Section I

the first tidings of Christ's resurrection

(Mat 28:1-10. Mar 16:1-11. Luk 24:1-12. Joh 20:1-18)

At the head of the women who had united in a resolution to anoint our Lord in the tomb, were Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James, sister to the Virgin Mary, and Salome. The latter, as we have seen, joined the two first-named, when they had set out on Saturday evening, after the Sabbath was over, to make the last purchases for the anointing, Mar 16:1. Salome was one of the women who had made their purchase already on Friday evening; and perhaps her joining the others served, in the first instance, only to ensure unity and agreement among the women in regard to the things to be provided, and the measures to be taken. But from that time she continued associated with them. Their strongly excited emotions drew her along with them. They had kept watch by the sepulchre on Friday evening until far on in the night; and now again, on the night after the Sabbath, they felt themselves irresistibly drawn to our Lord’s tomb. They had bought their spices in the evening; at daybreak¹ they were already on their way to the sepulchre. While on the way, a difficulty occurred to them of which they had not thought before. Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? was their anxious question, as they drew near the tomb.

From this evidently original saying, it is certain that at least several women had set out for the sepulchre in great haste before night was well over. But we may also conclude from it, that a part of that larger company of women which Luke mentions (ver. 1) did not immediately join those who first set out. For a numerous company of the women who had lived in the school of Jesus would certainly have resolved to roll away the stone themselves.

Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? This word, spoken by these three anxious women in the stillness of night, near the lonely and dreary sepulchre, towards the twilight of Easter morning, has become the symbol of all sighing of mankind in their longing for the revelation of the resurrection.²

Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? they ask in perplexity. It was about the time when the place was again shaken by a great earthquake. Without doubt they also felt the trembling of the earth. But the heaving of the earth could no longer alarm these women, for whom the world had become a thing of nought. Yet they knew not that there was an answer to their question in this very shaking of the earth—an answer which probably had anticipated the question.

The Evangelist Matthew explains the higher significance of this earthquake, Mat 28:1-4: ‘For the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow; and for fear of him³ the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.’

But how could the Evangelist know of these events? It is clear from the context that he does not, as has been maintained, found his account on the testimony of the women. For the women would hardly have ventured to go into the sepulchre⁴ immediately after being affrighted outside of it by the appearance of the angel. Besides, had they then gone in, they could not have received the first tidings of the resurrection from the angel. It must have taken place before their eyes, and they must have somehow recognized the rising Lord.⁵ We can very easily see how Matthew came to know of the earthquake. Doubtless he felt it himself, along with others in Jerusalem and its neighbourhood, in that morning twilight, and afterwards rightly connected it with the resurrection. He might know that the angel had descended from heaven on this occasion, from the fact that the women afterwards saw him in the sepulchre. The keepers were probably discovered by the women in the neighbourhood of the sepulchre, while yet in their state of amazement and confusion. But whence the information that the angel sat upon the stone? When the stone began to roll, there was already over it a divine terror, which filled the Roman soldiers with consternation; and then, when it ceased to roll, it became to them the seat of this divine terror, of which they continued to have the liveliest impression. What they saw or did not see, we know not; but it is to be observed that the fright caused by the angel made them like dead men. It was enough for them that this divine terror descended and rested right upon the official seal of the stone which they had to guard, so that they never would have ventured to attempt to thrust back the stone to its former position. All this may have been told by themselves, before they were bribed by the chief priests and elders. The believing centurion, too, who now in his heart belonged to the company of Christ’s disciples, might easily have received such communications, and imparted them to his companions in his new faith.⁶ The angel thus seated himself upon the stone of the sepulchre, as a sign first of all to the Roman watch, and the Jewish and heathen authorities. The stone was rolled away for ever from the door of the sepulchre.

The angel who descended and sat upon the stone, which he had rolled away from the door of the sepulchre, forms the loftiest contrast to the seal which the Sanhedrim had impressed upon it. The might of heaven triumphs over the might of earth; the blessed spirit from on high sits in solemn repose upon the shattered emblem of the impotent authority of the Jews and Romans, which sought to shut up the Lord, and with Him the hope of His people, in the kingdom of the dead for ever.

This wonderful event at the sepulchre took place while the women were on the way to it. When they drew near, they observed that the stone was already rolled away. They could see this some distance off, for the stone was very large. The sight made a deep impression upon all three; but the effect of that impression was very different. Treachery on His sepulchre, on His body! must have been the first thought of Mary Magdalene, for immediately she hurried away, and ran to the city. She seemed desirous, in great indignation, to call for the help of His friends; and it was significant that with this view she applied first to Simon Peter. Simon must by this time have won back the respect of the other disciples by truly expressing his deep repentance. Mary felt herself specially drawn to him, the repentant and the strong, who was able to form quickly a brave resolution. To John also, who however was probably with Peter, she brought the news that the sepulchre was open, with the hasty inference which probably she had drawn along with her companions: They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid Him. If the women saw the keepers still standing, lying, or slinking about near the sepulchre, terrified and confused as they then were, the thought might readily occur to them, These men are sent by the council to take the body away. While Mary Magdalene was summoning the two disciples in the city, the women who had remained behind went to the open sepulchre. They ventured in. Here they saw an angel in the form of a young man, sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment. They were affrighted at the heavenly vision. The angel saw a question in their countenance, and gave a reply: ‘Be not affrighted; ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified; He is risen; He is not here: behold the place where they laid Him. But 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.’

But the women could not at once comprehend this great message of joy. Fear contended with joy in their minds. They fled from the sepulchre and from the garden. Where they halted, we know not. But we learn from Mark (ver. 8) that they ran away as if out of their mind, and wandered about without venturing as yet to bring to the disciples the message, which they themselves did not yet rightly understand. Probably they first sought for the other women who had also designed to visit the sepulchre to anoint the body of Jesus.

