Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

John xx. 26. Sunday following he again shews himself to them, probably in Galilee. Then at the lake

16.

John xxi. 1. of Genesareth he appeared to Peter, Thomas, Nathaniel, James, John, and two more. Again Matt. xxviii. on a mountain of Galilee, where he had appointed the disciples to meet him; and here it is probable he was seen by above five hundred at once. Then he appeared to James; then to all the Apostles previous to his ascension near Bethany. Last of all he was seen by St. Paul, at the time of his conversion, near Damascus.

1 Cor. xv. 6.

1 Cor. xv. 7. Luke xxiv. 50.

Acts i. 5.

1 Cor. xv. 8. Acts ix. 5.

Some points require to be more particularly adverted to. As first, that what we read in the 2d, 3d, and 4th verses of St. Matthew's 28th chapter, (respecting the rising of Christ, and the angel, who rolled back the stone from the door of the sepulchre, and sat upon it) though it is not separated in the narration, yet must, from its nature, have been derived from the guard who were there, not from the women who were not there; so that it can with no propriety make a part of their report to the disciples, but ought rather to be regarded as a parenthesis. The angel therefore mentioned in the fifth verse, is not to be confounded with the agent in that previous scene.

2dly. It was before observed that Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary the mother of James, are one and the same person. She appears to have been sister to Mary the

*Chap. xix. 25.

mother of Jesus *, and is therefore sometimes called "the other Mary +," to distinguish her.

3dly. What Matthew has put in the plural number, as if Jesus had been seen by all the women, who went to the sepulchre, is by St. John related of Mary Magdalene alone; because Matthew having been previously speaking of several women, was not afterwards careful to distinguish what properly applied only to one of them. On the other hand, John, in his relation of the circumstances which followed the resurrection, hastening to give an account of Christ's first appearance to Mary Magdalene, has omitted to mention the other women, who certainly went with her to the sepulchre, and thence to the Apostles, but may be supposed to have returned to their homes after relating what they had seen and heard. Several instances of similar inaccuracies have already been produced §, to which may be added what Mark relates |, that "one ran and filled a sponge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone, &c." but this must, from the nature of the circumstances, have been the observation, not of the person himself who presented the vinegar, but of others who were standing near, as Matthew rightly represents it.

4thly. The following are the only discordances of any moment in the relations of the different Evangelists; some of which have already been explained, and the rest admit of answers equally satisfactory. 1. Matthew does not distinguish between the angel who opened the sepulchre, and the

John xix. 25. + Matt. xxvii. 61.

Matt. xxviii. 9.

§ Page 160.

|| Mark xv. 36.

2

two angels who, St. Luke says, were seen in the sepulchre. 2. Mark, in relating the same event, mentions one angel, and not two; which may be because one only addressed the women. 3. Luke takes notice of Peter alone running to the sepulchre; though we know from John himself that he also went with him. 4. From Matthew it would seem as if all the women had seen Jesus; while Mark and John with more accuracy inform us that it was Mary Magdalene alone. 5. Though John, from his silence about the other women, might lead us to suppose that Mary Magdalene had alone gone at day break to the sepulchre, and thence to the Apostles; yet it is observable that on this occasion he represents her as speaking in the plural number, "They have taken the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him." But on a subsequent occasion, when she was left alone with the angels in the sepulchre, she uses nearly the same words, excepting that she now says "I know not, &c." And this difference may probably not be undesigned. On the supposition that, while others of the women proceeded to other disciples, Mary Magdalene alone came to Peter and John, it is most natural for the Evangelist to give the report which he had himself received. There is a propriety in the repetition of the same terms, (of which notice was taken in the case of the two sisters on the subject of Lazarus's death *), arising from its being the expression of the same feelings strongly predominant in the mind of the same individual. 6. It might be supposed from Matthew's account †, not only that all the women had seen

*John xi. 32.

+ Matt. xxviii. 9.

same occurrence.

Jesus at his first appearance, but that the single injunction to them was to bid the Apostles go into Galilee, where they should see him on the other hand, from John it might be inferred that Mary Magdalene alone had seen him, and that he had given her a very different message to the Apostles, namely, that he was going into heaven. Yet there is reason to believe that these are but descriptions of one and the For it is nothing extraordinary that one Evangelist should mention one circumstance, and one another; nay, it were rather to be expected, if we believe that St. John's Gospel was intended to be supplementary to the others. But that in this instance Matthew and John are speaking of one occurrence, is rendered highly probable from the correspondence between Matthew, when he says, "they came and held him by the feet and worshipped him ;" and John, "Touch me not;” that is, Do not hold me by the feet worshipping me. Respecting the different messages said to be given by Christ, I conclude that both are true; that he desired his Apostles might be told to go into Galilee, where they should see him; and also, that he was to ascend into heaven, there to establish a kingdom into which they might be admitted. The identity of these relations derives some additional confirmation from the introduction of the same word adελpois into both texts in a very unusual signification.

APPENDIX, No. VI.

Of the Disciples going to Emmaus

SEVERAL reasons may be produced for believing that Peter was one of the two disciples who went to Emmaus. For, 1st. It is so asserted by Origen ↑. 2dly. If Peter was not with Cleophas upon this occasion, then Jesus must have shewn himself to Peter elsewhere at the very time that we hear of his going to Emmaus. For St. Paul informs us that Peter saw him before the other Apostles; and had it been before the disciples set out to Emmaus, it is to be presumed they must have known it. 3dly. St. Mark observes that the disciples assembled at Jerusalem did not credit the report of Cleophas, and the other, respecting the resurrection of Jesus §; yet St. Luke represents them as informing the two disciples, on their return, that Jesus was certainly risen, and had appeared to Peter. Now, suppose only that Peter had been with Cleophas, and that they had hastily announced it as soon as they came in, and before they entered upon the detail of the circumstances ||, and nothing can be more natural than this expression of the other disci

* Luke xxiv. 13. I Cor. xv. 5. || A similar address upon first entering must be supposed in the case of Mary Magdalene, when she hastily tells the Apostles that Christ's body was removed from the sepulchre, they know not whither (John xx. 2.). For though no more is expressed, yet we may presume that she went on to deliver the message of the angels, with which the women were charged. (Matt. xxviii. 7.)

+ Contra Cels. p. 98 and 102. Ed. Camb. § Mark xvi. 13.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »