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.” The Greek expression is peremptory and contemptuous: “Away with you. Be off!” As recently as the previous morning, Pilate had been pushed around by these men more than enough, and he was still fuming over it.

The reference to a watch is commonly interpreted as meaning the temple guard, a squad of Jewish policemen under the authority of the chief priests. But this view ignores what was said to the guard next day: “and if this come to the governor’s ears (RVm_: to a hearing before the governor) we will persuade him, and secure you” 28:14). Had they been the temple police Pilate would not have used the Latin word for “a guard,” nor would he have been interested in the affair at all, much less in applying discipline.

Nor will it do to read the words: “Have a watch” – RVm: take a guard — as though offering them a squad of Roman soldiers. This is a rather forced unnatural reading of the Greek word.

It seems likely that for the duration of the great Feasts, a detachment from the Roman garrison was assigned to the Jewish rulers to help in time of emergency in maintaining order among the crowds of worshippers. Some of these had already been on duty at the arrest of Jesus and at his crucifixion. Now Pilate reminded the chief priests: “You have some of my men at your disposal already; then why bother me about this business?”

It was tacit approval, but coupled with a strangely enigmatic observation: “Make it as sure as ye know.” Was this a sardonic derisive way of showing that he had seen through them? ‘You know what a formidable problem those chicken-hearted disciples of Jesus are. So by all means take the most stringent precautions against them.’

Or is it possible that Pilate was saying: You know he will rise from the dead, and you are scared of the consequences; so by all means do all you can to stop him! Such a surmise is less improbable than it seems at first sight. The previous day Pilate had spent much time in the presence of Jesus, and had conversed with him a good deal. There was also the portentous dream which his wife had had. And, not least, there was the astonishing sequence of awesome events coinciding with the crucifixion. Pilate himself was nearer to believing in Jesus than he cared to admit to anyone. Yet what he had written he had written!

So the priests went their way. They sealed the stone — presumably by the time-honoured method of tape and sealing wax, or by the copious use of cement. And the Roman soldiers who had been on duty at the crucifixion were again more close to Jesus than anyone.

It was a measure of the distraught and anxious frame of mind of these priests that they could deem their seals adequate to prevent either theft or resurrection, certainly the seals, carefully affixed, were a clear evidence that they did not trust the soldiers! Nevertheless, next morning, when these men came to them, all bewildered and shaken with a circumstantial tale about earthquake and angels, their story was never questioned for a moment! Of the obvious reaction: “Liars, all of you!” there was never a sign.

As these priests lay sleepless on their beds that night did it occur to any of them to wonder whefher perhaps they had made a mistake? Could it be that in sealing the stone they had actually provided evidence, which they themselves would not be able to deny, that the crucified Jesus was risen from the dead?

NOTES: Matthew 27:62-66

What a dramatic contrast between the preceding narrative with its record of sorrowing devotion and the scheming fearful hostility of these rulers!