In the meantime Peter and John had set out in company with Mary Magdalene, and came to the sepulchre. They both ran, but John outran Peter. Probably Mary, already tired, was some distance behind. It was not to be thought that the disciples should, in this hour of great excitement, walk quietly together to the sepulchre. So John arrived there first, stooped down, looked in, and saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. But Peter went into the sepulchre as soon as he came. This delicate touch again describes the two men to the life.⁷ They now discover that the linen clothes, and the napkin that was about our Lord’s head, were not lying together, but that the napkin lay wrapped up in a place by itself. By this token they could not fail to perceive that a spirit of deep repose and calm collectedness had ruled here, and not the confused mind of workers of iniquity. And now John too overcame his apprehension of finding in the tomb omens which might fill his mind with horror, and he likewise went into the sepulchre. He saw these signs, and believed. We must assume that he believed the resurrection by viewing what he saw here in connection with what Jesus had before said of His rising from the dead. John observes, that as yet the disciples did not understand those announcements of the resurrection contained in the Scripture. Therefore they had first to see such signs, to be able to take in its literal acceptation what our Lord had said before. We read of Peter (Luk 24:12), that he ‘departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.’ Then the disciples went away again unto their own home, full of hope and expectation. But these signs did not quiet Mary’s mind. She could not leave the sepulchre; she stood without weeping; ‘and as she wept, she stooped down and looked into the sepulchre, and seeth two angels in white, sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.’

If we firmly believe that the spectators’ state of mind in regard to the other world is the medium through which they see heavenly visions, there is no difficulty in this, that first the two women see one angel in the sepulchre, that Peter and John afterward see none, and that still later Mary Magdalene beholds two in it.⁸ The angel world was, doubtless, now more deeply moved than even at the birth of Christ—the spirits of heaven were keeping watch and ward over the place of His second birth. But to become actually aware of their presence, was conditioned by the most delicate spiritual relations, and the divine order regulating them.

That Mary was by her present frame of mind very nearly on a level with the angels, is shown by what follows. Woman, why weepest thou? asked the angel. The Evangelist says nothing which would in the least justify us in thinking that Mary was amazed or alarmed at the sight of the angel and the question he put. They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him. This was her reply; and when she had given it, she turned round from them, looking inquiringly through the garden. The word of the angel cannot engage her attention and calm her spirit; she seeks her Lord. She turned round and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. This is a perfect guarantee of the objectivity of the appearance. In the opposite case her seeing of Jesus might have been only a fancy, springing from her longing after Him. The unknown asked her, Woman, why weepest thou? adding significantly, Whom seekest thou? Mary now thinks, This is the gardener, he may be able to give me some information. And this not, as has been thought, because Jesus had put on the gardener’s clothes; for the Prince of the resurrection and the new world needed not to borrow a covering from a man of this world.⁹ It was rather because Mary’s imagination outran the reality, from her mind being filled with infinite longing for a sight of Jesus, while the hope of the resurrection was yet wanting in her. We see here the errors which arise from love when unaccompanied by a due measure of faith; not indeed from love itself, but from the impatience and fancifulness of a love not yet firmly settled in the faith. But the very fact that Mary thought she saw the gardener, is an additional guarantee for the pure actuality of the appearance which met her view. In her supposed seeing of the gardener there is observable a ray of hope, which was kindled in her by the first word of Jesus. She no longer thinks that the body had been taken from the sepulchre by the enemies of our Lord. A hope arises within her, that the faithful gardener of the devout disciple to whom the garden belongs, had without fail at the right time placed the body in security from the plots of His enemies. ‘Sir,’ said she, ‘if thou hast borne Him hence, tell me where thou hast laid Him, and I will take Him away.’

And again she turned round, as if once more to seek Him in the sepulchre, or to hurry on before the supposed gardener. Jesus then calls her by name, Mary. She again turns round, saying, Rabboni, Master! She recognized Him by the sound of the voice she had heard so often, and which once had spoken to her inmost soul. His naming her awakened her as somnambulists awake when spoken to by name. She now sees Him with her waking eyes, but for a moment she knows not if she is still on earth; for her, time and space have disappeared. Like one translated into the kingdom of blessed spirits, she seeks to clasp our Lord’s feet, and to continue gazing on Him. Jesus therefore addressed her: Touch me not,¹⁰ for I am not yet ascended to my Father. He reminds her that they are both still in this world, that they have yet to separate, that He has still a work and she shall have a mission upon earth. Therefore she should be present at the time and place of His revelation, and not desire to pass now for ever beyond the limits of earth. And then to lead her back to the sober but salutary limits of a Christian’s course on earth, He tells her, Go to My brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto My Father, and your Father; and to My God, and your God. This is the first Easter message of our Lord Himself to His people. He calls them His brethren. He goes to His Father, who is also their Father; to His God, who is also their God. They are to know that He is now to ascend for their benefit also; that they are to know God as their Father in the full glory of His love, as He has known Him; that they are to know their Father as their God, as He rules in the full majesty of His power to help.

Mary received with joy the high commission with which the Lord entrusted her. The first appearance of the risen Saviour was to her, the sinful woman out of whom the Lord had cast seven devils;¹¹ she was the first messenger of His resurrection among the disciples.¹² For she was dead in heart to this world before many others, and her state of mind was more in unison with that world from which Jesus now came forth. She was the truest type of the elect Israelite mind in its departure from God and return to Him, when freed by Jesus from the seven devils of love for the world, called to repentance, and made conversant with the divine peace of the cross. Because much was forgiven her, and she loved much, her love heroically bade defiance to the terrors of night and corruption among the tombs. She always saw the Lord, even after His death, as the Living One in the kingdom of the dead. Thus she sought for Him; and according to her faith it was unto her, for He showed Himself to her first after His resurrection. And now she hastened as a comforter to His disciples, who still mourned and wept for Him. But they could not receive her message that the Lord was alive, and that she had seen Him; they believed not.

