CHAPTER XX.
Ch. 20:1-31. THE RISEN LORD.--THE TESTIMONY OF EYE-WITNESSES TO THE RESURRECTION.--THE INTUITIONS OF LOVE (8).--THE CONSOLATION OF LIFE TO GRIEF AT THE EMPTY TOMB.--THE POWER OF CHRIST’S VOICE.--THE COMMISSION OF CHRIST’S DISCIPLES: SENT AS CHRIST; THEIR ENDOWMENT: THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST; THEIR AUTHORITY: TO SAVE, TO JUDGE.--MODERN UNBELIEF IN AN ANCIENT EXPERIENCE.--CHRIST’S ANSWER TO THE RELUCTANT SKEPTIC.--THE OBJECT OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
The accounts of the resurrection and the incidents in the life of our Lord between the resurrection and the ascension given by the four Evangelists are very different, and in some respects seemingly inconsistent. The discrepancies have been magnified, and dwelt upon by rationalizing critics as a reason for regarding the accounts as unhistorical. For a comparison of the four narratives, a statement of the differences between them, and a hypothetical harmony, see Note on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Matthew, ch. 28, Vol. I, p. 330. Alford goes too far in saying that all attempts at harmony are fruitless, though certainly all harmonies are hypothetical, and perhaps at best only show that there is no radical and essential inconsistency in the four narratives.
1 The[725] first _day_ of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
[725] Matt. 28:1, etc.; Mark 16:1, etc.; Luke 24:1, etc.
2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom[726] Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
[726] ch. 13:23; 19:26; 21:7, 24.
3 Peter[727] therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.
[727] Luke 24:12.
=1-3.= Matthew says the women came “as it began to dawn,” Mark “at the rising of the sun.” John is the one most likely to have been well informed, as he was the first one to whom the women reported the facts; and his language, therefore, is probably the most minutely accurate. The time indicated by a comparison of the three accounts is the early dawn, before the sun was fairly up.--With Mary Magdalene came Mary the mother of Joses, Salome, and apparently Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1, 10). That John recognized that there were more than one is indicated by the use of the plural here in the report made to the other disciples of the disappearance of the Lord’s body: “We know not where they have laid him.” Meyer, indeed, argues that the reason borrowed from _we_ know, in verse 2, for the plurality of the women at the grave, is outweighed by _I_ know, in verse 13; but this is fallacious, for the fact that Mary was alone at the grave when Jesus spoke to her would not prove, nor even indicate, that she was alone when she first came to it. On the contrary, it is evident that she, with the other women, returned to the city when they found the grave empty (ver. 2; comp. Matt. 28:8; Luke 24:9), and it is probable that she returned again to the tomb, following Peter and John, to sorrow there. For illustration of sepulchre and rolling stone door, see notes on Mark 16:2-4. For account of the rolling away of the stone, see Matt. 28:2 and note. The report of the women, _They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him_, shows that they had no expectation of the resurrection of their Lord, such as rationalism has imputed to them in explaining their belief in the resurrection appearances as freaks of a sanguine and excited imagination. They supposed that the grave had been robbed by Christ’s enemies, and the body hidden; and, in fact, this method of accounting for the disappearance of the Lord’s body is to be found in some of the later Jewish writings, though it has never gained credence even among rationalistic critics.
4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun[728] Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.
[728] Luke 13:30.
5 And he, stooping down, _and looking in_, saw the linen clothes[729] lying; yet went he not in.
[729] ch. 19:40.
6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
7 And the napkin,[730] that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
[730] ch. 11:44.
8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.
9 For as yet they knew not the[731] scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.
[731] Ps. 16:10; Acts 2:25-31; 13:34, 35.
10 Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.