62.	The day of the Preparation. According to Edersheim a standard expression for Friday (Mark explains it; 15:42). At this Passover the usual Sabbath and the special Passover Sabbath (Lev. 23:5-7) coincided.
	Came together. Gk. passive surely implies that they were specially convened by the Sadducee chief priest, who doubtless hod disturbing memories of the Lazarus episode.
63.	We remember. They tell Pilate that Jesus made this prophecy. Then in 28:14, they probably told him of its fulfilment! Gk. suggests ‘we were reminded’ — by whom? Was it the last act of Judas? Or a specially brave word of witness by Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea?
	That deceiver. There is no instance in the gospels of the enemies of the Lord referring to him as “Jesus”. “He is called deceiver for the consolation of his servants who shall (also) be called deceivers”. (Augustus).
	Said -When? Jn. 2:19; Mt. 12:40 – which they evidently understood.
	While he was yet alive. A crass pleonasm! Could Jesus have said it after he was dead? The use of these words betrays the intense agitation of these men. His enemies knew him to be dead. Why do his modern enemies (e.g. Shonfield) think they know better?
64.	The third day. This interprets the idiomatic: After three days. Cp. Mk. 8:31; 10:34. See, for details, ‘Passover”, HAW ch. 10. Jerusalem Targum: “A day and a night together make up a night-day, and any part of such a period is accounted as the whole.”
	The last error worse than the first. Here first (Gk. protos) implies not just one initial evil, but many (his miracles and his teaching). Instead, that truth (resurrection) is better than the first (virgin birth). What a smear it was to quote such a passage as 2 Sam. 13:6 about Jesus!
	Error (deseil) is virtually s.w. verse 63: deceiver.
65.	Three curt verbs here make evident Pilate’s impatience and lack of sympathy. Contrast here his marked willingness to oblige Joseph of Arimathea; v.58
	A watch. Roman,- s.w. 28; 11; Jn. 18:3,1 2
66.	Made the sepulchre sure. The plural use of this word in three vereses – they made sure also that there would be yet more witnesses to the resurrection, unwilling witnesses, too! In a Messianic prophecy Is 41:10 LXX) the same word has a drastically differed context: “Uphold thee.”
	Sealing the stone. Jn. 6:27 s.w, but what a contrast there! Not onlyin his ministry but again in his resurrection Jesus showed his disregard for protocol and red tape, cp Job 5;12, 13, 12-17 Consider also Acts 5:23; 12.10; 16:26. Dan. 6:17 provides a remarkable type.

It is no easy matter to harmonize the gospel narratives in their accounts of the visits to the tornb, and of the appearance of the angels and of Jesus himself. Many say dogmatically that it cannot be done. Unwilling to believe themselves capable of error, such critics are very ready to assume fallibility in the gospel writers. In the world of mathematics the man who says: “I cannot find a solution to this problem, therefore it cannot be solved,” is written off as a fool. Yet in the field of Bible exegesis there are plenty of such. Close akin to these are others who take the line: “This is the only way in which I can make any sense of this passage. Therefore this is the correct interpretation. All others are mistaken.” Of course, such attitudes are never baldly expressed in so many words, but it is often possible to detect this kind of self-confidence. Maybe there are times when it is justified, but the study of the resurrection of Jesus can hardly be reckoned as being in that category. Hence, because of the difficulty of piecing the four records together into a smooth continuous story, let conclusions be regarded as tentative.

Blending the records

The accounts of the visits of the women to the tomb near Golgotha certainly present difficulties. Some solve the problem —or, at least reduce its dimensions – by assuming that two different groups of women, each actuated by the same motive, set out early on the Sunday morning to visit the sepulchre. Thus, by applying some details to one group and some to the other, the gospels are made to yield a coherent continuous inter-woven account.

The basis of the present study, however, will be that only one group of women is involved. The tendency to resolve superficial difficulties in gospel harmonization by the slick assumption of similar but different incidents builds up its own antibodies. By the time one has got two separate anointings in Bethany, two healings at the house of the centurion, two restorations of sight to the blind at Jericho, and four malefactors instead of two, the fever is on in way out. (Yet it is necessary to insist on more than one cleansing of the temple. The evidence for this is strong, and the reason compelling; see “Passover”, HAW ch.3).

There are, however, indications of time whicr strongly suggest more than one visit to the tomb. Whereas Mark, Luke and John make it clear that it was on the Sunday morning when the women set out with this intention, Matthew has the expression: “in the end of the sabbath,” i.e. on Saturday evening. Not by any stretch of imagination or translation can this be made to mean anything different. Yet immediately Matthew goes on to confuse the picture with an expression which can only have been intended to make it more explicit: “as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week.” These words would normally mean at first light on Sunday morning. Yet the writer of this wonderful gospel was no fool. Is it likely that he would be content to set down in the same sentence words which involve a shouting contradiction? There is need to look further into this.