The two women who, according to Mark, first entered into the dark and lonesome sepulchre with the new courage derived from fellowship in the cross of Christ, and then again had felt the terrors of the world of spirits and fled from Jesus’ tomb, must have soon after met with the other women who were waiting for them at the sepulchre to anoint the Lord’s body. By taking either a different lane through the suburbs or a different street in the city from Mary Magdalene, who brought the two apostles to the sepulchre, they might readily return thither without meeting her.

Among the women who formed this second company, Luke names Joanna,¹³ who was one of the women who followed Jesus from Galilee.¹⁴ They undoubtedly returned again to the sepulchre after Mary had left it, for they could not relinquish their design of anointing Jesus until they were convinced that His body was no longer in the sepulchre. The discovery that it was empty, could not fail to make a great impression on the women who had last come. They yielded assent to what their companions related, and they all resolved to go quickly and announce to the disciples the appearance and message of the angel. As they went, Jesus met them and gave them a morning salutation. They knew Him immediately, gathered around Him, held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him. Their recognizing Him at once, was doubtless mediated by their having already for some time meditated on the message of the angel, that He was risen from the dead. Besides, they were not so excited as Mary Magdalene, and so they saw Him more distinctly. The peculiar tone of His greeting did the rest. The more they felt awed in His presence, the more He sought to cheer them. Be not afraid, said He, soothingly. He suffered them to clasp His feet. Then sent He them also as messengers to His disciples. He bade them tell His disciples, as His brethren, to go into Galilee, and there He would see them. The women delivered with joy the message entrusted to them. But they met with the same reception as Mary Magdalene. Their words seemed to the disciples as idle tales.¹⁵ The message which the angel had already given to the women for the disciples, that Jesus would go before them to Galilee and meet with them there, was repeated by our Lord Himself.

‘To Galilee!’ was the watchword of the day, given immediately after the greeting of peace. To Galilee to meet the Lord! A hint of this had been given to the disciples by the Lord before His resurrection, Mat 26:32, Mar 14:28. But how does this command to go to Galilee agree with the fact that Jesus showed Himself in Judea to some disciples that same day, and again to the Twelve eight days after? In most discussions on this subject, it is entirely left out of account that Christ was connected not only with the Twelve and the little company of believing women, but also with a greater number of disciples, most of whom dwelt in Galilee, but were now present in Jerusalem, and who were just as much shaken by His death as the others, as anxious, and standing in as much need of the comfort of His resurrection.¹⁶ Thus it was not His apostles alone who formed His comfort-needing Church, but His apostles together with this larger band of mourners. And when He showed Himself to some of His disciples in Jerusalem, this larger community could not fail to expect that He would show Himself to them also in the place where He had triumphed over His sufferings. But this was not His intention. Such an appearance of Jesus in the midst of His assembled disciples in Jerusalem would have been contrary to His spirit and aim.

In the first place, possibly all these disciples were not in a fit state, in regard to spiritual apprehension, for seeing Him immediately. They needed some preparation for this. We learn this from the gradual way in which the Lord made Himself known to His Church. Appearances of angels first prepare their minds for seeing Him. Then He first shows Himself to Mary Magdalene, whose mind, longing for His appearance, had brought her so near to the other world, that she no longer was alarmed at the dismal tombs, the shadows of night, nor the angels of heaven. And in general He showed Himself first to the most receptive and needful of comfort, and made them messengers of His resurrection for the men.¹⁷ Thus His desire to comfort those who need it brought Him to Peter and the two disciples who were walking to Emmaus. Then He came to the Twelve. Now all this was well fitted to prepare for His appearance to His whole Church. There were still many in it who could only by degrees reach a right frame of mind for seeing Him in the glory of His new life. Therefore He neither could nor would show Himself at once to the whole Church. And least of all would He do so in Jerusalem, the camp of His enemies. Of course He had nothing further to fear from His enemies, but His disciples had. Had He at once showed Himself in Jerusalem to all His disciples, they might have proclaimed His triumph prematurely. They would perhaps have openly announced His resurrection before they were prepared by mature reflection and collectedness of mind for receiving His Spirit, and experiencing the actual living power of His resurrection in the outpouring of the Holy Ghost. But then their announcement would not have been free from the impure elements of fear and resentment; and they might have provoked their adversaries to persecution, for which they were not prepared, and under which they might have readily succumbed. Their certainty of Christ’s resurrection might have given way before their own doubts and the contradictions of their opponents, in spite of His repeated appearances. And thus would their new feelings have been nipped in the bud, and would not have come to the full bloom of the flower, as they did at Pentecost. So the watchword of the day was, To Galilee! and that soon. Yet care was taken by the order of the feast that they should not set out too soon. The feast of the Passover lasted eight days, and if during that time the Lord showed Himself to the narrower circle of His disciples, there was not in this any contradiction to the message which He had sent to the whole Church, especially as the leaders of the Church had first to be certain of His resurrection, before they were certain of His going before them to Galilee; and this certainty they could not have from the affirmations of the women. While the eleven were in this frame of mind, more frequent appearances of Jesus in their circle in Judea were really necessary than would have taken place had they all believed at once, although we must not say that thereby Jesus was made to alter His plan.¹⁸

It might, indeed, be supposed that the adherents of Jesus, who were assembled in such numbers in Jerusalem, could have begun to proclaim His resurrection in Jerusalem on the word of the apostles, and before they saw Him face to face. But this could not be; first, because of their continued uncertainty, and next, because of the intense longing with which they hoped to see Him in Galilee, according to His message from the sepulchre after His resurrection. In this state of mind, they were least of all in danger of desecrating the tidings of his resurrection by premature announcements.¹⁹

With this observation we come to the old question which has been asked so often, Why did not Jesus show Himself to His enemies after His resurrection? This question has been often asked in the bitter spirit of unbelief; in the meaning of that rich man who was in torment, and asked that Lazarus might be sent to his brethren that they might repent. The reply which the rich man received, is the proper reply for all who ask in that spirit: ‘They have Moses and the prophets: if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.’ They need to be prepared for rightly receiving the testimony of the resurrection by faithful discipleship in the school of Moses and the prophets. Religion does not begin with the resurrection, and still less with a view of the risen Saviour. The declaration of the risen Saviour is a holy of holies in revelation which can be disclosed only to those who have already passed through the court and the temple, i.e., repentance and faith. How readily the Risen One might have become to the profane eyes of the world an appalling spectre, had He shown Himself to them, is proved by the example of the doubters among the disciples. In proportion as they doubted, they felt a terror at His appearance, which departed as faith resumed its sway. But how could Christ have exposed the holy mystery of His resurrection to the world’s profanity and hostility, to its slavish wonderment or shuddering terror?

But the same question may be propounded in a more inoffensive sense. Yet even then it must always be considered as a question which betrays ignorance in the Christian life—an ignorance proceeding from more than one false supposition. It proceeds in great measure from the notion that Jesus returned into His former state of life in this world; so that He might have shown Himself in the streets and market-places, as fittingly as in the way He did show Himself. Those who take this view do not know that His showing Himself in His new life was always at the same time a revelation of His glory, and consequently of His Spirit, and hence presupposed a corresponding receptivity. This last is entirely overlooked by those who put the question in the way we have mentioned. They assume that Christ could have been suitably recognized as the Risen One by men in their ordinary state of mind, and in the tone of everyday life. Even ecclesiastical scholastic opinions rest in various respects upon this supposition. But this view is not founded on Scripture. The true body of the risen Saviour could be seen by His disciples before they were in a right state of mind; but outward recognition was always simultaneous with spiritual recognition; see Luk 24:31; Joh 20:16.

There is, however, an element of truth in the question. It was, and always continues to be, expected that Christ should show Himself as the Risen One, even to His enemies. But we must bear in mind, that had He appeared to them before the time, it could only have been for judgment. This appearance of Christ to all the world is therefore deferred until the end of the world. That He conceals Himself from His adversaries until then, is a strong declaration of His mercy. He will leave them time to reflect. And so the measure of the interval between the resurrection of Christ and the end of the world is the measure of His mercy towards the world; and the depth of His concealment from them may be considered as the power of His long-suffering wherewith He restrains Himself, in order to train them in the painful æon of relative Christlessness by Moses and the prophets, by His apostles and His Church, for beholding His appearance, and in order to keep them from the torment, of a more decided Christlessness in the coming æon of judgment.²⁰

The differences between the accounts which the Evangelists give of the first tidings of the resurrection, are at first sight very significant. It is remarkable that precisely here, where Christian faith seeks and really finds the first seal of all its certainty, the notary or protocol certainty of the Gospel testimonies threatens to disappear more than anywhere else. This cannot be explained, with Hug, by the circumstance that the reports of the women were at first considered as idle tales, and, as such, despised.²¹ For, in this respect, things took a favourable turn soon enough for making possible a careful inquiry into what the women had seen and heard. Just as little can it be attributed to a wavering tradition or mythic accounts; for it has been justly remarked, that the history of the resurrection given by the early Christian Church would have had the greatest unity if the Church had poetized it from its own subjective intuitions.²² But the striking differences on this topic cannot be accidental. It is rather to be supposed that they are connected with the peculiar experiences of the women at the sepulchre, and the different attitudes of the disciples towards their accounts. And this is actually the case. These differences are at bottom only the signs of the extraordinary effect which the first tidings of the resurrection produced upon the disciples. Before analyzing this, we must again recall to mind the character of the Gospel histories. They do not aim at giving a mere outside representation of the course of events, but show the facts as they wrought on the hearts and embodied themselves in the minds of men. We have in the Gospel records no narration of a series of mere outward facts detached from their living effects, but we have history as it is individualized in the individual view of the historian, and as it has been appropriated by his spirit in joyous satisfaction. This must be specially the case in regard to the first account of the resurrection. For the resurrection of Christ, with His Church’s experimental knowledge of it, has formed historical Christianity. And here, in the very focus of its immediate historical effect, we see the events connected with it, as they have passed over into the flesh and blood of the Church, indelibly impressed and fixed in memorials which took different shapes according to the standpoint of different disciples. We would altogether misapprehend the noble nature of Gospel history, were we to think that the Evangelists should have compared all these reminiscences in order to obliterate the subjective reminiscences, after establishing a general objective memorial.²³ The spirit of Gospel history rose far above this very unreasonable request. It makes the subjective form of the resurrection history an eternal memorial of its truth; for we at once see here how strongly it must have worked upon the minds of men. The various witnesses of any great convulsion always give different forms to their accounts of it, because each proceeds from the standpoint of his own experience. Thus everything is found standing and lying in Pompeii as it stood and lay when lava from Vesuvius covered the town, spreading the terrors of death around. But in the resurrection history tremors of joy indelibly fixed every reminiscence; we possess in it an indelible impress of the first actual Easter solemnity.