=4-10.= This narrative bears the unmistakable impress of coming from an eye-witness, and all the commentators recognize its striking accordance with the well-known characteristics of the two disciples. The information, which from Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts we should suppose to have been given to all the disciples, appears from John’s more minute narrative to have been given only to Peter and John, for there is little doubt that John refers to himself in the phrase “the other disciple whom Jesus loved.” See ch. 13:22, note. They were both greatly excited by the news of the supposed desecration of the tomb, and hastened to the spot to see for themselves. Mary Magdalene, as the sequel shows, followed them more slowly.--John, who there is reason to believe was the younger, and therefore not improbably the more agile of the two, reached the sepulchre first, but was awed at approaching the grave of his Lord, and waited without, simply looking in through the open door to assure himself that the tomb was really empty.--Peter, who was never hindered by his sense of reverence, entered the sepulchre boldly as soon as he arrived, and John followed him. They found the tomb empty, but the winding-sheet in which the body was wrapped (ch. 19:40, note), and the napkin that was about the head, were folded and laid in so orderly a manner as to negative the opinion that the grave had been rifled.--The moment John saw the contents of the tomb the truth flashed upon his mind. His quick intuitions recalled and interpreted Christ’s misunderstood prophecies of his own resurrection: _he saw and believed_. To interpret this phrase as meaning simply “he saw that the body of Jesus was not there, and believed that it had been removed, as Mary Magdalene had said” (_Bengel_), is to do violence to the original, for John habitually uses this word _believed_ (πιστεύω) of spiritual apprehension. Nor is there any boast in the implication that he alone believed; the fact is important, for we thus learn when the faith in a risen Saviour first dawned on humanity; and John could not state it more modestly.
11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, _and looked_[732] into the sepulchre,
[732] Mark 16:5.
12 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.
13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.
=11-13.= Mary, who apparently had followed Peter and John to the sepulchre, remained after their departure, to weep. She also stooped and looked into the sepulchre, but she was so preoccupied with the conclusion which she had already hastily formed, that the orderly arrangement of the grave-clothes produced no effect upon her mind.--For her some further disclosure of the truth was necessary; to her, therefore, the angels appeared. Mary is not startled either at their appearance or their words (comp. Luke 1:29); perhaps she is too entirely absorbed in her grief at the disappearance of the Lord’s body.--In answer to their question she repeats what she had reported to the disciples: “They (the Lord’s enemies) have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.” It is by a very forced accommodation that this text is applied to or used to illustrate that philosophy which denies the divinity and atonement of Christ; for here it was the outward crucified tabernacle which had been taken away, that the victorious Spirit might be more effectively imparted. The objection of rationalistic critics that the angels had not been seen by Peter and John is well answered by Godet: “Angels are not visible and immovable, like stone statues.”
14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and[733] saw Jesus standing, and knew not[734] that it was Jesus.
[733] Matt. 28:9; Mark 16:9.
[734] ch. 21:4; Luke 24:16, 31.
15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and[735] I will take him away.
[735] Cant. 3:2.
=14, 15.= Mary turned back from looking into the tomb, not attracted by any sound of Christ’s approach--at least of this there is no intimation in the narrative--but more probably in the very restlessness of grief. Her failure to recognize Jesus is best explained, not by any natural cause, as the dimness of the morning light, or her inattention to the person of the supposed stranger, but by the analogous experience of the disciples in their walk to Emmaus, when Christ appeared to them “in another form” (Mark 16:12), and “their eyes were holden, that they should not know him” (Luke 24:16).--Mary’s surmise that the unknown was the gardener was a natural one. “Who else could it be in the garden so early in the morning?”--(_Meyer._) The elaborate discussion of the question whether he had on the clothing of a gardener is a somewhat striking illustration of the profitless and wholly fruitless debate which is unhappily only too common in Biblical interpretation. In the wildness of her grief she surmised that the gardener might know what had become of the body, might even have taken part in its removal--a wild surmise, since the tomb and the garden both belonged to a disciple of Christ (Matt. 27:60). Her assurance, “I will take him away,” is made in the strength of a love which promises without reflecting whether it can perform.
16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary.[736] She turned[737] herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
[736] ch. 10:3; Isa. 43:1.
[737] Cant. 3:4.
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren,[738] and say unto them, I[739] ascend unto my Father, and[740] your Father; and _to_ my[741] God, and your[742] God.
[738] Ps. 22:22; Rom. 8:29; Heb. 2:11.
[739] ch. 16:28.
[740] Rom. 8:14, 15; 2 Cor. 6:18; Gal. 3:26; 4:6, 7.
[741] Ephes. 1:17.
[742] Gen. 17:7, 8; Ps. 43:4, 5; 48:14; Isa. 41:10; Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 36:28; Zech. 13:9; Heb. 11:16; Rev. 21:3.
18 Mary Magdalene came[743] and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and _that_ he had spoken these things unto her.
[743] Matt. 28:10.
=16-18.= Christ’s utterance of her name in well-remembered accents disclosed him to her. She had before but listlessly regarded him; she now turned fully toward him, instantly recognized him, responded to her name with a word full of reverential affection--“_Rabboni, Master_”--and would have thrown herself at his feet and embraced him but for his prohibition. In an instant she was translated from the profoundest grief to the most exalted ecstasy of love, but her intended expression of that love did not accord with that spiritual communion which the risen Lord proposed to vouchsafe to his disciples. The original rendered _touch_ (ἃπτω) signifies literally to hang upon some one. “She desired to seize, grasp, hold Jesus, in order to enjoy his society and to satisfy her love (comp. Luke 7:36).”--(_Luthardt._) Or, perhaps, to convince herself that she was not under an illusion, and to hold fast to the Christ whom she had already twice lost--once in the crucifixion, once in the disappearance of the body from the tomb. There appears to be an inconsistency between Christ’s prohibition here and the statement in Matt. 28:9 that the women “came and held him by the feet.” I believe the account there to be an imperfect report of the event more accurately reported here. See note on Matt. 28:9, 10. Why the fact that Christ had not yet ascended to his Father should be assigned as a reason for not embracing him has given rise to much discussion among the commentators. An account of the explanations which have been afforded, some of which are fanciful to the verge of absurdity, may be found both in Luthardt and Meyer. The true interpretation seems to me to be this: Christ had promised to his disciples that after he had gone to his Father he would return to be with them, that they might be in him and he in them, as he was in the Father and the Father in him. This interpretation of his death as a departure to be with the Father, and this accompanying promise to return and be with them, form the burden of his discourse in John, chaps. 14-16. He restrained Mary from embracing him by declaring that he had not yet gone to the Father, that the time for the fulfillment of this promise of his fellowship had not yet come, and that she must yet look forward to the future for that intimacy of intercourse which he had foretold. He did not stop to enter into fuller explanations, but his words point to that spiritual acquaintance with Christ to which Paul gives expression in the declaration, “Though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more” (2 Cor. 6:16). But though refusing to allow Mary to embrace him, he conferred upon her a far greater honor in commissioning her to be the first preacher of the resurrection. By characterizing his disciples as his _brethren_, he indicated that he was still in the flesh. The body with which he had risen was the same in which he was crucified. See Luke 24:39, note. The language of his message, “I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God,” indicates certainly that the sonship of the disciple is not the same as the sonship of the only begotten Son of God. He does not say _our Father_. Cyril’s interpretation, “My Father by nature; your Father by adoption,” is just, though attributed to rather than found in the words. The Father is by Paul called “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Ephes. 1:17).
19 Then[744] the same day at evening, being the first _day_ of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus, and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace _be_ unto you.
[744] Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36; 1 Cor. 15:5.
20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them _his_ hands and his side. Then[745] were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
[745] ch. 16:22.
=19, 20.= Of this interview Mark gives a briefer, Luke a quite different report (Mark 16:14-16; Luke 24:36-49). As John was the only one of the Evangelists present who has given any account of the interview, it may be assumed that his is the more accurate. It is possible that Luke’s account of Christ’s eating broiled fish and a honeycomb, to convince them that he was in the flesh, may have been derived from the subsequent interview in Galilee, reported by John in ch. 21:12-14. The event here recorded took place after the appearance of Christ to the two disciples in their walk to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35). This was the first appearance of Christ, after the resurrection, to the apostles in a body. The doors were probably not only shut, but locked, as a protection; the fear of the Jews was natural, for it was reasonable to expect that the crucifixion of the Master would be followed by an attempt to pursue and punish the disciples; and this natural expectation was increased by the prophecies of persecution which formed a part of Christ’s final instructions. The fact that Jesus entered through the closed door does not indicate that the body was other than the natural body which had been laid in the grave; and Christ’s language at this very time, as reported by Luke, “A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have,” appears to be conclusive that his resurrection body was his physical body. It is as futile to ask how, with a natural body, he could enter through the closed door, as to ask how he could walk upon the water. Miracles defy explanation. It is to be observed, however, that the Evangelist does not state that Jesus entered _through_ the closed door. He simply states the two facts which came within his own observation: the doors were closed, and while so closed, suddenly Jesus was seen standing in the midst of the disciples, within the room. The greeting, “_Peace be unto you_,” was a common Jewish salutation. Like the salutation “It is I, be not afraid,” with which Christ greeted the frightened disciples in the storm-tossed boat on the Sea of Galilee (ch. 6:20), it was addressed to calm their natural perturbation at the sudden apparition. This it must have done the more effectually in that it recalled to their minds the benediction of his final discourse, “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth give I unto you” (ch. 14:27). The showing of his hands and side was further to convince them of his identity; and it appears probable, from the language of Thomas (ver. 25), from the report of Luke (Luke 24:39), and from the language of John in his Epistle (1 John 1:1), that the disciples handled as well as looked upon the body of their Lord.
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace[746] _be_ unto you: as _my_ Father hath sent me, even so[747] send I you.
[746] ch. 14:27.
[747] ch. 17:18; Matt. 28:19; 2 Tim. 2:2; Heb. 3:1.
=21.= This is John’s report of the commission given by Christ to his disciples after the resurrection, and should be compared with that of Matthew (28:18-20), which, however, appears to have been given later. Mark’s report of the apostolic commission (Mark 16:15-18) is of doubtful authenticity, and Luke’s account (Luke 24:45-49) is to be regarded rather as a summary of Christ’s post-resurrection instructions than as the report of any single commission. It is, as Meyer well remarks, significant that the mission of the disciples previously implied was formally and solemnly ratified at the first meeting after the resurrection. On the significance of this commission, see ch. 17:18, note. It was his response to their exhibition of gladness upon seeing him again, and implied that their joy in their Lord was not to be consummated until they had followed him in his ministry of humiliation and sacrifice.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on _them_, and saith unto them, Receive[748] ye the Holy Ghost.
[748] Acts 2:4, 38.
23 Whose soever[749] sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; _and_ whose soever _sins_ ye retain, they are retained.
[749] Matt. 16:19; 18:18.
=22, 23. He breathed on them and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.= Breath is a natural symbol of life; in the Bible it is used as a symbol of the divine life. God breathes into man the breath of life (Gen. 2:7); in the vision of Ezekiel the wind breathes on the dry bones and clothes them with life (Ezek. 37:9, 10); in Christ’s conversation with Nicodemus the life-giving power of God is compared to the breath of wind (ch. 3:8); and it is significant of the extent to which this symbol underlies Scripture that the Greek word used for spirit is the one also used for wind, which is poetically represented as the breath of God. Here, by breathing on the apostles, Christ symbolically imparted to them that divine life which man never _acquires_, which God alone can _give_. _Receive ye the Holy Ghost_ is not to be regarded as a promise to be fulfilled at Pentecost--it is not equivalent to, _Ye shall receive the Holy Ghost_; nor as a full bestowal of the power of the Spirit, which came not till Pentecost; but as an _earnest_ of the gift yet to be more fully bestowed in successive endowments through all the future ages of the church. This gift of the Holy Ghost is to be connected with the commission which precedes: “As my Father hath sent me, even so I send you.” It is given to all who accept this Christian commission, that is, who believe in Christ through the word of the apostles, and, believing, become true followers of him. It is also to be connected with the authority conferred in the verse which follows. See below. There is a possible significance in the omission of the definite article in the original, which, if literally translated, would read, Receive ye a holy spirit. We receive a spirit of true holiness only as the divine life is breathed upon us by the inspiration of God (Titus 3:4-6).--=Whose soever sins ye put away, they are put away from them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.= This passage is confessedly difficult of interpretation. In considering it I endeavor, first, to put the English reader in possession of the exact meaning of the original; next, to suggest to him what seems to me to be the true interpretation of the passage; and finally to give him briefly other interpretations. (1) The word rendered _remit_ signifies primarily and properly to _dismiss_, _put away_, _get rid of_. As applied to sin in the N. T., it indicates not a mere release from the threatened penalty of transgression, but redemption from the power of the sin itself. See Matt. 6:12, note. The divine forgiveness of sins is interpreted by such promises as those of Micah 7:19: “He will subdue our iniquities, and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea;” and Isaiah 44:22: “I have blotted out as a thick cloud thy transgressions, and as a cloud thy sins.” In the first clause of this verse, therefore, there is no hint of any power in apostle or apostolic successor to forgive sins, or to declare with authority sins forgiven, or to declare under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost to what character and on what terms sins shall be forgiven. There is simply the declaration that when the disciple of Christ, acting under his Master’s commission and with the power given by the inbreathed gift of the Holy Ghost, does in fact put away, dismiss, get rid of sin, in the individual or the community, the work shall not be in vain in the Lord--the devil so cast out shall not return to find the house swept and garnished and take possession of it again (Matt. 12:44, 45). The work shall abide. Thus the first clause of this verse embodies a promise like that of Isaiah 55:11, and is interpreted by its fulfillment in Paul’s experience, as in 1 Thess. 1:4-7. The second clause, _Whose soever sins ye retain shall be retained_, is more difficult of interpretation. The word rendered _retain_ primarily signifies to _possess power_, then to _exercise_ it. It is employed both in classic and later Greek, with many derivative significations--to _rule_, _conquer_, _subdue_, _seize_, _keep_, _hold fast_. It is translated in the N. T. by the terms _hold_ or _hold fast_, _keep_, _lay hand on_, _obtain_, _take_, and, here only, _retain_. It is sometimes used in a material sense, that is, of the exercise of physical power, as in Matt. 9:25, _he took her by the hand_, or Matt. 26:48, _hold him fast_ (comp. verses 50, 55, 57); sometimes it is used in an immaterial sense, that is, of the exercise of a mental power, as in Col. 2:19 of Christians who fall away from grace _not holding the head_, or Mark 7:3 of the Pharisees who _hold the traditions of the elders_. But it never loses wholly its primary and germinant significance of the possession and exercise of power. It cannot therefore here be rendered, without a violation of the original, _Whose soever sins ye permit to retain their hold on the sinner shall be allowed to be retained_; some real exercise of power on the part of the person receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost is indicated. There is also an antithesis apparent in the original, as in our English version, between the two clauses of the verse, _i. e._, between remitting or letting go and retaining or not letting go. We have the same antithesis, between the same words, though there used in a physical sense, in Mark 12:12, They sought _to lay hold_ on him, * * * but they _left_ him and went their way. It seems to me that by this latter clause a power is conferred, the more awful that it is not clearly, and perhaps cannot be by any possibility clearly defined--a power to fasten sin on the sinner by sentence of condemnation, as there is power to put away sin by the proclamation of the salvation. This power is given upon the conditions implied in the commission, _As the Father hath sent me, even so I send you_, and in the gift, _Receive ye the gift of the Holy Ghost_; that is, it is conferred, not on the apostles merely, all of whom were not present (ver. 24); nor on them and their successors, for of successors the N. T. furnishes no limit; nor on an ordained priesthood or ministry; but on all who accept Christ’s commission, and in that commission seek and obtain the gift of the Holy Ghost; and it is theirs just in the measure in which they receive and act under his divine influence. (2) I read, then, in this language of Christ, the bestowal of a twofold spiritual power--one of salvation, the other of judgment. The disciple is sent into the world as his Master was sent into the world, like him to become a teacher of divine truth, an example to others, a manifestation of the divine character, a bearer in his own person of the sins of