Frst, then, the word translated “end” (of the Sabbath) means “late in the day.” A cognate word is normally translated “evening ” The word which gives rise to “as it began to dawn” normally meant “to grow light.” Its proper application is to early morning. However, because by beginning at sunset the Jewish day was out of step with Gentile reckoning, this word came to be applied to the beginning of the Jewish day. In this way a word meaning “to grow light” came to mean “get dark”! Luke’s record of the burial of Jesus has a clear example of its usage. In a verse which unquestionably refers to Friday evening, Luke has: “And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on”(RVm: Gk. began to dawn; Luke 23:54).

Thus both of Matthew’s expressions are seen to refer to the Saturday evening when “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the sepulchre.” What a sabbath of sorrow and lamentation that was! In its earliest hours well before midnight, the whole of Jewry was eating the Passover meal. But not these, for had not Jesus himself said: “The days will come when the Bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and the;-shall they fast” (Mt. 915).

Then, as soon as the end of sabbath restrictions would allow, in the last hour of daylight they were bock at the tomb. And how natural that they should do this! It may be argued against this interpretation that Matthew’s record runs on apparently to equate this visit with that which was made to the tomb next morning. This is undeniable, and is probably to be attributed to the compression which is characteristic of the gospel (compare what is said about this in chapter 243). The only alternative would seem to be the elimination of this visit to the tomb on Saturday evening. But that can only be done by assuming that when Matthew writes ‘late on the Sabbath” (which ended at sundown on Saturday) he really means “early the next morning.” it would also require that he uses the Greek verb epiphosko (translated in the AV: began to dawn) in a different sense from which it is used in Luke 23:51. The hint of Saturday evening activity in Mark 16:1 supports the interpretation adopted here.

“When the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought [not, as in AV: had bought) sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.” That this was done on the Saturday evening as soon as the shops were open after the sabbath is put beyond doubt by the words which follow: “And very early in the morning the first day of the week they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun” (John 20:1: when it was yet dark).

It is noteworthy that Matthew omits to mention Salome. So perhaps this group of women acted in concert, Salome seeing to the purchase of the spices whilst the others made their evening visit to the tomb.

This must have been before the guard was posted there. This inference follows from the fact that when the women returned next morning they showed no concern regarding the soldiers, but only about means of access to the body: “Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?” And it is understandable that the watch would not be set until daylight had ended because in this way public attention to a very unusual procedure would be avoided. Also, during daylight hours there would, of course, be no risk of interference with the tomb, by disciples or anybody else.

The sequence of events

Thus the sequence of events would appear to have been.

1. The last hour of sabbath daylight, the two women come to see the tomb.
2. Sabbath sunset, the placing of the guard.
3. Just after sunset, the purchase of spices.
4. Before Sunday daylight, Mary Magdalene sets out to join the other women to go to the tomb to complete the anointing of Jesus.
5. Earthquake (and resurrection?) at sunrise. The fright of it probably delays the women.
6. The guard, scared, abandon the tomb and return into the city,
7. The sun is alreadr risen by the time the women arrive at the tomb.

Precisely when Jesus rose from the dead is not ascertainable. In fact, his resurrection is not described, but is first mentioned in the words of the angel. The gospels, which are content to mention the crucifixion of Jesus in a brief participial phrase – “and having crucified him” (Matthew 27:35 Gk) – make no attempt whatever at a picture of the resurrection.

There was a great earthquake, caused by the corning of the angel. “The earth which trembled with hoi rot (Matthew 27:51) at the death of Christ,” says a seventeenth century commentator, “leapt for joy at his resurrection.”

This resurrection angel was resplendent in divine glory: “His countenance was like lightning, and hi; raiment white as snow” (Matthew 28:3). With the possible exception of Daniel 10:6, this would appear to be the first time that an angel was seen in appearance different from that of an ordinary man. Yet after Jesus rose from the dead there are several descriptions similar to this (contrast Lk. 24:4, Acts 1:10 and 10:30 with Gen. 18:2 and 19:1,5; Josh 5:13 and Jud. 13:9-1 1). Is this change altogether fortuitous or without meaning? Or did the resurrection of Jesus somehow change the status of angels (Col. 1:1 6)? One would fain know more about these mysteries.

The angel of the Lord

The inevitable effect on the soldiers is vividly described: “For fear of him (not for fear of the earthquake, though there are few experiences which strike such terror in men’s hearts) the keepers did shake, and became “as dead men”, corpses guarding a corpse! This word “shake” is essentially the same as that for “earthquake.” Impressive as the heaving of the ground might be, it was nothing to the upheaval within themselves. Literally paralysed from fright, they grovelled on the ground, and later slunk away at the first opportunity — presumably when the angel went inside the tomb. It is not absurd to enquire as to the source of this information about the effect of angels and earthquake on the Roman guard. There is a hint (see p.770) that it may have been supplied to Matthew in later days by some of the soldiers themselves.

At first, the angel “rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.” (But epano above, over). The priests had taken all care to seal the tomb shut, but now here was the Almighty sealing the tomb open – by His angel sitting on the stone.

There is no hint that the great stone was rolled away to allow Jesus (at first in a state of revived mortality?) to emerge to the world outside. Then could it be that the stone was removed in order to give the disciples access to the place of interment, so that they might see for themselves the evidence that their Lord was risen? Whatever the reason, there is ground for deep thankfulness that the resurrection did take place this way. For many that stone rolled away has become a foundation stone of faith.

Notes: Matthew 28:1-4.

1.	The first day of the week. It was 16th Nisan, the anniversary of Gen. 8:4 and Ex. 14:20.
	Came. Remarkably, a singular verb with plural nouns, is this to put the emphasis on Mary Magdalene, or to indicate their complete unaniminity of spirit?
	The other Mary. See ch.229, and Mark 1 6:1.
2.	For, indicating that the reason for the earthquake was not either “natural causes” nor the resurrection of Jesus, but the coming of an angel of glory.
	An angel…from heaven. Apparently another pleonasm, as in 27:63 (see note), for whence else might an angel come down? Perhaps the phrase is intended to steer the reader away from reading angel as meaning a human messenger.
	The details here must have been supplied by one of the soldiers, surely; v.l la.
3.	The appearance of this angel matches in some respect that of the angel seen by Daniel in 1 0:6ff, where note:
	lightning … a guard … quaking fell upon them … they fled., in a deep sleep upon my face.
	His countenance. This word is unique in the NT, but is the exact equivalent of appearance, vision, in Dan. 1 0:1,1 8. These echoes of Daniel’s experience might suggest that whereas some of the soldiers fled in terror, others bowed in worship.

Mark 16:1.

1.	Anoint; 14:8. Edersheim says Jewish usage allowed the opening of a tomb on the third day to attend to the body. On this first day of the week believers now come to Christ with the incense of praise and the frankincense of thanksgiving.

All four gospels emphasize that it was on the first day of the week when certain of the women came to the tomb. John does this in a fashion peculiar to himself: “on day one of the seven,” using the familiar expression in Genesis 1: “and there was evening and there was morning, day one,” the day when “God said, Let there be Light, and there was Light… and God divided the Light from the darkness.” Until this happened, the disciples were all tohu bohu (Genesis 1:2).

This was the beginning of God’s New Creation. Here is the idiom found in many a place in the New Testament, not least in the prologue to John’s own gospel. In Colossians 1 especially: “He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all (the New) Creation… the beginning, the first-born from the dead… By him were all things (in the New Creation) created… And (in point of time) he is before all things” (v.l 5-18).