John’s account evidently gives his own experience. It bears the impress of his breadth of view; he sketches what he saw only in its great living and essential outlines. Mary Magdalene was for him the principal person among the women who went to the sepulchre, as she first brought the tidings of the empty tomb to him and Peter, and afterwards the account of the first revelation of Jesus. He does not expressly mention that she went to the sepulchre in company with the other women, and that she designed to anoint the Lord’s body. His view did not require that he should; yet he has sufficiently hinted at the former by relating Mary’s expression, ‘We know not where they have laid Him;’ and we shall see, as we proceed, that he may have had good grounds for omitting reference to the latter.²⁴

Mark, again, follows an account in which the other women come into the foreground, and their experience forms the substratum of the narrative. This is specially obvious in the very characteristic and significant remark, that for some time the women did not venture to say anything to the disciples about the sight which they had seen. This leaves room for the inaccuracy of still including Mary Magdalene among the other women; yet he in a measure removes this inaccuracy by the remark which follows (Mar 16:9): He appeared first to Mary Magdalene.²⁵ We see here two traditions completing each other. The first is perhaps to be attributed to Mark’s mother (who possibly was one of the women who went last to the sepulchre). This supposition would specially explain why the account concludes with the words, ‘Neither said they any thing to any man, for they were afraid;’ i.e., the second company of women found the first in that state of mind when they met. The second tradition is to be attributed to the more general accounts in the Church.

Matthew blends the two accounts given by the women, briefly sketching their leading outlines and omitting all more individual touches. From this, various inaccuracies have arisen. He makes no mention of Salome. The reason for this lies in his having already named the two Marys as they sat over against the sepulchre, and they formed the nucleus of the first band of women. He takes no notice of their design to anoint the Lord’s body. If we consider here that John also omits reference to this design, we may venture to think the omission intentional. The two apostles knew the state of mind prevalent among the disciples on Easter morning. They well knew that a secret germ of hope was stirring in their hearts, especially in the hearts of the women who went to the sepulchre not merely to anoint the Lord, but still more just to visit and see where He lay. This impulse of secret hope contributed, we doubt not, to form the resolution of the women to undertake a second anointing after the Sabbath. Perhaps it was even partly the cause of the women’s forgetting to bring assistance with them to roll away the stone from the sepulchre. The apostles, knowing the deeper and more secret emotions of hope in the hearts of the disciples, were called upon to do justice, in their account, to this unconscious but powerful impulse, which was lying hid under the avowed intention of going to anoint the body of Jesus. On the other hand, Mark and Luke, who were not apostles, were called upon to give prominence to the avowed and conscious motive with which the women went. Had all four Evangelists given exclusively the anointing as the motive, that secret and living germ of Christ’s promise, which must have been stirring mightily in the hearts of His disciples during the time of His death, might have been entirely overlooked. Matthew and John have guarded against this one-sidedness. Further, Matthew does not mention the circumstance that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary parted company at the sepulchre. Besides, he makes the second angelic appearance, which was seen by Mary Magdalene, coincident with the first, which the other women saw; and the first revelation of Christ, which was made to Mary Magdalene, coincident with the second, which comforted the other women. And finally, he has (Mat 28:8) blended into one the first departure of the first band of women from the sepulchre and the second departure, which included both bands. We must not here imagine the predominance of the one or the other tradition derived from the women, for the different accounts of the women are intimately blended together. Just as little can we think of a careful comparing and adjusting of the different accounts, for in that case so many inexactnesses would not have slipped in. It is very plain that Matthew gives the facts in their general outlines as they first made known to him the resurrection of our Lord.

Finally, we owe to Luke the information, that the women came in considerable numbers to the apostles, and brought them news of the wondrous occurrences at the sepulchre. He gives most prominence to the fact, that the women with their message could find no belief with the disciples, but rather got a very unfavourable reception, being rejected and vilified as fanatics or dreamers. These are the two main elements in his account: the first testimony of the resurrection is that of the female section of the Church, and this testimony was rejected as the utterance of a dreaming fancy by the doubting male section. Besides, he has preserved the pregnant expression in the address of the angel, Why seek ye the living among the dead? and also the admonition, ‘Remember how He spake unto you when He was yet in Galilee,²⁶ saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.’ Finally, there is the added clause, ‘And they remembered His words.’ Behind these main matters the single points retire more or less into the indefinite. The history of Mary Magdalene is comprehended in that of the women in general. We have only the fact left, that she saw two angels; but this is blended with the experience of the other women, who saw only one angel. The most striking thing is, that he here altogether passes over the appearance of Christ to the women. Perhaps the history of the disciples who went to Emmaus, into which the statements of the women were interwoven in their first form of wavering reports, exercised an obscuring influence upon the tradition which Luke had received through the women.

Besides, the custom of the Apostle Paul not to cite the women among the witnesses of the resurrection (see 1Co 15:1-58), might also have influenced the Gospel of his scholar Luke on this point. Yet we must observe that Paul does not name as witnesses the disciples who went to Emmaus, while Luke gives a lengthened account of their experience. The position also of the account of Peter is inexact: that he arose and ran unto the sepulchre, is told after the narrative of the return of the women who announced the appearance of the angels. It is shown by Luk 24:24, ‘Certain of them that were with us went to the sepulchre,’ that the Evangelist, when intimating that Peter went to the sepulchre, did not mean to exclude John. This shows us that we are not justified in pressing the inaccuracies of the Gospels in the spirit of a notary.²⁷

