356 The RESURRECTION.―For the order of appearances (see Table in Turton, p. 357) of the risen Lord, see West on the Resurrection, Birks’s “Horæ Apologeticæ,” Ryle’s valuable note, and a pamphlet by R. Govett, “The Saviour’s Resurrection: Events of the First Day,” as also a powerful book by the same, published by Maclehose, Glasgow. Colonel Turton’s chapter (17.) on the whole subject is excellent; see in particular p. 362 as to the Apostle Paul’s reference to the various occasions in groups. Reference should also be made to Swete, “The Appearances of the Lord after the Passion,” p. 51 ff.
357 Verse 1 f.―See note 167 on Mark 16:1-8. Here is John’s first mention of the stone.
“Dearly loved,” ἐφίλει, for which ἠγάπα is used elsewhere, as in 13:23.
358 “We know not.” This assumes knowledge of the earlier Gospels. The fourth Evangelist, like each of the rest, knew more than he has recorded. Cf. note on verse 30.
359 Verse 3.―Cf. Luke 24:12, where skeptical writers, as is their wont in such cases, find a contradiction. There (α) Peter is alone, (β) does not enter the tomb (see verse 6 here). But the earlier Evangelist is speaking of a second visit of Peter, on returning from which he met the Lord Himself (verse 34 there).
360 Verse 5.― “Stooping down”—i.e., sideways (παρακύψας). Had he not done so, he would have stood in his own light. As to such a tomb, see Scher, p. 34.
361 Verse 7.―The word ἐντετυλιγμένον, speaks volumes. It means “folded inwards” ―i.e., turban-shaped (Govett), or twirled (Latham). What was it that entranced him? The remarkable appearance that the vesture presented in the position of the various parts towards each other. The Lord had detached Himself from the napkin and the shroud without disheveling them, to say nothing of handling them. A miracle alone could explain the phenomenon. The common notion (as of Dr. Torrey, “Talks with Men”) that He had just calmly folded up the napkin afresh in a different place, so as to indicate that there had been no haste, no removal of the body by friend or foe, is feeble in comparison with the full reality. “A place apart” refers to the different position consistent with the unity, which had not been disturbed. Cf. Carr: “The napkin perhaps rested on a stone which had served as a pillow.” So, apparently, Bishop Gore understands it (“New Theology,” iii., p. 123), as does Prof. Swete. Further reference may be made to Govett or Latham (“The Risen Master,” p.43 ff., ed. of 1901).
362 Verse 8.―A question has been raised as to the Lord’s vesture as risen. A change must take place if Lev. 16:23 was to be fulfilled.
362a “Saw” (εἶδεν). This time with intelligence.
362b As suggested by Lake (“Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” p. 133).
363 Verse 9.― “From” ―i.e., from among (ἐκ).
363a See note on 6:69, and as to Divine faith founded on Scripture giving infallible certainty, Bishop Pearson on the words of the Creed, “I believe.”
363b Cf. 17:8, 1 John 5:13.
364 Verses 11-16.―These and the two following verses are peculiar to John. Cf., again, note 167 on Mark. Some have cat Fed at the absence of any record of fright on Mary’s part. But, writes Bellett, “What was such splendor to her?” (p. 155).
365 Verse 13.― “I know not.” In verse 2 it was “We know.” She had spoken with the other women in the meantime. John’s account supposes knowledge of Matt. 28:1, 5 f.; Mark 16:1-5; Luke 24:1-10 (Zahn, ii. 509). One may see that the fourth Evangelist attaches himself especially to the account given by the second.
366 Verse 14.―Athanasius, Chrysostom and Bishop Andrewes suppose that Mary thought, from the altered manner of the angels, that there was another on the scene, and that, accordingly, she turned to see the newcomer.
367 Verse 17.― “The Christ” had not yet ascended. The Gnostics alleged that He did so when “Jesus” was arrested (note 324). Scott supposes that he reproduces the Evangelist’s own interpretation when he represents the Lord’s ascension as “accomplished from the time of His meeting with Mary”; that for John “there was no room for what is described by the writer of the Acts”; and that “the παρουσία was taken out of its Apocalyptic setting.” Such writers evidently should leave 21:22 alone, for their system “has no room” for it. Observe that the words “till I come” (or, “while I am coming”) are independent of any theory as to the three closing verses of the Gospel. See notes 394 ff.
“Do not go on touching Me.” For denial of historical support to the bodily resurrection of the Lord, see Lake, cf. cit. For the Apostle Paul’s position, cf. Col. 2:9; Phil. 3:21.