Women going to the tomb

Some of the apparent contradictions in the records regarding who came to the tomb, and at what time, present little difficulty to those who read with care. John mentions only Mary Magdalene — surely for the simple reason that his narrative is to keep the spotlight on her. Even so, Mary’s words to Peter and John clearly imply that she had not gone to the tomb alone: “They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him,” (contrast with this, the words of verse 1 3 spoken when she was at the tomb alone: “and I know not where they have laid him”).

The details of time are not so readily tidied up. John says it was “while it was yet dark.” Luke has the phrase: “at very early dawn (s.w. Ps. 90:14 LXX; literally: at deep dawn).” But Mark says explicitly “when the sun was risen” (RV)_; but he also adds “very (exceedingly) early.”

The supposition is by no means unreasonable that the women started out as soon as there was a glimmer of light in the sky. Mary Magdalene, coming from Bethany (see ch.74) would need to set out before the others, lodging in Jerusalem. And, in any case, by the time they reached the tomb there was broad daylight. If they were not all staying under the same roof an appreciable amount of time would be lost in collecting the party of possibly five people or more (Luke 24:1 0).

Also, the prepositions used to describe their coming “to the tomb” are different — John implying the start of their short pilgrimage, Mark and Luke suggesting the time of arrival “of the tomb.”

The women came carrying spices with which they hoped to anoint the body of Jesus. The hasty attentions bestowed on the body late on Friday did not satisfy their womanly minds. As they walked they kept on talking (so Mark) about the problem of access to the tomb: “Who shall roll us away the stone?” Without levers and other equipment and without the aid of masculine muscles how could they hope to shift it? It is clear that they were unaware that a guard of soldiers has been posted, or this would have been their primary concern. Indeed, in that case it is unlikely that their mission would have been attempted.

There was little likelihood that any of Joseph’s men would be around at that hour. And it was useless to expect that any of the twelve would be willing to help them at the tomb. These were marked men. To be found interfering with the body of Jesus was more than their lives were worth. So this journey to the sepulchre as day was breaking was a pure act of faith on the part of these women — and their faith was rewarded: “They that seek me early shall find me.”

“And looking up they see that the stone is rolled back” (Mark 16:4RV). As they approached the foot of the slope where the tomb was sited it was immediately evident that the great stone was not in its original position. Mary Magdalene promptly assumed that the enemies of the Lord, not content with all the evil they had wrought already, were still bent on further mischief, and she turned and ran as hard as she could first to the lodging of Peter and then to John, gasping out the news: “They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.” (Jn. 20.2). What surmise was in her mind? — that “they” were Joseph acting under instructions? But in that case, why not go direct to him? Or did she fear that the malevolence of the Lord’s enemies had had him thrown out into Gehenna? She might even have had hopes of his resurrection. What could they do to help?

Peter and John met, and both ran as hard as they could to see the sepulchre for themselves. Mary, fatigued with the unaccustomed effort, trailed on behind them. Everything about this part of the narrative, and almost every other detail which follows, suggests that the minds of the Lord’s followers, (Mary excepted?), were shut to the possibility that he had risen from the dead. That was the last thing they thought of.

Meantime the other women had climbed the slope to the tomb’s entrance. There they encountered the angel of glory who spoke words of reassurance which did nothing to allay their sudden fear at the sight of him.

In reply to their instinctive semi-coherent questions: “Who are you? What are you doing here? What has happened to Jesus?”, he said: “Fear not ye” (an implied contrast here with the soldiers who had fled panic-stricken, before the women came on the scene), “for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.” They were recognized as friends. Fear was out of place. The same contrast between fearful Gentiles and astonished disciples who need have no fear will be evident when the messenger of the Lord is manifest in glory to announce the Second Coming.

The angel went on to remind them of what should have been already uppermost in their minds: “He is not here; he is risen, 05 he said” During his ministry Jesus had not shrunk from speaking about the rejection and suffering he must experience. But he had anticipated also his own resurrection. The sign of the prophet Jonah may have been a mystery to his disciples, but its meaning had not been lost altogether on his enemies. But in the last months of his ministry, there had been clear and explicit instruction to the Twelve and also to the rest of his followers that he must endure the worst that his enemies could engineer for him, and yet come through it all triumphant: “Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify: and the third day he shall rise again.” (Matthew 20:18,19).

This repeated teaching, which at the time the disciples had probably misconstrued as yet another of their Master’s “parables” (as in Mt. 1 5:1 5), came flooding back into the minds of these women as the angel, now no longer sitting on the stone but standing in the mouth of the cave, beckoned them on to learn for themselves: “Come, see the place where the Lord lay.” For this angel of glory, as for Mary Magdalene, that cold lifeless corpse which had lain within was the Lord—“hot the outer frame or casket of the inner spirit, now departed, but the Lord himself. Popular ideas about personal disembodied immortality could hardly receive a more direct, decisive or authoritative refutation than this: “See the place where the Lord lay”!

Angelic encounter

So they went in to see for themselves, stooping and squeezing together in the very limited space available to them. All eyes were for the place where the dead Master should have been lying. At a glance they saw that the body was gone. In the same instant they became aware of the presence of another angel sitting there. Why does Mark record that he sat “on the right side”? On the right side of what? And what is the point of mentioning the fact — except as a vivid memory?

As they entered he stood along with his fellow and spoke to them reassuringly. But they were overpowered with astonishment, for not only was there the shock of realizing more fully that Jesus no longer lay there, but there was also a sudden appreciation of the fact that, with only a dim light in the tomb, the garments and persons of these men glowed with a dazzling radiance utterly outside normal experience. Amazed at the sight, and with hardly any power to think, they backed away out of the cave and prostrated themselves before these heavenly beings.

“Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen. Remember how he spake unto you when he was yet In Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.”

They remembered it well enough — that unusual intermission in the Lord’s ministry when he had gathered together not only the twelve but themselves also and other close disciples and had led them off into an unfrequented part of that busy area that he might teach them concerning himself (Mark 9:30-32). they remembered how he spake unto them. I he angels words imply that they too had heard that instruction given — how the Lord had said it (1 Peter i :1 2). With what unwonted emphasis and earnestness (even for him!) had Jesus sought to prepare hi, disciples’ minds for the shock of his own passion, at a time when they were set only on greater glory. They remembered it all now, with shame but also with gladness – how, time and again, he had quoted them strange passages from the prophets which they could not make sense of, because they would not. So often they had taken his vigorous parables and figures of speech in a crudely literal fashion. But on that occasion it was the other way – their Master’s very plainness of speech defeated its own purpose because the message was one they were unwilling to learn. “Doth he not speak parables?”

But new they saw it all, with a gladness past describing, and they marvelled at their earlier blindness.

The angel was still speaking. It was a further commits on specially committed to these heavenly ministers by Jesus himself before he left the tornb. “Go your way, tell his disciples and Peter.” Like themselves the apostles needed to be saved from the depths of despondency and helpless bewilderment into which the crucifixion had plunged them , but none needed this resurrection as much as Peter.

None of the disciples loved Jesus as much as Peter did. None had been louder in those repeated protestations of loyalty. None had fallen so low as on that accursed occasion when — possessed with a devil, as it had seemed — he had crudely, fiercely, violently, blasphemously disowned this Leader whom he loved as his own soul. None had suffered such wretchedness and helpless misery over that weekend as Peter had. “Would God I had died for thee, O Jesus, my lord, my lord!”

But Jesus had died for him. And even at that moment, had these women only known it, the first anticipations of the message were reaching him in breathless broken phrases from a panting Mary.

Galilee

“Tell his disciples that he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him.” Jesus, the good shepherd, was soon 10 lead his flock forth that they might find pasture, such as they never dreamed or, away from Jerusalem, the city of his rejection, the place of tearfulness for his followers.

A four-fold emphasis on Galilee binds together Matthew’s record of the resurrection appearances (26:32 and 28:7,10,16). Why was it that this repeated insistence should be part of the message of the angel and of the Lord himself at a time when they seemed to be more in need of a simple conviction that their Master was alive? No clear convincing answer to this problem has ever been supplied. Doubtless there is something instructively symbolic in this choice of Galilee of the Gentiles as a place of fuller manifestation. This message of a risen Christ was not to be kept within the confines of a Judaistic Jerusalem; but why this should so dominate the message of the first Easter day is not so easy re understand. (Perhaps practical considerations should come in here. Where in Jerusalem could Jesus meet with “above five hundred brethren at once’ ? — most of whom were Galileans anyway.)

The plain promise: “There shall ye see him,” was the first clear intimation that these disciples could expect to meet and talk with their risen Lord. Perhaps as they rose up from the ground incredulity regarding this expectation was written on their faces, for the angel added his own emphatic reassurance: “Behold. I have told you.” It was a phrase they had heard on the lips of Jesus himself (John 13:19 and 14:29). Then how could they disbelieve?

So without a moment’s further delay they obeyed the angelic commission and went off in haste, “with fear and great joy” – fearful because of the revelation of divine glory which they had witnessed, yet made joyful by the incredibly good news which they had just learned.

Mark describes their experience thus: “They trembled (in body) and were amazed (in their minds)”. The language is precisely that which describes the effects of the risen Jesus on Saul of Tarsus, on the road to Damascus. “Neither said they anything to any man.” The commonsense meaning here is that, full though they were of their awesome experience and of the knowledge that the Master was alive, they mentioned it to no one outside the circle of his followers — “for they were afraid” that the disciples might blamed and punished for the disappearance of the body.

It is probably a mistake to imagine them going oft singly in different directions so as to get the news round the various groups of believers more quickly. Even though they would wish to bring the news speedily to Mary, the Lord’s mother, and to John and others related to Jesus, and to the main body of apostles, and to the home at Bethany, and to Joseph of Arimathea – at least these- they would be held together by the realization that without one another’s corroboration the astonishing story which they had to tell woul be believed by nobody. As it turned out even their united witness was written oft as a delusion Only the manifestation of Jesus himself was to take away the veil of unbelief

Notes: Matthew 28:5-8

5.	The women Beside; the three mentioned in Mk. 16:1 there was Joanna and at least one other (Luke 24:10.
6.	Come, see the place. The story put abound almost at once about the stealing of the body (v13, 15) shows that the Jews knew better than to argue against the fact of an empty tomb.
7.	Lo I have told you. Quoting from the Lord’s own words: Jn 13:19; 14:29
8.	And did run. This would hardly be true of middle-aged women, but John says this about Mary Magdalene, the youngest of the group.

Mark 16:2-8

4.	When they looked. Literally, looking up. But if may be that here the prefix is an intensive: looking eagerly
6.	He is risen Passive verb. The gospels do not say that the Lord rose, but that he was risen
	See the place. Singular verb- yet Mt. 28:6 has a plural. Did the angel persuade first one of the women and then the rest to enter and inspect the tomb? This word place is common in the OT/NT as a meaning a holy place.
7.	And Peter: 1 Cor 15:5; Lk 24.24
8	They fled, awestruck by the angelic encounter.

Luke 24:1-9.

4.	Shining garments; s.w. Lk. 9:29. Then what does this teach about the transfiguration?
5.	Among the dead- This plural implies that there were other tombs there
7.	Must be delivered That must means must, it is necessary,
9.	The eleven. Thomas included; and he made up his mind forthwith

John 20:1-3

1.	Prov 8:17 is a lovely commentary on this verse.
	The stone. This detail assumes the readers knowledge of Mt. 27:66
2.	Loved: Gk: phileo, indicates personal affection.
	We know not. This plural implies that she had been at the tomb with other women.
3.	The language here seems to imply that they set off separately, from different lodgings, and met and ran together.