Thus the actual first announcement of the resurrection is presented to us, not in the shape of its merely objective particulars, but in connection with its living effect; not in a calm form, but as it lived and wrought in the hearts of the first witnesses and members of the Church of Christ: we have it in the lively description of the tones it called forth. These tones, however, do not fall upon our ear in the measured manner of a chorale sung by a single voice, but in the form of a four-voiced, a very lively, and a very involved fugue. A boy cannot understand the intricacies of a fugue; the seemingly unutterable and unintelligible confusion of voices seems to him strange, or even unpleasant. Criticism seems in various respects to be still in this boyish disposition in relation to the great fugue of the first Easter tidings. It would have an altogether monotonous chorale, or rather a litany. But we maintain that a fugue is the right symbol. For, as the fugue is truly that manifestation of the higher harmony which proceeds from the apparent conflict of the individual vibrations and voices of an enthusiastic choir with the common feeling which inspires them, and from the constant dissolving of this apparent conflict, it lets us see the mystery of the higher harmony of the individual parts in their living unity, as this necessarily results from their separating and combining according to rule. Thus it is a symbol of the Christian Church; and very specially of the Christian Church as it was exhibited on its solemn birthday. Hence the first Easter tidings necessarily assumed the form of a bold fugue (comp. Act 2:4).

Under this point of view, Luke’s account forms the first key-note. We hear a numerous choir of women, at first only mourning and quietly seeking, then alarmed and agitated; next experiencing blissful emotions, yet kept from uttering their feelings of joy by a strong spirit of dejection and doubt. In the next place, in Mark’s account, we hear single voices of women; they mourn and ask; they scream from fear, but this cry of terror is soon changed into tones of triumph; then a timid stillness ensues, until again a powerful voice raises itself from their choir, and announces, with solemn conviction, a message of great joy. The same voice is heard by itself in John; at first greatly moved and troubled, then as a loud weeping and lamentation, and next in solemn tones of blessed joy uttering a message of comfort and gladness. Finally, we hear in Matthew the song of a united solemn choir passing in regular succession from great suffering to great sorrow, then from great terror to great joy, and lastly from a state of happy wonderment to a lengthened exclamation of joy. We feel, indeed, at the conclusion of this first Easter tidings, that we have reached only the beginning of the Easter message, but still we are certain that it is the beginning.

How exactly do the accounts accord with the character of the Evangelists! Mark and Luke, in conformity with their character as Evangelists, build upon special communications derived from the women; the one gives a more individual experience from that company of women, the other gives a more general form of the tradition as it respects them. On the other hand, Matthew and John, who were apostles, communicate to us through their own experience the message brought by the women, and each does it in his own peculiar way. Matthew lets the particular disappear in the general, John makes the general appear in the most important individual.

The scholars of apostles have rather described the outward behaviour of the women; the two apostles described rather their internal feelings. The two former introduce them as downcast mourners who were desirous of anointing the Lord, but were terrified by seeing angels at His sepulchre, and had their Easter joy repressed and held down by the spirit of doubt in the male portion of the Church. The two latter, again, rather let us surmise the secret unconscious hope of these mourning women, and so they give greater prominence to the confidence with which the women announced the message of the resurrection.

And it is just when we thus view those women in every aspect that we see in them the most lively type of the Church of Christ, as she, with a secret but living presentiment, comes through mortal agony, through sorrow, fear, and terror of spirit, suddenly to the certainty of the new life of Jesus; then as she, in the ingenuousness of new life, joyously gives testimony of the resurrection; and further, as she, intimidated and repressed by the spirit of doubt and pusillanimity in the world, scarcely ventures to preach this Gospel, until finally her certainty again breaks forth, proclaiming in full assurance, with all the power of life, that Jesus lives.

───♦───

Notes

1. The real and pretended differences, adduced by the Wolfenbttel Fragmentist, between the different accounts of the resurrection given by the Evangelists, have, as is well known, been again brought forward by Strauss, who pushes to the utmost every appearance of contradiction. On the other hand, besides former attempts at explanation and adjustment, many more have been recently made; among others, by Tholuck, on John, 407 (Tr.); Hug, d. a. W. ii. 210; W. Hoffman, 408; Neander, 476; Ebrard, 447. A short list of the most important differences is found in De Wette on Mat 24:12.²⁸

2. Strauss also asks what was the aim of the angels’ appearing at the sepulchre, ‘What was the use of the angels at this scene?’ (p. 585.)

3. Weisse asserts (ii. 355) that the dialogue between Jesus and Mary Magdalene given by John has a strange and surprising form, which compels him to pass a harsher sentence on it than even Strauss has done. Then follows Herr Weisse’s harsher sentence on the dialogue. He is quite inexorable!