others. See ch. 17:18, note. But also like him he is to be a judge. The Master’s fan is to be in his hand. He who has power to proclaim salvation has also authority to pronounce condemnation, and the one declaration no less than the other, when uttered under the influence of the Holy Spirit of God, is uttered with divine authority. Instances of this judgment against wilful and determined sin are afforded by Christ’s denunciation of the Pharisees; by Peter’s condemnation of Ananias and Sapphira, and of Simon Magus; by Paul’s judgment against the offender in the church of Corinth. Illustrations of perversions of this power are afforded by the anathemas of the church of the middle ages, and perhaps by some of the severe denunciations of the Puritans. It has been variously illustrated by preachers of judgment from the days of Jeremiah to those of John Knox. Such a sentence, when uttered, as it often has been, under the influence of malign passion, or of ecclesiastical ambition, is but an ill-spent breath; but when it is the voice of a spirit of truth and holiness, aroused to righteous indignation in the presence of inveterate sin, and is uttered by a soul acting under the conscious influence of the Divine Spirit, the sentence becomes an awful one, because it is an echo of the inaudible sentence of God himself. I must add emphasis to the statement that, as I read this passage, this power belongs, not to a hierarchy, priesthood, or ministry, but to the Christian soul, by virtue of its direct life in and with God, and to such soul only when acting in its highest moods and with the direct and conscious influence of the Spirit of God upon it. This authority, here bestowed on all who are inspired by a divinely imparted spirit of holiness, interprets and measurably explains the power of a holy soul, before which often, in the history of the race, the most august personages have trembled, they knew not why. Of course this interpretation will be at once rejected by those who would abolish judgment from eternity, much more from this present life, and treat sin only as an immaturity or a disease; but possibly the church would be more efficient in its proclamation of the gospel to penitent sinners, if its spirit of holiness were sometimes aroused to pronounce the sentence of God against persistent sin; perhaps it would call to the Lord more of the publicans and sinners, if it had more of his spirit of judgment against the temple traders and the Pharisees. (3) The principal other interpretations of this passage are the following: (_a_) That the Lord gave power to the apostles to absolve men from sin and fasten sin upon them, but that this was a purely personal power, belonging to the apostolic age, and ceasing with the gifts of miracles, of tongues, etc. But this interpretation dissociates the power here conferred from the accompanying commission and gift, or confines the latter to the apostles, while the general teaching of the Scriptures gives both to all believers. See ch. 17:18, 20; Acts 2:38, 39. It would exclude Thomas, who was not present at this interview, and Paul, who was not one of the eleven. (_b_) That a power of infallibly absolving and anathematizing is here conferred, but that it belongs exclusively to the apostles and their successors, the self-perpetuating hierarchy. This is the ecclesiastical view, held very generally by the Roman Catholic church, and in a modified form by many among the hierarchical denominations generally. But there is neither here nor anywhere else in the N. T. any hint of any power in the apostles to appoint successors, nor any hint that they ever did so. And indeed the very nature of their office, which was to bear personal witness to the facts of Christ’s life and death and resurrection, was such that in the nature of the case no successors were possible (ch. 15:27; Acts 1:21, 22; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8). On this point the dictum of an English dean is significant: “This gift belongs to the church in all ages, and especially to those who by legitimate appointment are set to minister in the churches of Christ: not by successive delegation from the apostles, _of which fiction I find in the N. T. no trace_, but by their mission from Christ, the bestower of the spirit for their office, when orderly and legitimately conferred upon them by the various churches. Not, however, to them exclusively, though for decency and order it is expedient that the outward and formal declaration should be so; but in proportion as _any disciple_ shall have been filled with the holy spirit of wisdom is the inner discernment his.”