“My God.” The Lord is “Son of man” still. Cf. notes on 3:13, 6:62.
368 Verse 19.― “When it was evening.” See note on 19:14 (ad fin.).
“The doors were shut,” etc. The question as to the properties of the Lord’s body in resurrection leads to the suggestion of a “four-dimensional world,” of which Mr. R. J. Campbell has availed himself for a system of ideas very different from the views of the propounder of it (Dr. A. T. Schofield).
369 Verse 20.― “The disciples.” Luke shows that others were present besides the Apostles. As to his saying that they were “terrified” whilst John speaks of their being “glad,” see sensible remarks of Turton, p. 359.
370 Verse 23.―See note on 7:39. It would be found that each form of the commission in the Gospels illustrates the design of the respective record (Bellett, p. 162 f.).
371 This act of administrative forgiveness, Augustine said, holds of all believers everywhere. So even Pusey on “Absolution,” p. 32. The Second Book of Homilies: “The priests are as much bound to confess to the lay people as the lay people to the priests.” After such dicta, who could call the late Dean Stanley revolutionary when he wrote: “The clergyman needs the advice and pardon of the gifted layman quite as much as the layman needs the advice and pardon of the gifted clergyman”? (“Christian Institutions,” p. 179).
Observe that Thomas was absent on this occasion. This lends support to the view of Augustine and others, to which reference has been made; otherwise that Apostle’s commission must have been defective.
Instances of such retention of sin are Ananias and Sapphira, the incestuous person at Corinth, Hymennus and Alexander.
For power conferred on the ἐκκλησία as such, see Matt. 18.
372 “Didymus.” This is not a surname: Thomas in Syriac means “twin.”
373 Verse 29.―Cf. 1 Pet. 1:8.
374 Verses 30 f.― “Signs.” The great question of controversy between the Church and the Jewish rulers had been as to the Messianic claims of JESUS, and in the first period miracles played the chief part in establishing them. It was to the interest of Jewish opponents to upset the reality of these. Why, it may be asked, if truth was on their side, did they not put the Apostles to open shame? (Gerdtell, “On the Miracles,” etc., p. 53). Martineau thought that these verses indicate that the writer did not intend his work to be taken as strictly “historical” (“Seat of Authority in Religion,” p. 435). In them, however, we have inspired expression to the difference between merely human and Scripture biography. Contrast Boswell’s “Johnson,” Lockhart’s “Scott,” Morley’s “Gladstone,” with the very limited scope of the fourth Gospel. Such a statement as that contained in these verses, of course, discredits theories like those of Wellhausen, who, accordingly, in his recent monograph, treats them as from a later hand (p. 27).
The last words afford us a pre-eminent instance of what is meant by “dogma.” “A truth which every one who would be a Christian is bound to believe” (Gore, “The Creed of the Christian,” p. 16). But Creeds are, after all, “only human expositions” (Kinnear, p. 163). As to Dogma, see Green, iii. 165-185; Lotze, § 94 ff.
There were two departments of error with which the Apostles had to deal: (α) Jewish, to which the Gospel of Matthew is directed; (β) that of Gentile speculation, rife around John at Ephesus, which treated matter as evil, and questioned the omniscience and goodness of the Creator. The fourth Evangelist has shown that sin is a matter of man’s heart, and that the Lord Jesus was the Creator’s accredited agent and witness. Again, reason as man may about the character of the Lord’s body in resurrection, that this was not merely phenomenal is patent to all but bigots.
The Lord has been shown to be Son of God and Son of man in one (see verses 14-18). Cf., again, 3:13 and 16 with 11:27 and 17:3. In 1:32 the Dove was not “the Christ,” but the Spirit.
As for Eternal Life, Christ’s word was saturated with mention of it (6:68, 10:27 f.). He is Himself that Life (5:26, 11:25 f.).
With verse 31 here cf., of course, 1 John 5:9, 13, which in like manner informs us of the object the Apostle had in writing that letter.
375 Grotius thought that the last chapter was written by John the Presbyter, as do Harnack and others now. The opinion that the Gospel originally ended with chapter 20 seems to go back to Tertullian (“Ad Prax,” 25). It is that of Germans in general, including Zahn (§ 66 ad init.).
375a Ewald’s opinion was that it was John’s own composition, dating some ten years after the rest of the Gospel, but added before its publication, the uncompleted part in the meanwhile having a sort of private circulation. It is rather a summary, like that at the close of chapter 12 (Reynolds).