4. According to Strauss (589), the following is one of the most important contradictions:—According to Matthew and Mark, Jesus commands the disciples to go to Galilee to see Him; while according to Luke, He tells them not to depart from Jerusalem until they are endued with power from on high. But in the criticism which seizes upon this apparent contradiction, the historical relations in which Christ’s disciples stood are entirely misapprehended. They were still Israelites, and respected the theocratic and civil observances of Israel. They continued to have the relation of Israelites to the temple until they were gradually detached from it by the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, and their after-experiences. Among other things, this implies that, in the meantime, they retained their former theocratic relation to the Jewish Church. They returned to Galilee soon after the Passover, and afterwards came again to Jerusalem at Pentecost. We can clearly see this substratum of Israelitism through their Christian experiences after the resurrection, and the double change of scene. By this we explain the precepts of Christ which have been referred to. When Christ sent a message to His disciples, saying that He would see them again in Galilee, it is taken for granted that they would continue at Jerusalem during the feast of the Passover; and when He commands them to tarry in the city of Jerusalem until they should be endued with power from on high to preach to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem, this has in the first instance a theocratic sense. They should remain as Israelites at Jerusalem until they should be led out by the Spirit of God into all the world. But that did not need to hinder them making the necessary visits to their homes in Galilee. The apostles as Jews had to depend upon home for their support, until as preachers of the Gospel to all the world they could live by the Gospel. It is evident from the context, Luk 23:47, that our Lord desired, in the first instance, by this order to guard against the disciples leaving Jerusalem too soon, and going into all the world preaching Him. Strauss observes, on the other hand, that to go from Jerusalem to Galilee was no mere walk, but the longest journey which a Jew could make in his own country. That is true, and yet in a certain sense it was less than a walk; it was the journey home which was customary, or commanded by circumstances, and not a mere pleasure-walk (comp. W. Hoffman, 411). Thus it is a total misapprehension of the true state of matters, when the Wolfenbttel Fragmentist asks, Why were the disciples obliged to take a long journey to Galilee in order to see Jesus? Yet Strauss could be pleased with this gross perversion (p. 592). The Fragmentist thinks further, that before the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, the disciples would have discerned no impulse in themselves to go out into all the world. How does he know that? It is a well-known fact—an old affliction of Christianity—that many disciples of Christ wish to go to all the world before they are duly qualified and furnished for it by the Holy Ghost; and the apostolic Church, even in its downcast condition, experienced, after seeing the risen Saviour, and through the Spirit’s influence, at least a temporary stirring up of an impatient hope, which longed for the appearance of the kingdom of God (compare Act 1:6). Thus the two commands of Christ which are referred to, form no mutual contradiction, even if they had been both uttered at the same time. But when we compare Luk 24:49 with Act 1:4, we must admit that even the command given in the Gospel, that the disciples should tarry at Jerusalem until the time appointed, had a narrow literal sense, and must have been given after the disciples returned from Galilee. Strauss, it is true, thinks there is no ground for interposing an interval of nearly five weeks between ἔφαγεν, ver. 43, and εἶπε δε, ver. 44, while there is an appearance of an immediate connection. But the first question is, Can we do so? and if so, there is ground enough for doing it. Now there is nothing in the construction εἶπε δε which compels us to assume that what follows took place at the same time as what precedes. But the expression, ver. 44, οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι, &c., contains an explanation given by Christ which without doubt belongs to the first time of His meeting with His disciples. On the other hand, τότε διήνοιξεν αὐτῶν τὸν νοῦν denotes a continuous activity of Christ, which began indeed on that evening, but lasted through the whole forty days. For the opening of the understanding of the disciples cannot surely be considered as a spiritual act completed in a moment. Therefore we see in the passage 45-49 a resumé given by Luke of what Christ did during the forty days. And on this supposition the command, ver. 49, naturally falls towards the close of that time, and consequently may be further explained by the passage in Act 1:4.

5. According to the present standpoint of Gospel criticism, it can no longer seem strange that Matthew says nothing of the principal appearances of Christ in Jerusalem, and Luke nothing of those in Galilee. The way and manner in which each Evangelist relates the Easter history are sufficiently explained by the peculiarity of his Gospel. Thus, for Matthew, it was the main aim to tell of that appearance of our Lord in Judea which put an end to the mourning lamentation of His people, and of that in Galilee, by which He showed Himself to the assembled Church as the Lord of glory who founds the absolute kingdom of heaven. Mark finds his task ended after having shown how Christ, in His divine power, had overcome the unbelief of His disciples by His first appearances in Judea (on the first day of Easter). The facts from the history of the resurrection given by Luke are evidently designed mainly to show how the sufferings of Christ were necessary, according to the counsel of God revealed in the Old Testament, and foretold by Christ. See vers. 8, 25, 32, 44, 45; besides, the true corporeity of the new life of Christ is set forth (vers. 37-43). This formed a powerful motive for giving the history of the disciples going to Emmaus, and relating the first appearance of Christ in the circle of the disciples at Jerusalem—two Jewish facts of the resurrection time. John shows us in strongly marked outlines how Jesus cheered the troubled disciples, paying most attention to those who needed most; hence the accounts regarding Mary Magdalene, Thomas, and Peter. Hence he feels specially the need of portraying the continual presence of the Spirit of Christ in His Church; hence the more exact future destiny of Peter and John related by him. He gives us Jewish and Galilean facts, until he has reached his aim of setting forth the Lord’s glory, and His abiding with His people for ever. Matthew’s Jewish and Galilean facts run parallel with those of John. Mark and Luke give us the supplement, by mentioning the last appearances in Judea, with which the history of the resurrection closes. Mark and Luke give also clear intimations of the first appearances in Judea, and although they have not, in their short and inexact presentation of the resurrection history, distinctly mentioned the Galilean appearances, yet these are suggested by the general summaries, Mar 14:15-18; Luk 24:45-48.

1) Matthew says, Ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων. This is very significant : late in the evening of the (old) Sabbath, with which the dawn of the (new) Sabbath commenced—ὄρθρου βαθέος, very early in the morning; John, πρωῒ σκοτίας ἔτι οὔσης, early, when it was yet dark; Mark, λίαν πρωῒ ἀνατείλαντος τοῦ ἡλίου. This last expression does not contradict the others (Strauss, ii. 571). Hug remarks (ii. 208), 'The phrase ἀνατείλαντος τοῦ ἡλίου does not mean orto sole, as Jerome inexactly renders it, but oriente sole, as the Latin translator in Cod. D. Cantabrig. has rendered it, &c. The λίαν πρωΐ which precedes might have shown that Mark meant to say: very early, &c. There is the additional consideration, that the twilights are shorter in warm countries than in Europe.—[The 5th section of West's Observations is devoted to this point; but for a most satisfactory treatment of it, see Robinson in Bibl. Sacra (1845), p. 166. The most convincing instance of the use of the aorist in this sense is Judg. ix. 33 (LXX.)—ED]

2) See Göschel, on the Proofs of the Immortality of the Human Soul in the Light of Speculative Philosophy; the Preface.