--(_Alford._) (_c_) The power here promised is one which in a very general way accompanies the preaching of the gospel; that it is a promise that “they should be taught by the Holy Ghost to declare on what terms, to what characters, and to what temper of mind God would extend forgiveness of sins.” This, which is Mr. Barnes’s interpretation, seems to me entirely inadequate. It reduces a definite and positive promise of divine ratification of human judgment, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to a mere enunciation of the general principle that the ministers of Christ shall be ministers of the truth. (_d_) That the two clauses of the sentence are, the one a promise, the other a warning; that Christians _remit_ sin when, by their influence, their example, or their teaching, they induce sinners to repent of sin and abandon it; that they _retain_ sin when, by their negligence, their acquiescence, or their approval, they directly or indirectly help to fasten sins on the individual or the community; and that Christ promises his disciples great results if they are faithful, and warns them of equally great but terrible results if they are remiss or culpable. The original does not seem to me capable of this rendering, for it ignores the fundamental meaning of the word rendered _retain_ (κρῦέω), which always indicates some real _exercise of power_, never a failure or a neglect to exercise it. See above. The view which I have adopted is not very widely different from that of Alford, Meyer, Ryle, Calvin, Watkins, and the best of the Protestant commentators generally, except that, with Godet, I regard the promise as conferring on the moral judgments of the disciple a real efficacy, while the commentators generally regard it as simply a promise of wisdom spiritually to perceive and declare judgments which shall be in accordance with the divine will. This interpretation is also adopted by some of the more evangelical of the Roman Catholic divines, _e. g._, Quesnel in modern and Chrysostom in ancient times, both of whom regard the priest as an ambassador of God, and as speaking by authority only in so far as he is filled with the Holy Ghost. “But why speak I of priests? Neither angel nor archangel can do anything with regard to what is given him of God; but the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost dispenseth all, while the priest lends his tongue and affords his hand.”--(_Chrysostom._) “That such a judgment may be pronounced upon sinners as is fit to be approved of God, and to be confirmed in heaven, it must be such as is according to the Spirit of God, who is given for that purpose, and to the rules prescribed by Christ to sinners, of which the priest is only the minister.”--(_Quesnel._)
24 But Thomas,[750] one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
[750] ch. 11:16.
25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he[751] said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
[751] Ps. 78:11, 32.
=24, 25.= Didymus is the Greek equivalent of Thomas, which is of Hebrew origin. Very little of his life is known; but the two other occurrences recorded in the N. T. (John 11:16; 14:5) indicate an affectionate spirit but a skeptical intellect, a man who loved much, but believed and hoped but little. He has been well called “the rationalist” among the twelve; but he was a rationalist with a warm heart. The incident here recorded shows that the fact of the resurrection was so attested that it was accepted by one who could only be convinced by the clearest and most convincing proof. The reason of Thomas’s absence is not stated, nor even implied; but the conjecture that he had abandoned hope, and therefore the companionship of the disciples, is not unreasonable.--His language, _Except I thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe_, is that not merely of dejection, but also of defiance. His position is that of modern positivism, which refuses to believe anything not verified by actual sensuous observation; his demand is that of M. Renan, who, to substantiate the doctrine of the resurrection, calls for the successful raising of the dead before a commission composed of physiologists, physicians, chemists, and skilled critics. See _Life of Jesus_, Intro. But Thomas’s spirit was very different.
26 And after eight days, again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: _then_ came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace[752] _be_ unto you.
[752] Isa. 26:12.
27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand,[753] and thrust _it_ into my side: and be[754] not faithless, but believing.
[753] 1 John 1:1.
[754] 1 Tim. 1:14.
=26, 27.= This meeting after eight days, _i. e._, on the eighth day, is the first intimation in the N. T. of a commemoration by the disciples of the resurrection; and there is nothing to show that the disciples had not kept together in a continuous meeting during the entire week, which, it will be remembered, was the Passover week. But it is certainly significant that Christ chose the first day of the week, on which he rose from the dead, to make his second appearance to his infant church, and thus gave an impulse to, if not a suggestion of, that apostolic commemoration of the day, which by insensible degrees led to the transfer of the Christian’s weekly festival from the seventh to the first day of the week.--Christ appears as suddenly and mysteriously as before, and in his address to Thomas echoes his words, a severe yet a tender and loving rebuke. The evidence which he would have refused to the Pharisee he grants to the disciple; the inimical demand of the determined skeptic he always disregards; for the intellectual difficulties of a reluctant skeptic he shows great compassion. But he shows this compassion for unbelief that he may rescue the unbeliever from it, and bids him _become not unbelieving, but believing_. Through his doubt of the actual occurrence of the resurrection, Thomas was in danger of becoming a disbeliever generally, and against this danger of lapsing from a state of faith to one of unfaith Jesus warned Thomas, and through him warns the feeble and vacillating believers of all ages.