3) It is not said that they saw him in the specific form of an angel, but that they became with terror aware of his presence. All the preceding circumstances of the case had disposed them for the feeling of terror, especially after they had kept watch the whole night beside the sepulchre of that mysterious man who had, in Gethsemane, sent the Roman band reeling to the ground. Compare Acts ix. 7.

4) See ver. 8, καί ἐξελθοῦσαι, &c.

5) See W. Hoffman, d. a. W. 205.

6) Besides, we cannot from ver. 11 conclude with certainty that all the keepers were corrupted.

7) See Book I. vii. 2.

8) The first three Evangelists did not separate Mary s experience from that of the other women. This explains why Matthew and Mark, following the tradition of the women, speak of only one angel having appeared to Mary Magdalene ; and why Luke, following the tradition of Mary, speaks of two angels having appeared to the women.

9) Compare Olshausen (iv. 271). 'When stripping the crucified, nothing was left except the subligaculum, the linen cloth ; Jesus was buried with only this covering. But this was also the only article of clothing worn by field-labourers ; and this favoured Mary s supposition.' Tholuck, John, 410, after Hug. ['Nudns quoque prodiit (from the tomb) tanquam secundus Adarnus, victo peccato, tanquam opprobri, quod in nuditate est, unico fonte, imagine Dei peiiecte vestitus, vestesque Candidas ustitiae et salutis vendeus.' Lampe, iii. 666.—ED.]

10) 'The word ἅπτεσθαι which John employs, xx. 1 7, means to seize, to lay hold of anything, by no means necessarily a mere momentary touching. It can also be applied to the embracing of an object that one intends to retain hold of for some time, and to the beginning of a continued occupation with any object.' Neander, p. 477. [But see Alford and Stier in loc.—So far as the word goes, either interpretation is admissible. Alford cannot mean that the rendering, a laying hold of to worship, is a 'forced' rendering of the word, but of the word in its present connection; for the Greek language does not possess a word more appropriate to the clasping of the knees by a suppliant or worshipper. Ellicott (p. 387) has a good note on the words ; and in Meyer s note some of the absurd rationalist interpretations may be seen. Lampe, following Cocceius, says (iii. 677) that Jesus spoke to the thought of Mary. 'Cum enim Christus et abitum ad Patrem, et rediturn ad suos secum assumendos promisisset, existimasse optimam fæminam, quod finis lætissima hujus catastrophes jam appropinquasset, quod abitus Domini ad Patrem jam contigerit, et quod nunc actu rediret suos secum in gloriam assumturus. Ab hoc errore Dominum voluisse amicam suam liberare, eique significare, quod tantuin absit, ut a Patre rediret, ut potius iter adhuc iugredi proposituin haberet.'—ED.]

11) See Book II. Part iii. 9.

12) Neauder's opinion, that Jesus appeared first to the other women and then to Mary Magdalene, is unfounded, and does not agree with Mark xvi. 9

13) Wife of Chuza, Herod s steward. See Luke viii. 3.

14) The doubtful reading καὶ τινες σὺν αὐταῖς would imply that Jewish women were along with the women of Galilee.

15) A λῆρος signifies in many passages of the ancients, foolish prating, and from that, the ravings of fever, &c.

16) For an opposite opinion comp. Ebrard.

17) Probably the mother of Jesus was one of the second company of women.

18) As Olshausen supposes, iv. 275.

19) [Sherlock, Trial of the Witnesses (571, ed. Memes), seems very justly to ascribe the delay of the apostles in proclaiming the resurrection to the unlikelihood that
their testimony would be received until substantiated by miraculous powers.—ED.]

20) [For other and important reasons for Christ s not showing Himself to His enemies, see Sherlock s very entertaining and acute Trial of the Witnesses, p. 569 (ed. Memes).—ED.]

21) See ii 210.

22) See Hase, 265.

23) Strauss in particular seems to desire this, 579. Yet his remark is unfounded when he says: 'We cannot comprehend how each of the Evangelists could adhere with such rigidity to what this or that woman had casually told him.' Were it really the case that they did so, there would have been none of those inexact statements and inter mingling of accounts in the synoptics, which are now imputed to them as contradictions.

24) When De Wette says (on Matt. 243), ccording to John xx. 1, only Mary Magdalene came to the sepulchre, and she came without any design of embalming the body,this saying contains a double and unjustified negation.

25) When Neander assumes that Christ appeared first 'to the women who first left the sepulchre,' and then to Mary, who remained behind, he contradicts the account given by Mark.

26) Strauss again allows himself to be guided to a decision by outward similarity of sound and show, when he thinks that this address sprang from the direction in Matthew, that the disciples should go to Galilee.

27) E.g. the inexactness between John xx. 1 with the words of ver. 2, We know not,' &c.

28) [The Wolfenbüttel Frag, was first answered by Micliaelis in 1783, in his Erklärung der Begriibniss und Aufcrstelcuny s Gcschichte. For a list of other writings in which attempts are made to harmonize the four accounts, see Robinson's concise and lucid article in the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1845, p. 189. To this list add Gilbert West's Observations on the Resurrection, and Sherlock's Trial of the Witnesses and The Sequel; Ellicott's Historical Lectures, &c., Lee. viii., and Westcott's Introd. to the Gospels, p. 305. (Da Costa, The Four Witnesses, is not to be followed here.) Robinson does not agree with the majority of harmonizers regarding the priority of. the Lord s appearance to Mary. He is of opinion that He first appeared to the other women,, and maintains that Mark (xvi. 9) uses πρῶτον not absolutely, but only relatively to the appearances he himself narrates.—ED.]