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My[755] Lord and my God.
[755] ch. 5:23; Ps. 118:28; 1 Tim. 3:16.
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed[756] _are_ they that have not seen, and _yet_ have believed.
[756] 1 Pet. 1:8.
=28, 29.= Thomas was overpowered and convinced by the grace of his Master, not by the physical evidence which he had demanded, and which was vouchsafed to him; not because he handled, but because he _saw_, he believed (ver. 29). In this appears the difference of his spirit from that of the modern rationalists; his faith finally rested, not in the sensuous evidence, but in the invisible love and mercy of his Lord. The mere fact that Jesus rose from the dead did not demonstrate his divinity, nor give ground for Thomas’s appeal; for Lazarus, too, rose from the dead. “It was an evidence addressing itself not to his eyes, but to his heart, which forced him to cry, My Lord and my God.”--(_Maurice._) To interpret this utterance as a mere expletory outcry is the shallowest of criticism. It reduces a sublime and exalted confession of faith to an irrelevant and semi-profane exclamation. It is grammatically, psychologically, and spiritually untenable; grammatically, because it is expressly said that Thomas addressed the words to Jesus--_he said “unto him”_; psychologically, because it is equally irrational to suppose that Thomas, just convinced of the resurrection of his Lord and Master, should break out into a mere meaningless exclamation, or that John should have reported it if it had been uttered; spiritually, because Christ on the strength of this confession of Thomas recognizes his faith: “Thou hast believed.” Equally untenable is the suggestion of Norton (_Notes on the Gospels_), that “the name God was employed by him, not as the proper name of the Deity, but as an appellation, according to a common use of it in his day,” for no such common use existed, and its existence would have been utterly inconsistent with the Hebrew laws against the use of God’s name in vain. The fact that Thomas recognized Jesus as both Lord and God might not of itself be conclusive; there would be possible ground for Norton’s argument: “Considering into how great an error he had fallen in his previous obstinate incredulity, there would be little reason for relying upon his opinion as infallible”; but Christ not only accepts, he distinctly approves and ratifies Thomas’s confession, and the faith of the church rests not on the words of the disciple, but on their approbation by his Lord. Thomas’s words here, then, are to be read in the light of Christ’s words in chaps. 13-17; the disciple accepts in a single sentence Christ’s teaching respecting himself as the one sent from and manifesting to the world the eternal Father. It is the answer of a suddenly awakened faith to the before ill-comprehended declaration, He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. In his response, _Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed_, Jesus recognizes two kinds of belief, one which rests on seeing or on the witness of those that have seen, the other and higher that which rests simply on spiritual apprehension. Parallel to the implied contrast here is that in John 14:11, “Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very work’s sake.”
30 And[757] many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
[757] ch. 21:25.
31 But[758] these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and[759] that, believing, ye might have life through his name.
[758] Luke 1:4.
[759] ch. 3:15, 16; 5:24; 10:10; 1 Pet. 1:9.
=30, 31.= These verses constitute the formal close of John’s Gospel, ch. 21 being an appendix. See Prel. Note there. The “_many other signs_” referred to are not necessarily only or chiefly those wrought after the resurrection, but include those recorded by the other Evangelists, as well as such as have not been recorded.--On the object of John in his Gospel as here indicated, see Intro., p. 11. That object was threefold: (1) That the readers might have faith that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah of prophecy; (2) that they might spiritually recognize in this Messiah the well-beloved Son of God; (3) that, believing in his Messiahship and divinity, they might become partakers of his life. _Life_ (ζωή) in John’s usage always signifies _spiritual_ life, and the _name of Christ_, in which this life is to be attained, stands for Christ himself in all the gracious offices which his names indicate, as Jesus or Saviour, Christ or Messiah, and Emmanuel or God with us.